Günümüzde ateizm ve deizm gibi akımların nübüvvet müessesine yaptığı itirazlar, bu meselenin ispatına yönelik yeni literatür çalışmalarını daha önemli kılmaktadır. Bâcûrî’nin nübüvvetin ispatı ve temellendirmesi bağlamında ortaya koyduğu argümanlar, nübüvvet müessesine olan inancın klasik delillerini yansıtması bakımından önem arz etmektedir. Bâcûrî bu konuda genel olarak Eş’arî ve Sünnî çizgiyi takip etmekte bazı noktaları ise tasavvufî şahsiyetlerden yaptığı nakiller ve birtakım kavramlardan hareketle açıklamaktadır. Böylece kelâm ve tasavvuf ilmini mezcetmeye çalışarak iki farklı disiplini birbirine yaklaştırmaktadır. Nübüvveti “insan aklının faal akılla iletişim kurması” şeklinde yorumlayan ve kesbîlik anlayışına zemin hazırlayan filozofların görüşlerini reddeden Bâcûrî, onun vehbî olduğunu, gayret ve cehdle kazanılamayacağını ifade etmektedir. Nübüvvetin aklen ve vâkıa olarak mümkün bir fiil olduğunu ve Allah için zorunluluk ifade edemeyeceğini belirtmektedir. Bâcûrî, reel ve ilkesel olarak nübüvveti muhal gören ve ontolojik anlamda reddeden Sümeniyye ve Berâhime gibi düşünsel akımlara karşı çıktığı gibi nübüvvetin Allah açısından vacip olduğu fikrini ileri süren Mu‘tezile’ye de çıkmaktadır. Hz. Muhammed’in, ruhunun diğer tüm ruhlardan önce yaratıldığını, melek, cin ve insanların yanı sıra tüm nebîlere ve geçmiş ümmetlere de gönderildiğini zikrederek onun sadece Araplara gönderildiğini iddia eden Îsevileri de eleştirmektedir. O, mûcizenin, kerâmet ve irhas gibi hârikulâde olaylardan ve aynı şekilde sihir, büyü ve benzerlerinden farklı olduğunu savunmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı pek çok alanda şerh, haşiye ve müstakil eser kaleme alan 19. yy. âlimlerinden Bâcûrî’nin nübüvvet anlayışını incelemektir. Bu çerçevede makale, geçmişten günümüze uzanan nübbüvvet meselesine yönelik güncel kanaatlerin doğru ve sağlam bir zeminde anlaşılmasına katkı sağlamayı gaye edinmektedir.

Throughout the history of thought, people have been suspicious of the institution of prophecy established by special and chosen intermediaries rather than accepting the existence and unity of Allah. Today, the objections of movements such as atheism and deism to the institution of prophecy make new literature studies more important to prove this issue. The arguments put forward by Ibrahim al-Bacuri (d. 1277/1860) in the context of proof and justification of prophecy are important in terms of reflecting the classical evidences of belief in the institution of prophecy. Bâcûrî generally follows the Ash'ari and Sunni line in this regard, and explains some points based on the transfers he made from Sufi figures and some concepts. Thus, he tries to unite the science of theology and mysticism, bringing two different disciplines closer together. The aim of this study is the 19th century, who wrote commentaries, annotations and independent works in many fields, including the science of kalam. The aim of this study is to examine Bâcurî's understanding of prophecy. Bâcûrî, who is a commentator and also a muhashishi, expressed original opinions on prophecy, as he did in many other points, and added dynamism to this discussion. In this context, the article aims to contribute to the understanding of current opinions on the issue of prophecy from the past to the present on a correct and solid ground. Bâcurî deals with the issue in terms of the definition, possibility, occurrence, nature and proof of prophecy in general, and Hz. It deals with the miracles of the Prophet, his virtue and superiority, in terms of being the last and universal prophet. He defends that it is wahbi to attain the rank of prophethood, and criticizes the opinion holders who claim that it can be won with effort and zeal. Based on this, Bâcurî rejects the views of philosophers who interpret prophecy as "the communication of the human mind with the active mind" and lay the groundwork for the understanding of kasbî. In this context, prophecy and prophecy are not a position assigned to the prophet due to his work or a special quality in him. One of the proofs put forward by Bâcurî regarding the vehbi nature of prophecy is the idea of Hatm-i prophecy. Stating that this thought points to the vehbîness of the prophethood, Bâcurî mentions that saying that he is a kasbî necessitates the disbelief of the person. Because Hz. It is fixed in the text that Muhammad's prophecy constituted the last link of the prophetic tradition. Nassa is a blasphemous claim. In addition, if the prophethood had been won by kasb and cehd, Hz. Those who struggled and worked on this issue after Muhammad should have been prophets. For this reason, Bâcurî accepts prophethood as a grace and benevolence that Allah chooses from among His servants and bestows on whomever He wishes, and clearly reveals that it is not a reward for deeds or a reward for obedience, but a gift from Allah. Bâcurî opposes the intellectual movements such as Sümeniyye and Berâhime, which see prophecy as real and in principle and reject the institution of prophecy in an ontological sense, and also opposes the Mu'tazila, who argues that prophecy is obligatory for Allah. He openly declares that the ideas of these groups in different categories are unacceptable, by revealing that prophethood is an act that is possible mentally and in fact, and that it cannot express necessity for Allah as in other acts. Thus, Bâcurî also opposes the idea of salah-aslah, which is one of the most basic principles of Mu'tazila, expressing the meaning that it is obligatory on Allah to create / do beneficial things, as in the act of sending a prophet. Besides, he also criticizes the Isevis, who claim that Muhammad was sent only to Arabs. He draws attention to the fact that their discourses are out of place, and Hz. He tries to reveal the universality of the Prophet's prophecy. In this context, Mr. He mentions that Muhammad was sent to all prophets and past ummahs as well as angels, jinn and humans. It states that this sending is from the spirit world. It states that his soul was created before all other souls. Bâcurî argues that the miracle is different from the marvelous events such as miracles and irhas, as well as from magic, sorcery and the like. Therefore, the extraordinary events presented by the person who claims to be a prophet to prove his claim and the extraordinary events shown by the soothsayer, magician and blindfolder are different from each other, and it is possible to distinguish one from the other.