Sadrüşşerîa’nın (ö. 747/1346) Fahreddin er-Râzî’nin (ö. 606/1210) insanın ihtiyârî fiillerini nefyettiği argümanını çü- rütmeye çalıştığı ve Hanefî-Mâtürîdî geleneğin bu husustaki prensiplerini nazarî bir dille yeniden temellendirdiği dört mu- kaddimesi (mukaddimât-ı erba‘) ile Mehmed Birgivî’nin (ö. 981/1573) bu mukaddimeler üzerinden geliştirdiği açıklamaları, diyar-ı Rum’daki düşünürlerin insan fiilleri ve cüz’î iradeye dair tartışmalarına yön vermiştir. On yedinci yüzyılda Hicaz topraklarında faaliyet gösterip Eş‘arî-Ekberî geleneği merkeze alarak ihtiyârî fiillere dair yazdığı eserleriyle bu geleneğin nispeten güçlü olduğu Hicaz, Şam ve Kuzey Afrika’da etki uyandıran (...) İbrâhîm el-Kûrânî (ö. 1101/1690), Hanefî-Mâtürîdî gelenekte Sadrüşşerîa ve Birgivî’nin görüşleri etrafında cereyan eden tartışmalara da bigâne kalmamış, bu âlimlerin me- tinlerini merkeze alarak kaleme aldığı Cilâü’l-enzâr risalesiyle o zamana kadar dolaylı ve nispeten zayıf irtibatının olduğu diyar-ı Rum havzasındaki tartışmalara dahil olmuştur. Kûrânî, bu eserle yaşadığı dönemdeki hâkim Hanefî-Mâtürîdî gele- neğe yönelik eleştiri ve değerlendirmelerde bulunmuş, bu çerçevede insanın sorumluluğunun cüz’î irade ve îkâ üzerinden ispatlanıp ispatlanamayacağı, hallerin yaratmaya konu olup olmadığı ve iradenin tercihinde bir sebebe bağlı olup olmadığı gibi belli meseleleri ele almıştır. Ayrıca mutlak hürriyet (tefvîz) ile mutlak zorunluluk (cebr) arasındaki orta yolun nasıl tesis edileceği konusuna da yoğunlaşmıştır. Kûrânî’nin diğer ilim havzalarıyla kurduğu irtibatlarda olduğu gibi Hanefî-Mâtürîdî geleneğin eleştirisi üzerinden diyar-ı Rum ile kurduğu ilişkinin aynı zamanda kendisinin eğilim ve mezhepleri uzlaştıran fikirlerine alan açmaya matuf olduğunu iddia eden bu çalışma, zikri geçen risalede yer verilen eleştiri ile değerlendirmelerin ortaya çıkarılmasını ve bunun tarihî-fikrî bağlamına yerleştirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. (shrink)

Sadr al-Sharīʿah (d. 747/1346) is one of the theologians representing the later period of the Māturīdī kalām. He based his system of thought on his criticisms of Avicenna, al-Rāzī, and Ṭūsī. His criticism of these names stems from his own understanding of being. He thinks differently from the theologians of the later period on issues such as the essence-existence division, the superaddition of existence to essence, and the acceptance of mental being, which are accepted by the majority of theologians of (...) the later period. His understanding of being in question also influenced his analysis of the idea of the wahdat al-wujūd. In the study, some aspects of the framework proposed by Muhammed Bedirhan will be given first. Then, in order to make sense of Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s criticism of wahdat al-wujūd, the major understandings of wahdat al-wujūd will be summarized briefly, and finally, Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s analysis of wahdat al-wujūd will be examined and clarified using Bedirhan’s framework. Although the framework has subheadings, it classifies criticisms into two categories: rationally-based and sharʻī-based objections. Rational objections are directed from the traditions of kalām and philosophy, while sharʻī-based objections come from Salafi thinkers, faqihs, and sufis. The framework is comprehensive in classifying criticisms against the theory of wahdat al-wujūd. This framework will clarify Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s approach, and the source of his criticisms should be identified. According to Bedirhan, the sufis’ theory is in conflict with the members of other schools in two aspects, practical and theoretical. While the first one considers sufism a religious state (ḥal), the second one is the point that shapes the view of other intellectual groups on sufism in terms of the fact that sufism is also a science. Bedirhan has based the theoretical conflict part of his framework on the triple classification of al-Jābiri: burhān, beyān and irfān. According to al-Jābiri’s classification, sufism, which is included under the title of irfān, deals with the previous two traditions mentioned. However, burhan and beyan traditions also offer their criticisms of the epistemological and ontological acceptances of the irfān tradition. Behind the criticism of the traditions of thought towards each other is the claim that the metaphysical theory of the opposite group is insufficient. According to the presented framework Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s criticisms can be considered within not only the kalām tradition but also the sufi tradition, because he is a sufi who accepts ittihād as one of the “sayr sulūk” degrees. Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s explains two proofs by which sufis defend their metaphysical theory, and also presents a counter-proof based on the verbal commonality of sense knowledge and being. He also aims to point out the weakness of the metaphysical theory of sufis with the view that the idea of ittihād is unique to a certain degree. By mentioning Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s criticisms and explanations of wahdat al- wujūd, the study identifies Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s stance on the rational and sharʻī-based objections. (shrink)

Partial/particular will (al-irādah al-juz’iyyah) and the creation of human acts are two issues related to the predestination belief. Nowadays, it is unarguably accepted that humans have volition. However, the controversy over the formation steps of human will and act does not seem to be settled. Māturīdīs’ approach, taken with the intent to allow some space for freedom for humans in their actions and based on the partial will and postulation that there is a part in human actions that are not (...) created nor subject to creation, could not be understood at times. When it comes to misunderstandings of this kind, Sadr al-Sharī‘a and Ibn al-Humām, who are among the Hanafī-Māturīdī kalam scholars, are mentioned. Both mutakallims are some of the eminent figures who left their marks on the Hanafī-Māturīdī school. They affected a significant number of scholars coming after them by the authentic ideas they presented. However, even though neither Sadr al-Sharī‘a nor Ibn al-Humām did regard humans as creators of their own actions, they are confronted with an accusation as if they vitiated the fact that God is the Absolute Creator. Therefore, it is of grave importance to reveal Sadr al-Sharī‘a’s ideas, which are represented in his “Four Premises” concerning the formation of an act and Ibn Humām’s thoughts put forward in his “Ījādu al-‘Azm al-Musammamah” and “Takhsīsu Irādah al-Juz’iyyah.”. (shrink)