Bir İsim İki Şerh: Tuhfetü’l-Ebrâr Fî Şerhi Meşârikı’l-Envâr
Kadir AyazEkmelüddin el-Bâbertî’nin Meşâriku’l-envâr şerhi, şu ana kadar yapılan akademik çalışmalarda Tuhfetü’l-ebrâr fî Şerhi Meşârikı’l-envâr ismi ile tanıtılmıştır. Fakat Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu’nda altmıştan fazla nüshası bulunan Bâbertî’nin şerhinin ferâğ kaydında, Tuhfetü’l-ebrâr ismine rastlanmamıştır. Ancak eserin birçok nüshasında özellikle birinci cildinin ferâğ kaydında, Bâbertî’nin şerhinin “el-İşrâk fî Şerhi Meşârikı’l-envâr” ismi ile kaydedildiği tesbit edilmiştir. Diğer taraftan son zamanlarda, İbn Melek’in Mebâriku’l-ezhâr’da kaynak gösterdiği “et-Tuhfe”nin, Bâbertî’nin şerhi olduğuna dair bir kanaat yaygınlaşmaya başlamıştır. Halbuki, İbn Melek’in başvurduğu “et-Tuhfe”, Meşâriku’l-envâr’ı Sağânî’den dinleyen ve kitabın ilk şârihi olan Muhammed b. Ömer el-Erbilî’nin Tuhfetü’l-ebrâr adlı şerhidir. el-Erbilî’nin Tuhfetü’l-ebrâr’ı, İbn Melek’ten önce Meşâriku’l-envâr’ın ikinci şârihi Vecîhüddin Ömer el-Erzincânî ve sonrasında Bâbertî tarafından da kaynak olarak kullanılmıştır. Bu araştırmada, nüshaların ferâğ kayıtları üzerinden Bâbertî’ye ait şerhin “el-İşrâk” isminde olduğu tesbit edilmiş ve son zamanlarda birbirine mütesânid çalışmalarda tekrar eden bibliyografik bir hataya dikkat çekilmiştir. Ayrıca meşhur olmadığı için kendisine yapılan atıflar bilinmeyen Muhammed el-Erbilî’nin Tuhfetü’l-ebrâr isimli eseri tanıtılarak, şerh literatürüne mütevazı bir katkı sunulmaya çalışılmıştır.
A Name Two Commentaries: Tuhfatu’l-Ebrār Fī Sharh Mashāriq al-Anwār
Kadir AyazAkmal al-din al-Babarti’s commentary on Mashariq al-Anwar has been called Tuhfat al-Abrar fi Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar in the academic studies that have been carried out so far. However, Tuhfat al-Abrar could not be identified as a name in the back endpaper of al-Babarti’s commentary, of which more than 60 copies are found in the Turkish Manuscripts Institution. Furthermore, al-Babarti’s commentary was determined to have been recorded under the title al-Ishraq fi Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar in many copies of the work, particularly in the back endpaper of the first volume. On the other hand, one opinion has become widespread regarding Tuhfa that Ibn Malak cites in Mabariq al-Azhar fi Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar as being al-Babarti’s commentary. However, this Tuhfa that Ibn Malak referred to is the commentary Tuhfat al Abrar by Muhammad b. Umar al-Arbili, who had heard of Mashariq al-Anwar from Saghani and was the first commentator of the book. Arbili’s Tuhfat al-Abrar is the source used by Wajih al-Din Umar al-Arzinjani, the second commentator of Mashariq al-Anwar before Ibn Malak, and by al-Babarti afterwards. This research uses the back endpapers of the manuscripts to determine the title of the commentary belonging to al-Babarti to be al-Ishraq and draws attention to a recurring bibliographic error in recently related studies. Additionally, the study attempts to make a modest contribution to the commentary literature by introducing the work titled Tuhfat al-Abrar by Muhammad al-Arbili, attributions to him are unknown as he is not famous.
In the commentaries of Mashariq al-Anwar, a citation is made to the commentary summarized as the Tuhfa (full name Tuhfat al-Abrar fi Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar). The academic studies carried out so far have stated the work titled at-Tuhfa to be the commentary Mashariq al-Anwar by Akmal al-Din al-Babarti (d. 786/1384). Independent studies comparing the commentaries of al-Babarti and Ibn Malak (d. after 821/1418) have stated that Ibn Malak referred to al-Babarti’s commentary with the name “at-Tuhfa.” However, the work titled at-Tuhfa is not a source name that was first encountered in Ibn Malak’s Mabariq al-Adhar. Likewise, a citation for at-Tuhfa had also previously been found in the commentaries of both al-Babarti and Wajih al-Din Umar al-Arzinjani (d. after 725/1324-25). Therefore, al-Babarti, who cited a Mashariq commentary titled at Tuhfa as a reference, could not have called his own work by the same title.
This research aims to determine the source of the literary error regarding the Mashariq al-Anwar commentary titled Tuhfat al-Abrar and the original name of the commentary. In addition, the study will introduce Muhammed al-Arbili’s (d. post-678/1279-80) work titled Tuhfat al-Abrar, which al-Arzinjani and Ibn Malak, one of the following commentators, cited in many parts and expressed their views stating “sahib al-Tuhfa” [belonging to al Tuhfa]. Meanwhile, thanks to the identification of two different commentaries and two unique titles of a text book, attention has been drawn to a recurring bibliographic error in related recent studies.
Tuhfat al-Abrar is an important source referenced in Mashariq al-Anwar commentaries and wrongly attributed to Akmal al-Din al-Babarti. Naming al-Babarti’s commentary as Tuhfat al-Abrar dates back to a long time after the commentary was written. As far as can be determined, Katip Çelebi (d. 1067/1657) was the first to introduce al-Babarti’s commentary under the title Tuhfat al-Abrar fi Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar. Following Katip Çelebi, Ismail Pasha and Umar Rida Kahhala also both mentioned the title of the commentary as Tuhfat al-Abrar. The incorrect attribution of al-Babarti’s commentary started with Katip Çelebi and has been perpetuated in academic studies. It has even become completely widespread, as some of these were published with the title al-Babarti’s Tuhfat al-Abrar fi Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar.
Manuscript catalogs and electronic indexes that are frequently used have also recently contributed to al-Babarti’s commentary becoming infamous under the erroneous title of Tuhfat al-Abrar. This commentary has been introduced under the title Tuhfat al-Abrar in the indexes of the Turkish Manuscripts Institution and Turkish Religious Foundation Islamic Encyclopedia, which are used as the primary sources for scanning manuscripts. Once the title Tuhfat al-Abrar had become widespread in electronic sources, researchers then relied on Katip Çelebi’s explanation alongside the catalogs and indexes instead of going to the back endpaper records of the manuscripts in their research on al-Babarti’s commentary or even the front endpapers. This is because the title Tuhfat al-Abrar isn’t found in the back endpapers of the manuscript copies of al-Babarti’s commentary.
On the back endpapers for nearly twenty copies of the more than sixty manuscripts of the first volume of al-Babarti’s owrk in the Turkish Manuscripts Institution, the name of the commentary is explained with the statement “This is the end of the first volume of al Ishraq fi Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar.” All researchers missed the name al-Ishraq at the end of the first volume because they did not examine the manuscripts carefully. Meanwhile, they had also disregarded the title al-Ishraq fi Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar in the back endpapers of the second volume of several copies, as well as in the front endpapers of a small number of manuscripts. Therefore, records recording al-Ishraq fi Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar in the back endpapers and front endpapers of certain manuscripts haven’t been placed into the academic literature. Additionally, researchers introduced the widely used copies of al-Babarti’s work as Tuhfat al-Abrar based solely on the incorrect naming by Katip Çelebi. These approaches are far removed from scientific passion.
This research on Mashariq al-Anwar and his commentaries has identified a work called Tuhfat al-Abrar fi sharh al-Mashariq al-Anwar. It had not been recorded in the hadith commentary literature due to the fact that, besides being the first commentary of Mashariq al-Anwar, its author is not very well-known and not many manuscript copies are available. Tuhfat al-Abrar belongs to Muhammed b. Umar b. Ali b. Umar b. al-Hasan b. Ilyas b. Bahtiyar b. al-Mukri’ al-Arbili (d. post-678/1279-80). His name is not mentioned in Tabaqat books. Muhammed al-Arbili, having heard Mashariq al Anwar from Saghani, was the first commentator of the work and owner of a valuable copy containing the originals and notes.
Mashariq al-Anwar used symbols to show whether hadiths were from Bukhari or Muslim or muttafaqun ‘alaih. However, some hadiths could not be found in Bukhari or Muslim that were indicated by other related symbols. Some hadith texts failed to comply with al-Sahihayn as well. Additionally, some of the companion narrators differed from those in Bukhari or Muslim. The interpretation of hadiths that did not comply with al Sahihayn in terms of the symbol, narrator, and text is the most crucial issue awaiting a unique solution for the text book.
The evaluations by al-Arbili, who’d heard the commentary book from its author regarding Mashariq al-Anwar’s hadiths and narrators that differed from Bukhari and Muslim, and moreover the narrative differences from time to time or quotations from al-Saghani in the explanations of words as well as the information provided about the original copy had enabled Tuhfat al-Abrar to become one of the most basic sources of early Mashariq commentators.
Wajih al-Din Umar al-Arzinjani, known as the second commentator of Mashariq al-Anwar, frequently referred to Tuhfat al-Abrar and quoted al-Arbili’s statements in many places, sometimes citing references and sometimes without citing a reference. Al Arzinjani referred to this as “ةفحتلا يف اذك” [it is so in at-Tuhfa] or as “ةفحتلا يف ركذ” [as mentioned in at-Tuhfa] in nearly 70 places in Hadayiq al-Adhar. Al-Arzinjani explained the work at-Tuhfa which he referred to without mentioning the author’s name, in the resources section at the end of Hadayiq al-Adhar by saying at-Tuhfa belonging to Imam Badruddin Muhammed al-Arbili rahimahullah. Therefore, the commentary indicated with the form “at-Tuhfa in Hadayiq al-Adhar can be said with certainty to refer to Muhammed b. Umar al-Arbili’s work titled Tuhfat al-Abrar fi Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar.
Ibn Malak referred to it as “sahib at-Tuhfa” or “at-Tuhfa” in 47 places in Mabariq al-Adhar. Of the explanations Ibn Malak conveyed with these forms, 35 could not be identified in al-Babarti’s commentary. As stated in some academic studies, the source of Ibn Malak’s references to “at-Tuhfa” cannot be said to be Babarti’s commentary. Meanwhile, 25 of these 47 references are also not found in Arzinjani’s commentary. This allows one to say that Ibn Malak had directly referred to Arbili’s commentary and used Tuhfat al-Abrar as the primary source.
This research has determined the authentic title of Al-Babarti’s Mashariq al-Anwar commentary to be al-Ishraq fī Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar based on the back endpaper records of the manuscripts and also based on the accuracy of this name having been confirmed by the “al-Ishraq” references the author made to his commentary in two of his works. Meanwhile, after Katip Çelebi titled al-Babarti’s commentary as Tuhfat al Abrar, the references in the form of “at-Tuhfa” that are present in the commentaries of Mashariq al-Anwar are noted to have been incorrectly attributed to al-Babarti, with the resulting literature error having been repeated in recent academic studies as well. In addition, despite being the first commentator of Mashariq al-Anwar and influencing the subsequent commentaries significantly in terms of commentary method and explanations, this study has introduced the work titled Tuhfat al-Abrar fi Sharh Mashariq al-Anwar by Muhammed al-Arbili, whose references are unknown as he was not famous.
