A Critical edition and examination of al-Hāmil fī al-falak wa al-mahmūl fī al-fulk fī itlāq al-nubuwwah wa al-risālah wa al-khilāfah wa al-mulk by ‘Abd al-Ghanī ibn Ismā‘īl al-Nāblusī

Year 2017, , 167 - 231, 01.12.2017

Mustafa Borsbuğa

https://doi.org/10.26570/isad.347718

Abstract

This study is a critical edition
and examination of a treatise titled al-hāmil fī al-falak wa al-mahmūl fī
al-fulk fī itlāq al-nubuwwah wa al-risālah wa al-khilāfah wa al-mulk penned by
‘Abd al-Ghanī ibn Ismā‘īl al-Nāblusī (d. 1143/1731), who was a salient representative
of the Sufi school of “wahdat al-wujūd” (“oneness of being”). Taking the
classical sources as reference points, this treatise examines the issue of
“itlāq”, which is related to whether the concepts of “nabī” (prophet) and
“rasūl” (messenger) can be used for people other than proper prophets. In other
words, if these concepts are to be used for people other than prophets, it aims
to discuss their manner and aspects that can be applied to ordinary people; and
if this application is not allowed, then it seeks to explain the reasons. First
I introduce briefly the author’s life, education, teachers, students, various works
and death. Then I present in detail manuscript copies of the treatise, the libraries
that hold these copies and the reliability of each of them. I also inform the
readers on the content of the treatise, the sources of the author and the
methodology of the author in discussing the subject. Theologians, Sufis and
jurists have discussed the subject of the treatise in their classical books. In
fact, the issue is directly related to many principles of the religion in
various aspects. Using the concepts “nabī” and “rasūl” may potentially be in
conflict with the essentials of the religion such as “nubuwwah” (prophethood).

Al-Nāblusī tries to present the
subject by taking into consideration the accumulated literature both in the
Sufi perspective that reflects discoverable (kashfī) and personally experienced
(dhawqī) knowledge and in the theological perspective that works with the
knowledge built by reason, senses and information. Therefore, without limiting
himself to a single tradition, al-Nāblusī approaches the issue with a holistic
perspective by employing theological, judicial and Sufi schools of thought. For
example, on the same subject, he cites a Sufi source like al-Futūhāt
al-Makkiyya of Ibn al-Arabī (d. 638/1240), a judicial treatise like Durar of
Molla Hüsrev (d. 885/1480) and a theological work like Sharh al-Aqā’id
al-‘Adudiyya of Jalal al-Dīn al-Dawwānī (d. 908/1502).

When Niyāzī-i Misrī (d. 1105/1694), the founder of Misriyya branch
of the Halvatiyya Sufi path, says that he believes that Ali and his sons Hasan
and Husayn were prophets, rasūl (messenger) and nabī (prophet), and that those
who do not believe in them are not Muslims, this poses several questions. Some
heavily criticize this idea whereas some others approved of it. Due to the
delicacy of the issue that is asked to al-Nāblusī, a famous scholar of the
eighteenth century, he examines it with extreme caution. Al-Nāblusī first focuses
on the question of “takfīr” (declaring someone unbeliever). He underlines that
“takfīr” is a critical matter in religion that has certain conditions
associated to it and that declaring someone an unbeliever is not as easy as
people usually think. While making this argument, al-Nāblusī cites sources of
jurisprudence such as Khulāsat al-fatāwā, Durar and Majmū‘. He also brings into
attention the state of mind when Niyāzī-i Misrī articulates this idea, because
if he said these words at a time of “ghaybat” or “sakr,” meaning losing one’s
consciousness due to a probability or inspiration, it would not mean anything.
Therefore, the true responsibility comes with perfect consciousness. In
addition, al-Nāblusī extends his analysis on the subject by considering the
levels of interpretation allowed within the principles of Arabic grammar.

The concept of Nabī means multiple things in Arabic. For example,
it includes the meaning of “tarīq” (way) in Arabic. Therefore, Hasan and Husayn
were the ways that lead to God in their missions of guidance and warning.
Sometimes, nabī means “mukhbir” (the one brings news). Therefore, Hasan and
Husayn delivered the things inspired through God’s message as well as the
knowledge and wisdom inherited from the prophet and from their father, Ali.
Sometimes, nabī means “sharīf” (noble/superior) in respect to one’s overall
manners and moral integrity. As for Hasan and Husayn, they have been considered
the most noble and virtuous individuals of their time. Likewise, the concept of
“rasūl” carries multiple meanings. We observe that the Quran includes several
usages of rasūl corresponding certain occasions other than referring to
prophets. Hasan and Husayn were messengers (rasūl) in transferring the
prophet’s message to later generations. Therefore, based on these literal
meanings, using the concepts of “nabī” and “rasūl” for Hasan and Husayn is
acceptable as long as they are not considered to have brought new law
(shari‘a), because the Quran clearly declares the end of prophethood. Someone
from a scholarly background could not make statements contrary to this principle.

The author Abd al-Ghanī al-Nāblusī
finds the statement of Niyāzī-i Misrī on Hasan and Husayn acceptable according
to rules of interpretation and principles of Arabic grammar, therefore he sees
no need to declare the maker of the statement as an unbeliever. However, he
also thinks that using the concepts of “nabī” and “rasūl” for anybody other
than the prophets is inappropriate in respect to the decorum. According to him,
no intelligent and right-minded individual would ever use these concepts for
anybody other than the prophets. It is clear that someone with wisdom like
Niyāzī-i Misrī would never use these concepts in their literal meanings.

 

Keywords

Abd al-Ghanī al-Nāblusī, nubuwwah, risāla, rasūl, nabū, itlāq, kashf, Sufi, mutakallim, mulk, haqīqa, darūrīyāt al-dīniyya

Abdülganî b. İsmâil en-Nablusî’nin el-Hâmil fi’l-felek ve’l-mahmûl fi’l-fülk fî ıtlâkı’n-nübüvvet ve’r-risâle ve’l-hilâfe ve’l-mülk Başlıklı Risâlesinin Tahkik ve Tahlili

Abstract

Bu çalışma, tasavvuf ekolünün önemli temsilcilerinden Abdülganî b. İsmâil en-Nablusî’nin (ö. 1143/1731) el-Hâmil fi’l-felek ve’l-mahmûl fi’l-fülk fî ıtlâkı’n-nübüvvet ve’r-risâle ve’l-hilâfe ve’l-mülk başlıklı risâlesinin tahkik ve tahlilinden oluşmaktadır. Risâle, “nebî” ve “resul” kavramlarının peygamberler dışındaki kimseler için kullanımının câiz olup olmadığına ilişkin “ıtlak” konusunu ele almaktadır. Risâlenin konusu, hem kelâmcılar hem de mutasavvıflar tarafından klasik eserlerde ele alınmıştır. Zira bu mesele, muhtelif yönlerden dinin birçok esası ile alâkalı bulunmaktadır. Peygamber dışındaki birine “nebî” ve “resul” kavramlarını kullanmak zarûriyyât-ı dîniyyenin esaslarından olan “nübüvvet” açısından problem teşkil edecek niteliktedir. Ayrıca Arap dili prensiplerinin bu kullanıma ne ölçüde imkân tanıdığı göz önünde bulundurularak konuya ilişkin analizler yapılmaya çalışılmıştır.

Nablusî, meseleye çözüm getirmek amacıyla keşfî ve zevkî bilgiyi dikkate alan sûfî yaklaşımının yanı sıra, evrensel ve genel geçer bilgi kaynağı olan akıl, duyu ve haberî bilgiyi dikkate alan kelâmî metodun yaklaşımını da göz önünde bulundurarak geleneksel müktesebatı bu bağlamda değerlendirmeye çalışmıştır. Nablusî’nin ele aldığı konuya ilişkin nasıl bir yaklaşım ortaya koyduğu ve katkı sağladığı ifade edildikten sonra, söz konusu risâlenin nüshaları ve mevsukiyeti hakkında da bilgi verilmiştir.

Keywords

Abdülganî en-Nablusî, Niyâzî-yi Mısrî, nübüvvet, risâlet, nebî, resul, ıtlak, keşif, sûfî, mütekellim, hakikat, zarûriyyât-ı dîniyye

References

• Abdülganî b. İsmâil en-Nablusî’nin el-Hâmil fi’l-felek ve’l-mahmûl fi’l-fülk fî ıtlâkı’n-nübüvvet ve’r-risâle ve’l-hilâfe ve’l-mülk Başlıklı Risâlesinin Tahkik ve Tahlili