A Muhaddith Theologian: Shamsaddīn al-Kirmānī and His Commentary on al-Mawāqif (A Study on the Subject of Knowledge and Reasoning)Bilal Taşkın, Muhammet Emin Efe
The disciplines of hadith and kalām, which are among the disciplines that have developed in the history of Islamic thought, have two different methods that are likely to conflict with each other in some cases. While kalām aims to base religion on reason, hadith places the sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.v) at the center of religious understanding. In this respect, the main motivation of this study is to question whether these two disciplines are essentially opposite to each other and whether conflict is inevitable. In the study, this inquiry was made through Shamsaddīn al-Kirmānī, a famous muhaddith and also a theologian. The main purpose of the study is to observe whether alKirmānī’s identity as a muhaddith and a theologian lead to a disagreement on the issue of knowledge. For this observation we chose his commentary named al-Kawāshif, which was written on the famous theological book of Adududdin al-Ījī, al-Mawākqif. In addition, we have been consulted to al-Kirmānī’s work called al-Kawākıb al-Darārī, which is the commentary of Sakhīh al-Bukhārī. As far as we can see, al-Kirmānī does not think differently from the theologians in general in the ways of reaching the right knowledge and in the demonstration of knowledge and does not make any claim that the methods of hadith and kalam conflict with each other. This situation supports the opinion that conflict between the aforementioned disciplines are not necessary and that both disciplines can be interpreted in a way that supports each other. In the study, we also aimed to introduce al-Kirmānī’s commentary on al-Mawākqif briefly.
Muhaddis Bir Kelâmcı: Şemseddîn el-Kirmânî ve el-Mevâkıf Şerhi (Bilgi ve Nazar Bahsi Özelinde Bir Değerlendirme)Bilal Taşkın, Muhammet Emin Efe
İslam düşünce tarihinde gelişen ilmî disiplinlerden hadis ve kelâm ilimleri bazı durumlarda birbiriyle çatışabilecek iki farklı yönteme sahiplerdir. Kelâm, dini akıl üzerinden temellendirmeyi hedeflerken, hadis ilmi Hz. Peygamber’in (s.a.v.) hadislerini ve sünnetini dinî anlayışın merkezine oturtmaktadır. Bu durum, düşünce geleneğimizde kelâmcılar ve hadisçiler arasında belli ölçüde ayrışmaların yaşanmasına neden olmuştur. Bu minvalde bu çalışmanın temel sâiki, adı geçen her iki disiplinin esasta birbirlerine karşıt olup olmadıklarını ve çatışmanın/ayrışmanın kaçınılmaz olup olmadığını sorgulamaktır. Çalışmada bu sorgulama meşhur bir muhaddis ve aynı zamanda bir kelâmcı olan Şemseddîn el-Kirmânî üzerinden yapılmıştır. Kirmânî, hayatının büyük bir kısmını İlhanlılar ile Muzafferîler arasında hâkimiyet mücadelesine sahne olan Horasan bölgesinde ve Timur güçleri ile Memlükler arasında denge politikası uygulayan Celâyirlilerin hâkim oldukları Bağdat’da geçirmiş, bunun dışında Mekke ve Şam gibi önemli ilim merkezlerine seyahatler düzenlemiştir. Çalışmanın esas amacı, Kirmânî’nin muhaddis ve kelâmcı kimliklerinin, bilgi meselesinde bir uyuşmazlığa ve uzlaşmazlığa yol açıp açmadığını gözlemlemektir. Bu gözlem için onun, Adudüddîn el-Îcî’nin meşhur kelâm kitabı el-Mevâkıf üzerine kaleme aldığı el-Kevâşif adlı şerhi seçilmiştir. İlaveten ilgili görülen hususlarda Kirmânî’nin Sahîh-i Buhārî şerhi olan el-Kevâkibü’d-derārî adlı eserine de müracaat edilmiştir. Görebildiğimiz kadarıyla Kirmânî doğru bilgiye ulaşmanın yollarında ve bilginin temellendirilmesinde genel anlamda kelâmcılardan farklı düşünmemekte ve hadis ile kelâmın yöntemlerinin çatıştığına ilişkin bir iddia ileri sürmemektedir. Bu durum mezkûr disiplinler arasında çatışmanın zorunlu olmadığı ve her iki disiplinin birbirini destekleyebilecek şekilde yorumlanabileceği şeklindeki kanaati desteklemektedir. Çalışmada ayrıca Kirmânî’nin el-Mevâkıf şerhinin kısaca tanıtılması hedeflenmiştir.
The disciplines of hadith and kalām, which are among the disciplines developed in the history of Islamic thought, have two different methods, which are likely to conflict in some cases. While kalām aims to base religion on reason, hadith places the sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.v) at the center of religious understanding. In this respect, the primary motivation of this study is to question whether these two disciplines are essentially opposite to each other and whether a conflict is inevitable. The study examines this through Shamsaddīn al-Kirmānī, a famous muhaddith, and theologian. The study’s direct purpose is to observe whether al-Kirmānī’s identity as a muhaddith and a theologian leads to a disagreement on the issue of knowledge. For this observation, we chose his commentary named al-Kawāshif, which was written on the famous theological book of Adudüddin al-Ījī, al-Mawākqif. In addition, we have consulted to al-Kirmānī’s work called al-Kawākib al-darārī, which is the commentary of Sahīh al-Bukhārī. As far as we can see, al-Kirmānī does not think differently from the theologians in general in reaching and demonstrating the proper knowledge and does not claim that the methods of hadith and kalām conflict with each other. That supports the opinion that conflict between the disciplines mentioned above is unnecessary and that both disciplines can be interpreted in a way that supports each other. In the study, we also aimed to introduce Kirmānī’s commentary on al-Mawākqif briefly.
This study consists of three parts. The first part briefly presents al-Kirmānī’s intellectual journey. Accordingly, born in one of the towns of Kerman city of Iran, al-Kirmānī later read al- Ījī’s works and was impressed by him. He went to Shiraz to take lessons from Ījī, and after taking lessons from Ījī for about ten years, he commented on many of his works. One of these commentaries is al-Kawāshif, which is a commentary on al-Ījī’s al-Mawākqif. After leaving his teacher al-Ījī, he goes to Damascus, Egypt, and Hejaz. Ultimately, he goes to Baghdad, where he had stayed for the rest of his life and died there on 786/1384. During his stay in Egypt, al-Kirmānī received the license of Sahīh al-Bukhārī from the famous hadith scholar Nasīruddin al-Fārūkī.
The second part of the study provides information about al-Kawāshif, which is the commentary of al-Mawākqif. al-Kirmānī said that he wrote an essential part of the commentary while his teacher was alive and under v his supervision. al-Kirmānī’s commentary is the first of al-Mawākqif’s three essential commentaries. The other two are the commentaries written by Sayfaddin Ahmad al-Abharī (d. 800/1397) and Sayyid Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d. 816/1413), who were also students of al-Ījī. al-Kirmānī says in the commentary that his primary purpose is to explain the statements of his teacher. According to him, al-Mawākqif is a valuable book, but it isn’t easy to use without an explanatory assistant.
The third part of the study examines whether al-Kirmānī, as a muhaddith, thought that the main principles of the discipline of hadith conflicted with the fundamental propositions of kalām. As far as we can see, al-Kirmānī, as a muhaddith, does not have any different opinions or original thoughts compared to al-Ījī concerning his understanding of knowledge. It also seems that he follows the footsteps of his teacher for the basic principles of kalām. That shows, according to them, the conflicts between the disciplines of kalām and hadith are not necessary; on the contrary, the rational formation of kalām has a vital role in understanding the basic texts of religion. Al-Kirmānī also says that the basic texts of religion should be interpreted when they contradict the clear principles of reason. In conclusion, although it is a fact that some theologians and muhaddiths in the history of Islamic thought differed due to the difference in method, both disciplines can be evaluated in a complementary manner.