Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Ankara Universitesi Ilahiyat Fakultesi Dergisi, cilt.60, sa.1, ss.1-80, 2019 (Scopus)
Copyright © 2019 Annals of HPB Surgery.All rights reserved.The modality of universal proposition, i.e., whether it is necessary, permanent, etc., is a matter of debate in the tradition of Islamic modal logic. The discussion was brought out by Ibn Sīnā's counter-claim to the modality of the universal proposition for his own modal system. It was Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī who for the first time expressed the claim that “every universal proposition is necessary or permanent” as two deductive arguments. Nasīr al-Dīn al-tūsī worded the argument on the claim differently from al-Rāzī while Afdal al-Dīn al-Khūnajī mentioned the claim without specifying the argument and objection. Ibn Sīnā argued two counter-examples in response to the claim. Al-Rāzī objected to the claim by way of division whereas al-tūsī expanded the extension of the middle term of the counterexample presented in his objection. Although the objections of Ibn Sīnā and al-Rāzī accept the possibility of the modalities other than the necessary for the modality of the universal proposition, al-Tūsī's objection seems to accept the counter-claim. The counter-claims concerning the modality of the universal proposition, the arguments, and their responses on the discussion were revived in 18th century Ottoman milieu by Muhammad al-Āmidī in an epistle, which we have given the title Raf' al-hijāban Jamī' al-Muvajjahāt. Even just for the reason that the epistle carried the discussion from classical Islamic thought into the post-classical Islamic thought, it should be considered remarkable for modal logical studies. In this article, first, the evolution of the discussion in the Islamic literature on logic is summarized, and then, al-Āmidī's epistle is analyzed and a different argument is presented. Finally, we append a critical edition of the Arabic text of the epistle.