Kemalpaşazâde’ye Göre Müşâkele Sanatı (Problemler ve Eleştirler)

Mehmet Faruk ÇİFÇİ

Makale detayları

Kemalpaşazâde’ye Göre Müşâkele Sanatı (Problemler ve Eleştirler)

Yazarlar:

Mehmet Faruk ÇİFÇİ

Yayıncı:

Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Sosyoloji & antropoloji

Dergi:

Journal of Divinity Faculty of Hitit University 2020 Vol.19 Issue 1, pp.119-150

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2020

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2000447713

Sıklık:

İki Yıllık

eISSN:

2757-6949

Özet:

 



Bu çalışma Kemalpaşazâde’nin müşâkele hakkındaki değerlendirme ve
eleştirilerini konu edinmiş, bunlar üzerinden onun müşâkelenin teorisi ve
uygulanması noktasındaki görüşlerine ulaşmayı hedeflemiştir. Zira edebî sanat
olmasının yanında tefsir ve kelam gibi ilim dallarını da ilgilendiren
müşâkeleye tüm bu alanlara hâkim bir âlim olan Kemalpaşazâde’nin bakış açışı
kanaatimizce önemlidir. Arap dili belâgatında kısaca bir mânayı ona işaret eden
bir lafızla değil de söz içinde geçen başka bir lafızla ifade etme şeklinde
tarif edilmesi mümkün olan müşâkele sanatı yapısı ve örnekleri itibariyle
birçok tartışmayı beraberinde getirmiştir. Şöyle ki bu sanatta aynı söz içinde
ikinci kez gelen lafzın mecazlığı, bu mecazı sahih hale getiren alâkanın ne
olduğu ve bu alâkanın mahiyeti konusu hep tartışılmıştır. Bu noktada Osmanlı
Şeyhülislâmı Kemalpaşazâde de müşâkele sanatına dair düşüncelerini açık ve net
olarak ifade etmemiş ancak onun kelimelerin medlüllerinin müsâhabetine
istinaden bir mecaz türü olduğu görüşüne meyletmiştir. Zira Arap dili belâgatı
literatüründe geçen birçok müşâkele örneğini o, müşâkeleyi telaffuz etmeden
farklı şekillerde tahlil etmiştir. Haliyle onun tefsirinde de müşâkele sanatı,
hakikî mânaya hiçbir şekilde gidilemeyen ve istiare gibi muhkem edebi
sanatların söz konusu olmadığı yerlerde başvurulacak son bir izah yolu olarak
kalmıştır. Tabiri
yerindeyse Kemalpaşazâde mecâzi ve hakikî anlam arasındaki alâkanın bu denli
tartışmalı olduğu bir mecaz türünü Kur’ân âyetlerinin tefsirine yaklaştırmama
eğilimindedir. Diğer yandan onun
müşâkelenin alâkası, tarifi ve bazı örnekleri üzerinden Molla el-Fenârî, Ebû Yaʿkûb es-Sekkâkî ve Seyyid Şerif el-Cürcânî’ye yönelttiği sert eleştirilere Mısırlı âlim Seriyyüddîn ed-Derûrî
aynı ton ve sertlikte ve argümanlarını sağlam temeller üzerine kurarak karşılık
vermeye çalışmıştır.





.

 



Abstract

This study
focuses on Kamal Pashazade's evaluations and criticisms about mushakala and
aims to reach his views on the mushakala’s theory and practice through these.
Because, besides being a literary art, mushakala is also related to al-kalâm
and al-tafsir that Kamal Pashazade was well specialized in. So, his approach to
this art is important in our opinion. The art of mushakala in Arabic language
rhetoric that can be described shortly as using the same word with two
different meanings in the same context contains many problems in it as its
structure and examples. For example, metaphorical meaning in the second word, the
relevance of this metaphor and the nature of this relevance have always been
discussed. Kamal Pashazade also did not state his thoughts about the art of
mushakala clearly. However, he inclined to the view that it was a kind of
metaphor based on the companionship of meanings. So, he analyzed many examples
of mushakala in the literature of Arabic language rhetoric in different ways
without mentioning the art of mushakala. Naturally, mushakale art in his Tafsir
has revealed as the last option in places where real meaning cannot be reached
and strong literary arts are not applied. In this context, we can say that
Kamal Pashazade has a tendency not to bring such a controversial type of
metaphor closer to the Qur'anic commentary. On the other hand, Sari ad-Din
al-Mısrî responded to his critiques against Mulla al-Fanari, Abu Yaʿqub
al-Sakkaki and al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jürjani
about the mushakala art in the same tone by establishing his arguments on solid
foundations. 

Summary

Bediʿ discipline
is one of three main topics that form the eloquence of the Arabic language. The
mushakala that means ‘similarity’ in the dictionary as literary art in bediʿ discipline
and is defined as using the same word with two different meanings in the same
context is one of the arts that caused controversy among eloquence scholars due
to its complex structure. Even if the formal similarity between two words in
the same sentence the second word has a different meaning in this art. For
example in the sentence “Laugh! The days I will laugh at you are close!”  ‘laugh’ is originally used in the true sense
in the previous sentence. Nevertheless, in the following sentence, the same
word means “I will make you regret laughing at me.” It is clear that the same
word has completely different meanings in two sentences. This art has much more
complex examples than which we gave here. Kamal Pashazade (d. 940/1534),
Ottoman Shaykh al-Islam, reveals his views which is also the topic of this study
by using this kind of example. 

Mushakala is an
art that has been used frequently in Arabic literature and defined with
different names. It is said that is the first rhetorician who used this art
which has many examples in the Qur'an, the hadiths and poetry of Jahiliyya with
current usage in bedi’ science is Abu al-Qāsim Maḥmūd ibn ʿUmar al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144). 
However, mushakala took its place and literal definition in the science
of bedi’ by Abu Yaqub Yusuf al-Sakkaki (d. 626/1229). Later, with the additions
of Khatib al-Qazwini (d. 739/1338) this definition was expanded and the
following one became commonly accepted: “To use the same word with two
different meanings in the same context evidentially or imaginary. With this
definition, mushakala is divided into two parts, evidential and imaginal
mushakala.   

Our study is
about Shaykh al-Islam Kamal Pashazade's approach to the art of mushakala
described above. Kamal Pashazade discussed the subject in depth both in his
tractate about mushakala and his other tractates about metaphor. However, he
put forward his views in the form of criticism as usual. On the other hand,
Kamal Pashazade's Quran Tafsir contains important clues as to where he puts the
art of mushakala in interpreting the Qur'anic verses. In this context, it was
deemed necessary to address the issue in three stages in this article. Firstly,
Kamal Pashazade’s works on metaphor were examined and it was tried to determine
in which kind of literary art he put the mushakala. In the second stage, it was
tried to determine how he described the mushakala. In addition, Kamal
Pashazade's critiques based on the art of mushakala and the answers he received
are discussed in this section. In the third stage, the Tafsir of Kemal
Pashazade was examined and it was tried to determine how he benefited from the
mushakala art in interpreting the verses of the Qur'an. 

According to
the results we have reached, it can be obviously said that the mushakala is a
kind of metaphor in Kamal Pashazade's thinking due to the presence of
companionship relation between word and meaning.  

The main
problem of Kemalpaşazâde’s work on mushakala is the nature of the companionship
relation that brings out the metaphorical meaning in the art of mushakala.
Because, a metaphor must be based on an existing relation. According to
Muhammad ibn Hamzah al-Fanari (d. 834/1431), this relation is the connection in
the mind, and the companionship of words is its evidence.  And according to Hafid al-Herawi (d.
916/1510), this relation is only the connection in the mind. At this point,
Kamal Pashazade with reference to Allama al-Taftazani (d. 792/1390) says: “This
relation is the companionship, but this is a companionship of meanings, not
words”. Indeed, with this view, Kamal Pashazade seems to have responded to
al-Herawi and al-Fanari both. On the other hand, the Egyptian scholar İbn
as-Saig Sari ad-Din al-Daruri (d. 1066/1656), opposed all of this, particularly
Kamal Pashazade's view and he argued that the companionship in the art of
mushakala is between words.  

Another issue
on that Kamal Pashazade emphasizes is the deficiency in the description of the
mushakala. Because, he finds Sekkaki's description incomplete. According to
him, this description does not cover the mushakala between the opposite words.
On the other hand, Sari ad-Din defended al-Sakkaki by stating that the literary
writers took the most used examples of arts into account and criticized Kamal
Pashazade implicitly. 

Finally, it
should be said that when the Kamal Pashazade's Tafsir is examined, it is
understood that he did not accept the mushakala as a suitable art for
interpreting the verses of the Qur'an.  




.

Makale detayları

Kemalpaşazâde’ye Göre Müşâkele Sanatı (Problemler ve Eleştirler)

Yazarlar: Mehmet Faruk ÇİFÇİ

Yayıncı: Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar: Sosyoloji & antropoloji

Dergi: Journal of Divinity Faculty of Hitit University 2020 Vol.19 Issue 1, pp.119-150

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2020

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2000447713

Sıklık: İki Yıllık

eISSN: 2757-6949

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Mehmet Faruk ÇİFÇİ

Yayıncı:

Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Sosyoloji & antropoloji

Dergi:

Journal of Divinity Faculty of Hitit University 2020 Vol.19 Issue 1, pp.119-150

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2020

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2000447713

Sıklık:

İki Yıllık

eISSN:

2757-6949