Turkish Journal of History

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672   IUP :10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672    Full Text (PDF)

Kitāb al-Maghāzî Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba

Mahmut Olgaç, Nuh Arslantaş

Mūsā b. ‘Uqba is believed to be one of the earliest Maghāzî chroniclers/authors. However, there is a great deal of controversy about his work, of which many people are unaware. Moreover, although many sources speak of this piece with praise, other sources neither mention its existence nor even accept its existence. A specific anthology was compiled for parts of this piece that the researchers were able to establish as legitimate. Additionally, along with the belief that this work was used until the end of 10th century after Hegira (XVth AD.), the researchers believe that the work still exists.
Keywords: Mūsā b. ‘Uqba, Maghāzî, Sīra (Biography of Islam Prophet), History of Islam, History
DOI :10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672   IUP :10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672    Full Text (PDF)

MÛSÂ B. UKBE’YE ATFEDİLEN KİTÂBÜ’L-MEGĀZÎ

Mahmut Olgaç, Nuh Arslantaş

Mûsâ b. Ukbe en erken megāzî müelliflerinden biri olarak kabul edilmektedir. Ancak günümüze ulaşmadığı düşünülen eseri hakkında pek çok tartışmalı durum söz konusudur. Pek çok kaynak, eserden övgüyle bahsetmektedir. Öte yandan bazı kaynaklar da böyle bir eserin mevcudiyetinden ya bahsetmemekte ya da böyle bir eserin varlığını reddetmektedir. İçeriğinin bir kısmını tespit edebildiğimiz eser hakkında ayrıca bir seçki de yapılmıştır. Biz bu eserin hicri X. asrın başlarına (miladi XV. asrın sonlarına) kadar kullanıldığını tespit ettik. Ayrıca eserin muhtemelen günümüze kadar geldiği kanaatini taşıyoruz.
Keywords: Mûsâ b. Ukbe, Megāzî, Siyer, İslam Tarihi, Tarih

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Kitāb al-Maghāzî (v. 141/758) Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba

Mūsā b. ‘Uqba, who is known as one of the active people during the Sīra Era, began to record narratives about Maghāzî later in his life. However, in sources, there are various approaches whether he has got an individual work of his own or not. On one hand, some sources claim that he indeed has his own Maghāzî and add that his work is a reliable source. On the other hand, there are some sources that believe him to simply be an owner of a Maghāzî and also state crucial information about how they benefited from it, how it reached them and how valuable it is. For example, they claim that there are two copies of this work and that they are different from each other. In addition, these sources claim that some of the narratives recorded by Mūsā do not even occur in the Maghāzî. Upon comparing these copies, a few sources note that they have the same writing style; however, the spellings of certain words differ. However, there are still some other sources that do not mention anything about Mūsā b. ‘Uqba’s ownership of a Maghāzî or have rejected the idea as a whole. Therefore, Maghāzî not being mentioned by editors in later times can be seen as an oversight since those who lived closer to the time of Mūsā actually acknowledged it. However, some contemporaries transferred information from Mūsā about the Maghāzî. When all the data about Maghāzî are evaluated together, there is a suggestion that this work was not written by Mūsā himself but rather by two of his students in reference to his lessons. It is unknown whether this writing was done under Mūsā’s supervision or if it came to life on his students’ initiative. But the claim that some of the narratives do not take place in the writing suggests that the students registered their teacher’s lessons based on their own wishes and preferences. It is possible that Mūsā b. ‘Uqba perhaps intervened and wanted some parts removed, but there is no evidence of how he taught his lessons. Still, if this had been the case, it should have been recorded, and since we have not come across such information, we consider this to be a less than likely. Nevertheless, since the notes of the narratives, which are said to take place in the Maghāzî, date back to Zuhrī but not any further, and since other narratives notes go back as far as Prophet Mohammed’s time, there is a possibility that this work is based on Zuhrī’s records about the Maghāzî.

Unfortunately, since the entire work does not exist today, it is only possible to analyze its content from text sources. In this work, we only examine the narratives about Mūsā b. ‘Uqba that are believed to be in the Maghāzî, and it appears that the sources that use the events in the Maghāzî do not convey the information from the Maghāzî itself, which is why even though we are able to confirm that these events take place in the Maghāzî, we are unable to understand the structure of the Maghāzî. Also, as reported by the sources, contradictory information about war dates is found in the Maghāzî. Furthermore, Bayhaqī, who conveys two conflicting ends from Maghāzî, does not point out that there are two different information.

The question of when the Kitāb al- Maghāzî was read maintains its importance. The last person known to utilize the Maghāzî is Sakhawi (d.902/1497). With this in mind, it is possible to say that the work existed until the beginning of the tenth century of Hegira (i.e., end of the fifteenth century AD), but according to Marsden Jones, Diyarbakri used the work and therefore the work reached the tenth century AD. However, if Diyarbakri’s death is considered (990/1582), it is safe to claim that the work almost made it to the eleventh century of Hegira (i.e., end of the sixteenth century AD). However, Jones’ determination of Diyarbakri’s use of Maghāzî is incorrect. Although Diyarbakri used a writing style that gave the impression that he directly made use of the Maghāzî, he expresses in various places that he had reached the Maghāzî through different sources. Haji Khalifa’s (Katip Celebi) “The Maghāzî is the most reliable Maghāzî” statement is nothing more than repetition. Hence, it is obvious that Haji Kahlifa reviewed the Maghāzî through others without actually seeing it as stated above. The shortness of this review on such a vital book strengthens the idea that the Maghāzî is out of reach. Ismail Pasha of Baghdad makes a mistake by saying that the Maghāzî was a printed product. The reason behind this is Eduard Sachau’s mistaking selected parts of the Maghāzî for the entire Maghāzî in 1904. Consequently, we can say that sources in early terms, along with speaking highly of the Maghāzî, used quotations from it as well. However, we still have no data about the Maghāzî from the tenth century of Hegira to date. The Maghāzî being read until later times, being augmented, and being sent to Islamic metropoles is a known fact, so the possibility of the work disappearing is quite unlikely from our point of view. In addition, even in the farthest destination of Islamic geography—Andalusia—two copies of this Maghāzî are reported to have been studied.

Yūsuf Ibn. Muhammed Ibn Omer Ibn. Kādī Shuhbe, about whose life little is known, made a Maghāzî selection that consists of 20 hadīth. Ibn Hadjar, who conveys information about him, does not even mention this selection. Muntehab (Selection), which is the sole work connected to the Maghāzî, was published in 1904 as a German translation, with an introduction by Schau. Some narratives being continuations of earlier ones, the recorded number of narratives in sources being less than determined in the Maghāzî, the ambiguity of how the selection was made and the lack of explanation regarding it, and the existence of a narratives that does not belong to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba are all reasons why the Maghāzî is a closed box for us. Despite all these issues, it is better for the work to exist than not. Moreover, not only do the quotations made in the later terms, but also the direct notifications about this work being read, confirm that the Maghāzî indeed reached all over the Islamic world, and the scholars were aware of it. Still, J. Schacht, in his article on Muntehab, ignores all these problems and writes a thesis titled On Mūsā b. ‘Uqba’s Kitāb al-maghāzî, assuming that it was Mūsā’s Maghāzî. In reference to this, various reviews were done to support the thesis of how the attribution of hadīth became public knowledge and turned into a systematic order from the second century of Hegira onward Gregor Schoeler classifies the reviews and objections of Schacht into four groups and develops his own objections to them.

In conclusion, the complete loss of such a valuable work, of which selected sections are known and have been utilized, is unlikely. The Maghāzî is probably waiting in a library to be published.


PDF View

References

  • Adıgüzel, C. Ersin, “Endülüslü Bir Muhaddisin İlim Dünyası: İbn Hayr el-İşbîlî ve Fehrese’si”, Milel ve Nihal 1 (2015), s. 43-44. google scholar
  • Alâî, İsâratü’l-Fevâidi’l-Mecmû’a fi’l-İşârati ile’l-Fevâidi’l-Mesmû’a, thk. Merzuk b. Heyas Âli Merzuk ez-Zahrânî, I-II, Mektebetü’l-Ulûm ve’l-Hikem: Medine 2004. google scholar
  • Âlûsî, Ruhu’l-Meânî fî Tefsîri’l-Kur‛âni’l-Azîm ve’s-Seb‛ı’l-Mesânî, I-XXX, Dâru İhyâi’t-Turâsi’l-Arabî: Beyrut [t.y.]. google scholar
  • Aynî, Umdetü’l-Kārî Şerhu Sahîhi’l-Buhârî, tsh. Abdullah Mahmud Muhammed Ömer, I-XXV, Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye: Beyrut 2001. google scholar
  • Bağdatlı İsmail Paşa, Hediyyetü’l-Ârifîn Esmâu’l-Müellifîn ve Âsâru’l-Musannifîn, I-II, Dâru İhyâi’t-Turâsi’l-Arabî: Beyrut 1955. google scholar
  • Bakşiş, Muhammed, “Menhecü’t-Te’lîf fi’s-Sireti’n-Nebeviyye Mûsâ b. Ukbe Nemûzecen”, Dirâsât, y.y. (1999), s. 66-78. google scholar
  • _______, Megāzî li Mûsâ b. Ukbe, y.y. 1994. google scholar
  • Beyhakî, es-Sünenü’l-Kübra, I- X, Dâiretü’l-Meârifi’l-Osmâniyye: Dekkan 1928. google scholar
  • _______, es-Sünenü’s-Sağîr, thrc. Abdülmu‛tî Emin Kal‛acî, I-IV, Câmiatü’d-Dirâsâti’l-İslamiyye, Karaçi 1979. google scholar
  • _______, Delâilü’n-Nübüvve ve Ma‛rifetü Ahvâli Sâhibi’ş-Şerîa, thk. Abdülmu‛ti Emin Kal‛acî, I-VII, Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye: Beyrut 1988. google scholar
  • _______, Ma‛rifetü’s-Sünen ve’l-Âsâr, thrc. Abdülmûtî Emin Kalâcı, I-XV, Dâru’l-Vefâ li’t-Tıbâa ve’n-Neşr: Kahire 1991. google scholar
  • Braimah, Abdu Rahimih Baba, “A Reconstruction of the Lost Kitab al-Maghazi of Musa ibn Uqba with Translation and Critical Commentary”, [Tez Türü Belirtilmemiş] American University in Cairo: 1968. google scholar
  • Dârekutnî, el-Mü’telif ve’l-Muhtelif, thk. Muvaffak b Abdullah b. Abdülkâdir, I-V, Dâru’l-Ğarbi’l-İslâmî: Beyrut 1986. google scholar
  • Diyarbekrî, Târîhu’l-Hamîs fî Ahvâli Enfesi Nefîs, I-II, Müessesetü Şaban: Beyrut [t.y.]. google scholar
  • Ebû Avâne, Müsned, thk. Eymen b. Ârif ed-Dımaşkî, Dâru’l-Marife: Beyrut 1998. google scholar
  • Irâkî, el-Muğnî an Hamli’l-Esfâr fi’l-Esfâr fî Tahrîci mâ fi’l-İhyâi mine’l-Ahbâr, thk. Ebû Muhammed Eşref b. Abdülmaksûd, I-II, Mektebetü Dâri’t-Taberî: Riyad 1995. google scholar
  • İbn Abdülber, ed-Dürer fî İhtisâri’l-Megāzî ve’s-Siyer, thk. Şevki Dayf, Kahire 1966. google scholar
  • _______, el-İstî’âb fî Ma‛rifeti’l-Ashâb, tsh. Âdil Mürşid, Dâru’l-Âlâm: Amman 2002. google scholar
  • İbn Asâkîr, Târîhu Medîneti Dımaşk, thk. Ömer b. Ğarâme el-Amrî, I-LXXX, Dâru’l-Fikr: Beyrut 1995. google scholar
  • İbn Ebû Hâtim, Kitâbu’l-Cerh ve’t-Ta‛dîl, Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye: Beyrut 1953. google scholar
  • İbn Hacer el-Askalânî, Mu‛cemü’l-Müfehres ev Tecrîdü Esânîdi’l-Kütübi’l-Meşhûra, thk. Muhammed Şekûr, Mahmud el-Hâcî, Müessesetü’r-Risale: Beyrut 1998. google scholar
  • _______, Fethu’l-Bârî bi Şerhi Sahîhi’l-Buhârî, thk. Abdülaziz b. Abdullah b. Bâz, Muhammed Fuâd Abdülbâki, Muhibbüddîn el-Hatîb, I-XIII, Mektebetü’s-Selefiyye: [y.y.] [t.y.]. google scholar
  • _______, el-İsâbe fî Temyîzi’s-Sahâbe, I-IX, Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, Beyrut [t.y.]. google scholar
  • _______, Telhîsu’l-Habîr fî Tahrîci Ehâdîsi’r- Râfi‛iyyi’l -Kebîr, thk. Ebû Âsım Hasan b. Abbâs b. Kutub, I-IV, Müessesetü Kurtuba: [y.y.] 1995. google scholar
  • _______, ed-Dürerü’l-Kâmine fî’l-A’yâni’l-Mieti’s-Sâmine, I-IV, Beyrut 1993. google scholar
  • İbn Hayr el-İşbilî, Fehrese, thk. Beşşâr Avvâd Ma‛rûf, Mahmud Beşşâr Avvâd, Dâru’l-Ğarbi’l-İslâmî: Tunus 2009. google scholar
  • İbn Kayyim el-Cevziyye, el-Fürûsiyyetü’l-Muhammediyye, thk. Zâid Ahmed en-Neşîrî, Dâru’l-İlmi’l-Fevâid: Mekke 2007. google scholar
  • _______, Zâdü’l-Meâd fi Hedyi Hayri’l-İbâd, thk. Şu’ayb el-Arnavût, Abdülkâdir el-Arnavût, I-VI, Müessesetü’r-Risâle: Beyrut 1994. google scholar
  • İbn Kādî Şühbe, Ehâdîsü Müntehabe min Megāzî Mûsâ b. Ukbe, thk. Hasan Selman, Dâru İbn Hazm: Beyrut 1991. google scholar
  • İbn Kesîr, el-Bidâye ve’n-Nihâye, thk. Abdullah b. Abdülmuhsin et-Türkî, I-XXI, Mısır 1998. google scholar
  • _______, Tefsîru’l-Kur‛âni’l-Azîm, thk. Mustafa Seyyid Muhammed ve dğr., I-XV, Kahire 2000. google scholar
  • İbn Receb, Ravâiu’’t-Tefsîr, thk. Ebû Muâz Târık b. Avzullah b. Muhammed, I-II, Dâru’l-Âsıme: Riyad 2001. google scholar
  • İbn Sa‛d, Kitâbu’t-Tabakâti’l-Kebîr, thk. Ali Muhammed Ömer, I-XI, Mektebetü’l-Hancî: Kahire 2001. google scholar
  • İbn Seyyidünnâs, Uyûnu’l-Eser fî Fünûni’l-Megāzî ve’ş-Şemâil ve’s-Siyer, thk. Muhammed el-Hatrâvî, Muhyiddîn Müstû, I-II, Beyrut [t.y.]. google scholar
  • İbn Tağrîberdî, en-Nücûmu’z-Zâhire fî Mülûki Mısr ve’l-Kâhire, thk. Muhammed Hüseyin Şemsüddîn, I-XVI, Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye: Beyrut [t.y.]. google scholar
  • İbn Teymiyye, es-Sârimü’l-Meslûl alâ Şâtimi’r-Rasûl, thk. Muhammed Abdullah b. Ömer el-Hulvânî ve dğr., I-III, Riyad, 1997. google scholar
  • İbnü’l-Mülakkın, et-Tavzîh li Şerhi Câmii’s-Sahîh, thk. Heyet, I-XXXVI, Dâru’n-Nevâdir: Dımaşk 2008. google scholar
  • Kādî İyâz, eş-Şifâ bi T‛arîfi Hukûki’l-Mustafâ, I-II, Dersaadet Matbaası: [y.y.] 1894. google scholar
  • Katib Çelebi (Hacı Halife), Keşfü’z-Zunûn an Esâmi’l-Kütübi ve’l-Fünûn, I-II, Dâru İhyâi’t-Turâsi’l-Arabî: Beyrut [t.y.]. google scholar
  • Makrizî, İmtâü’l-Esmâ, thk. Muhammed Abdülhamîd en-Nümeysî, I-XV, Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye: Beyrut 1999. google scholar
  • Mizzi, Tehzîbü’l-Kemâl fi Esmâi’r-Ricâl, thk. Beşşâr Avvâd Ma’rûf, I-XXXV, Müessisetü’r-Risale, Beyrut 1996. google scholar
  • Moğultay b. Kılıc, Şerhu Sünen-i İbn Mâce, thk. Kamil Uveyza, I-V, Mektebetü Nizâr Mustafa el-Bâz: Riyad 1999. google scholar
  • Muhibbüddîn et-Taberî, er-Riyâzu’n-Nadra fî Menâkıbi’l-Aşra, thrc. Abdülmecid Tu’me Halebî, I-IV, Dâru’l-Meârif, Beyrut 1997. google scholar
  • Nevevî, Şerhu Sahîhi Müslim, I-XVIII, [y.y.] 1930. google scholar
  • Olgaç, Mahmut, Musa b. Ukbe’nin (v. 141/758) Siyer’e Dair Rivayetlerinin Değerlendirilmesi (Hz. Mumammed’in Nübüvvetine Kadar), MÜSBE Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul 2015. google scholar
  • Öz, Şaban, İlk Siyer Kaynakları ve Müellifleri, İSAR Vakfı Yayınları: İstanbul 2008. google scholar
  • Sa‛lebî, el-Keşf ve’l-Beyân, thk. Muhammed b. Âşur, I-X, Dâru İhyâi’t-Turâsi’l-Arabî: Beyrut 2002. google scholar
  • Sachau, Eduard, “Das Berliner Fragment des Mûsâ Ibn Ukba”, SPAW 11 (1904), s. 445-470. google scholar
  • Schacht, Joseph, “On Musa b. Uqba’s Kitab Al-Maghazī”, AO 21 (1953), s. 288-300. google scholar
  • Schoeler, Gregor, “Mûsâ b. Ukbe’nin Megāzîsi”, çev. Hüseyin Akgün, KSÜİFD 18 (2011), s. 103-136. google scholar
  • _______, “Mûsâ b. Ukbe’nin Kitâbu’l-Megāzî’si ile İlgili Yeni Bulgular”, çev. Hüseyin Akgün, İSTEM 22 (2013), s. 12-19. google scholar
  • Seâlibî, el-Cevâhiru’l-Hisân fî Tefsîri’l-Kur‛ân, thk. Ali Muhammed Muavviz, Âdil Ahmed Abdülmevcûd, I-V, Dâru İhyâi’t-Turâsi’l-Arabî: Beyrut 1997. google scholar
  • Sehâvî, ed-Dav’ü’l-Lâmi‛ li Ehli’l-Karni’t-Tâsi’, I-XII, Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye: Beyrut [t.y.]. google scholar
  • Suyûtî, ed-Dürrü’l-Mensûr fi’t-Tefsîri bi’l-Me’sûr, thk. Abdullah b. Abdülmuhsin et-Türkî, I- XVII, Kahire 2003, IV, 137. google scholar
  • _______, el-İtkân fî Ulûmi’l-Kur‛ân, thk. Merkezü’d-Dirâsâti’l-Kur‛âniyye, I-VII, Medine 2005. google scholar
  • Şâmî, Sübülü’l-Hüdâ ve’r-Reşâd fî Sîreti Hayri’l-İbâd,thk. İbrahim et-Terzî, Abdülkerim el-Azbâvî, I-XII, Kahire 1997. google scholar
  • Şevkânî, Neylü’l-Evtâr Şerhu Münteka’l-Ahbâr, Mısır [t.y.]. google scholar
  • Uğur, Mücteba, “el-Câmiu’s-Sahîh”, DİA, VII, 114-123. google scholar
  • Vâkıdî, Kitâbu’l-Megāzî, thk. Marsden Jones, I-II, Âlemü’l-Kütüb: [y.y.] 1984. google scholar
  • Zehebî, Siyeru Âlâmi’n-Nübelâ, thk. Şu’ayb el-Arnavût, Hüseyin el-Esed, I-XXV, Müessesetü’r-Risale: Beyrut 1982, VI. google scholar
  • _______, Tehzîbü’t-Tehzîbi’l-Kemâl fî Esmâi’r-Ricâl, thk. Ğuneym Abbâs Ğuneym, Eymen Selâme, I-XI, Fârûku’l-Hadîse li’t-Tıbâa ve’n-Neşr: Kahire 2004. google scholar
  • _______, Târîhu’l-İslâm ve Vefeyâti’l-Meşâhîr ve’l-A’lâm, thk. Ömer Abdüsselam Tedmûrî, I- LIII (Zeyl ile birlikte), Dâru’l-Kitâbi’l-Arabî: Beyrut 1990. google scholar
  • Zeylaî, Nasbu’r-Râye li Ehâdîsi’l-Hidâye, tsh. Muhammed Avvâme, Dâru’l-Kıble li’s-Sekâfeti’l İslamiyye: Cidde [t.y.]. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Olgaç, M., & Arslantaş, N. (2018). Kitāb al-Maghāzî Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba. Turkish Journal of History, 0(67), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672


AMA

Olgaç M, Arslantaş N. Kitāb al-Maghāzî Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba. Turkish Journal of History. 2018;0(67):1-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672


ABNT

Olgaç, M.; Arslantaş, N. Kitāb al-Maghāzî Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba. Turkish Journal of History, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 67, p. 1-22, 2018.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Olgaç, Mahmut, and Nuh Arslantaş. 2018. “Kitāb al-Maghāzî Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba.” Turkish Journal of History 0, no. 67: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672


Chicago: Humanities Style

Olgaç, Mahmut, and Nuh Arslantaş. “Kitāb al-Maghāzî Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba.” Turkish Journal of History 0, no. 67 (Apr. 2024): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672


Harvard: Australian Style

Olgaç, M & Arslantaş, N 2018, 'Kitāb al-Maghāzî Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba', Turkish Journal of History, vol. 0, no. 67, pp. 1-22, viewed 23 Apr. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Olgaç, M. and Arslantaş, N. (2018) ‘Kitāb al-Maghāzî Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba’, Turkish Journal of History, 0(67), pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672 (23 Apr. 2024).


MLA

Olgaç, Mahmut, and Nuh Arslantaş. “Kitāb al-Maghāzî Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba.” Turkish Journal of History, vol. 0, no. 67, 2018, pp. 1-22. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672


Vancouver

Olgaç M, Arslantaş N. Kitāb al-Maghāzî Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba. Turkish Journal of History [Internet]. 23 Apr. 2024 [cited 23 Apr. 2024];0(67):1-22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672 doi: 10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672


ISNAD

Olgaç, Mahmut - Arslantaş, Nuh. “Kitāb al-Maghāzî Attributed to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba”. Turkish Journal of History 0/67 (Apr. 2024): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.360672



TIMELINE


Submitted03.12.2017
Accepted08.05.2018

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.