Arap Tarihi Notları
Albert Hourani'nin A History of the Arab Peoples kitabını okuyorum. Hz. Peygamber'in doğumundan başlayıp, modern zamanlara kadar Arap tarihini anlatıyor. Hourani Lübnanlı bir Hristiyan aileden olduğu halde, hemen hemen İslam tarihi demek olan bu hikayeyi gayet güzel bir dille aktarıyor.
Ufak tefek notlar aldım, kitapta çizili olarak kalsınlar istemiyorum. Tercüme edecek de zamanım yok, şimdilik aldığım haliyle kalacaklar. Kalın vurgular benim, italik vurgular kitaptan.
According to this estimate, by the end of the Umayyad perio (that is to say, in the middle years of the second Islamic and eighth Christian century) **less than 10 percent** of the population of Iran and Iraq, Syria and Egypt, Tunisia and Spain was Muslim, although the proportion must have been much greater in the Arabian peninsula. (p. 46) By the end of fourth Islamic century [...] the picture had changed. A large part of the population had become Muslim. Not only the townspeople, but a considerable number of the rural people had converted. One reason for this may have been that Islam had become more clearly defined, and the line between Muslims and non Muslims more sharply drawn. (p. 47) Arab tribe of *Banu Kalb* (p. 51) al-Biruni['s ...] \\\ :sub:`Tahqiq` ma li'l-Hind (History of India) is perhaps the greatest sustained attempt by a Muslim writer to go beyond the world of Islam and appropriate what was of value in another cultural tradition. His work is not a polemic, as he himself makes clear in his foreword: This is not a book of controversy and debate, putting forward the arguments of an opponent and distinguishing what is false in them from what is true. It is a straightforward account, giving the statements of Hindus and adding to them what the Greeks have said of similar subjects, so as to make a comparison between them. Indian religious and philosophical though is depicted at its best. Since we are describing what there is in India, we mention their superstitions, but we should point out that these are matter for the common people only. Those who follow the way of salvation or the path of reason and argument, and who want the truth, would avoid worshipping anyone except God alone, or any graven image of him. [...] The Indians in our time make numerous distinctions among human beings. We differ from them in this, for we regard all men as equal except in piety. This is the greatest barrier between them and Islam. (p. 54) [Sunnis] came to accept all four of the first caliphs asn legitimate, and as virtuous or rightly guided (*rashidun*); later caliphs might not always have acted justly, but they should be accepted as legitimate so long as they did not go against the basic commandments of God. [...] It was widely accepted that [caliph] should be descended from the tribe of Quraysh, to which the Prophet had belonged. (p. 61) Since the world could not exist without an *imam*, it was believed [by Shiis] that the twelfth one had not died but was still living, in occlusion. (*ghayba*). (p.61) [Ibn Hanbal says] if the Qur'an ascribes attributes to Him, they must be accepted as divide attributes, not on the analogy of human ones and without asking how they inhere in Him. (p. 64) al-Ashari (d. 935) held to the literal interpretation of the Qur'an, by maintained that it could be justified by reason, at least up to a certain point, and beyond that point it must simply be accepted. God was One; His attributes were part of His essence ; they were not God, but they were not other than God. (p. 65) In Ash'ari's though there is an emphasis on the imprtance of not quarrelling in religion and also of accepting the rule of the *imam* or caliph and not revolting against it with the sword. (p. 65) [About *sunna* of the prophet and the community:] At first the *sunna* of the community had been the more important of the two. (p. 70) Ibn Abi Usaybi'a reproduced in full the Hippocratic oath of Greek doctors, 'I swear by God, Lord of life and death ... and I swear by Asclepius, and I swear by all the saints of God ...' (p. 77) [On philosophy and religion] Abu Bakr al-Razi (865-925) answered such questions in an unequivocal way. Human reason alone could give certain knowledge, the path of philosophy was open to all uses, the claims of revelation were false and religions were dangerous. (p. 78)