The Evaluation of The Short Commentary by Walī al-Dīn Jār Allāh on Birgiwī’s Treatise about the Rules of Inquiry and Debate along with the Critical Edition of the Arabic Text

Muhammet Çelik

Article Details

The Evaluation of The Short Commentary by Walī al-Dīn Jār Allāh on Birgiwī’s Treatise about the Rules of Inquiry and Debate along with the Critical Edition of the Arabic Text

Authors:

Muhammet Çelik

Publisher:

Hitit University

Main Topics:

Mantık Tarihi

Journal:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 1, pp.67-110

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001322102

pISSN:

2757-6949

Keywords:

Abstract:

 This article delves into how Walī al-Dīn Jār Allāh interprets Mehmed al-Birgiwīs treatise on inquiry and debate in the context of his work al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr and presents the critical Arabic text of his commentary. The field of ādāb al-baḥs wa al-munāẓara, which establishes the relationship between the theological sciences and the concepts of inquiry and debate, is one of the disciplines included in the Ottoman higher education curriculum. Birgiwīs one-page treatise on inquiry and debate and Jār Allāhs commentaries are among the texts taught in the related courses. Jār Allāh wrote three commentaries on this treatise, namely the Great, the Middle, and the Short ones. However, in the first two commentaries, Jār Allāh focuses more on criticizing the four authors who had written commentaries on the treatise before him rather than on interpreting it. Consequently, this article scrutinizes Jār Allāhs interpretation of the treatise based on the Short Commentary. The reason for choosing this commentary on the treatise as the subject of examination in this article is Jār Allāhs greater productivity in terms of both the number of works and the page count compared to the other fifteen commentators. Additionally, he had already authored substantial works in this field before interpreting the treatise. Moreover, despite Jār Allāhs authorship of encyclopaedic works in the field of inquiry and debate, there has been a lack of attention to this aspect, particularly in academic studies focusing on his intellectual legacy. Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap in Jār Allāhs intellectual profile and to illustrate the intersection of theology and Islamic sciences with the concepts of inquiry and debate through the example of the commentary. This study consists of two sections within this framework. The first section examines how Jār Allāh interprets the inquiry and debate surrounding the nature of the discussion and the discussant in the treatise, as well as the aspects of narration, claim, premise, evidence, and conclusion. Additionally, it examines Jār Allāhs positioning of Birgiwī within the literature on inquiry and debate. Overlapping views with other commentators by Jār Allāh are demonstrated through references to the commentaries of these scholars. In this context, Jār Allāh defines the technical terms used by Birgiwī, as Birgiwī summarizes the process of inquiry and debate without defining the technical terms associated with them. For example, Birgiwī uses the term debater without providing a definition, but Jār Allāh defines the concept of debate as both the contemplation by two individuals of the connection between two things to reveal the truth and the mutual defense of a viewpoint by two individuals to reveal the truth. Jār Allāh does not agree with Birgiwīs views, and he argues that it is more appropriate to define the debater as an inquirer, which denotes reciprocal questioning. Jār Allāh disagrees with Birgiwīs opinion that the opposing party can only inquire about the premises, evidence, or narration if they do not have definitive konowledge. To support this claim, he cites al-Ījīs stance on the subject, arguing that the opposing party can challenge and object, even if they already know, to obtain more precise knowledge or test a debater. While Jār Allāh claims that he disagrees with Ījī on certain issues, he expresses that, in terms of the organization of the debate, he is in the same position as Ījī. He thinks similarly to al-Rāzī regarding the organization of the debate. According to Jār Allāh, Birgiwī was influenced by al-Pazdawīs and al-Taftazānīs opinions on the transition to another evidence, and he generally followed the views of methodist Ḥanafī jurists. However, Jār Allāh argues that the specific details provided by Birgiwī regarding the views of Hanafī jurists in transitioning to another piece of evidence are not relevant within the discipline of inquiry and debate. In this discipline, the criteria for transitioning to another piece of evidence are determined by its own principles, and not by the criteria set by methodist Ḥanafī or Shafiʿī jurists. For instance, when discussing conclusions and counter-evidence, if a debater prefers the transition to another piece of evidence, it should not be considered counter-evidence according to the principles of this discipline. In the second section of the article, a critical edition of the Arabic text of the Short Commentary, for which four copies were identified, was conducted following ISAMs textual criticism principles. Additionally, four other commentaries preceding this commentary were identified. Ultimately, this study concludes that Jār Allāh focused on defining the technical terms of the treatise and determining his position within the discipline based on his own views without addressing any problematic issues in his interpretations.

 Bu makalede, Birgivînin sorgulama ve tartışma kuralları ile ilgili risalesini Veliyyüddîn Cârullahın nasıl yorumladığı onun eş-Şerḥus-Ṣaġîr eseri çerçevesinde incelenmiş ve Cârullahın bu şerhinin tenkitli Arapça metni sunulmuştur. Sorgulama ve tartışma kavramlarının ilahiyat bilimleri ile ilişkisinin kurulduğu disiplinlerden biri, âdâbul-baḥs vel-münâẓara sorgulama ve tartışma kuralları alanıdır. Bu disiplin, Osmanlı yüksek öğretiminde bir ders olarak yer almıştır. Bu dersin okutulduğu metinlerin arasında Birgivînin bir sayfalık sorgulama ve tartışma kuralları hakkındaki risalesi ve onun Cârullaha ait şerhleri bulunmaktadır. Cârullah, bu risaleye sırasıyla büyük, orta ve küçük olmak üzere üç şerh kaleme almıştır. Cârullah, ilk iki şerhte Birgivînin risalesini yorumlamaktan ziyade kendisinden önce bu risaleyi yorumlayan dört şârihi tenkit etmekle ilgilenmiştir. Bu nedenle Birgivînin ilgili risalesine dair Cârullahın yorumunu küçük şerh üzerinden inceledik. Birgivî metninin Cârullah yorumunun makalede inceleme konusu olarak seçilmesinin nedeni, onun diğer on beş yorumcuya göre hem eser sayısı hem de eserlerin hacmi bakımından daha velût olması ve Birgivînin risalesini yorumlamadan önce bu alanda hacimli eserlerini kaleme almış olmasıdır. Diğer bir neden ise Cârullahın sorgulama ve tartışma alanında ansiklopedik eserler kaleme almasına rağmen özellikle onun entelektüel dünyası ile ilgili yapılan akademik çalışmalarda onun bu yönüne değinilmemiş olmasıdır. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, Cârullahın entelektüel profilinde eksik kalan bir parçayı tamamlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda ilahiyat ve İslami ilimlerin sorgulama ve tartışma kavramlarıyla bir araya geldiği zemininin Cârullah örneği ile gösterilmesi, bu makaledeki diğer bir amaçtır. Bu çerçevede makale iki bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk bölümde Cârullahın Birgivî risalesindeki tartışma ve tartışmacının mahiyeti, aktarım, iddia, öncül, delil ve sonuç hakkındaki sorgulama ve tartışma kurallarını nasıl yorumladığı incelendi. Bununla beraber Cârullahın Birgivîyi sorgulama ve tartışma literatüründe onu nereye konumlandırdığı tespit edildi. Ayrıca Cârullahın diğer yorumcularla örtüşen görüşleri bu yorumcuların şerhlerine atıflarla gösterildi. Bu bağlamda Cârullah, Birgivînin metinde kullandığı teknik terimleri tanımlamaktadır. Zira Birgivî, sorgulama ve tartışmanın teknik terimlerini tanımlamadan sadece tartışma sürecini özetlemektedir. Örneğin Birgivî, tartışmacı teknik terimini tanımlamadan kullanır ancak Cârullah, tartışma kavramı için hem iki şey arasındaki bağın iki kişi tarafından gerçeği açığa çıkarmak için düşünülmesi hem de gerçeği açığa çıkarmak için iki kişinin bir görüşü karşılıklı savunması tanımlarını ifade eder. Cârullah, Birgivînin bazı görüşlerine katılmamaktadır. Bu çerçevede Birgivî, tartışmacıyı sorgulayan olarak isimlendirmektedir. Ancak Cârullaha göre onun karşılıklı olmayı ifade eden soruşturan kavramıyla tanımlanması daha uygundur. Cârullah, Birgivînin karşı tarafın itiraz edebilmesini kesin olarak bilmediği konularla sınırlamasını doğru bulmaz. O, bu iddiasını desteklemek için Îcînin konu hakkındaki tutumunu örnek gösterir ve karşı tarafın sınamak, bilse bile daha kesin bilgi elde etmek için itiraz edebileceğini ileri sürer. Cârullah, Birgivînin bazı konularda Îcîden farklı düşündüğünü ileri sürse de tartışmanın düzeni bakımından onunla aynı konumda olduğunu ifade eder. O, tartışmanın sıralaması konusunda Kutbuddîn er-Râzî gibi düşündüğünü belirtir. Başka delile geçiş konusunda Birgivînin Pezdevî ve Teftazânîden etkilendiğini ve genel olarak yöntemci Hanefi İslam hukukçularının görüşlerine tabi olduğunu iddia eder. Ancak Cârullah, yine başka delile geçiş konusunda Birgivînin Hanefi İslam hukukçuların görüşlerine dair verdiği ayrıntının sorgulama ve tartışma disiplini açısından gereksiz olduğunu düşünür. Çünkü sorgulama ve tartışma disiplininde başka delile geçiş Hanefî ya da Şafiʿî yöntemci hukukçuların belirlediği kriterlere göre değil bu disiplinin kriterlerine göre belirlenir. Örneğin sonucu tartışırken karşı delil getirildiğinde tartışmacı başka delile geçerse bu geçtiği delil, bu disiplinin prensiplerine göre karşı delil olmamalıdır. İkinci bölümde dört nüshası tespit edilen küçük şerhin Arapça metninin edisyon kritiği İSAM tahkik esaslarına göre yapıldı. Ayrıca bu şerhi önceleyen diğer şerhler tespit edildi. Sonuç olarak Cârullah yorumlarında sorunsal konulara değinmeyip Birgivînin özet metninin teknik terimlerinin tanımlanmasına ve onun görüşleri itibariyle bu disiplindeki konumunun belirlenmesine odaklanmıştır.

 This article delves into how Walī al-Dīn Jār Allāh interprets Mehmed al-Birgiwīs treatise on inquiry and debate in the context of his work al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr and presents the critical Arabic text of his commentary. The field of ādāb al-baḥs wa al-munāẓara, which establishes the relationship between the theological sciences and the concepts of inquiry and debate, is one of the disciplines included in the Ottoman higher education curriculum. Birgiwīs one-page treatise on inquiry and debate and Jār Allāhs commentaries are among the texts taught in the related courses. Jār Allāh wrote three commentaries on this treatise, namely the Great, the Middle, and the Short ones. However, in the first two commentaries, Jār Allāh focuses more on criticizing the four authors who had written commentaries on the treatise before him rather than on interpreting it. Consequently, this article scrutinizes Jār Allāhs interpretation of the treatise based on the Short Commentary. The reason for choosing this commentary on the treatise as the subject of examination in this article is Jār Allāhs greater productivity in terms of both the number of works and the page count compared to the other fifteen commentators. Additionally, he had already authored substantial works in this field before interpreting the treatise. Moreover, despite Jār Allāhs authorship of encyclopaedic works in the field of inquiry and debate, there has been a lack of attention to this aspect, particularly in academic studies focusing on his intellectual legacy. Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap in Jār Allāhs intellectual profile and to illustrate the intersection of theology and Islamic sciences with the concepts of inquiry and debate through the example of the commentary. This study consists of two sections within this framework. The first section examines how Jār Allāh interprets the inquiry and debate surrounding the nature of the discussion and the discussant in the treatise, as well as the aspects of narration, claim, premise, evidence, and conclusion. Additionally, it examines Jār Allāhs positioning of Birgiwī within the literature on inquiry and debate. Overlapping views with other commentators by Jār Allāh are demonstrated through references to the commentaries of these scholars. In this context, Jār Allāh defines the technical terms used by Birgiwī, as Birgiwī summarizes the process of inquiry and debate without defining the technical terms associated with them. For example, Birgiwī uses the term debater without providing a definition, but Jār Allāh defines the concept of debate as both the contemplation by two individuals of the connection between two things to reveal the truth and the mutual defense of a viewpoint by two individuals to reveal the truth. Jār Allāh does not agree with Birgiwīs views, and he argues that it is more appropriate to define the debater as an inquirer, which denotes reciprocal questioning. Jār Allāh disagrees with Birgiwīs opinion that the opposing party can only inquire about the premises, evidence, or narration if they do not have definitive konowledge. To support this claim, he cites al-Ījīs stance on the subject, arguing that the opposing party can challenge and object, even if they already know, to obtain more precise knowledge or test a debater. While Jār Allāh claims that he disagrees with Ījī on certain issues, he expresses that, in terms of the organization of the debate, he is in the same position as Ījī. He thinks similarly to al-Rāzī regarding the organization of the debate. According to Jār Allāh, Birgiwī was influenced by al-Pazdawīs and al-Taftazānīs opinions on the transition to another evidence, and he generally followed the views of methodist Ḥanafī jurists. However, Jār Allāh argues that the specific details provided by Birgiwī regarding the views of Hanafī jurists in transitioning to another piece of evidence are not relevant within the discipline of inquiry and debate. In this discipline, the criteria for transitioning to another piece of evidence are determined by its own principles, and not by the criteria set by methodist Ḥanafī or Shafiʿī jurists. For instance, when discussing conclusions and counter-evidence, if a debater prefers the transition to another piece of evidence, it should not be considered counter-evidence according to the principles of this discipline. In the second section of the article, a critical edition of the Arabic text of the Short Commentary, for which four copies were identified, was conducted following ISAMs textual criticism principles. Additionally, four other commentaries preceding this commentary were identified. Ultimately, this study concludes that Jār Allāh focused on defining the technical terms of the treatise and determining his position within the discipline based on his own views without addressing any problematic issues in his interpretations.

 This article delves into how Walī al-Dīn Jār Allāh interprets Mehmed al-Birgiwīs treatise on inquiry and debate in the context of his work al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr and presents the critical Arabic text of his commentary. The field of ādāb al-baḥs wa al-munāẓara, which establishes the relationship between the theological sciences and the concepts of inquiry and debate, is one of the disciplines included in the Ottoman higher education curriculum. Birgiwīs one-page treatise on inquiry and debate and Jār Allāhs commentaries are among the texts taught in the related courses. Jār Allāh wrote three commentaries on this treatise, namely the Great, the Middle, and the Short ones. However, in the first two commentaries, Jār Allāh focuses more on criticizing the four authors who had written commentaries on the treatise before him rather than on interpreting it. Consequently, this article scrutinizes Jār Allāhs interpretation of the treatise based on the Short Commentary. The reason for choosing this commentary on the treatise as the subject of examination in this article is Jār Allāhs greater productivity in terms of both the number of works and the page count compared to the other fifteen commentators. Additionally, he had already authored substantial works in this field before interpreting the treatise. Moreover, despite Jār Allāhs authorship of encyclopaedic works in the field of inquiry and debate, there has been a lack of attention to this aspect, particularly in academic studies focusing on his intellectual legacy. Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap in Jār Allāhs intellectual profile and to illustrate the intersection of theology and Islamic sciences with the concepts of inquiry and debate through the example of the commentary. This study consists of two sections within this framework. The first section examines how Jār Allāh interprets the inquiry and debate surrounding the nature of the discussion and the discussant in the treatise, as well as the aspects of narration, claim, premise, evidence, and conclusion. Additionally, it examines Jār Allāhs positioning of Birgiwī within the literature on inquiry and debate. Overlapping views with other commentators by Jār Allāh are demonstrated through references to the commentaries of these scholars. In this context, Jār Allāh defines the technical terms used by Birgiwī, as Birgiwī summarizes the process of inquiry and debate without defining the technical terms associated with them. For example, Birgiwī uses the term debater without providing a definition, but Jār Allāh defines the concept of debate as both the contemplation by two individuals of the connection between two things to reveal the truth and the mutual defense of a viewpoint by two individuals to reveal the truth. Jār Allāh does not agree with Birgiwīs views, and he argues that it is more appropriate to define the debater as an inquirer, which denotes reciprocal questioning. Jār Allāh disagrees with Birgiwīs opinion that the opposing party can only inquire about the premises, evidence, or narration if they do not have definitive konowledge. To support this claim, he cites al-Ījīs stance on the subject, arguing that the opposing party can challenge and object, even if they already know, to obtain more precise knowledge or test a debater. While Jār Allāh claims that he disagrees with Ījī on certain issues, he expresses that, in terms of the organization of the debate, he is in the same position as Ījī. He thinks similarly to al-Rāzī regarding the organization of the debate. According to Jār Allāh, Birgiwī was influenced by al-Pazdawīs and al-Taftazānīs opinions on the transition to another evidence, and he generally followed the views of methodist Ḥanafī jurists. However, Jār Allāh argues that the specific details provided by Birgiwī regarding the views of Hanafī jurists in transitioning to another piece of evidence are not relevant within the discipline of inquiry and debate. In this discipline, the criteria for transitioning to another piece of evidence are determined by its own principles, and not by the criteria set by methodist Ḥanafī or Shafiʿī jurists. For instance, when discussing conclusions and counter-evidence, if a debater prefers the transition to another piece of evidence, it should not be considered counter-evidence according to the principles of this discipline. In the second section of the article, a critical edition of the Arabic text of the Short Commentary, for which four copies were identified, was conducted following ISAMs textual criticism principles. Additionally, four other commentaries preceding this commentary were identified. Ultimately, this study concludes that Jār Allāh focused on defining the technical terms of the treatise and determining his position within the discipline based on his own views without addressing any problematic issues in his interpretations.

Article Details

The Evaluation of The Short Commentary by Walī al-Dīn Jār Allāh on Birgiwī’s Treatise about the Rules of Inquiry and Debate along with the Critical Edition of the Arabic Text

Authors:

Muhammet Çelik

Publisher:

Hitit University

Main Topics:

Mantık Tarihi

Journal:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 1, pp.67-110

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001322102

pISSN:

2757-6949

Inquiry

Debate

Walī al-Dīn Jār Allāh

Mehmed al-Birgiwī

the Short Commentary

al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr: Sorgulama

Tartışma

Veliyyüddîn Cârullah

Mehmed el-Birgivî

eş-Şerhu’ṣ-Ṣaġîr

Issues

Article Details

Authors: Muhammet Çelik

Publisher: Hitit University

Main Topics: Mantık Tarihi

Journal: Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 1, pp.67-110

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 6/2024

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001322102

pISSN: 2757-6949

Issues

Authors:

Muhammet Çelik

Publisher:

Hitit University

Main Topics:

Mantık Tarihi

Journal:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 1, pp.67-110

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001322102

pISSN:

2757-6949