Bu makale Tokat ile Yozgat arasındaki Karkın köyünde doğan Şeyhülislâm Molla Hüsrev’in (ö. 885/1480) altı bölümden oluşan ve her birinde on ayrı meseleyi muhakemat usulüyle ele alan Nakdü’l-efkâr fî reddi’l-enzâr adlı eserinin belâgata ayrılan beşinci bölümünün edisyon kritiğidir. II. Murad ve II. Mehmed dönemlerinde kadılık, kazaskerlik ve müderrislik yapan Molla Hüsrev’in bu eserinde, Kur’ân-ı Kerim, siyer, fıkıh, fıkıh usulü, Arap dili belâgatı ve mantık ilimlerinde ele aldığı konularda hem ustalığını hem de dönemin ulaştığı kültür seviyesini görmek mümkündür.Eserde Alâeddin Ali b. Mûsâ er-Rûmî’nin (ö. 841/1438) sorduğu sorulara Sirâceddin b. Sa‘deddin el-Tevkıî (ö. 886/1481) cevap vermiştir. Molla Hüsrev ise onların görüşleri üzerinden toplam atmış konuda felsefe ve akıl yürütmenin ağır bastığı bir hakemlik yapmıştır. Bu anlamda muhakemat türünün güzel bir örneği olan bu eser, Molla Hüsrev’in bahsi geçen ilimlere vukufunu ve ifade gücünü göstermesi bakımından önemlidir.  

This article is a critical edition of the fifth chapter of the book Naqd al-afkār fī radd al-anžār penned by Molla Hüsrev (d. 885/1480). The book consists of six chapters discussing particular subjects, with ten issues in each, by using the method of adjudication (muģakamāt). These subjects include Quran, the historiography of the prophet’s life, jurisprudence, juridical methodology, Arabic language and rhetoric and logic. This fifth chapter is reserved for rhetoric. Considering the time of the author Molla Hüsrev, who served as judge, military judge and professor during the reigns of Murad II (r. 1431-1451) and Mehmed II (r. 1451-1481), the book shows his competence in these subjects as well as the level of culture in the society in which he lived in.In the book, Sirāj al-dīn b. Sa¤d al-dīn al-Tawqī¤ī (d. 886/1481) answers the questions posed by Alā al-dīn Ali b. Mūsā al-Rūmī (d. 841/1438). The questioner is called “al-mawlā al-bāģith” and the responder is called “al-mawlā al-mujīb” in the text. Molla Hüsrev, who calls himself “faqīr” (i.e. the poor), acts as a referee from a philosophical and rational point of view on their thoughts regarding subjects. As a good example of the adjudication genre, the book shows Molla Hüsrev’s knowledge of these sciences and his eloquence.Early works produced between the sixth (twelfth) and eighth (fourteenth) centuries include critiques of content, language and style. It seems that the genre of adjudication (muģakamāt) developed in this period. We observe similar works during the Ottoman period as well. Molla Hüsrev, known mostly for his knowledge of exegesis and jurisprudence, treats with the method of adjudication such Quranic verses that use logical formulas. In this book, he supports the thinker he considers to be right and criticizes both when he disagrees with their viewpoints. Ultimately, he presents his own views.The subjects that the author adjudicated in the book contain:1. The precedence of the attributed for the purpose of particularization2. The particularization of the attributed to the attribute3. The restriction with prepositions and their kinds4. The indefinite condition of the attribute and its corroboration5. The predicate attribution6. The harmony between the attribute and the attributed7. The omission of the attribute8. The reference to the attributed9. The liaison and section with the preposition أو10. The attributed in performative sentencesWe observe that Molla Hüsrev follows a fair path in his style of adjudication. For example, in the sixth issue, the question is related to masculinity and femininity oَf the words in the phrase قَالَتِ الأَعْرَابُ آمَنّا and وَقَالَ نِسْوَةٌ as well as the reasons forthese preferences.The answer provides three aspects:a) The preference of the one from two possibilitiesb) God shows how he acts as he wills according to his preferencec) The reason for the feminine conjugation of the first verb refers to the Beduin, “who are human beings having feminine deficiencies and are unable to use reason like men, thereby the belief does not go into their hearts. The reason for the masculine conjugation of the second verb refers to the women who saw the condition of Zulaykha and used reason like men.”Molla Hüsrev supports this view. He finds it unusual, however, that Sa¤d al-dīn al-Tawqī¤ī answers the question although he has already stated that the issue does not fall into the field of the science of meaning.Molla Hüsrev does not approve that Alā al-dīn al-Rūmī sometimes asks questions to lengthen the discussion, as in the ninth issue, with his appropriation of al-Taftāzānī’s ideas and falsification of some of them. However, he praises the quality of the first question and considers that the answer does not address the point. He shows his neutrality by providing the answer as such:The question in the first issue is related to that while the pronoun أنا in the sentence ما أنا قلت هذا is the attributed that needs to imply particularization; the particularization is done to the negative pronoun ما.The answer explains this by showing the difference between the sentences ما أنا قلت هذا and أنا ما قلت هذا and stating that placing the negative pronoun at the beginning creates a meaning providing only particularization. Therefore, the first sentence means, “the one who says this word is certainly not me”; in other words, “the negativity of the act is limited with me.”The author thinks that the correct answer is not given and lengthening the answer is inappropriate. As for him, the issue is related to naming قلت as a predicate while disregarding the negative pronoun ما . According to Molla Hüsrev, the negativityis not attributed to the person but to actions. The rhetoricians, unlike the grammarians focusing on words, consider not only قلت as the predicate but also accept the predicate with its negativity. In addition to these approaches giving priority to meaning, we also observe Molla Hüsrev’s meticulous attention to details and command of differences. We can clearly see that he treats the rhetoric as a whole in the eighth issue where he shows his precision on this point.The question is related to the rhetoricians who states that if the first or the second conjunction أو used twice in the Quranic verse (Saba: 34/24), is considered as a conjunction of “waw”, then the verse means the opposite of its intended meaning. The questioner argues that the meaning would not change if both of them were to be “waw”, and this would be the art of laff wa nashr where themes are introduced one after another and then explained in turn.The answer to this question is given in reference to al-Taftāzānī who states that the preposition أو could mean vagueness (ibhām), but not in reference to al-Sakkākī or al-Qazvīnī who argues that it means doubt (shakk) and misgiving (tashkīk), because there is no clear reference to these latter two meanings.In fact, Molla Hüsrev argues that the vagueness is one of the objectives of misgiving, and that double usage of the preposition intends to describe without particularization those who are in between belief and heresy. Therefore, the verse intends to mean to the interlocutors who thinks with fairness and moderation in order to understand whoever is on the straight path. In addition, he stresses that the rhetoricians do not argue that the omission of أو would change the meaning, but they argue that the verse would lose its intended position (wad‘ī) meaning with a tone inviting to moderation and gentle treatment. While he criticizes the answerer by saying, “Why do you not pay attention to these delicacies?”, he praises the answerer by stating that he saved other scientists from the burden thanks to his answer in the tenth issue. All of these show the author’s appreciative approach.