İsmail Ebu’ş-Şâmât’ın Sülûk üli’n-nazar li halli ‘Ukûdi’d-dürer Nazm mâ yüftâ bih min akvâli’l-İmâm Züfer İsimli Risalesinin Tahkikli Neşri

Ünal ŞAHİN

Makale detayları

İsmail Ebu’ş-Şâmât’ın Sülûk üli’n-nazar li halli ‘Ukûdi’d-dürer Nazm mâ yüftâ bih min akvâli’l-İmâm Züfer İsimli Risalesinin Tahkikli Neşri

Yazarlar:

Ünal ŞAHİN

Yayıncı:

Hacıveyiszade İlim ve Kültür Vakfı

Ana Başlıklar:

Din

Dergi:

Tahkik Journal of Critical Editions of Islamic Manuscripts 2019 Vol.2 Issue 1, pp.129-209

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2019

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2000606113

Sıklık:

İki Yıllık

pISSN:

2459-1815

Özet:

 

Sülûkü Uli’n-Nazar, İsmail Ebu’ş-Şâmât (ö. 1259/1843’den sonra)‎‏ ‏tarafından Hamevî’nin (ö. ‎‎1098/1687) Ukûdu’d-dürer isimli nazmına yazılan şerhtir. Eser, İmam Züfer’in Hanefi ‎mezhebinde “müftâ bih” olan görüşlerini şerh eden otuz ‎beyitten oluşmaktadır.‎ Hamevî’nin bu ‎nazmı üzerine yazılan bir diğer şerh ise Abdülğani en-Nablusî’nin (ö. 1143/1731) Nukûdu’s-‎surer isimli eseridir. Fakat bu şerh, Nablusî’nin risalesinden daha hacimlidir.‎ Eser, müellif nüshası olup Mısır Mektebetü’l-Ezher kütüphanesinde bulunmaktadır. Beyitleri kelime kelime şerheden müellif, sonrasında konuyla alakalı fıkhî bahisleri ele almaktadır.‎ İsmail Ebu’ş-Şâmât fıkhî konulardaki açıklamalarını mezhebin mütekaddim kaynaklarıyla ‎‎desteklemektedir.‎ Eserde Hamevî’nin müftâ bih olarak saydığı bazı meselelerin, müellif tarafından eleştirildiği görülmektedir. İsmail Ebu’ş-Şâmât, Hanefi mezhebinde İmam Züfer’in kavli üzere müftâ bih olan meselelerde Hamevî’nin belirttiği sayıyla sınırlı kalmayarak, İbn Abidîn’in belirttiği görüşleri de dikkate almıştır.

 

Sulūk Ulī al-Nažar is a commentary work written by Ismā’īl Abū al-Shāmāt (after 1259/1843) on Hamawi’s (d. 1098/1687) Uqūd al-Durar. The work consists of thirty couplets expounding the views of Imam Zufar which are “muftā bihi” in the Ĥanafī school. Another commentary written on Hamawi’s verse is a work by ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Nablusī (d. 1143/1731) called Nuqūd al-Surar. This commentary, however, is more comprehensive than that of Nablusī’s. 

The Sulūk Uli al-Nažar that we possess is that of the author’s and it is the only extant manuscript copy. The copy is not available in the libraries of Turkey but can be found in the Maktabah al-Azhar library in Egypt. Any discrepancies that may have been present in the text are not known as it is the only surviving copy of the work. But the couplets in Sulūk Uli al-Nažar have been compared with the three copies of Uqūd al-Durar, all three of which are original, as well as with the three copies of Nuqūd al-Surar as they also include the same couplets.

Ismā’īl Abū al-Shāmāt did not present the couplets in the work separately. For the convenience of the reader, the couplets were taken from the work and placed at the head of the related section. In addition, a list of the differences between the couplets was added at the end of the booklet. The list reveals clear differences between the couplets. While the number of couplets is thirty in Sulūk Uli al-Nažar, in some copies of Uqūd al-Durar and Nuqūd al-Surar this number is thirty-three. In some cases, the number of couplets varies, while others show differences in wording. All of these are indicated both in the couplet and at the end of the couplet list. The single-leaf copy of Uqūd al-Durar in the Harvard University collection, which is the original text, is also included in this article. Thus, the reader is able to compare the verses of both ‘Uqūd al-Durar and Sulūk Uli al-Nažar.

Ismā’īl Abū al-Shāmāt wrote his work in a different way in comparison to Nablusī’s commentary style. The author, who comments on his couplets word by word, then transfers the relevant fiqh issues from the sources of the Ĥanafī school. He renders an exposition of the words in the couplets with respect to their meaning and grammar, and at times cites poetry as well. Ismā’īl Abū al-Shāmāt raises objections in some places to the couplet of Hamawī as he states that “it would be better if they had been so,” and follows this with his proposal to the reader. Among the objections of the author, it is noteworthy that Hamawī did not accept some of the views of Imam Zufar who preferred muftā bihi. The author propounds his views further by saying that “I say that” and he expresses different opinions when compared to the majority of the fuqahā’ (Muslim jurists). Ismā’īl Abū al-Shāmāt, who in his reference to the disagreement between the Ĥanafī fuqahā’, emphasizes the different aspects regarding the disputes of Imam Zufar.

The work clearly evinces the author’s mastery over the sources of the Ĥanafī school. The author, who is also aware of the works on the subject, taps into the work of Nablusī and praises him by using the honorific title of ‘Sayyidī’.

In Ismā’īl Abū al-Shāmāt’s work, the Ĥanafī school according to Imam Zufar was not limited to the number indicated by Hamawī in matters of muftā bihi. He, moreover, mentions in his work the eight issues that Ibn ‘Ābidīn (d. 1252/1836) added to Imam Zufar’s views which are muftā bihi. Ibn ‘Ābidīn had also mentioned Imam Zufar’s views as muftā bihi in the Ĥanafī school in his Radd al-Mukhtār.

Ismā’īl Abū al-Shāmāt supports his explanations on fiqh subjects with the above-mentioned sources of the school. The author frequently refers to the literature of commentary, hāshiya and fatāwā in the Ĥanafī school. A list of the works cited by Ismā’īl Abū al-Shāmāt was prepared for the reader under the title of fiqh sources by the author. Another matter that draws attention is that Ismā’īl Abū al-Shāmāt frequently cites from the works of Ottoman scholars. In particular, the work Durar al-Hukkām of Molla Husrev (d. 885/1485) is the primary reference source for the author. This can be accepted as evidence for the prevalence of known books throughout the Ottoman region, scientific vitality, and interaction in the cultural field.

It is of note that even in the 19th century, the Ĥanafī ulema were writing about Imam Zufar’s opinions for which they are known to have authored as independent booklets. What is particularly important is that although the opinions of the three Imams were abandoned, the ‘systematic integrity’ of the school has still been maintained. This reveals the significance of Imam Zufar together with the effort of the Ĥanafī ulema to meet the needs of the people without violating ‘sectarian unity’. The works that were written in this way pave the way for the ulema to remain within the Ĥanafī school and search for solutions in accordance with the people’s needs.

Makale detayları

İsmail Ebu’ş-Şâmât’ın Sülûk üli’n-nazar li halli ‘Ukûdi’d-dürer Nazm mâ yüftâ bih min akvâli’l-İmâm Züfer İsimli Risalesinin Tahkikli Neşri

Yazarlar: Ünal ŞAHİN

Yayıncı: Hacıveyiszade İlim ve Kültür Vakfı

Ana Başlıklar: Din

Dergi: Tahkik Journal of Critical Editions of Islamic Manuscripts 2019 Vol.2 Issue 1, pp.129-209

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2019

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2000606113

Sıklık: İki Yıllık

pISSN: 2459-1815

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ünal ŞAHİN

Yayıncı:

Hacıveyiszade İlim ve Kültür Vakfı

Ana Başlıklar:

Din

Dergi:

Tahkik Journal of Critical Editions of Islamic Manuscripts 2019 Vol.2 Issue 1, pp.129-209

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2019

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2000606113

Sıklık:

İki Yıllık

pISSN:

2459-1815