Comparison of Ibn Khaldun and Molla Fanari Concerning Debates on the Nature of Tafsir

Abstract

The nature of the Tafsir has been the subject of controversy both in the classical and contemporary periods of Islamic scientific tradition. According to this approach, it is seen that Tafsir is a distinctive science as opposed to the approach which asserts that it is not a science. In addition to these two approaches, a third approach that makes Tafsir a unique science has led the discussion. In this research, Molla Fanari, whose views reflect the third mentioned approach in the period of the foundation of the Ottoman Empire, is compared with his contemporaries Ibn Khaldun’s views on the science of Tafsir. Both scholars reveal their views on Tafsir in the preliminary part of their works. In this study, how aforementioned scholars give place to Tafsir considering the other science branches specific to Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah, which is the introductory chapter of his historical book Kitab al-Ibar, and the preliminary part of Molla Fanari’s Ayn al-Ayan. Both authors think that due to the peculiar nature of the Tafsir, it has not any universal precepts. However, Ibn Khaldun limits Tafsir to narrative and language, while Molla Fanari opens a wide range of meanings beyond the narrative and language under certain conditions. As a result, these two scholars have shown from different angles how Tafsir science presents its unique structure.

             Summary

The nature of the tafsir has been the subject of controversy both in the classical and contemporary periods of Islamic science tradition. In this context, the question of whether tafsir is a science and what kind of nature it is if it is a separate science is questioned within the framework of the criteria that classical philosophy foresees for science. In this respect, as opposed to the approach that asserted that tafsir is not a science, the approach that tafsir is an independent science has emerged. In addition to these two approaches, a third approach led to the discussion that tafsir is a science, although it has a unique structure, unlike other sciences. In this study, the views of Molla Fanari and his contemporary Ibn Khaldun, who reflects the mentioned third approach, are compared. According to this, firstly the classification of the sciences in the Islamic science tradition and Ibn Khaldun among the prominent names in this matter are emphasized. Then, to bring a unique perspective on the place of tafsir in the sciences, Molla Fanari, one of the scholars who lived in the early period of the Ottoman Empire, emphasizes the interpretations of tafsir from the previous scholars. In this context, to live in the same age and to be in Egypt at the same time and to have a common intellectual environment, Ibn Khaldun's general place of tafsir in the classification of sciences and the special evaluations of Molla Fanari about tafsir are compared. In other words, the opinions of Ibn Khaldun and Molla Fanari about the place of tafsir in sciences are evaluated in the context of tafsir. Both scholars reveal their views on tafsir in the beginning part of their works. The nature of tafsir, Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah, which is the introductory chapter of his historical book Kitab al-Ibar, and Molla Fanari's Aynu’l-A‘yan is considered in this research. On the other hand, even though the two works mentioned above constitute the basis of the research, different works of the authors are also applied in the matters that are needed.

In this research, firstly, the intellectual environment in which both scholars are examined in terms of scientific, political and cultural environment and then the place of both scholars in tafsir. At this stage, the science definitions of both scholars are evaluated. In this context, first of all, the views of the two scholars about knowledge and collected science are evaluated in terms of the criteria of classical science philosophy. Then, the classification of the sciences of both scholars is emphasized. This part of the research aims to reveal where the tafsir is located in the classification of sciences. In the next stage, according to the allocation of a place in the classification of sciences of tafsir, the nature of the tafsir is discussed. In all these stages of the research, the views of Ibn Khaldun and Molla Fanari are examined by the comparison method. Thus, it is aimed to contribute to the discussions about the nature of tafsir over the place where two scholars who are contemporary of each other give tafsir in the sciences. It is known that Molla Fanari, who lived in the Anatolian geography under Ottoman rule, came to Egypt for education in the period when Ibn Khaldun was in Egypt which was under the domination of the Mamluks. It is rumored that Molla Fanari, who came to Egypt on various occasions after the death of Ibn Khaldun, met with the scholars whom Ibn Khaldun interacted with. Besides, both scholars have played common social roles such as scholar, qadî, fakih and sufi. Although it is not possible to state that these two scholars interact with each other, it is possible to state that both are in a common basin and that this basin influences their ideas.

On the other hand, although Ibn Khaldûn and Molla Fanari take the basic principles of classical philosophy of knowledge while receiving information, it is seen that these two scholars reflect the differences in their understanding of Sufism to their understanding of knowledge. Likewise, it is possible to state that although both scholars adhered to the criteria of classical philosophy of science in general, in the term of science, they displayed different attitudes in terms of observing all the criteria of classical philosophy in tafsir. Ibn Khaldun, who is in search of the criteria of classical science philosophy in tafsir, is not concerned about touching all the criteria of classical science philosophy, not only in tafsir but also in some of the sciences he touched. It is seen that Ibn Khaldun did not fully apply the criteria of the historical sciences in terms of being the source of revelation to the erudite sciences. On the other hand, Ibn Khaldun and Molla Fanari classify the sciences according to whether they are ecclesiastical or not. However, although Ibn Khaldun included tafsir in the classification of sciences as a sub-branch of the Qur'an sciences, it can be argued that Molla Fanari considered tafsir as a tool and a theoretical aspect. In fact, according to Ibn Khaldun, tafsir is a high science, although it is a sub-branch of the Qur'anic sciences. In this case, it is possible to argue that the originality of tafsir according to Ibn Khaldun is due to its inadequate in terms of the Asiatic bases although it is pure science. However, it is noteworthy that Molla Fenârî's evaluation of tafsir in two stages, both instrument and theoretical knowledge, is more evident in the insufficiency of the general rules of tafsir. As a result, it is possible to state that both scholars agree that tafsir does not have a complete base. However, while Ibn Khaldun gave a limited meaning to narrative and language, it was seen that Molla Fanari had a wider field of meaning beyond narrative and language. Thus, these two scholars in the same basin have handled in different ways how tafsir presents its unique structure.

Keywords

• Tafsir,Ibn Khaldun,Molla Fanari,Muqaddimah,Ayn al-Ayan

TEFSİRİN MAHİYETİNE DAİR TARTIŞMALARDA İBN HALDÛN VE MOLLA FENÂRÎ MUKAYESESİ

Öz

Tefsirin mahiyeti, İslâm ilim geleneğinin gerek klasik gerekse çağdaş döneminde tartışma konusu olmuştur. Bu bağlamda tefsirin bir ilim olmadığını ileri süren yaklaşıma muhalif olarak tefsirin müstakil bir ilim olduğu yaklaşımı ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu iki yaklaşıma ilaveten tefsirin kendine özgü bir ilim olduğuna dair bir üçüncü yaklaşım tartışmaya yön vermiştir. Bu araştırmada, zikri geçen üçüncü yaklaşımı Osmanlı Devleti’nin kuruluş döneminde belirgin bir şekilde yansıtan Molla Fenârî ve onun çağdaşı İbn Haldûn’un tefsire dair görüşleri mukayese edilmektedir. Her iki âlim de tefsire dair görüşlerini, eserlerinin mukaddimelerinde ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışmada, İbn Haldûn’un tarihi olarak bilinen Kitâbü’l-‘İber’in giriş bölümü olan Mukaddime’si ve Molla Fenârî’nin Aynü’l-a‘yân adlı eserinin mukaddime kısmı çerçevesinde tefsirin diğer ilimler içerisindeki yeri ele alınmaktadır. Her iki müellif de tefsirin kendine mahsus yapısı sebebiyle küllî kaidelerinin bulunmadığını düşünmektedir. Fakat İbn Haldûn tefsiri rivâyet ve dil ile sınırlamakta, buna karşın Molla Fenârî ise tefsire rivâyet ve dilin ötesinde belirli şartlar dâhilinde geniş bir anlam alanı açmaktadır. Netice itibariyle söz konusu iki âlim, tefsirin kendine özgü nasıl bir yapı arz ettiğini farklı açılardan göstermiş bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tefsir,İbn Haldûn,Molla Fenârî,Mukaddime,Aynü’l-a‘yân

Kaynakça

1. Arslan, Ahmet. İbn Haldûn. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2014.
2. Aşkar, Mustafa. “Osmanlı Kuruluş Döneminde Bir İbn Arabî Takipçisi: Molla Fenârî ve Vahdet-i Vücûd Anlayışı”, Uluslararası Molla Fenârî Sempozyumu: 4-6 Aralık 2009. 271- 290. ed. Tevfik Yücedoğru vd.. Bursa: Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2010.
3. Bedevî, Abdurrahman. Müellefâtü İbn Haldûn. Kahire: el-Meclisü’l-a‘lâ li’s-sekâfe, 2006.
4. Bilmen, Ömer Nasuhi. Büyük Tefsir Tarihi: Tabakâtu’l-müfessirin. İstanbul: Ravza Yayınları, 2008.
5. Boyalık, M. Taha. “el-Keşşâf Şerh-Haşiye Geleneğinde Tefsir İlminin Mahiyeti Tartışması”. Nazariyat: İslam Felsefe ve Bilim Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi 4/1 (2017), 91-118.
6. Boyalık, M. Taha. “Molla Fenârî’nin Tefsir İlminin Mahiyetine Dair Tartışmasının Tahlili”. İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi 18 (2007), 73-100.
7. Boyalık, M. Taha. Molla Fenârî’nin Aynü’l-Âyân Adlı Tefsirinin Mukaddimesi: Tahlil ve Değerlendirme. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2007.
8. Bursalı Mehmed Tahir. Osmanlı Müellifleri. İstanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1333.

9. Ceyhan, Semih. “İbn Haldûn’un Sûfilere ve Tasavvufa Bakışı: Umrânda Tasavvuf İlmi”. İbn Haldûn Güncel Okumalar. ed. Recep Şentürk. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2015.
10. Çubukçu, İbrahim Agâh. “İslam Müelliflerine Göre İlimlerin Taksimi ve Bunlar Arasında Gazzâlî’nin Yeri”. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1960.
11. Deliser, Bilal. ez-Zerkeşî ve Kur’ân İlimlerindeki Yeri. Ankara: Afşar Matbaası, 2012.
12. Demirci, Muhsin. “Tefsir İlim Midir, Değil Midir?”. Tefsir Nasıl Bir İlimdir? – Tartışmalı İlmî İhtisas Toplantısı: 15-16 Mayıs 2010). İstanbul: Ensar Yayınları, 2011.
13. Fenârî, Muhammed b. Hamza. Aynü’l-a‘yân: Tefsîru Sûreti’l-Fatiha. Dersaadet: Rifat Bey Matbaası, 1325.
14. Fenârî, Muhammed b. Hamza. Fusûsü’l-bedâi‘ fî usûli’ş-şerâî. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kütübi’l-ilmiyye, 2006.
15. Fenârî, Muhammed b. Hamza. Miftûhu’l-ğayb ve şerhuhu Misbâhu’l-üns. nşr. Muhammed Hâcevî. Tahran: İntişârât-ı Mevlâ, 1374.
16. Görgün, Tahsin. “Klasik Türk Düşüncesinin (Osmanlı Düşüncesinin) Temel Meseleleri ve Molla Fenârî”. Uluslararası Molla Fenârî Sempozyumu: 4-6 Aralık 2009. ed. Tevfik Yücedoğru vd.. 177-188. Bursa: Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2010.
17. Görgün, Tahsin. “Osmanlı Düşüncesi Nasıl Anlaşılabilir? -Osmanlı Düşüncesinin Anlaşılmasında Karşılaşılan Bazı Zorluklar Üzerine-”. Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi 13-14 ( 2003), 29-46.
18. Güçlü, Betül. Molla Fenârî’nin Bilgi ve Varlık Anlayışı. Konya: Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, 2014.
19. İbn Hacer, Ebu’l-Fazl Şihâbüddîn Ahmed b. Alî b. Muhammed el-Askalânî. İnbâu’l-gumr bi enbâi’l-umr. thk. Hasan Habeşî. Kahire: Lecnetü İhyâi’s-türâsi’l-İslâmî, 1972.
20. İbn Haldûn, Ebû Zeyd Veliyyüddîn Abdurrahman b. Muhammed. et-Ta‘rîf bi İbn Haldûn ve rihletuhu garben ve şarken. thk. Muhammed b. Tâvît et-Tancî. Kahire: Lecnetü’t-te’lif ve’t-terceme ve’n-neşr, 1951.
21. İbn Haldûn, Ebû Zeyd Veliyyüddîn Abdurrahman b. Muhammed. Mukaddime: Osmanlı Tercümesi. trc. Pîrîzâde Mehmed Sâhib ve Ahmed Cevdet Paşa. haz. Yavuz Yıldırım vd.. İstanbul: Klasik Yayınları, 2008.
22. İbn Haldûn, Ebû Zeyd Veliyyüddîn Abdurrahman b. Muhammed. Mukaddime. thk. Ali Abdulvâhid Vâfî. Mısır: Nehdatü Mısr, 2010.
23. Resâilü İhvâni’s-safa ve hullâni’l-vefâ. thk. Ârif Temur. Beyrut: Menşûrâtü uveydât, 1995.
24. Sâti‘ el-Husrî. İbn Haldûn Üzerine Araştırmalar. trc. Süleyman Uludağ. İstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2001.
25. Say, Seyfi. İbn Haldûn’un Düşünce Sistemi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramı. İstanbul: İlk Harf Yayınları, 2011.
26. Sehâvî, Ebu’l-Hayr Şemsüddîn Muhammed b. Abdirrahman b. Muhammed. el-Cevâhir ve’d-dürer fî tercemeti Şeyhi’l-İslâm İbn Hacer. thk. İbrahim Abdulmecid. Beyrut: Dâru İbn Haldûn, 1999.
27. Serinsu, Ahmed Nedim. Kur’ân ve Bağlam. İstanbul: Şule Yayınları, 2008.
28. Süyûtî, Celâlüddîn. Bugyetü’l-vu‘ât fî tabakâti’l-lügaviyyîn ve’n-nuhât. Mısır: Dâru’l-fikir, 1979.
29. Tek, Abdurrezzak, “Molla Fenârî’nin Tasavvufî Kimliği”, Uluslararası Molla Fenârî Sempozyumu: 4-6 Aralık 2009, ed. Tevfik Yücedoğru vd.. 441-458. Bursa: Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2010).
30. Türker, Ömer. “İslam Düşüncesinde İlimler Tasnifi”. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 3/22 (2011/1), 533-556.
31. Türker, Ömer. “Mukaddime’de Aklî İlimler Algısı: İbn Haldûn’un Bireysel Yetenekler Teorisi”, İbn Haldûn Güncel Okumalar. ed. Recep Şentürk. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2015.
32. Zirikli, Hayreddîn, el-A‘lâm. Beyrut: Daru’l-ilm li’l-melâyin, 2002.