English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article responds to Gottfried Hagen's extensive review (see  Der Islam  2/2013) of my book  Islamische Verantwortungsethik im 17. Jahrhundert. Ein weberianisches Verständnis der Handlungsvorstellungen Kātib Čelebis (1609–1657).  Whilst I benefitted greatly from some of Hagen's critical remarks and historical elucidations, his review not only misstates crucial passages of my book but also largely disregards its main objective, which is to develop a systematic model for understanding Kātib Čelebi's ethical stance. Besides reiterating crucial arguments ignored and rectifying central aspects misrepresented in Hagen's review, I here ask how the more fundamental misunderstandings – exceeding differences in theoretical positions or empirical observations – between the au-thor's intentions and the reviewer's reception may be explained. Gottfried Hagen's historiographical perspective on Kātib Čelebi diverges from my sociological take on the same subject matter to the extent that both perspectives are struggling to enter into dialogue. Such dialogue, however, remains highly desirable so as to complement a historical reconstruction of Kātib Čelebi's life and times with a systematic, theoretically grounded understanding of his views.

Was hat Max Weber mit Kātib Čelebi zu tun? Ein Annäherungsversuch an Gottfried Hagen