Tasavvuf geleneğinin halk tarafından birçok irili ufaklı tarikatlarla özümsenmiş olması Osmanlı Devleti’nin en önemli özelliklerinden biriydi. Şüphesiz ki Osmanlı’yı altı asır boyu ayakta tutan devlet-millet bütünleşmesinin en başat kültürel kodlarını oluşturan şey de tasavvufun bizzat kendisi olmuştur. Bu çerçevede Osmanlı ulemâsının tasavvufla ilgisiz olan kısmı umum yekûn içinde yok denecek kadar azdır. Osmanlı Devleti’nin “Yükselme Dönemi” diye anılan zaman diliminin son kısmında yaşamış âlimlerden biri de İmam Takiyyüddîn Muhammed Birgivî’dir. Başta Arap Dili ve Fıkıh olmak üzere pek çok alanda eser veren müellifin Fâtiha ile birlikte Bakara sûresinin ilk doksan sekiz âyetini kapsayan bir tefsiri de bulunmaktadır. Birgivî’nin diğer pek çok Osmanlı âlimi gibi tasavvuftan oldukça üst seviyede istifade etmiş olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Babasının dedesi Şeyh Lütfullah, meşhur sûfîlerden Hacı Bayram-ı Velî’nin halifesidir. Kendisinin de aynı tarikatın (Bayramiyye) müntesibi olduğu bilinmektedir. Bu makalede Birgivî’nin, bahsi geçen tefsirindeki tasavvufî-işârî te’vîl ve yorumları incelenmiştir. Tasavvuf yolunu istismar eden sahte sûfîleri sert bir şekilde eleştiren Birgivî, özellikle İbâhiyye mensuplarının küfür ve dalâlette olduğunu belirtmektedir. Bu yönüyle kimileri tarafından tasavvufa karşı olduğu zannedilen müellifin istikamet üzere olan mutasavvıfları benimsediği hatta İbnü’l-Arabî’nin düşünce sistemi ile özdeşleşen vahdet-i vücûddan bile etkilendiği görülmektedir. Onun mevcut tavrı, tefsirde işârî te’vîli tasdik mahiyetindedir. Dahası, bu duruş işârî te’vîl yapan sûfî müfessirleri sapkın “Bâtınîlik”le itham edenlere verilmiş fiilî bir cevap niteliğindedir.

It was one of the most important characteristics of the Ottoman Empire that the Sufi tradition was adopted by the people through many large and small sects (tariqats). There is no doubt that tasawwuf itself has been the most dominant cultural code of the state-nation integration that kept the Ottoman Empire alive for six centuries. Within this framework, we can say that the part of the Ottoman scholars which is not related to the tasawwuf is almost absent in the general population. Imam Taqiyyuddīn Muhammad Birgivī is the scholar who lived in the last part of period that known the “Rising Period of the Ottoman Empire”. It is known that Birgivī was considered as one of the most prominent scholars in his own time, also extremely distinguished, honest and uncompromising in his religious and moral character. It is understood that Birgivī, like many other Ottoman scholars (ulamas), has benefited from the tasawwuf very highly. His father’s grandfather, Sheikh Lutfullah, is the caliph of Haci Bayram-i Velī one of the famous sufis. It is also known that Birgivī is a member of the same tariqa (Bayramiyya).Imam Birgivī, who produced works in many fields, especially Arabic Language and Fiqh, also has a tafsir covering the first ninety-eight verses of the Surah al-Baqara. This tafsir is the only work in his field of tafsir (Quranic exegesis). This work contains important data about his attitude towards both tasawwuf and sufi (ishari) tafsir/ta’wil. The study of tahqīq on this tafsir by Abdourrahmaan b. Sālih b. Sulaiman ad-Dahsh is a master thesis. This study, which was accepted in the University of Imam Muhammed (Saudi Arabia/Riyadh) was published in 2004 under the name of “Muqaddimatu’l-Mufassirīn”. In this study, microfilms of the two copies of Medina Islamic University were used and it was stated that the original was in al-Madrasah al-Mahmudiyyah in Medina. The work is also called “Tafsīru Surah al-Baqara” and “Tafsīru’l-Qur’an al-Karim”.In this paper, ishari ta’wils and sufi commentaries of Birgivī are examined. Birgivī, who strongly criticized the false sufis who abused the tasawwuf, especially stated that the members of the Ibāhiyya were denialist and deviant. Because the Ibāhiyya, some of whom appear to be Sufi but are so deviated, have rejected compulsory worship such as prayer (salah) and fasting (sawm). In fact, according to them, a perfect Sufis cannot sin in terms of its spiritual structure because even his acts which seem illegitimate should be understood differently. In terms of this line, it is seen that Birgivī, who is supposed the against to the tasawwuf (sufism) by some, has confirmed the true sufis and even influenced by the wahdat al-wujud, which is identified with the thought system of Ibn al-‘Arabī. In fact, this is not surprising because the work entitled “Dafʻu Mataʻin al-Sūfiyyah” which belongs to Akshamsaddin and defends Ibn al-ʻArabī shows that the members of the Bayramiyya are not foreign to the wahdat al-wujud concept.We briefly record one of several examples (al-Baqara/27) on the subject from this short tafsir of Birgivī and refer the enthusiasts to the detailed reading: “Merging things that are apparently separate; it is possible by seeing that the kasrat (multiplicity) is a relative kasrat, and that there is a genuine wahdat (unity). However, they oppose this order and believe in the fact that the Wahid who have a genuine wahdat is the Kathir. Thus, they obscure the wahdat with the kasrat. They do not gather different things together; on the contrary, by breaking up the collective, they break what Allah commanded unification. Thus, they damage and corrupt the worshiping fields of those who cannot see the wahdat of the being.”We do not know in detail how and to what extent Imam Birgivī has adopted the view of wahdat al-wujud but his ishari ta'wil which is mentioned here as an example makes references directly to the idea of wahdat al-wujud. According to him, the spiritual sign (isharat) in the verse commands to avoid drowning in the kasrat (multiplicity) and to combine the everything with the wahdat (unity).In four different places of Imam Birgivī’s tafsir (27, 28, 67 and 68th verses of the chapther al-Bakara), he gave a place to ishari ta'wils (interpretations). In this case, in terms of numerically, it can be said once in every twenty-five verses have been made ishari ta’wil. From here, we can conclude that if Birgivī had written a tafsir explaining the whole of the Qur’an, it would be possible to encounter his two hundred and fifty ishari ta’wils. This figure is not a figure to be underestimated at all. In our opinion, if such a complete tafsir had been written, then we might have counted it as an ishari tafsir now. His stance on this issue means confirmation of ishari ta’wil in tafsir. Moreover, this posture is a response to those who accuse the sufi mufassirs by being part of deviant Bātiniyya. On the other hand, Birgivī’s approach to the subject; It is one of the rare examples of the attitude that should be demonstrated by a principled scholar.