We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
When looked at the historical process of the concept of zakāt, it become obligatory in Medinan period, collected by zakāt officers of the state during the Prophet Muhammad and the four Caliphs period, but the zakāt-state relationship has weakened gradually and it has been performed individually in the historical process. At the present time, it is known that there are various institutional developments in Islamic countries aiming to provide social justice in society. In some Islamic countries, it is seen that there are important developments to achieve a legal basis for the zakāt institution and establishing an institutional structure with different forms. In these countries, funds that piled up in zakāt institutions showed a significant upward trend over the years and became an important source of finance in fighting with poverty and income inequality. However, in our country, it cannot be said that zakāt has attained an institutional structure on legal grounds. In this study, by referring applications of Islamic countries to the concept of zakāt, a field study was conducted to identify the perspective of the staff working in the religious organization, which are responsible to provide religious services in our country, about the institutionalization of zakāt. In this research, while the necessity of bringing the zakāt into an institutional structure is revealed, suggestions are presented about the structure of the zakat institution which is likely to be established.
More...
The field, which has acquired the subject of scientific accumulation as a result of the activities on the Qur’an, is the history of tafsir, which is one of the sub-branches of tafsir. It is possible to divide the works related to the history of tafsir, which contains different types of writing, into two different categories in terms of content and method. In terms of content, history of tafsir studies can be divided into two parts as detached and non-detached works. In terms of method, they are binary based on tabaqat and echo centered works or a tripartite classification was created by adding one more title encyclopedic commentary in the form of historical works. In this article, Ahmed b. Muhammed al-Edirnevī (d. after 1095/1684) whose work was named Ṭabaqāt al-Mufassirīn which in terms of content detached, and in terms of method tabakat kind of tafsir historical works have been subjected to examine. First of all, the concepts of tabaqat and tabaqāt almufassirīn and in general the pre-Edirnevî tabaqat literature will be touched. Then information about the author will be given; in the following, copies of the work, sources, method and its relationship with tafsir tabaqat literature will be examined. Finally, information was given about the works of Giritli Sirri Pasha (d. 1895), Bergamali Cevdet Bey (d. 1926) and Omer Nasuhi Bilmen (d. 1971), who continued the system of Edirnevī, and their relations with Edirnevī’s method.
More...
In the twenty three year period, the Qur'an was subordinated to build a society of individuals with belief in tawhid. In this process, each revelation came gradually and played an important role in the realization of the target in the questions. For this reason, each revelation’s passage, which is different at different time and place, and which deals with different audiences on different topics, or in every aspect, has a meaning and integrity in many ways. In this context, the data of the science of Munasebatu’l-Qur'an can be evaluated as a proof and an example of this situation. In research, we tried to understand and reveal of this issue in short terms. As the result, seems that each of the suras from the period of Asr to Nas has complete meaning of integrity with a period before and after, Although they were subjected to different periods in the Mushaf orders.
More...
The negative approach to interpreting the Qur’ān with the ra’y is a tendency that has taken place in various realms since the past. This reactive approach, which extends from time to time to interpretation of the Qur’ān, has been to limit people’s knowledge of religion only to transmit and imitate their behavior. In order to put such an approach on religion on a legitimate ground, the approach in question targeted the ṣaḥāba’ (companions) relationship with the Qur’ān. According to this, companions never interpreted the Quran with the ra’y. What the ṣaḥāba did was only to convey what they saw and heard from the Prophet. They did not appeal to the tafsīr with ra’y about the Qur’ān, or even did the tafsīr. Because, according to the narrations conveyed from the Prophet, the ṣaḥāba accepted this as a sin and did not express an opinion about the Qur’ān. What they did was just transmit from the Prophet. Accord-ingly, all Muslims’ relationship with the Qur’ān should be consist of transmition and imitation.The above-mentioned thoughts make very important claims about the interpretation of the Qur’ān. Because the fact that these claims are based on the ṣaḥāba are binding for Muslims. The fact that the ṣaḥāba put forward a common attitude or expressed an opinion on the subject means that they have heard or seen this issue mostly from the prophet. Therefore, the claim that the ṣaḥāba’s negative approach to express their views on the verses of the Qur’ān or that they have kept distance from the interpretation of the Qur’ān with a stricter attitude is a serious matter that should be emphasized and investigated.Considering the evidence that the ṣaḥāba’s view was based on the following can be seen: the verse that “It is forbidden to say things you do not know about Allah” (al-A‘rāf 6/33); the hadith that “Whoever speaks about the Qur’ān even though he does not know, get ready for his place in hell”; Abu Bakr’s statement that “Whoever say something he does not know about the Qur’ān, he will not find a sky to shade himself, nor a place to house.” and some tābi’ūn scholars’ similar statements in this regard. Some issues such as the tafsīr initially belongs to the content of Hadith discipline and that the narration concept corresponds to the word of science in the first periods must have been effective in the formation of this idea.Ibn Taymiyya’s (d. 728/1328) view that the Prophet explained the meaning of the Qur’ān as well as he conveyed all the words of the Qur’ān and his explanations about the most beautiful method of interpretation of the Qur’ān are actually nothing, but an explanation of the claims mentioned above from a different perspective.When the evidences put forward that the ṣaḥāba do not interpret the Qur’ān or even attempt to interpret the Qur’ān are examined, it will be seen that all the evidences brought for these claims actually state that speaking about the Qur’ān without any evidence, knowledge and undocument is not a right thing to do. Since interpretation of the Qur’ān would mean, in a sense, to narrate from Allah Almighty, talking about the Qur’ān without information and documents was regarded as ugly and disapproved by both Allah and the Prophet, the ṣaḥāba and their followers (tābi’ūn). Among the sources that the ṣaḥāba refer to in the interpretation of the Qur’ān are the Qur’ān itself, the reasons for the descent (nuzul) of the verses, as well as the Prophet’s words explaining the Qur’ān and its best practice, as well as their command of Arabic, the language of the Qur’ān.When the narrations about the relations of the ṣaḥāba with the interpretation of the Qur’ān are examined, it will be seen that it is not possible to say that the claims men-tioned above are a correct approach. For, the existing narrations reveal that the ṣaḥāba made a great deal of efforts towards the interpretation of the Qur’ān and that they interpreted some verses in this context. In some rumors, it is seen that the ṣaḥāba encouraged those around them to interpret the Qur’ān and criticized those who behaved loosely about it. This attitude of the ṣaḥāba must be due to the fact that the Qur’ān invites its addressees to reflect on its verses, that the Qur’ān’s coming to life depends on understanding it and that the interpretation of the Qur’ān is an inevi-table necessity. Because the unpredictable variability of life and the conditions that constantly show up in different forms within this framework require the continuous interpretation of the Qur’ān.It is possible to say that the discourse that the ṣaḥāba kept their distance from the interpretation of the Qur’ān actually stems from the confusion of the descent period of the Qur’ān and the post-descent period. For this reason, it would be more appropriate to examine the ṣaḥāba ' period as two different periods as before and after the descent. Saḥāba did not encounter with the problem of understanding the Qur’ān to a great extent while the Prophet was alive. For, the Prophet was practicing the Qur’ān actually. In addition to this, the ṣaḥāba had the opportunity to learn about the situation by asking the Prophet in some isolated events. This situation prevented them from engaging in tafsīr activities. However, after the death of the Prophet, situations have changed. For, people who became new Muslims, new events, changing language and facts made it necessary to reinterpret the verses that the ṣaḥāba knew before in the face of these new situations.As a result of these activities, we see that the ṣaḥāba disagreed about understanding the Qur’ān. The disagreement of the companions is one of the clearest evidences showing that they have expressed their views on understanding the Qur’ān based on ra’y. If there had been a statement from the Prophet about the verse in which they expressed their opinion, they would not have disagreed. As can be seen in many case studies put forward in the research, the ṣaḥāba interpreted the Qur’ān in a large amount of ra’y and lived it in the practice of life.
More...
Abrogation (naskh), as one of the most important issues in tafsīr, has been discussed since the early periods. There is a consent on the existence of abrogation in Qur’ān both in classical and modern studies. Abū Muslim al-Iṣfahānī (d. 322/934) is the only person to be mentioned to object to the consent on the existence of abrogation in Qur’ān. Today, a new tafsīr has been published in order to question this claim. A classical mufassir, al-Ṣafadī (d. 696/1296), rejects the existence of abrogation in Qur’ān in his tafsīr titled Kashf al-asrār wa hatq al-astār alongside with al-Iṣfahānī. He also mentions Muslims who completely reject abrogation since it requires badā (versatility or mutability of God) and al-Nawbakhtī (d. 310/922[?]) who thinks abrogation is not possible in Qur’ān by restricting its existence to earlier holy books. In addition, according to our findings, ‘Ubayd b. ‘Umayr (d. 74/693[?]) from tābi‘ūn is mentioned to have rejec-ted abrogation. Therefore, it was understood that al-Iṣfahānī was not the only one to have rejected the existence of abrogation in Qur’ān in the classical period. Al-Ṣafadī reasons that abrogation is possible only between Qur’ān and previous books. He bases this idea on the changes in the best interest (maṣlaḥa) of those who are the addressee of decrees and the wisdom in Allah’s actions: Provisions in the earlier books came in accordance with the best interest of those who dealt with them. Āyah (verses) that abrogated the provisions of the earlier books were revealed in accordance with the best interest of his addressees. As time passes and the addressees change, Allah may send different judgments, considering the best interest of his subjects. However, while al-Ṣafadī justifies the abrogation of previous books in Qur’ān in this way, he does not think these justifications are possible for Qur’ān verses. Ac-cording to him, the duration of Qur’ān’s revelation is not long enough to necessitate a serious change in the best interest. On the other hand, al-Ṣafadī draws attention to the disagreements among those who claim there is abrogation among verses: While they claim some verses are abrogated, some of them interpret those verses without resorting to abrogation. The most important reasoning that al-Ṣafadī puts forward while rejecting abrogation is the fact that to accept abrogation in Qur’ān is to accept there is a disagreement in Qur’ān. He explains the situation in the following way: When there is discrepancy between two verses on the same subject, abrogation is resorted. According to this, nāsikh and mansukh verses are contradictory verses in Qur’ān. Accepting that there is nāsikh and mansukh in Qur’ān means that there are contradictory verses in Qur’ān. However, Allah rejected that there was conflict in Qur’ān in an-Nisā 4/82 while he declared that no kind of superstition could approach him in Fussilat 41/42. Thus, al-Ṣafadī thinks that the claim of abrogation in Qur’ān contradicts mentioned verses. However, those who accept abrogation do not see any contradiction between these verses and this claim. In fact, the fact that al-Ṣafadī accepts abrogation in general while rejecting the claim of abrogation in Qur’ān is problematic in itself: Justifying the change in provisions with the change in best interests requires an acceptance of abrogation both between Qur’ān and earlier holy books, among Qur’ān verses and after Qur’ān. Because the change in best interests did not happen only between the period corresponding to the revelation of Qur’ān and earlier books. This change happened both in the revelation period and the period between the revelation and today. However, al-Ṣafadī, thinking that abrogation is subject to the order of Allah, he does not think abrogation is possible after the revelation even though best interests change. Because, a new order from Allah is required in order for some verses to be accepted as mansukh after the revela-tion period. The fact that al-Ṣafadī rejects abrogation after the revelation period contradicts his earlier explanations. In fact, even though best interests have changed after the revelation period, if abrogation will not occur, it would not be a strong justification to explain abrogation in earlier periods with the change in best interest.Al-Ṣafadī also refers to the difference of abrogation and badā, and states that it is important to know the best interest behind these two provisions. While the abrogation of provisions happens with the change in best interests known and supervised by Allah, the change in provisions happens with relevant best interests becoming known in later periods in badā. It is not possible to become known later in the knowledge of Allah. Al-Ṣafadī also rejects the abrogation of Qur’ān with hadith (sunna) and consensus (ijmā). According to him, it is not possible for hadith to abrogate the verse. Because, al-Ṣafadī thinks that this is only possible when hadith is equal or superior to verse. He thinks that the hadith cannot have such qualities since he forms a negative relations-hip with this possibility and the fact that verses come from waḥy. The fact that hadith is equal to verse nullifies both the prophethood of its bearer and the accuracy of that word. Moreover, al-Ṣafadī refers to the difference between “word of Prophet Muhammad” and “word of Allah” stating that hadith is not the same as verses. If the two were of the same quality, they both would be called the word of Allah. Similarly, al-Ṣafadī rejects the abrogation of verses with consensus reasoning that consensus is a word of mankind and that this kind of words cannot be of the same quality with the word of Allah. He also stipulates that the consensus should be achieved not between groups with same ideas but between foes, that is everyone from different sects, on the abrogation of consensus. This kind of consensus does not exist. In this way, after rejecting the claim of abrogation in Qur’ān, in his tafsīr, al-Ṣafadī tries to interpret the verses claimed to be abrogated, without the need for abrogation.
More...
When Mu‘ādh was sent to Yemen as governor, the hadīth that describes the answer of Mu‘ādh which “I will rule with Qur’ān, sunnah, and my opinion.” to the Prophet’s question that “What will you rule with? is known as the Mu‘ādh hadīth. This hadīth was accepted by the majority of Sunni scholars and was used to prove that it was one of the shar‘ī proofs of the qiyās. On the other hand, since the Shī‘ī scholars did not accept the qiyās, they rejected this hadīth and claimed that it was false. However, the Shī‘ī scholars argued that even if it is accepted to be true, this hadith shows that it is not permissible to apply to the qiyās in the presence of the Nass (Qur’ān and Sunnah), and also stated that this can not be evidence of the qiyās. In addition, they do not accept the famous form of the Mu‘ādh hadīth, as well as they put forward another variant of the hadīth which states that “In the resolution of issues that have no verdict in Qur’ān ‘and Sunnah, should be asked to the Prophet”. The highlighting of the narrative, which states that “Mu‘ādh asked the Prophet and waited for an answer on a subject that he could not find any Nass”, had a very important result in favor of Shī‘a. This is because the Mu‘ādh hadīth, which is famous in Sunni sources, both shows that the qiyās is a shar‘ī evidence and contradicts the idea of imāms that must be found in every period. However, the narrative in the form of “No! Write/ask me, I write to you/I will answer”, that supports the understanding of imāmah and wants to be consulted to the opinion of the imām, not the qiyās. In this study, it will be examined whether the effect of the understanding of innocent imāms on the Mu‘ādh hadīth as false by the Shī‘a and how they interpret this hadīth which is presented as a strong proof of the qiyās.The Mu‘ādh Hadīth, presented by the Ahl al-Sunnah as a strong proof of qiyās, contains information contrary to the idea of imamate and the existence of the imam. Because if there is ijtihād, an imam will not be needed. As mentioned in the research, the imam to Shī‘a is both the source and interpreter of the Nass. Therefore, the pres-ence of the imam hinders someone else’s ijtihād. For this reason, the Shī‘a usūlists argue that the Mu‘ādh Hadīth is not sahīh, and even if it was deemed sahīh, it would not point to qiyās as claimed by the Ahl al-Sunnah. In addition, the Shī‘a ‘ulamā’ claim that there is a different variant of the Mu‘ādh Hadīth and that this version of the hadīth is more suitable to be proof. According to this version, the Prophet asks Mu‘ādh “How will you judge if you cannot find the verdict of the case offered to you in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah?” and when Mu‘ādh gives the answer “I’ll act upon my ra’y and ijtihād (ajtahidu bi-ra’yī)”, the Prophet says “No! Write/ask me and I will write/answer you.”. Therefore, according to this riwayah, Mu‘ādh would not turn to ijtihād for the subjects for which he couldn’t find the an-swers in the Book or Sunnah and, on the contrary, he would have to wait for the answer of the Prophet.Arguing that qiyās is batil, Shī‘a usūlists highlighted this variant of the Mu‘ādh Hadīth. As can be seen, emphasizing this riwayah, which specifies “asking the Prophet and waiting for the answer”, reveals a very important outcome in favor of Shī‘a. Because in its mashhur (well known) form, the Mu‘ādh Hadīth both shows that ra’y/qiyās is a Shar’i proof and it contradicts the idea of imamate, which is considered to be mandatory at all times, and therefore Shī‘a’s idea of sunnah. In the riwayah put forward by Shī‘a, the answer of the Prophet in the form of “No! Write/ask me and I will write/answer you.” emphasizes the idea of imamate and directs people to consult the imam instead of the ijtihādī opinion. Accordingly, Shī‘a ‘ulamā’ should not resort to ijtihād but ask the ma’sum imam for the solution of a matter that is not included in the Qur’an and Sunnah. As a result, it is understood that the understanding of the ma’sum imam, which plays an important role in the interpretation of the ’Āyāt and the hadīth that are in the Sunni sources, is also effective in the interpretation of the Mu‘ādh Hadīth.
More...
Al-Kitāb and the Sunnah (Prophetic tradition) are two basic sources of Islamic law that have become text in the historical process. To understand the nass in these two sources and to determine the best way for them are one of the most important issues of Islamic law. Science of alfāz (the wordings of the terms) in methodology of fıqh is a significant section that includes required rules in this sense. The controversies on fiqh generally depend on the meanings of the words which build the nass and to the deci-sions that acquire from these meanings. The reason is that science of alfāz includes the rules of making decisions from nass. Because of that alfāz has an extensive space in fiqh literature. The terms (alfāz) are subjected to taxonomy from different angles. In this respect there are four categories and twenty-four terms which are extremely significant. Because without the knowledge of the classification of alfāz, their relations with each other and hierarchy of them, it is hard to understand nass correctly. According to the aforementioned division, firstly the terms (alfāz) which their meanings were given are examined. There are four types of terms (alfāz) in this category which are also known as terms in terms of meaning or extent. These are ʿāmm, hāss, common, and muawwal terms. From these hāss has four parts; command, prohibition, mutlaq and muqayyad. Secondly, the terms (alfāz) which in terms of their use for meaning are examined. In this group there are haqiqah (truth), macaz (metaphoric meaning), sarīh (understandable) and qinaya (allusion). Thirdly, explicit and implicit terms in terms of the meaning are examined. They are totally eight terms that four of them explicit and other four of them implicit. Explicit terms are zāhir, nass, mufassar and muhqam. Implicit terms are hafī, mushqil, mujmal and mutashābih. Lastly, the terms depend on the shape of indication to the meaning are examined. These terms are indication of phrase, indication of mark, indication of nass and indication of demand. This separation belongs to Hanefite school of law, and Shaafite school of law also examined it. But there are some differentiations on separation and arranging be-tween them. On the other hand, there are also different approaches on provisions of the terms; and certitude and supposition of them. An argument in this respect is about the common term and its publicity. The common term as a subject in many scientific fields becomes one of the important subjects of Islamic law about indications of the terms. This subject is significant in many theoretical discussions and crucial to determine the judgement in many juristic issues. The scholars of fiqh put forward their ideas on the possibility, meaning, reasons, provision and publicity of the common term and made a rich literature. The common term as a reason for discussions caused to many arguments in the field. It is a comprehensive subject that nearly held in all areas of Islamic literature. Today contribution of the term (ألاشتراك اللفظي) is known as polysemy and the common term as one of the important elements of it may be seen in all languages. Today, the contribution of the term to the meaning becomes important to be an interdisciplinary subject. Polysemy is a well-known subject in many academic fields but although it is one of the significant areas of fiqh, there is no work that holds this subject in terms of Turkish language. To aim of this study is to fill that blank in Turkish literature and become the first step to that field. Therefore, this study focuses on the common terms in methodology of Islamic law. The aim of the study is to see the effect of the polysemic words (associations) of the language on controversies in fıqh, and thus to determine the role of fiqh scholars in reaching to different provisions on the same subject. For this purpose, the study focused on the place of the common term in the literature, its lexical and terminological meaning and also, the reasons of polysemic terms. Subsequently, the judgment and the publicity of the common terms were dealt with in a comparative way. Finally, the study was completed with the results which were achieved.
More...
Islam is far from being only a range of acts of strict observation that the believer is asked to do. It is also the vast garden of mystical inquiry, an ongoing effort to reveal the powerful action of the Sublime in the material world we live in. This mystical quest for the Divine is exemplified here by the poem of Farīd-ud-Dīn ʼAttar of Nishapurabout the Speech of the Birds, where the hoopoe instructs the other birds on the Sufi path.Engaging into this path means destroying all the attachments of his own ego with the sensitive world and delve into mysteries. In the end, the annihilation of the self allows the great joy of the eternal union with the Supreme.
More...
Nūr al-ʿayn fī mashhad al-Ḥusayn is one of the Arabic maqtals which has not been a subject to the scholarly research from the aspect of authenticity and source value, if excepted the article by George Kanazi, where the author through applying the philological method evaluates it as a ref-lection of the Karbalā event on the folklore. Inspite of being publicated more than ten times from the second half of the 19th century, still not having a critical edition, Nūr al-ʿAyn fī Mashhad al-Ḥusayn is assumed as a maqtal written by the prominent Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarī scholar Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāinī (d. 418/1027) without being properly analyzed and because of literal reading of its certain passages. Using the data analysis method this study will investigate the process of attribution of Nūr al-ʿAyn fī Mashhad al-Ḥusayn to Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāinī and examine the state of its belongingness to the referred scholar within the context of his biography and works reached to the present day. Then, using the comparative analysis method, the connecting link among these four books will be investigated, Nūr al-ʿAyn fī Mashhad al-Ḥusayn and Qurrat al-ʿAyn fī Akhdh Thār al-Ḥusayn, which follows it up in manuscripts as well as printed versions, and two other books on the same subject, Maqtal al-Ḥusayn and Thār al-Ḥusayn attributed to Abū Miḫnaf (d. 157/773). Finally, the originality of Nūr al-ʿAyn fī Mashhad al-Ḥusayn will be evaluated by comparing its similar and different features with Maqtal al-Ḥusayn. [You may find an extended abstract of this article after the bibliography.]
More...
In the history of Islam, from the early period, scholars attached significant importance to recording information, which was also actively encouraged by the administrators and rulers of the time. However, for some ḥadīth scholars, there is a few information in history and ṭabaḳāt books, which state that the muḥaddiths destroyed their own collections. Considering the great efforts they spent throughout their life, it is quite remarkable that some of muḥaddiths destroyed their ḥadīth collections by burying, burning, throwing into the water, wiping, washing, tearing them apart, or willing others to destroy before their death. Interestingly, these muḥaddiths are not insignificant in number, and even some of them are among the prominent muḥaddiths. At this point, it is imperative to investigate which muḥaddiths destroyed their books, the motivations behind this decision, and the consequences for the knowledge of hadīth. In this study, we investigate the reasons and methods of muḥaddiths, lived in 2nd and 3rd AH centuries, who destroyed their books. Furthermore, we examine their impacts on hadīth science and thoughts of other muḥaddiths on this issue. Then, we focus on its influence on jarḥ wa’l-ta'dīl as it affects the weakness of the narrator's ḍḥabt.
More...
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855), during his illness which ended with his death, asked his son ʽAbdallāh to remove the following ḥadith from al-Musnad: “When the Messenger of Allah said "This group from the Quraysh will destroy the Ummah", they asked "What would you order us (in this case)?". He replied "If so people should stay away from them!" Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal thinks that this ḥadith contradicts other narrations. According to his son ʽAbdallāh, the narrations that this ḥadith contradict it is the hadiths that the Prophet ordered to obey the administrators and be patient with the mistakes caused by them. However, the scholars who came later made different evaluations about this attitude. According to one of these evaluations, Imam's attitude is that the ḥadith is contradictory, as it draws attention in its own statement, that is, it contradicts with other narrations that regulate people’s relationship with the administrators. This interpretation is important in terms of narrating the same ḥadith by famous ḥadith scholars like Bukhārī (d. 256/870) and Muslim (d. 261/875). Because, according to this interpretation, non-authentic narrations can be found in the works of Bukhārī and Muslim, al-Câmi‘u’s-saḥîḥ. However, these two authors claim that their books contain only authentic ḥadiths. However, the examinations made on both the narrator chain and its text show that the contradiction claim cannot be true. As a matter of fact, all four people who narrated the ḥadith were considered reliable by both narrator critics and Ahmet b. Hanbel. Thus Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal includes a large number of ḥadiths of these narrators in his al-Musnad. It is possible to say that the ḥadith is not contradictory in terms of text. For, dozens of hadiths similar to both the first and second sentences of the hadith were reported by Ahmed in al-Musnad. According to the second claim, the reason for Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal to take this ḥadith out of his book is political. According to this claim, Imam made such a request in order to get along well with the administration of the period. Because, in this period, Abbasid government ended the Mihna process, which had put the ḥadith scholars in great trouble, and began to pursue a softening policy against them. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal also responded positively to the management's desire for reconciliation, and for this reason he wanted to remove the ḥadiths that ordered to take a hard attitude towards the cruel ruler. But this claim does not comply with Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, because at that time he became a community leader thanks to his attitude towards power. According to the third comment on this issue, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal's attitude towards this ḥadith is that it could be abused. As a matter of fact, Imam himself personally said that some of ahl al-bid‘ah brought this ḥadith as evidence and took harsh attitudes towards power. Essentially, we have other data that reinforce this final interpretation. As a matter of fact, Ahmet removed other hadiths that ordered the armed struggle against power from his book. As it is understood from this attitude, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal does not want the actual and armed struggle against cruel rulers to cause chaos and mischief in society. So it can be said that Imam's attitude regarding the ḥadith in question is about the concerns in the relationship between society and the administrator. However, this anxiety concerns especially the second sentence that recommends that “people stay away from such administrators”. Because, during the period of Imam's life, some groups such as al-Mu‘tizilah caused social disintegration by using such ḥadiths as evidence. In short, in the case under study here, his concern about “contradicting other narrations” should be understood in light of the ideal administrator-society relationship he attempts to establish in his al-Musnad.
More...
Naučnici prepoznaju da u Kur’anu postoji sistem koherencije i da svaki ajet, veći i manji, predstavlja integralnu jedinicu Kur’ana. Postoje samo dva cjelovita tefsira (egzegeze) Kur’ana zasnovana na principu koherencije. Jedan je na arapskom, a drugi na urdu. Komparativna analiza tih dvaju djela pokazuje da je koherencija u arapskoj egzegezi bila u svojoj formativnoj fazi i da je do pune forme razvijena u urdu egzegezi. Koherencija Kur’ana pronađena u ovim dvjema egzegezama zaslužuje bližu analizu jer može pomoći u obnovi grandioznog zdanja islamske misli i života. Jedna od metoda tumačenja kur’anskih ajeta (ajat) poznata je kao nazmul-Kur’an (koherentnost u Kur’anu). Prema ovoj metodi, Kur’an se smatra integralnom cjelinom i svi su njegovi ajeti u svakom poglavlju (sura) koherentni i kohezivni. Samo su dva učenjaka koristila ovaj metod u svom tumačenju čitavog Kur’ana: Ebu l-Hasan Ibrahim ibn Omer Burhanuddin el-Bika’i i Emin Ahsen Islahi. Prva egzegeza je na arapskom, a druga na urdu. Ova studija pokušava komparativno analizirati ova dva djela i identificirati metode koje su učenjaci koristili kako bi bolje razumjeli Kur’an.
More...
Prikaz knjige: Savremena islamska misao (2019), priredio Ivan Ejub Kostić, Balkanski centar za Bliski Istok, Beograd
More...
The Nusayrī belief is similar to those of Ghulāt teachings, which is known to adopt extreme views on imamate. That is why the Nusayrīs are considered to be a part of the Ghulāt, known as the extremist. Some esoteric explanations (e.g., Alī b. Abī Tālib is God or Allah was revealed in Alī) adopted by the Ghulāt sects are also manifested in classical Nusayrī works. However, the Nusayrī sheikhs adopted a different interpretation from the Ghulāt sects regarding the essence and nature of God and his visibility to people. The “the practice of nidā” was also transferred to Nusayrī teaching from the Ghulāt tradition. The “the doctrine of nidā”, the ism’s or bāb’s public proclamation of the divinity of the Imam, appeared in the sources beginning with one of the first Ghulāt formations (Saba’iyya). According to this teaching, the bāb, by risking his own life, declares the identity of God (nidā), which is visible to people. It is a requirement of his faith and mission that the bāb performs the “nidā” and sacrifices his own life to reveal the truth about the Imam. It is believed that Abū Shu‘ayb Muhammad ibn Nusayr an-Namīrī (d. 270/883), who is regarded as the bāb of the Eleventh Imam in Nusayrī tradition, declared the divinity of the Eleventh Imam and risked his own life for this reason. However, it is stated that after the tenth century, the “nidā” did not have a meaning rather than being a theological teaching because after this period Nusayrīs seem to have accepted taqiyya as part of the belief in order to preserve the safety of the Muwahhidun (Nusayrī believers) and to hide their esoteric knowledge from those who do not deserve to learn it. This article will present an in-depth analysis of the work called Risālat al-andiya, which comprehensively deals with the “phenomenon of nidā” among the classical Nusayrī works. Then, the transition period from Ibn Nusayr to al-Husayn ibn Hamdān al-Khasībī (d. 358/969) will historically be discussed, and the concept and practice of taqiyya, which has become one of the main dynamics of the sect especially by al-Khasībī will be scrutinized. Finally, an answer will be sought to the question of whether the practice of “nidā” purported discontinuation can be associated with adoption of taqiyya.
More...
The Muslim World League is a nominally non-governmental Islamic organisation based in Saudi Arabia. From its founding in 1962 until relatively recently, it mainly focused on promulgating the archetypal Islamic fundamentals and practices across the Muslim world in line with the vision of the Saudi state. An early indicator that this mission was giving way to a more dynamic and, relatively, liberal position was an interfaith initiative by the league in 2008 that resulted in the Makkah Appeal; a landmark document that advocated, and set appropriate terms for, Islamic initiatives in interfaith dialogue. The league’s new interfaith programme was then introduced to the world ten days later when it convened the Madrid Conference, bringing together prominent figures from all major faith traditions. But it was not until 2016 / 2017 with the coming to office of its present secretary-general, Dr. Al-Issa, and the Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, that the league radically expanded and diversified its interfaith dialogue initiatives. This article examines a mixed sample of these initiatives to give a sense of how the league’s interfaith programme has evolved in recent years. It then gives an analysis of the factors likely to be driving these changes, the aims they seem oriented to achieve, and what diretions they might take in future. Special attention is paid to the league’s function and significance within the larger discourse of Saudi international relations and diplomatic interests on the world stage.
More...
The Muslim World League (MWL) is considered one of the oldest Islamic organizations that took care of charitable and relief work in the Islamic world. Over the past sixty years, it has worked to diversify its charitable, relief and humanitarian activities in line with its position as an organization in support of Muslim peoples. Besides, it has established several subsidiary organizations to handle the task of managing charitable and relief work, such as the International Commission for Relief, Welfare and Development, and the Supreme Council of Mosques, as well as other affiliated organizations that handle religious, cultural and scientific affairs. This article highlights the efforts made by the League in the health, educational, community and relief sectors, by analyzing the League’s official magazine and the periodicals.
More...
The mission assumed by Ibn ʻArabī, to guide the believers, to revivify the faith and to refine the esoteric knowledge of Islam, reaches an end in the Wisdom of the Prophets. Seen as the spiritual heritage of the great Sufi master, the Wisdom of the Prophets is the climax of his esoteric teaching. Shared with only few disciples, at the end of his life, the mystical references to the 27 prophets of Islam shed light on the mission and specific divine knowledge of each prophet, beginning with Adam and ending with the Seal of the entire prophecy, the Prophet Muhammad, who is to be seen as a vast synthesis of all previous revelations sent in the world by the Supreme. In the same time, the Wisdom of the Prophets is the final proof of his own saint situation, full of divine knowledge and grace, which fortified him to truly work for the benefit of the religious community and to revivify Islamic faith.
More...
Since 2001, jihadism as a socio-political movement of waging jihadi violence has beenprominent in international relations and security. The dominant discourse has been thatjihadism is a religious phenomenon, in which violence is drawn from 19th and 20th centuryWahabist and Salafst movements. This research argues that jihadism has been infuencedby imperialism and for over two centuries has shaped itself as an organized phenomenon.Jihadism continues to evolve as an organized and branded phenomenon incorporatingreligious, political, economic and social goals to facilitate violence. The absence ofengagement strategies with local communities to reduce radicalisation has – in part – causeda failure to address jihadist violence. This research suggests that social entrepreneurshipis an underexplored engagement route, which encourages locals to own social issues likeradicalization. This research utilises management science insights, particularly brandmanagement, communication-based organizations, and social entrepreneurship, applyingthem to the evolving challenges presented by so-called jihadist groups.
More...