Tahkik İslami İlimler Araştırma ve Neşir Dergisi

Öz

Written by al-Sayyid al-Sherif al-Jurjānī (d. 816/1413), one of the muhakkik mutakallim (theologians), the work named Sharh al-Mawâqif has been a source of great interest and relevance since the moment it was written and is a masterpiece that has been studied in the madrasas of various scientific circles. As a natural consequence of this, it has also caused the formation of a voluminous literature around it such as hasiyahs, ta´lik, hamish, rejection etc.). As far as it can be determined, an important part of this gigantic literature consists of the works of Ottoman scholars who carried out scientific activities between the 15th and 17th centuries.
Here, the work of Mollā Muslihuddin Kestelī (d. 901/1496), which has been detailed and edited critically in this article, is one of the most important of this literature. His work is referred to by many different names in various sources, but we found the name in the title more appropriate. Both the content review and the information in the bibliographic sources and manuscript copies prompted us to choose this. In other words, considering all these criteria, it is more appropriate to choose this name. Because this name provides the formation of more sufficient imaginations than other names regarding the nature of the work.
The work “I´tirāzātu’l-Kastalī ´alā Ba´zi ´ibārāti’s-Sayyid al-Sherif al-Jurjānī fī Sharh al-Mawāqif” devoted to criticism of six al-Jurjānī’s statements in the book Sharh al-Mawâqif. In other words, al-Kastalī criticized him in six basic issues. Their titles are as follows: Description of knowledge, the rejection of the suspicions of those who deny the resurrection, being and essence relationship, some potential qualities, atomism and nature of water.
This article devoted to the review and the edition critically of this work consists of two main sections. The first part is devoted to research and evaluation, with an introduction and four subheadings. In the introduction part Sharh al-Mawâqif.and al-Kastalī’s work were mentioned in general. Then the nature of the article was touched upon.
In the first subtitle, the life and works of al-Kastalī were examined with reference to classical and modern sources. After giving information about his life in systematic titles, the works of al-Kastalī were identified, based on both written sources and researches in libraries. After that their content was presented and their locations in libraries were listed. In addition, the mistakes made by some researchers about his works were corrected here.
In the second subtitle the work I´tirāzātu’l-Kastalī ´alā Ba´zi ´ibārāti’s-Sayyid al-Sherif al-Jurjānī fī Sharh al-Mawāqif was examined in detail and its features were touched on and tried to be presented in all aspects. Here, first of all, the names of the work in classical sources were listed, then it was explained why such a naming was made in this article. Then, the matter of the work’s belonging to the author was questioned. Subsequently the reason for the writing of the work was mentioned. Finally, the style and sources of the work were mentioned.
In the third subtitle, the content analysis of the mentioned work has been done. Following the order mentioned above, the issues were discussed one by one, and the objections of al-Kastalī were discussed with a broad perspective by referring to the relevant sources.
In the fourth subtitle, first the manuscripts of the work were introduced and then the work was edited critically. In this respect, while introducing manuscripts, both figural descriptions were used and their scientific value was tried to be revealed. Subsequently, the work was edited critically based on four manuscript copies.
This work of al-Kastalī has an important and remarkable place in the Islamic science tradition. Because this work consists of criticizing al-Jurjānī, a scholar who is regarded as an authority in both rational and narrative sciences. In addition, al-Jurjānī is a scholar who influenced the scholars after him, especially those in the Ottoman period. As a matter of fact, al-Jurjānī had such a great reputation in the Ottoman world of science that even whether he would make a mistake or not was an independent debate among Ottoman scholars.
In this context and in a sensitive position, it is a great courage for al-Kastalī to put forward an independent work to criticize this scholar. For there is no doubt that such a work will bring along opposing works. As a matter of fact, they also wrote works against the work of al-Kastalī, especially Vefāī Sinan Celebī (d. 891/1486), who is al-Kastalī’s peer. Leaving aside who is right or not, it can be said that this work of al-Kastalī contributed to scientific mobility and vitality. It is hoped that this article in your hand will contribute to this important work on the agenda of the world of science.