معاني سورة الطارق

Abstract: Living in the 18th century, a prolific era of Ottoman logic studies, Dāwūd al-Qārisī was a prominent scholar and logician who excelled in studies of Arabic Linguistics, Kalām, Hadith and Logic. Known as having a particular interest in Imam Birgivī (d. /) and his teaching, and serving as an instructor (mudarris) after living in Cairo and inheriting the scientific tradition of Egypt and the Maghrib, al-Qārisī’s brilliancy in logic can be seen when his works on logic are examined. In this study, we prepare the critical text edition of al-Qārisī’s Commentary on al-Abharī’s short but famous treatise Īsāghūjī. The edition also includes reviewing and assessment of the work. After giving information about the life and works of al-Qārisī, we introduce and describe twelve works of logic authored by him which have not been previously identified or deeply studied. We have identified that al-Qārisī authored two other commentaries, one on Najm al-dīn al-Kātibī’s famous al-Shamsiyya, the other on Sa‘d al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-Mantıq wa al-Kalām. He also authored al-Īsāghūjī al-jadīd as an alternative for Īsāghūjī. After giving information about all identified copies of the edited work, we present al-Qārisī’s original ideas, critics and contributions to logic issues against such prominent logicians and commentators as Muḥammad ibn Ḥamza al-Fanārī (/) and Ḥusām al-dīn Ḥasan al-Kātī (/). Summary: Dāwūd al-Qārisī (Dāwūd al-Qārsī) was a versatile and prolific 18th century Ottoman scholar who studied in Istanbul and Egypt and then taught for long years in various centers of learning like Egypt, Cyprus, Karaman, and Istanbul. He held high esteem for Mehmed Efendi of Birgi (Imām Birgivī/Birgilī, d), out of respect for whom, towards the end of his life, al-Qārisī, like Birgivī, occupied himself with teaching in the town of Birgi, where he died in and was buried next to Birgivî Better known for his following works on Arabic language and rhetoric and on the prophetic traditions (hadith): Sharḥ uṣūl al-ḥadīth li’l-Birgivī; Sharḥ Ḳaṣīdat al-nūniyya (two commentaries, in Arabic and Turkish); Şarḥ Amsilat al-mukhtalifa fi al-ṣarf (two commentaries, in Arabic and Turkish); Sharḥ Bināʾ; Sharḥ ʿAvāmil; and Sharḥ Izhār al-asrār, al-Qārisī has actually composed textbooks in quite different fields. Hence the hundreds of manuscript copies of his works in world libraries. Many of his works were also recurrently printed in the Ottoman period. One of the neglected aspects of al-Qārisī is his identity as a logician. Although he authored ambitious and potent works in the field of logic, this aspect of him has not been subject to modern studies. Even his bibliography has not been established so far (with scattered manuscript copies of his works and incomplete catalogue entries). This article primarily and in a long research based on manuscript copies and bibliographic sources, identifies twelve works on logic that al-Qārisī has authored. We have clarified the works that are frequently mistaken for each other, and, especially, have definitively established his authorship of a voluminous commentary on al-Kātibī’s al-Shamsiyya, of which commentary a second manuscript copy has been identified and described together with the other copy. Next is handled his most famous work of logic, the Sharh al-Isāghūjī, which constitutes an important and assertive ring in the tradition of commentaries on Isāghūjī. We describe in detail the nine manuscript copies of this work that have been identified in various libraries. The critical text of al-Qārisī’s Sharh al-Isāghūjī, whose composition was finished on 5 March , has been prepared based on the following four manuscripts: (1) MS Kayseri Raşid Efendi Library, No. , ff.1v-3v, dated , that is, only one year after the composition of the work; (2) MS Bursa Inebey Yazma Eser Library, Genel, NoB, ffvv, dated ; (3) MS Millet Library, Ali Emiri Efendi Arapça, No. , ffvr, dated ; (4) MS Beyazıt Yazma Eser Library, Beyazıt, No. , ffvv, dated 8 March While preparing the critical text, we have applied the Center for Islamic Studies (Islam Araştırmaları Merkezi, ISAM)’s method of optional text choice. The critical text is preceded by a content analysis. al-Qārisī is well aware of the preceding tradition of commentary on Isāghūjī, and has composed his own commentary as a ‘simile’ or alternative to the commentary by Mollâ Fanârî which was famous and current in his own day. al-Qārisī’s statement “the commentary in one day and one night” is a reference to Mollā Fanārī who had stated that he started writing his commentary in the morning and finished it by the evening. al-Qārisī, who spent long years in the Egyptian scholarly and cultural basin, adopted the religious-sciences-centered ‘instrumentalist’ understanding of logic that was dominant in the Egypt-Maghrib region. Therefore, no matter how famous they were, he criticized those theoretical, long, and detailed works of logic which mingled with philosophy; and defended and favored authoring functional and cogent logic texts that were beneficial, in terms of religious sciences, to the seekers of knowledge and the scholars. Therefore, in a manner not frequently encountered in other texts of its kind, he refers to the writings and views of Muhammad ibn Yūsuf al-Sanūsī (d), the great representative of this logical school in the Egyptian-Maghrib region. Where there is divergence between the views of the ‘earlier scholars’ (mutaqaddimūn) like Ibn Sînâ and his followers and the ‘later scholars’ (muta’akhkhirūn), i.e., post-Fakhr al-dīn al-Rāzī logicians, al-Qārisī is careful to distance himself from partisanship, preferring sometimes the views of the earliers, other times those of the laters. For instance, on the eight conditions proposed for the realization of contradiction, he finds truth to be with al-Fārābī, who proposed “unity in the predicative attribution” as the single condition for the realization of contradiction. Similarly, on the subject matter of Logic, he tried to reconcile the mutaqaddimūn’s notion of ‘second intelligibles’ with the muta’akhkhirūn’s notion of ‘apprehensional and declarational knowledge,’ suggesting that not much difference exists between the two, on the grounds that both notions are limited to the aspect of ‘known things that lead to the knowledge of unknown things.’