Philosophy of History

A person who does not have the opportunity to get to a historical fact/event and text and understand the language in which it was written decides in accordance with the opinion of the person who talks about it, this is the natural state of historical writing/narration. But here it is also clear that those who write texts that are a recorded form of an event/phenomenon that occurred at a certain time in history have different styles of storytelling and their methods and philosophy according to the language/ rhetoric and ideologies in which they are located.

In this context, the person who chooses a style/method of understanding texts about a historical phenomenon and event presents the result as “this is the case” and reads/reads the goods in sentences/establishes dominance over religions. This is the historicist/universalist/general understanding style. Especially nowadays, “would this be like this, would this be like this?” after his questions, he offers his solution proposal in an absolute way. There is a situation of imposing a certain state of modernity by totalizing it. Because knowledge is increasing in an accumulative way. Accordingly, we are superior to past people in all respects, and the correctness of our theories is evidence of the fallacy of previous theories. The philosophical explanation for this is Whiggshism, which is to believe that science is progressing, that knowledge is developing in an accumulative way. In short, it is to say that we understand them in a better way than those before us understand themselves. As people of today, we know everything better than those who knew it before.

In short, the human/spiritual/moral sciences and the Natural Sciences tarihsicilik flat/linear progress in essence advocating positivist discourse is one in essence with the difference between totalitarian and historicity tarihsicilik to be missed is jakoben's universality claims.

For this reason, Nurettin Topçu calls Muslims who use today's religious data for hypocrisy and religious trafficking as “religious positivists and/or religious technicians”. From this point of view, the mentality that calls itself the predecessor considers it a service to religion to spread a certain way of thinking and living to the whole world, while on the other hand, it absolutizes its historicity by saying that this or that would be my brother during this period and historically presents it to other people by saying, “this is the case”.

This is the opposite of the historicist/tikel/culturalist way of understanding. Because the "Historiographical/universal understanding style offers a straight-line understanding of progress, as it speaks of the existence of universal laws to be applied for historical explanations, unifying principles from the point of view of history. In this context, historicism presupposes an absolutist point of view, a homogenization. For this, he proposes a totalitarian and universalist style. However, historicism, on the other hand, dec that when studying data that exists once in history, it is impossible to repeat, it acts from a certain human point of view, there are different points of view, different existences, noting that interpretations are not the same value, there is a co-immeasurability between them.

After such technical knowledge, the understanding and transmission of an Islamic phenomenon and event to the present day is also a neo-salafi mentality, and the historicist mentality paradoxically looks like two sides of a coin. But the mentality that says that he is a historicist says that Gadamer uses a fairly consistent point of view, such as “merging horizons,” but he does not raise the concept of his prejudice and legitimate/exclusive or illegitimate prejudice in this context. Let's base this on an example.

Did Ibn Arabi say, ”Arif has no religion"?

An academic whom I have valued very much lately gives this example everywhere in the context of historicity discussions: His original statement is: “On the eve of Iza kana al-arifu, really lem yettekid bi posteakkid”, When Arif is a real arif, there is no comparison with itikad. In other words, if we simplify it a little more, it means that “a person cannot be limited to anything on the eve”.

According to Ibn Arabi, each sect has its own concept of uluhiyyet according to its own understanding. Your faith in the Hereafter may be changed and transformed by them, whereas the divine truths will never be changed and transformed. The adherents of the Muşebbihe and similar sects lack the knowledge of which authority/hazrat uluhiyet will find his manifestation in. They see the image that is in their faith. Besides, he denies the Truth.

Seeing that Ibn Arabi was severely criticized for this statement, M. At the same time, Ali says, it is clear that the intentional arifs here are not defending the idea that there is no objection. It is mentioned that the person of Arif who is a scholar, the stage after the abidlik, is a person who has reached the authorities of faith, Islam and bestowal. Those who do not understand this issue fall into the wrong, as well as pursue bad intentions. What is meant here is that a mujtahid scholar such as Ibn Arabi will not be connected to any school of thought or tradition, he will have his own unique system. Because at the end of Ibn Arabi's Genealogy, Al-Qawn (The Tree of Being) imagines a God above all time, and He is the Prophet. He informs Muhammad that the thinkers who will come after him will misunderstand their own person in countless ways and gives examples. It is clear that groups such as Jews, Christians, the Mujessimah who mows God in Islam, the musharbiha who thinks he is limited, Muattila who says he is madum, Mutezile who denies that he will appear in the hereafter, will not be in the faith of groups such as Mutezile.

In this case, question/comment: What will be the result if we once again evaluate the data of those who developed a discourse called return to the Qur'an or the neo-salafist mentality that absolutized the Arab culture and way of understanding of the first period?

What does Tufi say about Maslahat, What does Sayyid Bey Say?

A similar situation is carried out through the article “Nass And Maslahat (Risale Fi'l-Masalihi'l-Mürsele) by Najmuddin Et-Tufi. Based on his current prejudice (he is sure that this is legitimate and excessive; I am sure of his sincerity, but I don't know if sincerity is enough), friends/s who read the text of the Qur'an in the name of historicism, translated this article, and anyone who wants to make the consistency of what is being said. As can be seen from the short introduction written by Explorer Hamdi Okur bey to his translation in 1997, there are very different interpretations about this text and the related friend only gives the Sayyid Bey interpretation by absolutizing it. How is it that the interpretation of Tufi and the interpretation of hadith during the period when important events such as the foundation of the Republic and the building of the caliphate took place, talking for years by absolutizing and building the whole discourse on it, not to mention different interpretations and, more importantly, not to mention that Tufi does not give any examples on the subject, is a kind of prejudice?

Turning again to ibn Arabi, can his teaching be presented as Pantheism? This question is important because the person who listens to the above example “arifs have no religion” from the narrator also gives the expected reaction by saying “We call them Muslims”. When he remembers that similar reactions have been shown to him, the gravity of the situation becomes clear.

Is Ibn Arabi's teaching identical with Pantheism?

To what extent is the determination that “the identity of Allah and the world is defended; the creation from nothing is rejected, does not recognize human freedom and responsibility” consistent with both pantheism and the body teachings of vahdeti? M. Recent Ottoman scholars such as Ali Ayni, Ismail Fenni Ertugrul and Ferit Kam have explained that this is not true, that there is an important difference between the body (Pantheism), which is a philosophical school, and the wahdet-i body, the path of some of the Suf dec.

According to this teaching, the world has no relation to Allah, because the absolute person has revealed himself in the form of things and the universe. Everything happens with knowledge, not with zat. He is not equal to anything. He is the one who is having an orgy. It is without quantity, it is incomprehensible. And the world is marked by quantity and howness alone, because it is not like an understood being. However, the things that occur in a world that does not have a real existence, which is the meaning of a dream, are nothing but Allah himself.

At this point, let's remember that the Salafi mentality considers sufis to be polytheists based on the same identification: Ibn Taymiyah and those who follow him say that “They say that being is one, that the obligatory being, the creator and the ancient being, is equal to the possible being and the muhdes being. According to them, Allah does not speak with His will and might, like a person who speaks the word. The word is composed of certain letters and sounds, it is eternal and eternal,”the inconsistency of the determination is explained.

So the point is, Ibn Arabi's “just can't stay no belief constrained by arif person” the word “again” he say and look for everywhere from there to support the rhetoric of the movement, Hans-Yad how prejudice, is often philosophically consistent with the system of Ibn Arabi how to identify if you need to ask!

In the final analysis, what about the historicity of the neo-salafist mentality of the discourses created by these reading and understanding styles, or the similarity of the discourses back to the Qur'an with the whiggist method?

Isn't it more fair if we academics, the people we study and what they say in the text they write, what are the comments made about it and what interpretation we find consistent, and leave the decision to the reader/listener?