How can a course on engineering ethics affect an undergraduate student’s feelings of responsibility about moral problems? In this study, three groups of students were interviewed: six students who had completed a specific course on engineering ethics, six who had registered for the course but had not yet started it, and six who had not taken or registered for the course. Students were asked what they would do as the central character, an engineer, in each of two short cases that (...) posed moral problems. For each case, the role of the engineer was successively changed and the student was asked how each change altered his or her decisions about the case. Students who had completed the ethics course considered more options before making a decision, and they responded consistently despite changes in the cases. For both cases, even when they were not directly involved, they were more likely to feel responsible and take corrective action. Students who were less successful in the ethics course gave answers similar to students who had not taken the course. This latter group of students seemed to have weaker feelings of responsibility: they would say that a problem was “not my business.” It appears that instruction in ethics can increase awareness of responsibility, knowledge about how to handle a difficult situation, and confidence in taking action. (shrink)

‘Abd al-Laṭīf al-Baġdādī’s _Book on the Science of Metaphysics_ is an important work that contains the influence of both Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius in the interpretation of Aristotle. Only chapters 13-16 belong to the Lambda. The limitation results first of all from the main purpose of the work, namely to present a new witness for the reception of Arabic metaphysics. As can be seen from the introduction of the work, the work is conceived as a unified whole and may (...) be meant as a kind of summa of metaphysics, a synopsis of four writings that hold high rank among medieval metaphysical works - especially since 'Abd al-Latif apparently regarded not only the Metaphysics but also his other sources as originating from Aristotle, the First Teacher. This translation includes only the eighth chapter of the Book Lamda. (shrink)

In this article, the main definitions and differentiation concepts of neutrosophic fuzzy environment will be reviewed. This article will introduce an analytical methodology for solving the second-order linear ordinary differential problem with neutrosophic fuzzy boundary values, this analysis will be under generalized Hukuhara differentiability to show the analytical solutions from a different point of view for the uncertain system, some of these solutions may be decreasing in uncertainty or maybe reflecting the behavior of some real-world systems better. Some applications and (...) numeral examples will be solved to show the behavior of the solution. (shrink)

The last four sections of the first book of Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī’s summa, entitled Kitāb al-Mu‘tabar, deal with dialectics, sophistical refutations, rhetoric, and poetics in full line with Aristotle’s Organon. However, they are not so much based on Aristotle’s works, but on a work of the young Ibn Sīnā, namely al-Ḥikma al-‘Arūdiyya. Both texts have much in common not only in their structure, but also in their very wording. The article presents a basic survey of the correspondences for all four (...) sections and also highlights the most significant differences. However, important part of these differences has a counterpart in an logical text, which is present in the manuscript Nuruosmaniye 4894 and which is, in turn, very close to, albeit not identical, with Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ḥikma al-‘Arūdiyya as conserved in the unique manuscript Uppsala 364. Therefore, it is obvious that Abū al-Barakāt takes over many formulations and, at once, many ideas from Ibn Sīnā. However, he adds clearly personal elements that often seem to have been religiously inspired and, on occasion, consciously returns to Aristotle’s wording. (shrink)

The present paper aims to explore the medieval philosopher Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī’s (d. pre- 560 AH/1164-5) position concerning the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will and argues Abū al-Barakāt to have considered the argument for compatibility between divine foreknowledge and human free will to be invalid. One can defend either divine foreknowledge or human free will; no other solution is available. By examining his accounts on this issue through the logic and metaphysics of his book al-Muʿtabar fi-l-ḥikma, Abū (...) al-Barakāt defense of human free will shall become evident. (shrink)

Tanrı’nın basitliği doktrini Hristiyanlık ve İslamiyet’in de dahil olduğu çeşitli dini gelenekler tarafından savunulmuş bir düşüncedir. Tanrı’nın basitliği, ana-akım yoruma göre Tanrı’nın sıfatlarının Tanrı’nın kendisiyle aynı olmasını gerekli kılar. Bu makale, Tanrı’nın basitliği doktrinine karşı yöneltilen birtakım eleştirileri inceleyip tartışmaktadır. Dikkate alınan argümanlar günümüz Batı literatüründen Alvin Plantinga’ya ve Eş‘ari gelenekten ise Abdülkāhir el-Bağdâdî ve Sa‘düddîn et-Teftâzânî’ye aittir. Bu argümanların mantıksal yapısını açığa çıkaracak şekilde yeniden inşası yapıldıktan sonra onlara karşı getirilebilecek iki önemli eleştirinin nasıl yanıtlanabileceği hakkında öneriler sunulmaktadır. Plantinga’nın (...) Tanrı’nın basitliği doktrinine karşı getirmiş olduğu eleştiri, Tanrı’nın sıfatları ile aynı kabul edilmesi durumunun yol açacağı kabul edilemez sonuçlar üzerine kuruludur. Eğer Tanrı’nın zatı ilahi sıfatlar ile aynı ise, bu durumda sıfatların hepsi zatıyla aynı olacak, bu sonuç ise sıfatların birbiriyle aynı olmasını beraberinde getirecektir. Bütün sıfatların birbiriyle aynı olması ise sadece tek bir sıfatın olması anlamına gelecektir ki bu hal Tanrı’nın kudret, bilgi vs. gibi farklı sıfatlarının inkârı demektir. Benzer bir akıl yürütmeyle, Tanrı’nın basitliği tezinin, sıfatların soyut nesneler olmasından dolayı, soyut bir nesne olduğu, dolayısıyla evreni yaratabilecek kudret ve iradeye sahip şahsi bir varlık olmadığı sonucuna da yol açtığı gösterilebilir. Olmayana ergiye (kıyâsu’l-hulf, reductio ad absurdum) dayalı bu argümanların benzerlerini Eş‘ari gelenekte de bulmaktayız. ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī, Tanrı’nın sıfatları ile aynı kabul edilmesi durumunda sıfatların da birbirleriyle aynı kabul edilmesi gerekeceğini, bu kabulün ise ilahi ilim ve kudretin taallukatının da aynı olması sonucunu doğuracağını söyler. Ne var ki Allah’ın zatını bildiği halde kudretinin zatına taalluk etmemesi bu iki sıfatın taalluklarının aynı olmadığını, dolayısıyla ilahi basitlik tezinin yanlışlığını gösterir. Sa‘düddîn et-Teftâzânî’ye göre ise sıfatlar kendi başlarına kaim varlıklar değildir, ancak başka bir varlığa bağlı olarak var olabilirler. Eğer Tanrı sıfatlarıyla aynı kabul edilecek olursa, Tanrı’nın da benzer şekilde başkasına bağımlı bir varlık olarak kabul edilmesi gerekir. Görüldüğü üzere, her iki Eş‘ari düşünür de Plantinga’nın argümanlarına benzer şekilde olmayana ergiye dayalı bir akıl yürütme yöntemini takip ederek Tanrı’nın basitliği doktrinini eleştirmektedir. Bu argümanlar, Tanrı ve sıfatları arasında bir ayrım olduğu varsayımından hareketle kurulmuştur. Nitekim hiçbir şekilde ayrım yapılamayacak olsa ne diye sıfatların ilahi zat ile aynı olduğu tezi savunulmaya çalışılsın. Bu argümanlara getirilecek eleştirilerin de böyle bir ayrımı büsbütün reddetmeden Tanrı ve sıfatları arasındaki ayniyeti açıklayan bir modele dayanması gerekir. Bu açıdan dikkate alınabilecek en seviyeli eleştiri, Frege’nin manâ (Sinn/sense) ve gönderim/mâsadak (Bedeutung/referent) ayrımına atıfla yapılacak bir ayniyet söylemine dayanabilir. Edward Feser bu ayrıma dayalı bir basitlik tezini Aquinas’ın analojik yüklemleme teziyle de destekleyerek savunmaktadır. Fakat böyle bir savunmanın da, yakından incelendiğinde, başarılı olamadığı görülecektir. (shrink)

Alongside his much-discussed theory that humans are permanently, if only tacitly, self-aware, Avicenna proposed that in actively conscious self-knowers the subject and object of thought are identical. He applies to both humans and God the slogan that the self-knower is “intellect, intellecting, and object of intellection (‘aql, ‘āqil, ma‘qūl)”. This paper examines reactions to this idea in the Islamic East from the 12th-13th centuries. A wide range of philosophers such as Abū l-Barakāt al-Baghdādī, Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Šahrastānī, Šaraf al-Dīn al-Mas‘ūdī, (...) al-Abharī, al-Āmidī, and Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī raised and countered objections to Avicenna's position. One central problem was that on widely accepted definitions of knowledge – according to which knowledge is representational or consists in a relation – it seems impossible for the subject and object of knowledge to be the same. Responses to this difficulty included the idea that a self-knower is “present” to itself, or that here subject and object are different only in “aspect (i‘tibār)”. (shrink)

One of the most important issues that distinguishes the Baghdādī branch of the Muʿtazila from the Baṣran branch is their view on ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661). Basra branch accepts the order of virtue of the first four caliphs as their order of coming to office, while the Baghdad branch considers the first three caliphs legitimate, but considers Ali more virtuous than them. The Baghdādī Muʿtazilīs who outspokenly defended this idea were Abū Jaʿfar al-Iskāfī (d. 240/854), Abū al-Qāsim al-Kaʿbī (...) (d. 319/931) and Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd (d. 656/1258). Among them, Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd was renowned as “the greatest scholar of the Muʿtazila” and was considered one of the last representatives of this school. He ardently defended ʿAlī's superiority in his commentary on Nahj al-Balāgha, the famous collection of Ali’s sermons, letters and wisdom sayings. In his defense, he rebutted some criticisms about ʿAlī’s political decisions from his school’s point of view. Many items of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s rebuttal are worthy of analysis in terms of their content, style and approach. This article aims to present a detailed account of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s aforementioned refutations. In addition to the descriptive method, the interpretative method was also employed in the article. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd did not consider Ali's infallibility necessary (wājib), unlike Imamiyya, he accepted it. Therefore, he responded to the criticisms directed at Ali, starting from the point of Ali's innocence. According to Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd: (a) After the death of the Prophet, ʿAlī insisted on becoming the new leader of the Muslim community. He did not act hastily to assume the caliphate because he was not expecting any opposition to that. However, when the events took a different turn, he did not escalate the situation, rather accepted the status quo. (b) ʿAlī also did the right thing by participating in ʿUmar b. Al-Khaṭṭāb’s (d. 23/644) electoral shūrā. This was an opportunity for him to become the next caliph, and reinstitute a system in accordance with the Qurʿānic principles and sunna of the Prophet. (c) It was also not an error when ʿAlī decided to stay in Medina during the events of ʿUthmān’s murder (d. 35/656). He played an active role in dissuading the rebels from their attempt to kill ʿUthmān, but he was in no position to know that his activity would be used against him later by the Umayyads who accused ʿAlī of being complicit in ʿUthmāns’s murder. (d) ʿAlī took the caliphate after ʿUthmān because of his popularity among the people. In this way, he managed to prevent an unqualified person to occupy the seat of the caliphate. (e) When the Battle of Camel broke out, those who demanded justice and opposed ʿAlī were in error. (f) When ʿAlī became the new caliph, his decision to remove Muʿāwīya (d. 60/680) from the governorship of Syria was correct. This is because Muʿāwīya would have refused to accept ʿAlī’s leadership even had he stayed in office as a governor. ʿAlī understood that the conflict would end only through fighting, so he did not lose time in marching against Muʿāwīya. (g) During the battle he abided by the sharīʿa and allowed the Syrian army to access water. (h) It was not ʿAlī, but those defectors in his army who obliged him to end the fighting through arbitration. (i) When ʿAlī agreed to sign the Ṣiffīn ceasefire agreement and did not use his title amīr al-muʾminīn, he followed the Prophet's example since the latter also refrained from using his title during the Ḥudaybiyya agreement. (j) ʿAlī also cannot be blamed for those among his supporters, such as the poet al-Najāshī, who defected and joined the ranks of Muʿāwīya. The motivations for the defectors were either to attain worldly gains or to escape from punishment for the crimes which they had committed. (k) When Muʿāwīya managed to conquer Egypt, ʿAlī’s governors of the province, Qays b. Saʿd (d. 60/680) or Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr (d. 38/658), did nothing for which they could be blamed. (l) And finally, ʿAlī never had guards to protect him because he was never afraid of being assassinated. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd took Ali's innocence as a basis while presenting these views, he did not make inconsistent comments in general and did not say things contrary to historical facts. Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge historical value of his views in question. (shrink)

Late antique Alexandria is much better known than the early Islamic city. To be fully appreciated, the transition must be contextualized against the full range of Afro-Eurasiatic commercial and intellectual life. The Alexandrian schools ‘harmonized’ Hippocrates and Galen, Plato and Aristotle. They also catalyzed Christian theology especially during the controversies before and after the Council of Chalcedon (451) that tore the Church apart and set the stage for the emergence of Islam. Alexandrian cultural dissemination down to the seventh century is (...) here studied especially through evidence for the city’s libraries and book trade, together with the impact of its educational curriculum from Iran to Canterbury. After the Arab conquest, Alexandria turned into a frontier city and lost its economic and political role. But it became a city of the mind whose conceptual legacy fertilized not only Greek scholarship at Constantinople, but also Arabic science and philosophy thanks to the eighth- to ninth-century Baghdadi translation movement. Alexandria emanated occult energies too, thanks to the Pharos as variously misunderstood by Arabic writers, or the relics of its Christian saints, not least the Evangelist Mark, surreptitiously translated to Venice in 828-29. Study of the astral sciences too - astronomy but also astrology - was fertilized from Alexandria, as far afield as India and perhaps China as well as Syria, Baghdad and Constantinople. Egypt’s revival by the Fatimids, who founded Cairo in 961, had little impact on Alexandria until about the end of the eleventh century when, for a time, the city attracted Sunni scholars from as far away as Spain or Iran, while commerce benefited from the rise of the Italian merchant republics and the beginning of the Crusades. While the early caliphate had united a vast zone from Afghanistan to the Atlantic, the eleventh century saw a reemergence of late antique distinctions between the Iranian plateau, Syro-Mesopotamia, and the two Mediterranean basins. Alexandria was one of the points where these worlds intersected, though sub-Saharan Africa, to which it formally belonged, remained largely beyond its horizon until the twentieth century. (shrink)

Religionen unterbreiten Sinnstiftungsangebote und beeinflussen nicht unwesentlich den Umgang der Menschen miteinander. Sie können zu Fortschritt und Freiheit der Menschen beitragen, aber auch zu Fanatismus und Intoleranz führen. Deshalb ist ihr Stellenwert in einer säkularen Gesellschaft umstritten. Welcher Umgang mit Religionen empfiehlt sich? Ist es für eine soziomoralische Fundierung der Gesellschaft nicht besser, allein auf eine vernunftbasierte Ethik zu setzen? Und lassen sich Glauben und Wissen überhaupt miteinander versöhnen? Mit Beiträgen von Konrad Paul Liessmann, Volker Gerhardt, Nadia Baghdadi und (...) Jan Assmann. (shrink)

When, on 4 July 2014, the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, preached in the venerable mosque of Mosul the restoration of the caliphate, his homily ushered in far more than a new phase in jihadist warfare against Western values. His oratory launched on the world scene a new culture that instantly began to shape, solidify, and even sublimate the caliphate as the most arresting rhetorical performance of radical and militant Islam. However, despite this self-proclamation, political (...) commentators failed to accurately size up the emerging culture of the new caliphate, and we find ourselves faced now with an alternative, global culture that draws irresistibly more and more converts and partisans into its orbit. The most perilous form of underestimating adversaries is to reduce their cultural complexity to a few, unreflective clichés, a telling sign of our own cultural illiteracy. (shrink)

The law of responsibility (compensation), which was formed around the concept of the ḍamān and was developed by the scholars within the system of furû‘ al-fiqh (substantive law) over time, constitutes one of the important parts of Islamic law. Although compensation law (ḍamān) was not addressed as a private subject in the first period fiqh literature, it is seen that the literature on this specific area started to emerge after the early period. It is the Hanafi jurists who first brought (...) together these issues that are scattered in the classical books of fiqh that are related to the law of responsibility. Compensation law took its classical form in the texts of the early periods and was shaped around the views of the founding imams of the Ḥanafī school (madhab). It has later been expanded with the fatwā and interpretations of the Sheikhs (mesāikh) of Hanafi in the type of waqi'at works. These works were a product of the need for the law to adapt to the new conditions. These issues, which are related to the compensation law in the Hanafi school have been covered as a special section (chapter) in the studies that are classified as waqi'at, such as Usrūshanī’s al-Fuṣūl fī al-muʿāmalat (Fuṣūl al-Usrūshanī), ʿImād al-Dīn al-Marginānī’s Fuṣūl al-iḥkām fī uṣūl al-aḥkām and Shaykh Badr al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿal-Fuṣūlāyn. Later, the topics discussed in these works were developed and continued, and ultimately separate works related to this field have been copyrighted. In this study, the kinds of development and expansion which are in the literature and related subjects will be discussed by examining the above-mentioned works. Therefore; first of all, the first examples of Hanafi jurists related the compensation will be analysed comparatively. Afterwards, the place of ad-Ḍamānāt fī al-furūʻ al-Ḥanafīyyah of Fuḍayl Chalābī (d. 991/1583), one of the Zenbillizade’s, will be addressed.Summary: The core idea of the law of responsibility, which constitutes one of the important parts of Islamic law, was stated in the Qur'an and Hadith, and then have accumulated by the contributions of the jurists (fuqaha), as they developed the idea of the law of responsibility within the furû‘ al-fiqh in relation to the systematic of the legal school (madhab) that they belonged to.These issues, which constitute one of the important parts of the law, were addressed by sprinkling among the topics in almost every part of classical fiqh books. In other words, the subject of ḍamān (responsibility) was not considered as a separate subject in the fiqh works of the first period. In this way, it is seen that the literature on compensation law started to emerge in the following periods, and at first several independent sections on this subject, and then separate works specific to this field, albeit limited in number, were written.It is the Ḥanafī jurists who first brought together these issues that are scattered in the classical fiqh books related to the law of responsibility. Compensation law, which took its classical form in the texts from early periods, shaped around the views of the pioneering imams of the Ḥanafī school, has been expanded with the fatwā and interpretations of the Sheikhs (mesāikh) of Ḥanafī in the waqi'at works, which is a product of the need for the law to adapt to new conditions. Firstly, one of the Ḥanafī jurists, Majd al-Dīn al-Usrūshanī (d. 637/1240) dealt with the responsibilities arising from the contract and unfair acts in the 29th section of his book named al-Fuṣūl fī al-muʿāmalat under the title “Types of Compensation Required to be Paid and Their Situation”. The method and system that Usrūshanī started in this work, the Ḥanafī jurisits ʿImād al-Dīn al-Marginānī in the Fuṣūl al-iḥkām fī uṣūl al-aḥkām and Shaykh Badr al-Dīn Ibn Qāḍī Samāwnā in the Jāmiʿ al-Fuṣūlāyn continued to develop the compensation section in their books. Afterwards Fuḍayl Chalābī (d. 991/1583), one of the members of Zenbillizade’s family, enriched these issues and made it an individual work, named ad-Ḍamānāt fī al-furūʻ al-Ḥanafīyyah. Marginānī titled the issues that Usrūshanī had handled in the compensation section and systemised it even more by gathering the fatwās on the related issues under one heading. It is noteworthy to mention that when the compensation sections of both works are compared, the way the subjects handled are exactly the same. But unlike Usrūshanī, Marginānī added the compensation for damages to the fetus in the womb and the responsibility of the person who brought back the fleeing slave at the end of the chapter. On the other hand, unlike them, Shaykh Badr al-Dīn added only the responsibility of the person who found the lost item. Considering that almost all of the topics in the compensation section of Sheikh Badr al-Dīn existed exactly in the compensation section of Marginānī, and that most of them were stated in Usrūshanī’s al-Fuṣūl, it is necessary to say that all of these discussions are based on Usrūshanī as the main backbone of this particular subject and that his work has a unique place in the Islamic legal literature. Chalābī’s ad-Ḍamānāt, is the first work that was written as a separate book in the field of compensation law. Even though in some modern works claim that the work Ghānim al-Baghdādī’s (d. 1030/1620) book named Majma‘ al-ḍamānāt fī madhhab al-Imām al-A'zam Abī Ḥanīfa al-Nu'mān was the first written book in this field; it is known that Chalābī's ad-Ḍamānāt had been written before Baghdādī’s Majma‘ al-ḍamānāt. As a matter of fact, the work of Chalābī had been completed in 984 Hijra, and the Baghdādī’s Majma‘ al-ḍamānāt was completed in 1027 Hijra. Although the subject sequence in Baghdādī’s work is different; this work is regarded as a continuation of the same tradition.An examination of the systematic and the content of the work reveals that Chalabi’s ad-Ḍamānāt is the continuation of the type of writing that Usrūshanī started and developed by Marginānī and Shaykh Badr al-Dīn. When compared with the compensation sections of these works before him, Chalābī has added new compensation issues to his book that are not addressed in these three works; such as partnership, mudaraba, suretyship (kafāla) transfer (ḥawāla), peace, legal disability (hajr), freedom of trade (idhn) and testament. Among the works mentioned above, works out of Shaykh Badr al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-Fuṣūlāyn and Baghdādī’s Majma‘ al-ḍamānāt are available as manuscripts in the libraries. Therefore, these works have not been used much in modern studies on compensation. In addition, the Chalābī's ad-Ḍamānāt is almost unknown. Although there is little information about this work in some bibliographic studies, it is noteworthy to state that this work is not used as a source in contemporary studies written in Arabic on compensation law. The fact that this work is available as manuscripts in Istanbul libraries is probably the reason for this outcome. It is also very difficult to say that this work is known and used sufficiently in studies written in Turkish.Usrūshanī’s al-Fuṣūl fī al-muʿāmalat and Marginānī’s Fuṣūl al-iḥkām are currently in the form of manuscripts, so there is no comprehensive study on the whole work and the compensation section. It is possible to see the compensation issues discussed in the work, since Shaykh Badr al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-Fuṣūlāyn, which has been published as printed, was translated into Turkish by an editorial group under the presidency of H. Yunus Apaydın. In addition, Kemal Yıldız, who translated the compensation section in this translation, published this section in Jāmiʿal-Fuṣūlāyn as a separate book with the name of “Sources of the Jāmiʿ al-Fuṣūlāyn and Compensation in the Practice of Ḥanafī School”. Yıldız, first introduced the sources of the Jāmiʿ al-Fuṣūlāyn in the first part of this work and then translated the compensation section from beginning to end by adding his own explanations and evaluations around the subject during the second part. Even though some introductory information about the books of Usrūshanī and Marginānī is presented in Yıldız’s study, the absence of information on the contents of the compensation sections of these books does not allow the opportunity for the researchers to evaluate on the subject wholly. (shrink)

Volume I : Studies in the Philosophy of Abu'l- Barak t al-Baghd d , deals with various aspects of the philosophy of Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdadi. Some of Avicenna's physical and psychological doctrines are also discussed.

Turkish poet Sünbülzade Vehbi (d. 1224/1809) is one of the most important Turkish poets who wrote poetry in Turkish, Arabic, and Persian during the Ottoman era, and included these poems in his divan. This article deals with plagiarism of Arabic poetry contained in the collection of the Vehbi. The Arabic poetry contained in the collection of Vehbi, which he presented to Sultan Selim III (d. 1223 Ah/1807 ad) is mostly attributed to contemporary poets, namely the doctor Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī (d.1191 (...) Ah/1777 ad), the poet Hātef al-Isfahānī (d. 1198 Ah/1784 ad), and the Iraqi poet Kāzim al-Uzrī al-Baghdādī al-Tamimī (1143-1213 Ah/ 1730-1798 ad). This article introduces the poet Sünbülzade Vehbi and the poets mentioned above. The Arabic poetry in his collection is also introduced. It shows the similarity that sometimes reaches the point of congruence between his poetry and the poems of his contemporaries mentioned above. The research identifies the common verses between Vehbi and the aforementioned poets, which constitute approximately 83% of Vehbi's Arabic poetry. This research, which takes the quantitative descriptive approach as its approach, suggests that most of the Arabic poetry contained in Vehbi's collection is plagiarized from the poetry of those poets whose poetry he familiarized himself with and may have met during his embassy to mediate between the governor of Baghdad and the Sultan of Iran. (shrink)

Standard language, which follows rules of dictionary and grammar, undergoes various changes when it is the subject of literature, especially poetry. These changes, called linguistic deviation, are due to the poet’s expression of his feelings and thoughts by forcing the possibilities of language. In this direction, language deviations can be defined as the dispositions where the author goes out of the standard language, as in the examples of changes in the pronunciation (ṣavt), form (ṣarf) or spelling (kitābet) of the words, (...) the derivation of new words that are not used in the language (irticāl) and the deterioration of the syntax (naḥv). According to many literary critics such as Ibn Hishām al-Ansārī (d. 761/1360) and ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Baghdādī (d. 1093/1682), this language used by Arab poets who were not influenced by foreign languages, namely the Cāhilī, Muḥaḍram and Islāmī poets (ḳudemâ), was acceptable and it is considered as ḍarūrātuş-şiʿriyye (poetry necessities). In this context, deviations that do not comply with the standard language are tried to be explained with dialect differences, different variants of the couplet or various interpretations. However, some scholars such as Ibn Fāris (d. 395/1004) and Abū al-Ḥasan al-Jurjānī (d. 392/1001-1002) argue that these usages are laḥn (linguistic mistakes). According to these names, it is not correct to explain the poets’ use, which are contrary to the standard language rules, with excessive interpretations (takalluf). Assuming that linguistic deviations are laḥn, they cannot represent a superiority in terms of literary value, but when considered as a necessity, they represent a superiority within the framework of certain criteria. But any specific criteria have been determined before about which linguistic deviations represent the superiority. Therefore, in our study, the theories put forward about the accuracy of linguistic deviations that exceed the standard language rules will be examined and the necessary criteria for them to represent a superiority will be determined. In this direction, the difference in meaning and form that this deviation adds to the expression becomes important. If the language deviation, which is contrary to the standard sentence structure, does not comply with the language rules in any aspect and does not add any superiority to the poem in terms of meaning and form, it does not seem possible for such uses to represent a more fluent and persuasive language (al-Balāgha). However, the language deviation reveals a new meaning or form that is not found in the standard expression, and if this usage complies with the standard language rules, it represents a more eloquently language. The degree of violation of the purity and perfection of language (faṣāḥa) of a statement is related to the violation of qiyās (analogy?) and grammatical incongruity mentioned in the rhetoric books. The contravention of common language rules of these uses, which are not considered faṣīḥ, varies. As a matter of fact, some of these were seen as minor mistakes that could be ignored, while others were considered as major mistakes. For this purpose, a conceptual framework about linguistic deviations is drawn at the introduction of the article, and the literary theories on the subject are examined in the first chapter. In the second part, it is argued that linguistic deviations represent a superiority depending on certain criteria by giving examples from the poems of the period of Jāhilīyah. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Against the Greek LogiciansCharles E. ButterworthIbn Taimiyya. Against the Greek Logicians. Translated with an introduction and notes by Wael B. Hallaq. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Pp. lviii + 204. $55.00.Wael Hallaq's most readable translation of Ibn Taimiyya's famous work is complemented by a masterful introduction and intelligent, relevant footnotes. In addition, he has taken care to help the reader in many ways, adding, for example, a list of (...) the emendations he has made to the Arabic text as well as a table that details the correspondence between the paragraphs of his translation and the pages and lines within the more standard Arabic texts.The editor-translator's introduction sets forth Ibn Taimiyya's teaching in a clear and well-argued manner, something that is necessary given the repetitiveness and confusing arguments that characterize the original. Though Hallaq tends to reveal himself to be something of a partisan of Ibn Taimiyya's doctrines and thus to overstate the case for his author, this is a minor flaw. The strength of the Introduction is such that the student of logic or philosophy is compelled to indicate the problems in Hallaq's presentation, that is, to identify the reasons for not being persuaded by his exposition. [End Page 273] To do so, however, is merely a means of carrying the argument a step further and thus a compliment of sorts to Hallaq.As I see it, there are five areas where one might take issue with the editor-translator's presentation of Ibn Taimiyya's teaching. First, because he follows his author too closely, Hallaq relies too much on Avicenna and on Avicenna's commentators to present the position of the philosophers. He seems to ignore that the teaching of Avicenna—he whom Averroes would identify only as "that man"-—is problematic even for the philosophers. Second, Hallaq relies too much on secondary literature in order to present the history of philosophy. He would have been far better advised to trace the history of philosophy for himself, especially the history of medieval Islamic philosophy. By relying on others, especially those whose interpretations are open to major objections, he weakens his own presentation. This tendency becomes especially evident in what I take as a third point of criticism, namely, Hallaq's too ready conflation of the history of philosophy and consequent willingness to blame ancient and medieval philosophers for the folly of modern philosophers (see xxx, n. 98 and xviii:17-18). Worse, Hallaq eventually becomes so carried away with the desire to refute the ancient and medieval philosophers that he no longer cares about the evil consequences of modern philosophy (see xviii:8-xlix:20, esp. xlviii:8-29). Indeed, and this is the fourth criticism, so intent is Hallaq on confirming that Ibn Taimiyya has refuted the philosophers that he is content to call anyone a philosopher, even al-Suhrawardī, al-Baghdādī, al-Tūsī, and, wonder of wonders, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (see xliv:4). Though he has good guidance for this from Ibn Taimiyya, one would hope for more objectivity from the critical scholar than from the engaged defender of the faith. Finally, Hallaq actually introduces Ibn Taimiyya's wider teaching rather than the argument of this book, thereby neglecting the primary function of an introduction to a book. Thus, of 91 notes in the Introduction that refer to Ibn Taimiyya's works, only slightly more than half (52) cite this work. The other 39 are to Ibn Taimiyya's other writings. Moreover, many of the 52 notes to this work also refer to other writings by Ibn Taimiyya.Thankful as we must be to Hallaq for this translation, it is most unfortunate that he chose not to be consistent in his translation of Arabic terms. Apparently, he thought he could make more sense of Ibn Taimiyya's argument by translating terms in accordance with what he took to be the sense of what Ibn Taimiyya wished to say rather than in accordance with what he actually says. Consequently, tasdīq (a term I would translate as "assent") is rendered as "judgment"; but so is hukm (see ¶¶ 5 and... (shrink)

This is the first comprehensive monograph on the theology of Abū l-Qāsim al-Kaʿbī al-Balkhī, a leading Muʿtazilī who flourished at the end of the Baghdādī school and at the beginning of the scholastic phase of Muʿtazilī history.

This essay seeks to shed light on the connections between elevated isnād and al-sābiq wa’l-lāhiq (distance between the first and last narrator of traditionist). Since the 2nd/8th century, when the search for elevated isnāds began, intense interest has been seen by the traditionists. The article looks at how these initiatives to elevated isnād helped pave the way for the emergence of al-sābiq wa’l-lāhiq. Similarly, it is investigated if al-sābiq wa’l-lāhiq promotes the look for elevated isnād. First, the data documentation approach (...) was applied to data taken from the history of hadith, various hadith techniques, and biographical dictionaries to ascertain the relationship between two notions. The relationship between two themes is then made clear using information from Khatīb Baghdādī’s (d. 463/1071) al-Sābiq wa’l-lāhiq, the first work authored in this field. Significance of the study of Khatīb Baghdādī’s work is further increased by the fact that he was the first to present the idea. The relationship between the subjects has been looked at in the article from three different theoretical angles. First, historical information has been used to assess how the orientation of hadiths concerning elevated isnād created the stage for the conception of al-sābiq wa’l-lāhiq. Then, the connection between subjects was examined through explanations of hadith methodology and biographical dictionaries authors. When the historical records of hadiths are reviewed, it becomes clear that the traditionist supported the hearing of elevated isnād and its transmission starting in the 2nd/8th century, particularly in the 3rd/9th and 4th/10th centuries. al-Sābiq wa’l-lāhiq was founded as a consequence of factors including the existence of grandfathers and grandchildren who reported from a single hadith due to orientation in elevated isnād and the fact that certain traditionists took pride in passing down the narrations of the elders to the younger generations. In addition, as the century moved away from the Prophet, the elevated isnāds that enable to reach him with a short isnād gained more importance. This situation explains why al-sābiq wa’l-lāhiq was formed in the 5th/11th century. It was also discovered that Khatīb Baghdādī’s introduction of this idea to the discussion was not a coincidence, and it was stated that this was due to his interest in elevated isnād. The connection established by the authors of hadith methodology between two concepts is that al-sābiq wa’l-lāhiq encourages the audition of elevated isnād. al-Lāhiq in other words hadith aspirants who want to be the last person who transmits hadith from a traditionist, that is, turning to mu‘ammerūn (long-lived) teachers at a young age supports the audition of elevated isnād. The efforts of biographical dictionaries authors to record elevated isnads that reached al-lāhiq were evaluated as a different manifestation of this situation. The connection between two subjects has also been examined in the work of Khatīb Baghdādī, which has the same name as the concept and various findings were obtained about al-sābiq wa’l-lāhiq and traditionists who were attributed to him as al-sābiq wa’l-lāhiq. According to this, it has been understood that traditionists who were compared to al-sābiq wa’l-lāhiq were chosen from among the long-lived people. A study was conducted on 6 traditionists, in whom Khatīb determined the ratio of al-sābiq wa’l-lāhiq to 10 or more. According to this, it has been determined that the narrators, who are mentioned as al-sābiq, are generally attributed to teachers or peers of traditionists. However, it has been revealed that there is no obligation to be a teacher or peer, and sometimes there are al-sābiqs among the students. The fact that most of the al-sābiqs are teachers and peers shows that the concept is considered a rarity. Because in the history of hadith, isnād generally goes from student to teacher. In addition, the narration of peers from each other or the teacher from students showed that narrators, who are called al-sābiq, have descending isnāds from that teacher. However, it has been determined that not all the narrations of al-sābiq were descending, only of whose narrations from that traditionist would be regarded as descending. As al-lāhiq, on the other hand, is the last person to transmit hadith from traditionist, he already has elevated isnād and all of them are long-lived people. However, the missing part of Khatīb’s book is that he does not pay attention to whether al-lāhiq is reliable or abandoned. In addition, it was stated that al-lāhiq should be chosen only from reliable, and in this case, it would not affect the distance between al-sābiq and al-lāhiq. (shrink)

Religionen unterbreiten Sinnstiftungsangebote und beeinflussen nicht unwesentlich den Umgang der Menschen miteinander. SIe konnen zu Fortschritt und Freiheit der Menschen beitragen, aber auch zu Fanatismus und Intoleranz fuhren. DEshalb ist ihr Stellenwert in einer sakularen Gesellschaft umstritten. WElcher Umgang mit Religionen empfiehlt sich? Ist es fur eine soziomoralische Fundierung der Gesellschaft nicht besser, allein auf eine vernunftbasierte Ethik zu setzen? Und lassen sich Glauben und Wissen uberhaupt miteinander versohnen? Mit Beitragen von Konrad Paul Liessmann, Volker Gerhardt, Nadia Baghdadi und (...) Jan Assmann. (shrink)

There is a close relationship between Ashʿarism and Ḥanbalism since the emergence of Ashʿarism. However, they often conflicted with each other as they approached to religious matters from different perspectives. These conflicts were not only limited to theological discussions but also turned into social conflicts, which occasionally resulted with deaths. First massive events occurred in 429/1038 in Baghdād between Ashʿarites and Ḥanbalities. When Niẓām al-Mulk was appointed as vizier, the conflicts reached a peak. The apparent reason of the conflicts was (...) the theological controversy between these two sects. However, the rise of Ashʿarism, which was usually against Ḥanbalism, was the main reason of the social conflicts. Supports of the Ashʿarite thought by the leading statesmen of the era such as Niẓām al-Mulk and Ayyūbid sultans, and accusations of some Ashʿarite preachers about Ḥanbalities relying on this political support were also among the factors that led to these conflicts. Nevertheless, even if any accusation was not made, it occurred that the members of both sects resorted to violence in case of criticisms about their beliefs. This shows that the most important reason of the conflicts was sectarian fanaticism.Summary: Ashʿarism is the name of the sect that was formed around the ideas of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī. It is a continuation of Kullābism in terms of general thought system. Ashʿarism replaced Kullābism by the end of the 5th century of the Hijrah, and started to be called as an independent sect. It spread mostly among the Shāfiʿites and Mālikites in Iraq, Khurāsān, Damascus, Maghreb, and Yemen. When it was arrived to the last quarter of the 5th century, it became the common theological sect of most of Shāfiʿites and Mālikites. Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013), Ibn Fūrāk (d. 406/1015), and Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī’s (d. 418/1027) efforts played an important role in rising of Ashʿarism in this period. In the following periods, contribution of the Seljuk vizier Niẓām al-Mulk (d. 485/1092) to Ashʿarism was massive by establishing the Niẓāmiyah Colleges to strengthen the Ashʿarites against the Hanafites in Khurāsān and against the Ḥanbalites in Baghdād. The Niẓāmiyah Colleges were donated by Niẓām al-Mulk to Shāfiʿite scholars for the mission of primarily limiting the influence Shīʿī thought. The condition of belonging to Shāfiʿites in waqfiyyah (endowment certificate) of the colleges provided some important advantages for Shāfiʿites and Ashʿarites. On the other hand, the Ayyūbids provided important contributions to Ashʿarites in the regions of Egypt, Damascus and Yemen. They worked for strengthening Ashʿarism during their ruling for two centuries. It was a state policy for the Ayyūbids to support Ashʿarism starting from the founder of the state, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Ayyūbī (d. 589/1193).This rapid rise of Ashʿarism led to a tense relationship between the Ashʿarites and the Ḥanbalites who became the most important representative of Aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth (people of the traditions of the Prophet) after the period of Miḥnah (period of religious persecution). Undoubtedly, the first respondents of these tense relations were Kullābite scholars. At the beginning of the 4th century of the Hijrah, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī became the natural inheritor of the Ḥanbalite reaction to the Kullābites. He conflicted with the Ḥanbalites because of his different approach on the debate regarding creation of the Qur’ān. Ḥanbalite reactions to Imam al-Ashʿarī continued after his death. When he died in Baghdād in 324/935, officials buried him secretly as they worried about Ḥanbalite attacks against his funeral. Hence, after his burial some Ḥanbalites tried to destroy his tomb several times. After Ashʿarī died, the first social events between the Ashʿarites and the Ḥanbalites took place in Iṣfahān, one of the most important cities of West Khurāsān, in the end of the 4th century of the Hijrah. The debate started around the question of whether the letters of the Qur’ān were created or uncreated between the Ḥanbalite scholar Ibn Mandah (d. 395/1005) and Ashʿarite scholar Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī (d. 430/1038). This debate led to prolonged events between the supporters of these scholars. Abū Nuʿaym, saved his life from various attacks and finally he had to leave Iṣfahān.The tense relationships between the Ashʿarites and the Ḥanbalites reached the peak in the 5th century of the Hijrah. Many events occurred in Baghdād during this century. The discussion on interpretation of the revealed attributes of Allah turned into conflict between the two sides from time to time. The Ashʿarite scholars accused the Ḥanbalites with tashbih (affirming Allah’s similarity to humanity) and tajseem (anthropomorphism) by pointing at Abū Yaʿlā al-Farrā’s work titled Ibṭāl al-taʾwīl al-ṣifāt. The ʿAbbāsid caliphs generally supported the Ḥanbalites in this debate. For example, when al-Qāim bi-Amr Allāh re-published the famous declaration known as the Qādirī Creed in 433/1042, he proclaimed that rejection of the Ḥanbalite approach on the issue of the revealed attributes of Allah would be regarded as a cause of blasphemy. The paper was read in a meeting where several scholars from various sects were present. It was signed firstly by Ashʿarite scholar Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAli ibn ʿUmar al-Qazwīnī (d. 442/1051). However, he was one who had criticized Ibṭāl al-taʾwīl al-ṣifāt in 429/1038, which caused conflicts in society at that time. This shift in his position is remarkable as it shows that the declaration was primarily response to him.In the middle of the 5th century of the Hijrah, Ashʿarite scholar al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463/1071) became a victim of the tension between the Ashʿarites and Ḥanbalites. Khatīb had protection of vizier Ibn al-Muslima and under his protection he lectured on Hadith in the Mansur Mosque. However, after the death of the vizier, he was subjected to harassment of the Ḥanbalites because of some expressions in his work titled Tarīkh Baghdād. So much so that he began to worry about his life, thus he had to leave Baghdād and went to Damascus in 451/1059.The tense relations between the Ashʿarites and the Ḥanbalites reached the summit in the period of Niẓām al-Mulk who was the vizier of Seljuk Empire. In fact, some events resulted with deaths. For example, in the events of 469/1076, which lasted years, the Ḥanbalites attacked Ashʿarite scholar Abū Naṣr ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Qushayrī (d. 514/1120) who accused them with tashbeeh and tajseem. As a result, around twenty people died during these events. The gradual rise of the Ashʿarite thought with the support of Niẓām al-Mulk and abusive discourses of some Ashʿarite scholars who relied on this support can be mentioned among the basic reasons of the events at that time.After the death of Niẓām al-Mulk in 485/1092, for a long time there was no serious event between the Ashʿarites and the Ḥanbalites. In the middle of the 6th/12th century, the relations started to become tense again in the regions of Egypt, Damascus, and Yemen under the Ayyūbid dynasty. In addition to these places, various events occurred in Khurāsān region, in cities such as Marw. Nevertheless, unlike some previous events, the current tensions were not against a whole sect but only targeted some individual scholars. Moreover, unlike the previous periods, oppressed and victimized people were mostly Ḥanbalite scholars this time. No serious events took place between two sects after this period. Therefore, it can be said that their struggle to dominate society led to the above-mentioned events. (shrink)

The main evidence used in a matter of proving prophethood in Kalām is miracles. For this reason, other extraordinary situations that miraculously occur have always been on the agenda of theologians. Of these the most similar to miracle is karāma events that occur extraordinary in the hands of Walī. Karāma has been discussed on certain theoretical grounds in kalām books during the beginning period of Sunnī kalām. As in other theological debates, the leading adversaries of Sunnī theologians in the issue (...) of karāma were Muʿtazilite theologians. This study discusses approaches towards karāma in early period of Sunnī kalām. Accordingly, the scholars who determined the basic approaches of Ashʿariyya and Māturīdiyya kalām schools are included in the study. İmām al-Ashʿarī, Ibn Fūrak, al-Bāqillānī, ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī, Abu’l-Maʿālī İmām al-ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī, Abū ʿAbdallāh al-Ḥalīmī and Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī from Ashʿarī school; Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī, Ḥakīm as-Samarqandī, Abū al-Yusr al-Bazdawī and Abū al-Muīn an-Nasafī from Māturīdiyya school, in this context, are included in the study. Besides, some authors from fields other than kalām are included in the scope of the study in order to determine the first use of the concept of karāma and different approaches are discussed. In the study, after the views of the theologians on the subject are presented descriptively, these views are critically assessed. (shrink)

The article deals with the Arabic sources of Chr. Clavius in Rome and the six different ways they were used by him in mathematics and astronomy. It inquires especially into his attitude towards al-Farghani, Thabit ibn Qurra, al-Bi[tdotu]ruji, Ibn Rushd, Mu[hdotu]ammad al-Baghdadi, Pseudo-Ibn al-Haytham, Jabir ibn Afla[hdotu], and Pseudo-al-[Tuotu]usi.

Özİrâde, Kelâm’da, ilimden sonra üzerinde en çok tartışılan konulardan biridir. İrâdenin mâhiyeti hakkında, Mu‘tezilî bilgin Ebû’l-Kāsım el-Kâ‘bî el-Belhî’nin görüşleri dikkate şayandır. Kâ‘bî, oluşturduğu epistemolojik sistemde, irâdeye alışılagelenden farklı bir anlam alanı açmaya çalışmaktadır. Kâ‘bî’ye göre irâde, fiilî bir sıfattır. Ona göre Allah’ın irâdesi hâdistir. İrâde, Tanrı hakkında kullanıldığında, Tevhîd ve tenzih kaygısına; insan hakkında kullanıldığında ise özgürlük, imtihan ve sorumluluk kaygısına dayalı bir şekilde ele alınmaktadır. Kâ‘bî, bu iki kullanım arasında dikkatli ve kesin bir ayrım yaratmaya özen göstermektedir. O, irâde (...) hakkındaki görüşleriyle, Mu‘tezilî düşünce içinde de farklılaşmıştır. Kâ‘bî’nin Nazzâm’ın görüşleriyle uyum gösteren irâde anlayışı, insana otonomi sağlaması açısından önemlidir. Kâ‘bî’ye göre, Allah li-zâtihî mürîd olmadığı gibi O’nun irâdesi, hakîkî anlamda da kullanılmamaktadır. Ona göre irâde, Allah ve insan arasında ortak bir lafız olmasına rağmen, Allah mecazî anlamda mürîddir. Kâ’bî, Allah açısından İlâhî irâdeyi yaratma (tekvîn) insan açısından ise Allah’ın emretmesi olarak ele alır. Bu bağlamda onun epistemolojisinde irâde, Allah-âlem ilişkisine güçlü bir zemin oluşturmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Kelâm, Mu‘tezile, İlâhî İrâde, Ebû’l-Kāsım el-Belhî, el-Kâ‘bî, Nazzâm, Sıfatlar, Bağdat Mu‘tezilesiTHE WİLL ACCORDİNG TO ABŪ L-QĀSİM AL-KAʿBĪ AL-BALKHĪ AbstractAfter the problem of divine knowledge (‘ılm), divine will/volition (irāda) is one of the most debated issues in Kalām. In regard of divine will and volition Mu’tazilī scholar Abū al-Qāsim al-Ka’bī al-Balkhī’s opinions are of distinctive value. In his epistemology, al-Ka’bī tries to comprehend it in quite an unusual manner. For al-Ka’bī divine will (irāda) is one of the attributes of act. This means that divine will is an accident (hâdis). The term volition when used in relation to God it shall carry the apprehension of divine unity (tawhīd) and transcendence (tenzīh). Whereas in relation to man will implies freedom of action and responsibility of consequences thereby. al-Ka’bī put serious emphasis in differentiating meaning of volition in realm of man and of transcendence. Showing profound similarities with his prior Mu’tazilī al-Nazzam, al-Ka’bī undertakes the problem of divine volition in such a way that does not supersede both, realm of man and of transcendence. Showing similarities with the opinions of his prior Mu’tazilī al-Nazzām, his understanding on will is significant for attributing full authority to man. According to al-Ka’bī, transcendental being (Allah) does not have volition per se (لا هو مريد لذاته). His volition is not used in literal meaning of the word either. He believes that although volition is a common term between God and man, God wills (مرید) in truly metaphorical and figurative sense. al-Ka’bī states that the volition form God’s position is His creation (takwīn) whereas in regard of man, divine volition shall be understood as Allah’s orders. Within this context, term of volition in al-Ka’bī’s epistemology carries the ground for relational foundations of Allah and His creation.Keywords: Divine Will, Abū l-Qāsim al-Balkhī, al-Kaʿbī, God's Attributes, Mu‘tazila, Baghdādī School. (shrink)

The article deals with the Arabic sources of Chr. Clavius in Rome and the six different ways they were used by him in mathematics and astronomy. It inquires especially into his attitude towards al-Farghānī, Thābit ibn Qurra, al-Bi[tdotu]rūjī, Ibn Rushd, Mu[hdotu]ammad al-Baghdādī, Pseudo-Ibn al-Haytham, Jābir ibn Afla[hdotu], and Pseudo-al-[Tuotu]ūsī.

This paper seeks to situate Jewish individuals from the upper echelons of the Mongol government in Iran and Iraq (1258‒1335) in relation to the process of confessional, Sunnī-Shīʿī polarization. Focusing on the case of the Baghdadi Jewish physician and vizier Saʿd al-Dawla (d. 1291), I explore how the Jewish minister sought to take advantage of Twelver-Shīʿī rise to prominence under the Mongols. I argue that the vizier attempted to strike an alliance with the Shīʿī communities in Iraq and with (...) influential Shīʿī families with long-established ties to the Mongol regime, in order to curtail resistance to his policies and to the Jewish dominance in the realm’s bureaucracy. I consider Saʿd al-Dawla’s endeavors within the broader historical context of Shīʿī-Jewish relations. The article concludes by examining the two decades following Saʿd al-Dawla’s downfall, when a group of eminent Jewish physicians at the Mongol court converted to Islam. I show how these converts continued to exploit the process of politicization of confessional identities under the Mongols. (shrink)

The article provides an overview of the Bektashi tariqa, holding a unique position in the Sufi teachings of Islam, founded by Haji Bektash-i Veli in the 13th century in the territory of Anatolia, which then spread to the nearby region. The study also covers the poetic concept that poets of this tariqa have been forming for centuries. Along with the changing ideology, subjected to a number of influences (such as the Shiite madhhab and the teachings of Hurufism) every once in (...) a while, the article analyzes the approach, style, narrative, as well as the development of the theme and content in the literature of Bektashi. As the main subject of the study, the general information was provided about the life and literary activity of the famous poets who lived and created during the first and second stages of Bektashi literature, samples of their poetry are considered and a comparison is made between them in several aspects, thus their similarities and differences are shown. Along with the remarks on the poetic concepts common to the poets such as Yunus Emre, Abdal Musa, Kaygusuz Abdal, Seyid Imadaddin Nasimi, Shah Ismail Khatai, Pir Sultan Abdal, Gul Hummat, Ruhi Baghdadi, and Mahammad Fuzuli, as well as the environment and the schools of thought, they were influenced by, the article provides examples of their poems on the subject, reveals both the semantic orientation of the poems and the pattern of description of the mystical and philosophical views expressed. In addition, the parallels were drawn in terms of different attitudes to mystical motives in Bektashism both at certain stages of Bektashi literature and in the works of the above-mentioned poets representing this literature. Conclusions and general opinion on the subject are reflected widely through the example. (shrink)