YENİÇERİ PERİYODİK SOSYAL BİLİMLER AKADEMİK ARAŞTIRMA DERGİSİ PERIODICAL ACADEMICAL RESEARCH ON SOCIAL SCIENCES

 Yeniçeri Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi / Journal Of Social Sciences,C.1,S.1,2009

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Murat Ağarı

Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi

Abstract

In this article, we will initially introduce how quality has been understood up till now. And then we want to give how it must be understood for historical understanding and solutions of historical problems. While analyses quality, we will use some grammatical arguments to give the definite determination of the subject.

Key Words: Quality, Historical Approach, Grammatical Elements

I. Introduction

Quality gives us the peculiarities of any object, which can be seen every where. But usually we evaluate it as adjective. I is because we perceive the quality from the objects and their appearance in any language is an adjective. When we look at any dictionary to learn what adjective means, we usually read those lines: Position or peculiarity according to the juridical and social structure; work and obligation of somebody; face, cloth and outward appearance; a word, describing a noun from the points of quality, quantity, place, order and so on…[1]

We can see that there are a lot of meanings of adjective after looking at a dictionary. All these meanings are around of quality. In other words, it can be said that quality is the basic meaning of this word. So, we will especially take into account this meaning and set up central structure of the article on this meaning.

II. Noun

Before focusing on adjective, we must firstly give some basic grammatical elements. These elements are noun and verb. We can simply say about noun that it is the name of the things. In other words, it is the name of the objects. This simple definition is known by everybody and it is usually same at every language. We are going to use this element in this article according to the two perspectives:

1. Did its definition and perception change among the periods of Adam (first prophet), Muhammad (last prophet) and 21.th century’s people?

2. In general understanding, how must it be evaluated apart from its simple meaning?

While beginning, it must be given how Adam learned the names of the objects, he first met when he was created. Koran gives us detailed information about this subject:  “And he taught Adam all the names, showed them to the angels, saying: Inform me of the names of these, if you are truthful.”[2] We are learning from this verse of Koran that Adam is a person who was taught by the God. It is generally known that there weren’t so many objects like ones we have met today; but it must certainly be taken into consideration that quantity of the object is not important at this period of the history. It is important whether Adam knows or doesn’t know the names of the objects. In other words, when human being (especially Adam) doesn’t know the names, the quantity of these objects does not matter him.

III. Verb

After the names, there is another important thing in the life of the human being: Verb. Like names, basic verbs may have to be taught to the human being. As we apply to the noun, let’s look at Koran. In a verse of Koran, the God says: “Recite into them with truth the tale of the two son of Adam, how they offered each a sacrifice, and it was accepted from the one of them and it was not accepted from the other. (The one) said: I will surely kill you. (The other) answered: Allah accepts only from those who ward off (evil). Even if you stretch out your hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand to kill you. I fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. I would rather you should bear the punishment of the sin against me and thin own sin and become one of the owners of the Fire. That is the reward of evil-doers. But (the other’s) mind imposed on him the killing of his brother, so he slew him and became the one of the losers. Then Allah sent a raven starching up the ground, to show him how to hide his brothers naked corpse. He said: Woe in to me! Am I able to be as this raven and so hide my brother’s naked corpse? And he became repentant.”[3]   

We understand from this verse of Koran that the son of Adam didn’t know “hiding action” and this action were thought by the God through a raven. If it hadn’t been taught, could he have learned this action? We think he couldn’t. But, let’s think he could learn. Then, we think, it must have continued along time.

IV. Quality and Adjective

After we set up the initial formation, that is, the names of the objects and verbs(actions) were taught by the God, we can assess the importance of the quality. It is an isochronal action that together with the names, he was taught the quality. That is, when the names of the objects were taught, at the same time, it was taught how they would be used. Hence, frame of the life has been set up by these three arguments. They are the frame of the world, at the same time, of thinking, improvement and development.

Now we can deeply take into consideration the quantity of the objects. Quantity is usually known as the “adjective”. This name is a common name of quantity, and so they can be used each other. We meet every where two types of adjectives:

- Contrastive adjectives,

 - Active or passive adjectives

The first group determines the frame of the world. In other words, these are theological adjectives and seems us as two types; such as good/bad; short/tall; deep/high or thin/thick. Human intellect is far from creating these quantities, because they are present in the meaning of the world and life. Here we must certainly take into account, although it has been perceived by us as two types, that quantity has not two different ends. For example, we say short and tall. At the first glance, it seems us there are two different quantities. Bu in reality they are same. In other words, the God did not create two different quality or adjective. Unlike, he created only one sort of quality. In our example, it is length. Some body perceives the length as short, but the others can perceive it as short. But in reality they are same.

The second group of the adjective is activity and passivity. They are created by human being. If we simply evaluate them, we can see the difference between them. For example, when we carefully examine, we see that the origin of first group adjectives are neither noun nor verb. They are originally nouns in every language, such as long and short. But the origins of the second group adjectives are verbs. For example, in English, painting/painted, interesting/interested, boring/bored. They qualify the names such as “painting man” or “painted wall.” There is a orderliness in the second group of adjectives. This perspective shows they are formed by human being. It is because orderliness is a peculiarity of human being. Briefly, it can be said that the quality, created by the God, gives us the opposition but the quality, formed by human being, gives direct or indirect position.

At final position of the first chapter, we can say that there are three different arguments created by the God. They are nouns, verbs (actions) and the quality.

V.  Mind and Quality

When generally forming the frame of the article, we used there different arguments cited above. But, while evaluating the quality, the fourth argument has been appeared: mind. This mind is the intellect, existing in human being. This point is an important climax because these arguments obtain their meaningful position with the existence of the mind.

Some basic and important account can be given here. For example, every human being has an intellect which gives him a power to live in the world. And so, Adam is the first person to use this intellect. We said above that the names of the things were taught to Adam. This was an essential action for human being and his history. After this first action, human being dealt with two arguments: Nouns (taught by   the God), verbs (actions/related to the nouns). But while evaluating them, he perceived these two things from opposite angles such as good or bad, easy or difficult. The God had created the only goodness or the only easiness although he assessed them from two perspectives. That is general appearance of the life.

Meanwhile, we should briefly cite something about the relation among them. The quantity is related to how he would use the taught names and verbs. While he has the ability, which gives him the opportunity to see the opposition ends of the quality, the most important question is that: How would he adjust his position according to the real meaning of the quality?

The answer of this question would introduce us the meaningful explanation of the prophetic post. But our subject is not so. Prophets and prophetic post have helped human being for this difficult position. He has behaved according to the account explained by the prophet. For example, person/ to kill: the person is a noun, on the other hand, to kill is a verb (action). Prophet said that “to kill is a bad behavior.” To form the frame of the noun and verb or to give them a meaningful structure is the most important part of prophetic occupation.

VI. Determination of Mind and Quality in the Nature

As we know, the world or the life has three dimensions: width, length and height or depth. When we take into account only width or length, they give us the figures such as 7, 8, 9 so on… More charming example is that: Any picture, we can see every where, has two dimensions: width and length. And so, we can not hold the objects inside the picture. The reason why we don’t hold this visual object is that it has not the height, in other words the depth. Third dimension in this example is height and depth. In reality, they are the same directions as we cited above. For example when living in the second floor, if a person looks at us from the third floor, he will see us downward; on the contrary, when the other person looks at us from the first floor, he will see us up-ward. While we are at the same position, two people have been able to see us in two different positions. This is the distinguishing peculiarity of the height, or depth. In reality, this is a characteristic of quality. While existence of quality has the only one perspective, human being perceives it from two perspectives.

Now, let’s match some basic arguments and form this perspective. Firstly we must give the figures: One-Two-Three. There have been some important reasons why we use these figures. To clear out this climax, we have to begin from the understanding of the God (Allah or Ilah). We know that the God has not dimension, in other words, he has no width, length or height (at the same time, depth) we can say similarly he is without time and space. So he is like a point. Nobody can say about the point that it has a width, length or height (at the same time, depth). But when we thought the Other World (ahira), it could be said that it has two dimensions: width and length. At the Other world, there are no objective figures, and so we can not touch but see them.

As to the our world, it has three dimensions:  width, length or height(at the same time, depth). This means that we can see the objects and hold them. This difference between the two worlds is caused by third dimension. It can be simply said that the Other World(ahirat) has two dimensions but our World(the Earth) has three dimensions.

At this point of the article, we must question what differences are there among the dimensions? At first, it must be said that the only one dimension is neither an object nor a photograph. But, if an object has two dimensions (width and length), it is like a photograph. If we change the figures, belonging to this photograph, changing point is the visual appearance. If we change the figure, 5 x 4, to 8 x 7, then, the photograph gets larger or smaller. When the third dimension is taken into consideration, the situation is more different than the other. At this situation, the object does not need to change its position, unlike the first situation. Let’s remember the first situation: changing of any figure, belonging to the photograph, necessitates the changing of the vision. But at this situation, we don’t need an action to change the position. If we look at this stable object from a deep position, we say it is above; unlike, if we look at from a high position, we say it is below. Then what is height or depth?

When we say “the depth” we intend to depict a position which is below, whereas when we say “the height”, we describe a position which is above. At first, these two different positions can be perceived different situations, such as thin and thick. But, in truth, these two different positions, as the content, are same. The important point is where we looked at it. Then, while width and length, simply, reflect the action, belonging to the object, height(depth) reflects the stability, but this stable position sounds us as two different positions.

As a consequence, it is true that our world (the Earth) obtains its meaning by having the third dimension. This structure is the same for both ontological and secular planes.[4] In other words, the understanding of the world does not change, whether it is ontological or secular plane, that is, it has three dimensions and we think or hold the objections from this perspective.

But, here, we have to take into account the secular plane. This is because, when we look at the world surrounding of us, we have first met with the peculiarities of this plane. Chiefly, there are three different groups of this plane:

- Lifeless objects: Such as soil, mountain, river so on.

- Living objects: Plants and animals

 - Human being

Objects in the first group of these three groups have not mind and soul; they have only body. The second group has the body, as well. But it also has the soul, although it does not have the mind. As regards the human being, he has all of these, the body, the soul and the mind.

Now, let’s match the figures and obtain some meaningful arguments:

- Body = width

- Soul = length

- Mind = height or depth

To have only width doesn’t contain a meaningful context. We can’t think any object, having only width. Existence of the only body is such that and it does not have any functional position in the nature. To have width together with length, like the first matching, does not contain a meaningful situation. But, unlike the first matching, the second is like photograph. So, the existence of the animals and plans are like photograph for the nature. This context doesn’t have a meaningful content, either.

But the position of the human being and, at the same time, of depth or height is more different than the others. As we cited above, human being has been equal to third dimension. In other words, human being has the same function like height or depth in the nature. As we remember, the nature obtains in meaningful position by the existence of the depth or height. Then, the nature loses its photographic view and gets a felt, seen and held world. Likewise, human being is at the same position. The body and soul obtain their meaningful situation and with the existence of human. Before his being created, they were like photographic manner. But after the human being, they had an invaluable context. And so, they are equal to the each other. Unless they exist, we can not think a meaningful world. For example, human being is the creator of the new objects, and these new objects can be held by the existence of third dimension. Thus, it can ve said that civilization begins with the creation of human being. Consequently, their existence has determined the frame of the perceivable world.

After all, we could say that, from the first people[5] up till now, there have been some changes and improvements in the nature. The reason for these changes and improvements is the mind and the quality. But at first glance, it seems to as if there has been only one reason: the mind. But in the basis, there have been two elements, affecting the nature, especially perceivable nature: the mind and the quality. If the mind is thought without quality, the determinations in the history or historical inferences would be semi-meaningful. The opposite of this proposal is equally true: unless we think the quality with the mind, all of the inferences wouldn’t be a perfect theory. 

Hence, we can say here that, for a perfect historical interpretation, we can take into account the following instruments:

As we have seen above, “human being, mind and height (depth) are at the same position. Likewise, “animals and plants, soul and the length” have the same situation. It is why Koran says for the human being “having the best honor among the creatures.[6]

 VI. Historical Process and Mind and Quality

According to this perspective, we can form our historical approach connecting with the quality. At the historical process, could be the main determiner, as we have known and applied up till now. Most of the inferences have been made by using this element. For example geographic information, belonging to Middle Ages, had been gathered to learn the region before a King occupied this region.[7] While using this information, we initially take into account how he used the opportunities in the region. At first glance, to use the opportunities could be perceived the responsibility of the mind. But the question word, in this example “how”, has given the real meaning of the position. As we generally use in historical determinations, the question “how” has contained the mind, and also the quality.

As the other example, Emigration of Prophet Mohammad (Hicrah) can be given.[8] This action (A.D. 622) was a necessary emigration for Muhammad and his friends. It is because they were under great pressure in Makka, homeland of Banu Quraysh, The reasons for this pressure were quite different, but, eventually, he had to emigrate. At first glance, it seems us that this obligation necessities to use the mind. But, when we deeply assess, it can be understood that to use the mind is not the only argument for a perfect historical action. In this example there are the other sides needing to use the quality. For example, Mohammad has to choose the best target region for this emigration. This choosing is a quality. Why did he choose al-Madina al-Munavvara, holy city of Prophet Mohammad. This choosing necessitates using the mind and the quality together. Unlike other cities, such as Taıf, the home land of Banu Saqif and Khaybar, the home land of Jewish people in Arabian Peninsula, he chose Madına, with the other name, used in Cahiliya, Yasrib,

There were chiefly two main people in Madına: Arabs and Jewish people. Arabs in Madına were Banu Hazrac and Banu Avs. They had been fighting for a long time each other. They were at the same time farmers. As regards the Jewish people, they were traders. There were three different Jewish tribes: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadr and Banu Qaynuqa. Jewish people were supporting both Banu Hazrac and Banu Avs. They had been wishing the fighting between Banu Hazrac and Banu Avs continued forever. It could be briefly said that there were a chaos in Madina. Nevertheless, Mohammad preferred Madina. This preference at first has been sounded as a bad preference for Mohammad and his friends because of the situation cited above. It was like a Russian Roulette for them.

We think Mohammad didn’t know whether he would succeed in Yasrib. But, progressing history has shown that preference of Yasrib was a true decision. Although Yasrib had sounded as if it was a wrong place to emigrate, in truth, its peculiarities or qualities were suitable for the emigration. It can be said that in this historical action mind and quality are together. Whenever they get together, there have been perfect historical actions.

VII. Conclusion

Generally, quality is known as a peculiarity belonging to the objects and it is not usually used in historical determination. This is because quality is not regarded as an element existing in the nature. We think that it is an element of language. This perspective needs to be improved. Quality is not so simple. If it were so, we couldn’t meet the quality when we deeply searched the nature, the objects or the basis of the history. Unlike generally known, there have been two basis elements in the nature and the history. One of them is mind, the other is quality. In the historical process, to use the mind only or to use the quality only has not been enough for a perfect action. A perfect action necessitates unity of the mind and the quality.

Bibliography

Ağarı Murat- A. Duman, “Study of Middle Ages in the Kitab al-Buldan of al-Ya’qubi”, Hamdard Islamicus, July-September 2005

Turkish Dictionary, TDK(Turkish Linguistic Institute), Ankara 1998

Ibn Sa’d, Abu Abdillah Muhammed, al-Tabakat al-Kubra, Bayrut, 1985

Tabari, Abu Cafar Mohammad bin Carir, Tarih al-Umam va al-Muluk, edited by: Mohammad Abu’l-Fadl Ibrahim, Bayrut, without date.

Yorumlar (0)