Bu çalışma, Tenkîh ve onun şerhi olan Tavzîh isimli eserler dahilinde Sadrüşşerîa tarafından ilk defa dile getirilen “el-Mukaddimâtü’l-erba‘a” isimli bölüme, Molla Samsûnîzâde’nin Teftâzânî’nin haşiyesini esas alarak yaptığı talikadır. Daha sonra üzerinde çok sayıda çalışma yapılan Dört Mukaddime, fıkıh usulü, kelam ve dil ile ilgili konuların kesiştiği meseleleri ele almaktadır. Hüsün-kubuhun işlendiği bu risale içerisinde kelam ve usul-i fıkıh ilkeleri doğrultusunda meselelerin ele alındığı görülür. Eser özellikle de dört temel mukaddime olan varlık [mevcûd], varoluş [îcâd], vücuda gelme [îkâ‘] ve tercihi incelemektedir. Mukaddimelerdeki konuların, hüsün-kubuh bağlamında incelendiğinde derin bir ahlak ve hukuk düşüncesini barındırdığı görülmektedir. Söz konusu risalenin Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in emri üzerine kaleme alındığı, eserin giriş bölümünde belirtilmekte ve bu da esere ayrı bir önem kazandırmaktadır.

Ḥasan b. ‛Abd al-Ṣamad al-Samsūnī, also widely known as Molla Samsūnīzāde, was an Ottoman scholar. He acquired knowledge from Anatolian scholars. Under Molla Hüsrev he studied the religious and rational sciences, in particular uṣūl al-fiqh and furū‛ al-fiqh. After completing his educational training, Samsūnīzāde taught in Sahn-ı Semān as well as in other madrasahs. At the same time, he became Sultan Fatih’s private teacher. Then, Samsūnīzāde, who was appointed as the kazasker (military judge), was dismissed shortly after and returned once again to Sahn-ı Semān as a mudarris (professor). He subsequently became the chief judge of Istanbul, and in 891/1486, he died while in office. He was a student of Molla Hüsrev. Samsūnīzāde’s work entitled Ta‘līqah ‘alā al-Muqaddimāt al-Arba‘ah is a gloss of a section in the “four preliminaries” of a chapter in Sa‛d al-Dīn al-Taftazānī’s (d. 791/1390) al-Talwīḥ ilā kashf ḥaqā’iq al-tanqīḥ. The original of these is based on Ṣadr al-Sharī‛ah’s (d. 747/1346) penned works entitled al-Tanqīḥ and its commentary al-Tawḍīh. The author indicates in the preface that he wrote the treatise in compliance with the ordinance of Sultan Mehmed Han. That being said, the reason for the work’s authorship is said to have been “to reconcile criticisms that contemporary scholars have put forward on the ḥusn-qubuḥ section in al-Tawḍīh and al-Talwīḥ,” and these scholars are accused of causing confusion in what is regarded as the oppression of the philosophers with their irrational assertions. Samsūnīzāde finds himself referencing some works, including al-Talwīḥ, Sharḥ al-maqāṣid, and al-Mawāqif, by directly quoting from them in this treatise of his. The Four Preliminaries discuss issues in which topics related to uṣūl al-fiqh, kalām, and language, intersect. Ḥusn-qubuḥ, which is dealt with in this treatise, has been approached in accordance to the principles of kalām and uṣūl al-fiqh. It analyzes, in particular, four fundamental preliminaries of mawjūd (existing), ījād (origination), īqā‘ (occurrence) and choice. A profound moral and legal thought appears to be present when the issues in the Preliminaries are analyzed within the context of ḥusn-qubuḥ. Samsūnīzāde began to write this work on the order of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror. In his work, after the basmalah, ḥamdalah, and ṣalawāt, he makes mention of the reason for its authorship and sends prayers onto Sultan Mehmed. With regards to treating the subject matter, after he recounts, in part, from al-Talwīḥ, he explains the text which he relates by stating “qāla fī al-Talwīḥ” or “qawluhu.” He has shown by way of “al-ākhir” that the quotations are partial as he does not cite the entire text. After the author references al-Talwīḥ, on occasion, he provides immediate grounds for it; also, at times he gives an explanation by explicitly writing “qulnā;” sometimes to show that the matter is debatable and that there are diverging views he uses expressions like “fīhi baḥth or fīhi naẓar.” In certain instances, he directly mentions the position at variance to the one in question. In a number of places, he himself responds to opposing views, while at other times he cites responses by referencing authoritative works. The manuscript located at the Süleymaniye Library, in the Esad Efendi section, is registered under number 1279/1, between folios 1b‒12b with 23 lines. It was copied in 907/1501 by Ahkar Ibadürrahman Sa‘dī b. Isa b. Emirhan in Naskh script. This copy was designated with the symbol “ع” when it was critically edited. Likewise, in the comments made, “:في هامش ع” was written in the footnotes. Another manuscript also located at the Süleymaniye Library, in the Muradmolla section, is registered under number 706, between folios 121b‒124a with 21 lines. It was copied in a script similar to Ta‛līq. The manuscript in question was designated with the symbol “م.” As for the manuscript found at the Beyazıt Devlet Library, in the Veliyüddin Efendi section, is registered under number 1005, between folios 103b‒114a with 25 lines. It was copied in Ta‛līq script. This manuscript was designated with the symbol “د.” There is also a synopsis of the work being critically edited. This treatise is found at the Süleymaniye Library, in the Servili collection, under the following numbers and folios: 250/7, 21b‒27b, Lāleli 714/1, 61b‒66b, Şehid Ali Paşa, 672, 74b‒80b, and 2844, 63b‒67b, and Bağdatlı Vehbi 2027, 1b‒7a. Considerable differences are found in the manuscripts that were copied. Varying texts of nearly a half folio in length are particularly found between the Esad Efendi with that of the Muradmolla and Veliyüddin Efendi manuscripts; this half a folio variation is the same in the Muradmolla and Veliyüddin Efendi manuscripts. As can be seen in the footnotes, there are a few minor wording and sentential differences. Some of these differences are comprised of words that are synonymous, while others of a copying error, and some could be said to be genuinely wrong. While critically editing this treatise, a constructive method was applied in comparing the three manuscripts. A new text was created by comparing the manuscripts and selecting from them words and sentences deemed to be the most accurate. Differences in the manuscripts are shown in the footnotes. The texts taken from the Talwīḥ of the printed book presented when possible. In addition, from those works mentioned, efforts were made to locate where they were in the texts, and to also locate in different books the opinions from works not mentioned. Again, some of the words from linguistic books were shown and were given extensive information in the footnotes. Writings found in the work’s gloss, which features as marginal notes, have been shown in full throughout the footnotes.