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

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)