18. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Düşünürü Hafîdü’n-Nisârî’nin Risâle fi mec´ûliyyeti’l-mâhiyyât Başlıklı Risalesi: İnceleme ve Tahkik
Murat KaşVarlık-mahiyet ayırımının İbn Sina (ö. 428/1037) tarafından metafiziksel düzlemde ele alınışı, sadece zorunlu varlığı temellendirmeye yönelik bir adım oluşturmadı, nedensellik ekseninde mümkün varlığın zorunlu varlıkla ilişkisine ve mümkünün yaratılışına dair bir açıklama getirme amacını da taşıdı. Varlığın ve mahiyetin illetleri, kendinde mahiyetin statüsü, mahiyetin varlık kazanması hususlarıyla ilgili İbn Sînâcı yaklaşımın Fahreddîn er-Râzî (ö. 606/1210) tarafından eleştirel okumaya tabi tutulması, mahiyetlerin yaratılması (mec´ûliyet) konusunun bir sorunsala dönüşmesine yol açtı. Mümkün varlıkların yaratılmış olduklarına dair yargının İslam düşünce geleneklerinin ve ekollerinin tamamı tarafından benimsendiği dikkate alındığında, mahiyetlerin mec´ûl olup olmadığına ilişkin bir tartışmanın niçin yapıldığı sorusu, probleme dair yapılacak bir analizin başlangıç noktasını teşkil edebilir. Ca´l ve mahiyet kavramlarının farklı anlamları açısından meseleyi ele alıp argümanları değerlendiren düşünürlerden bazıları, birbirine zıt görüşlerin öne sürüldüğü tartışmanın taraflarının aynı kavramlar ile farklı şeyleri kastettikleri, dolayısıyla bunun felsefî değeri olmayan lafzî bir tartışma olduğu sonucunu doğrudan ya da dolaylı olarak ifade eden yargılarda bulundular. Bazı düşünürler ise sorunun hem bazı felsefî tartışmalarla yakından ilgili olduğu hem de sözü edilen kavramların farklı kullanımlarına indirgenemeyecek bir mahiyet arz ettiğini düşündüler. Zira onlara göre aksi bir iddia, probleme eğilen düşünürlerin ne hakkında konuştuklarına dair hiçbir fikirleri olmadığını, felsefî açıdan hiçbir değeri ve sonucu olmayan bir tartışma yürüttüklerini ileri sürmek anlamına gelmektedir. Elinizdeki çalışma on sekizinci yüzyılda yaşamış Hanefî-Maturîdî âlim Hafîdü’n-Nisârî’nin (ö. 1188/1774) mahiyetlerin mec´ûliyetine dair risalesinin bu bağlamda yapılan bir analizini ve tenkitli neşrini içermektedir.
The 18th-Century Ottoman Scholar Hafîd al-Nitharî’s Treatise on the Createdness of al-Māhiyāt: An Examination and Critical Edition
Murat KaşAvicenna’s metaphysical comprehension of the distinction between essence and existence is not just a step towards grounding the necessary existent (i.e., God), but also has the intention of providing an explanation of the relation between the necessary and contingent existents and the createdness of the latter. Fakhr al-Dīn alRāzī’s (d. 606/1210) critical reading of Avicenna (d. 428/1037) through the status of quiddity in itself, the causes of existence and essence, existentialism of things, and how related matters make the createdness of quiddity/essence is a problematic case in philosophical theology. If the createdness of contingent things is a non-controversial issue among all the schools of Islamic philosophy, kalam, and theosophy, the question of what makes this topic debatable becomes a starting point for analyzing the positions and arguments related to this discussion. Some scholars who’ve tackled the problem with regard to the meaning of create (ca´l) and quiddity (māhiya) contend that opposing views had arisen from the different meanings assigned to these terms. According to the viewpoints of these scholars, the debate is not philosophical in itself, but rather philological. According to some scholars, however, the problem should not be reduced to philological analyses as it has significant implications and is connected to important philosophical issues. If it wasn’t, the assertion that it has only a philological nature would imply that the participants in the discussion had no idea what they were talking about and would mean that they maintained a sterile discussion. This article contains an evaluation of the Ottoman Hanafite-Māturidite scholar Hafīd al-Nithārī’s (d. 1188/1774) treatise and critical edition on the createdness of quiddity in the previously mentioned context.
The createdness of essence/quiddity was problematized by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī within the context of Avicennian absolute quiddity and has become a matter of debate over the centuries. Whoever runs the course of this debate in the history of Islamic thought will discern the link between the point in question and essential topics such as the theory of eternal contingent non-existents, the Sufi doctrine of permanent archetypes (al-aʿyān al-thābita), the issue of created and non-created disposition (al-istiʿdād al-majʿūl/ghayr majʿūl), the problem of will and freedom, the nature of divine knowledge, and the decree and destiny (al-qaḍā wa’l-qadar). Avicenna’s metaphysical comprehension of the distinction between essence and existence was not just a step towards grounding the necessary existent (i.e., God) but also had the intention of providing an explanation regarding the relationship between the necessary and contingent existents and the createdness of the latter. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s critical reading of Avicenna through the status of quiddity in itself, the causes of existence and essence, existentialism of things, and how the related matters make the createdness of quiddity/essence is a problematic case in philosophical theology. If the createdness of contingent things is a non-controversial issue among all the schools of Islamic philosopy, kalam, and theosophy, then the question about what make this topic debatable is a starting point for analyzing the positions and arguments related to this discussion. Some scholars who’ve tackled the problem regarding the meanings of create (ca´l) and quiddity (māhiyya) contended that the opposing views had arisen from the various meanings assigned to these terms. According to these scholars’ points of view, the debate is not philosophical in itself but rather philological. According to some scholars, however, the problem should not be reduced to philological analyses as it has significant implications and is connected to important philosophical issues. Otherwise, the assertion that it only has a philological nature implies that the participants in the discussion had no idea what they were talking about. This means that they maintained a sterile discussion.
The problem has been discussed in the philosophical and theological works of scholars in sections on general concepts (al-umūr al-ʿāmme) under the rubric of māhiyya, as well as separate treatises devoted to the point. Some of these works have examined the issue with an emphasis on the aforementioned topics, while others have aimed to clarify treatments with regard to the point and discuss whether the matter has any philosophical significance or is merely a pointless literal debate. The treatise of Ottoman Hanafite-Māturīdite scholar Hafīd al-Nithārī (d. 1188/1774) has mostly been ranked among the latter and contains passages that cover and evaluate al-Jurjānī’s (d. 816/1413) Sharh al-Mawāqif. The treatise is not outlined and was built to include a three-stage exposition. In the first step the author presents the basic approaches and their criticisms. The second phase includes the outlined remarks of al-Ījī (d. 756/1355) and al-Jurjānī. In the final stage al-Nithārī asserts the case in point to have important implications and evaluates the problem with regard to certain philosophical matters such as the additionality of existence to quiddity, the thingness of the non-existent, the partial unity of essence, the natural universal, and mental existence. Al-Nithārī’s attempts to associate the problem with various approaches in the context of these matters are worth considering in regard to seeing the implications of the case in point. However, addressing the problem within a limitation determined by the aforementioned philosophical matters would conceal the root of the problem and cause difficulties in analyzing the treatments. This article contains an evaluation of the treatise.
