THE LEGACY OF A LITERARY MAN IN ISLAMIC LEGAL THEORY: SURŪRĪ CHALABĪ’S CRITICISMS IN HIS SUPER-COMMENTARY ON AL-TALWĪḤ AND HIS ARGUMENTS

 

İmam Rabbani Çelik

Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu-Türkiye

Ilahiyat Studies    

p-ISSN: 1309-1786 / e-ISSN: 1309-1719

Volume 13       Number 1       Winter/Spring 2022     

DOI: 10.12730/13091719.2022.131.232

Article Type: Research Article

Received: March 14, 2022 | Accepted: October 13, 2022 | Published: November 22, 2022.

To cite this article: Çelik, İmam Rabbani. “The Legacy of a Literary Man in Islamic Legal Theory: Surūrī Chalabī’s Criticisms in His Super-Commentary on al-Talwīḥ and His Arguments.” Ilahiyat Studies 13, no. 1 (2022): 7-42.  https://doi.org/10.12730/13091719.2022.131.232

 

Abstract

Al-Taftāzānī (d. 792/1390), a well-known theorist/theologian of the post-classical era of Islamic thought, not only elucidated the statements of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah in his ḥāshiyah (super-commentary), titled al-Talwīḥ, which he wrote on al-Tawḍīḥ, but also introduced several criticisms against his arguments. Al-Taftāzānī’s work, al-Talwīḥ, was received with great interest by Ottoman scholars, who then composed many ḥāshiyahs on it in the fifteenth century. Although the number of ḥāshiyahs significantly diminished, the practice of ḥāshiyah writing on al-Talwīḥ continued in the sixteenth century. Surūrī Chalabī (d. 969/1562) was one of the scholars who penned a ḥāshiyah on al-Talwīḥ during this period. The literary works of Surūrī Chalabī have recently been the subject of numerous academic studies, yet his legacy in Islamic sciences has not received the same interest. This article, aiming to fill this gap in the literature, scrutinizes synchronically and diachronically the place of Surūrī’s Ḥāshiyah on al-Talwīḥ within the tradition of Ottoman ḥāshiyah writing on al-Talwīḥ and eventually demonstrates that Surūrī primarily dealt with the arguments and comments of Ḥasan Chalabī, a previous ḥāshiyah author who commented on al-Talwīḥ and criticized them in his argument-based ḥāshiyah thus endeavors to position himself within the tradition of ḥāshiyah writing of the previous century through Ḥasan Chalabī’s work.

Key Words: Ottoman law, ḥāshiyah, Islamic legal theory (uṣūl al-fiqh), al-Talwīḥ, Surūrī Chalabī

 

Introduction*

 

"لا مذهب للسائل في محل البحث والمناظرة، فلا ضير في كون ذلك مخالفًا لمذهبه"

“The questioner (sāʾil)[1] has no stance (madhhab) in the realm of inquiry and dialectics. So, there is no problem if his criticism contradicts his own stance.”

(Surūrī Chalabī, Ḥāshiyat al-Talwīḥ, 43a)

 

This article is about the ḥāshiyah (super-commentary) by Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muṣṭafá Surūrī Chalabī (d. 969/1562) on al-Talwīḥ. Al-Talwīḥ was also a super-commentary authored by Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī (d. 792/1390) on Ṣadr al-sharīʿah’s (d. 747/1346) work Tanqīḥ al-uṣūl and his own commentary on this text, al-Tawḍīḥ. Tanqīḥ al-uṣūl and al-Tawḍīḥ were highly influential texts for the post-classical era of Ḥanafī-jurist tradition of uṣūl al-fiqh. Ṣadr al-sharīʿah, in these works, reconsidered the accumulated knowledge of classical Ḥanafī uṣūl al-fiqh he inherited by adopting the concepts, principles, and themes of philosophy and logic, which became the common theoretical language of the post-classical era of Islamic thought. While doing this, he relied on theological premises of the Māturīdī tradition against Ashʿarī uṣūl scholars (uṣūlīs), such as Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) and Ibn al-Ḥājib (d. 646/1249), who were also his intellectual opponents.[2] Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī, in his critical ḥāshiyah, al-Talwīḥ written on Ṣadr al-sharīʿah’s works al-Tanqīḥ and al-Tawḍīḥ, not only explores the words of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah but also revealed critical contradictions of his several arguments. While al-Taftāzānī often defended the arguments of the Ashʿarī uṣūlīs against the objections raised by Ṣadr al-sharīʿah, his critique of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah primarily focused on his arguments rather than views. That is, al-Taftāzānī rather criticised the proofs by which Ṣadr al-sharīʿah attempted to substantiate his views.[3]

Al-Taftāzānī’s al-Talwīḥ attracted great attention in the Ottoman scholarly circle as it did in the intellectual centers of Transoxiana, Khurasan, and India and was subjected to numerous studies in the form of ḥāshiyahs by fifteenth-century Ottoman scholars, especially in the second half of the fifteenth century. The sixteenth century witnessed a decrease in the number of such ḥāshiyahs, but studies on al-Talwīḥ did not cease. One of these studies, Ḥāshiyat al-Talwīḥ, written by Surūrī Chalabī, a well-known scholar, literary man, and the tutor of Prince (Shāhzādah) Muṣṭafá (d. 960/1553).

Recently, some researchers have studied ḥāshiyahs penned on al-Talwīḥ in earlier periods[4] and the fifteenth century.[5] No studies, however, have been devoted to the progress of this ḥāshiyah tradition in the sixteenth century when Surūrī Chalabī produced his works. Moreover, while there are many academic studies on Surūrī Chalabī’s literary works, his works in Islamic sciences have not yet drawn the same attention.[6] Thus, Surūrī Chalabī’s contribution to Islamic thought in general and to uṣūl al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory) seems to need more research. As an attempt in this direction, this study aims to clarify the position of Surūrī Chalabī’s ḥāshiyah on al-Talwīḥ in the tradition of Islamic thought in general and in the tradition of Ottoman thought in particular. Utilizing Surūrī Chalabī’s ḥāshiyah as the primary source, this study will focus on the questions of which authors are engaged with by him in the ḥāshiyah tradition he inherited,[7] in which aspects he contributed to this tradition, and in what ways he established an intellectual connection with his interlocutors, particularly through criticisms in his ḥāshiyah.

This research tries to find out to which previous ḥāshiyah writers on al-Talwīḥ Surūrī Chalabī referred anonymously and whose arguments he dealt with through synchronic and diachronic analysis of al-Talwīḥ’s ḥāshiyahs and some other works in the field of uṣūl al-fiqh. Moreover, by comparing Surūrī’s intellectual connection with his interlocutors in his ḥāshiyah with that of the interlocutors and the production of knowledge in ḥāshiyahs of the previous century. Thus, such comparative analysis will allow us to trace the continuity and transformation in that literary tradition. To further elaborate on the continuities and ruptures, this article scrutinizes three sample discussions in Surūrī’s work, which sheds light on the author’s intellectual relationship with his interlocutors.

This article will first provide information about the scholarly career and intellectual heritage of Surūrī. It will then explain the development of ḥāshiyah literature formed around Talwīḥ up to the era of Surūrī. After this historical context, it will discuss how Surūrī engaged in dialogue with the intellectual heritage of his interlocutors in his ḥāshiyah and analyse the characteristics of his work with special reference to three of his criticisms in it.

I argue that Surūrī, in his predominantly critical ḥāshiyah, establishes a connection with his interlocutors through their arguments rather than their opinions, in a similar way to ḥāshiyah writers of the previous century – which suggests continuity in the ḥāshiyahs of Talwīḥ from the fifteenth to the sixteenth centuries. Yet, despite this similarity, Surūrī mostly built his ḥāshiyah around the statements of Ḥasan Chalabī (d. 891/1486), a member of the scholarly circle in which he grew up, instead of the names such as Ṣadr al-sharīʿah and al-Taftāzānī.

1. Scholarly Career and Intellectual Heritage of Surūrī Chalabī

Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muṣṭafá (d. 969/1562), famous by his nickname Surūrī, was born in Gallipoli in 897/1491.[8] His father was a wealthy merchant and eagerly supported his son to receive a good education.[9] Surūrī studied under eminent scholars of the period, including ʿAbd al-Wāsiʿ Efendī (d. 944-945/1538-1539),[10] Qadrī Chalabī (d. 959/1552),[11] Ṭāshkuprīzādah Muṣṭafá Efendī (d. 935/1529), Qarah Dāwūd Izmītī (d. 948/1541), and Nihālī Jaʿfar Chalabī (d. ca. 950/1544)[12] who was also a poet. Then, he entered the service of Fanārīzādah Muḥyī al-Dīn Meḥmed (d. 954/1548) and finished his scholarly education.[13]

When his teacher Fanārīzādah Muḥyī al-Dīn was promoted to the judgeship of Istanbul, he was appointed as one of his deputies (nāʾib)[14] in Istanbul Bab Court in 927/1521. Upon Fanārīzādah’s promotion to the office of chief judge (qāḍī ʿaskar) of Anatolia in early 929/1522, Surūrī was assigned as the private secretary (tadhkirahjī).[15] Nevertheless, when he was accused of leaking some official secrets to his teacher ʿAbd al-Wāsiʿ Efendī while he was serving in this position, he was obliged to quit his scholarly career. Then he joined the path of Sufism and pledged allegiance to Maḥmūd Efendī (d. 938/1531), who was the caliph of the Naqshbandī Sheikh Amīr Bukhārī in his zāwiyah.[16] In the following years, Surūrī performed the pilgrimage and re-entered scholarly service upon his return to Istanbul. He managed to receive the status of novice (mulāzamah)[17] from his professor Fanārīzādah and was appointed as a professor (mudarris) at the Sarıca Pasha Madrasah in his hometown, Gallipoli, in 930/1523. In 933/1526, he was promoted to the Pīrī Pasha Madrasah.[18]

In 944/1537, Surūrī was commissioned with a salary of 50 aspers to the madrasah built by the vizier Güzelce Qāsim Pasha (d. after 948/1541) in the present-day Kasımpaşa district, which was named after him, located on the opposite side of the Golden Horn. When Fanārīzādah Muḥyī al-Dīn, his protector, passed away in 954/1548, Surūrī resigned from professorship and abandoned the pursuits of daily life. He entered the service of Khwājah ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Efendī (d. 971/1563-64), the current sheikh in the abovementioned Amīr Bukhārī Zāwiyah.[19] Receiving the news of his resignation, Güzelce Qāsim Pasha, the sub-governor of Morea, became upset and urged Surūrī to return to his post at his madrasah. Surūrī accepted this request stipulating that he would recite the Mathnawī, the famous work of al-Rūmī (d. 672/1273), after afternoon prayers at the Kasım Paşa Mosque.[20]

Khayr al-Dīn Khiḍr, the tutor of Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá, passed away in 953/1546. Thereupon Sultan Suleiman, on his way to the Campaign of Van, appointed Surūrī as Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá’s new tutor in 955/1548. Even though ʿAṭāʾī narrates that Surūrī had traveled to Karaman, where the prince was stationed when he was appointed to this scholarly position,[21] he had likely traveled to Amasya upon his appointment. For other sources agree that the prince was dismissed from the governorship of Saruhan (Manisa) in 948/1541 and appointed to the governorship of Amasya. There is no mention of any subsequent reassignment.[22]

Surūrī continued to serve in this position from 955/1548 until 25 Shawwāl 960/4 October 1553, when Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá was executed in Ereğli (Konya). During this period, he gained considerable closeness with the prince.[23] Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá, who was fond of literature, gathered many scholars and literary men around him in Amasya. This intellectual group, which also included Surūrī, was composed of some of the leading intellectuals of the period, such as the prince’s dīwān clerk Qarah Faḍlī (d. 971/1564), Kāmī Muḥammad Qarahmānī (d. 952/1545), and Adāʾī Chalabī (d. 982/1574).[24]

It is reported that Surūrī, who was deeply saddened by the execution of the prince and retreated into seclusion, was not deemed worthy of good treatment by the statesmen and that he managed his life with the income from his books and with the aid of his social circle without receiving an official salary for nine years until his death from cholera on the 7^th of Jumādá l-awwal in 969/1562.[25]

The time in which Surūrī Chalabī lived corresponds to the “consolidation period” of the Ottoman scholarly bureaucracy (1530-1600). During this period, the scholar-bureaucrats’ bond with the Ottoman dynasty strengthened, and the scholars (ʿulamāʾ) in the service of the Ottoman Empire evolved into “a self-producing group” with the establishment of the mulāzamah system.[26] In this bureaucracy, Surūrī Chalabī followed an educational career starting from a low-level professorship,[27] and finally, he was appointed as the prince’s tutor. He reached Ottoman Dignitary (Mawlawiyyah)[28] rank in the Ottoman scholarly bureaucracy during his lifetime. In addition to the high-ranking scholarly positions that he held in the bureaucracy, Surūrī Chalabī also stands out with the intellectual legacy he left behind. He made significant contributions to Ottoman thought in different fields through his approximately thirty works, most of which are in literature. He owes his fame today primarily to these works. In the field of literature, Surūrī Chalabī wrote commentaries on works such as Mathnawī, Bustān, Gulistān, Dīwān of Ḥāfiẓ, Muʿammāyāt, and Shabistān-i Khayāl. He also wrote Dīwānchah, which includes his mystical poems, and a work of Turkish rhetoric known as Baḥr al-maʿārif (dated 956/1549).[29] He wrote commentaries on Bustān, Gulistān, and Shabistān-i Khayāl either upon the request of Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá or he dedicated these works to him.[30]

The disciplines of Arabic linguistics and logic, which are considered to be instrumental disciplines (ʿulūm al-ālāt) for classical Islamic disciplines, are also among the fields Surūrī Chalabī contributed. He wrote a commentary on al-Muṭarrizī’s (d. 610/1213) al-Miṣbāḥ and Ibn al-Ḥājib’s al-Kāfiyah and a ḥāshiyah on al-Ḍawʾ, Tāj al-Dīn al-Isfarāʾīnī’s commentary on al-Miṣbāḥ in terms of Arabic syntax (naḥw). He wrote commentaries on Amsilah, Bināʾ,[31] and Marāḥ al-arwāḥ,[32] which were famous textbooks on Arabic morphology (ṣarf) taught in Ottoman educational institutions. The high number of manuscript copies of these commentaries in the Ottoman libraries suggests that they received considerable attention from the Ottoman scholarly circles.[33] Surūrī wrote a ḥāshiyah on the commentary of Ḥusām al-Dīn Ḥasan al-Kātī in the field of classical logic as well.[34]

Surūrī Chalabī also produced works in various Islamic disciplines. In this regard he wrote a ḥāshiyah on al-Qāḍī al-Bayḍāwī’s Anwār al-tanzīl wa-asrār al-taʾwīl, Tafsīr sūrat Yūsuf, and Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿazīz in the field of exegesis.[35] He authored a ḥāshiyah on al-ʿInāyah, the commentary on al-Hidāyah by Akmal al-Dīn al-Bābartī (d. 786/1384) in fiqh,[36] and dedicated this work to Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá. In this ḥāshiyah, Surūrī responded to the criticisms by Kamālpashazādah (d. 940/1533), whom he referred to as baʿḍ al-mutaʾakhkhirīn, and leveled against both the author and the commentator.[37] Surūrī Chalabī also wrote a ḥāshiyah on al-Taftāzānī’s al-Talwīḥ in the field of uṣūl al-fiqh, which constitutes the subject matter of this article. Although ʿAṭāʾī claims that Surūrī Chalabī wrote a commentary on the famous hadith collection, titled Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, up to half of its content,[38] none of the copies of this work is available today.

Another significant field to which Surūrī contributed was medicine. He wrote a commentary on Ibn al-Nafīs’ (d. 687/1288) Mūjaz al-Qānūn, which is one of the famous summaries of Ibn Sīnā’s al-Qānūn, as well as a work titled Kitāb al-Shahādah in this field. Moreover, he translated a Persian work on Far Eastern medicine, the Risālah-ʾi Panch Chīnī, into Turkish.[39] Not only interested in medicine but also history, Surūrī translated Tārīkh-i Khiṭā wu Khūtan u Chīn u Māchīn, a book about the history of Far Eastern countries, and Rawḍ al-rayāḥīn fī ḥikāyat al-ṣāliḥīn, a book about the stories of scholars and Sufis, into Turkish. As for politics, upon the request of the prince, Surūrī translated the Persian political treatise Dhakhīrat al-mulūk, written by Amīr Kabīr al-Sayyid ʿAlī al-Hamadānī (d. 786/1385), the founder of the Hamadāniyyah branch of the Kubrawiyyah order, into Turkish in 960/1552.[40] In addition, he started the translation of ʿAjāʾib al-makhlūqāt at Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá’s request but left it unfinished after the execution of the prince.[41]

His works show that Surūrī Chalabī was knowledgeable enough to write or translate works in many fields, such as literature, Islamic disciplines, the grammar of the Arabic language, medicine, history, and politics. It is noteworthy that Surūrī Chalabī was a versatile scholar similar to Kamālpashazādah, whom he criticized in his ḥāshiyah on al-Talwīḥ, and that he wrote on a wide variety of subjects just like him.

2. A Scholarly Tradition Inherited by Surūrī Chalabī: The Literature of Ḥāshiyahs on al-Talwīḥ

Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī is one of the most influential authoritative figures in the post-classical era of the tradition of Islamic thought. His intellectual legacy has been discussed in many scholarly circles, and his works have been widely studied.[42] To make a specific observation about al-Talwīḥ, the interpretations and criticisms brought by al-Taftāzānī in his al-Talwīḥ to the uṣūl thought in Ṣadr al-sharīʿah’s al-Tanqīḥ and its commentary al-Tawḍīḥ have been discussed by a considerable number of scholars. The critical ḥāshiyahs written on al-Talwīḥ by his intellectual opponent al-Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d. 816/1413), who shared the same scholarly circle with al-Taftāzānī in Transoxania, and Qāḍī Burhān al-Dīn (d. 800/1398), one of the famous statesmen of Lands of Rum (Bilād al-Rūm), are among the earliest texts in which such debates can be detected.[43]

One of the centers where al-Taftāzānī’s intellectual legacy was the most influential was probably the Ottoman scholarly circle. Al-Taftāzānī’s works began to become popular and taught in Bilād al-Rūm, which was also at the heart of the Ottoman scholarly circle, from the late fourteenth century to the first quarter of the fifteenth century, not long after they were written.[44] Although the scholars there seem to have written the first ḥāshiyah on al-Taftāzānī’s works towards the middle of the fifteenth century, it was not until the second half of the fifteenth century that these works were placed at the center of the intellectual production of the Ottoman scholarly circle and the widespread writing of ḥāshiyahs on these works took place. The works of al-Taftāzānī and his contemporary and intellectual opponent al-Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī formed the basis for intensive knowledge production at this time. The works of the authoritative figures of the post-classical era, such as Ṣadr al-sharīʿah, al-Khaṭīb al-Qazwīnī (d. 739/1338), Shams al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Iṣfahānī (d. 749/1349), ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī (d. 756/1355), Ibn Mubārakshāh (d. after 784/1382), were not read or studied directly, but through the works of these two scholars, and were the subject of works in the form of commentaries and ḥāshiyahs.[45] In this respect, one of the works on which the most ḥāshiyahs were written was, without a doubt, al-Taftāzānī’s al-Talwīḥ.

The prominent scholars of the Ottoman scholarly circle, such as Mullā Aḥmed Qirīmī (d. around 855/1451), Muṣannifak (d. 875/1470), ʿAlī Qushjī (d. 879/1474), Mullā Khusraw (d. 885/1480), ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (d. 887/1482), Khojazādah Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muṣṭafá (d. 893/1488), Mullā Aḥmad al-Khayālī (d. around 875/1470), Sāmsūnīzādah Ḥasan (d. 891/1486), Ḥasan Chalabī al-Fanārī, Mullā ʿAbd al-Karīm (d. 895/1489), Mullā ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿArabī (d. 901/1496), Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muṣṭafá al-Kastalī (d. 901/1496), Khaṭībzādah Muḥyī al-Dīn (d. 901/1496), Ḥājīḥasanzādah Muḥammad (d. 911/1505), and Mullā Luṭfī (d. 900/1495) wrote ḥāshiyahs on a certain part or the entirety of al-Talwīḥ. It gives an idea about the vastness of the literature that more than twenty ḥāshiyahs were written in this century.[46] These scholars sometimes reflected their different intellectual inclinations in their ḥāshiyahs within the scope of the discussions in which they evaluated “the arguments on which these views are based rather than the views themselves.” [47] However, they sometimes addressed the comments and arguments of al-Taftāzānī, sometimes al-Jurjānī, and occasionally other scholars who were contemporaries of these two scholars. In these discussions conducted through the comments and arguments of authoritative characters, the authors of the ḥāshiyahs endeavored to “demonstrate their scholarly competencies” within the intellectual community of the period. [48] Within this framework, while criticizing the arguments of their opponents, they directed several criticisms, such as that these arguments were invalid or inconsistent, that they were inappropriate for the argument they were produced against, or that they were not under the principles of inquiry and dialectics (ādāb al-baḥth),[49] which constituted an essential part of the argumentation technique.[50]

By the sixteenth century, a significant contraction was witnessed in al-Talwīḥ ḥāshiyahs literature compared to the previous century. The authors who wrote a ḥāshiyah on al-Talwīḥ in the Ottoman scholarly circle in this century were Muḥammad al-Bardaʿī (d. 927/1521), Kamālpashazādah, Abū l-Suʿūd Efendī (d. 982/1574), ʿAbd al-Ṣamad al-Ḥusaynī al-Ṭālishī,[51] and the subject matter of this article, Surūrī Chalabī. While in the previous century, approximately twenty scholars in the Ottoman scholarly circle wrote ḥāshiyahs on this work, in the sixteenth century, the number of these scholars decreased to five, based on what can be determined. This situation may have resulted from the reaching maturity in this literature. However, it may also have been because the writing of ḥāshiyah was focused on other works in this period. Furthermore, among those who wrote ḥāshiyah on al-Talwīḥ in the sixteenth century, especially Kamālpashazādah and Abū l-Suʿūd Efendī held the position of the chief jurist (sheikh al-islām), which was the top-ranking scholarly position in the Ottoman academic bureaucracy,[52] and al-Bardaʿī, who came to Bilād al-Rūm from the Khurasan region, served as a mudarris in some educational institutions, especially in Üç Şerefeli Madrasah.[53] Surūrī Chalabī served as the tutor of the prince in addition to his work as a mudarris, while al-Ṭālishī, who seems to have come to the lands of the Ottoman heartland known as Bilād al-Rūm, was not promoted to high-level bureaucratic positions as far as it is known.

Taking the Ottoman scholarly tradition into account, the interlocutors of the ḥāshiyahs written on al-Talwīḥ in the sixteenth century also seem to undergo a significant change. The fact that the issues in the ḥāshiyahs written in the fifteenth century were discussed through the wording of al-Talwīḥ indicates that Ṣadr al-sharīʿah’s al-Tawḍīḥ was read through the interpretations and criticisms by al-Taftāzānī. It is also possible to see this explicitly in the discussions of the said century.[54] Although the majority of the ḥāshiyahs written on al-Talwīḥ in the sixteenth century continued to discuss the statements of al-Taftāzānī, the words of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah were also started to be discussed directly.[55] Moreover, in this century, the statements of the ḥāshiyah writers of the previous century, especially those of Mullā Khusraw and Ḥasan Chalabī al-Fanārī, also occupied the center position of the ḥāshiyah.[56] Taghyīr al-Tanqīḥ which was written by Kamālpashazādah, one of the names who wrote a ḥāshiyah on al-Talwīḥ in the sixteenth century, by criticizing and modifying the statements of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah in al-Tanqīḥ along with the aforementioned ḥāshiyah, is an interesting sample in this respect. Because Kamālpashazādah, in this work, directly discussed the statements of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah and subjected them to critical reading in a manner relatively independent of the comments and criticisms by al-Taftāzānī. It would be possible to consider this change from the fifteenth to the sixteenth century as a favorable development for Ṣadr al-sharīʿah in the ḥāshiyahs on al-Talwīḥ. It should be underlined here that in the ḥāshiyahs on al-Talwīḥ written in the sixteenth century, the comments and criticisms by al-Taftāzānī were less frequently included in the agenda compared to the previous century, and Ṣadr al-sharīʿah’s work on uṣūl al-fiqh began to be discussed more often and directly.

This study will focus on the names whom Surūrī Chalabī has dealt with in his ḥāshiyah and how he established contact with these names, and thus it will be possible to follow the traces of the abovementioned changes on this ḥāshiyah.

3. The Interlocutors of Surūrī Chalabī in His Ḥāshiyah and the Character of His Work

The writing of this work, the only copy of which is registered under number 648 in Murat Molla Library, was completed in the town of Ladik on 15 Rajab 957/1550, according to the release record of this copy.[57] No information was provided regarding the province to which Ladik belonged. However, taking into account that Surūrī Chalabī was appointed as the tutor of the prince in Amasya in 955/1548, it is highly likely that he completed this work in 957/1550 in Ladik, which is located in the region of Amasya and which is today a district of Samsun, instead of the town, which is located in the Sarayönü district of Konya and which was formerly called Ladik. The fact that Surūrī completed his commentary on Gulistān, which was dedicated to the prince, in Amasya a year later in 958/1551 supports this view.[58] Additionally, Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá’s brother Bāyazīd was commissioned as the Governor of Sanjaq of Karaman in 953/1546,[59] which highly weakens the possibility that Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá was in Karaman at the time when the ḥāshiyah was written.

Surūrī Chalabī was working as the tutor of Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá when he completed the work. Surūrī’s dedication of his work to Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá with the phrase al-sulṭān ibn al-sulṭān in the introduction section is a significant detail in terms of pointing out that he regarded Muṣṭafá as the true successor to the throne.[60] Moreover, in the introduction of the ḥāshiyah, Surūrī Chalabī briefly mentions the reason why the work was authored and explains that when he analyzed Ṣadr al-sharīʿah’s al-Tawḍīḥ together with al-Taftāzānī’s al-Talwīḥ, his preferences became apparent. He gathered his ideas together so that he could write his ḥāshiyah.[61]

The author wrote his ḥāshiyah on the whole of al-Talwīḥ, not on a particular part of it. On the other hand, he did not analyze every issue in his commentary but only focused on specific issues he had chosen. The definition of uṣūl al-fiqh, the Qurʾān (al-Kitāb), linguistic and interpretation (alfāẓ), the good and bad (al-ḥusn wa-l-qubḥ), consensus (ijmāʿ), analogy (qiyās), conflict of indicators and determination between them (al-muʿāraḍah wa-l-tarjīḥ) and exertion (ijtihād) are the issues that Surūrī discussed in his Ḥāshiyah. In this regard, although the work covers almost all the main topics of al-Talwīḥ, it is a relatively compact ḥāshiyah with a total of seventy-seven pages.

Even though the Ḥāshiyah of Surūrī Chalabī was written on al-Talwīḥ, the author not only discusses al-Taftāzānī’s statements, but also returns to Ṣadr al-sharīʿah’s statements from time to time and discusses them. Surūrī most frequently evaluates the statements of Ḥasan Chalabī al-Fanārī, a member of the Ottoman scholarly circle of the previous century and one of the ḥāshiyah writers who wrote a ḥāshiyah on al-Talwīḥ. Moreover, while he considers the criticisms by his contemporary Kamālpashazādah, who deceased before him, in some of the issues where he handles the statements of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah, in the section where he analyses the words of al-Taftāzānī and Ḥasan Chalabī, he occasionally discusses the criticisms of Qāḍī Burhān al-Dīn, one of the first ḥāshiyah writers of al-Talwīḥ in Bilād al-Rūm. In this respect, it can be seen that Surūrī confronted with a wide range of literature produced by and through al-Talwīḥ over a very long time and based his evaluations on this accumulated knowledge.

The person whom Surūrī Chalabī dealt with the most in his ḥāshiyah is Ḥasan Chalabī al-Fanārī, one of the ḥāshiyah writers of the previous century. Surūrī Chalabī, who cites the interpretations or arguments of Ḥasan Chalabī by using the expressions qāla l-muḥashshī or qāla l-muḥashshī al-Rūmī, criticizes him at almost every opportunity and attempts to respond to his criticisms against al-Taftāzānī. Considering that Ḥasan Chalabī, in his Ḥāshiyah, compiles and narrates the interpretations and arguments put forward in the ḥāshiyahs of al-Talwīḥ written before him on many issues and makes original evaluations on these issues,[62] it would become even more meaningful for Surūrī Chalabī to deal with him the most in his ḥāshiyah and to reserve a special place for his statements. As a matter of fact, Surūrī Chalabī wishes to demonstrate his own intellectual competence and to create a place for himself in this tradition by criticizing one of the most important authorities of the ḥāshiyah tradition through the issues on which he had frequently engaged in the comments and criticisms by Ḥasan Chalabī.

Al-Taftāzānī is the author whose statements are most frequently quoted by Surūrī Chalabī after Ḥasan Chalabī. Surūrī Chalabī, who deals with al-Taftāzānī’s comments and critiques directed at Ṣadr al-sharīʿah in al-Talwīḥ with the expression qawluhū, tries to explain and justify his statements at times[63] and criticizes them at other times.[64] Although Surūrī generally defended al-Taftāzānī’s interpretations and arguments against Ḥasan Chalabī’s criticisms, it has significance in terms of indicating his critical approach that he also raised objections to al-Taftāzānī in many issues in which he directly discussed his statements.

As stated above, while discussing the interpretations and arguments of al-Taftāzānī and Ḥasan Chalabī, Surūrī Chalabī also occasionally discusses Qāḍī Burhān al-Dīn’s critiques, one of the early ḥāshiyah writers of al-Talwīḥ, directed against al-Taftāzānī. In these sections, Surūrī sometimes defends Qāḍī’s arguments, whom he refers to as ṣāḥib al-Tarjīḥ, against the criticisms raised by Ḥasan Chalabī,[65] and sometimes quotes them as a direct critique of al-Taftāzānī without posing any objection to it.[66] This attitude of him indicates that Surūrī Chalabī considered Qāḍī Burhān al-Dīn’s criticisms of al-Taftāzānī to be justified.

Although it is rare compared to Ḥasan Chalabī and al-Taftāzānī, Surūrī Chalabī deals with the statements of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah in al-Tawḍīḥ, from whom he makes quotations in several places with the expression qāla l-muṣannif. In these sections, he sometimes criticizes the author of al-Tawḍīḥ[67] and sometimes defends him against the criticisms made by the scholars who can be considered his contemporaries. Within this context, he responds to the criticisms leveled against Ṣadr al-sharīʿah and the amendments suggested in Taghyīr al-Tanqīḥ by Kamālpashazādah, from whom he quotes anonymously with the expression qīla or qāla baʿḍ al-mutaʾakhkhirīn (one of the later scholars).[68] The similarity between this manner of addressing of Surūrī Chalabī and the manner of the quotation made earlier by Chiwīzādah, for which he had narrowly escaped from punishment, is a remarkable point. To elaborate on the latter matter, in 935/1529, when Chiwīzādah applied for the position of mudarris of Saḥn madrasahs, he was subjected to examinations in al-Talwīḥ, al-Mawāqif, and al-Miftāḥ together with three other candidates. When he quoted Kamālpashazādah’s opinion in Taghyīr al-Tanqīḥ with the expression qīla in the analysis of al-Talwīḥ, he was spared from being penalized by Sultan Suleiman only by the intervention of the viziers.[69] The fact that Surūrī, in his ḥāshiyahs on al-Talwīḥ and al-ʿInāyah, reports the views or arguments of the deceased Sheikh al-islām Kamālpashazādah by using the terms of tamrīḍ (weakness)[70] or expressions that can be perceived as contempt without naming him suggests that he had a severe critical position towards this scholar.

It is noteworthy that Surūrī Chalabī criticizes al-Taftāzānī and Ṣadr al-sharīʿah from time to time while finding the criticisms of al-Taftāzānī by Ḥasan Chalabī and that of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah by Kamālpashazādah groundless. Beyond developing an attitude based on specific opinions or choosing an intellectual side over the other, this can be explained with his “argument-centered” writing style. Surūrī Chalabī, who seems to have preserved the “argument-centered” style of writing[71] that had dominated the ḥāshiyahs of the previous century and often refrained from evaluating the views, employed expressions that would directly embody this attitude. For example, Ḥasan Chalabī, while evaluating an argument brought by al-Taftāzānī, mentioned that the opinion of the opponent was not appropriate for this argument. In contrast, Surūrī Chalabī argued that in a discussion held according to the principles of inquiry and dialectics (ādāb al-baḥth), the view of the critic (sāʾil) is insignificant and that the argument adduced by the critic in contradiction to his own view brings no harm to the argument.[72] In other words, the one who criticizes an argument may utilize another argument incompatible with his own view to demonstrate the weakness of the argument of the opponent.

Surūrī Chalabī accuses Ḥasan Chalabī of putting forward his argument in a way that is contrary to the principles of ādāb al-baḥth, which constituted an important part of the argumentation technique of the classical era, especially when he addresses some arguments brought forward by Ḥasan Chalabī to criticize al-Taftāzānī.[73] It is possible to regard this attitude as an extension of the aforementioned “argument-centered” approach. A substantial part of Surūrī Chalabī’s criticisms in his Ḥāshiyah, which mostly address the interpretations and arguments of Ḥasan Chalabī, reveals the inconsistency in these arguments. In these matters, after quoting the statements of Ḥasan Chalabī, he criticizes them for bearing inconsistencies.[74] In other cases, Surūrī appears to draw attention to the discrepancies in al-Taftāzānī’s statements.[75]

A substantial part of Surūrī Chalabī’s criticisms concerns the interpretations of his interlocutors. In his criticism of the interpretation in his ḥāshiyah, Surūrī Chalabī demonstrates that the interpretations of al-Taftāzānī and Ḥasan Chalabī do not correspond to the meanings implied in the statements.[76] In addition, he also occasionally claims that the explanation in the interpretations does not reflect the first meaning directly understood from the expression[77] or that the explanations provided are strained.[78] Sometimes Surūrī directly reveals the original meaning of the specific statements in the text that, he thinks, the authors –Ṣadr al-sharīʿah or al-Taftāzānī– intended to mean and consequently indicates that those statements have been misunderstood by their commentators and critics. After detecting the valid meaning of the relevant text and misinterpretations, Surūrī proposes his alternative interpretation.[79] However, the expressions criticized by Surūrī Chalabī for inappropriateness do not only consist of interpretations. Furthermore, while occasionally discussing al-Taftāzānī’s criticisms of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah or Ḥasan Chalabī’s criticisms of al-Taftāzānī, Surūrī highlights that these criticisms are, in fact, not compatible with the criticized arguments themselves.[80]

As mentioned above, although Surūrī Chalabī in many places defended the interpretations and arguments of al-Taftāzānī against the criticisms raised by Ḥasan Chalabī and those of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah against the objections raised by al-Taftāzānī and Kamālpashazādah, he also did not hesitate to direct his criticisms against Ṣadr al-sharīʿah and al-Taftāzānī now and then. When presenting his criticisms in several places, Surūrī shared his opinion on how to articulate the relevant phrase in a way that avoids misinterpretations and errors by providing his rectifications of the relevant parts of the text with the phrase; “[i]t would have been more appropriate for him to say (al-awlá an yaqūl).”[81] This way of criticism is remarkably reminiscent of the rectification style of Kamālpashazādah in his Taghyīr al-Tanqīḥ.[82]

In his Ḥāshiyah, Surūrī Chalabī focused on the arguments underlying the views of his interlocutors rather than their views themselves. Nevertheless, he rarely declared his own views as well. In “the dependence of fiqh on uṣūl,” which will be discussed under the next heading, he also presented his own approach to the subject while criticizing it.

Along with the abovementioned scholars, Surūrī Chalabī also refers in his Ḥāshiyah to the works of the leading authoritative scholars such as Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī (d. 631/1233), Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī (d. 710/1311), Abū Yāʿqūb al-Sakkākī (d. 626/1229), al-Khaṭīb al-Qazwīnī (d. 739/1338), al-Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī, and Akmal al-Dīn al-Bābartī (d. 786/1384).[83]

Compared to the ḥāshiyah writers of the previous century, Surūrī Chalabī appears to maintain “the argument-centered” knowledge production that was dominant in the tradition inherited by him. In this style of ḥāshiyah writing, the emphasis was on the arguments adduced to support the views rather than the views themselves. The issues examined in this literature include whether the arguments or interpretations are consistent within themselves, whether an argument brought for criticism or to respond to a criticism is coherent with the argument being criticized, and whether the given argumentation complies with the rules of ādāb al-baḥth. In terms of these specified qualities, the Ḥāshiyah of Surūrī Chalabī characteristically displays continuity with the genre of ḥāshiyah of the previous century.

Moreover, with rare exceptions, Ṣadr al-sharīʿah, in the fifteenth century-ḥāshiyah literature, was mostly read through his commentator al-Taftāzānī’s interpretations and criticisms. Consequently, al-Taftāzānī’s statements directly became the focal point of the discussions. As for the Ḥāshiyah of Surūrī Chalabī, on the other hand, the interlocutors are diversified in this respect. Surūrī dealt with Ṣadr al-sharīʿah’s own text and statements more frequently and directly compared to the literature of the previous century, and also, just like his contemporary Kamālpashazādah, preferred to directly discuss arguments of Ḥasan Chalabī, one of the ḥāshiyah writers of the previous century. Placing Ḥasan Chalabī’s interpretations and arguments at the center of his Ḥāshiyah, Surūrī has discussed the body of knowledge accumulated in the ḥāshiyah tradition on al-Talwīḥ through the criticisms of a scholar who belongs to the Ottoman scholarly bureaucracy within which he, too, was raised. It is a significant development that in the sixteenth century, the agenda of the ḥāshiyahs written by the Ottoman bureaucrat-scholars was primarily and directly determined by the knowledge produced in their scholarly circles. In contrast, the interpretations and arguments of al-Taftāzānī used to play a determining role in the ḥāshiyahs of the fifteenth century.

4. Some Issues Discussed in Ḥāshiyah

4.1. The Dependence of Fiqh on Uṣūl

The introductory chapters of uṣūl al-fiqh works discuss the position of fiqh in relation to other disciplines and analyses the connection between uṣūl al-fiqh and other fields as one of the significant part of the discussion on the postulates (mabādiʾ) of uṣūl al-fiqh. The nature of the relationship between fiqh and uṣūl al-fiqh has also been a central subject matter featured in this context.[84] Ṣadr al-sharīʿah, who deals with this issue from time to time, begins the introduction of his work with praise, stating that faith, which constitutes the roots of the praises ascending to God, is nourished from the runnels of sharīʿah, while the deeds that constitute the branches of praise are directed towards God.[85] Thereby, he refers to the discipline of theology, on which the faith is built, and its branches (furūʿ), the discipline of fiqh, on which the deeds are based.[86] Subsequently, in justifying why God is praised, he asserts that God “established the foundations (uṣūl) of the sharīʿah (jaʿala mumahhadāt al-mabānī) and thinned the edges of the branches of the sharīʿah (raqīqat al-ḥawāshī).”[87] In other words, Ṣadr al-sharīʿah argues that God determined the principles of uṣūl al-fiqh and also arranged the boundaries of the branches of fiqh (furūʿ al-fiqh).

While commenting on this section, al-Taftāzānī argues that the term sharīʿah in the phrase uṣūl al-sharīʿah encompasses the issues of all disciplines that are proven through reported indicants (al-adillah al-samʿiyyah) in addition to fiqh. In contrast, the uṣūl of the sharīʿah refers to general indicants (al-adillah al-kulliyyah) on which the sharīʿah is based. Accordingly, the expression “the furūʿ of the sharīʿah” i.e., furūʿ al-fiqh, refers to the detailed judgements explained in the discipline of fiqh. “The meanings (maʿānī) of the furūʿ of the sharīʿah,” on the other hand, refers to the particular causes (ʿilal) in each fiqh issue.[88]

According to al-Taftāzānī’s explanation, the foundations (mabānī) of uṣūl signify the theology (ʿilm al-dhāt wa-l-ṣifāt wa-l-nubuwwāt) on which the discipline of uṣūl is built.[89] In other words, al-Taftāzānī asserts that uṣūl al-fiqh is grounded on theology (kalām), while furūʿ al-fiqh is based on this uṣūl. Given al-Taftāzānī’s interpretation, Ṣadr al-sharīʿah, with this statement, emphasized that uṣūl al-fiqh is above fiqh and below kalām in terms of its rank. This means that the knowledge of the particular (juzʾī) judgments derived from particular (juzʾī) indicants depends on the knowledge of the position of general (kullī) indicants, which is the subject of uṣūl al-fiqh. In this regard, the knowledge of general indicants enables the mujtahid to achieve the legal judgments (al-aḥkām al-sharʿiyyah) in fiqh. Furthermore, the knowledge of the general indicants also depends on the knowledge of God and His attributes, the truthfulness of His messenger, and the confirmation of His messenger’s miracles. The discipline that encompasses all these issues and analyses the attributes of God, prophethood, imamate, the afterlife (maʿād), and other related matters according to the principles of Islam is kalām.[90]

Ḥasan Chalabī al-Fanārī considers the interpretation of al-Taftāzānī that “uṣūl al-fiqh is above fiqh and below theology in terms of its rank” inappropriate and criticizes this interpretation. According to this criticism, which seems to belong to Qāḍī Burhān al-Dīn,[91] the dependence (tawaqquf) of one thing’s knowledge on the other does not necessarily mean that the thing on which another thing depends is superior to the other in terms of dignity. For instance, the fact that the knowledge of the Qurʾān and Sunnah in uṣūl al-fiqh depends on Arabic does not require Arabic to be superior to uṣūl al-fiqh in terms of dignity. Ḥasan Chalabī al-Fanārī claims that this criticism can be responded to and expresses that in al-Taftāzānī’s statement, “the dependence of one thing’s knowledge on the other” means the dependence of the subsidiary on the primary. Moreover, this expression does not refer to the dependence of a discipline on the instrumental discipline (ʿilm al-ālat) it needs or another discipline that is indispensable for it.[92]

After stating that this answer is also problematic, Ḥasan Chalabī clarifies the dependence of fiqh on uṣūl al-fiqh with the need of a discipline to have an instrumental discipline. Therefore, according to him, it is not a misconception that fiqh is superior (ashraf) to uṣūl al-fiqh. In fact, if fiqh did not exist, uṣūl al-fiqh would not have evolved as a discipline. Furthermore, this discipline is called uṣūl al-fiqh because it is dignified with the fiqh contained in it. The mention of uṣūl al-fiqh as the primary and fiqh as the subsidiary does not eradicate this fact. At this point, Ḥasan Chalabī argues that the dependence of uṣūl al-fiqh and other sharʿī disciplines on theology is not in the sense that theology renders service to these disciplines, but in the sense that it is a source (ifāḍah) and a guide (riʾāsah) for them. Thereby, theology is more dignified than all other sharʿī disciplines.[93] As seen, although Ḥasan Chalabī acknowledges the dependence of fiqh on uṣūl al-fiqh, he does not interpret the nature of this dependence as a superiority in terms of dignity; but rather, he describes this dependence in terms of the need for instrumental discipline. Moreover, Ḥasan Chalabī not only considers uṣūl al-fiqh as an instrumental discipline for fiqh in this sense but also considers it subordinate to fiqh in terms of dignity.

Surūrī Chalabī criticizes this approach of Ḥasan Chalabī and argues that the dependence of fiqh on uṣūl al-fiqh does not merely consist of the need for service or instrumental discipline but that fiqh is dependent on uṣūl al-fiqh by means of being its source (ifāḍah). In his opinion, fiqh would not have come into existence if it were not for uṣūl al-fiqh, just as in the relation of a son to his father. Surūrī, who illustrates the need of a discipline for an instrumental discipline with the dependence of exegesis on the Arabic language, argues that the dependence of uṣūl al-fiqh on fiqh is based on a completely different reason.[94]

4.2. Criticism of Ashʿarī Uṣūlīs’ Definition of Judgement

One of the most interesting issues that Ṣadr al-sharīʿah brings up in al-Tawḍīḥ is the definition of judgment (ḥukm) which, according to him, constitutes a distinct point of divergence between the Ḥanafī and the Ashʿarī uṣūl tradition. After quoting the Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarī uṣūlīs’ definition of fiqh as “[t]he knowledge of the sharʿī practical judgments (aḥkām) derived from particular indicants,” Ṣadr al-sharīʿah deals with the concept of ḥukm in this definition. By the definition attributed to the Ashʿarī uṣūlīs, ḥukm is “the address (khiṭāb) of God in the form of necessitating (iqtiḍāʾ) or making optional (takhyīr), concerning the deeds of the responsible person (mukallaf).” On the other hand, some Ashʿarī uṣūlīs have added the phrase “by means of waḍʿī” to the expression “the address of God in the form of iqtiḍāʾ or takhyīr” in this definition so that it would also include the nonnormative (waḍʿī) judgments[95] such as occasion (sabab) and condition (sharṭ). Accordingly, while the addressing in the form of iqtiḍāʾ and takhyīr, regarding the deed of mukallaf is normative (taklīfī) judgment, the addressing that a situation is an occasion for or condition of such taklīfī judgment is a waḍʿī judgment.[96]

Explaining these statements, al-Taftāzānī reveals that the addition waḍʿ to definition of ḥukm, which Ṣadr al-sharīʿah attributes to some Ashʿarī uṣūlīs, was made in the criticisms of Muʿtazilah. Then some Ashʿarī uṣūlīs responded to this objection, while others paid attention to it. Within this framework, according to one of the criticisms of the Muʿtazilī uṣūlīs against the Ashʿarī uṣūlīs the definition “the address of God in the form of necessitating or making optional, concerning the deeds of the responsible person,” does not incorporate the waḍʿī judgments, such as the sunset being an occasion (sabab) of the prayer, the cleanliness (ṭahārah) being a condition (sharṭ) for the prayer, and the impurity (najāsah) being an obstacle (māniʿ) to the prayer.

According to the statement of al-Taftāzānī, some Ashʿarī uṣūlīs have paid attention to this criticism and added the phrase “by means of waḍʿ” to the expression “the address of God in the form of iqtiḍāʾ or takhyīr” in this definition. Thus, the definition is amended in such a way that it includes the waḍʿī judgments. Nonetheless, some of the Ashʿarī uṣūlīs have responded to this argument and objected to the premise mentioned in Muʿtazilah criticism that the address of waḍʿ (khiṭāb al-waḍʿ) is a judgment and thus have not labeled this address as a judgment. According to these uṣūlīs, the fact that other uṣūlīs refer to the address of waḍʿ as a judgment is a term, and there is no discussion of the terms. Furthermore, even if the premise that the address of waḍʿ is a judgment were to be admitted, the claim that this address remains outside the definition of judgment would not be accepted. Because, according to the aforementioned Ashʿarī uṣūlīs, the meaning implied by “iqtiḍāʾ or takhyīr” in the definition contains both explicit (ṣarīḥ) and implicit (ḍimnī) meanings. Moreover, the address of waḍʿ is the implicit meaning of this condition. In other words, the words “iqtiḍāʾ or takhyīr” in the definition explicitly refer to propositional judgments and implicitly to waḍʿī judgments. Hence, the fact that the setting of the sun is an occasion of obligation (wujūb) of the prayer means that prayer is obligatory (wājib) if this occasion occurs. On the other hand, the fact that cleanliness is a condition for prayer means that this condition is mandatory for prayer and that prayer is forbidden (ḥarām) if this condition is failed to be fulfilled. Similarly, being unclean is an obstacle to prayer, which means that prayer is forbidden with the state of uncleanness and that it is obligatory to eliminate this state of uncleanness if prayer is to be performed.[97]

Ḥasan Chalabī al-Fanārī argues that this answer, which al-Taftāzānī quotes from Ashʿarī uṣūlīs, is problematic. Accordingly, he raises a criticism against the statement that the meaning meant by iqtiḍāʾ or takhyīr in the definition of ḥukm includes explicit and implicit meanings. Based on this, the understanding of the meaning of the condition of iqtiḍāʾ and takhyīr in this definition is entirely irrelevant to the will of the one who utters this expression. In other words, the assertion that the meaning meant by this condition by the Ashʿarī uṣūlīs encompasses the explicit and implicit meanings of the expressions presupposes that the meaning depends on the will of the one who utters this expression. Whereas the understanding of the meaning of these expressions in the definition does not depend on the will of the one who utters this expression. Thus, for example, the claim that the implicit iqtiḍāʾ is understood or not understood in the fact of matter (fī nafs al-amr) from the expression iqtiḍāʾ is objected.[98]

For Surūrī Chalabī, who analyses the statements of al-Taftāzānī and the criticism of Ḥasan Chalabī through the ādāb al-baḥth, which determined the theoretical language of the post-classical era, the answer that al-Taftāzānī attributes to the Ashʿarī uṣūlīs is an objection with corroboration (manʿ maʿa l-sanad). Therefore, the opponent is required to prove the objected premise. On the contrary, the criticism brought by Ḥasan Chalabī is not aimed at demonstrating the premise to which al-Taftāzānī objected but at corroborating it. However, the criticism leveled against the corroboration imposed by the opponent is unacceptable according to experts in the rational disciplines (ahl al-naẓar).[99] As it can be clearly seen, after identifying the method by which al-Taftāzānī and Ḥasan Chalabī presented their arguments in ādāb al-baḥth, Surūrī Chalabī asserts that although what Ḥasan Chalabī should have done was to prove the premise which al-Taftāzānī objected, he was dealing with the corroboration adduced for the objection.[100] Thus, he subjects the objection of Ḥasan Chalabī to criticism on the grounds that it fails to adhere to the argumentation technique.

4.3. The Subject of Uṣūl al-fiqh Consisting of Indicants and Judgements

In the tradition of uṣūl al-fiqh, the subject matter (mawḍūʿ) of this discipline is a debated topic in the literature. Accordingly, while most of the uṣūlīs argued that the subject matter of uṣūl al-fiqh consists only of indicants (al-adillah), uṣūlīs such as al-Ghazālī argued that the subject matter of this discipline consists of judgments (al-aḥkām).[101] Ṣadr al-sharīʿah distinguished himself from both of these groups and, after stating in his al-Tawḍīḥ that the subject matter of uṣūl al-fiqh is sharʿī indicants and judgments, he demonstrated how these two constitute the subject matter of uṣūl al-fiqh through the phrases in al-Tanqīḥ and the explanations he provided for them. Based on this, the states of sharʿī indicants and the concepts concerning these indicants are analyzed within the scope of uṣūl al-fiqh. Moreover, in addition to the indicants, the states (i.e., essential attributes) of the judgments demonstrated by the indicants and the concepts concerning these judgments are analyzed. The concepts that are concerning judgments are legal judgment (ḥukm), the lawgiver (ḥākim), the act subject to the judgment (maḥkūm bih), and the person under obligation (maḥkūm ʿalayh).[102]

Ṣadr al-sharīʿah argues that it is highly likely that the expression “analyzing legal judgments in addition to the indicants in uṣūl al-fiqh” refers to two meanings. According to the first approach, which regards indicants and judgments as the subject matter of uṣūl al-fiqh, the issues of judgement in a work of uṣūl al-fiqh can be dealt with after the indicants. On the other hand, according to the second approach, which assigns the subject matter of uṣūl al-fiqh only to judgments, judgments can only be analyzed in the context of the issues that are introduced as an addition to uṣūl al-fiqh. Accordingly, uṣūl al-fiqh as a phrase means the indicants of fiqh, and as a discipline, it denotes the knowledge of the indicants in terms of proving the judgments. Hence, the issues arising from the judgment and related issues are excluded from the scope of this discipline, and their number is very few. Therefore, these issues are addressed in the works of uṣūl al-fiqh only as subordinate to and supplementary to the issues of uṣūl al-fiqh. Among these two explanations provided above, Ṣadr al-sharīʿah has preferred the first approach, which acknowledges that the subject matter of uṣūl al-fiqh is indicants and judgments.[103]

After stating that in uṣūl al-fiqh, in addition to the indicants, the judgments and essential attributes of the concepts concerning these judgments are also examined in his work Taghyīr al-Tanqīḥ, in which the statements of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah in al-Tanqīḥ and al-Tawḍīḥ are reconsidered, Kamālpashazādah –unlike Ṣadr al-sharīʿah– directly emphasizes that judgments are included in the subject matter of uṣūl al-fiqh, without mentioning two different possible explanations, and argues that this is the preferred view. Moreover, in the minhuwāt record, which is composed of the notes of the author in the work, Kamālpashazādah explains, with reference to Ṣadr al-sharīʿah, that the subject matter of uṣūl al-fiqh includes judgments, and then, argues that it is meaningless to speculate on the other possibility, which is the exclusion of matters of judgment from the discipline of uṣūl al-fiqh.[104] In other words, Kamālpashazādah criticizes Ṣadr al-sharīʿah since, after clearly expressing that the subject matter of uṣūl al-fiqh consists of indicants and judgments, he suggests that the phrase mentioned in the text can be explained in two different manners, and thus, regards the approach that excludes the matters of judgment from uṣūl al-fiqh as appropriate.

After citing the relevant statement of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah with the expression qawl al-muṣannif, Surūrī Chalabī reports the criticism of Kamālpashazādah, who died before him despite being his contemporary, with the expression qāla baʿḍ al-mutaʾakhkhirīn. Then, he responds to this criticism. Based on this, as Kamālpashazādah also stated, Ṣadr al-sharīʿah referred to the view he had previously preferred. Nevertheless, the view of some uṣūlīs, such as al-Āmidī, reflects the second approach, which excludes the judgments from the subject matter of uṣūl al-fiqh. In this regard, the words of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah refer to two different views. Yet, according to Surūrī Chalabī, although they would occasionally mention only their preferred view, it is among the customs of the authors to write their statements in such a way that both the preferred and the opposite views are contained.[105]

As it is seen, Kamālpashazādah criticized the approach of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah because Kamālpashazādah perceived the approach of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah, who mentioned possible interpretations including the opposite view after stating his preferred view, as a kind of contradiction. Surūrī Chalabī, on the other hand, does not find this to be a contradiction and argues that the previous statements of Ṣadr al-sharīʿah have been clear about the preferred view. However, like other authors of uṣūl, Ṣadr al-sharīʿah provides a place for different approaches in his work.

Conclusion

Al-Taftazānī’s works in various disciplines, such as theology, uṣūl al-fiqh, exegesis, rhetoric, and logic, were received with a high level of interest in Ottoman scholarly circles as well as in many other scholarly circles. Although it is known that his works were read in this circle in the early fifteenth century, the widespread production of knowledge and the intensive writing of ḥāshiyahs on his works took place, particularly in the second half of this century. In this era, approximately twenty scholars wrote ḥāshiyahs on al-Talwīḥ, and topics such as the al-muqaddimāt al-arbaʿ in the work laid the groundwork for the emergence of top-level intellectual debates. Authors such as ʿAlī Qushjī, Mullā Khusraw, Khojazādah Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muṣṭafá, Mullā Aḥmad al-Khayālī, Sāmsūnīzādah Ḥasan, Ḥasan Chalabī al-Fanārī, Mullā ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿArabī, Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muṣṭafá al-Kastalī, Khaṭībzādah Muḥyī al-Dīn, Ḥājīḥasanzādah Muḥammad, and Mullā Luṭfī were among the prominent scholars of the Ottoman scholarly circle who wrote ḥāshiyahs in this era. The scholars of the period concentrated on arguments rather than views in the ḥāshiyahs. They discussed the arguments adduced to support the views regarding their defect and invalidity, inconsistency, inappropriateness, and violation of the argumentation technique.

The number of works on al-Talwīḥ in the Ottoman scholarly circle witnessed a relative decrease in the sixteenth century. However, based on this survey, Muḥammad al-Bardaʿī, Kamālpashazādah, Abū l-Suʿūd Efendī, ʿAbd al-Ṣamad al-Ḥusaynī al-Ṭālishī, and Surūrī Chalabī maintained the practice of writing ḥāshiyah on al-Talwīḥ in this period. In addition to this decrease in literature, there was also a differentiation in terms of the interlocutors of the ḥāshiyahs written on al-Talwīḥ in this century. The Ḥāshiyah of Surūrī Chalabī, who was the tutor of Shāhzādah Muṣṭafá, the son of Suleiman I, constitutes one of the works in which this differentiation emerges most clearly. Surūrī, who primarily dealt with the arguments and interpretations of Ḥasan Chalabī in his critical ḥāshiyah, criticized this author, who lived in the previous century, at every opportunity he had and attempted to respond to Ḥasan Chalabī’s criticisms directed at al-Taftāzānī. On the other hand, Surūrī also criticized al-Taftāzānī at several points. Surūrī Chalabī’s extensive engagement with the interpretations and criticisms of Ḥasan Chalabī, a significant figure of the ḥāshiyah tradition, over the debates he compiled and the original evaluations he introduced against him, can be interpreted as his endeavor to open a space for his ḥāshiyah in the tradition. Another remarkable element of Surūrī’s effort is that, unlike the ḥāshiyahs written in the previous century in the Ottoman Empire, he devotes an important place to the thought produced in his own scholarly circle in the tradition of the ḥāshiyah of al-Talwīḥ by taking the statements of Ḥasan Chalabī to the center and discussing them directly. Regardless of his criticisms, his deeming these statements worthy of direct discussion demonstrates the fundamental importance that an Ottoman bureaucrat-scholar attributed to the intellectual circle in which he had grown up as a scholarly circle in which original thought was produced.

Another author whose statements are directly discussed by Surūrī Chalabī in his Ḥāshiyah, albeit to a lesser extent, is Ṣadr al-sharīʿah. In these sections, Surūrī sometimes criticizes al-Tawḍīḥ’s author, Ṣadr al-sharīʿah, and sometimes defends him against the criticisms leveled against him by one of his contemporaries, Kamālpashazādah, who died before him, in his Taghyīr al-Tanqīḥ. Surūrī’s response to these criticisms, which he reports with the word qīla indicating the weakness of the criticism or with the phrase qāla baʿḍ al-mutaʾakhkhirīn without naming him, constitutes a remarkable detail as it demonstrates that he considered Kamālpashazādah, one of the deceased Sheikh al-islām of Suleiman I, as an intellectual opponent. Furthermore, his rare reference to the criticisms of Qāḍī Burhān al-Dīn, one of the first ḥāshiyah writers of al-Talwīḥ in Bilād al-Rūm, indicates that Surūrī had taken into account a large number of ḥāshiyah written over a broad time in the tradition of ḥāshiyah that he inherited.

In comparison with the ḥāshiyahs written in the previous century, Surūrī Chalabī’s Ḥāshiyah also comes to the forefront with an argument-based writing style. Accordingly, stating that “the questioner (sāʾil) has no stance (madhhab) in the realm of inquiry and dialectics,” Surūrī Chalabī questioned the internal consistency of arguments or interpretations, discussed the compatibility of the argument raised for criticism with the argument being criticized, and checked whether the argument was designed in accordance with the principles and rules of ādāb al-baḥth. In this regard, while Surūrī Chalabī distinguished himself from the ḥāshiyah writers of the previous century by directly discussing the statements of al-Taftāzānī, Ṣadr al-sharīʿah, and the ḥāshiyah writers before his time, he also pursued the inherited tradition from the previous century with his argument-based writing style.

 

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

 

FUNDING

The author received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abū l-Suʿūd Efendī. Ḥāshiyah ʿalá l-Talwīḥ. Istanbul: Süleymaniye Library, Bağdatlı Vehbi, MS 2035.

Apaydın, H. Yunus. “Kadı Burhaneddin’in Tercihu’t-Tavzih Adlı Eseri.” Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 6 (1995): 33-45.

Arıcı, Müstakim. “Bir Otorite Olarak Seyyid Şerîf Cürcânî ve Osmanlı İlim Hayatındaki Yeri.” In İslâm Düşüncesinde Süreklilik ve Değişim, edited by M. Cüneyt Kaya, 61-95. Istanbul: Klasik Yayınları, 2015.

ʿAṭāʾī, Nawʿīzādah (as Nevʿîzâde Atâyî). Ḥadāʾiq al-ḥaqāʾiq fī takmilat al-Shaqāʾiq (as Hadâiku’l-Hakâ’ik fî Tekmileti’ş-Şakâ’ik: Nevʿîzâde Atâyî’nin Şakâ’ik Zeyli). 2 vols. Edited by Suat Donuk. Istanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2017.

Atçıl, Abdurrahman. Scholars and Sultans in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Bağcı, Ali. “Muslihiddin Mustafa b. Şaban Sürûrî’nin Şerhu Merâhi’l-Ervâh Adlı Eserinin Edisyon Kritiği.” Master’s thesis, Yalova: Yalova University, 2015.

Borsbuğa, Mustafa and Coşkun Borsbuğa. “Hatibzâde Muhyiddin Efendi’nin Hâşiye ʿale’l-Mukaddimâti’l-Erbaʿa Adlı Hâşiyesinin Tahkik ve Tahlili.” Tahkik İslami İlimler Araştırma ve Neşir Dergisi 4, no.2 (2021): 209-346.

Bozoğlu, Oğuz. “Kestelî ve Hâşiye ʿale’l-mukaddimâti’l-erbaʿ İsimli Eseri: Tahkîk ve Tahlîl.” Master’s thesis, Istanbul: Marmara University, 2019.

Çelik, İmam Rabbani. “XV. Asır Osmanlı Entelektüel Çevresi İçin Teftâzânî Ne İfade Eder?: Hâşiye Literatüründe Otorite İsim Olarak Teftâzânî.” In Osmanlı Düşüncesi: Kaynakları ve Tartışma Konuları, edited by Fuat Aydın, Metin Aydın, and Muhammet Yetim, 191-207. Istanbul: Mahya Yayıncılık, 2018.

Çelik, İmam Rabbani. “XV. yy. Osmanlı Düşüncesinde Telvîh Hâşiyeleri: Teklîfe Dair Tartışmalar.” PhD diss., Istanbul: Marmara University, 2020.

Dinç, Emine Nurefşan. “Kadı Burhâneddin’in Tercîhu’t-Tavzîh İsimli Eserinin Tahkiki ve Değerlendirmesi.” PhD diss., Istanbul: Marmara University, 2009.

Directorate of State Archives Ottoman Archives, Archive Document of the Topkapı Palace Museum [TS.MA.e], No. 177/2.

el-Rouayheb, Khaled. Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century: Scholarly Current in the Ottoman Empire and Maghreb. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

al-Fanārī, Ḥasan Chalabī. Ḥāshiyah ʿalá l-Talwīḥ. 3 vols. Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿah al-Khayriyyah, 1322 AH.

Göksu, Nazife. “Osmanlı Âlimi ve Dîvan Şairi Muslihuddin Mustafa es-Sürûrî’nin Hayatı ve ‘Tefsir-i Sûre-i Yûsuf’ Adlı Eserinin İncelenmesi.” Master’s thesis, Antalya: Akdeniz University, 2017.

Güldü, Şule. “Osmanlı Dönemi Fıkıh Usûlü Çalışmaları: Hüsün-Kubuh Zemininde Oluşan Mukaddimât-ı Erbaa Literatürü.” PhD diss., Samsun: Ondokuz Mayıs University, 2019.

Güleç, İsmail. “Gelibolulu Muslihuddin Sürûrî, Hayatı, Kişiliği, Eserleri ve Bahrü’l-Maʿârif İsimli Eseri.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları: The Journal of Ottoman Studies XXI (2001): 211-236.

Güleç, İsmail. “Sürûrî, Muslihuddin Mustafa.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), XXXVIII, 170-172.

Hidayatov, Rashadat. “Gelibolulu Muslihuddin Mustafa b. Şaban Sürûrî’nin Şerhu’l-Binâ Adlı Eserinin Tahkiki.” Master’s thesis, Istanbul: Marmara University, 2009.

Ḥusayn Ḥusām al-Dīn. Amasya Tārīkhi. 4 vols. Istanbul: Necm-i İstikbâl Matbaası, 1927.

İnce, Habibe Bozkaya. “Gelibolulu Sürūrī Muṣliḥi’d-dīn Muṣṭafā bin Şaʿbān: ‘Tefsîrü’l-Ḳur’āni’l-ʿAẓīme’ (51a-120b vr.) (İnceleme-Metin-Dizin-Tıpkıbasım).” Master’s thesis, Ankara: Ankara University, 2021.

İpşirli, Mehmet. “Nâib.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), XXXII, 312-313.

İpşirli, Mehmet. “Zekeriyyâ Efendi, Bayramzâde.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), XXXIV, 221-222.

al-Jurjānī, al-Sayyid al-Sharīf. Ḥāshiyat al-Talwīḥ. Edited by Emine Nurefşan Dinç. Istanbul: M. Ü. İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları, 2016.

Kamālpashazādah, Shams al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn Sulaymān. Ḥāshiyah ʿalá l-Talwīḥ. Istanbul: Süleymaniye Library, Halet Efendi, MS 163.

Kamālpashazādah, Shams al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn Sulaymān. Taghyīr al-Tanqīḥ. Istanbul: Köprülü Library, Mehmed Asım Bey, MS 53.

Kātib Chalabī, Ḥājī Khalīfah Muṣṭafá ibn ʿAbd Allāh. Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī l-kutub wa-l-funūn. 2 vols. Edited by Mehmet Şerefeddin Yaltkaya and Kilisli Rifat Bilge. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 1971.

Köksal, A. Cüneyd. Fıkıh Usulünün Mahiyeti ve Gayesi. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İSAM Yayınları, 2008.

Kurtgel, Ayberk. “Gelibolulu Sürūrī Muṣliḥi’d-dīn Muṣṭafā bin Şaʿbān: ‘Tefsîrü’l-Ḳur’āni’l-ʿAẓīme’ (121a-191a Varakları Arası) (İnceleme-Metin-Dizin-Tıpkıbasım).” Master’s thesis, Ankara: Ankara University, 2021.

Özen, Şükrü. “Teftâzânî.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), XL, 299-308.

Özer, Hasan. “Ali Kuşçu ve ‘Hâşiye ale’t-Telvîh’ Adlı Eseri.” İslam Hukuku Araştırmaları Dergisi 13 (2009): 361-392.

Özer, Hasan. “Molla Samsûnîzâde’nin Taʿlîka ʿale’l-Muḳaddimâti’l-Erbaʿa Adlı Risâlesinin Tahkikli Neşri.” Tahkik İslami İlimler Araştırma ve Neşir Dergisi 1, no. 1 (2018): 169-240.

Öztürk, Mustafa Bilal. “Muslihuddin Kestelî’nin Ḥâşiyetü’s-sugrâ ʿale’l-muḳaddimâti’l-erbaʿa Adlı Eseri: Tahlil ve Tahkik.” Kader 18, no. 2 (2020): 666-724.

Öztürk, Mustafa Bilal. “Mukaddimât-ı Erbaa Hâşiyelerinde Kelâmî Tartışmalar (Alâeddin Arabî Bağlamında).” PhD diss., Izmir: Dokuz Eylül University, 2020.

Qāḍī Burhān al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad. Tarjīḥ al-Tawḍīḥ. In Kadı Burhâneddin’in Tercîhu’t-Tavzîh İsimli Eseri: Tahkik ve Değerlendirme. Edited by Emine Nurefşan Dinç. Istanbul: Marmara University, 2009.

Repp, R. C., The Mufti of Istanbul: A Study in the Development of the Ottoman Learned Hierarchy. London: Ithaca Press, 1986.

Ṣadr al-sharīʿah al-thānī ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Masʿūd ibn Tāj al-sharīʿah ʿUmar. al-Tawḍīḥ sharḥ al-Tanqīḥ. Along with al-Taftāzānī’s al-Talwīḥ ilá kashf ḥaqāʾiq al-Tanqīḥ. Edited by Muḥammad ʿAdnān Darwīsh. Beirut: Dār al-Arqam, 1998.

Soyer, Emel. “XVII. yy. Osmanlı Divan Bürokrasisindeki Değişimlerin Bir Örneği Olarak Mühimme Defterleri.” Master’s thesis, Istanbul University, 2007.

Surūrī Chalabī. Ḥāshiyah ʿalá l-ʿInāyah. Istanbul: Süleymaniye Library, İsmihan Sultan. MS 128.

Surūrī Chalabī. Ḥāshiyah ʿalá l-Talwīḥ. Istanbul: Murat Molla Library. MS 648.

Şafak, Yakup. “Sürūrī’’nin Bahrü’l-Ma’ārif’i ve Enīsü’l-’Uşşāk ile Mukayesesi.” PhD diss., Erzurum: Atatürk University, 1991.

al-Taftāzānī, Saʿd al-Dīn Masʿūd ibn ʿUmar. al-Talwīḥ ilá kashf ḥaqāʾiq al-Tanqīḥ. 2 vols. Along with Ṣadr al-sharīʿah al-thānī’s al-Tawḍīḥ sharḥ al-Tanqīḥ. Edited by Muḥammad ʿAdnān Darwīsh. Beirut: Dār al-Arqam, 1998.

al-Ṭālishī, ʿAbd al-Ṣamad al-Ḥusaynī. Ḥāshiyah ʿalá l-Talwīḥ. Istanbul: Murat Molla Library, MS 646.

Ṭāshkuprīzādah, Abū l-Khayr ʿIṣām al-Dīn Aḥmad Efendī. al-Shaqāʾiq al-Nuʿmāniyyah fī ʿulamāʾ al-Dawlah al-ʿUthmāniyyah. Edited by Ahmed Subhi Furat. Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1985.

Turan, Şerafettin. “Bayezid, Şehzade.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), V, 230-231.

Turan, Şerafettin. “Mustafa Çelebi.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), XXXI, 290-292.

Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM). “Türkiye Kütüphaneleri Veri Tabanı.” February 14, 2022. http://ktp.isam.org.tr/?url=ktpgenel/findrecords.php

Weiss, Bernard G. The Search for God’s Law: Islamic Jurisprudence in the Writings of Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 1992.

Yıldırım, İlyas. “Kemâlpaşazâde’nin Tenkîh Eleştirisi.” In Osmanlı’da İlm-i Fıkıh: Âlimler, Eserler, Medreseler. Edited by Mürteza Bedir, Necmettin Kızılkaya, and Hüseyin Sağlam, 54-79. Istanbul: İSAR Yayınları, 2017.

Yıldırım, İlyas. “Osmanlı Ulemasının Fıkıh Usulü Çalışmalarına Katkısı: Hasan Çelebi ve ve Telvîh Hâşiyesi Örneği.” Trabzon İlahiyat Dergisi 6, no. 1 (2019): 189-213.