Fuqahā͗ al-Rūm: Attempt of Bayādīzāda Ahmad Efendi (d. 1098/1687) to List Fuqahā͗ on the Basis of Rūmī Identity Fukahā͗-i Rūm: Beyāżīzāde Ahmed Efendi’nin (ö. 1098/1687) Rūmī Aidiyet Temelinde Fakihleri Listeleme Çabası


Creative Commons License

KALAYCI M.

Ankara Universitesi Ilahiyat Fakultesi Dergisi, cilt.64, sa.1, ss.1-68, 2023 (Scopus) identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 64 Sayı: 1
  • Basım Tarihi: 2023
  • Doi Numarası: 10.33227/auifd.1258370
  • Dergi Adı: Ankara Universitesi Ilahiyat Fakultesi Dergisi
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Scopus, ATLA Religion Database, Central & Eastern European Academic Source (CEEAS), Index Islamicus, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1-68
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: 'Ulamā', Bayādīzāda, Fiqh, Fuqahā', Hanafism, Manuscript Notes, Ottoman
  • Ankara Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

The subject of this article is the four lists of fuqahā' al-Rūm recorded by the 11th/17th century Ottoman scholar and bureaucrat Bayādīzāda AHmad Efendi in the wiqāya and zqahriyya pages of two manuscripts. One of these two works is MuHyī al-Dīn al-Qurashī’s alJawāhir al-Mudiyya and the other is MuSliH al-Dīn al-Amāsī’s Makhzan al-Fiqh. These lists, which show how the Anatolian fiqh tradition was read by Bayādīzāda, confirm the fact that each and every single manuscript is unique. Bayādīzāda attempted to list fuqahā' who lived between the 8th/14th and 12th/18th centuries, bore the Rūmī identity, belonged to the Hanafīsm, and wrote works on Hanafī fiqh, and accordingly, he included nearly sixty names in his lists. Although he mentioned similar names in the lists, he classified them according to variables such as whether they lived in earlier or later periods, whether they were famous, whether they compiled works, whether they were verifier scholars. The most striking feature of the lists is Bayādīzāda’s presentation of the fuqahā' on the basis of Rūmī identity. The lists provide a considerable picture of how he perceived this identity. In the article, I have first examined the attribution of the lists to Bayādīzāda and made some predictions about the motives behind their composition. I have converted the lists, each of which Bayādīzāda originally prepared as a separate text, into tables and preserved the information he provided. I have in the footnotes made complementary evaluations regarding the accuracy of the information provided by Bayādīzāda. Under the last heading, taking into account the names that Bayādīzāda included or omitted from the lists, I have tried to identify the specific criteria that he observed while compiling the lists. In the concluding part, I have discussed what the terms Rūm/Rūmī might have meant in Bayādīzāda’s mind.