On the Authorship of Risāla fī Ithbāt al-Mufāriqāt: Analysis, Critical Edition, and Translation

Muhammed Abdullah Haksever

Makale detayları

On the Authorship of Risāla fī Ithbāt al-Mufāriqāt: Analysis, Critical Edition, and Translation

Yazarlar:

Muhammed Abdullah Haksever

Yayıncı:

Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Felsefesi

Dergi:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 2, pp.895-942

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001336430

pISSN:

2757-6949

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 This work focuses on the issue of authorship concerning the Risāla fī Ithbāt al-Mufāriqāt, a treatise written within the framework of the understanding of existence proposed by the Peripatetic philosophers in the Islamic philosophy. The treatise has been attributed in the literature to both al-Fārābī and to Bahmanyār b. Marzubān, student of Ibn Sīnā. Manuscript evidence providing clear attribution to al-Fārābī and Bahmenyār has been identified, yet contemporary scholarship appears largely unaware of these findings. Consequently, the primary aim of this article is to determine the author of the treatise. To achieve this, the names under which the treatise appears in the biographical dictionaries Tabaqāt sources and to whom it is attributed are analyzed. Furthermore, the claims made in the treatise to demonstrate the existence of immaterial entities are compared with the philosophical views of the possible authors on immaterial entities. The analysis in this study is structured around the key themes that emerge in the treatise. The discussion entities with an examination of how beings are categorized and how this classification is articulated. This is crucial because a philosophers understanding of existence can largely be inferred from the ontological classifications they present. Following this, the study analyses the concept of God, posited as the first cause within this classification. The manner in which the concept of God is defined and through which concepts it is framed offers significant insights into the historical context in which the treatise was composed. Notably, the characterization of God as the Necessary Existence and the provision of proofs for Gods existence within the treatise lend credence to the hypothesis that the treatises author is more likely Bahmanyār rather than al-Fārābī. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that al-Fārābī does not explicitly engage with these topics, whereas Bahmanyārs treatment of the subject closely aligns with the arguments found in the treatise. The treatise is a product of the Peripatetic tradition in Islamic philosophy, and analysis turns to the concept of the Active Intellect. The non-specialized role of the Active Intellect in the treatise, as one of several immaterial intellects, provides another key to resolving the question of authorship. As detailed in this study, the treatment of the Active Intellect, alongside other unspecified intellects in the supra-lunar realm, diverges from al-Fārābīs understanding of sudūr emanation. Al-Fārābīs philosophy places significant emphasis on the unique position and function of the Active Intellect, making it unlikely that this aspect would be absent in a treatise authored by him. Conversely, the classification of existence presented in the treatise appears to postdate Avicenna. Furthermore, the treatment of the Active Intellect in the treatise bears resemblance to Bahmanyārs views, particularly in the absence of a specified number of active intellects. Another issue explored in the context of authorship of the treatise is how the existence of celestial souls is justified. Specifically, the treatises detailed argumentation regarding the movements of celestial bodies as evidence for the existence of these souls, characterized as voluntary, does not align with the positions found in al-Fārābīs works. In contrast, Bahmanyārs concepts and arguments on this issue strongly resemble those in the treatise. Additionally, the unique approach al-Fārābī takes regarding the immaterial existence and survival of human souls is not reflected in the treatise. Therefore, this study critically examines five central topics of the treatisethe concept of God, the classification of existence, the Active Intellect, celestial souls, and human soulsand assesses the congruence or divergence between the treatise and the works of the philosophers in question. Through this analysis, the study aims to determine the likely author of the treatise. Additionally, a critical edition taḥqīq of the treatise is presented according to ISAMs critical principles, accompanied by a translation of the text. Consequently, it is concluded that the Risāla fī Ithbāt al-Mufāriqāt is identical to the work titled Risāla fī Marātib al-Mawjūdāt and argues that attributing the treatise to Bahmanyār is accurate.

 Bu çalışma, İslam felsefesinde Meşşai filozofların ortaya koydukları varlık anlayışı çerçevesinde kaleme alınmış bir eser olan Risâle fî isbâtil-müfâriḳātın aidiyet problemine odaklanmaktadır. Risale, literatürde hem Fârâbîye hem de İbn Sînânın öğrencisi olan Behmenyâr b. Merzübâna nispet edilmektedir. Bu kapsamda Fârâbî ve Behmenyâra açıkça nispeti belli olan yazma nüshalar tespit edilmiştir. Günümüzde risaleye atıfla yapılan çalışmalar ise bu durumdan habersiz görünmektedir. İşte bu nedenle makalenin öncelikli amacı, risalenin yazarını tespit etmektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, çalışma içerisinde risalenin tabakât literatüründe hangi isimle yer aldığı ve kimlere nispet edildiği incelenmektedir. Ayrıca çalışmada risalenin maddeden ayrık varlıkları ispat etme noktasında ortaya koyduğu iddialar ile risalenin olası yazarlarının felsefi anlayışları doğrultusunda ayrık varlıklar hakkındaki tutumları karşılaştırılmaktadır. İnceleme alanını ise risalede öne çıkan konu başlıkları oluşturmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, ilk olarak varlıkların nasıl sınıflandırıldığı ve yapılan tasnifin nasıl şekillendiği ele alınmaktadır. Zira bir filozofun varlık anlayışı, büyük oranda eserine yansıttığı varlık tasnifinden anlaşılabilmektedir. Ardından çalışmada bu tasnifin ilk illeti olarak vazedilen Tanrı kavramı incelenmektedir. Yine Tanrı kavramının ne şekilde ve hangi kavramlar üzerinden tanımlandığı, risalenin yazıldığı dönemi tespit etmemizde önemli bir ayrıntı sunmaktadır. Öyle ki risalede Tanrının Zorunlu Varlık ile nitelendirilmesi ve onun varlığının ispat konusu edilip buna dair burhanlar getirilmesi, risalenin yazarının Fârâbîden ziyade Behmenyâr olduğunu güçlendirmektedir. Nitekim Fârâbîde Tanrı için Zorunlu Varlık gibi bir nitelemeye ve Onun ispatına dair iddialara rastlanmaması, buna karşın Behmenyârın meseleye bakış açısının risale ile neredeyse aynı olması söz konusu yaklaşımı desteklemektedir. Risalenin, İslam felsefesi içerisinde Meşşai ekolün bir ürünü olması sebebiyle inceleme sırasında öne çıkan ikinci kavram Faal Akıldır. Bu kapsamda risaledeki Faal Aklın, öteki ayrık akıllar içerisinde özel olmayan konumu aidiyet düğümünü çözen noktalardan bir diğerini oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada ayrıntılı olarak izah edildiği üzere risalede Faal Aklın ay-üstü âlemdeki sayısı belirtilmeyen diğer akıllarla bir arada zikredilmesi Fârâbînin sudûr anlayışı ile uyumsuz görünmektedir. Zira Fârâbî felsefesinin özgün noktalarından birini Faal Aklın konumu ve görevi oluşturmaktadır. Bununla beraber onun yazdığı bir risaleye Faal Aklın bu özel konumunun yansımaması uzak bir ihtimal olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Aksine risaledeki varlık tasnifinin İbn Sînâ sonrası ortaya çıktığı ifade edilmelidir. Dahası, risalede Faal Akılın ele alınışı, özellikle de belirli sayıda faal aklın bulunmaması bakımından, Behmenyârın görüşleriyle benzerlik taşımaktadır. Risalenin aidiyeti kapsamında incelenen bir diğer konu ise semâvî nefislerin ispatının nasıl temellendirildiği meselesidir. Bahusus risalede bu nefislerin varlıklarına delil olarak getirilen burhanın semâvî cisimlerin hareketleri üzerinden detaylandırılması ve bu hareketlerin ihtiyârî olarak nitelendirilmesi Fârâbînin eserlerinde yer almamaktadır. Buna karşın, Behmenyârın ilgili kavram ve iddialarının risale ile oldukça benzer olduğu tespit edilmektedir. Son olarak insanî nefislerin, ayrık bir varlık olması ve bekası konusunda Fârâbînin kendisine özgü görüşlerini risalede görmek mümkün değildir. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmada, risalenin beş temel konusu Tanrı, varlık tasnifi, Faal Akıl, semâvî nefisler, insanî nefisler ve içerisinde kullanılan kavramlar üzerinden spesifik noktalar incelenerek risale ile ilgili filozofların eserleri arasındaki uyum ya da uyumsuzluklar belirlenmektedir. Böylece eserin kimin tarafından kaleme alındığı tespit edilmeye çalışılmaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra çalışmaya ek olarak risalenin edisyon kritiği İSAM tahkik esasları çerçevesinde okuyucuya sunulmakta, ayrıca metnin tercümesine de yer verilmektedir. Sonuç olarak, çalışmaya konu olan Risâle fî isbâtil-müfâriḳātın Behmenyâra ait Risâle fî merâtibil-mevcûdât isimli eser ile birebir aynı olduğu, bu bağlamda risalenin Fârâbîden ziyade Behmenyâra atfedilmesinin doğru bir yaklaşım olacağı iddia edilmektedir.

 This work focuses on the issue of authorship concerning the Risāla fī Ithbāt al-Mufāriqāt, a treatise written within the framework of the understanding of existence proposed by the Peripatetic philosophers in the Islamic philosophy. The treatise has been attributed in the literature to both al-Fārābī and to Bahmanyār b. Marzubān, student of Ibn Sīnā. Manuscript evidence providing clear attribution to al-Fārābī and Bahmenyār has been identified, yet contemporary scholarship appears largely unaware of these findings. Consequently, the primary aim of this article is to determine the author of the treatise. To achieve this, the names under which the treatise appears in the biographical dictionaries Tabaqāt sources and to whom it is attributed are analyzed. Furthermore, the claims made in the treatise to demonstrate the existence of immaterial entities are compared with the philosophical views of the possible authors on immaterial entities. The analysis in this study is structured around the key themes that emerge in the treatise. The discussion entities with an examination of how beings are categorized and how this classification is articulated. This is crucial because a philosophers understanding of existence can largely be inferred from the ontological classifications they present. Following this, the study analyses the concept of God, posited as the first cause within this classification. The manner in which the concept of God is defined and through which concepts it is framed offers significant insights into the historical context in which the treatise was composed. Notably, the characterization of God as the Necessary Existence and the provision of proofs for Gods existence within the treatise lend credence to the hypothesis that the treatises author is more likely Bahmanyār rather than al-Fārābī. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that al-Fārābī does not explicitly engage with these topics, whereas Bahmanyārs treatment of the subject closely aligns with the arguments found in the treatise. The treatise is a product of the Peripatetic tradition in Islamic philosophy, and analysis turns to the concept of the Active Intellect. The non-specialized role of the Active Intellect in the treatise, as one of several immaterial intellects, provides another key to resolving the question of authorship. As detailed in this study, the treatment of the Active Intellect, alongside other unspecified intellects in the supra-lunar realm, diverges from al-Fārābīs understanding of sudūr emanation. Al-Fārābīs philosophy places significant emphasis on the unique position and function of the Active Intellect, making it unlikely that this aspect would be absent in a treatise authored by him. Conversely, the classification of existence presented in the treatise appears to postdate Avicenna. Furthermore, the treatment of the Active Intellect in the treatise bears resemblance to Bahmanyārs views, particularly in the absence of a specified number of active intellects. Another issue explored in the context of authorship of the treatise is how the existence of celestial souls is justified. Specifically, the treatises detailed argumentation regarding the movements of celestial bodies as evidence for the existence of these souls, characterized as voluntary, does not align with the positions found in al-Fārābīs works. In contrast, Bahmanyārs concepts and arguments on this issue strongly resemble those in the treatise. Additionally, the unique approach al-Fārābī takes regarding the immaterial existence and survival of human souls is not reflected in the treatise. Therefore, this study critically examines five central topics of the treatisethe concept of God, the classification of existence, the Active Intellect, celestial souls, and human soulsand assesses the congruence or divergence between the treatise and the works of the philosophers in question. Through this analysis, the study aims to determine the likely author of the treatise. Additionally, a critical edition taḥqīq of the treatise is presented according to ISAMs critical principles, accompanied by a translation of the text. Consequently, it is concluded that the Risāla fī Ithbāt al-Mufāriqāt is identical to the work titled Risāla fī Marātib al-Mawjūdāt and argues that attributing the treatise to Bahmanyār is accurate.

 This work focuses on the issue of authorship concerning the Risāla fī Ithbāt al-Mufāriqāt, a treatise written within the framework of the understanding of existence proposed by the Peripatetic philosophers in the Islamic philosophy. The treatise has been attributed in the literature to both al-Fārābī and to Bahmanyār b. Marzubān, student of Ibn Sīnā. Manuscript evidence providing clear attribution to al-Fārābī and Bahmenyār has been identified, yet contemporary scholarship appears largely unaware of these findings. Consequently, the primary aim of this article is to determine the author of the treatise. To achieve this, the names under which the treatise appears in the biographical dictionaries Tabaqāt sources and to whom it is attributed are analyzed. Furthermore, the claims made in the treatise to demonstrate the existence of immaterial entities are compared with the philosophical views of the possible authors on immaterial entities. The analysis in this study is structured around the key themes that emerge in the treatise. The discussion entities with an examination of how beings are categorized and how this classification is articulated. This is crucial because a philosophers understanding of existence can largely be inferred from the ontological classifications they present. Following this, the study analyses the concept of God, posited as the first cause within this classification. The manner in which the concept of God is defined and through which concepts it is framed offers significant insights into the historical context in which the treatise was composed. Notably, the characterization of God as the Necessary Existence and the provision of proofs for Gods existence within the treatise lend credence to the hypothesis that the treatises author is more likely Bahmanyār rather than al-Fārābī. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that al-Fārābī does not explicitly engage with these topics, whereas Bahmanyārs treatment of the subject closely aligns with the arguments found in the treatise. The treatise is a product of the Peripatetic tradition in Islamic philosophy, and analysis turns to the concept of the Active Intellect. The non-specialized role of the Active Intellect in the treatise, as one of several immaterial intellects, provides another key to resolving the question of authorship. As detailed in this study, the treatment of the Active Intellect, alongside other unspecified intellects in the supra-lunar realm, diverges from al-Fārābīs understanding of sudūr emanation. Al-Fārābīs philosophy places significant emphasis on the unique position and function of the Active Intellect, making it unlikely that this aspect would be absent in a treatise authored by him. Conversely, the classification of existence presented in the treatise appears to postdate Avicenna. Furthermore, the treatment of the Active Intellect in the treatise bears resemblance to Bahmanyārs views, particularly in the absence of a specified number of active intellects. Another issue explored in the context of authorship of the treatise is how the existence of celestial souls is justified. Specifically, the treatises detailed argumentation regarding the movements of celestial bodies as evidence for the existence of these souls, characterized as voluntary, does not align with the positions found in al-Fārābīs works. In contrast, Bahmanyārs concepts and arguments on this issue strongly resemble those in the treatise. Additionally, the unique approach al-Fārābī takes regarding the immaterial existence and survival of human souls is not reflected in the treatise. Therefore, this study critically examines five central topics of the treatisethe concept of God, the classification of existence, the Active Intellect, celestial souls, and human soulsand assesses the congruence or divergence between the treatise and the works of the philosophers in question. Through this analysis, the study aims to determine the likely author of the treatise. Additionally, a critical edition taḥqīq of the treatise is presented according to ISAMs critical principles, accompanied by a translation of the text. Consequently, it is concluded that the Risāla fī Ithbāt al-Mufāriqāt is identical to the work titled Risāla fī Marātib al-Mawjūdāt and argues that attributing the treatise to Bahmanyār is accurate.

Makale detayları

On the Authorship of Risāla fī Ithbāt al-Mufāriqāt: Analysis, Critical Edition, and Translation

Yazarlar:

Muhammed Abdullah Haksever

Yayıncı:

Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Felsefesi

Dergi:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 2, pp.895-942

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001336430

pISSN:

2757-6949

Islamic philosophy

al-Fārābī

Bahmanyār

Immaterial entities

Ithbāt al-Mufāriqāt

Marātib al-Mawjūdātİslam Felsefesi

Fârâbî

Behmenyâr

Ayrık varlık

İs̱bâtü’l-müfâriḳāt

Merâtibi’l-mevcûdât

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Muhammed Abdullah Haksever

Yayıncı: Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Felsefesi

Dergi: Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 2, pp.895-942

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001336430

pISSN: 2757-6949

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Muhammed Abdullah Haksever

Yayıncı:

Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Felsefesi

Dergi:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 2, pp.895-942

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001336430

pISSN:

2757-6949