Volume 17, Issue 1, February 2020, Page 130-132.

This study will examine how Dāvūd al-Qarṣī, an 18th-century Ottoman scholar, resolved the paradox between human freewill and God being the creator of everything in his work Risālâh fi’l-ikhtiyārāt al-juzʾiyyah wa’l-irādāt al-qalbiyyah. In addition, in this study, the critical edition and translation of the risālah will also be provided. The treatise which is the subject of the present study is a link in the series of works written under the title of human acts in the Islamic thought tradition regarding al-irādah (...) al-juzʾiyyah, afʿāl al-ʿibād, khalq al-aʿmāl, qaḍā, and qadar. This risālah is one of the rare examples prepared with the method of “mamzūj annotation (sharḥ)”, which is a method in which “text” and “annotation” are intertwined. Qarṣī examines in detail a total of seven views, four of which are famous (mashhūr) and three of which are non-famous, about voluntary acts. Qarṣī interprets the approaches and views of the non-famous sects and includes them in the famous sects and allocates approximately 4/3 of the work to these sects. In the final stage of the work, the author states that the view of Māturīdīs is parallel with the predecessor’s (Salaf) view of “Neither jabr nor tafwīḍ; rather, it is merely a situation between these two approaches.” Qarṣī, who was inspired by Athīrī Maḥmad Afandī (d. 1092/1681), says that voluntary acts come about by the sum of “two powers (qudrat)”, “two wishes (mashīʾat)” and “one taqwīn”. Also, according to this, the first four of them are proximate causes, while the attribute taqwīn is the influencing factor. Qarṣī acts from the meanings of the term action (fiʿl) and the “theory of state (ḥāl)” in order to prove that human beings are true agents (fāʿil) on the one hand and to protect God’s attribute of creation on the other. In fact, the concept of “state (ḥāl)”, used in understanding divine attributes and some ontological issues, was applied to acts by the Māturīdī mutakallim Ṣadr al-Sharīʿa al-Thānī (d. 747/1346). Thus, a doctrine of action was developed, and this doctrine was accepted and used by the later period Māturīdī mutakallims. With reference to Ṣadr al-Sharīʿa, Qarṣī tries to justify the issue based on the meanings of the the term action and the modes of existence of these meanings. He says that action has two implications; one of them is the “infinitive meaning” (al-maʿnā al-maṣdarī) and the other is “the thing that comes with this infinitive meaning (al-ḥāṣıl bi-maṣdar)”. The infinitive meaning of the act constitutes the “non-thing aspect” of the action, and the meaning of the action that is created with the infinitive indicates “the thing aspect” thereof. Thus, because the aspect of the action that is not existentand therefore not a thing is not subject to creation, the agency and responsibility of human beings are grounded. Similarly, Qarṣī maintains that the mashīʾat, which means will, qaṣd and al-irādah al-juzʾiyyah, was not created because its existence in humans is in the form of succession and it is of a state-like (ḥāl) existenceOn this account. Qarṣī manages to preserve both human freewill and the absolute creativity of God due to the non-existent and non-thing aspect of the act on the one hand, and will (irādah), mashīʾat and qaṣd not being subjected to creation on the other. (shrink)

The Qur’an has told the stories of many prophets and past tribes in order to convey the message it wants to give to its addressee. The Qur’an has narrated the stories that were narrated in the Bible in accordance with its purpose, by correcting the distorted points and without going into the details reported in the ‘Kutub-i al-Qadim’. One of the stories told in both the Qur’an and the Bible is Dawoud (David) and the plaintiffs. In this study, the story (...) of Dawoud and the plaintiffs deals with the evaluation of the story of Davud and the plaintiffs and the opinions expressed in the interpretation of the story in the context of Mushkil al-Quran al-Karim. From the earliest times to the present day, commentators have adopted different interpretations of the story of Dawoud and the plaintiffs. Some commentators, taking into account the literal meaning of the verses, interpret the verses based on the fact that the case described in the story is real. On the other hand, some interpret the parable based on the assumption that the case event expresses a representative expression, not a genuine event. The commentators who adopt this understanding are also divided into two as those who interpret the tale over the narrated narrations and those who interpret the tale over wording. The main reason why commentators adopt different interpretations of the tale is that the narrations about the background of the tale, primarily from the Bible, whether to be accepted or not. It is stated that the different opinions expressed in the article by the commentators, whom we have included in the classification, with the fear that they will harm the authority of prophethood, are difficult for the understanding of the story. In this article, different works that emerged according to the interpretation style of the commentators will be resolved in the context of the interpretations made by the same commentators. (shrink)

In an anecdote in the Holy Bible, there is a rumor that because the Prophet David wanted to marry a woman named Bathsheba, whom he saw, he commissioned her soldier husband Uriah the Hittite to cause him to die in the most critical places of the army. In Islamic sources, some narrations originating from Isrāʾīliyyāt have been conveyed in many different ways. Likewise, in some Islamic sources, this incident, which is attributed to the Prophet David, was unfortunately also linked to (...) the marriage of the Prophet Muḥammad and Zaynab b. Jaḥsh. In addition, there is a claim that the Prophet Muḥammad sent Zayd b. Ḥāritha, who was Zaynab b. Jaḥsh’s ex-husband, to many wars and eventually caused his death in Muʾta war. First, the so-called incident between Prophet David and Uriah the Hittite will be discussed, and thereafter, Prophet Muḥammad and Zaynab b. Jaḥsh’s marriage will be thoroughly addressed in the study. In addition, it will be revealed that the incident that was attributed to the Prophet David was in no way similar to the incident of assigning Zayd b. Ḥāritha as a commander.Summary: According to a parable in the Bible, Prophet David sees a woman bathing while he was walking around the roof of his palace one night and he is impressed by her. Prophet David sends someone to investigate who this woman is, and as a result of the research, it is revealed that this woman is Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of the commanders of Prophet David. Prophet David sends someone to bring this woman and when the woman is brought to him, he commits adultery with her. The woman becomes pregnant after this affair and informs Prophet David about this situation. After receiving this news of pregnancy, Prophet David sends a message to the commander-in-chief, Joab, who is at war with his army, and asks him to send Uriah the Hittite to him. After hosting Uriah the Hittite in the palace for a few days, Prophet David sends him back to the front with a letter to be given to the commander-in-chief, Joab. In this letter, Prophet David asks the commander-in-chief, Joab, to send Uriah the Hittite to the most dangerous place in the war and to ensure that he is killed. Fulfilling the order stated in the letter of Prophet Davud, Joab sends Uriah the Hittite to a region where the war will be the harshest and causes him to be killed there. After the mourning of Bathsheba for her husband ends, Prophet David marries her. According to the Islamic belief, it is not possible for this incident to occur as it was mentioned in the Bible since the prophets were protected by Allah. It is because the parable states Prophet David committed adultery. In the Qur’ān, which is the source where we can get the clearest information about the incident, it is narrated inverses 21-25 of sûra Ṣād. Although there is a partial resemblance between the verses and the Bible, the verses do not mention either the woman or Prophet David’s sending that woman’s husband to the war because he wanted to marry her.In other Islamic sources, some relevant narrations originating in Isrāʾīliyyāt are narrated in many different ways. Our tafsīr scholars did not approve these narrations originating in Isrāʾīliyyāt. Also, they stated that the narrations expressing that Prophet David sent Uriah the Hittite to the war for his killing were not true and that such a situation would not be suitable for a prophet or even for a Muslim.In the same sources, many different possibilities were voiced in order to resolve the situation and this incident, which was attributed to Prophet David, was tried to be placed on a more reasonable ground. As a result of these efforts, the marriage of the Prophet Muḥammad and Zaynab b. Jaḥsh has been linked to this incident in various ways.Although it is not possible to give a certain date of the marriage of Zaynab and Zayd b. Ḥāritha, it is seen that this marriage occurred with the help of the Prophet Muḥammad in the first year of the emigration to Madinah. The marriage of the Prophet Muḥammad’s aunt’s daughter and Zayd, a freed slave, was for eliminating the discrimination between free individuals and slaves that existed in the society.There is not any serious problem about the marriage of Zayd and Zaynab at this point. However, at the point of ending this marriage, there are some narrations in our sources, and these leave the Prophet Muḥammad under suspicion. According to these narrations, the Prophet Muḥammad went to Zayd’s house to meet him and the Prophet Muḥammad called out to Zayd from outside the house. For not keeping the Prophet Muḥammad outside, Zaynab opened the door and invited the Prophet Muḥammad in by stating that Zayd was not at home although the clothes on her were not suitable. As soon as the Prophet Muḥammad saw her, he immediately turned his head and because he liked Zaynab, “I exonerate almighty Allah. I exonerate Allah that has turned the hearts.” he grumbled. After a while, Zayd came home and learned what the Prophet Muḥammad said. He immediately went to the Prophet Muḥammad and said “Messenger of Allah! May my mother and father be sacrificed for you. If you liked Zaynab, let me divorce her for you.” However, the Prophet Muḥammad advised him not to divorce his wife. As far as we can find in our sources, there are two other similar narrations.These narrations contain many problems in terms of both isnād and logical consistency. When we examine at the narrations in terms of isnād, we see that all three narrations are mursal. We can say that this is the first factor that reduces the reliability of narrations. Secondly, all narrations have at least one narrator accused of weakness or even dishonesty. Therefore, it is not appropriate to base a serious claim about the Prophet Muḥammad on such weak narrations. In addition, the rumor that the Prophet Muḥammad liked Zaynab, his aunt’s daughter and a married woman, and wished that she would divorce her husband has no reasonable logic. The fact that the marriage of Zayd and Zaynab ended quickly was mostly caused by Zaynab’s harsh temperament. Moreover, although Zaynab did not want this marriage, she could not oppose the order of the Prophet Muḥammad due to the verse about her. For these reasons, Zaynab could not get along with her husband and she was constantly reflecting her dissatisfaction with this marriage on Zayd. Therefore, Zayd constantly complained about Zaynab, but the Prophet Muḥammad gave Zayd the same advice every time, commanding “Keep your spouse with you, do not leave her!” Although the Prophet Muḥammad constantly banned Zayd, he could not stand Zaynab anymore and divorced her. After he divorced Zaynab, verse 37 of sûra al-Aḥzāb was sent down. Thus, the marriage of the Prophet Muḥammad and Zaynab took place as a result of a divine will.There is also a claim that the Prophet Muḥammad sent Zayd, the ex-husband of Zaynab, to many wars and consequently caused him to be killed in Muʾta war. When we examine the dates of the nine military expeditions, in which the Prophet Muḥammad appointed Zayd as a commander, it is seen that the first expedition was held on 3/624 while the others were held after 6/627. Therefore, at least eight of the nine expeditions in which Zayd served as a commander were taken place after the marriage of the Prophet Muḥammad and Zaynab. Consequently, in the light of this information, it is clear that the fact that Zayd was appointed as a commander is not similar to the situation in narrations about Prophet David. (shrink)

Dâwûd al-Qarisî (Dâvûd al-Karsî) was a versatile and prolific 18th century Ottoman scholar who studied in İstanbul and Egypt and then taught for long years in various centers of learning like Egypt, Cyprus, Karaman, and İstanbul. He held high esteem for Mehmed Efendi of Birgi (Imâm Birgivî/Birgili, d.1573), out of respect for whom, towards the end of his life, Karsî, like Birgivî, occupied himself with teaching in the town of Birgi, where he died in 1756 and was buried next to (...) Birgivî. Better known for his following works on Arabic language and rhetoric and on the prophetic traditions (hadith): Sharḥu uṣûli’l-ḥadîth li’l-Birgivî; Sharḥu’l-Ḳaṣîdati’n-nûniyya (two commentaries, in Arabic and Turkish); Şarḥu’l-Emsileti’l-mukhtalifa fi’ṣ-ṣarf (two commentaries, in Arabic and Turkish); Sharḥu’l-Binâʾ; Sharḥu’l-ʿAvâmil; and Sharḥu İzhâri’l-asrâr, Karsî has actually composed textbooks in quite different fields. Hence the hundreds of manuscript copies of his works in world libraries. Many of his works were also recurrently printed in the Ottoman period. One of the neglected aspects of Karsî is his identity as a logician. Although he authored ambitious and potent works in the field of logic, this aspect of him has not been subject to modern studies. Even his bibliography has not been established so far (with scattered manuscript copies of his works and incomplete catalogue entries). This article primarily and in a long research based on manuscript copies and bibliographic sources, identifies twelve works on logic that Karsî has authored. We have clarified the works that are frequently mistaken for each other, and, especially, have definitively established his authorship of a voluminous commentary on al-Kâtibî’s al-Shamsiyya, of which commentary a second manuscript copy has been identified and described together with the other copy. Next is handled his most famous work of logic, the Sharhu Îsâghûcî, which constitutes an important and assertive ring in the tradition of commentaries on Îsâghûcî. We describe in detail the nine manuscript copies of this work that have been identified in various libraries. The critical text of Karsî’s Sharhu Îsâghûcî, whose composition was finished on 5 March 1745, has been prepared based on the following four manuscripts: (1) MS Kayseri Raşid Efendi Kütüphanesi, No. 857, ff.1v-3v, dated 1746, that is, only one year after the composition of the work; (2) MS Bursa İnebey Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Genel, No.794B, ff.96v-114v, dated 1755; (3) MS Millet Kütüphanesi, Ali Emiri Efendi Arapça, No. 1752, ff.48v-58r, dated 1760; (4) MS Beyazıt Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Beyazıt, No. 3129, ff.41v-55v, dated 8 March 1772. While preparing the critical text, we have applied the Center for Islamic Studies (İslam Araştırmaları Merkezi, İSAM)’s method of optional text choice. The critical text is preceded by a content analysis. Karsî is well aware of the preceding tradition of commentary on Îsâghûcî, and has composed his own commentary as a ‘simile’ or alternative to the commentary by Mollâ Fanârî which was famous and current in his own day. Karsî’s statement “the commentary in one day and one night” is a reference to Mollâ Fanârî who had stated that he started writing his commentary in the morning and finished it by the evening. Karsî, who spent long years in the Egyptian scholarly and cultural basin, adopted the religious-sciences-centered ‘instrumentalist’ understanding of logic that was dominant in the Egypt-Maghrib region. Therefore, no matter how famous they were, he criticized those theoretical, long, and detailed works of logic which mingled with philosophy; and defended and favored authoring functional and cogent logic texts that were beneficial, in terms of religious sciences, to the seekers of knowledge and the scholars. Therefore, in a manner not frequently encountered in other texts of its kind, he refers to the writings and views of Muhammad b. Yûsuf al-Sanûsî (d.1490), the great representative of this logical school in the Egyptian-Maghrib region. Where there is divergence between the views of the ‘earlier scholars’ (mutaqaddimûn) like Ibn Sînâ and his followers and the ‘later scholars’ (muta’akhkhirûn), i.e., post-Fakhr al-dîn al-Râzî logicians, Karsî is careful to distance himself from partisanship, preferring sometimes the views of the earliers, other times those of the laters. For instance, on the eight conditions proposed for the realization of contradiction, he finds truth to be with al-Fârâbî, who proposed “unity in the predicative attribution” as the single condition for the realization of contradiction. Similarly, on the subject matter of Logic, he tried to reconcile the mutaqaddimûn’s notion of ‘second intelligibles’ with the muta’akhkhirûn’s notion of ‘apprehensional and declarational knowledge,’ suggesting that not much difference exists between the two, on the grounds that both notions are limited to the aspect of ‘known things that lead to the knowledge of unknown things.’ Karsî asserts that established and commonly used metaphors have, according to the verifying scholars, signification by correspondence (dalâlat al-mutâbaqah), adding also that it should not be ignored that such metaphors may change from society to society and from time to time. Karsî also endorses the earlier scholars’ position concerning the impossibility of quiddity (mâhiyya) being composed of two co-extensive parts, and emphasizes that credit should not be given to later scholars’ position who see it possible. According to the verifying scholars (muhaqqîqûn), it is possible to make definition (hadd) by mentioning only difference (fasl), in which case it becomes an imperfect definition (hadd nâqis). He is of the opinion that the definition of the proposition (qadiyya) in al-Taftâzânî’s Tahdhîb is clearer and more complete: “a proposition is an expression that bears the possibility of being true or false”. He states that in the division of proposition according to quantity what is taken into consideration is the subject (mawdû‘) in categorical propositions, and the temporal aspect of the antecedent (muqaddam) in hypothetical propositions. As for the unquantified, indefinite proposition (qadiyya muhmalah), Karsî assumes that if it is not about the problems of the sciences, then it is virtually/potentially a particular proposition (qadiyya juz’iyyah); but if it is about the problems of the sciences, then it is virtually/potentially a universal proposition (qadiyya kulliyyah). This being the general rule about the ambiguous (muhmal) propositions, he nevertheless contends that, because its subject (mawdû‘) is negated, it is preferable to consider a negative ambiguous (sâliba muhmalah) proposition like “human (insân) is not standing” to be a virtually/potentially universal negative (sâliba kulliyyâh) proposition. He states that a disjunctive hypothetical proposition (shartiyya al-munfasila) that is composed of more than two parts/units is only seemingly so, and that in reality it cannot be composed of more than two units. Syllogism (qiyâs), according to Karsî, is the ultimate purpose (al-maqsad al-aqsâ) and the most valuable subject-matter of the science of Logic. For him, the entire range of topics that are handled before this one are only prolegomena to it. This approach of Karsî clearly reveals how much the ‘demonstration (burhân)-centered’ approach of the founding figures of the Muslim tradition of logic like al-Fârâbî and Ibn Sînâ has changed. al-Abharî, in his Îsâghûjî makes no mention of ‘conversion by contradiction’ (‘aks al-naqîd). Therefore, Karsî, too, in his commentary, does not touch upon the issue. However, in his Îsâghûjî al-jadîd Karsî does handle the conversion by contradiction and its rules. Following the method of Îsâghûjî, in his commentary Karsî shortly touches on the four figures (shakl) of conjuctive syllogism (qiyâs iqtirânî) and their conditions, after which he passes to the first figure (shakl), which is considered ‘the balance of the sciences’ (mi‘yâr al-‘ulûm), explaining the four moods (darb) of it. In his Îsâghûjî al-jadîd, however, Karsî handles all the four figures (shakl) with all their related moods (darb), where he speaks of fife moods (darb) of the fourth figure (shakl). The topic of ‘modal propositions’ (al-muwajjahât) and of ‘modal syllogism’ (al-mukhtalitât), both of which do not take place in the Îsâghûjî, are not mentioned by Karsî as well, either in his commentary on Îsâghûjî or in his Îsâghûjî al-jadîd. Karsî proposes that the certainties (yaqîniyyât), of which demonstration (burhân) is made, have seven, not six, divisions. After mentioning (1) axioms/first principles (awwaliyyât), (2) observata/sensuals (mushâhadât), (3) experta/empiricals (mujarrabât), (4) acumenalia (hadthiyyât), (5) testata (mutawâtirât), and (6) instictives (fitriyyât), that is, all the ‘propositions accompanied by their demonstrations,’ Karsî states that these six divisions, which do not need research and reflection (nazar), are called badîhiyyât (self-evidents), and constitute the foundations (usûl) of certainties (yaqîniyyât). As the seventh division he mentions (7) the nazariyyât (theoreticals), which are known via the badîhiyyât, end up in them, and therefore convey certainty (yaqîn). For Karsî, the nazariyyât/theoreticals, which constitute the seventh division of yaqîniyyât/certainties, are too numerous, and constitute the branches (far‘) of yaqîniyyât. Every time the concept of ‘Mughâlata’ (sophistry) comes forth in the traditional sections on the five arts usually appended to logic works, Karsî often gives examples from what he sees as extreme sûfî sayings, lamenting that these expressions are so widespread and held in esteem. He sometimes criticizes these expressions. However, it is observed that he does not reject tasawwuf in toto, but excludes from his criticism the mystical views and approaches of the truth-abiding (ahl al-haqq), shârî‘â-observant (mutasharri‘) leading sufis who have reached to the highest level of karâmah. (shrink)

Qaside-i Khamriyya (meaning Wine Eulogy) of sufi poet Ibn-i Fārıḍ, in which he explained divine love through the metaphor of wine, attracted great attention in Islamic world and was translated into Arabic, Persian and Turkish. Scholars such as Davud-i Qayseri (d. 751 AH/1350 AD), Kemal Pashazāde (d. 940 AH/1534 AD), Abdulghani an-Nablusi (d. 1143 AH/1731 AD), Ibn Acibe (d. 1224 AH/1809 AD) explained this eulogy in Arabic, while poets such as Ali b. Shihābiddin al-Hamadāni (d. 786 AH/1385 AD), Molla (...) Cāmi (d. 898 AH/1492 AD), Idris-i Bitlisi (d. 926 AH/1520 AD) wrote commentaries in Persian. On the other hand, authors such as Abdussalam b. Numan b. Khalil (d. 1000 AH/1592 AD [?]), Ismail Anqaravi (d. 1041 AH/1631 AD), Abdulmacid-i Sivasi (d. 1049 AH/1639 AD), Qara Musṭafa Khulūsi (d. 1344 AH/1926 AD), Meḥmed Naẓım (d. 1345 AH/1926 AD) and Ṭahir al-Mavlavi (d. 1371 AH/1951 AD) translated the eulogy into Turkish. One of the authors who translators of this eulogy was Mehmed Said Efendi, sheikh of Uskudar Salimiya Takka, who lived in the 19th century. His work named Ṭarab-angiz (meaning Pleasure-provoking) is a condensed commentary with ornate prose of Qaside-i Khamriyya. In previous studies, Ṭarab-angiz was partly examined, and there was no mention about the identity and personality of the author. In the present research, the life and personality of Meḥmed Said Efendi is explained and the text of his work is examined.Summary: In Turkish literature which developed under the influence of Islam, translations and commentaries have important a place along with original texts. Coming within the sphere of Islam in early 10th century, Turks embarked on translating the texts immediately in order to learn their new religion and to perform its practices and continued to do so since then. Because they lived in the same culture and civilization climate, Turks learned Islam from Persians and were influenced by Persian language. However, adherents of this new religion also made direct translations from Arabic texts. The translations initially were made from religious works, but in time social, cultural and literary works, such as Persian classics and major eulogies of Arabic Literature, were also translated into Turkish by Turkish scholars. Qaside-i Burde by Ka‘b b. Zuheyr’in (d. 24 AH/645 AD), Qaside-i Nūniyye by Ebu’l-Fetḥ Busti’nin (d. 400 AH/1010 AD), Qaside-i Ṭanṭarāniyye by Ṭanṭarāni’nin (d. 485 AH/1092 AD), Qaside-i Münferice by Ibnu’n-Naḥvi’nin (d. 513 AH/1119 AD), Qaside-i Emāli by Ali b. Othman al-Ushi’nin (d. 575 AH/1179 AD) and famous eulogy named Qaside-i Bur’e by Muḥammed b. Said al-Buṣiri’nin (d. 695 AH/1296 AD) were among such works.Qaside-i Khamriyya by sufi poet Ibn-i Fārıḍ (d. 632 AH/1235 AD), also called sultan of minstrels, in which he explained divine love through wine attracted great attention in Islamic world and was translated into many languages and many commentaries were written on it. One of the commentary writers about this eulogy is Meḥmed Said Efendi, a 19th century sufi. His work entitled Ṭarab-angiz is a condensed commentary with ornate prose of Qaside-i Khamriyya.Studies conducted so far has partly dealt with the Ṭarab-angiz and identity and personality of Meḥmed Said Efendi have never been mentioned. Ṣarac mentioned, “It is a printed work but its writer, printing date, and the place was not found on the printed work”, while Yıldırım used the expression of “a work whose writer and production date is not known.” In his Ph. D. thesis entitled Translation and Commentary Tradition in Classical Turkish Literature in Anatolia, Ṣadık Yazar noted that the work belongs to Meḥmed Said, which was later cited by Aqdag. The final statement on this issue was made by İnce in his work entitled Arabic, Persian and Turkish commentaries of Qaside-i Khamriyya by Ibnu’l Fārıḍ. He examined a total of 18 commentaries and stated that no information is available about the life of Meḥmed Said although he mentioned Ṭarab-angiz.The birth date and place of Meḥmed Said Efendi are unknown. He is grandchild of Ali Behjet Efendi (d. 1238 AH/1823 AD), one of sheiks in Salimiya Dervish Lodge in Uskudar and son of Meḥmed Hidāyetullah Efendi (d. 1288 AH/1871 AD). Following the death of his father, Meḥmed Said Efendi himself served as the head dervish of this dervish lodge for 25 years and became a famous figure. He died in 1313 AH/1896 AD and was buried in the cemetery of the Salimiya Dervish Lodge.Meḥmed Said Efendi was the sixth sheikh of Salimiya Dervish Lodge. In many sources, he was mentioned as a venerable, righteous, devoutly religious, virtuous, polite and scholarly man. Meḥmed Said Efendi is thought to be a member of Mavlavi lodge of Naqshbandi Ṭariqa. He had successors such as Naqshi sheikh Uskudari Balabani Ḥasan Ḥusnu Efendi (d. 1347 AH/1928 AD) and Ismail Efendi (d. after 1307 AH/1890 AD). The poet had a commentary named Ṭarab-angiz in prose form and had a quatrain within the praising eulogy of Sheikh Ḥāmil Efendi (d. 1322 AH/1904 AD), head sheikh of Beylerbeyi Bedevi Dervish Lodge.It is clear from the expression, “A work by Meḥmed Said, the Imam of Central Dervish Lodge of Sultan Salim III,” at the beginning of Edition no: 450 in Suleymaniye Library, Pertev Pasha Collection and from the record of “Work: Ṭarab-angiz, Author: Ibnu’l-Fārıḍ, Translator and postscript writer: Meḥmed Said” in Edition no: 7350 of Marmara University Faculty of Theology Library that this work belongs to Sheikh Meḥmed Said Efendi. However, exact production date of this printed work is not known. The work consisted of 28 pages and in some editions a two-page correct-false chart was added.As usual, the work starts with an introduction section with expressions of “By the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,” “Praise be to God,” and “Peace be upon Prophet Moḥammad.” This section also includes a praise for followers of Prophet Moḥammad, “Who made sphere of prophecy an eternal rose garden through the holy light of their enjoyed manners in addition to making the Shari’a candle shined and and converting them to great flowers of service with their strong inspiration torchs.” The commentator then embarked on praising Qaside-i Khamriyya, mentioning that the men of ability became helpless in explaination of beauty, charm and freshness of unique expression richness and refined allegory blossoms of the eulogy and that reaching the shore of rhetoric could be possible through diving into the guided wisdom of sea. In fact, according to commentator, the men of literature should be aware of the difficulty of translating this unique eulogy into Turkish language. However, everyone should dive into the sea of insight as a knowledge diver, collect its share in pearls of utterance and in emeralds of wits, arrange and put them in the string of prose”. Therefore, he wrote the commentary about the eulogy as a service to humanity and as a contribution to his own stock of comfort in the present and afterlife as much as he could, no matter how little it could be, and named it Ṭarab-angiz. Like most commentators of Qaside-i Khamriyya, Meḥmed Said Efendi commented on only about 33 couplets of the eulogy which contained a total of 41 couplets, and did not cover couplets from 23 to 30 in his work. The commentator used couplet-by- couplet translation method and started with praising for Ibn-i Fārıḍ and his couplets. Then, he gives the Arabic originals of the couplets and starts commentary with the expressions such as “couplets of great intuition, imagery couplets, product of couplet, enlightenment of couplet and concept of couplet.” In preface section of the work, the commentator, who usually quoted hadith texts in Arabic and poems, does not use them in his commentary. He only uses some lines of Arabic prayers and a quatrain of Molla Cāmi (d. 898 AH/1492 AD). This is a quatrain rubāi in Persian language meaning that “If you want no sorrow and no grief of the destiny, drink wine in a pub, because swirling of the goblet and worries of the world do not share the same place just as the tune and the sorrow do not coincide.” The lack of touching on the meaning of words, etymological structure and grammar rules in couplets makes it different from others, except the translation of Aḥmed Ṣāfi Bey. (shrink)

İbn Arabî’nin Fusûsü’l-hikem’in Âdem Fassı’nda yer verdiği umûr-ı külliye kavramı, Fusûs şârihleri tarafından muhtelif şekillerde alımlanmıştır. Kimi sufîler bu kavramı küllilere kimisi de zihnî varlık tartışmalarına hasretmek suretiyle ele alma taraftarı olmuştur. Yakın dönemde yapılan araştırmalar bunun izinden giderek söz konusu kavramla külliler tartışması arasında irtibat kurmaya çalışmaktadır. Biz bu çalışmamızda, Meşşâî felsefe geleneğinde metafiziğin ilm-i küllî kısmının temel meselelerine karşılık gelen umûr-ı âmme kavramı ile Fusûs’da yer alan umûr-ı külliye arasında bir irtibatın imkânını sorgulayacağız. Bunu yaparken özellikle ilk şârih (...) Cendî’nin umûr-ı külliyeyi umûr-ı âmme kavramı ile karşılamasından hareket ederek bu bakış açısının sonraki dönem şârihleri arasında nasıl yankı bulduğunu Afîfüddin Tilimsânî, Abdürrezzâk el-Kâşânî, Davud el-Kayserî, Sâinüddin İbn Türke, Yazıcıoğlu Mehmed Efendi, Molla Câmî gibi düşünürlerin yorumları eşliğinde ele alacağız. Bu bağlamda umûr-ı külliyenin Tanrı ile âlem arasındaki irtibatı kurma-daki metafiziksel yönü ve ikinci akledilirler olarak değerlendirilmesi gibi on-tolojik ve epistemolojik cihetleri dikkate alınarak, umûr-ı âmme kavramı etrafında yapılan tartışmalarla benzer yönleri ortaya konulmaya çalışılacaktır. Bu sayede söz konusu yorum ve benzerliklerden yola çıkarak, bu kavram çiftinin, dile getirildikleri düşünce geleneklerinin yakınlaşmasına bir zemin teşkil edip etmeyeceği tartışılacaktır. (shrink)

Bu makalenin [amacı], Osmanlı âlimlerinden Dâvûd Karsî’ye (ö. 1756 [?]) ait el-Îsâgûcî el-Cedîd’in t kikli neşrini ortaya koymaktır. Tahkik çalışması; eserin geniş bağlamını, müellifinin biyografisine genel bir bakışı ve içeriğinin bir incelemesiyle birlikte Ebherî’nin (ö. 663/1265) daha eski Îsâğûcî’si ile bir karşılaştırmasını içeren bir giriş ile başlamaktadır. Ebherî’nin orijinalinden yaklaşık iki kat daha uzun olan Karsî’nin eseri, 13. yüzyıldan itibaren Arabî mantık geleneğinde meydana gelen bazı önemli tartışmaların bir göstergesi konumundadır. Eser, müellifn kendi yapıtının, daha eski bir el kitabının “yeni” (...) (cedîd) bir versiyonu olduğunu vurgulaması bakımından da dikkate değerdir ki bu, 18. yüzyılın ortalarında bir Osmanlı medrese âlimi tarafından cedîd kavramına biçilen olumlu değere işaret etmektedir. (shrink)

The so-called Artukid bowl is the only enameled object which includes both an Arabic and a Persian inscription. According to the Arabic inscription the Artukid ruler Rukn ed Devle Davud was the owner of this object. Although its provenance is still unclear, the technique and material show similarities to several Byzantine examples. For this reason the bowl has been interpreted as a royal gift from Constantinople to the Artukid ruler. It has also been attributed to Georgia or to Mesopotamia. (...) The Arabic inscription includes a long list of titles of Rukn ed Devle Davud, like "Katl al Kafara" or "Samsam al Milla" . I, however, cannot imagine that a Christian emperor would address an Islamic ruler with such terms. The sender of the bowl was most likely another Islamic monarch. In addition, the Persian inscription leads to suspect that the sender had a close relationship with the Persian language and culture. Most probably he was a member of the royal Seljuk family in Anatolia. What was the reason for sending such a gift to a minor local ruler ? The written sources inform us that the daughter of the Seljuk Sultan Kiliç Aslan I. , Sacide Hatun , was married with Rukn ed Devle Davud, owner of our bowl. Furthermore the sources tell us that bowls were sometimes a part of the dowries. All these factors lead me to suggest that the so-called Artukid bowl was produced as a wedding gift in a Greek atelier of Seljuk Anatolia. (shrink)

This article examines the influence of the Hanafī philosophy of the Mamlūk period on the early Ottoman fiqh studies. Since the Egyptian and Damascus regions, which were under the rule of the Mamlūks, became the most important centres of knowledge in the Islamic world, it is understood that the Mamlūks’ scientific knowledge was superior to the Ottomans. On this occasion, many scholars who were considered the leading figures of the Ottoman scientific community turned to Egypt and Damascus regions and benefited (...) from the scientific accumulation there. In fact, these scholars who played an active role in the formation of the Ottoman scientific environment completed their education in Damascus and Egypt under the rule of the Mamlūks and graduated from the Mamlūk education system and assumed important roles in the formation of the Ottoman science understanding. During this period, the Hanafī judges (fuqahāʾ), who were active in the Mamlūk community, contributed to the development of the leading names of the Ottoman scientific community and this thought had an impact on their understanding of science. In this context, it is possible to say that the fiqh studies of the Ottomans in the first period were influenced by the Mamlūk Hanafī who had their characteristics. The two main characteristics of Hanafī thought in the Mamlūk period, the hadīth-centred juristic (fiqh) idea and the method of mamzûc (mixed) fiqh style are also seen in Ottoman fiqh works.Summary: In this article, the effect of Hanafī fiqh thought on the early Ottoman fiqh studies in Mamlūk period is discussed. While the Ottomans did not yet establish a scientific tradition in the period of foundation and ascension, many Mamlūk cities replaced Baghdad as the centre of knowledge of the Islamic world. Because the Mongol invasion, the crusades and the destruction of Andalusia due to reasons such as many scholars displaced by the Mamlūks settled there. Especially during this period, Egypt and Damascus, which were under the rule of the Mamlūks, became the most important centres of science in the Islamic world. In this respect, 14th-16th It is accepted that the science level of the Mamlūks was quite superior to the Ottomans in the 16th century. On this occasion, many scholars who are considered as the leading names of the Ottoman scientific community turned to Egypt and Damascus regions and benefited from the scientific accumulation there. Osman Ghāzī’s teacher and father-in-law, Sheikh Edebālī, Davud-i Kayserī, Sheikh Bedreddin, Molla Fanārī, Molla Gürānī are some of these scholars. In addition to these, scholars such as Muhsin-i Kayserī, Germiyanlı Poet Ahmedī, Hacı Paşa, Celāleddin Hızır, İbnü’l-Cezerī and İbn Arabşāh have also studied science in Egypt and Damascus. These scholars, who played an active role in the formation of the Ottoman scientific environment, completed their education in Damascus and Egypt under the rule of the Mamlūk and after graduating from the Mamlūk education system, they played an important role in the formation of the Ottoman science understanding. Sheikh Edebālī was accepted as one of the scientific and spiritual leaders of the Ottoman Empire. Davud-ı Kayserī was the first chief professor of İznik madrasah, the first Ottoman madrasah. Molla Fanārī had the privilege of being the first Ottoman shaykh al-Islām. Molla Gürānī became the teacher of Fatih Sultan Mehmed. During this period, the Hanafi faculties, which were active in the Mamlūk science community, contributed to the growth of the leading names in the Ottoman science community. Molla Fanārī, Seyyid Şerif Cürcānī, Shaykh Bedreddin and Poet Ahmadī have learned lessons from Bābertī, who important Hanafī scholars in Egypt. The idea of Hanafī fiqh in the Mamlūk period influenced the studies of the Ottoman fiqh in the first period. In this context, Molla Khüsrev refers to Zeyla‛ī and Bābertī, the leading Hanafī scholars of Mamlūk in many parts of his work, although he did not go to the regions dominated by the Mamlūks. The two main characteristics of the Hanafī thought in the Mamlūk period were the hadith-centred fiqh thought and mamzûc (mixed) method of fiqh. In the Mamlūk period, hadith studies which were not seen before in Hanafī sect were done. During this period, Hanafī jurists spent time in the field of hadith such as Ibn Balabān, Ibn Turkmānī, Zeylaʻī, Kuraşī, Mogoltay b. Kılıç, Bedruddīn Aynī, Ibn Kutluboğa, Serūcī, Bābertī, İbnü’l-Humām, İbnü’l-‛Adīm. They tried to eliminate the lack of studies in the field of hadith in the Hanafī circles while their studies certainly require hadith expertise. As a result of the works of these jurists in the field of hadith, the basic sources were frequently included in the fiqh studies in the Mamlūk period and, the hadiths were started to be made. The influence of this understanding, which had an important place in the thought of the fiqh of Hanafī during the Mamlūk period, can be seen in the Ottoman fiqh works in the first period. In this context, Molla Khüsrev, in his work with the influence of the early Ottoman jurists who had been educated in Egypt before him, gave some basic sources of hadith and sometimes gave information about the reliability of hadiths. On the other hand, it is possible to say that this issue is quite insufficient in Ottoman fiqh works when compared with Hanafi jurists of the Mamlūks. A comparison of Ibnü’l-Humām’s Fethü’l-kadīr and Netāicu’l-efkār, which was performed by Kādızāde order to complete it, can be compared. Apart from that, there are different attitudes between Şürünbülālī and Şeykhi-zāde known as Damad Efendi, they lived in the same period. Şürünbülālī, one of the Egyptian scholars of the Ottoman period generally gave the hadiths from the basic hadith sources in his work Merāki’l-felāh, while Şeyhīzāde did not obey this issue and rarely included basic hadith sources in his work Mecma‛ü’l-enhur. These differences can be explained by the necessity of the scientific environment. Because the Hanafīs were accused of not using hadith in Egypt and its environs, the Hanafī jurists living in this region should have directed them to be more rigorous about the hadith. However, since the Hanafī jurists living in other Ottoman regions did not have such a problem, they probably did not feel the need to refer to the main sources of hadith in the power of hadiths. Therefore, it can be said that the scientific environment and the need arising in this direction lead to different attitudes of the jurists living in the same period. The mamzûc (mixed) method starting with Ibnu’s-Sāātī, In the 8th-century, it was especially effective on the idea of ​​the fiqh style of Hanafī jurists. Although the first name of the mamzûc (mixed) method, Ibnu’s-Sāātī, was not one of the scholars of the Mamlūk period, the influence he initiated was more common in the Mamlūk period and became one of the characteristic features of the Hanafī fiqh thought in this period. Therefore, it is understood that the majority of Hanafī jurists had a gratified method. In addition to this, it is seen that Ottoman jurists who were educated in and around Egypt write procedural works in grammatical style. Molla Fanārī's work Fusūlü’l-Bedāyi is the most important example of this genre. Moreover, even Molla Khüsrev, who had not gone to Egypt and his surroundings, wrote a memoir-like work called Mir’ātü’l-Usûl. The works of these two authors show that the Ottoman jurists were influenced by the Mamlūks. As a result, it is possible to say that the fiqh studies in the early period of the Ottomans were influenced by the Mamlūk Hanafīs who had their characteristics. The hadith-centred fiqh thought and mamzûc (mixed) fiqh style understanding had an impact on the early Ottoman fiqh studies. (shrink)

Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarları ile Osman ed-Dârimî arasında burada tartışma konusu yapılan hadisler haberî sıfatları konu alan ve müşkil nitelikte olan rivayetlerden oluşmaktadır. Bu rivayetleri genelde Bişr el-Merîsî ve taraftarlarının tecsîm ve teşbîh içerdiği iddiasıyla münker kabul ettikleri görülmektedir. Ehl-i re’y özellikleri taşımakla birlikte ilahî sıfatlar konusunda Mu’tezilî bir anlayışa sahip olduklarından tenzih anlayışları gereği sıfatları reddetmektedirler. Yaratılmışlara ait niteliklerin yaratıcıya nisbet edilmesini tenzîh anlayışlarına aykırı gördüklerinden bu tür müşkil rivayetleri ya kendi anlayışları doğrultusunda te’vîl ya da reddettikleri gözlenmektedir. Sert bir (...) ehl-i hadîs âlimi olan Osman ed-Dârimî ise, ayet ve hadislerde bildirilen ilahî sıfatlara iman edilmesi gerektiğini kabul etmektedir. Bu anlayışı sebebiyle bu rivayetlerde bildirilen haberî sıfatlara da te’vîl etmeksizin lafzî anlamıyla yaklaşmakta; kendi görüşü doğrultusunda Bişr el-Merîsî ve taraftarlarının yaptığı te’vîlleri reddetmekte, bu te’vîllerin ta’tîle yol açacağını ileri sürmektedir. Bu rivayetlerin lafzî (literal) anlamları doğrultusunda anlaşılması gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Bu hadisler üzerinde yapılan tartışmalar, temel hadis eserlerinin yazıldığı dönemde Ehl-i re’y ve Ehl-i hadîs ekollerine mensup âlimlerin hadislere yaklaşımlarını göstermesi bakımından önem arzetmektedir. Burada vermiş olduğumuz hadisler üzerindeki tartışmalar bu iki ekolün uluhiyet anlayışını, haberî sıfatlara yaklaşımlarını ortaya koyduğu gibi bunların genel anlamda hadis perspektifi hakkında bizlere bilgi vermektedir.ÖzetBu araştırma, temel hadis kitaplarının yazıldığı dönemde, yani III./IX asırda, haberî sıfatlar ihtiva eden bazı hadisler üzerinde yapılan tartışmaları ele almaktadır. Tartışma Osman ed-Dârimî (ö. 280/894) ile Bişr el-Merîsî’nin (ö. 218/833) taraftarları arasında geçmektedir. Hadisler üzerinde Ehl-i hadîs ile Ehl-i re’y mensubu âlimler arasında gerçekleşen bu tartışmalar bir yönüyle hadislerin anlaşılması ve yorumlanmasını ilgilendirmektedir. Tartışmanın, burada ele alınan hadislerin nasıl anlaşılması gerektiği; lafızların kelime anlamı mı (literal) yoksa bu lafızların ötesindeki muhtemel mecazî anlamları dikkate alınarak mı anlaşılması gerektiği noktasında odaklandığı söylenebilir. İnceleme konusu yapılan hadisleri tartışan tarafları kısaca tanıtmak yerinde olacaktır. Sözünü ettiğimiz rivayetlerle ilgili tartışmalar Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarları ile Osman ed-Dârimî arasında geçmektedir. Ehl-i hadîs’in önemli simalarından biri olan Osman ed-Dârimî, hadislerle ilgili bu tartışmaları içeren ayrı bir eser yazmıştır. Bu eser, Allah’ın sıfatları ve bazı hadis meseleleri konusunda Bişr el-Merîsî ve onun iki talebesinin görüşlerine reddiye olarak yazılmıştır. Bişr el-Merîsî, Ebû Yusuf’tan (ö. 182/798) fıkıh tahsil etmiş, önemli bir kelâmcı olarak tanınmıştır. O, kelâmla ilgili konularda aralarında İmâm Şâfiî’nin (ö. 204/820) de bulunduğu pek çok âlimle ilmî tartışmalar yapmış bir ehl-i re’y âlimdir. Halife Me’mûn’un (ö. 218/833) danışma meclisinde bulunmuş, Kur’ân’ın yaratılmışlığı (Halku’l-Kur’ân) görüşünün benimsenmesinde önemli payı olmuştur. Osman ed-Dârimî ise, Yahyâ b. Ma’în (ö. 233/848), Ali b. Medînî (ö. 234/848-49), İshâk b. Râhûye (ö. 238/853) ve Ahmed b. Hanbel (ö. 241/855) gibi döneminin otoritelerinden hadis öğrenmiş bir ehl-i hadîs âlimidir. Hadis tahsili için önemli bütün şehirleri dolaşarak hadis öğrenmiş ve rivayette bulunmuştur.Haberi sıfatları ispat ve bunlarla ilgili rivayetlerin teviline karşı çıkan anlayış ile, bu rivayetlerin tenzih anlayışına uygun biçimde tevilini savunan kesimler ilk dönemden itibaren eserler telif etmişlerdir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, ehl-i hadîs’in eleştiri edebiyatının ortaya çıkmasında, Mu’tezile’nin ilahî sıfatları reddetmesi etkili olmuş ve pek çok müellif bu yönde eserler yazmışlardır. Ebû Hüreyre’den nakledilen bir rivayetle ilgili olarak muârız, bu rivayetin Allah için bildiğimiz göz ve kulak organlarından oluştuğu izlenimi verildiğini söyler. Osman ed-Dârimî, bu hadisin göz ve kulak organlarını değil görme ve işitmeyi ispat ettiğini söyler. Hiçbir konuda Allah’ın benzerinin bulunmadığını belirtir. Dolayısıyla Allah’ın organlardan oluştuğu iddiasını ehl-i hadîs’e nisbet etmek iftiradır. Ebû Dâvûd, bu hadis ile Allah için görme ve işitme sıfatlarının ispat edildiğini ve Cehmiyye’nin ilahî sıfatları inkar görüşüne reddiye olduğunu belirtir. Ebû Hüreyre’in Hz. Peygamber’e nispet ederek naklettiği: "İman Yemenlidir, hikmet Yemenlidir! Ben Rabbi’nizin nefesini Yemen tarafından hissediyorum!" rivayetini de muârız münker kabul etmiştir. Çünkü Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbına göre nefes ancak karın boşluğu olanlardan çıkar, Allah ise bundan münezzehtir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, muârız yanlış anlamıştır. Burada kastedilen, Yemen tarafından esen ve insanı rahatlatan rüzgardır. Bu rivayet bağlamında bakıldığında, Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarlarının rivayeti literal değerlendirdiğini, Osman ed-Dârimî’nin ise rivayeti yorumladığını görmekteyiz. İbnü’s-Selcî, "Siz, Allah’a ondan çıkandan (Kur’ân’dan) daha faziletli bir şeyle yaklaşamazsınız!" rivayeti hakkında, Müşebbihe’nin bunu, karın boşluğu olan, kendisinden kelâm çıkan şeklinde anladıklarını belirtir. Allah boşluğu olmayan anlamında "samed" olduğundan bu anlayış geçersizdir. Bu hadisle, Kur’ân’ın Allah’tan değil O’nun katından çıkması kastedilmiştir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, İbnü’s-Selcî’nin asıl maksadı Allah’ın kelâm sıfatını inkâr etmektir. Kur’ân’ın O’ndan çıktığında bir şüphe yoktur, bunu sadece kelâm sıfatını kabul etmeyenler inkâr etmektedir. İbn Abbâs’a atfedilen; "Rükn (Hacerülesved) yeryüzünde Allah’ın sağ elidir, halk ile onunla musafaha eder" rivayetinde geçen "yemînullah" (Allah’ın sağ eli) sözünün anlamı, İbnü’s-Selcî’ye göre bildiğimiz sağ el değil, Allah’ın nimeti ve ikrâmıdır. Hacerülesved ile elin kastedilmediğini kabul eden Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, İbnü’s-Selcî’nin maksadı, geçersiz te’villerle Allah hakkında ayet ve hadislerde belirtilen iki eli inkar etmektir. İbn Abbâs’ın Hz. Peygamber’den naklettiği başka bir rivayeti İbnü’s-Selcî’nin eserine alıp nakletmesini eleştiren Osman ed-Dârimî, bu tür zayıf rivayetlerin yayılmaması gerektiğini söyler. Buna ilave olarak İbnü’s-Selcî’nin yaptığı yorumun da çirkin olduğunu belirtir ve eleştirir. Çünkü sözü edilen rivayette Allah, yeşil bir takım elbise giymiş kıvırcık saçlı bir genç olarak tasvir edilmektedir. Böyle bir rivayet Hz. Peygamber’den gelen sahih rivayetlerle çeliştiği için de güvenilmez bir rivayettir. Rivayetle ilgili bu değerlendirmeyi yapan Osman ed-Dârimî, rivayet hakkında muârızın yaptığı yorumları da reddeder. Muârıza göre, "Rabbimin yanına girdim" sözü, "Adn cennetinde Rabbimin huzuruna girdim" demektir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre bu gibi müşkil (problemli) hadisler re’y ile tefsir edilmemeli, rivayet edilip bırakılmalıdır. Hz. Peygamber’e dayandırılan ve Allah’ın kendisine geldiğinden bahisle cevabını bilemediği bazı sorulan sorduğundan, sonra Rabbinin elini sırtına koymasıyla parmaklarının serinliğini hissettiğinden ve her şeyi öğrendiğinden bahseden rivayetle ilgili olarak muarız şu değerlendirmede bulunur: Allah Resûlü’ne gelen Rabbi değil güzel suretli bir melekti, o melek Allah tarafından yönledrilmekteydi ve elini koyan da o melekti. Osman ed-Dârimî, muârızın bu yorumunu reddeder. Bu yorum aynı zamanda diğer sahih hadislere de aykırıdır. Osman ed-Dârimî, sözkonusu rivayet hakkında muârızın yorumunu reddettikten sonra zikrettiği sahih rivayetlere dayanarak buna güvenilemiyeceğini ifade etmiştir. İlahî sıfatlar hakkında konuşmak en zor konular arasında görüldüğünden, selef âlimleri bu konuda susmayı tercih etmişlerdir. Ancak sonraki nesiller bu konuda farklı yollar tutmuşlardır. İlahi sıfatları anlama konusundaki temel yaklaşımları tefvîz, teşbîh ve te’vîl şeklinde üç ana başlıkta toplamak mümkündür. Tefvîz, selef alimlerinin benimsediği yol olup, Allah’ın zâtı ve sıfatlarının mahiyetine ilişkin bilgiyi ilâhî ilme havale etmek demektir. Teşbîh, Allah’ı yaratılmışlara veya yaratılmışları Allah’a benzetmek anlamına gelir. Te’vil, Allah’ın yaratılmışlara benzediği izlenimini veren ayet ve hadisleri dil bilimi ve aklî bilgilerle yorumlamaktır. Sıfatları inkar edenlere Muattıla denilmiş, sıfatları ispat edenler Sıfâtiyye diye anılmıştır. Ehl-i re’y’e göre Allah’a atfedilen ve sözlük anlamı bakımından teşbîh ve tecsîm izlenimi veren sıfatları uygun biçimde te’vil etmek gerekir. İlâhî sıfatlarda Mu’tezile tenzihi öne çıkarmış, Eş’ariyye ve Mâtürîdiyye ise tenzihe uygun te’vili benimsemiştir. Müşebbihe, Vehhâbî-Selefî anlayış da ilahî sıfatlardaki lafızları zahiri anlamlarıyla almışlardır. Hadis ilminde en önemli temel eserlerin telif edildiği II./VIII. ve III./IX. asırda yaşamış olan âlimler arasında cereyan eden inceleme konusu yaptığımız tartışma, ilk döneme ait olması bakımından önemlidir. Bunun yanında tartışma, âyet ve hadislerden oluşan naslara yaklaşımda, iki temel yaklaşımı göstermesi bakımından da önemli bilgiler ihtiva etmektedir. Bu iki temel yaklaşımdan biri ehl-i re’y ekolünü, diğeri ise Ehl-i hadîs anlayışını temsil etmektedir. Osman ed-Dârimî genel olarak rivayetin lafzına bağlı kalmayı savunmakta, Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbı ise münker olduğu gerekçesiyle rivayeti eleştirmekte ya da te’vil etmektedir. Nadir de olsa Osman ed-Dârimî’nin rivayeti ret ya da te’vil ettiği, Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbının ise rivayeti savunduğu yerler de görülebilmektedir. Müteşâbih (problemli) rivayetler hakkında Bişr el-Merîsî’nin yaptığı te’viller sonraki âlimler üzerinde etkili olmuştur. Onun te’villeri, Cübbâî (ö. 303/916), Kādî Abdülcebbâr (ö. 415/1025), Ebü’l-Hüseyin el-Basrî (ö. 436/1044) gibi Mu’tezilî âlimlerin yanı sıra, İbn Fûrek, Gazâlî (ö.505/1111), İbn Akîl (ö. 513/1119), Fahreddîn er-Râzî (ö. 606/1210) gibi sünnî âlimler tarafından da iktibâs edilmiştir. Rivayete dayalı olan hadis ilminde hakikatin ortaya konulabilmesi, "rivayet" ve "re’y" seçeneklerinden birini tercih etmekle değil; bunların her ikisini de yerinde ve dengeli olarak kullanılmasına bağlı olduğunu hatırda tutmak gerekir. Hakikatin ortaya çıkarılmasında rivayet re’ye, re’y de rivayete muhtaçtır. Rivayet ve re’y birbirinin rakibi değil tamamlayıcı unsurları olarak görmek gerekir. (shrink)