Kullanım Kılavuzu
Neden sadece 3 sonuç görüntüleyebiliyorum?
Sadece üye olan kurumların ağından bağlandığınız da tüm sonuçları görüntüleyebilirsiniz. Üye olmayan kurumlar için kurum yetkililerinin başvurması durumunda 1 aylık ücretsiz deneme sürümü açmaktayız.
Benim olmayan çok sonuç geliyor?
Birçok kaynakça da atıflar "Soyad, İ" olarak gösterildiği için özellikle Soyad ve isminin baş harfi aynı olan akademisyenlerin atıfları zaman zaman karışabilmektedir. Bu sorun tüm dünyadaki atıf dizinlerinin sıkça karşılaştığı bir sorundur.
Sadece ilgili makaleme yapılan atıfları nasıl görebilirim?
Makalenizin ismini arattıktan sonra detaylar kısmına bastığınız anda seçtiğiniz makaleye yapılan atıfları görebilirsiniz.
 Görüntüleme 69
 İndirme 39
İsmail Sirâceddin Sirvânî’nin (ol. 1269/1853) Vahdet-i Vucûd Ile Vahdet-i Suhûd Yorumu
2020
Dergi:  
Eskiyeni
Yazar:  
Özet:

Kuruluşundan bugüne kadar kelâm ilminde mümkünlerin varlığının hakikiliğe olan güçlü vurgudan ilk dönem sûfîleri, “bir şey görmedim, ancak Allah’ı gördüm” ve “hac yaptım, beyti görmedim, beytin Rabbini gördüm” gibi ifadelerle farklılaşmaya başlamıştır. Daha sonra ise bu farklılaşma İbnü’l-Arabî (öl. 638/1240) ile birlikte mümkünlerin varlığının hakikiliğini yok sayan, diğer bir ifadeyle mutlak birliğe (mutlak varlığa) dayalı farklı bir tevhid anlayışıyla neticelenmiştir. Mümkünlerin harici varlığını bir şekilde yok sayan söz konusu mutlak varlığa dayalı birlik anlayışını, daha sonra İmam-ı Rabbânî (öl. 1034/1624) müşahede kavramı etrafında yeniden yorumlamış ve mümkünlerin varlığının hakikiliğine tekrar vurgu yapmıştır. Öte yandan İmâm-ı Rabbânî, İbnü’l-Arabî’ye nispet ettiği vahdet-i vücûd düşüncesinin seyrüsülûkun başlarında uğranılan bir seviye, vahdet-i şuhûdun ise seyrüsülûkün nihayeti olduğunu kabul etmiştir. Bu tespitlerinden hareketle de vahdet-i vücûd düşüncesini eleştirmiştir. İmâm-ı Rabbânî’nin vahdet-i vücûd eleştirilerinin gerekçelerini uzatmak mümkündür. Bu çalışmada ilk dönem sûfîlerinden nakledilen tevhid yorumlarından hareketle vahdet-i vücûd ile vahdet-i şuhûd düşüncesinin ilk dönem tasavvuf düşüncesinden temelleri tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu tespit yapılırken vahdet-i şuhûd düşüncesine dayalı kırk iki risale telif eden İsmail Sirâceddin Şirvânî’nin (öl. 1269/1853) görüş ve yorumlarına başvurulmuştur. Bu tespitlerde yardımcı unsur, İsmail Sirâceddin Şirvânî’nin, sûfîlerin dönemlere göre oluşturdukları tevhid yorumlarını üç grup altında toplamasıdır. (i) İkili gerçek varlık üzerine bina edilen tevhid yorumu. Bu yorum, kelamcıların tevhid yorumu ile benzerlik arz eden İbnü’l-Arabî öncesi sûfîlerinin tevhid yorumudur. (ii) Varlıkta değil, müşahedede birliği esas alan tevhid yorumu. Bu yorum, başta İmâm-ı Rabbânî olmak üzere Müceddidî sûfîlerin kabul ettiği tevhid yorumudur/vahdet-i şuhûd. (iii) Varlıkta birliği esas alan tevhid yorumu. Bu yorum, başta İbnü’l-Arabî olmak üzere Ekberî sûfîlerin kabul ettiği tevhid yorumudur/vahdet-i vücûd. Birinci grupta ilk dönem sûfîlerini ve ikinci grupta vahdet-i şuhûdu kastettiği halde böyle bir isimlendirmeye gitmeyen Şirvânî, üçüncü gruba ait tevhid anlayışının ise vahdet-i vücûdu kâil sûfîlere ait olduğunu açıkça belirtmiştir. Şirvânî’ye göre birinci gruptaki sûfîlerin varlık ve âlem görüşü şöyle özetlenebilir: Âlem, Hak Teâlâ’nın îcâd etmesiyle hariçte gerçekten cevher veya araz olarak mevcuddur. Bu gruptaki sûfîler, varlıklarını ödünç ve gölge-hayal olarak sayarlar. Mahv ve vusul vaktinde ödünç olan varlıklarını, dahası âleme olan taalluklarını unutur ve âlemi serap zanneder ve şöyle derler: ‘Varlıkta Allah’tan başkası yoktur.’ Sahv ve fark vakti ödünç aldıkları varlık elbiselerini giyerler ve âlemin varlığını ikrar eder ve şöyle derler: ‘Allah’tan başka Ma’bûd yoktur.’ Bu kimseler, Kitâb, sünnet ve icma’ya uyan ve âlemin varlığı hususunda kelamcılardan ehl-i sünnete muvafakat eden kimselerdir. Şirvânî’ye göre kelamcıların bu gruptaki sûfîlerden ayrıldıkları nokta ise şudur: Kelamcılar, sadece âlemin zahirine nazar ederler ve sahv/ayıklık ehlidirler. Sûfîler ise sekr ve sahva da nazar ederler. Çünkü sûfîler sahv ve mahv/fenâ ehlidir. Sûfîlerden bu grup ile kelâmcılar arasındaki tartışma hakiki değil, lafzidir. Şirvânî’ye göre ikinci gruptaki sûfîlerin varlık ve âlem görüşü şöyle özetlenebilir: Âlem, hariçte mevcuddur. Ancak Hakla kāim gölge bir varlıkla, gölgenin asılla kāim olması gibi mevcuddur. Hâsılı, âlem Hak’tan uzanan bir gölgedir. Yani âlem, Hakk’ın mekânı gerektirmeyen manevi tarafından uzanan bir gölgedir. Bu gölgede Hak Teâlâ’nın sıfatları yansımaktadır. Âlemin sıfatları Hak Teâlâ’nın sıfatlarının yansımasından ibarettir. Mesela bir kimsenin kudreti, Hakk’ın kudretinin yansımasıdır. Bir şahsın zâtı Hak Teâlâ’nın zâtının gölgesi, sıfatları da O’nun sıfatlarının yansımasıdır. Şirvânî’ye göre üçüncü gruptaki sûfîlerin varlık ve âlem görüşü şöyle özetlenebilir: Âlemin hariçte hakikaten varlığı yoktur. Aksine âlem, sadece ilmen bir varlığa sahiptir. Şirvânî’ye göre bu gruptaki sûfîler, gölge varlıktan görülen şeylerin Hak mertebede olduğunu iddia eder ve nefsü’l-emirde bu şeylerin sırf yokluk olduğunu söylerler. Bu görüşe göre âlemin hakikati, Hak Teâlâ’nın hakikatinin aynı oluyor. Dolayısıyla Vâcib Teâlâ’yı vücûbî ve imkânî sıfatlarla vasf ederler. Şirvânî’ye göre bu görüşü iddia edenler Hakk’a ulaşmış kimselerden olsalar da üzerlerine sayılamayacak derecede şer’î ve aklî mahzurlar varit olur. Vahdet-i vücûdu kabul eden bu sûfîlere göre hariçteki mevcud sadece birdir ve O da Hak Teâlâ’nın vücududur. O’ndan gayrısı ise sırf yokluktur. Şirvânî’nin Risâleler’inin vahdet-i vücûd ile vahdet-i şuhûd literatürüne katkısına gelince bilhassa tevhidle ilgili ilk altı risalesinin bağlamı, bize ilk dönemden kendisine kadarki sûfîlerin tevhidle ilgili görüşlerini süreklilik içinde değerlendirme imkânı verdiğini ifade etmek gerekir. Şirvânî’nin Risâleleri ayrıca sûfîlerin tevhid anlayışları arasındaki farklılıkları üçlü taksim içerisinde tespit etmesi ve kelamcılarla mukayeseli bir şekilde sunması açısından kıymetlidir. Şirvânî’nin söz konusu bu üçlü taksiminden çıkarılacak sonuç, ilk dönem sûfîler ile vahdet-i şuhûda kail sûfîlerin tevhid anlayışı diğer bir ifadeyle birinci ve ikinci grupta zikredilen tevhid anlayışı aklî ve şer’î mahzurlardan yoksundur ve kelamcıların tevhid anlayışına mutabıktır. Ona göre üçüncü grupta zikredilen tevhid anlayışı ise aklî ve şer’î mahzurlarla malul ve kelamcıların tevhid anlayışına mutabık değildir. Ancak ona göre nihai kertede vahdet-i vücûdçuların vahdet-i vücûddan ne kastettiklerini kendilerine bırakmak lazımdır. Sirâceddin Şirvânî’nin Risâleler’deki sunumundan anlaşıldığına göre İmam-ı Rabbânî’nin tevhidle ilgili kanaatleri İbnü’l-Arabî ve kelamcıların görüşlerinin arasında bir yerde durmaktadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Ismael Is The Wicked Man. 1269/1853) Vahdet-i Body and Vahdet-i Suhûd
2020
Dergi:  
Eskiyeni
Yazar:  
Özet:

Since the inception of the science of Kalām (Islamic Theology) to this day, the early Sufis began to set themselves apart in their prodigious emphasis on the existence of the 'possible' (mumkin) with expressions such as, "I did not see anything but God," and "I performed the Hajj-pilgrimage, I did not see the House [of the Kabah], I saw [only] the Master of the House." Thereafter, this distinction culminated with Ibn al-'Arabī (d. 638/1240) that he disregards the existence of the 'possible things' (mumkināt), that is to say, in their divergent understanding of God's Oneness (tawḥīd) based on absolute unity (absolute existence). The concept of unity based on absolute existence, where the existence of the 'possible things' is neglected, was then re-interpreted around the concept of mushāhadah (witnessing) by Imām Rabbānī (d. 1034/1624) and he reemphasized the truth of the existence of the 'possible things'. On the other hand, Imām Rabbānī accepted the thought of unity of existence (waḥdah al-wujūd) which he attributed to Ibn al-'Arabī as a level visited in the beginning-ning of the sufi journey and regarded unity of vision (waḥdah al-shuhūd) as the end of the sufi journey. Based on this determination, he criticized the idea of unity of existence-ence. It is possible to extend the reasons for Imām Rabbānī's criticism on unity of existence. In this study, it is tried to determine the basics of unity of existence and unity of vision from the Sufi thought in the early period, based on the comments on uneness by the early period sufists. In making this determination, the views Ismāīl Sirāj al-Dīn al-Shirwānī (d. 1269/1853), who wrote forty-two treatises based on the idea of unity of vision, were used. Helpful element in these determinations is that Ismāīl Sirāj al-Dīn al-Shirwānī gath-ered the interpretations of Oneness formed by the Sufis under three groups. (i) Interpretation of Oneness based on binary real assets. This interpretation is the interpre-tation of the Oneness by the Sufis before Ibn al-'Arabī, which is similar to the inter-pretation of theologians (ii) Unification of Oneness based on unity in observation, not in existence. This interpretation is the interpretation of Oneness accepted by the Mujaddidī Sufis, especially Imām Rabbānī/unity of vision. (iii) Unity interpretation based on unity in existence. This interpretation is the interpretation of the Oneness accepted by Ibn al-'Arabī and Akbari Sufis/unity of existence. In the first part though al-Shirwānī refers to the first period Sufis and in the second part he points to waḥdah al-shuhūd (unity of vision). But he did not aim such conceptualization. He made it clear that the understanding of Tawhid (oneness) of the third part belonged to the pro waḥdah al-shuhūd (unity of existence) Sufis. According to al-Shirwānī, the views of the Sufis in the first group on existence and world can be summarized as follows: The real world is present as a substance or acci-dents with the creation of God. Sufis in this group considers their existence as lent and shadow-imagination. They forget his assets borrowed at the time of destruction and union, and their attachment to the world and think of the world as a mirage and say, 'There is no other than Allah in being. At the time of clearance and recognition they wear their clothes, which they borrow at the time of clearance and recognition and assume the existence of the realm and say, "There is no divinity other than Allah." These are those who follow the Book, Sunnah and the Consensus of Islamic scholars (Ijmā'), and the theologians agree to the Ahl al-Sunnah about the existence of the world. According to al-Shirwānī, the point where the theologians are separated from the Sufis in this group is the following: Theologians only consider the realms of the world and are capable of clearness (sahw). Sufis, on the other hand, look at trance and abstinence, because the Sufis are clearness and transition (mahw/fanā) people. The discussion between this group of Sufis and the theologians is not actual, but literal. According to al-Shirwānī, the opinion of the Sufis in the second group on existence and world can be summarized as follows: World externally exists. A shadow being dependent on Truth means that the shadow being exists like the original. So, the realm is a shadow that stretches from the truth. In other words, the world is a shadow that lies by the spiritual side of Right which does not require the space. The attributes of the truth are reflected in this shade. The attributes of the world consists of the reflection of the attributes of the truth. For example, a person’s might is a reflection of the might of the Truth. Self of a person is the shadow of the self of the truth, and his attributes are the reflection of his attributes. According to al-Shirwānī, the view on existence and world of Sufis in the third group can be summarized as follows: There is no real external existence for the world. On the contrary, the world only has a cognitive existence. According to al-Shirwānī, the Sufis in this group claim that the things seen from the shadow entity are in the rank of Truth, and these things are merely absent in nafs al-amr. According to this view, the reality of the realm is the mirror for the reality of God. Therefore, they qualify necessarily existence (Vājib al-vujud) in terms of necessary and possible attributes. According to al-Shirwānī, even though those who claim this view are from those who have reached the Truth, there will be a number of ecclesiastical and rational obstacles. According to these Sufis, who accepts the unity of existence, the external existence is only one, and that is the existence of Supreme God. Apart from Him is simply non-existence. When it comes to the contribution of al-Shirwānī's Risāles to the literature of unity of existence and unity of vision, the context of the first six treatises, especially on mono-theism, has allowed us to evaluate the views of the Sufis from the first period to his times. The treatises of al-Shirwānī are also valuable in terms of identifying the differences between the sufi conceptions of tawhid in tripartite and presenting them in comparison with theologians. The conclusion that can be drawn from this tripartite division of al-Shirwānī is that the understanding of Tawhid, which is mentioned in the first and second parts, is devoid of any rational and religious deficiencies. It is con-sistent with theologians' understanding of Tawhid. According to him, the understanding-ing of Oneness, which is mentioned in the third group, is not in agreement with the theologians' understanding of Oneness with the rational and ecclesiastical obstacles. However, according to him, it is necessary to leave what they mean by unity of existence-ence to its followers, themselves. As it is understood from Sirāj al-Dīn al-Shirwānī's presentation in Risālas, the opinions of Imām Rabbānī about tawhid lie somewhere between the opinions of Ibn al-'Arabī and theologians.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Ismāʽīl Sirāj Al-dīn Al-shirwānī’s (d. 1034/1624) Commentary On Waḥdah Al-wujūd and Waḥdah Al-shuhūd
2020
Dergi:  
Eskiyeni
Yazar:  
Özet:

Since the inception of the science of Kalām (Islamic Theology) to this day, the early Sufis began to set themselves apart in their prodigious emphasis on the existence of the ‘possible’ (mumkin) with expressions such as, “I did not see anything, but God,” and “I performed the Hajj-pilgrimage, [yet] I did not see the House [of the Kaʽbah], I saw [only] the Master of the House.” Thereafter, this distinction culminated with Ibn al-‘Arabī (d. 638/1240) that he disregards the existence of the ‘possible things’ (mumkināt), that is to say, in their divergent understanding of God’s Oneness (tawḥīd) based on absolute unity (absolute existence). The concept of unity based on absolute existence, where the existence of the ‘possible things’ is disregarded, was then re-interpreted around the concept of mushāhadah (witnessing) by Imām Rabbānī (d. 1034/1624) and he reemphasized the truth of the existence of the ‘possible things’. On the other hand, Imām Rabbānī, accepted the thought of unity of existence (waḥdah al-wujūd) which he attributed to Ibn al-‘Arabī as a level visited in the begin-ning of sufi journey and regarded unity of vision (waḥdah al-shuhūd) as the ending of the Sufi journey. Based on this determination, he criticized the idea of unity of exist-ence. It is possible to extend the reasons for Imām Rabbānī’s criticism on unity of existence. In this study, it is tried to determine the basics of unity of existence and unity of vision from the Sufi thought in the early period, based on the comments on oneness by the early period sufists. In making this determination, the views Ismāʽīl Sirāj al-Dīn al-Shirwānī (d. 1269/1853), who wrote forty-two treatises based on the idea of unity of vision, were used. Helpful element in these determinations is that Ismāʽīl Sirāj al-Dīn al-Shirwānī gath-ered the interpretations of Oneness formed by the Sufis under three groups. (i) Inter-pretation of Oneness based on binary real assets. This interpretation is the interpre-tation of the Oneness by the Sufis before Ibn al-‘Arabī, which is similar to the inter-pretation of theologians (ii) Unification of Oneness based on unity in observation, not in existence. This interpretation is the interpretation of Oneness accepted by the Mujaddidī Sufis, especially Imām Rabbānī/unity of vision. (iii) Oneness interpretation based on unity in existence. This interpretation is the interpretation of the Oneness accepted by Ibn al-‘Arabī and Akbari Sufis/unity of existence. In the first part though al-Shirwānī refers to the first period Sufis and in the second part he points to waḥdah al-shuhūd (unity of vision). But he did not purpose such conceptualization. He made it clear that the understanding of tawhid (oneness) of the third part belonged to the pro waḥdah al-shuhūd (unity of existence) Sufis. According to al-Shirwānī, the views of the Sufis in the first group on existence and world can be summarized as follows: The real world is present as a substance or acci-dents with the creation of Allah. Sufis in this group regard their existence as lent and shadow-imagination. They forget his/her assets borrowed at the time of annihilation and union, and their attachment to the world and thinks of the world as mirage and say: ‘There is none but Allah in the being.’ At the time of clearness and recognition they wear their clothes, which they borrow at the time of the clearness (sahw) and recognition (farq) and assume the existence of the realm and say: 'There is no deity other than Allah.' These are those who follow the Kitab, Sunnah and the Consensus of Islamic scholars (Ijmā’), and the theologians agreeing to the Ahl al-Sunnah about the existence of the world. According to al-Shirwānī, the point where the theologians are separated from the Sufis in this group is the following: Theologians only consider the realms of the world and are capable of clearness (sahw). Sufis, on the other hand, look at trance and abstinence, because the Sufis are clearness (sahw) and transience (mahw/fanā) people. The discussion between this group of Sufis and the theologians is not actual, but literal. According to al-Shirwānī, the opinion of the Sufis in the second group on existence and world can be summarized as follows: World externally exists. A shadow being dependent to Haqq means that the shadow being exists like the original. So, the realm is a shadow that stretches from Haqq. In other words, the world is a shadow that lies by the spiritual side of Right which does not require the space. The attributes of the Haqq are reflected in this shade. The attributes of the world consist of the reflection of the attributes of the Haqq. For example, a person’s might is a reflection of the might of the Haqq. Self of a person is the shadow of the Haqq’s self (dhat), and his attributes are the reflection of His attributes. According to al-Shirwānī, the view on existence and world of Sufis in the third group can be summarized as follows: There is no real external existence for the world. On the contrary, the world only has a cognitive existence. According to al-Shirwānī, the Sufis in this group claim that the things seen from the shadow entity are in the rank of Haqq, and these things are merely absent in nafs al-amr. According to this view, the reality of the realm is the mirror for the reality of Allah. Therefore, they qualify necessarily existence (Vājib al-vujud) in terms of necessary and possible attributes. According to al-Shirwānī, even though those who claim this view are from those who have reached the the Haqq, there will be a number of ecclesiastical and rational obstacles. According to these Sufis, who accept the unity of existence, the external existence is only one, and that is the existence of Supreme Allah. Apart from Him is simply non-existence. When it comes to the contribution of al-Shirwānī's Risāles to the literature of unity of existence and unity of vision, the context of the first six treatises, especially on mono-theism, has allowed us to evaluate the views of the Sufis from the first period to his times. The treatises of al-Shirwānī are also valuable in terms of identifying the differ-ences between the sufi conceptions of tawhid in tripartite and presenting them in comparison with theologians. The conclusion that can be drawn from this tripartite division of al-Shirwānī is that the understanding of tawhid, which is mentioned in the first and second parts, is devoid of any rational and religious deficiencies. It is con-sistent with theologians’ understanding of tawhid. According to him, the understand-ing of Oneness, which is mentioned in the third group, is not in agreement with the theologians’ understanding of Oneness with the rational and ecclesiastical obstacles. However, according to him, it is necessary to leave what they mean by unity of exist-ence to its followers, themselves. As it is understood from Sirāj al-Dīn al-Shirwānī’s presentation in Risālas, the opinions of Imām Rabbānī about tawhid lie somewhere between the opinions of Ibn al-‘Arabī and theologians. 

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Atıf Yapanlar
Bilgi: Bu yayına herhangi bir atıf yapılmamıştır.
Benzer Makaleler




Eskiyeni

Alan :   İlahiyat; Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler

Dergi Türü :   Ulusal

Metrikler
Makale : 958
Atıf : 1.217
© 2015-2024 Sobiad Atıf Dizini