Search

The issue of al-jam’ wa al-tafrīq [combining and differentiating] first became apparent early on, with the very beginning of the genre of rijāl al-hadith, being the study of hadith narrators. Within chains of hadith narrations, one finds many narrators who share the same name. More specifically, two narrators may have the same first name and father’s name, first name and family name, first name and kunya [honorific], or the like. This problem appeared so frequently that scholars who’ve tackled it over the years first dedicated specific terminology to this, al-muttafiq wa al-muftariq [the alike and the unalike], and then built a whole sub-genre dedicated to this under the broader field of hadith studies. Just as this issue appears in all books dedicated to the study of hadith narrators, it also is a frequent question in books more narrowly focused on the biographies of the Sahaba, the companions of the Prophet Muhammad. This study aims to give careful consideration to this issue of al-jam’ wa al-tafrīq in books dedicated to the Sahaba specifically. It uncovers the perceptiveness of the authors of this genre and the particular attention they paid to solving this matter, both in theory and in practice. This study further aims to identify their tendencies toward either narrowing or expanding, such as whether they tended to consider narrators with shared names as a single individual or as separate individuals, and to evaluate the efficacy of their approaches toward resolving this issue. The article begins with Ibn Manda and Abu Nu’aym, moves on to Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, and ends with Ibn al-Athīr and Ibn Hajar. Beyond tracing the history of this issue and its development through books dedicated to the Sahaba, this paper will identify the various ways these authors addressed companions with shared names and will evaluate the effectiveness of their perspectives. The article then ends by offering critical suggestions to refine the methodology currently used when approaching this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Varied repositories of international literature attend to Juha’s anecdotes as an aspect of collective memory and as national symbols appropriated by their cultures. The reality-mocking humorous situations and philosophical distinctiveness of the anecdotes permeated the fabric of popular culture. The stories were also incorporated into varied rhetorical forms such as novels, children’s fiction, cartoons, proverbs, and folk tales. This study accords due recognition to the importance and stability of this figure in the popular culture of Arabs and Turks, adopting Juha as a subject for study, analysis, and comparison in Arabic and Turkish literature. It comparatively investigates the literary figure of Juha in Arabic literature as a central character of the Arab and Turkish cultures. From the comparative perspective, this literary study encompasses Juha’s presence as an effective and influential character in the Arab and Turkish works of literature. It probes the circulation of anecdotes related to Juha in the literary, cultural, and social contexts of Arabs and Turks, and examines the growing employment of Juha tales in multiple literary genres. Despite the historical precedence of the Arab Juha, Nasr al-Din Khoja al-Turki’s features distinguished him from the Arab Juha in aspects including the themes of anecdotes, the places of their occurrence, the personalities who contributed to the event, and the formulation and presentation of the overall vision. The paper is arranged in three sections. Initially, it introduces the characters of Juha Al-Arabi and Nasr Al-Din Khoja Al-Turki and references Arab and Turkish sources to outline their histories. Second, it delves into the structure of anecdotes: the characters, their natures, the roles they discharge in the narrative exposition, and how they interact with events as protagonists producing linguistic signs and ideas. The paradox is familiar. This section of the paper also focuses on the locational structure of the anecdotes, the aesthetics of the place, and how it functions to advance events. The element of time is also analyzed, demonstrating the temporal aspects of the development of events and the representation of the historical stages at which the anecdotes occurred. The third section presents the similarities and differences between the Arab and Turkish anecdotes and the ways in which the accounts are represented in Arabic and Turkish literature. Finally, the paper concludes by iterating the study’s most significant results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, the importance of waqf (endowment) has emerged with increasing global interest in sustainable development. The revival of cash waqf as one of the most important types of waqf, as well as the advent of new uses, have resulted in the formation of new Fiqh (juristic) difficulties. This is due to the flexibility and efficiency of cash waqf in mobilizing financial resources for Islamic countries’ economic and social development programs. This paper discusses the importance of the juristic issues arising from waqf sukuk (bonds). These issues are zakat, rahn (collateral), and the exchange of waqf sukuk. The paper concludes that zakat is not obligatory on permanent and temporary waqf sukuk, neither on the waqf founder (sukuk holder) nor on the beneficiaries. A distinction is made between debt and qard in regard to the obligation of zakat on the creditor in debt but not in qard. The exchange of sukuk sukuk is discussed in light of juristic disagreement in replacing the waqf asset, adopting permissibility within the Shariah guidelines and precautions. Finally, this paper adopts the impossibility of using waqf sukuk as collateral by the sukuk holder in order to safeguard the waqf asset. This study, on the other hand, waqf sukuk accepts the permissibility in analogy to the permissibility of mortgaging the debt for the benefit of a third party other than the debtor, by using the temporary waqf sukuk as collateral by the sukuk holder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to present a syllabus of the Language Proficiency course in terms of objectives, teaching plan, activities, and suggested references. This paper responds to the growing interest in proficiency frameworks. As a result of the proficiency literature revision, the research determined that there are three main dimensions to consider. The first is the terminology of the field that has been tainted by ambiguity and confusion over the past 70 years. The second dimension of this topic is that existing proficiency models reflect their individual authors’ concepts regarding what humans need to understand and communicate in language, too closely. The third dimension is the framework that emerged in response to the need of foreign and second language stakeholders for standard scales to measure individuals’ language proficiency. Those frameworks have become numerous over the past seven decades, and each was developed to work best in a specific context. There are also calls to develop a scale for Arabic that befits the language and those who speak it. This paper has attempted to contribute to deepening the understanding of the issue of proficiency and its models and frameworks among those interested, by proposing a detailed conceptualization of a course to be taught in graduate programs concerned with qualifying researchers and experts in our field of teaching Arabic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study sheds a light on one of the common issues between hadith (narration) and jurisprudence (fiqh) sciences, which is the method used by scholars to prevent the conflict between the textual evidence (religious texts). The books of jurisprudence principles (Usul al-fiqh) and narration principles (Usul al-hadith) mention the existence of two approaches of scholars regarding this issue: Muhaddith's (narrator's) and majority of principalist's (Usuli's) approach and Hanafi's approach, and both can be traced back to their origins in the school of people of Ra'y (school of opinionists) and the school of people of hadith (school of narrationists). This paper assumes that the common method known to be used by Hanafis to resolve the conflict between texts by Naskh (Abrogation), Tarjih (Preponderance) and then Jam' (Combining) is not the correct method expressed by the scholars of this school or the school of Ahl Alra'y (opinionists) since it is a dubious order controversing the principles of that school and the texts of the school founders. It also assumes that the correct order cannot be known without studying their school's origins and order of evidence. Al-'Awnī addressed this issue as well, and he claimed that the Hanafis' approach is consistent with the approach of Muhaddithin (narrationists) upon discrepancies where they do the opposite by starting with Jam' (Combining), then Tarjih (Preponderance) if they could not resolve it, and finally Naskh (Abrogation) comes if any of the previous two approaches could not resolve these discrepancies. This study aims to critically analyse the study paper of al-'Awnī' and explain (the agreements and the disagreements between the two studies), before presenting a method that fits the statements of the Hanafī scholars in resolving the discrepancies between texts. The study agrees with what al-'Awnī' has stated aboutthe delaying the Naskh (Abrogation), but it disagrees with its statement that the Tarjih (Preponderance) succeed the Jam' (Combining) by Hanafis. Therefore, the proposed order is Tarjih (Preponderance), Jam' (Combining), and then Naskh (Abrogation), and this study explains the appropriate evidence to support this claim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]