Bu çalışma, tasavvuf ekolünün önemli temsilcilerinden Abdülganî b. İsmâil en-Nablusî’nin (ö. 1143/1731) el-Hâmil fi’l-felek ve’l-mahmûl fi’l-fülk fî ıtlâkı’n-nübüvvet ve’r-risâle ve’l-hilâfe ve’l-mülk başlıklı risâlesinin tahkik ve tahlilinden oluşmaktadır. Risâle, “nebî” ve “resul” kavramlarının peygamberler dışındaki kimseler için kullanımının câiz olup olmadığına ilişkin “ıtlak” konusunu ele almaktadır. Risâlenin konusu, hem kelâmcılar hem de mutasavvıflar tarafından klasik eserlerde ele alınmıştır. Zira bu mesele, muhtelif yönlerden dinin birçok esası ile alâkalı bulunmaktadır. Peygamber dışındaki birine “nebî” ve “resul” kavramlarını kullanmak zarûriyyât-ı dîniyyenin esaslarından olan “nübüvvet” açısından problem teşkil edecek niteliktedir. Ayrıca Arap dili prensiplerinin bu kullanıma ne ölçüde imkân tanıdığı göz önünde bulundurularak konuya ilişkin analizler yapılmaya çalışılmıştır.Nablusî, meseleye çözüm getirmek amacıyla keşfî ve zevkî bilgiyi dikkate alan sûfî yaklaşımının yanı sıra, evrensel ve genel geçer bilgi kaynağı olan akıl, duyu ve haberî bilgiyi dikkate alan kelâmî metodun yaklaşımını da göz önünde bulundurarak geleneksel müktesebatı bu bağlamda değerlendirmeye çalışmıştır. Nablusî’nin ele aldığı konuya ilişkin nasıl bir yaklaşım ortaya koyduğu ve katkı sağladığı ifade edildikten sonra, söz konusu risâlenin nüshaları ve mevsukiyeti hakkında da bilgi verilmiştir.

This study is a critical edition and examination of a treatise titled al-hāmil fī al-falak wa al-mahmūl fī al-fulk fī itlāq al-nubuwwah wa al-risālah wa al-khilāfah wa al-mulk penned by ‘Abd al-Ghanī ibn Ismā‘īl al-Nāblusī (d. 1143/1731), who was a salient representative of the Sufi school of “wahdat al-wujūd” (“oneness of being”). Taking the classical sources as reference points, this treatise examines the issue of “itlāq”, which is related to whether the concepts of “nabī” (prophet) and “rasūl” (messenger) can be used for people other than proper prophets. In other words, if these concepts are to be used for people other than prophets, it aims to discuss their manner and aspects that can be applied to ordinary people; and if this application is not allowed, then it seeks to explain the reasons. First I introduce briefly the author’s life, education, teachers, students, various works and death. Then I present in detail manuscript copies of the treatise, the libraries that hold these copies and the reliability of each of them. I also inform the readers on the content of the treatise, the sources of the author and the methodology of the author in discussing the subject. Theologians, Sufis and jurists have discussed the subject of the treatise in their classical books. In fact, the issue is directly related to many principles of the religion in various aspects. Using the concepts “nabī” and “rasūl” may potentially be in conflict with the essentials of the religion such as “nubuwwah” (prophethood).Al-Nāblusī tries to present the subject by taking into consideration the accumulated literature both in the Sufi perspective that reflects discoverable (kashfī) and personally experienced (dhawqī) knowledge and in the theological perspective that works with the knowledge built by reason, senses and information. Therefore, without limiting himself to a single tradition, al-Nāblusī approaches the issue with a holistic perspective by employing theological, judicial and Sufi schools of thought. For example, on the same subject, he cites a Sufi source like al-Futūhāt al-Makkiyya of Ibn al-Arabī (d. 638/1240), a judicial treatise like Durar of Molla Hüsrev (d. 885/1480) and a theological work like Sharh al-Aqā’id al-‘Adudiyya of Jalal al-Dīn al-Dawwānī (d. 908/1502).When Niyāzī-i Misrī (d. 1105/1694), the founder of Misriyya branch of the Halvatiyya Sufi path, says that he believes that Ali and his sons Hasan and Husayn were prophets, rasūl (messenger) and nabī (prophet), and that those who do not believe in them are not Muslims, this poses several questions. Some heavily criticize this idea whereas some others approved of it. Due to the delicacy of the issue that is asked to al-Nāblusī, a famous scholar of the eighteenth century, he examines it with extreme caution. Al-Nāblusī first focuses on the question of “takfīr” (declaring someone unbeliever). He underlines that “takfīr” is a critical matter in religion that has certain conditions associated to it and that declaring someone an unbeliever is not as easy as people usually think. While making this argument, al-Nāblusī cites sources of jurisprudence such as Khulāsat al-fatāwā, Durar and Majmū‘. He also brings into attention the state of mind when Niyāzī-i Misrī articulates this idea, because if he said these words at a time of “ghaybat” or “sakr,” meaning losing one’s consciousness due to a probability or inspiration, it would not mean anything. Therefore, the true responsibility comes with perfect consciousness. In addition, al-Nāblusī extends his analysis on the subject by considering the levels of interpretation allowed within the principles of Arabic grammar.The concept of Nabī means multiple things in Arabic. For example, it includes the meaning of “tarīq” (way) in Arabic. Therefore, Hasan and Husayn were the ways that lead to God in their missions of guidance and warning. Sometimes, nabī means “mukhbir” (the one brings news). Therefore, Hasan and Husayn delivered the things inspired through God’s message as well as the knowledge and wisdom inherited from the prophet and from their father, Ali. Sometimes, nabī means “sharīf” (noble/superior) in respect to one’s overall manners and moral integrity. As for Hasan and Husayn, they have been considered the most noble and virtuous individuals of their time. Likewise, the concept of “rasūl” carries multiple meanings. We observe that the Quran includes several usages of rasūl corresponding certain occasions other than referring to prophets. Hasan and Husayn were messengers (rasūl) in transferring the prophet’s message to later generations. Therefore, based on these literal meanings, using the concepts of “nabī” and “rasūl” for Hasan and Husayn is acceptable as long as they are not considered to have brought new law (shari‘a), because the Quran clearly declares the end of prophethood. Someone from a scholarly background could not make statements contrary to this principle.The author Abd al-Ghanī al-Nāblusī finds the statement of Niyāzī-i Misrī on Hasan and Husayn acceptable according to rules of interpretation and principles of Arabic grammar, therefore he sees no need to declare the maker of the statement as an unbeliever. However, he also thinks that using the concepts of “nabī” and “rasūl” for anybody other than the prophets is inappropriate in respect to the decorum. According to him, no intelligent and right-minded individual would ever use these concepts for anybody other than the prophets. It is clear that someone with wisdom like Niyāzī-i Misrī would never use these concepts in their literal meanings.