Kemalpaşazâde’ye Göre Müşâkele Sanatı (Problemler ve Eleştirler)
The Art of Mushakala According to Kamal Pashazade (Issues and Critiques)
Yazar: Çifçi, Mehmet Faruk
Dergi: Hitit Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 19 No. 1, 2020
Anahtar kelimeler: Arabic Rhetoric,Kamal Pashazade,Mushakala,Companionship,Ta’wil,Sari ad-Din al-Mısri ; Arap Dili Belâgatı,Kemalpaşazâde,Müşâkele,Müsâhabet,Te'vil,Seriyyüddin el-Mısrî

Bu çalışma Kemalpaşazâde’nin müşâkele hakkındaki değerlendirme veeleştirilerini konu edinmiş, bunlar üzerinden onun müşâkelenin teorisi veuygulanması noktasındaki görüşlerine ulaşmayı hedeflemiştir. Zira edebî sanatolmasının yanında tefsir ve kelam gibi ilim dallarını da ilgilendirenmüşâkeleye tüm bu alanlara hâkim bir âlim olan Kemalpaşazâde’nin bakış açışıkanaatimizce önemlidir. Arap dili belâgatında kısaca bir mânayı ona işaret edenbir lafızla değil de söz içinde geçen başka bir lafızla ifade etme şeklindetarif edilmesi mümkün olan müşâkele sanatı yapısı ve örnekleri itibariylebirçok tartışmayı beraberinde getirmiştir. Şöyle ki bu sanatta aynı söz içindeikinci kez gelen lafzın mecazlığı, bu mecazı sahih hale getiren alâkanın neolduğu ve bu alâkanın mahiyeti konusu hep tartışılmıştır. Bu noktada OsmanlıŞeyhülislâmı Kemalpaşazâde de müşâkele sanatına dair düşüncelerini açık ve netolarak ifade etmemiş ancak onun kelimelerin medlüllerinin müsâhabetineistinaden bir mecaz türü olduğu görüşüne meyletmiştir. Zira Arap dili belâgatıliteratüründe geçen birçok müşâkele örneğini o, müşâkeleyi telaffuz etmedenfarklı şekillerde tahlil etmiştir. Haliyle onun tefsirinde de müşâkele sanatı,hakikî mânaya hiçbir şekilde gidilemeyen ve istiare gibi muhkem edebisanatların söz konusu olmadığı yerlerde başvurulacak son bir izah yolu olarakkalmıştır. Tabiriyerindeyse Kemalpaşazâde mecâzi ve hakikî anlam arasındaki alâkanın bu denlitartışmalı olduğu bir mecaz türünü Kur’ân âyetlerinin tefsirine yaklaştırmamaeğilimindedir. Diğer yandan onunmüşâkelenin alâkası, tarifi ve bazı örnekleri üzerinden Molla el-Fenârî, Ebû Yaʿkûb es-Sekkâkî ve Seyyid Şerif el-Cürcânî’ye yönelttiği sert eleştirilere Mısırlı âlim Seriyyüddîn ed-Derûrîaynı ton ve sertlikte ve argümanlarını sağlam temeller üzerine kurarak karşılıkvermeye çalışmıştır.

AbstractThis studyfocuses on Kamal Pashazade's evaluations and criticisms about mushakala andaims to reach his views on the mushakala’s theory and practice through these.Because, besides being a literary art, mushakala is also related to al-kalâmand al-tafsir that Kamal Pashazade was well specialized in. So, his approach tothis art is important in our opinion. The art of mushakala in Arabic languagerhetoric that can be described shortly as using the same word with twodifferent meanings in the same context contains many problems in it as itsstructure and examples. For example, metaphorical meaning in the second word, therelevance of this metaphor and the nature of this relevance have always beendiscussed. Kamal Pashazade also did not state his thoughts about the art ofmushakala clearly. However, he inclined to the view that it was a kind ofmetaphor based on the companionship of meanings. So, he analyzed many examplesof mushakala in the literature of Arabic language rhetoric in different wayswithout mentioning the art of mushakala. Naturally, mushakale art in his Tafsirhas revealed as the last option in places where real meaning cannot be reachedand strong literary arts are not applied. In this context, we can say thatKamal Pashazade has a tendency not to bring such a controversial type ofmetaphor closer to the Qur'anic commentary. On the other hand, Sari ad-Dinal-Mısrî responded to his critiques against Mulla al-Fanari, Abu Yaʿqubal-Sakkaki and al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jürjaniabout the mushakala art in the same tone by establishing his arguments on solidfoundations. SummaryBediʿ disciplineis one of three main topics that form the eloquence of the Arabic language. Themushakala that means ‘similarity’ in the dictionary as literary art in bediʿ disciplineand is defined as using the same word with two different meanings in the samecontext is one of the arts that caused controversy among eloquence scholars dueto its complex structure. Even if the formal similarity between two words inthe same sentence the second word has a different meaning in this art. Forexample in the sentence “Laugh! The days I will laugh at you are close!”  ‘laugh’ is originally used in the true sensein the previous sentence. Nevertheless, in the following sentence, the sameword means “I will make you regret laughing at me.” It is clear that the sameword has completely different meanings in two sentences. This art has much morecomplex examples than which we gave here. Kamal Pashazade (d. 940/1534),Ottoman Shaykh al-Islam, reveals his views which is also the topic of this studyby using this kind of example. Mushakala is anart that has been used frequently in Arabic literature and defined withdifferent names. It is said that is the first rhetorician who used this artwhich has many examples in the Qur'an, the hadiths and poetry of Jahiliyya withcurrent usage in bedi’ science is Abu al-Qāsim Maḥmūd ibn ʿUmar al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144). However, mushakala took its place and literal definition in the scienceof bedi’ by Abu Yaqub Yusuf al-Sakkaki (d. 626/1229). Later, with the additionsof Khatib al-Qazwini (d. 739/1338) this definition was expanded and thefollowing one became commonly accepted: “To use the same word with twodifferent meanings in the same context evidentially or imaginary. With thisdefinition, mushakala is divided into two parts, evidential and imaginalmushakala.   Our study isabout Shaykh al-Islam Kamal Pashazade's approach to the art of mushakaladescribed above. Kamal Pashazade discussed the subject in depth both in histractate about mushakala and his other tractates about metaphor. However, heput forward his views in the form of criticism as usual. On the other hand,Kamal Pashazade's Quran Tafsir contains important clues as to where he puts theart of mushakala in interpreting the Qur'anic verses. In this context, it wasdeemed necessary to address the issue in three stages in this article. Firstly,Kamal Pashazade’s works on metaphor were examined and it was tried to determinein which kind of literary art he put the mushakala. In the second stage, it wastried to determine how he described the mushakala. In addition, KamalPashazade's critiques based on the art of mushakala and the answers he receivedare discussed in this section. In the third stage, the Tafsir of KemalPashazade was examined and it was tried to determine how he benefited from themushakala art in interpreting the verses of the Qur'an. According tothe results we have reached, it can be obviously said that the mushakala is akind of metaphor in Kamal Pashazade's thinking due to the presence ofcompanionship relation between word and meaning.  The mainproblem of Kemalpaşazâde’s work on mushakala is the nature of the companionshiprelation that brings out the metaphorical meaning in the art of mushakala.Because, a metaphor must be based on an existing relation. According toMuhammad ibn Hamzah al-Fanari (d. 834/1431), this relation is the connection inthe mind, and the companionship of words is its evidence.  And according to Hafid al-Herawi (d.916/1510), this relation is only the connection in the mind. At this point,Kamal Pashazade with reference to Allama al-Taftazani (d. 792/1390) says: “Thisrelation is the companionship, but this is a companionship of meanings, notwords”. Indeed, with this view, Kamal Pashazade seems to have responded toal-Herawi and al-Fanari both. On the other hand, the Egyptian scholar İbnas-Saig Sari ad-Din al-Daruri (d. 1066/1656), opposed all of this, particularlyKamal Pashazade's view and he argued that the companionship in the art ofmushakala is between words.  Another issueon that Kamal Pashazade emphasizes is the deficiency in the description of themushakala. Because, he finds Sekkaki's description incomplete. According tohim, this description does not cover the mushakala between the opposite words.On the other hand, Sari ad-Din defended al-Sakkaki by stating that the literarywriters took the most used examples of arts into account and criticized KamalPashazade implicitly. Finally, itshould be said that when the Kamal Pashazade's Tafsir is examined, it isunderstood that he did not accept the mushakala as a suitable art forinterpreting the verses of the Qur'an.