Ahmed b. Muhammed el-Kazâbâdî ve İlmu’l-bâtın Risalesi: Tahkik ve Değerlendirme

Muammer BAYRAKTUTAR

Makale detayları

Ahmed b. Muhammed el-Kazâbâdî ve İlmu’l-bâtın Risalesi: Tahkik ve Değerlendirme

Yazarlar:

Muammer BAYRAKTUTAR

Yayıncı:

Hacıveyiszade İlim ve Kültür Vakfı

Ana Başlıklar:

Din

Dergi:

Tahkik Journal of Critical Editions of Islamic Manuscripts 2019 Vol.2 Issue 2, pp.133-181

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2019

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2000606065

Sıklık:

İki Yıllık

pISSN:

2459-1815

Özet:

 

Ahmed b. Muhammed el-Kazâbâdî (ö. 1163/1750), Tokat Kazâbâd’da (Kazova/Üzümören) doğmuş, Osmanlı döneminin önemli ilmî simalarından biridir. Memleketi Tokat’ta başladığı tahsilini Sivas’ta tamamlayarak İstanbul’a gelen Kazâbâdî, müdderris olarak vazife almış ve çeşitli kadılıklarda bulunmuştur. Aralarında Ebû Saîd el-Hâdîmî (ö. 1176/1762) gibi meşhur âlimlerin de bulunduğu pek çok öğrenci yetiştirmiş, aynı zamanda tefsir, kelam ve fıkıh gibi temel ilimlerde şerh ve hâşiye türünde çok sayıda eser kaleme almıştır. Çalışmamızda Kazâbâdî’nin hayatı, ilmî şahsiyeti ve eserleri hakkında kısaca bilgi verildikten sonra, zâhir ve bâtın ilmini konu edindiği İlmu’l-bâtın isimli risalesinin değerlendirmesi yapılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda öncelikle risalenin tercüme ve tahliline, son olarak da ek hüviyetiyle eserin tahkikli neşrine yer verilmiştir. Esasında bu çalışmada temel gaye, risalede kullanılan hadis ve rivayetlerin tenkit ve tahlilini yapmaktır. Ancak risalenin tamamını ele alarak tercüme ve tahliline yer vermenin daha isabetli olacağı düşünülmüş, makalenin hacmini artırmamak amacıyla hadis ve rivayetlerin tahric ve değerlendirmesine ise dipnotlarda yer verilmiştir. Çalışma dahilinde Kazâbâdî’nin zâhir ve bâtın ilimlerine yaklaşım biçimi üzerinde durulmuştur. Müellif, risalesinde özellikle de bâtın ehlinden bazı kimselerin ilm-i bâtın anlayışlarına yönelik birtakım tenkit ve değerlendirmelerde bulunmaktadır. O, tarihte olduğu gibi kendi döneminde de zâhir uleması ile bâtın uleması arasında zâhir ve bâtın ilmi, bunların mahiyeti, kabulü ve ilkeleri gibi hususlarda cereyan eden tartışmalara binaen meseleyi ilmî olarak değerlendirmek üzere bu konuda müstakil bir risale kaleme almış ve sonuçta zâhir ve bâtın arasında denge kuran ve zâhirle uyum içerisinde olan bir bâtın anlayışının ilke ve sınırlarını ortaya koymaya çalışmıştır.

 

Aĥmad b. Muĥammed al-Qazābādī, who was born in Tokat, a scientific hub in Anatolia at the time, was a prominent scholar during the Ottoman Empire era in the 18th century. After completing his education in Tokat and Sivas, he traveled to Istanbul and taught at several madrasas, was teacher to Abū Saīd al-Ĥādimī, and worked as a judge. However, as a one of the prominent scholars of his time, Qazābādī continued with his scholarly activities and published several exegetical works, glosses, and treatises.

Qazābādī was an authority in many fields including tafsīr (Quranic exegesis), kalām (speculative theology), balāgha (rhetoric), manṭiq (logic), and uśūl (methodology or first principles). However, he was not qualified in the study of ĥadīth (prophetic narrations), and lacked expertise in takhrīj al-ĥadīth (the source-critique of ĥadīth). Accordingly, he did not publish a great deal on ĥadīth and taśawwuf (Islamic mysticism or Sufism). Also, it seems that he used weak and factitious ĥadīth reports and, as is common in the case of Sufi scholars, he also did not follow a meticulous method in the examination of ĥadīths and ĥadīth reports. These matters present some uncertainties in view of Qazābādī’s authority and expertise in such disciplines.

In his Sufi treatise entitled ‘Ilm al-bāŧin, Qazābādī interprets the discipline of “bāŧin” (hidden or esoteric) as the purview of Sufism and the discipline of “žāhir” (apparent or exoteric) as a field determined by scholars of Kalām and Fiqh through rational and transmitted knowledge. He addresses the context of “žāhir” and “bāŧin” disciplines by comparing and pointing out the commonalities and differences between them and other disciplines. Qazābādī highlights that every Sufi has a different perspective concerning the discipline of bāŧin and criticizes a bāŧin and Sufi approach that is in agreement with a “žāhir” perspective. Furthermore, he suggests that Sufism is a type of firewall against bāŧin, and that the sources of Sufism and žāhir disciplines are based on Islam, and that both are identical in this regard. However, Qazābādī does not entirely disregard the field of bāŧin as he considers it to be important when being consistent with that of žāhir, and addresses the statements of some Sufis who claim that every žāhir is to be rejected if it is goes against the bāŧin. Making a bāŧin claim against the Sharī‘a is an abjuration and perversion according to him. Nonetheless, when any žāhir incident that goes against the Sharī‘a occurs among the Sufis, he assesses them under the conditions that they occurred. He further excuses Sufis if the žāhir incidents take place in the state of sakr (spiritual intoxication). If some incident is said to occur when Sufis are conscious, he excuses them if interpretation permits us to conceive them in such a way. Otherwise, he suggests that the events should be rejected and the subjects (Sufis) should be ignored and punished. In this regard, he gives the example of the judgement and punishment sentenced by the scholars for Ĥallāj and ‘Arabī. Qazābādī’s point of view here is like the scholars from the field of žāhir with regards to the situation of the Sufis. In other words, he does not take into consideration the Sufis’ spiritual condition and experience when they consciously have experiences that are against the religion.

While assessing the žāhir discipline vis-à-vis the ghayb (unseen) field, Qazābādī acknowledges that the ghayb field is not clear to us and that it can scantily be known through some form of assistance, wondrous deed, or miracle. In this regard, he exemplifies this issue with a parable in the Quran by drawing on the story of Khidr and Moses. Qazābādī harshly criticizes the perspectives and approaches of some ignorant Sufis. Accordingly, he addresses what some of these ignorant Sufis claim regarding the rejection of a bāŧin issue as tantamount to the rejection of the Sharī‘a, and they think that the people of bāŧin are exclusively acquainted with such an issue. Qazābādī also emphasizes that bāŧin perspectives of such kinds are blasphemous, perverse, and deviant. Qazābādī states that the statement of Abū Hurayra, “I was given a modest portion of wisdom from the prophet Muĥammad,” cannot be a proof of bātin knowledge, and criticizes people who make such arguments based on this. Also, he stresses that there should not be both a žāhir and bāŧin meaning in an injunction of the Quran that is contradictory; however, there might be a bāŧin meaning which is not against a žāhir one, which does not cancel out the žāhir meaning and mutually applies to all of humanity. He claims that there is no Quranic injunction that has two meanings for two different tribes or nations. Therefore, by exemplifying the story of Khidr and Moses, he criticizes scholars who claim that it is possible for individuals to act with knowledge that is of either bāŧin or žāhir. According to him, the essential point regarding the injunctions of the Quran is the zāhir meaning, and for someone who abandons this type of meaning is indicative of blasphemy. Furthermore, Qazābādī discusses the debate and quarrel between Moses and Khidr in the Quran by addressing the views of Qāđī al-Bayđāwī. Accordingly, what Khidr essentially does in the story is that he prevents the upright one from two evils. Also, the reason for the controversy between Khidr and Moses is the differences that define their respective Shari‘as. Indeed, Khidr makes this situation clear by stating that he carried everything out by the decree of Allah.

In conclusion, Qazābādī rejects the perspective that sees žāhir and bāŧin as two opposing fields. However, he is not against a bāŧin and Sufi view point that does not consider žāhir and bāŧin as two opposing fields and also does not ignore the žāhir. Throughout history, there are many arguments that took place between scholars of žāhir and bāŧin regarding the contexts, assessments, and principles of these two disciplines. In this regard, both sides are known to have harshly criticized one another. In fact, having expressed interest in the arguments dealing with žāhir and bāŧin at the time, Qazābādī wrote his treatise to assess these arguments from his own point of view. Consequently, he aimed to establish a wisdom-based connection between the two perspectives of žāhir and bāŧin and to also determine the boundaries and principles of the latter in a way that was consistent with the former discipline.

Makale detayları

Ahmed b. Muhammed el-Kazâbâdî ve İlmu’l-bâtın Risalesi: Tahkik ve Değerlendirme

Yazarlar: Muammer BAYRAKTUTAR

Yayıncı: Hacıveyiszade İlim ve Kültür Vakfı

Ana Başlıklar: Din

Dergi: Tahkik Journal of Critical Editions of Islamic Manuscripts 2019 Vol.2 Issue 2, pp.133-181

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2019

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2000606065

Sıklık: İki Yıllık

pISSN: 2459-1815

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Muammer BAYRAKTUTAR

Yayıncı:

Hacıveyiszade İlim ve Kültür Vakfı

Ana Başlıklar:

Din

Dergi:

Tahkik Journal of Critical Editions of Islamic Manuscripts 2019 Vol.2 Issue 2, pp.133-181

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2019

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2000606065

Sıklık:

İki Yıllık

pISSN:

2459-1815