2018 Cilt 27 Sayı 2

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11452/16126

Browse

Browsing by Language "en"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Abu Shakur al-Salimi and his theological identity within the scope of al-Tamhid fī Bayan al-Tawḥid
    (Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2018) Kılavuz, Ulvi Murat; Uludağ Üniversitesi/İlahiyat Fakültesi.; 0000-0002-5095-9522
    Even though al-Imām al-Māturīdī was praised by certain scholars, such as his master Abū Naṣr al-ʿIyāḍī, and was described later as the founder of Māturīdiyyah by both his school’s followers and his competitors, such as Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, it is clear that his school took form based on the ideational foundations of Abū Ḥanīfah. In places like Khurāsān and Transoxiana where Māturīdiyyah spreaded most, the most prominent followers have been the Ḥanafī scholars and the school was called Ḥanafiyyah/Māturīdiyyah because of its “dual-authoritative” nature. While Ḥanafīs of Samarqand embraced a more kalāmī/dialectical methodology much like al-Imām alMāturīdī, Ḥanafīs of Bukhārā had a more scripturalist/traditionalist attitude with some caution of rational interpretation (taʾwīl). No doubt that, despite his rational (grounded on raʾy) and interpretivist attitudes in the issues of fiqh, the fact that Abū Ḥanīfah had a more moderate and conservative attitude that is not completely contrary to that of Ahl al-ḥadīth in credal/theological issues had an effect on this. Even though he preserved his kalāmī methodology and style in congruence with his school and penned an entirely theological book named al-Tamhīd, Abū Shakūr al-Sālimī, a representative of Samarqand Ḥanafī/Māturīdī tradition, had some ideas and views compatible with the “conservative” Bukhārā-based Ḥanafī/Māturīdī position, probably because of perceiving Abū Ḥanīfah as the absolute authority. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that he followed and fused the ideas of both of two authorities, Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Imām al-Māturīdī, and at the same time, preserved his own authenticity.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Ibn al-Malāḥimī’s criticism of philosophers’ views on God’s knowledge of particulars
    (Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2018) Koloğlu, Orhan Şener; Uludağ Üniversitesi/İlahiyat Fakültesi.
    One of the controversial arguments of Islamic philosophers is that, according to them, God knows particulars as universals. For al-Ghazālī, such an argument means that God does not know particulars, whereupon he accuses philosophers for falling into unbelief (kufr). The foregoing accusation by al-Ghazālī makes this argument an evergreen point of debate for Islamic theology (kalām) and philosophy. Ibn al-Malāḥimī, the Muʿtalizite theologian, is among the criticisers of mentioned philosophical view. Addressing the problem in his Tuḥfat al-mutakallimīn fī al-radd ʿalā al-Falāsifa, Ibn alMalāḥimī, however, brings forth an approach different from that of al-Ghazālī. Contrary to al-Ghazālī, he does not interpret the philosophers’ view as an argument that God does not know particulars. Indeed, according to Ibn al-Malāḥimī, philosophers already accept that God does not know particulars. Therefore, his main objective is to refute the view that God does not know particulars. For this purpose, Ibn al-Malāḥimī tries to explain that knowledge of particulars does not lead to any change in the self/essence (dhāt) of God. There is a unique aspect to the perspective of Ibn al-Malāḥimī. According to him, even though philosophers deny that God knows particulars, their view actually means God does know particulars.