Necmettin Pehlivan
Ankara University, Faculty of Divinity, Faculty Member
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In this article, we argue two anonymous manuscripts on Islamic jurisprudential disputation theory ('ilm al-khilāf) to belong to Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d. 1322), a scholar in the late period of Islamic thought, based on content... more
In this article, we argue two anonymous manuscripts on Islamic jurisprudential disputation theory ('ilm al-khilāf) to belong to Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d. 1322), a scholar in the late period of Islamic thought, based on content analysis and textual phrase comparisons. The manuscripts are not referenced as belonging to al-Samarqandī in the library catalogues or bibliographic studies. The manuscripts are commentaries on two distinct works from Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī (d. 1289), one being on Manshaʾ al-naẓar in which al-Nasafī summarizes ʿilm al-khilāf in theory and practice and the other being on al-Nikāt al-ḍarūriyya al-arba'īniyya, which is also known as al-Usṭuqussāt. Here al-Nasafī inquired about 40 points of disagreement between Ḥanafiyya and Shāfiʿiyya in al-Nikāt. In conclusion, the facts that support our argument are: (a) Preface (ḥamdala and ṣalwala), and introduction (muqaddima) of the manuscripts match the ḥamdala, ṣalwala, and muqaddima from al-Samarqandī's...
Bu makalede, Turk-Islam filozofu Ibn Sinâ’nin dua ile ilgili gorusleri ele alinmistir. Ibn Sinâ’nin gorusleri ele alinirken Ebu Sa‘id Ebu’lHayr’in sorusuna yazdigi cevabi mektubuna ve et-Ta‘likât adli eserinin bazi parcalarina... more
Bu makalede, Turk-Islam filozofu Ibn Sinâ’nin dua ile ilgili gorusleri ele alinmistir. Ibn Sinâ’nin gorusleri ele alinirken Ebu Sa‘id Ebu’lHayr’in sorusuna yazdigi cevabi mektubuna ve et-Ta‘likât adli eserinin bazi parcalarina dayanilmistir. Adi gecen bu metinlerin orijinalleri verildigi gibi Turkce’ye de cevrilmistir
Burhānuddīn en-Nesefī’nin el-Fuṣūl adli eseri, Islam entelektuel tarihinde ḫilāf ilminin gelisim sureci, tahsili ve tedrisi bakimindan temel bir metindir. Ancak bu eserin asil onemi, Şemsuddīn es-Semerḳandī’nin Risāle fī Ādābi’l-Baḥs adli... more
Burhānuddīn en-Nesefī’nin el-Fuṣūl adli eseri, Islam entelektuel tarihinde ḫilāf ilminin gelisim sureci, tahsili ve tedrisi bakimindan temel bir metindir. Ancak bu eserin asil onemi, Şemsuddīn es-Semerḳandī’nin Risāle fī Ādābi’l-Baḥs adli eserinin zeminini olusturmasinda yatmaktadir. Es-Semerḳandī, hocasi en-Nesefī’nin eserinden hareketle devrim niteliginde yepyeni bir tartisma yontemi gelistirmis yeni bir tartisma disiplinini sistematize etmis; bu tartisma teorisi daha sonra ādābu’l-baḥs adiyla mustakil bir ilim dalina donusmustur. Bu makalede, el-Fuṣūl ve Risāle fī Ādābi’l-Baḥs arasindaki iliski evrimsel acidan mukayeseli olarak tahlile tabi tutulmaktadir. Makalenin sonunda da gunumuzde halen yazma halde olan en-Nesefī’nin el-Fuṣūl adli eserinin tenkidli tahkiki sunulmaktadir
Bu makalede İslam düşünce tarihinin geç dönem bilginlerinden Şemseddin es-Semerkandî’nin (ö.722/1322), k larda ve bazı çalışmalarda müellifi belirsiz olarak kaydedilen iki eserinin müellife aidiyetini tespit ederek bunlardan birini... more
Bu makalede İslam düşünce tarihinin geç dönem bilginlerinden Şemseddin es-Semerkandî’nin (ö.722/1322), k larda ve bazı çalışmalarda müellifi belirsiz olarak kaydedilen iki eserinin müellife aidiyetini tespit ederek bunlardan birini önemine binaen tahkik edip çalışma ekinde ilgililerine sunduk. Her iki eser de Semerkandî’nin, nazar/cedel/hilâf ilmine dair eserleriyle meşhur olan hocası Burhâneddin en-Nesefî’nin (ö.687/1289) iki ayrı eserine yazdığı şerhtir. Eserlerden ilki hilâf ilminin teorik ve pratik yönlerinin oldukça özet bir şekilde ele alındığı Menşe’ü’n-nazar’ın; ikincisi ise Ebû Hanîfe ile başta Şâfi‘î olmak üzere Ebû Yûsuf, Muhammed eş-Şeybânî ve Züfer gibi öğrencileri arasındaki ihtilaflı meselelerden kırkının ilm-i nazar (cedel/hilâf) yöntemiyle ele alındığı en-Nikâtü’z-zarûriyyetü’l-erba‘îniyye’nin, meşhur olduğu bir diğer ismiyle el-Ustukussât’ın şerhidir. Her iki şerhin Semerkandî’ye aidiyetini, üslup ve içeriğe ilişkin birtakım gerekçelere dayanarak iddia ediyoruz. Özetle bu gerekçeler: (i) Her iki eserin, hamdele, salvele ve giriş bölümlerinin Semerkandî’nin diğer eserleriyle birebir örtüşmesidir. (ii) Şârihin, Şerhu’n-Nikât’ta Semerkandî’nin diğer eserlerinin isimlerini vererek “biz bu eserlerde zikrettik” şeklinde atıfta bulunmasıdır. (iii) Semerkandî’nin Şerhu’l-Fusûl adlı eserine haşiye yazan et-Turkânî’nin makalemize konu olan her iki eserin Semerkandî’ye ait olduğunu haşiyesinde dile getirmesidir. (iv) Semerkandî’nin Şerhu’l-Fusûl adlı eseri ile Şerhu Menşe’i’n-nazar’ın metinlerinde birçok konuda aynı cümle ve yaklaşımlara yer verilmesidir.
Research Interests:
Bu makale, Islâm dusuncesine ait olan âdâbu’l-bahs ve’l-munazara adli tartisma teorisini Osmanli muelliflerinden Ahmed Şevki b. Abdullah’in Risâle fi âdâbi’l-munâzara adli eseri cercevesinde ele almaktadir. Âdâbu’l-bahs ve’l-munazara adli... more
Bu makale, Islâm dusuncesine ait olan âdâbu’l-bahs ve’l-munazara adli tartisma teorisini Osmanli muelliflerinden Ahmed Şevki b. Abdullah’in Risâle fi âdâbi’l-munâzara adli eseri cercevesinde ele almaktadir. Âdâbu’l-bahs ve’l-munazara adli tartisma yontemi Osmanli bilim havzasinda en yetkin halini almistir. Fakat modern zamanlardaki felsefe veya mantik tarihi yazinlarinda yeri gozetilmedigi gibi gunumuzde de hakkinda cok az calisma bulunmaktadir. Makale, hem risalenin tahlili, hem de tenkitli nesri ile Turkce literature bir katki yapmayi amaclamaktadir.
Burhānuddīn en-Nesefī (o.687/1289) fikih, fikih usulu, mantik, kelam, tefsir gibi alan-larda eser vermis cok yonlu bir alimdir. Fakat onu doneminin diger alimlerden ayiran yonu, Ruknuddīn el-ʿAmīdī ile birlikte fikih usulu disindaki... more
Burhānuddīn en-Nesefī (o.687/1289) fikih, fikih usulu, mantik, kelam, tefsir gibi alan-larda eser vermis cok yonlu bir alimdir. Fakat onu doneminin diger alimlerden ayiran yonu, Ruknuddīn el-ʿAmīdī ile birlikte fikih usulu disindaki eserlerde de ele alinmaya baslanan ʿilm-i naẓar (ḫilāf/cedel) ile daha yogun bir sekilde ilgilenmis, bu alana iliskin hem nicelik hem de nitelik bakimindan onemli eserler yazmis olmasidir. Onun el-Fuṣūl ve Menseʾu’n-Naẓar isimli eserleri yazildigi donemden itibaren ʿilm-i naẓarin en temel klasik metinleri haline gelmis ve ogrencileri basta olmak uzere bircok muellif tarafindan uzerlerine serḥ ve ḥāsiyeler kaleme alinmistir. Yaptigimiz arastirmalar sonucunca en-Nesefī’nin ʿilm-i naẓar ile iliskili baska eserlerinin de bulundugunu tespit ettik. Şimdiye kadar varligindan dahi haberdar olunmayan bu eserler, hem en-Nesefī ozelinde ʿilm-i naẓar kitabiyatini zenginlestirecek hem de onun bu ilmin tekamulune katkisinin boyut-larinin daha iyi anlasilmasina imkan s...
Öz: Bu makalede İslam düşünce tarihinin geç dönem bilginlerinden Şemseddin es-Semerkandî'nin (ö.722/1322), katalog-larda ve bazı çalışmalarda müellifi belirsiz olarak kaydedilen iki eserinin müellife aidiyetini tespit ederek bunlardan... more
Öz: Bu makalede İslam düşünce tarihinin geç dönem bilginlerinden Şemseddin es-Semerkandî'nin (ö.722/1322), katalog-larda ve bazı çalışmalarda müellifi belirsiz olarak kaydedilen iki eserinin müellife aidiyetini tespit ederek bunlardan birini önemine binaen tahkik edip çalışma ekinde ilgililerine sunduk. Her iki eser de Semerkandî'nin, nazar/cedel/hilâf ilmine dair eserleriyle meşhur olan hocası Burhâneddin en-Nesefî'nin (ö.687/1289) iki ayrı eserine yazdığı şerhtir. Eserlerden ilki hilâf ilminin teorik ve pratik yönlerinin oldukça özet bir şekilde ele alındığı Menşe'ü'n-nazar'ın; ikincisi ise Ebû Hanîfe ile başta Şâfi'î olmak üzere Ebû Yûsuf, Muhammed eş-Şeybânî ve Züfer gibi öğrencileri arasındaki ihtilaflı meselelerden kırkının ilm-i nazar (cedel/hilâf) yöntemiyle ele alındığı en-Nikâtü'z-zarûriyyetü'l-erba'îniyye'nin, meşhur olduğu bir diğer ismiyle el-Ustukussât'ın şerhidir. Her iki şerhin Semerkandî'ye aidiyetini, üslup ve içeriğe ilişkin birtakım gerekçelere dayanarak id-dia ediyoruz. Özetle bu gerekçeler: (i) Her iki eserin, hamdele, salvele ve giriş bölümlerinin Semerkandî'nin diğer eserleriyle birebir örtüşmesidir. (ii) Şârihin, Şerhu'n-Nikât'ta Semerkandî'nin diğer eserlerinin isimlerini vererek "biz bu eserlerde zik-rettik" şeklinde atıfta bulunmasıdır. (iii) Semerkandî'nin Şerhu'l-Fusûl adlı eserine haşiye yazan et-Turkânî'nin makalemize konu olan her iki eserin Semerkandî'ye ait olduğunu haşiyesinde dile getirmesidir. (iv) Semerkandî'nin Şerhu'l-Fusûl adlı eseri ile Şerhu Menşe'i'n-nazar'ın metinlerinde birçok konuda aynı cümle ve yaklaşımlara yer verilmesidir. Abstract: In this article, we have argued based on content analysis and comparing phrases of texts that two anonymous manuscripts on Islamic jurisprudential disputation theory ('ilm al-khilāf) belong to Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d.1322) who is a scholar in the late period of Islamic thought. The manuscripts have not been referred to al-Samarqandī in library catalogues and bibliographic studies. The manuscripts are commentaries on Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī's (d.1289) two distinct works. One of them is on Manshaʾ al-na ar. Al-Nasafī summarized in Mansha' 'ilm al-hilāf in theory and practice. The other is on al-Nikāt al-arūrīyya al-arba'īnīyya also called as al-Ustukussāt. Al-Nasafī inquired about forty dissentients between Ḥanafīyya and Shāfiʿīyya in al-Nikāt. In conclusion, the facts that support our argument are those: (i) Preface (amdala and alwala), and introduction (muqaddima) of the manuscripts match up to al-Samarqandī's amdala, alwala, and muqaddima of works. (ii) al-Samarqandī referenced his other works via their names in the commentary on al-Nikāt by the ways of saying "ẓakarnā" (iii) Kamāl al-Dīn al-Turkānī (d. 1354) who wrote a gloss (āshiya) on al-Samarqandī's Shar al-Fu ūl declared in the āshiya that the commentaries belong to al-Samarqandī. (iv) In Shar al-Fu ūl and Shar Manshaʾ al-Na ar, there are the same assertions and same manner on various issues. Finally, we append a critical edition of the Arabic text of Shar Manshaʾ al-Na ar.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
AL-MAṬLAB AL-AʿLĀ, AL-MAḲṢAD AL-AḲSĀ: KAMĀLPĀSHĀZĀDA’S RİSĀLA FĪ ʿILM ĀDĀB AL-BAḤS Disputation theory in Islamic thought called as ādāb al-baḥs̠ va almunāẓara was systemized by Shams al-Dīn Muḥamad al-Samarḳandī (d.722/1322). After... more
AL-MAṬLAB AL-AʿLĀ, AL-MAḲṢAD AL-AḲSĀ: KAMĀLPĀSHĀZĀDA’S
RİSĀLA FĪ ʿILM ĀDĀB AL-BAḤS
Disputation theory in Islamic thought called as ādāb al-baḥs̠ va almunāẓara
was systemized by Shams al-Dīn Muḥamad al-Samarḳandī
(d.722/1322). After al-Samarḳandī, this theory has had a specific tradition in
virtue of epistles, commentaries and super-commanteries. For this reason, al-jadal
that is based on Aristotle’s Topics and al-ḫilāf that is known as Islamic
jurispuridential disputation theory have been succeeded by ādāb al-baḥs̠ va almunāẓara.
The most seminal ādāb works was written in Ottoman milieu. For
instance, Ḥusayn Shah Adanavī (d.1050/1640)’s al-Ḥusayniyya prevailed in
Ottoman madrasahs instead of al-Samarqandī’s Risāla fī Ādāb al-baḥs̠.
Sāçaqlīzāda Muḥamad Afandī (d.1145/1732)’s Taḳrīr al-Ḳavānīn evinced exactly
the rules of ādāb al-baḥs̠ va al-munāẓara discovered by Sāçaqlīzāda’s
predecessors. Kamālpāshāzāda Shemsuddīn Aḥmad (d.940/1534) also wrote an
epistle named Risāla fī ādāb al-baḥs̠ on ādāb al-baḥs̠ va al-munāẓara.He described
this epistle as pure advantage and concise text. He, moreover, have a supercommentary
called as Ḥāşiya al-Tehāfut on Ḫūcazāda Muṣliḥ al-Dīn’s Tehāfut
al-Falāsifa. Even just for the reason that he carried out ādāb al-baḥs̠ va almunāẓara
in this work, Risāla fī ādāb al-baḥs̠ has an important role for having a
grasp of Kamālpāshāzāda’s Ḥāşiya al-Tehāfut. In this article, Risāla fī ādāb albaḥs̠
was analysed in terms of its content and manner. Finally, we appended a
critical edition of the Arabic text of the epistle with Turkish.
RİSĀLA FĪ ʿILM ĀDĀB AL-BAḤS
Disputation theory in Islamic thought called as ādāb al-baḥs̠ va almunāẓara
was systemized by Shams al-Dīn Muḥamad al-Samarḳandī
(d.722/1322). After al-Samarḳandī, this theory has had a specific tradition in
virtue of epistles, commentaries and super-commanteries. For this reason, al-jadal
that is based on Aristotle’s Topics and al-ḫilāf that is known as Islamic
jurispuridential disputation theory have been succeeded by ādāb al-baḥs̠ va almunāẓara.
The most seminal ādāb works was written in Ottoman milieu. For
instance, Ḥusayn Shah Adanavī (d.1050/1640)’s al-Ḥusayniyya prevailed in
Ottoman madrasahs instead of al-Samarqandī’s Risāla fī Ādāb al-baḥs̠.
Sāçaqlīzāda Muḥamad Afandī (d.1145/1732)’s Taḳrīr al-Ḳavānīn evinced exactly
the rules of ādāb al-baḥs̠ va al-munāẓara discovered by Sāçaqlīzāda’s
predecessors. Kamālpāshāzāda Shemsuddīn Aḥmad (d.940/1534) also wrote an
epistle named Risāla fī ādāb al-baḥs̠ on ādāb al-baḥs̠ va al-munāẓara.He described
this epistle as pure advantage and concise text. He, moreover, have a supercommentary
called as Ḥāşiya al-Tehāfut on Ḫūcazāda Muṣliḥ al-Dīn’s Tehāfut
al-Falāsifa. Even just for the reason that he carried out ādāb al-baḥs̠ va almunāẓara
in this work, Risāla fī ādāb al-baḥs̠ has an important role for having a
grasp of Kamālpāshāzāda’s Ḥāşiya al-Tehāfut. In this article, Risāla fī ādāb albaḥs̠
was analysed in terms of its content and manner. Finally, we appended a
critical edition of the Arabic text of the epistle with Turkish.
Research Interests:
Modality of Universal Proposition: An Enquiry Within the Context of Muḥammad alĀmidī’s Rafʿ al-Ḥijāb ʿan Jamīʿ al-Muvajjahāt The modality of universal proposition, i.e., whether it is necessary, permanent, etc., is a matter of debate in... more
Modality of Universal Proposition: An Enquiry Within the Context of Muḥammad alĀmidī’s
Rafʿ al-Ḥijāb ʿan Jamīʿ al-Muvajjahāt
The modality of universal proposition, i.e., whether it is necessary, permanent, etc., is a
matter of debate in the tradition of Islamic modal logic. The discussion was brought out
by Ibn Sīnā’s counter-claim to the modality of the universal proposition for his own modal
system. It was Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī who for the first time expressed the claim that “every
universal proposition is necessary or permanent” as two deductive arguments. Naṣīr al-
Dīn al-Ṭūsī worded the argument on the claim differently from al-Rāzī while Afḍal al-Dīn
al-Khūnajī mentioned the claim without specifying the argument and objection. Ibn Sīnā
argued two counter-examples in response to the claim. Al-Rāzī objected to the claim by
way of division whereas al-Ṭūsī expanded the extension of the middle term of the counterexample
presented in his objection. Although the objections of Ibn Sīnā and al-Rāzī accept
the possibility of the modalities other than the necessary for the modality of the universal
proposition, al-Ṭūsī’s objection seems to accept the counter-claim. The counter-claims
concerning the modality of the universal proposition, the arguments, and their responses
on the discussion were revived in 18th century Ottoman milieu by Muḥammad al-Āmidī in
an epistle, which we have given the title Rafʿ al-Ḥijāb ʿan Jamīʿ al-Muvajjahāt. Even just for
the reason that the epistle carried the discussion from classical Islamic thought into the
post-classical Islamic thought, it should be considered remarkable for modal logical studies.
In this article, first, the evolution of the discussion in the Islamic literature on logic
is summarized, and then, al-Āmidī’s epistle is analyzed and a different argument is presented.
Finally, we append a critical edition of the Arabic text of the epistle.
Rafʿ al-Ḥijāb ʿan Jamīʿ al-Muvajjahāt
The modality of universal proposition, i.e., whether it is necessary, permanent, etc., is a
matter of debate in the tradition of Islamic modal logic. The discussion was brought out
by Ibn Sīnā’s counter-claim to the modality of the universal proposition for his own modal
system. It was Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī who for the first time expressed the claim that “every
universal proposition is necessary or permanent” as two deductive arguments. Naṣīr al-
Dīn al-Ṭūsī worded the argument on the claim differently from al-Rāzī while Afḍal al-Dīn
al-Khūnajī mentioned the claim without specifying the argument and objection. Ibn Sīnā
argued two counter-examples in response to the claim. Al-Rāzī objected to the claim by
way of division whereas al-Ṭūsī expanded the extension of the middle term of the counterexample
presented in his objection. Although the objections of Ibn Sīnā and al-Rāzī accept
the possibility of the modalities other than the necessary for the modality of the universal
proposition, al-Ṭūsī’s objection seems to accept the counter-claim. The counter-claims
concerning the modality of the universal proposition, the arguments, and their responses
on the discussion were revived in 18th century Ottoman milieu by Muḥammad al-Āmidī in
an epistle, which we have given the title Rafʿ al-Ḥijāb ʿan Jamīʿ al-Muvajjahāt. Even just for
the reason that the epistle carried the discussion from classical Islamic thought into the
post-classical Islamic thought, it should be considered remarkable for modal logical studies.
In this article, first, the evolution of the discussion in the Islamic literature on logic
is summarized, and then, al-Āmidī’s epistle is analyzed and a different argument is presented.
Finally, we append a critical edition of the Arabic text of the epistle.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī’s epistle entitled al-Fuṣūl is a seminal work in terms of the development, training, and teaching of the of ilm al-khilāf (science of legal disputes) in Islamic intellectual tradition. Yet the historically... more
Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī’s epistle entitled al-Fuṣūl is a seminal work in terms of the
development, training, and teaching of the of ilm al-khilāf (science of legal disputes) in
Islamic intellectual tradition. Yet the historically essential significance of this work is the fact
that it had paved the way to the origination of a revolutionary discipline of argumentation
called ādāb al-baḥth, which later on turned into a new field of science. Shams al-Dīn al-
Samarqandī, student of al-Nasafī, developed and systematized this new way of disputation in
an epistle entitled Risāla fī Ādāb al-Baḥth, thereby coining a new field of study. This
particular work of al-Samarqandī was based on al-Fuṣūl of his teacher al-Nasafī. In this study,
both al-Fuṣūl and Ādāb al-Baḥth are analyzed in a comparative fashion with a view to
detecting traces of evolution between the two theories of disputation. At the end of the article,
the first-time critical edition of the epistle of al-Fuṣūl is presented.
development, training, and teaching of the of ilm al-khilāf (science of legal disputes) in
Islamic intellectual tradition. Yet the historically essential significance of this work is the fact
that it had paved the way to the origination of a revolutionary discipline of argumentation
called ādāb al-baḥth, which later on turned into a new field of science. Shams al-Dīn al-
Samarqandī, student of al-Nasafī, developed and systematized this new way of disputation in
an epistle entitled Risāla fī Ādāb al-Baḥth, thereby coining a new field of study. This
particular work of al-Samarqandī was based on al-Fuṣūl of his teacher al-Nasafī. In this study,
both al-Fuṣūl and Ādāb al-Baḥth are analyzed in a comparative fashion with a view to
detecting traces of evolution between the two theories of disputation. At the end of the article,
the first-time critical edition of the epistle of al-Fuṣūl is presented.