Divine Religions for a Peaceful World

“All truth, except the last and the most important, is a shadow; however, each truth is true in its own way. Every truth is an entity in its own place, even if it is only a shadow elsewhere.”

Isaack Pennington

Turkey is striving to enter the European Union as a democratic, secular and social state of law. It is very important to do this in order to raise universal human values ​​and legal standards and to improve the quality of life. As of October 2016, there is a possibility that visas will be lifted. Their gains or losses should be negotiated legally and economically, but here we suggest that the religious structure of EU countries and their designs of universality can be handled within the framework of the unity of divine prophecies and that they can contribute to the formation of a peaceful world with a presentation in the form of "pluralist universalism paradigms". Because, how to present the God design of different beliefs in the context of individual rights and freedoms is very important in order to prevent possible conflict between civilizations.

In addition to these intra-Islamic interpretations (sect, sect, community), there are religious sects within the EU, each claiming universality (Catholicism) and authentic faith (Orthodoxy). There are structures that do not see their universality and authenticity beliefs as consistent (Protestantism). Although all of these are in the same model of application of the divine message (Christian Shariah), each of them does not give up on the claim of universality in the context of their own practice and presents themselves as if they are a separate religion. Hz. The ways in which the theoretical principles sent from Adam were put into practice were put into practice by various prophets in different languages ​​at different times and places.

The question that will be discussed in this text is this: Is it possible for each of the Abrahamic shari'ahs to "read" in a pluralistic environment the "evaluation" of both their own sects and other conditions? Or can we talk about the limits of a common interpretation?

For this, first of all, it is necessary to base the "pluralist universality design". In this context, the discussion of appearance/outward aspects that separate cultures based on religious data in understanding the "One Truth" and whether there is a common/transcendent point between them gains meaning. In fact, this means that "even though it may seem like a multiplicity, it includes the claim that a culture's own subjectivity is actually unique and that others have a subjectivity in this sense." The fact that the truth is one does not prevent the messengers who declared it and the revelations they brought from being many. Because while Truth is beyond all forms, Revelation, by definition, originates from Truth and belongs to the formal order. Form here means diversity and pluralism. Therefore, in a place that gains form, there is multiplicity, repetition and number.

Since its existence, humanity has been divided into different and more or less introverted human communities. These diverse spiritual human communities that exist are reflections of the One Truth. The fact that those who claim the unique and absolute/universal truth cannot escape from subjectivity means that each of the Revelations accepts itself as universal and rejects the others, in fact, the explanation of absoluteness and universality belongs to the content, not the form. The form is a symbol of the content and the humanity that is the addressee of this content. Attributing absoluteness to it is a culturally relative situation. However, God does not receive revelations from outside like a scientist; it keeps itself at the center of every Revelation. Revelation uses absolute language because God is absolute, not form. In other words, the absoluteness of Revelation is in itself, relative in form. Because of this relativism, people can believe in different revelations, whether they want to live in the atmosphere of the last divine revelation. This is probably why, since the earliest times (for example, Yahya en Nahvi), many scholars did not become Muslims and adopted a different revelation, despite the fact that they had very good knowledge and were rulers at the upper levels of Muslim states.[1] This is what we mean by reflecting on what appears to be a paradox.

P.Hassner's understanding of "plural or recurrent universalism" will help us to clarify this issue a little more. Hassner departs from the distinction between nature and custom and states that the dialectic between them is of five types. The absolute relativism revealed by radical historiography is that although there is a problem of intercultural dialogue, each nation or culture will reach the absolute truth in its own way; that is, it can enter into the unique relationship with the universal in its own way. In this context, Hassner asks, “Is the truth of each untransmissible to the other, or is there a common code that means true universal?” asks the question. If there is a universal universal that embraces the plurality of differences, would these differences accept each other as they are? open your point 

is important.[2]

Hassner, who analyzes the tension between universality and pluralism on the axis of Western thought, with religion and dialectic, says that, in the final analysis, with his repetitive/pluralist universalism understanding, it is necessary to accept that other people are as producers of morality as we are.[3] It is also possible to see ethics and the right to difference as two complementary phenomena rather than as contradictions/antinomies. This is only possible by developing a new modernity.[4]

For this, we want to start the discussion by making a distinction between rational truth and factual truth. Ever since the Prophet Adam, the same (faith) principles have been put into practice by various prophets in different languages ​​at different times and places. In this sense, the common name of the religion sent to all prophets is Islam. In this respect, there is only One Divine Religion. It is not possible to think of the contradiction of the principles, namely revelation, that will ensure prosperity in the world and success in the hereafter. Because our Lord, who is closer to us than our jugular vein and blows his breath on us, does not give us false information. This is called the mind line. What we call factual truth is what emerges in the practices of putting this truth into practice. In other words, they are the notions of truth that are not obligatory and the opposite is possible. In this sense, the truth of ed-Din; It is possible to evaluate the conditions within the imagination of factual truth. Because they contradict each other and all claim absolute truth and universality. [5]

This shows that universality, which excludes the concept of anything other than itself, is actually a conceptual and subjective claim, since no state anywhere in the world has been truly universal in the sense of spreading over the entire surface of the globe from an objective point of view. What is meant by claims of universality is that they tell those living under their own regimes that they are worldwide.[6]

The same is true for differences in religion and sharia/methods. Because since the struggle between right and wrong will continue until the Day of Judgment, previous practices-shari'ahs will not abandon their claims of universality. For this reason, it is a reality that each of the Catholic (universal belief) and Orthodox (the only authentic teaching) sects are presented as an independent religion within the Christian Sharia (Christianity). But this conception of reality is not absolute truth, but factual truth. This shows that universality is asserted as a conceptual sovereignty claim. The same is true politically. The claim of universality and/or being a world state is one of the elements that imprison the dreams of states and are used as a tool for political domination.

Returning to the religious conceptions that we have been discussing, the fact that the laws, which are a part of "Original Truth" and "Eternal Wisdom", claiming absolute truth can actually be seen as an illusion. Since Islamic philosophers know this, they say that we will be grateful to anyone who brings us from the truth, but it does not mean that we will accept everything they say absolutely. But when the information they reach about the truth is brought together, it creates a great value. [7]

Here, we can say that each of these relative sages about God with the "pluralist design of universality" identifies their own representations of reality with truth, but being aware that it is a part of Him, it is a part of keeping the knowledge of good and beauty alive. And that depends on what we mean by religious or philosophical differences. Taking part in any religious/philosophical and intellectual tradition, working on mutual cooperation by a group of people, brings with it institutionalization with any culture. In this case, any basic interpretation of information, a clarification, criticism, and the process of taking into account neglected events leads one to be more inclusive. [8]

At this stage, let's try to understand the reason why religious differences, communities, societies and sects see their imagination as the only correct one. Because, if we tell from Muallim-i Sani Farabi, there is only one "school of truth". Philosophers who put forward views on this and those who form schools on their behalf (such as Platonist, Aristotelian, Epicurean and Stoic) refer to the names of the groups, in fact, they all constitute a single school of philosophy. We mentioned above that the same is true in the field of religion. In this case, it should not be forgotten that emphasizing the harmony between religious truth presentation and philosophical truth, dwelling on differences and misinterpreting them brings conflict and schism.[9]

The unity of truth from a philosophical point of view, and the unity of divine prophecies in religious terms, that is, Hz. Starting from Adam, we can talk about reconciliation instead of conflict, based on sending the same universal/universal principles to different tribes in different times and places in different languages. The prophets, who applied these principles by sending them down to earth through Gabriel, are the representatives of the rational truth as people who have caught the universal in their personalities. This is the right mind 

It is necessary to evaluate the interpretation styles as a pluralist universality design and to focus on the possibility of seeing it as factual truth. Those who can do this because of the relation of intension and scope are the Muslim scholars who have the last sharia/method. [10]“ For this, it is necessary to negotiate two terms used by those who see themselves as absolute truth and those who describe their opponents as heretics:

The Dilemma of Orthodoxy and Heteredoxy

The terms orthodoxy-heteredoxy do not refer to different religious traditions, but to differentiation within a particular religious tradition. Orthodoxy is the dominant and official view of the majority, a straight and authentic understanding of the scriptures, while heterodoxy/declaration is any interpretation other than this, and is characterized as the views of the minority and the opposition. It is the result of the demand that since the 4th-10th century AD, the scholars of the orthodox/Sunni fiqh sects have made authentic and self-contained interpretations of the verses and that every interpretation other than these should be seen as perversion, apocalypse, lie, corruption, signification (heteredoky). The dissemination of this is the alliance of the ummah on what is authentic and true; that is, it was done by saying that there was a consensus/consensus. Thus, a dominance was achieved against other political, creed and intellectual units (sects, sects).[11]

The doctrine presented as the authentic and the only truth (orthodoxy) is the one that wins out of the existing competing conceptions of "truth" and becomes the official doctrine. Conversely, it is one of the colliding orthodoxies that is declared a loser and a heterodoxy. In this respect, we can say that what is presented as superstitious and heterodoxy are also politically defeated Orthodoxies[12] If the so-called "Orthodox" "won", it would be declared "heteredoxy". Because what makes a religious attitude or position sound-correct is the political success of the interpretation behind it. Or doctrinal orthodoxy that establishes a superiority in the whole society by identifying itself with the dominant official power or by getting the political, military and economic support of the dominant power; Others express not only theological or religious difference, but also political and cultural difference, opposition, opposition, in short, heterodox. ”If we say this in general, it can be said that "all theological ideas have a political or social basis". The politically victorious one also writes his own "official history", ignoring the "opposition" and "oppositional" ideas that are the culture of his opponents, or presenting them as a marginal, minority culture disconnected from history and life. Therefore, unfortunately, it is thought that they deserve to be excluded and punished. But “when the events and developments that have taken place in the historical process are taken into account, there are different understandings about which of the beliefs and attitudes represent orthodoxy and which ones represent heterodoxy or heresy.”[13] However, the determination of any one of them depends on the existence of the other, and it is a holistic approach together in terms of action-reaction. evaluation is more consistent.[14] Because cultural heritage cannot be monistic by its nature, it has a pluralistic structure consisting of the concepts, indications, problematics, intellectual systems and mutual relations that the texts carry. Methods of studying it, research and reading styles (qira'at) and strategies are also pluralistic. The proof of this is Sunni; Whether it is a Shiite interpretation, there are strong political structures behind each one[15] and that there are many tafsir, hadith and fiqh books that express these interpretations. Of course, it is clear that the Shiite hadith corpus is different from the Sunni hadith corpus. The same thing is present in the historical conditions of the revelation (Esbabu'n-Nüzül), tafsir and narration books. Each of these belongs to a "path" such as Sunnism, Shia and Kharijite, and being described as heterodox by the "other" does not prevent him from presenting himself as Orthodox.[16] Because every way of thinking can be seen as irrational and inconsistent by another way of thinking that considers itself as “rational and consistent”.[17]

Presenting the Lifestyles of Divine Religions as a Pluralist Design of Universality

The information we have given so far is how different conceptions in the Islamic world can be seen as factual reality and presented in accordance with the term silm/peace away from conflict. This is an important problem for Muslims, especially today, where the Shiite-Salafi conflict has increased. As a close target, it should be on how the presentation of different religious conceptions in religious education in Turkey will be. Because when the religion of religious education in Turkey is mentioned, the religion of Islam and Hanafism as its dominant interpretation are understood.[18] The distant goal is to negotiate the possibility of presenting the religious visions of Muslims living here in the form of pluralistic universality. Because people try to construct their lives by interacting with various conceptions of God[19] in the same social environment.[20] Education, 

In the most general sense, since it is defined as all social processes that are effective in the individual's gaining the standards, beliefs and ways of living of the society,[21] the presentation of the divine design of God in the form of pluralistic universality gains particular importance here. This can only be achieved with the philosophy of education. Because the philosophy of education is related to the concepts, principles, beliefs and attitudes applied in education.[22] The problem we will address is the possibility of pluralistic universality presentations of various modes of application (sharia) of the Divine Religion, which were revealed to a certain people, in a certain language, at a certain time and place in history.

We will make this presentation on the basis of the difference between historicist/universal/universal understanding and historicist/particular/culturalist understanding styles. “Historicist/universal understanding style offers a linear understanding of progress as it mentions the existence of universal laws to be applied for historical explanations and unifying principles in terms of history. In this context, historicism presupposes an absolutist point of view, a homogenization. For this, he proposes a totalitarian and universalist style. Historicism, on the other hand, states that when examining data that once existed in history, which cannot be repeated, it is acted from a certain human point of view, different perspectives, different existences, and mentions that interpretations are not of the same value, and that there is an incommensurability between them. [23]

The questions to be answered in this context are:

Does each interpretation really agree with data from historical sources; Or is this being tried to be tested with additional and auxiliary hypotheses? Or is the implied understanding an extreme interpretation?
There are many art systems/styles, legal systems, constitutional systems, and forms of Religion in the world, and all of them claim to be "correct".[24] Among them, there is the issue of how to present the truth designs (sharahs) of the "Divine Religion" to people, which is more important because of the fact that it is "an appearance given by revelation behind every civilization" [25], which is related to our field. In short, what will be the general validity (universality) claims of the practices/shariahs of the "Divine Religion", which states that it gives its followers the basic principles that will be valid until the end of the day? Are these also a historicist teaching, or is God bracketed in historicist relativism?
Will it not bring about a “metaphysical systems anarchy” with its pluralistic design of universality?[26]

These questions are very important, as we have stated above, no religion has actually achieved universality. If we say this on a state basis, it is presented to those living under their own regimes as if they were worldwide. Therefore, the claim of conceptual sovereignty over the whole world has always been an illusion.”[27] What is the possibility of saying the same statement in terms of religious conceptions? Not in the current situation, because it can be deduced from this provision that the Divine Religions should abandon their claims that they represent the "Absolute Truth". In this case, "The Divine Religions, or rather the sharia and the sects within them, may talk about expressing their abandonment of the claims that they only represent the truth, rather than the claims of the Absolute Truth, with the concept of "pluralist universality".

Thus, it may be possible to overcome the problems posed by the totalitarian and universalist style of historicism. But this must be done without falling into the dead ends of an absolute relativism. The fact that dogmatics/styles/systems/paradigms have an "immanent logos" is an issue that needs to be emphasized in this respect. [28] With a reasonable/consistent cultural relativism, the criticism of "a parlor philosophy relativism" [29] can be met. Because if we try to interpret the data of other cultures and beliefs according to our own culture, the effort to "understand" becomes very difficult. In our opinion, it is possible to overcome this difficulty by putting a logical and consistent relativity at the center and seeing every culture/belief that is tried to be understood in its own antecedents and in its own context. Otherwise, understanding ed-Din and Sharia with a historicist and universalist historical design will trigger religious and sectarian conflicts.[30] In any case, it is impossible for historicist teaching to agree with Religion, because, in Popper's words, religion does not offer dreams to people, nor does it offer lottery tickets or insurance policies. Religion tells people to act voluntarily, to make a rational interpretation of history, and to be fully responsible for their actions. Thus, he emphasizes that man is a factor on the course of history.[31] If we want to act rationalistically in the world, we have to understand this flow. For this reason, it requires a critical look at the factors that shape the actions of people and everything in the light of all kinds of information. This urgent need makes moral philosophy a field of primary importance, apart from the value in itself of the discovery of the truth of human relations. [32]

As for the relevance of this conceptualization to historicist relativism, objectively, e

Claiming universality eliminates the concept of anything outside itself. However, when we look at the history of humanity, whether it is human (like socialism) that claims to be universal; we see that no religious system or state can (can) spread over the whole world because it cannot offer a universality that has been proven in knowledge and reached in action for all people. Therefore, their claim to be universal in an objective sense, as we mentioned above, actually includes a subjective attitude, because it claims that it is worldwide/universal to people living under their own system.[33]

For this reason, rather than a monist, totalitarian, imposing universality in the historical sense, it interprets (interprets) the data in historical sources or divine books within its own paradigm but does not allow excessive interpretations (tawil or batini readings), therefore polarization and schism in thought and action. We can talk about a pluralistic universality that we can call a competition of paradigms based on the recognition of differences rather than separation.

Necessity of Pluralist Universality Design:

Theoretically, our reasoning is this: Humanity needs unity, but the presence of a certain diversity in the dominant unity does not disturb the balance, on the contrary, the culture becomes richer because of it. ”[34]  The real reason is this. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) states that there can always be disagreements on religious issues in the society, and in such cases, the duty of the authority should not be to eliminate the conflict, but to ensure that the groups tolerate one another during the discussions. He states this point that public order can also be achieved by preserving pluralism. In other words, it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of different beliefs and to reject discrimination based on belief. In order to achieve this, the state must be neutral (secular) towards beliefs.[35] But here is one thing to note.

There is an implicit acceptance of the existence of beliefs in the public sphere when talking about the relationships between different beliefs. The problem that arises here is how would any constraint be? The Copenhagen Document (1990) states that everyone has the freedom of thought, religion and conscience, and this freedom includes the right to express their belief and worship in the public or private sphere, and that these freedoms can only be restricted in accordance with international criteria. The decision of the European court no. 5156/71 is about this.

The religious justification is: Since Adam, through different prophets in different times and places, the same basic principles have been sent to people in order to reach perfection and maturity in their worldly and hereafter lives. [36] Theoretical dimension (aqidah/Tawhid) is always the same, and the ways and methods (called sharia in religious terms) have always been different in putting them into practice. Ultimate Sacred Truth was perceived differently, and therefore experienced differently, and as a result acquired different content within the great religious traditions. In other words, the same Ultimate Sacred Truth can be reached from different forms of religious experience, beliefs, scriptures, rituals and lifestyles.[37] Therefore, in this sense, Religion is one and Hz. Moses, St. Jesus and St. It is used to include the sharia of Muhammad (pbuh). There is an intensity-extension relationship between them. Religion, more generally, is one's surrender to God, while Sharia is its reflection in practice. Religion, the real; Sharia is a road that leads to it. And “Religion” is one, it has not been changed, changed or changed, while the shariah(s) are various, altered and changed. In this sense, ed-Din and its data are the right of mind; Sharias, on the other hand, maintain their vitality as factual truths with the claims of universality to their followers. The purpose of every shari'ah is to make the religion of Haqq/Tawhid, the religion of which is rooted in human nature and nature, clearer and to be instrumental in its practice. In this context, the methods of all prophets (sharia/minhaç) are actually manifestations of the same religion. This must be why, as Abu Hanifa said,[38] none of the prophets ordered their own people to abandon the religion of the Messenger who came before him. On the other hand, every Rasul was inviting to his own shari'ah and forbade following the shari'ah of the previous Rasul. This is natural, because the shari'ahs of the Messengers are many and varied. For this reason, Allah says in the Qur'an, "We have appointed a law and a way for each of you. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one nation”. [39]

The Philosophical Reason is this: Regarding the claim of the Divine Religions that "only they represent the truth", it is possible to create a language of religion based on Leibniz's mental and factual correct understanding. The truth of reason is propositions whose truth can be determined a priori by reason alone, and it is impossible to think of their contradictions. Fact truths, on the other hand, can only be determined based on experience (a posteriori

are possible propositions. The truths of nature and human sciences are of this nature, and it is possible to think of their contradictions.[40]

Leibniz develops a philosophy of religion based on these determinations. The basic principle here is to understand God with the mind. There is a Religion of Reason; there is also the Factual/positive Religion. In the religion of reason, the existence of God is a truth of reason, so it is impossible to think of its contradiction or absence. Here is the illumination of Religion with reason. Factual/positive Religion is historical religion that is in reality. It is not based on reason, so it is possible to think of contradictions or different religious designs. As a matter of fact, Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Protestantism within Christianity is a reality, there is no point in ignoring them, because they are based on history, they have a value because they are based on fact. Since they were added to the religion of reason later, their defense of contradictory truths cannot harm the religion of reason.[41]

Rationale in terms of Islamic Philosophy: Ibn Rushd (1126-1198), who is the judge of the qadis and also one of the greatest commentators of Aristotle, discusses this issue in his pamphlet called "el-Keşf an Menahici'l-Edille", which is an addition to it. First of all, he explains the rationale for the different conceptions (sect/sect/community) within the Muhammadan shari'ah:

The Divine (Muhammadi) shari'ah that leads to happiness, which consists of knowing God and His creations, is the truth; but everyone can be different in confirming this point. Because people's natures are different, some (philosophers) are convinced by definitive proof (burhan), while others (theologians) confirm this reality with dialectics (cedel) and some (people) with good words (oratory/rhetorical).[42] This is a requirement of Allah's wisdom, which in the Qur'an addresses every class of people according to their level of understanding.

Despite these three ways of affirmation, some of the people may also deviate from the path of denial, and Ibn Rushdie explains the reason for previous sharia or other religious conceptions as follows: Despite the methods of burhan, cedel and eloquence, people who do not believe are incapable of comprehending the ways of reaching God.[43] Hz. Muhammad is the last representative of the divine religion sent to everyone. The difference of his Shari'a is that it includes all the ways of calling to Allah. Therefore, it is necessary to invite the unbelievers to this truth with wisdom (burhani method), good words (the way of the predecessors) and argue with them in the best way possible.[44]

In this fiction of Ibn Rushd, "the late Neo-Platonist view that says the unity of truth in all its manifestations" has an intense effect. This is natural because it was the only logical method by which Islamic philosophers, who tried to explain the philosophy-religion relationship at that time, could justify their philosophical preoccupations, appease the theologians, and satisfy the mind's longing for inner harmony.[45] When the Hellenistic culture coming from the Alexandria line is examined in this context, it can be focused on the apparent/external aspects that separate the "Truth That Is One" from each other and a common/transcendent point between them.

At this point, the fact that the Truth is one does not prevent the messengers who declared it and the revelations they brought from being many. Because while Truth is beyond all forms, Revelation, by definition, originates from Truth and belongs to the formal order. Form here means diversity and pluralism. Therefore, in a place that gains form, there is multiplicity, repetition and number. As a matter of fact, humanity has been divided into different and more or less introverted human communities since its existence. These different spiritual communities that exist are reflections of the One Truth. The fact that those who claim the unique and absolute/universal truth cannot escape from subjectivity means that each of the Revelations accepts itself as universal and rejects the others, in fact, the explanation of absoluteness and universality belongs to the content, not the form. The form is a symbol of the content and the humanity that is the addressee of this content. Attributing absoluteness to it is a culturally relative situation. However, God does not welcome revelations from outside like a scientist; it keeps itself at the center of every Revelation. Revelation uses absolute language because God is absolute, not form. In other words, the absoluteness of Revelation is in itself, relative in form. Because of this relativism, people can believe in different revelations, whether they want to live in the atmosphere of the last divine revelation. This is probably why, since the earliest times (for example, Yahya en Nahvi), many scholars did not become Muslims and adopted a different/previous revelation, even though they had very good knowledge and were rulers at the upper levels of Muslim states.[46]

Instead of Conclusion: The concept of “plural or recurrent universalism” can break this paradox. Because this sample shows that the truth of each cannot be communicated to the other. In other words, there is a common code in the real and universal sense. It is a universal universal issue that embraces the plurality of differences, and these differences have accepted each other as they are. 

With the repetitive/pluralist understanding of universalism, it is acknowledged that other people are as moral producers as we are and make important contributions. A universal ethics centered on Ed-Din and the right to difference based on sharia are not seen as contradictions/antinomies.[47] This is seen as shar'u men kablena by the Mohammedan shari'ah. [48] ​​Because different religions, or rather, sharia, which are different practices of the same religion, are carriers who know that the universal relationship is rooted in a language or the characteristics of a tradition.

Since Allah sent different shari'ahs in different times and places and always emphasized the same principles (Tawhid-Nubuvvet-Mead), Islam, as their common name, is only the renewer, reviver or restorative of the eternal/universal message that has been repeated many times by many prophets. presents as. That is why they do not accept any pressure on anyone in matters of belief, they have accepted the recognition of non-Muslims' autonomy, and that they be tried in their own courts according to their own principles in religious and social matters, without the intervention of Muslim authorities. [49]

Understanding these is not possible purely theoretically[50], it can only be possible by understanding the Unity of Divine Scriptures as an inner knowledge. Because common values ​​are metaphorical. Universality can only be achieved through metaphors specific to a language, a culture, a history, a context.[51]

* This text is organized by Timav, “International Religious Studies and Global Peace Symposium, Bosnia and Herzegovina Sarajevo. 19-21 May 2016” was presented.

* M.G.S.Hodgson, The Adventure of Islam: Consciousness and History in a World Civilization, spring.hz.M.Karabaşoğlu, Trace spring.istanbul.1993, c.2, p.1

RESOURCES

[1] “This point of view is the Ikhwan-i Safa movement, which spread for the first time in the history of Islamic Philosophy in the 10th century. Later, the principle of unity of truth was accepted by Kindi, Farabi, Ibn Sina and the whole ishraqi tradition. For example, Suhrawardi and Shirazi especially emphasize their belief in the Unity of Truth, which is transmitted in an unbroken line from Adam to Abraham, Greeks, Islamic Sufis and Philosophers. See. Macid Fahri, History of Islamic Philosophy, trans. Kasım Turhan, Climate spring. Istanbul.1987, p.218,242. For the modern version of this viewpoint, see Frithjof Schuon, “Modern Science, Objectivity-Subjectivity” p.112, “Diversity of Revelation” pp.123-124, “Form and Substance in Religions” pp.127-129. Existence, Knowledge and Religion”, in the collection. Compiled and translated by Şahabeddin Yalçın, Insan spring. Istanbul.1997,

[2] Nuri Bilgin, The Problem of Identity at the Crossroads of Social Sciences, File publishing, İzmir, 1994, p. 35. Otherwise, each one claims that he alone has reached the universal, and denying interaction by opposing the claims of others in this direction, or denying that a single truth has different designs in different times and places carries the handicaps of universal nationalism in the final analysis.

[3] Bilgin, supra p.36-39

[4] Nuri Bilgin, ibid, p. 250, 253

[5] UYANIK Mevlüt,  Principles of Islamic Belief, Ankara.1997, pp.9-10, For the opinions of Mahmut Şeltut and Hamdi Yazır on the subject, see. Same work, pp.20-24; a.mlf, A Call to Philosophical Thought, Elis publishing house. Ankara. 2013, p.50

[6] Toynbee, Arnold, History Consciousness, (A Study of History) Bates spring, Istanbul. 1978, vol.2, p.296; UYANIK Mevlüt, Criticism of the Islamic Mind and Ijtihad: The Example of Muhammad Arkun- Historical and Universal Recitation of the Qur'an (with K.Hamdi Okur) Fecr. Arrow. Ankara. 2012, p.186-187

[7] Kindi, On the First Philosophy, Kitab Fi Philosophy'l-Ula, Kindi: Philosophical Treatises, trans. M.Kaya, Iz spring. Istanbul.1994, p.1-2

[8]  Randal, Johne-Herman, Buchler, Justus Jr. Introduction to Philosophy, trans. A. Arslan, Izmir. 1989, p.19.

[9] İbrahim Medkur, Farabi, (trans. Osman Bilen) History of Islamic Thought, edit. M.M.Sherif, Human spring.Istanbul.1990, vol.3, pp.74-75

[10] Mevlüt Uyanık, The Problem of Historicity and Universality in Contemporary Islamic Thought, Historical and Universal Reading of the Qur'an (with K.Hamdi Okur) Fecr. Arrow. Ankara. 2012, pp.133-180, a.mlf, The Traditionalist Movement and the Idea of ​​Progress, Religion Between Modernism and Traditionalism,

Syllable Publishing House, Editor: Samil Öçal, Cevat Özyürt. Ankara. 2014, pp.127-152

[11] Ayanık, Critique of Islamic Reason, p. 199; "It is interesting that the method determined by both the modernist and the Salafists to prevent the bigotry dominating the jurisprudence and theological sects and the consequent division of Muslims into sects is "return to the Qur'an". Modernists and predecessors, who agree on the restatement of religion, disagreed on the position of ijma because modernists are opposed to ijma being the basis for most of the law. According to Salafis, this is a wrong judgment. They say this because they do not know the Qur'an and Sunnah enough." See. M. Uyanık, The Concept of Opposite Ideas in the Islamic Akaid, A.Ü.S.B.E, (Unpublished master's thesis). Ankara. 1988. Concluding section

[12] For example, Mabed el-Cuheni, who interpreted the verses in Islamic thought by centered on rational principl

(d.80-699); Ca'd b. Dirham (d.24-742), Cehm b. Readings based on Safwan (ö.128-745-6) can be looked at. See. Yusuf Şevki Yavuz, Innovative Movement in Islam and Science of Kalam, Happy Birthday Week. 20-22 April.1996 Statement. cf. Bekir Topaloğlu, Theology, Introduction, Damla Publishing House, Istanbul.1994;p.20; A. S. Triton, The Word of Islam, trans. M. Mountain A.U.I.F.Ankara. 1983, p.21, Izutsu, Toshihiko, The Qur'an, God and Man, trans. S.Ateş, Ankara. ty. Kevser bow. p.124

[13] Watt, Montgormery, Islamic Studies, Islamic Philosophy and Theology, trans.S.Ateş, Ankara.1968, p.15 Şinasi Gündüz, (ed) Living World Religions, DIB, Ankara.2007. Introduction, p.19-26

[14] Muhammad Abid Jabiri The Formation of the Arab Mind, trans. I. Akbaba, Istanbul. 1997, p.10

[15] In this context,

The Sunni branch of Islam: the identity of internal forces mandating routinized, stable and rationally established authority institutions within Islamic political culture;
The Shiite branch of Islam: The general identity of the forces within the religion that sought to perpetuate the important charismatic social experience felt and experienced during the life of our Prophet;
External branch of Islam: We can also see it as a general term that expresses the forces that are equally present in the Muslim consciousness and that all mankind, male and female, strive to keep the Muhammadan divine message true to its originality.

It would be more coherent if we could look at these three frames of reference as the state of mind, the mode of power, the mode of authority, or the interpretation of the Muhammadan charismatic experience as constituting the common paradigms of social action in which the history of Islam finds expression. Dabashi Hamid, Authority in Islam, trans. S.E. Daytime. Istanbul. 1995, pp. 242-244.

[16] Dabashi, supra, p.118 et al., Gündüz, agd, Introduction, pp.25-27. Shi'ism, which Sunnism declares as heterodox, does not give up on its thesis that it is orthodoxy, that is, the only authentic belief. Moreover, the place of jurists, commentators and clergy in this teaching is still indisputable. For the most obvious example that they do not recognize the right to life for alternative ideas within their own paradigm, see. Al-Macelle, 27 June-3 July, 1993. No:698, pp.44-45, Awake, Critique of Islamic Mind, pp.199-203

[17] Eco, Umberto, Interpretation and Extreme Interpretation, trans. Atalay, Istanbul. 1996, p.34

[18] Kerim Yavuz,  Religious Education Today, Adana. 1998, p. 67; Nevzat Y.Aşıkoğlu, "A New Method Proposal for Teaching the Qur'an and Hadith", New Approaches in Religious Education, MEB, Istanbul.2000, p.41.

[19] See. Religious Education Report, Pub. S.H.Bolay and M.Turkone, Ankara. 1995, pp.11-12

[20]  İbrahim E.Basaran, Educational Psychology,  Ankara. 1985, p.18-19

[21] Nurettin Fidan, Learning and Teaching at School, Arkım spring. Ankara. 1996, pp.8, 11-13, Nurettin Fidan, Münire Erden, Introduction to Education, pp,12, 18, Hasan Çelikkaya, Introduction to Education, 42

[22] Mustafa Ergün, Educational Philosophy, 15, Hıfzı Doğan , ibid, p. 38, It is a well-known issue how difficult it is to determine a definition of religion and the content of religion in a way that will convince everyone and every adherent of religion, especially when it comes to belief. For the place of this point and the concept of understanding in religious education, see Kerim Yavuz, Religious Education Today, p.45, 67 Mualla Selçuk, "Theoretical Foundations of Religious Education" New Approaches in Religious Education, MEB, Istanbul.2000, p.11-12

[23] Mevlüt Uyanık, A Call to Philosophical Thought, Ankara.2012, pp.164-166

[24] Erich Rothacker, The Problem of Historicism, trans. Dogan Ozlem, Gundogan spring. Ankara.1995 p.43, cf. Mevlüt Uyanık, Islamization of Knowledge and Contemporary Islamic Thought, Ankara School spring. Ankara.1999, pp.67-68, “The Problem of Historicity and Universality in Contemporary Islamic Thought”, pp.157-162. For an examination of this issue in the context of respect for thought in Religious Education, see. Mualla Selcuk, ibid, p.16

[25] Arnold Toynbee, History Consciousness, (a study of History) Bates ed. Istanbul.1978, volume.1, p.45

[26] Erich Rothacker, The Problem of Historicism, 43

[27] Arnold Toynbee, History Consciousness, Bates ed. Istanbul.1978, c.1, p.296

[28] This point should definitely not be overlooked, because historicism also has an “immanent logos” and in this sense, logic is connected to logic; logos is not relative to logos. However, the point that should be mentioned here is not the non-relativistic-formal validity of logic, but the fact that each dogmatic has its own unique and "immanent logos" with its own premises/axioms. See. Erich Rothacker, The Problem of Historicism, trans. Dogan Ozlem, Gundogan spring. Ankara.1995, p.65

[29] What Dawkins calls “hall philosophy” is an extreme cultural relativism, saying that science cannot claim to know the truth any more than tribal myths. See. Richard Dawkins, Darwinian Perspective on Life: Heaven's Flowing River, Being spring. trans. Sinem Gul, Istanbul.1996, pp.39-40

[30] Mevlüt Uyanık, Neo-Salafi Doctrine as the Element Feeding Islamphobia in the World - Mental Analysis for a Peaceful World Coexistence - 8th İcapa Conference. 30 April-03 May.2015. Isparta Isparta-Istanbul-Seuol 2015, pp.287-303

[31] Karl Popper, Open Society and Its Enemies Volume 2.Harun Rızatepe, Remzi spring. 3rd edition. Istanbul.1994, p.243

[32]  Isaiah Berlin, “On the Search for the Ideal,” Liberal 

Thought Journal,  Fall.1998, p.12, 94.

[33] H.G.Wells, The Outline of History, trans. Delegation, Istanbul.1928, Ministry of Education, Vol.2, p.296, cf. Doğan Özlem, "Historicity and the Republic" The World of Philosophy,.1998-2, p.28, p.6

[34] Arnold Toynbee, History Consciousness, vol.2, p.470

[35] See. Religious Education Report, p.97

[36] K.K; Baccarat, 213; Maide, 44; p.6

[37] K.K.; Baccarat, 213; Maide, 44; p.6; Mevlüt Uyanık, The Principles of Belief in Islam, Ankara.1997, pp.122-130; Adnan Aslan, “Religions and the Concept of Absolute Truth: An Interview with John Hick and S.Hüseyin Nasr”, ISAM, Islamic Studies Journal, p.1, istanbul.1997, p.176

[38] Abu Hanife, "al-Alim ve'l-Muteallim", Five Works of Imam-i Azam, trans. Mustafa Oz, Istanbul.1992, p.12

[39] K.K., Maide/48 see also. Council/13; Enbiya/25;

[40] See. Teo Grunberg, “Logic and Reality” Turkey I. Philosophy, Logic and History of Science Symposium Proceedings, Country spring. Ankara.1991, pp.233-234; Awake, A Call to Philosophical Thought, pp.49-50

[41] See. Macit Gökberk, History of Philosophy, Remzi spring. Istanbul.1980, p.320

[42] There are five arts related to the method of using analogy in presenting an idea to the addressee perfectly and in the process of requesting approval. These; burhan, cedeli, sofistai, hatabi and poetry. See. Ebu Nasr al-Farabi, Ihsau'l-Ilim, cev. Ahmet Ateş, İstanbul.1990, pp.79-85

[43] Ebu'l-Valid Muhammed b. Ahmed b. Rushd; Kitabu  Fasli'l-makal ve tagrır ma beyne'ş-şeriati ve'l-hikmeti mine'l-ittisal, trans. Bekir Karlık, Bow sign. For the translation of Istanbul.1992, p.74, Nevzat Ayasbeyoğlu, see Izmirli İ.Hakkı, Philosophical Movements in Islam, ed. A.N.Özalp, Bookstore, Istanbul.1995, p.341, ing. George F. Hourani, Averroes, On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy London.1967, p.49

[44] Ibn Rushd; Kitab Faslu'l-makal, p.75, 16/125 verse is based on this issue.

[45] Macit Fahri, History of Islamic Philosophy, trans. Kasım Turhan, Climate spring. Istanbul.1987, p.218

[46] “This point of view is the Ikhwan-i Safa movement, which spread for the first time in the history of Islamic Philosophy in the 10th century. Later, the principle of unity of truth was accepted by Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and the whole Ishraqi tradition. For example, Suhrawardi and Shirazi especially emphasize their belief in the Unity of Truth, which is transmitted in an unbroken line from Adam to Abraham, the Greeks, Islamic Sufis and Philosophers. See. Macid Fahri, ibid, p.218,242. For the modern version of this viewpoint, see Frithjof Schuon, “Modern Science, Objectivity-Subjectivity”p.112, “Diversity of Revelation” pp.123-124, “Form and Substance in Religions” pp.127-129. Existence, Knowledge and Religion”, in the collection. Compiled and translated by Şahabeddin Yalçın, Insan spring. Istanbul.1997,

[47] Nuri Bilgin, Identity Problem at the Crossroads of Social Sciences, Ege univ. Izmir.1994; 35-.39; 250,253

[48] With this conceptualization, first of all, it is discussed how long the sharia of a prophet preserved its validity, and from this point of view, Hz. Information is given about the attitudes and grounds of those who do not have any evidence that they were abrogated from the provisions communicated to the prophets before the Prophet Muhammad, whether they are binding on him and his ummah or not. İbrahim Kafi Dönmez, Shar‘u prohibition kablena article, TDV vol: 39; page: 16; http://www.islamancyclopedisi.info/dia/ayrmetin.php?idno=390016

[49] See. Muhammed Hamidullah, Introduction to Islam, TDV, trans. Cemal Aydın, Ankara.1998, pp.72-73. cf. Mevlüt Uyanık, The Principles of Belief in Islam, Ankara.1997, 122-130

[50] Read the above example of Yahya en Nahvi in ​​this context.” Frithjof Schuon, "Form and Substance in Religions" Being, Knowledge and Religion" Sahabeddin Yalçın, Human spring. Istanbul.1997, pp.127-129.

[51] The emphasis on metaphor lies in the fact that it has more power than clear expression, and therefore, it enriches the imagination and imagination possibilities of the reader and listener of the text. Metaphor, in the sense of the term, as previously stated in Ibn Rushd's classical text, in the modern sense, is to use a word out of its own meaning with the interest of similarity, provided that there is an occasional hint. This mental movement of meaning fascinates the reader to the extent that it reaches the goal in surprising ways. Metaphor is a transformation in nature, it is a natural product of language before being a word belonging to expression. It is leaving the meaning of the word to another word. The text is decoded by means of clues/traces related to the text. Edibe Sözen, Discourse,-Uncertainty, Exchange, Knowledge/Power and Reflexivity, Paradigm spring. Istanbul. p.58

es and was described as the first innovative movements.