İslâm düşünce geleneğinde lafız-anlam ilişkisi meselesi dil bilimleri, mantık, kelâm ve fıkıh usûlü gibi ilimlerde çeşitli açılardan incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda vaz‘ olgusu, ilk dönemlerden itibaren bir mesele olarak inceleme konusu olmuş, Adudüddîn el-Îcî’nin (ö. 756/1355) er-Risâletü’l-vaz‘iyye’si ile birlikte muhtelif ilimlerde dağınık şekilde yer alan bu bilgiler, belirli bir konu ve amaç etrafında toplanmış, müstakil bir yazım geleneği başlatılmıştır. Dar bir kapsam ve muhteva ile telif edilen er-Risâletü’l-vaz‘iyye’den sonra bu alanda yazılan çok sayıdaki şerh-hâşiye ve müstakil eserler vaz‘ meselelerinin gelişimine katkıda bulunmuş ve böylece vaz‘ müstakil bir ilim dalı hüviyetini kazanmıştır. Vaz‘ ilmine dair eser yazan âlimlerden Abdullah Necîb Efendi önce vaz‘ ilmi ile alakalı kısa bir vaz‘ risâlesi telif etmiş, daha sonra da risâlesindeki konuların daha anlaşılır olması için risâlesini şerh etmiştir. Bu çalışmada amacımız, risâlenin tahkîkli neşrini gerçekleştirmenin yanı sıra ihtiva ettiği vaz‘ ilmi meselelerini değerlendirmektir. Abdullah Necîb Efendi bu risâlesinde kendisinden önceki dönemlerde yazılmış vaz‘ ilmi literatüründen istifade edip bu alandaki tartışmaları mukayeseli bir değerlendirmeye tabi tutarak kendisine göre en doğru görüşleri tercih ettikten sonra doğruluk payı içermeyen görüşleri de çeşitli açılardan deliller sunmak suretiyle eleştirir. Vaz‘ ilmindeki ihtilaflı meselelerin odak noktası olarak belirlendiği bu risâleden yola çıkarak Abdullah Necîb Efendi’nin görüş ve eleştirilerini değerlendireceğiz.

This paper presents a critical edition of al-Risālah al-Wađ‘iyya by ‘Abdullāh Najīb al-Ayintabī who was an Ottoman scholar from the 19th century. The first section provides general information about the author and his scholarly endeavors. ‘Abdullāh Najīb al-Ayintabī published a variety of analyses in several fields such as grammar, Islamic law, Islamic theology, Islamic mysticism, shamā’il, logic and wađ‘. His works consisted mostly of commentaries in consideration of the fact that the tradition of commentaries and super-commentaries on the standard of texts were used extensively during this period. He wrote on shamā’il in addition to a commentary on al-Qāđī ‘Iyāđ’s al-Shifā’ entitled Kanz al-Wafā’ fī Sharĥ al-Shifā’, and on Abū ‘Īsā al-Tirmidhī’s Shamā’il; on taśawwuf a commentary on Ibn ‘Arabī’s al-Dawr al-A‘lā; on Persian grammar a commentary on Muśŧafā b. Abū Bakr al-Sivāsī’s al-Mafātiĥ al-Dariyya; on logic a commentary on Abū Sa‘īd al-Hādimī’s al-‘Arā’is; on the science of the methodology of Islamic jurisprudence (uśūl al-fiqh) a commentary on Abū Sa‘īd al-Hādimī’s Majāmi‘ al-Haqā’iq; on Islamic theology two short treatises entitled Risāla fī Ism Allāh and Sharĥ Kalimāt al-Tawĥīd. Taking his listed publications into consideration he may be regarded as a leading scholar in the field of ‘ilm al-wađ‘ in his time. He also wrote a commentary (sharĥ) on his al-Risālah al-Wađ‘iyya by referring to works of both past and present. Among other Islamic disciplines, special emphasis was placed on linguistic studies as a way of reflecting their efforts to understand the Qur’ān. The linguistic sciences in the Ottoman period were dominated by studies on morphology, syntax, dictionary, rhetoric, poetry, prosody, and wađ‘ as part of the broader framework of Arabic language and literature. Scholars from other parts of the Islamic world had therefore followed the Ottomans in this particular scholarly endeavor. The term wađ‘ is a verbal noun or an infinitive whose generic meaning is “to put down”, “to place”, “to posit”, and so forth. In its more technical usage the term wađ‘ refers to the positing of vocables as designations for particular meanings. ‘Ilm al-wađ‘ is one of the Arabic-Islamic grammatical sciences that discusses the relationship between vocables (lafẓ/mawđū‘) and meaning (ma‘nā/mawđū‘ lah). There are three components of language: vocables, meanings and a positor (wāđi‘). According to this theory, meanings are ideas in the mind, humans produce vocables, and then a decision maker selects a vocable for specific meanings. The wađ‘ consists of the word-meaning relation debate. It comes out of a linguistic problem in relation to the characteristics of a meaning denoted by words. It essentially aims to fix the relationship between two sets: vocables and meanings. The issues and problems related to the science of wađ‘ were discussed dispersedly in various sciences including, for example, in linguistic sciences (morphology, syntax, rhetoric), logic, Islamic theology (‘ilm al-kalām), and the science of the methodology of Islamic jurisprudence (uśūl al-fıqh). Nevertheless, these issues and problems were not evaluated within the framework of ‘ilm al-wađ‘, instead they were generally viewed from a much more limited perspective. The groundbreaking work in ‘ilm al-wađ‘ was a short treatise entitled al-Risālah al-Wađ‘iyya by ‘Ađud al-Dīn al-Ījī. The main motivation of al-Ījī to write this treatise was the problem on the characteristics of meaning, denoted by pronouns and particles. In this treatise, al-Ījī determined wađ‘ at the center of his analysis and further introduced a new kind of development in the wađ‘ debate by harmonizing the tools of the then existing scientific legacies. Al-Ījī became the dividing line between the earlier generations of linguists (mutaqaddimūn) and the later generations (muta’akhkhirūn) on the problem of the positing of shakhsī vocables. Earlier scholars claimed that, in terms of meaning, wađ‘ has two types: al-wađ‘ al-‘āmm/mawđū‘ lah ‘āmm (the general positing of a vocable for a general meaning) and al-wađ‘ al-khāśś/mawđū‘ lah al-khāśś (the specific positing of a vocable for a specific meaning). Earlier scholars assumed pronouns and particles to be universal, although al-Ījī and later scholars re-framed them as particular. Al-Ījī criticized previous scholars and argued that there were certain types of shakśī vocables such as pronouns and particles that could not be grouped under any of the two types. These problematic groups of vocables are comprised of four categories: personal pronouns (đamīr), demonstrative pronouns (ism al-ishāra), relative pronouns (ism al-mawśūl) and particles (ĥarf). Al-Ījī solved the problem of categorization by adding a new type into a two-fold categorization: al-wađ‘ al-‘amm/mawđū‘ lah al-khāśś (the general positing of a vocable for a specific meaning). Although a general entity in the mind-set is posited on an unspecified thing in the outside world, in practice it always refers to a specific entity. He introduced a new concept to resolve this issue: ālat al-wađ‘ (tool of positing). According to this tool of positing, one could use a general term in order to refer to a particular person, that is, a general positing to a specific meaning. Al-Ījī was therefore first to introduce the category of general positing to a specific meaning. His new contribution emerged as an area of scholarly discussion and studies on the science of wađ‘ have stirred many a debate thereafter. Following his publication, numerous commentaries and super-commentaries on his treatise and some independent works were written. The discussions between al-Taftazānī and Sayyid Sharīf al-Jurjānī contributed to the advancement of the subject. The various schools of wađ‘ and their followers have enriched the dynamism within the science of wađ‘ and their works have likewise made considerable contributions to the debate. Al-Ayintabī discusses in his short treatise and commentary on al-Risālah al-Wađ‘iyya issues and problems of wađ‘. Al-Ayintabī had written a commentary on his Risālah in order to explain and elaborate on the treatise in more detail. He divided the treatise into three parts: introduction (muqaddima), two destinations (maqśad) and conclusion (khāŧima). Al-Ayintabī presents three essays (maqāla) in the introduction. In the first maqāla, he defines the science of al-wađ‘, including its issues, aims and merits. He begins by defining wađ‘ as a science. He then discusses wađ‘ systematically both in theoretical and practical terms, which he follows with a presentation of the subject matter of wađ‘ as being a part of scientific study. Al-Ayintabī makes a further distinction between ‘ilm al-wađ‘ and other sciences, in particular ‘ilm al-bayān. In the second maqāla he discusses the problem of the presence or absence of wađ‘ in metaphor (majāz). Al-Taftazānī claims that there is wađ‘ in majāz, while Sharīf al-Jurjānī claims there is no wađ‘ in majāz. If the term wađ‘ refers to the “positing of vocables as designations for particular meanings by itself,” then majāz is not included in this definition. This is because assignment (ta‘yīn) in majāz is not by wađ‘ but by qarīna (context). If the definition of wađ‘ – “positing of vocables as designations for particular meanings by itself” – is taken into consideration without “by itself,” this would render wađ‘ a wider scope thus including al-haqīqa and majāz together. This is by virtue of the fact that assignment is unlimited “by itself.” Since al-Ayintabī aims to distinguish between the problems of ‘ilm al-wađ‘ and ‘ilm al-bayān, he extracts majāz from wađ‘ issues which is similar to Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s take. In the third maqāla, he explains the types of positing (aqsām al-wađ‘) according to vocables. In terms of vocables (lafẓ) he divides the parts of wađ‘ into two types: juz’ī (particular) and kullī (universal). Juz’ī (particular) means that things whose concepts are not in common with others prevents other things from falling under it, while kullī (universal) means that things whose concepts do not prevent others from falling under it. Al-Ayintabī dedicates two destinations (maqśad) of his treatise to classification. He classifies vocables in terms of their meanings, and criticizes opinions on al-wađ‘ al-‘amm/mawđū‘ lah al-‘khāśś. The first maqśad is divided into three observatories (marśad). He divides the parts of wađ‘, in terms of meaning, into two types; al-wađ‘ al-khāśś/mawđū‘ lah al-khāśś (specific positing to specific meaning), al-wađ‘ al-‘amm/mawđū‘ lah al-‘amm (general positing to general meaning). The meanings of vocables are either general or specific. Later, he divides al-wađ‘ al-khāśś into two parts: al-wađ‘ al-shakhśī (specific), al-wađ‘ al-naw‘ī (generic), and divides al-wađ‘ al-‘amm to the essence of general (dhāt al-kullī) and particulars subsumed under the general concept (hisas al-kullī). In the second marśad, he rejects Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s concept: ālat al wađ‘ (tool of positing). According to his tool of positing, one could use a general term to refer to a particular person that is a general positing to specific meaning. Al-Ayintabī claims that criterion of positing to be by meaning, not by the tool of positing. In the third marśad, he distinguishes between al-wađ‘ al-shakhśī (specific), al-wađ‘ al-naw‘ī (generic), and al-wađ‘ al-‘urfī, and compared to its particulars they are unspecified or specific things in the outside world. The second maqśad consists of three unique (farīda) aspects. Al-Ayintabī dedicates this section of his treatise to criticize opinions on al-wađ‘ al-‘amm/mawđū‘ lah al-‘khāśś (general positing to specific meaning). Earlier scholars had assumed pronouns and particles to be universal; meanwhile, al-Ījī and later scholars re-framed them as particular. These problematic groups of vocables are comprised of four categories: personal pronouns (đamīr), demonstrative pronouns (ism al-ishāra), relative pronouns (ism al-mawśūl) and particles (ĥarf). Al-Ayintabī adopted al-Taftazānī’s opinion in this regard. He claims that the positing of the four categories in their type are general positing to general meaning. But this general wađ‘ is not a positing to the essence of the general (dhāt al-kullī), but to its particulars subsumed under the general concept in the outside world (hisas al-kullī al-muqayyad bi al-tashakhkhus). Reason being that for the practice in general wađ‘ has two types: to essence (dhāt) or to particulars (hisas); and as for the particular, it also has two types: absolute particulars/unlimited particulars (al-hisas al-muŧlaq) or limited particulars subsumed under the general concept (al-hisas al-muqayyad bi al-tashakhkhus fī al-khārij). Al-Ayintabī rejects the type of general positing to specific meaning from different angles. For example, he claims that this type causes the positing of wađ‘ to a nonexistent, unknown particulars, and a vicious circle between general and specific. This is because decision makers are positing wađ‘ all to an unknown and nonexistent particulars. Al-Ayintabī dedicates the conclusion of his treatise to three warnings (tanbīhat). In these warnings, he rejects the distinctive type of general positing to general meaning to only four categories. He makes a distinction between particles, pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, and relative pronouns. The particles require another vocable to express a meaning, but the meaning of pronouns, demonstrative pronouns and relative pronouns is independent; the meaning of these words are found in the words by themselves. Nevertheless, the meaning hidden in these words and in the pronouns’ meaning can be understood through the context of interlocution (qarīna khiŧābiyya), demonstrative pronoun through sensory evidence (qarīna ĥissiya), and relative pronoun through rational evidence (qarīna ‘aqliyya). In his last warning, al-Ayintabī explains that the universal wađ‘ according to linguists are its multiple individuals in the outside world (ashkhās muta‘addada), but the universal wađ‘ according logicians are its generality to those particulars subsumed under the general concept (al-kullī al-muqayyad bi al-tashakhkhus fi al-khārij). He claims that this usage (isti‘māl) does not conflict with that of wađ‘. There are three extant copies of the manuscript in Turkish libraries. Two of these copies (Ankara Ilahiyat, number: 38193 and 37227) are in collections (majmū‘a). The treatise in all of these copies precedes its commentary. The first copy of the commentary (Ankara Ilahiyat, 38193) is dated Hegira 1237, the second (Ankara Ilahiyat, 37227) Hegira 1238, and the third (Süleymaniye, Hacı Mahmud Efendi, 6221) Hegira 1280. This study follows the referencing standards set by the Islamic Research Center (ISAM). Al-Risālah al-Wađ‘iyya, alongside its commentary, has contributed immensely to the development of the wider debate on wađ‘. In this treatise, controversial issues and problems within ‘ilm al-wađ‘ were particularly emphasized. The author criticizes some views in reference to controversial issues within ‘ilm al-wađ‘. Our study concludes that al-Ayintabī engaged with the ‘ilm wađ‘ tradition where he placed wađ‘ at the center of his classification. He defines wađ‘ as a science and discusses it systematically in both theory and practice, and presents the subject matter of wađ‘ as a part of scientific study. With that said, al-Ayintabī accepts earlier scholars’ opinions when it comes to the wađ‘ types of general positing to general meaning while he rejects the type of general positing to specific meaning from different angles.