Âlemin zaman içinde vücûda gelip gelmediğine dair tartışma düşünce tarihinde kadim bir geçmişe sahiptir. Platon öncesi döneme kadar izleri sürülen söz konusu tartışma İslâm düşünce tarihinde de önemli bir yer işgal eder. Kelam ile felsefe ekolleri arasında cereyan eden münazaralarda kelamcılar, âlemin yokluğu üzerinde bir zaman geçtikten sonra yaratıldığını ileri sürerken filozoflar ise Allah’ın âlemden zamansal olarak değil zatî bir öncelikle mukaddem olduğunu savunurlar. Klasik dönem sonrası devam eden tartışmalarda probleme dair yeni çözümler ortaya konulmuştur. Bu makale klasik dönem sonrası (...) İslam felsefesinin önemli simalarından biri olan Molla Sadrâ’nın hudûs anlayışını konu almaktadır. Kendinden önceki hudûs yaklaşımlarını değerlendiren Molla Sadrâ, hareket-i cevherî teorisi bağlamında probleme yeni bir yorum getirir. Hareket ve zamanı, seyyal varlığın birer boyutu olarak gören Sadrâ’ya göre hareketin bizzat kendisi anlamına gelen yaratmanın olmadığı mevhum bir zamanın varlığı söz konusu olamaz. Bu anlamda âlem, öncesinde yokluk olan muayyen bir zaman diliminde yaratıldığı anlamda hâdis değil, yaratmanın zaman mecrasında gerçekleştiği anlamda hâdistir. Metafiziğin en girift meselelerinden biri olan bu problem hakkında Molla Sadrâ’nın yorumu kelamcılar ile filozoflar arasında kısırdöngüye dönüşen tartışmalarda bir uzlaştırma ve inkişaf sadedinde görülebilir. (shrink)

Huduth argument (in contemporary Western philosophy known as Kalam Cosmological argument) is an argument for the existence of God which rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. Some theists have claimed that modern science, particularly modern cosmology and second law of thermodynamics supports the key premise of the argument which argues that universe began to exist. On the other hand, some atheists have claimed that Quantum Mechanics have demonstrated that particles can be created without cause (...) falsifying the causal principle of the Kalam cosmological argument which states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. In this article we will evaluate these claims and try to determine what modern science has to say about this argument developed by medieval Muslim theologians. (shrink)

The objective of this article is twofold. First, it investigates mereology in medieval Islamic theology, particularly the theologians’ claim that the whole is identical to its parts and accordingly that at least some attributes common to the parts must by extension be attributed of the whole. This claim was refuted by philosophers and, from the eleventh century onwards, an increasing number of theologians. Second, it offers a new interpretation of the standard theological proof from accidents for creation ex nihilo, to (...) which this problem was central. A wide range of early, classical and later theological and philosophical sources are consulted. (shrink)

In this study, we will analyze the three major theories concerning the relationship between God and the universe: origination (ḥudūth), emanation (ṣudūr), manifestation (ẓuhūr or tajallī). The theory of origination was developed in the history of Kalam. The majority of the theologians (Mutakallimūn) aimed to offer a concept of God and His relation to the universe based on the origination theory. On the other hand, the Muslim philosophers, mostly Ibn Sīnā, suggested the theory of emanation to provide a causal explanation (...) of the universe as well as God’s relation to it. The theory of manifestation emerged in the philosophical Sufism. Ibn ‘Arabī posited the concept of manifestation as an explanation of God’s connection with the universe. Based on their cosmological views, each field also aimed to offer their proof of God’s existence. The theologians argued that the universe was temporally originated (muḥdath) and therefore necessitates an originator (muḥdith) upon their premise that everything originated needs an originator. On the other hand, the philosophers attempted to address the premise of "from one comes only one" explaining how the multiplicity comes from the Absolute One (God). Considering God as the ultimate source of existence, they proposed a hierarchical order in the universe and explained it through their theory of emanation. The Sufi thinkers explained the relationship with the theory of manifestation, which is also known as the appearance of the Absolute Being or the revealing of the Absolute Being. In this study, we will primarily focus on these three theories and examine their differences and similarities as well as their significance in the formation of the cosmic existence in the Islamic thought. (shrink)

It was widely believed among post-classical thinkers that the classical Mutakallimūn held that the cause of dependence of an effect on a cause was its origination, or a combination of origination and contingency, or its contingency on condition of its origination. Some post-classical thinkers, led by al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjānī, went further by interpreting Abu’l-Hasan al-Ashʿarī’s denial of the persistence of accidents was a consequence of his view that origination was the cause of dependence. This is because the origination view entailed (...) that the world was no longer in need of the Creator after its origination, and thus, him and his followers sought to deflect this consequence by holding that accidents do not persist, and since the persistence of substances was dependent on those accidents, and accidents do not persist more than one moment, those substances remained in need of the Creator for those accidents after their origination. This article seeks to investigate this analysis of the Shaykh al-Ashʿarī’s view, alongside the leading scholars of his school. After examining the original sources of classical Ashʿarī thinkers, along with the Baṣran Mu’tazila, and the texts of Ibn Sina, it becomes clear that the Ashꜥarīs did not hold that accidents did not persist in order to deflect that purported consequence. Indeed, it becomes clear that they did not hold that origination was the cause of dependence, but rather, that it was contingency. As for the Mu’tazila, they are explicit that the cause of dependence is origination, and that is based on their view on the reality of the nonexistent. Since essences are real in their state of nonexistence, they are not in need of a cause; and everything that obtains for those essences after they come into exist are entailments of that essence; thus, they only stand in need of a cause in their origination, that is, going from nonexistence into existence. Indeed, they are also explicit that effects do not need the Creator after their origination, and they clarified this through a comparison with a builder and a building. Indeed, the classical Ashꜥarīs criticized them for this, just as Ibn Sina did in the Ishārāt wa’l-tanbīhāt, al-Najāt, and al-Shifā. Thus, those post-classical scholars generalized the statement that origination is the cause of dependence to all classical mutakallimūn, and then they interpreted Ashʿarī’s motivation behind the denial of the persistence of accidents in accordance with that. The truth, however, is that his view on accidents is based on contingency, and that is because a substance is possible of persistence and possible of non-persistence, and therefore, it stands in need of cause to determine its state in the subsequent moment. That determination must entail something additional to the substance itself, otherwise, the effect is redundant. That additional property must be an accident, and since it is impossible for an accident to subsist in an accident, it is not possible for an accident to persist, because it is not receptive to the property which entails persistence; meanwhile, it is possible for substances, because they can sustain accidents. (shrink)

The most fundamental subject and aim of the Islamic belief system is the subject of maʿrifatullah (knowing Allah). Studies on this subject are mostly called ithbāt al-wājib (the demonstration of God) in the literature. They are considered the most valuable work for kalām, philosophy and mysticism schools. Kalām schools started to use this conceptualization intensively after Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, mainly under the influence of Ibn Sīnā. Sūfis, on the other hand, most participated in these studies based on the theory of (...) the unity of existence. In kalām, all the principles of belief are ultimately grounded to explain and strengthen faith in Allah. For this reason, belief in Allah is referred to as aṣl al-uṣūl (the origin of all principles). Throughout history, scholars of kalām discussed the creedal issues of Islam in the Muslim society while it tried to answer the creedal issues abroad by the expanding Islamic geography with studies on ithbāt al-wājib. In this framework, the problems of prophecy and the hereafter are included in kalām. Since the beginning of the history of kalām, it has used the theory of atomism to a large extent, especially in defending the existence of Allah against materialists. The systematisation of Islamic philosophy and mysticism in time, the kalām cosmological argument, the argument from contingency of philosophers and the argument from kashf and ilhām of Sūfis strengthened this area from three different branches. On the other hand, the interaction of these schools within themselves and the diversification of the interlocutors of studies on ithbāt al-wājib brought these arguments closer together. The convergence in terms of terminology, subject and methodology, especially after Shahrestānī and Rāzī, revealed the tradition of philosophical theology. In this process, theologians began to use both the concepts of temporality (hudūth) and contingency (imkān) to use ontological, cosmological and teleological proofs. Dawānī, one of the eminent figures of these studies in the last periods of Ottomans, is the subject of our research, due to his skills in utilising these proofs of ithbāt al-wājib and his influence in the studies after him. His review of the matter can be observed in his effort in his works where he deals with the so-called deficiencies and errors of his predecessors regarding ithbāt al-wājib. For this reason, many annotations and commentaries were made for his treatises and ideas until the 19th century. Especially, the advance of materialism in the West in this century showed great influence on many scholars and intellectuals in the Ottoman Empire seems to be a parallel historical experience. Therefore, it has become necessary to utilise the arguments for the existence of Allah by supporting each individual argument together. In this regard, in our study, to see the process, we also discussed the views of Aḥmad Nūrī, one of the scholars in the last period Ottoman, who dealt with the common arguments about ithbāt al-wājib produced by the three primary schools of Islamic thought: kalām, Islamic philosophy and mysticism. (shrink)