Ali Fikri Yavuz

Bu kitap, İstanbul Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi tarafından “Sahn-ı Semân’dan Dârülfünûn’a Osmanlı’da İlim ve Fikir Dünyası” üst başlığı ile beş sempozyum olarak tasarlanan serinin üçüncüsünde sunulan tebliğlerin önemli bir kısmını ilim dünyasının istifadesine sunmaktadır.

17. yüzyıl Osmanlı ilim hayatını ve çevresini konu edinen bu çalışmanın yazarları fihrist sırasıyla: Erol Özvar, Berat Açıl, Hidayet Aydar, Şükrü Maden, Recep Arpa, Kadir Ayaz, M. Celil Altuntaş, Gülsüm Korkmazer, K. Hamdi Okur, Süleyman Kaya, İbrahim Baz, Mehmet Kalaycı, Yılmaz Şentürk, Harun Kuşlu, Kübra Şenel, İrfan İnce, Fuat Aydın ve Elif Tokay. Toplantı dahil tüm çalışmanın hamisi Zeytinburnu Belediyesi'ne ve emeği geçen tüm akademisyenlere çok teşekkür ederiz.

Arguments on the soul (nafs) convey the primary quest of epistemology: the knowing-self. Thus, debates on perception, knowledge and soul, as well following approaches in logic form the outlines of an epistemological framework in philosophical works. However, one of unusual cases regarding this debate can be observed in Samarqandī’s (d. 722/1322) Qasīdah al-Qāfiyyah in response to Ibn Sīnā’s Qasīdah al-‘Ayniyyah where he addresses the problem also by composing a structurally similar versification. This paper tends, firstly, to revisit the reception of this qasīdah focusing on Samarqandī’s correspondence and to restore the prominence of this unique philosophical debate on the soul by means of poetry. Secondly, it aims to analyse his efforts to reconcile Avicennian and Rāzīan theories on the soul by also utilising two of his major works: al-Ma‘ārif fī Sharḥ al-Ṣaḥā’if and ‘Ilm al-Afāq wa’l-Anfus.

This paper attempts to investigate one seemingly naïve question: “Although Samarqandī (722H/1322CE) was a popular and respected scholar with immense commentary traditions on some of his works, why his numerous volumes on kalām did not receive enough correspondence to build a commentary tradition upon?” The investigation will be in threefold; (i) first part is an analysis of Samarqandī’s textual correspondence, as a commentator him-self and the reception of his works during and short after his life, (ii) second part is the elaboration of Samarqandī’s influence in kalām studies and the challenges he raises oppos-ing many authoritative figures of kalām and philosophy, and (iii) final part is the investigation of the challenges raised short after by scholars opposing Samarqandī in order to understand “what went wrong”. Further investigation of this study attempts to contribute to the understanding of theoretical and social factors in preference for a “hypotext” in the post-classical period of kalām.

In his most prominent work, Samarqandī shows a very clear example of post-Avicennan ilahiyyat by dividing his book into two main objectives: Principles and Problems. Section of Principles has three divisions as follows: al-Umūr al-Shāmilah, Accidents and Substances following the approaches of Rāzī and Tūsī.  Although it seems that it resembles of Razī’s works, in terms of methodology and didactic approach, it can be considered as a different attempt of balancing philosophy and theology. Keeping these two disciplines in two different sections and utilising principles of metaphysics in theological argumentations as simple as it can be makes Samarqandī’s work one of the best examples of post classical kalām/falsafa genre.

The topic of my presentation is to demonstrate Samarqandī’s approach to the section of Accidents (Aʻrād) which is divided into four sections/sahā’if: a) perceptions, b) primarily perceived, c) primarily non-sensibles d) on the ones that are common between perception and the perceived. Each section with their sub divisions tries to introduce a different scholarship where he discusses senses, powers of the soul and categories under the same chapter. My primary goal is to present Samarqandī’s approach to epistemology by analysing his central concept, idrāk, then to investigate his reasons and methods of centralising the concept of perception to define and also discuss categories and accidents. His two main references, Avicenna and al-Rāzī, takes also parts in these brief discussions. Thus relevant contrasts will be shown in order to demonstrate Samarqandī’s contributions to 13. century Islamic thought. I believe this relatively understudied work of Samarqandī which is not attributed to Ashʻarī school of theology would help us to understand more of his time and beyond.

In this study, Sunnī dogma of ru’yatullāh (beatific vision) will be revisited with references to epistemological advances in classical Islamic philosophy and theology. The objective of my paper is to reassess the epistemological analysis of perception and cognition in Samarqandī’s works that shape later Maturidite school of theology by his re-evaluation of perception and application of his analysis on perception to the approval of the possibility of beatific vision. My aim is to put forward Samarqandī’s analysis that aims to advance over Fakhruddīn al-Rāzī (d. 1209). Terminology of Samarqandī on perception (idrāk), senses (mashāʻir), formative storage (khazānah li’s-suwar) and estimative storage (khazānah li’l-wahm) will be discussed with cross references to Rāzī.