Özet:

The focus of this article is twofold. First, what Sadr al-Shariah intended with the ta'dîl is being studied historically in terms of the relationship between Mâturîdism and Ash‘arism. This relationship is related to the transformation of Ash‘arism within itself. Ash'arism acquired a systematic structure with Bâkillânî and Ibn Fûrek and completed its encounter with Peripateticism at the hands of Juwaynî, Ghazalî and Râzî. This process is called the later period and it showed itself at the highest level at Râzî. The process in Mâturîdism does not occur at the same time as in Ash‘arism. Accordingly, in Mâturîdism, references to the founder coincide with him about a century and a half after his death. The historical process was considered from the point of view of the relationship of the two schools to each other. The transformation that Mâturîdism underwent was connected with Ash‘arism through Râzî. In this regard, Razi's discussions with Hanafi scholars around Mawarannahr and the results of these discussions were based on the study of the adaptation of Mâturîdism to the new language. In the structure formed by Razi, the interlocutor of kalam is theoretical philosophy as whole. As a result of his visit, the search for harmony in this language began among the Mâturîdite theologicans. Râzî’s use of Ibn Sînâ philosophy as a concept and content made him stand out from his interlocutors. One of the first and uppermost forms of adaptation to this new language in Mâturîdism - along with Shams al-Din al-Samarqandî- was found in Sadr al-Shariah. In this regard, the article analyzes the activity of Sadr al-Shariah, which we conceptualize as a ta'dîl, on the relationship between the two groups in question historically and between religious thought and philosophical thought in general. Sadr al-Shariah’s ta‘dil represents the encounter of Mâturîdism with philosophy. Although his fiqh aspect is mostly highlighted in the works, it seems that the scholars cited by Sadr al-Shariah in his works are scholars from the fields of logic, kalâm, philosophy and usul. His works in the fields of logic, usul, kalâm and astronomy also include an evaluation of the tradition before him. The change identified as ta'dîl is only a determination specific to its activity in the science of kalâm. Further studies are needed to understand what his purpose is in the other sciences in question. In the second focus of the study, this proposal is based on the mental existence discussions. This question has been chosen only as an exemplary issue on which our proposal about ta‘dîl. The purpose is not to evaluate the opinions of the scholars in question. Thus, the topic was not discussed in general, restricted only with discussions of the nature of understanding in Isharat. Sadr al-Sharia aims with ta'dîl, as mentioned above, new languages and interlocutors. Sadr al-Shariah deals with Ibn Sina's theses on the mental existence. However, in doing so, he also deals with the interpretations of Tûsî and Râzî. In his commentary, Razi raises objections to Ibn Sina, while Tûsî answers Râzî's objections in his own commentary. Sadr al-Shariah, on the other hand, questions the strength of Tûsî's answers to Râzî. Râzî's objections to the nature of understanding pose problems that arise if the external truth and the mental image are considered identical. While presenting his objections, Râzî lists his criticisms on the evidence and some cases on the result reached. Tûsî, however, tried to show that Râzî's criticism was unfounded. Sadr al-Shariah enters the discussion through the statements of Tûsî. Sadr al-Shariah was not only content with quoting the statements made during the discussion, but also adopted a way to arbitrate Râzî's objections answered by Tûsî. Sadr al-Shariah does not accept the mental existence as a theory but suggests that it can only be accepted metaphorically. According to him, the external being is not the part of mental being. Those who are understood mentally are understood with respect to their imagined external beings. He did not accept such recognitions as the separation of existence and essence, human soul’s perception, and preserving essence and changing the influence of essence according to the location. He suggested that understanding of the mind would be explained as in the fact that the accident is the “qâim of an atom”. The article excluded Sadr al-Sharia’s mental existence views in general, because his views on existence were out of focus. Therefore, only discussions about the nature of understanding are touched upon here. The historical background reading offered in the first part is based on the change in the interlocutor, content and language presented in the second part. Thus, the change of addressee, content, and language tried to be shown in the second part and through structure of the objections and evidence.

Anahtar Kelimeler: