Özet:

Qutb al-dīn-zāda al-Izniqī (d. 885/1480) is one of the important scholar-sūfī figures who represented Akbarism in the Ottoman Empire due to his interpretation of Sadr al-dīn Qūnawī’s (d. 673/1274) Miftāh al-ghayb (The Key to the Unseen). In addition to this commentary, he wrote many works and treatises on different subjects such as the interpretation of dreams, the moral-Ishārī interpretation of the wisdom of the creation of lice. He devoted one of these treatises to the issue of the eternal remaining of unbelievers in hell (khulūd al-kuffār) and the defense of al-Ghāzalī’s views on this issue. Although he said that he wrote this treatise upon the request of his close friend Mahmūd Pasha (d. 878/1474), - who is one of the grand viziers of Fātih Sultan Mehmed (AR. 1451-1481),- he listed many reasons for the compose of the treatise. Contrary to Qutb al-dīn-zāda, today’s studies include the views of many names from the companions (al-sahābīs) who have expressed their opinions on this subject, but al-Ghazzālī’s views are not included. In the treatise, Qutb al-dīn-zāda mentions the existence of those who saw what al-Ghazzālī said on this issue outside the consensus and were bad suspicious for him in his own time. This indicates that al-Ghazzālī’s views on this issue were widely known and discussed in the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century AD. Considering that Qutb al-dīn-zāda al-Izniqī’s successor, Bahā al-dīn-zāda (d. 952/1545), placed al-Ghāzalī at the center of the issue, it is seen that this situation continued in the same way in the next century. In this treatise, he revealed al-Ghāzalī’s opinions on the aforementioned subject and argued that al-Ghazzālī’s views were not necessarily out of consensus, generally with narrations and rational/literary interpretations. In this defense, he focused on al-Ghazzālī’s views in his works titled Ihyā and Faysal al-tafriqa. Since he centered on defending al-Ghazzālī, he did not refer to the comments of the Akbarī Sufīs, of which he was a member, on the subject. His treatise is not limited to the defense of al-Ghazzālī’s views on the subject. In addition, he tried to answer possible questions that may arise while addressing the issue, tried to answer new questions that would arise from the answers he gave and analyzed the evidence of opposing views in detail. All these efforts are related to his desire to encompass the whole subject. This attitude shows itself throughout the treatise. Another point he paid attention to in the treatise was that he wanted to defend the issue with the data of the Ahl al-Sunnah theology. That is to say, in his defense of al-Ghazzālī; however, he refers to the views of Mutazili theologians, his analysis that these views are compatible with the theology of the Ahl al-Sunnah reveals his Ahl al-Sunnah sensitivity. In this respect, Qutb al-dīn-zāda al-Izniqī's treatise stands out by presenting al-Ghazzālī’s views and defense on this issue, as well as by trying to answer possible objections that may be raised against al-Ghazzālī while handling the issue, and by analyzing the evidence of opposing views in detail. In addition, while seeking a solution to the issue, it is of great importance in terms of establishing the distinction between corporal (jasadānī) torment and spiritual (rūḥānī) torment and interpreting the hadiths of intercession (shafāah) in the context of the issue. In the appendix, there is the critical edition of the treatise, corrected by the author and added notes.

Anahtar Kelimeler: