Yazma Eserler

Osmanlı döneminde tefsir ilmine dair çok sayıda eser yazılmış olup bunların önemli bir bölümü kütüphanelerde yazma halindedir. Ancak son zamanlarda yapılan çalışmalar sayesinde bu eserlerin bir kısmı araştırmacıların hizmetine sunulmuştur. Bir kısmı ise hâlâ kütüphanelerde ya da şahıs kitaplıklarında gün yüzüne çıkartılmayı beklemektedir. Bu tefsir mirasının bir halkası da Kırım Türklerine aittir. Fatih Sultan Mehmed döneminde Osmanlı hakimiyetine giren Kırım’da, tarih boyunca çok sayıda medrese kurulmuş, bu medreselerde öğrenim gören talebeler, başta İstanbul olmak üzere, Osmanlı coğrafyasının önemli merkezlerine yüksek tahsil için gitmişler ve gerek gittikleri yerlerde gerekse kendi memleketlerinde eser telifi ile de uğraşmışlardır. Onların çeşitli ilim dallarında telif ettikleri eserlerle ilgili günümüzde şahıs ve eser merkezli bazı çalışmalar yapılmıştır. Ancak tefsir ilmine dair müstakil bir çalışma bugüne kadar yapılmamıştır. Bu çalışmada tefsir alanında eser veren Kırımlı müellifler ve onların ekseriyeti kütüphanelerde yazma halinde olan eserlerini tespit edip tanıtmak ve böylece ilim camiasına bir katkıda bulunmak hedeflenmiştir. Bu maksatla önce kütüphane katalogları ve kaynaklar taranarak Kırım ulemasının tefsire dair eserleri tespit edilmiş ardında bu eserler ve müellifleri kısaca tanıtılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Tefsir, Osmanlı, Kırım, Müfessir, Yazma eser.
To date, several academic studies have been conducted on Crimean authors and their works.  However, an independent study on interpretation works has not been done yet. In some sources, the names of a few works on the interpretation of the Crimean interpreters are mentioned. In our country, Ziya Demir briefly presented two interpretation works of Crimean interpreters in his work named 'Ottoman Interpreters and Interpretation Studies'. With the aim to fill the gap in this field, we deemed it appropriate to introduce the Crimean interpreters and their works, which we consider to be an important link of the Ottoman interpretation heritage. With this study, it will be possible to see the collection of the interpretation works of the Crimean Ulema of the Ottoman period and to obtain brief information about their qualities and contents. Besides, a number of interpreters and their works, about whom and which sources give no information, will be presented to the attention of the scholars. As well as tabaqat books and main sources, catalogue records of libraries affiliated to the Manuscript Institution of Turkey were particularly used in the identification of the authors and works. In addition, some of the biographies of the authors were taken from waivers and exordia of the works. On the other hand, we do not claim that information was given about all Crimean interpreters and their works in this article. For this reason, it should not be underestimated that there may be interpreters and works that couldn't be reached or that might have gone unnoticed. In addition, this study does not intend to discuss the interpreters in question and their works with all their aspects; it only aims to provide some organized information in this area. For this reason, short biographies of the authors about whom we could find information will be provided. Some brief information will be provided regarding the contents of the relevant work while presenting the works identified and if available, any copies of such works will be mentioned. 
In this study, biographies and works of 9 Crimean interpreters who spent a significant part of their lives in services related with science, consultancy and various state affairs in different locations of the Ottoman land were briefly discussed. Important and new information about their lives and works was obtained. However, their works on interpretation were mainly discussed. In the research carried out, it was determined that these interpreters had a total of seventeen works on interpretation and twelve of them were accessed. As for the remaining five, only their names could be discovered. Three of these were the interpretations of verse, one was the interpretation of Surah and the other one was a collection of works written for the footnote written by Hafaci for the interpretation of Beydavi. Those twelve works that could be reached were studied. Four of these works are the interpretations of verse. Four of them are in form of annotations, three of which were written on various Surahs in Envâru't-tenzîl and esrâru't-te'vîlof Beydavi. One of them is the annotation placed in front of Curcani's annotation of Kessaf. All these annotations are voluminous. However, none of them has the feature of an annotation, indeed. Three of the remaining works are in the form of interpretations of Surah. The last work is the interpretation called as 'Mevakib', which is Ferruh Efendi's Ottoman translation of the interpretation named as 'al-Mevahibu'l-Aliyye fi Tefsiri'l-Kelami'r Rabbaniyye', written by Huseyin b. Ali al-Vaiz al-Herevi al-Kasifi in Persian language. Yet, this work is not a mere translation. It was expanded with the explanations made by the interpreter where necessary. In addition, it is the only complete interpretation and the one printed work identified in this study. All other works apart from that were in the form of manuscript and no other complete form of interpretation was encountered. The interpretation of Mevakib was accepted by different segments of society in a short time and it marked the last period of the Ottoman State with several successive publications. Other works written by the Crimean Ulema on the interpretation did not show a similar effect. Only five of the works regarding the interpretation introduced in the article are in Turkish and the rest are in Arabic. This is undoubtedly influenced by the fact that the language of science in the Ottoman Empire was Arabic. Another reason is the target group.  While the target group was the public in those written in Turkish, those in Arabic were mostly written for the scholars. Therefore, whereas Turkish works had a simpler form of narration, the language and style used in Arabic works were more elaborated. Although the reasoning method was mainly adopted in the works discussed, the reporting method was also used in almost every work. Linguistic analyses and eloquent explanations were extensively included, and Sufi commentaries were occasionally used, as well. Interpretations of Beydavi and Zemahseri and their annotations constitute the main sources of the relevant works. On the other hand, linguistic trends such as Basra and Kufa and masters of language like Sibeveyh, Ferra and Firuzabadi were frequently referred to. Many sources in different branches of science were referred to, as well. Finally, we would like to point out that not all the works compiled by the Crimean authors have been brought to light, yet. Therefore, it would be possible to find new works as the researches continue. For this reason, it should not be considered that the works of the Ottoman Crimean Ulema regarding interpretation are limited to those mentioned here.
Keywords: Tafsir, Ottoman, Crimea, Interpreter, Manuscript.