The Belongingness Problem of a Persian Commentary on Fusūs: Muhammad Pārsā’s or Sayyed Ali Hamadānī?

Abdulmelik İbrahimoğlu

Article Details

The Belongingness Problem of a Persian Commentary on Fusūs: Muhammad Pārsā’s or Sayyed Ali Hamadānī?

Authors:

Abdulmelik İbrahimoğlu

Publisher:

Mustafa Süleyman ÖZCAN

Main Topics:

Tasavvuf

Journal:

İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 1, pp.233-254

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

3/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001312817

pISSN:

2147-1185

Keywords:

Abstract:

 Fusūs al-hikam is the most important and most famous work of Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī d. 6381240. This work, which was written in Arabic, has been translated into many languages and abbreviated and has been the subject of many commentaries such as Arabic, Persian, and Turkish. One of the Persian commentaries of Fusūs has been attributed to Muhammad Pārsā d. 8221420. This commentary, which is registered in both library catalogs and bibliographic resources, has been made a critical edition in Iran by Jaleel Mesgarnejād 1940-2011, attributing to Pārsā, in H Sh 13571978, and it has been introduced to the world of science with an article and then published. The same commentary has been attributed to Sayyed Ali Hamadānī d. 7861385. Therefore, there has been a debate among the researchers about who the work belongs to. On one side of this debate, there is Mesgarnejād, who made a critical edition of the work, and on the other side, Najeeb Māyel Harawī, who expressed the most serious objections in the discussion of belongingness. According to this, Mesgarnejād claims that the commentary belongs to Pārsā, and Harawī claims that it belongs to Hamadānī. In this study, this issue of belonging has been discussed in various aspects, and it has been tried to shed light on the subject and contribute to it. In other words, the arguments of those who think that the commentary in question belongs to Pārsā and the evidence of those who claim that it belongs to Hamadānī have been presented, discussed, evaluated, and tried to conclude in the light of the obtained data. In the meantime, it has been determined that Harawī had the idea that the commentary belonged to Pārsā at the beginning, and it has been understood that Mesgarnejād was insufficient in his response to Harawīs objections. It has been seen that both researchers did not sufficiently examine the manuscript copies in Turkey and even were not aware of some of them. In addition, some features of the commentary have been recorded, manuscript copies in Turkey have been mentioned and a newly identified manuscript from us has been introduced. Manuscript copies registered concerning both Hamadānī and Pārsā have been compared with printed and other copies.

 Fusūs al-hikam is the most important and most famous work of Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī d. 6381240. This work, which was written in Arabic, has been translated into many languages and abbreviated and has been the subject of many commentaries such as Arabic, Persian, and Turkish. One of the Persian commentaries of Fusūs has been attributed to Muhammad Pārsā d. 8221420. This commentary, which is registered in both library catalogs and bibliographic resources, has been made a critical edition in Iran by Jaleel Mesgarnejād 1940-2011, attributing to Pārsā, in H Sh 13571978, and it has been introduced to the world of science with an article and then published. The same commentary has been attributed to Sayyed Ali Hamadānī d. 7861385. Therefore, there has been a debate among the researchers about who the work belongs to. On one side of this debate, there is Mesgarnejād, who made a critical edition of the work, and on the other side, Najeeb Māyel Harawī, who expressed the most serious objections in the discussion of belongingness. According to this, Mesgarnejād claims that the commentary belongs to Pārsā, and Harawī claims that it belongs to Hamadānī. In this study, this issue of belonging has been discussed in various aspects, and it has been tried to shed light on the subject and contribute to it. In other words, the arguments of those who think that the commentary in question belongs to Pārsā and the evidence of those who claim that it belongs to Hamadānī have been presented, discussed, evaluated, and tried to conclude in the light of the obtained data. In the meantime, it has been determined that Harawī had the idea that the commentary belonged to Pārsā at the beginning, and it has been understood that Mesgarnejād was insufficient in his response to Harawīs objections. It has been seen that both researchers did not sufficiently examine the manuscript copies in Turkey and even were not aware of some of them. In addition, some features of the commentary have been recorded, manuscript copies in Turkey have been mentioned and a newly identified manuscript from us has been introduced. Manuscript copies registered concerning both Hamadānī and Pārsā have been compared with printed and other copies.

 Fusūs al-hikam is the most important and most famous work of Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī d. 6381240. This work, which was written in Arabic, has been translated into many languages and abbreviated and has been the subject of many commentaries such as Arabic, Persian, and Turkish. One of the Persian commentaries of Fusūs has been attributed to Muhammad Pārsā d. 8221420. This commentary, which is registered in both library catalogs and bibliographic resources, has been made a critical edition in Iran by Jaleel Mesgarnejād 1940-2011, attributing to Pārsā, in H Sh 13571978, and it has been introduced to the world of science with an article and then published. The same commentary has been attributed to Sayyed Ali Hamadānī d. 7861385. Therefore, there has been a debate among the researchers about who the work belongs to. On one side of this debate, there is Mesgarnejād, who made a critical edition of the work, and on the other side, Najeeb Māyel Harawī, who expressed the most serious objections in the discussion of belongingness. According to this, Mesgarnejād claims that the commentary belongs to Pārsā, and Harawī claims that it belongs to Hamadānī. In this study, this issue of belonging has been discussed in various aspects, and it has been tried to shed light on the subject and contribute to it. In other words, the arguments of those who think that the commentary in question belongs to Pārsā and the evidence of those who claim that it belongs to Hamadānī have been presented, discussed, evaluated, and tried to conclude in the light of the obtained data. In the meantime, it has been determined that Harawī had the idea that the commentary belonged to Pārsā at the beginning, and it has been understood that Mesgarnejād was insufficient in his response to Harawīs objections. It has been seen that both researchers did not sufficiently examine the manuscript copies in Turkey and even were not aware of some of them. In addition, some features of the commentary have been recorded, manuscript copies in Turkey have been mentioned and a newly identified manuscript from us has been introduced. Manuscript copies registered concerning both Hamadānī and Pārsā have been compared with printed and other copies.

 Fusûsul-hikem, Muhyiddin İbnül-Arabînin ö. 6381240 en önemli ve en meşhur eseridir. Arapça olarak kaleme alınan bu eser, günümüze kadar birçok dile çevrilmiş, ihtisar edilmiş ve başta Arapça olmak üzere Farsça ve Türkçe gibi çok sayıda şerhe konu olmuştur. Fusûsun Farsça şerhlerinden biri Muhammed Pârsâya ö. 8221420 isnat edilmiştir. Gerek kütüphane kataloglarında gerekse bibliyografik kaynaklarda kayıtlı bulunan bu şerh, Pârsâya nisbetle Celîl Misgernijâd 1940-2011 tarafından HŞ 13571978 yılında yapılan doktora çalışmasıyla İranda tahkik edilmiş, neşrinden kısa bir süre önce bir makaleyle ilim dünyasına tanıtılmış ve ardından basılmıştır. Aynı şerh Seyyid Ali Hemedânîye ö. 7861385 de nisbet edilmiştir. Dolayısıyla araştırmacılar arasında eserin kime ait olduğuna dair tartışma yaşanmıştır. Bu tartışmanın bir tarafında eseri tahkik eden Celîl Misgernijâd, diğer tarafında da aidiyet tartışmasında en ciddi itirazları dile getiren Necîb Mâyil Herevî bulunmaktadır. Buna göre Celîl Misgernijâd şerhin Muhammed Pârsâya, Necîb Mâyil Herevî de Seyyid Ali Hemedânîye ait olduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Çalışmada bu aidiyet meselesi çeşitli yönleriyle tartışılarak konuya ışık tutulmaya ve katkı sunulmaya çalışılmıştır. Yani söz konusu şerhin Muhammed Pârsâya ait olduğu kanısında olanların argümanları ile Seyyid Ali Hemedânîye ait olduğunu ileri sürenlerin delilleri ortaya konup tartışılmış, değerlendirilmiş ve elde edilen veriler ışığında bir sonuca ulaşılmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu arada Necîb Mâyil Herevînin başlangıçta şerhin Muhammed Pârsâya ait olduğu fikrini taşıdığı tesbit edilmiş, Celîl Misgernijâdın da Herevînin itirazlarına verdiği cevapta yetersiz kaldığı anlaşılmıştır. Yanı sıra her iki araştırmacının da Türkiyedeki nüshaları yeterince incelmediği hatta bazılarından haberdar olmadığı görülmüştür. Ayrıca şerhin birtakım özellikleri kaydedilmiş, Türkiyedeki el yazması nüshalarından söz edilmiş ve tarafımızdan yeni tesbit edilmiş bir el yazması nüsha tanıtılmıştır. Gerek Seyyid Ali Hemedânîye gerekse Muhammed Pârsâya nisbetle kayıtlı bulunan el yazması nüshalar matbu ve diğer nüshalarla karılaştırılmıştır.

Article Details

The Belongingness Problem of a Persian Commentary on Fusūs: Muhammad Pārsā’s or Sayyed Ali Hamadānī?

Authors:

Abdulmelik İbrahimoğlu

Publisher:

Mustafa Süleyman ÖZCAN

Main Topics:

Tasavvuf

Journal:

İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 1, pp.233-254

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

3/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001312817

pISSN:

2147-1185

Sufism

Ibn al-Arabī

Persian Commentary on Fusūs

Muhammad Pārsā

Sayyed Ali Hamadānī.Tasavvuf

İbnü’l-Arabî

Farsça Fusûs Şerhi

Muhammed Pârsâ

Seyyid Ali Hemedânî.

Issues

Article Details

Authors: Abdulmelik İbrahimoğlu

Publisher: Mustafa Süleyman ÖZCAN

Main Topics: Tasavvuf

Journal: İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 1, pp.233-254

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 3/2024

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001312817

pISSN: 2147-1185

Issues

Authors:

Abdulmelik İbrahimoğlu

Publisher:

Mustafa Süleyman ÖZCAN

Main Topics:

Tasavvuf

Journal:

İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 1, pp.233-254

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

3/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001312817

pISSN:

2147-1185