Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Tezin Türü: Yüksek Lisans
Tezin Yürütüldüğü Kurum: Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Türkiye
Tezin Onay Tarihi: 2012
Tezin Dili: Türkçe
Öğrenci: HASAN YÜCEL
Danışman: Mehmet Akif Koç
Özet:
Bu çalışmanın amacı talîḳa kelimesinin semantik analizini yaparak Osmanlı Dönemi’nde nasıl anlaşıdığını tespit etmek, Osmanlı dönemine ait tefsirle ilgili bir yazma eseri tanıtarak gün yüzüne çıkarmak, Beyḍâvî ve Zemaşerî gibi tefsir tarihimiz için önem arzeden iki alimi farklı noktaları ile tanımak ve dönemin alimlerinin bıraktığı eserler gerekli ölçüde incelenmeden Osmanlı İlim anlayışına yönelitilen eleştirilerin ne öçüde haklı olduklarını bir örnek çerçevesinde de olsa değerlendirmektir. Araştırmanın önemi, konusu ve çalışmada izlenen yöntemle ilgili bilgiler giriş kısmında verilmiştir. Birinci bölümde talîka kelimesi dilbilimsel açıdan ele alınmış, anlam alanı oluşturulmaya çalışılarak sözlük ve terim anlamı üzerinde durulmuştur. İkinci bölümde incelenen eserin nüshalarının tanıtımına yer verilmiş, müelliflerin biyografileri kaleme alınmıştır. Muîdzâde’nin hayatı, daha çok kendi şiirleriyle açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Daha sonra eserde ele alınan ayetler konu başlıkları halinde irdelenmiş ve Beyḍâvî ile Zemaşerî arasındaki tespit edilen farklar maddeler halinde sıralanmıştır. Sonuç başlığı altında ise araştırmada ulaşılan tespitlere kısaca yer verilmiştir. Neticede Osmanlı ilim dünyasının yeniden, fakat ilmî bir metodla incelenmesinin büyük önem taşıdığı görülmüştür.
Abstract : The purpose of this research is twofold. It first aims at studying the term ta’līqa in the context of the Ottoman intellectual tradition and, then, at introducing a hitherto neglected manuscript work of the ta’līqa genre, entitled Naql al-Sifār, by Mu’īdzāda Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-’Azīz al-Dulqādirī al-Baktūtī al-Mar’ashī (d. 983/1575), which focuses on exegetical disagreements between al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144) and al-Bayḍāwī (d. 685/1286), authors of the two most influential tafsīr works in the Ottoman realm. Studying a text like this one gives us a chance to make a little contribution to the discussions around the question whether the Ottoman thought was stagnant, pedantic or simply uninteresting. The study consists of an introduction and two chapters. The introductory chapter explains the topic chosen and importance thereof as well as the methods of the study and its sources. The first chapter deals with a lexical and semantic analysis of the word ta’līqa and its use in multiple related senses as a term and a genre throughout history but especially during the Ottoman times and in the context of tafsīr studies. In the second chapter, the life of Mu’īdzāda is documented, especially on some points relying on his autobiographical remarks and poetry found at the beginning of his still unedited Naql al-Sifār. Then the three manuscript copies of the work that has been consulted are described. A detailed discussion about several Qur’anic verses that are dealt with in this relatively short ta’līqa work follows these introductory sections. It has been observed that Mu’īdzāda seems to have followed a strictly scholarly way to discuss the points of differences between al-Zamakhsharī and al-Bayḍāwī. Some of the debates are of explicit theological origin but mostly, it seems, the disagreements and arguments are about linguistic matters, which, on the other hand, often have theological implications. Although his own contributions to the discussions are limited, Mu’īdzāda’s mastery over the intricate points of disagreements and the related literature is impressive. His style and methodology are evidently more academic than dogmatic. He is not afraid of criticizing his highly regarded predecessors when the occasion calls for it and not only does he not hesitate to declare what he thinks but also he seizes every opportunity to show off his intellectual abilities. This study does not prove that all the criticisms directed against the Ottoman intellectual world were wrong, and it does not aim at doing that, but it shows that it would not be correct to judge the Ottoman thought, including Ottoman tafsīr studies, without paying due attention to its intellectual products, whichever compositional and structural form they may have. This study in the example of a short tafsīr text, humbly called a ta’līqa by its author, illustrates that Ottoman scholarly activities at least in the 16th century were not just pedantic and repetitive; rather there was a live and active tradition of discussion and argumentation that continued to build up. That these discussions took place in commentaries and marginal glosses rather than in independent works does not necessarily say anything about their intellectual levels and about their contributions to their respective fields. It is about time, therefore, to direct our attention to these commentaries, supercommentaries and marginal glosses of later times as no one will know what is in them if no one studies them. We should leave aside the old reductionist approach that dismisses these works as unoriginal works until they are fully studied. If we give them a chance, it is more than likely that we will get more than what we hope for as in the case of Mu’īdzāda’s Naql al-Sifār.