Bilimlerin Konusu Üzerine Bir Tartışma: Molla İzârî’nin (ö. 901/1496) el-Ecvibe ‘alâ i‘tirâzâti’s-Seb‘i’ş-şidâd Adlı Risalesinin Tahkik ve İncelemesi
Eşref AltaşBu makalenin konusu Osmanlı âlimi Molla İzârî’nin el-Ecvibe ‘alâ i‘tirâzâti’s-Seb‘i’ş-şidâd adlı eserinin tahkik ve incelemesidir. Molla İzârî’nin eseri, Molla Lutfi’nin es-Seb‘u‘ş-şidâd adlı eserine karşı yazılmış bir reddiyedir. Her iki eserin müellifi, Osmanlı padişahlarından II. Bayezid’in huzurunda bir tartışma yapmışlar ve bu tartışmada ele alınan meseleler sultanın isteğiyle önce Molla Lutfi tarafından bir risale olarak kaleme alınmış, ardından da yine padişahın isteğiyle Molla İzârî eserini yazmıştır. Molla Lutfi ve Molla İzârî arasındaki tartışmanın merkezi noktası “bilimlerin konusu” meselesidir. Bu arka plana bağlı olarak bu makalede öncelikle müellif tanıtıldı. Ardından eserin adı, telif tarihi ve telif sebebi yazıldı. Risalenin içeriği tartışıldı. Molla İzârî’nin cevaplarına zemin teşkil eden sorular ve onun verdiği cevaplar sıralandı. Bu çerçevede hikmet, umûr-ı âmme, ilm-i ilâhî, felsefe-i ûlâ gibi metafizikle ilgili alan ayrımlarının anlamı üzerinde duruldu. Bu isimlerle ortaya çıkan bilimlerin konusu, konuların birbirinden ayrışması gibi bilim felsefesini ilgilendiren meseleler ele alındı. Felsefe, kelâm, hesap ilmi ve aritmetik gibi bilimlerin konuları ile ilgili ileri sürülen itirazlar ve bu itirazlara verilen cevaplar analiz edildi. İlgi çekici problemlerden biri olarak bilimlerdeki ortak meselelerin burhan türüyle ayrışıp ayrışmayacağı da ele alındı. Makale boyunca Molla Lutfi ve Molla İzârî arasındaki meselelere yaklaşım bakımından ortaya çıkan farklılıklara değinildi. Özellikle Molla İzârî’nin Molla Lutfi’yi hafife alan ifadelerinin arka planı gösterilmeye çalışıldı. Neticede, Molla İzârî’nin risalesinin Molla Lutfi’nin Seyyid Şerif Cürcânî’ye karşı itirazlarına karşı bir reddiye olarak yazıldığı gösterildi. Nihayet metnin tahkiki yapıldı ve metinde alıntılanan klasik kaynaklar tespit edildi.
A Discussion on the Subject of the Sciences: An Examination and Critical Edition of Mullā Izārı̄’s (d. 901/1496) Treatise al-Ajwiba ‘alā I‘tirāḍāt al-Sab' al-Shidād
Eşref AltaşThe object of this article is to examine and provide a critical edition of the work al-Ajwiba 'alā i'tirāḍāt al-Sab' al-shidād, written by Ottoman scholar Mullā Izārī. This work by Mullā Izārī is a rebuttal of Mullā Lutfı̄’s work, al-Sab' al-shidād. Both of these authors had held a discussion in the presence of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II. Mullā Lutfı̄ by royal command wrote the issues discussed in their debate as a treatise, after which Mullā Izārī as well wrote his work by royal command. Based on this background, I first present Mullā Izārī, followed by the name and date of the work and the reason it had been written. I discuss the contents of the treatise and specify the questions that comprised the basis for Mullā Izārī answers, as well as his answers to these questions. I determined that this treatise was written as an objection to Mullā Lutfı̄'s objection against Jurjānı̄. I show that the main point of debate between Mullā Lutfı̄and Mullā Izārī was the issue of the subjects of sciences. Within this framework, I elaborate on the meaning of distinction among sciences related to metaphysics, such as philosophy, common things, theology, and prote philosophia. I discuss the issues pertaining to the philosophy of sciences, such as the subjects of these aforementioned sciences and their distinctions, and analyze the objections raised about the subjects of sciences such as philosophy, kalām, calculations (al-ḥisāb), and arithmetic (al-‘adad), as well as the answers given to these objections. As an interesting problem, I discuss whether the type of proof could differentiate the common issues in the sciences. Throughout the article, I address the differences between how Mullā Lutfı̄ and Mullā Izārī approached the same issues. I especially attempt to show the background of Mullā Izārī's comments underestimating Mullā Lutfı̄. Lastly, I edit the text critically and show all the classical resources cited in the text one by one.
In the Islamic history of philosophy, especially in the Ottoman era, some interesting topics were widely known to have been discussed among scholars. These discussions continued into the reign of Bayezid II (1481-1512) as well. Two of the prominent participants in these discussions were Mullā Lutfī and Mullā Izārı̄, with both verbal and written debates having occurred between these two scholars, one of these being the debate concerning the subjects of sciences.
The discussions on the subjects of sciences and the unity, differentiation, boundaries, and interrelations among the subjects of the sciences became widespread in Islamic thought with the examinations by Ibn Sīnā and Fārābī concerning the scientific method. In the postclassical period, this topic was discussed in logic and fiqh books in particular. The discussion was brought up once again in the Ottoman era with Mullā Fanārī’s conceptualization of jihat al-wahda [the direction of unity of the subjects] regarding the subjects of science.
While the discussions on jihat al-wahda continued, a new debate centered on Jurjānı̄’s works was sparked with Mullā Lutfı̄’s work al-Sab' al-shidād. The treatise analyzed in this article was written by Mullā Izārı̄ by order of Sultan Bayezid II to evaluate the seven objections that Mullā Lutfı̄ had subjected to Jurjānı̄’s work. Hatipzāda and the author of Risālat fı̄ daf' al-shubah, as well as other unknown scholars, also participated in this debate. Thus, Mullā Izārı̄’s treatise can be accepted as part of the works examining the subject of science, which also includes the Risālat fı̄ daf' al-shubah, Tāshkubrīzādah’s al-Liwā al-marfū', and treatises on jihat al-wahda.
Mullā Izārı̄ quoted all of Mullā Lutfı̄’s questions directly; however, his quotations from the scholars were not found to be reliable due to the lack of proof from the original sources. Mullā Izārı̄ tried to answer Mullā Lutfı̄’s questions mostly by citing from Ibn Sı̄nā’s book al-Burhān. He did not agree with Mullā Lutfı̄ on any of the seven issues and condemned him for making unfair criticisms of scholars such as Ibn Sı̄nā, Urmavı̄, and Jurjānı̄.
According to Mullā Izārı̄, if Mullā Lutfı̄ had read and fully grasped the works of these scholars, he would have seen that his criticisms were unnecessary and had already been answered in the texts. Because to Mullā Izārı̄, the answers to the questions on the subject were compiled in the old books, especially in Ibn Sı̄nā’s al-Shifā, al-Mantıq, and al-Burhān, whether obvious or inferred. Therefore, Mullā Izārı̄ answered the criticisms by presenting a compilation of answers from the old works, centering the authority on the names mentioned in the Ottoman ulama.
Mullā Lutfı̄ believed that Jurjānı̄ had false beliefs about the subject of sciences. He supported his claims by quoting Jurjānı̄’s works and giving examples about the subjects of metaphysics, kalām, physics, calculations, arithmetic, and astronomy.
The first discussion about the subjects of the sciences starts with the subject of metaphysics. While criticizing Mullā Izārı̄, Mullā Lutfı̄ characterized metaphysics as the science that investigates general things; meanwhile, Mullā Izārı̄ emphasized metaphysics to be a system of science with subsections.
Jurjānı̄ considered numbers to be the subject of calculations, while Mullā Lutfı̄ accepted them to be the subject of arithmetic. Mullā Izārı̄, on the other hand, stated that scholars such as Ibn Sı̄nā, Urmawı̄, and Fārisı̄ in the classical period had also considered numbers to be the subject of calculations and therefore Jurjānı̄ cannot be criticized in this regard.
Mullā Lutfı̄ accused Jurjānı̄ of violating the principle that sciences differ from each other through their subjects and attempting to differentiate the sciences by the type of evidence used. Mullā Izārı̄, however, stated that the issues can be separated based on different perspectives.
Mullā Lutfı̄’s criticisms contained exciting questions for the science of his era. In contrast, Mullā Izārı̄ had responded to these criticisms mostly by quoting previous work. Therefore, that Mullā Izārı̄ chose not to take the issue forward but instead to only refer to previous classics appears problematic according to the tradition. As a matter of fact, according to the investigations of Tāshkubrīzādah, Mullā Izārı̄’s responses were unable to answer Mullā Lutfı̄’s objections.
Lastly, this article attempts to indicate the level to which the issue of the subject of the sciences had been discussed in detail and to exemplify the conceptualizations of authority, in particular those of Mullā Lutfı̄ and Mullā Izārı̄ regarding great scholars such as Ibn Sı̄nā, Urmawı̄, Qutb al-Dīn al-Rāzı̄, and Jurjānı̄ in the Ottoman scientific tradition. In order to facilitate modern researchers’ and readers’ ability to access discussions on the subjects of the sciences, this article has also made a critical edition and analysis of Mullā Izārı̄’s manuscript.
