Molla Hüsrev’in Nakdü’l-efkâr fî reddi’l-enzâr Adlı Eserinin Belâgatla İlgili Beşinci Bölümünün Tahkiki

Hasan UÇAR

Makale detayları

Molla Hüsrev’in Nakdü’l-efkâr fî reddi’l-enzâr Adlı Eserinin Belâgatla İlgili Beşinci Bölümünün Tahkiki

Yazarlar:

Hasan UÇAR

Yayıncı:

Turkish Religious Foundation Centre for Islamic Studies

Ana Başlıklar:

Dilbilimleri | Din | Tarih ve Coğrafya

Dergi:

Turkish Journal of Islamic Studies 2017 Issue 38, pp.123-165

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

11/2017

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2000502167

Sıklık:

Aylık

eISSN:

2822-2903

pISSN:

1301-3289

Özet:

 


Bu makale Tokat ile Yozgat
arasındaki Karkın köyünde doğan Şeyhülislâm Molla Hüsrev’in (ö. 885/1480) altı
bölümden oluşan ve her birinde on ayrı meseleyi muhakemat usulüyle ele alan
Nakdü’l-efkâr fî reddi’l-enzâr adlı eserinin belâgata ayrılan beşinci bölümünün
edisyon kritiğidir. II. Murad ve II. Mehmed dönemlerinde kadılık, kazaskerlik
ve müderrislik yapan Molla Hüsrev’in bu eserinde, Kur’ân-ı Kerim, siyer, fıkıh,
fıkıh usulü, Arap dili belâgatı ve mantık ilimlerinde ele aldığı konularda hem
ustalığını hem de dönemin ulaştığı kültür seviyesini görmek mümkündür.


Eserde Alâeddin Ali b. Mûsâ er-Rûmî’nin (ö. 841/1438) sorduğu
sorulara Sirâceddin b. Sa‘deddin el-Tevkıî (ö. 886/1481) cevap vermiştir. Molla
Hüsrev ise onların görüşleri üzerinden toplam atmış konuda felsefe ve akıl
yürütmenin ağır bastığı bir hakemlik yapmıştır. Bu anlamda muhakemat türünün
güzel bir örneği olan bu eser, Molla Hüsrev’in bahsi geçen ilimlere vukufunu ve
ifade gücünü göstermesi bakımından önemlidir.








 

.

 


This article is a critical edition
of the fifth chapter of the book Naqd al-afkār fī radd al-anžār penned by Molla
Hüsrev (d. 885/1480). The book consists of six chapters discussing particular
subjects, with ten issues in each, by using the method of adjudication
(muģakamāt). These subjects include Quran, the historiography of the prophet’s
life, jurisprudence, juridical methodology, Arabic language and rhetoric and
logic. This fifth chapter is reserved for rhetoric. Considering the time of the
author Molla Hüsrev, who served as judge, military judge and professor during
the reigns of Murad II (r. 1431-1451) and Mehmed II (r. 1451-1481), the book
shows his competence in these subjects as well as the level of culture in the
society in which he lived in.


In the book, Sirāj al-dīn b. Sa¤d
al-dīn al-Tawqī¤ī (d. 886/1481) answers the questions posed by Alā al-dīn Ali
b. Mūsā al-Rūmī (d. 841/1438). The questioner is called “al-mawlā al-bāģith”
and the responder is called “al-mawlā al-mujīb” in the text. Molla Hüsrev, who
calls himself “faqīr” (i.e. the poor), acts as a referee from a philosophical
and rational point of view on their thoughts regarding subjects. As a good
example of the adjudication genre, the book shows Molla Hüsrev’s knowledge of
these sciences and his eloquence.


Early works produced between the
sixth (twelfth) and eighth (fourteenth) centuries include critiques of content,
language and style. It seems that the genre of adjudication (muģakamāt)
developed in this period. We observe similar works during the Ottoman
period as well. Molla Hüsrev, known mostly for his knowledge of exegesis and
jurisprudence, treats with the method of adjudication such Quranic verses that
use logical formulas. In this book, he supports the thinker he considers to be
right and criticizes both when he disagrees with their viewpoints. Ultimately,
he presents his own views.


The subjects that the author
adjudicated in the book contain:


1. The precedence of the attributed for the purpose of
particularization


2. The particularization of the attributed to the attribute


3. The restriction with prepositions and their kinds


4. The indefinite condition of the attribute and its corroboration


5. The predicate attribution


6. The harmony between the attribute and the attributed


7. The omission of the attribute


8. The reference to the attributed


9. The liaison and section with the preposition أو


10. The attributed in performative sentences


We observe that Molla Hüsrev follows a fair path in his style of
adjudication. For example, in the sixth issue, the question is related to
masculinity and femininity oَf the words in the phrase قَالَتِ الأَعْرَابُ آمَنّا and وَقَالَ
نِسْوَةٌ as well as the reasons for


these preferences.


The answer provides three aspects:


a) The preference of the one from two possibilities


b) God shows how he acts as he wills according to his preference


c) The reason for the feminine conjugation of the first verb
refers to the Beduin, “who are human beings having feminine deficiencies and
are unable to use reason like men, thereby the belief does not go into their
hearts. The reason for the masculine conjugation of the second verb refers to
the women who saw the condition of Zulaykha and used reason like men.”


Molla Hüsrev supports this view. He finds it unusual, however,
that Sa¤d al-dīn al-Tawqī¤ī answers the question although he has already stated
that the issue does not fall into the field of the science of meaning.


Molla Hüsrev does not approve that Alā al-dīn al-Rūmī sometimes
asks questions to lengthen the discussion, as in the ninth issue, with his
appropriation of al-Taftāzānī’s ideas and falsification of some of them.
However, he praises the quality of the first question and considers that the
answer does not address the point. He shows his neutrality by providing the
answer as such:


The question in the first issue is related to that while the
pronoun أنا in the sentence ما
أنا قلت هذا is the attributed that needs to imply particularization; the particularization
is done to the negative pronoun ما.


The answer explains this by showing
the difference between the sentences ما أنا قلت هذا
and أنا ما قلت هذا and stating that
placing the negative pronoun at the beginning creates a meaning providing only
particularization. Therefore, the first sentence means, “the one who says this
word is certainly not me”; in other words, “the negativity of the act is
limited with me.”


The author thinks that the correct
answer is not given and lengthening the answer is inappropriate. As for him,
the issue is related to naming قلت
as a predicate while disregarding the negative pronoun ما . According to Molla Hüsrev, the negativity


is not attributed to the person but
to actions. The rhetoricians, unlike the grammarians focusing on words,
consider not only قلت as the predicate but
also accept the predicate with its negativity. 


In addition to these approaches
giving priority to meaning, we also observe Molla Hüsrev’s meticulous attention
to details and command of differences. We can clearly see that he treats the
rhetoric as a whole in the eighth issue where he shows his precision on this
point.


The question is related to the
rhetoricians who states that if the first or the second conjunction أو used twice in the Quranic verse (Saba:
34/24), is considered as a conjunction of “waw”, then the verse means the
opposite of its intended meaning. The questioner argues that the meaning would
not change if both of them were to be “waw”, and this would be the art of laff
wa nashr where themes are introduced one after another and then explained in
turn.


The answer to this question is
given in reference to al-Taftāzānī who states that the preposition أو could mean vagueness (ibhām), but not in
reference to al-Sakkākī or al-Qazvīnī who argues that it means doubt (shakk)
and misgiving (tashkīk), because there is no clear reference to these latter
two meanings.


In fact, Molla Hüsrev argues that
the vagueness is one of the objectives of misgiving, and that double usage of
the preposition intends to describe without particularization those who are in
between belief and heresy. Therefore, the verse intends to mean to the
interlocutors who thinks with fairness and moderation in order to understand
whoever is on the straight path. In addition, he stresses that the rhetoricians
do not argue that the omission of أو
would change the meaning, but they argue that the verse would lose its intended
position (wad‘ī) meaning with a tone inviting to moderation and gentle
treatment. While he criticizes the answerer by saying, “Why do you not pay
attention to these delicacies?”, he praises the answerer by stating that he
saved other scientists from the burden thanks to his answer in the tenth issue.
All of these show the author’s appreciative approach.
































































 

.

Makale detayları

Molla Hüsrev’in Nakdü’l-efkâr fî reddi’l-enzâr Adlı Eserinin Belâgatla İlgili Beşinci Bölümünün Tahkiki

Yazarlar: Hasan UÇAR

Yayıncı: Turkish Religious Foundation Centre for Islamic Studies

Ana Başlıklar: Dilbilimleri | Din | Tarih ve Coğrafya

Dergi: Turkish Journal of Islamic Studies 2017 Issue 38, pp.123-165

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 11/2017

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2000502167

Sıklık: Aylık

eISSN: 2822-2903

pISSN: 1301-3289

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Hasan UÇAR

Yayıncı:

Turkish Religious Foundation Centre for Islamic Studies

Ana Başlıklar:

Dilbilimleri | Din | Tarih ve Coğrafya

Dergi:

Turkish Journal of Islamic Studies 2017 Issue 38, pp.123-165

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

11/2017

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2000502167

Sıklık:

Aylık

eISSN:

2822-2903

pISSN:

1301-3289