Çerkeşşeyhizâde Mehmed Tevfik Efendi’nin Tevhîd Anlayışı

• Published in: Eskiyeni Vol. 2020; no. 40; pp. 219 - 242
• Main Author: Bayram, İbrahim
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Turkish
• Published: Anatolian Theological Academy 01.03.2020; Anadolu İlahiyat Akademisi
• Subjects: Din Bilimleri; Felsefe & Psikoloji & Sosyoloji; Siyasal Bilimler; Tarih; Theology and Religion; Ankara; Türkiye; Kalām Çerkeşşeyhizâde Mehmed Tevfik Efendi CherkessheyhiZāde Meḥmed Tawfīq Afandī Naturalists Tawḥīd Proofs of Tawḥīd Argument of Tamānu; Proofs of Tawḥīd; Tevhîd; Tevhîd Delillleri; Kelâm; Çerkeşşeyhizâde Mehmed Tevfik Efendi; Naturalists; Kalām; Argument of Tamānu; Tabiatçılar; Burhân-ı Temânuʽ; Çerkeşşeyhizâde Mehmed Tevfik; Cherkessheyhi-Zāde Meḥmed Tawfīq Afandī; Tawḥīd
• ISSN: 1306-6218; 2636-8536
• DOI: 10.37697/eskiyeni.667866

Çerkeşşeyhizāde Mehmed Tevfik Efendi (Cherkessheyhi-Zāde Meḥmed Tawfīq Afandī), who is one of the important figures of the recent Ottoman ulama, was born in Ankara in 1242/1826 as the son of a family with knowledge and tasawwuf. After receiving his first education in the city where he was born, he moved to Istanbul, where he followed the lessons of scholars such as Vidinli Mustafa Efendi (Vidinli Muṣṭafā Afandī) and Hafız Seyyid Efendi (Ḥāfiẓ Sayyid Afandī) and received ijazat from them. He served as a Mawlawiyāt Qadi (the highest judge/qadi) in various parts of the empi-re, served as a qadi in Madinah, then returned to Ankara and became a professor. Apart from these, he also served in various positions, and was awarded with the rank of Anatolia and then Rumelia Qāḍī-‘askar (highest ranking qadi’s of the Ottoman judiciary) in 1899, respectively. He died in 1901 and was buried in Aksaray, Istanbul.Çerkeşşeyhizde Mehmed Tevfik Efendi, who left behind many works in the style of treatises in the fields of grammar (sarf), nahw (syntax), literature, health, fiqh, logic, philosophy, mysticism and kalām, expressed his views on the most fundamental issues of the Islamic faith. In this sense, he also expressed his opinions on tawḥīd. He tried to prove the existence of the God (ithbat al-wajib), which he will reveal in unity in the way of entry, in this sense, he focused his explanations especially on the rankings of existence consisting of necessary, possible and impossible. He pro-ved the necessity of a necessary being in a rational inferences by depending on the premises he created based on these concepts. After that, he tried to ground that necessity of the existence of a God, based on some verses that indicate the order in the universe. While examining the subject of tawḥīd, the he discussed its nature, the relation between dhāt (essence) and atributes, the possibility of the reason reaching this principle alone and also made an evaluation of the sudūr (emanation) theory of philosophers in the context of the idea of tawḥīd. Regarding these issues, he explained the tawḥīd as the oneness of Allah about being wajib al-wujûd, creator and maʽbood. He also tried to prevent the jeopardise of the doctrine of tawḥīd by expressing that the attributes of Allah are neither the same nor the informal of His dhāt. He argued that the views put forward by Muslim philosophers in the framework of the understanding of sudūr doctrine cause the idea of the eternal of objects, by doing so they have distanced themselves from the understanding of tawḥīd of Islam. The main issue on which he focused on was undoubtedly the proof of tawḥīd. In this sense, he first urged His oneness based on the concept of wajib, which he included at the stage of proving Al-lah’s existence. At this stage, first of all, he stated that the world needs a necessary being, consi-dering that it is possible being. He then demonstrated the necessity of the wajib being by stating that the idea of His absence causes the dilemmas. Then, he stated that assuming the absence of a second hypothetical deity did not lead to any dilemma, and that it was understood that the wajib being must be only one.Çerkeşşeyhizāde Mehmed Tevfik Efendi focused mostly on the burhān al-tamānuʽ (proof of al-tamānuʽ) among the proofs of tawḥīd. The fact that it originated from the Qur'an and that the predecessor scholars gave weight to it seems to have been effective in this preference. This proof is a arguing the possibility of a conflict between them and its outcome if the existence of a hypot-hetical deity is accepted in addition to the existence of God. The author conveys the proof in this manner. According to this, if one of the gods wants the movement of a being and the other wants its quiescent, and both say it, this is not possible because it involves the meaning of something to carry on two opposite qualities at the same time. If neither of said fulfilled, this option is out of the question, as there will be an insolvency contrary to divinity. If only one order fulfilled and others didn’t, in this case other’s claim of deityness would weaken. Consequently the first being will be true god since his order fulfilled. The author has expressed his own opinion on whether or not this proof provides certainty. He also opined his objections to some scholars who misrepre-sent this evidence. Another proof of tawḥīd given by the author on this subject is that mostly identified with the Imam al-Māturīdī. According to this, the miracle shown by the prophet in order to his message is also prove the oneness of that God; while the other hypothetical deity’s silence on this proves that the God is one. He also tries to demonstrate that the God’s oneness based on a some of dilemmas such as ignorance and impotence, which arise if more than one deity claims sovereignty on diffe-rent scopes. Nevertheless, he presents the options that if more than one deity is accepted, one of them will be either imperfect or equivalent to the other. He eliminates the first possibility with the thesis that the imperfect being cannot be a deity. The author states that if both gods are equal, the world either exist or not; if it exists, there would be conflict between both and this option is not possible as well, since it would eliminate the order of the world. According to him, all these possibilities revealed that God is one. Apart from these proofs, the he also considers and examines the naturalist approach, which contains elements contrary to monotheism and the approach that attributes a son to God. He criticizes the first approach, which imposes a great mission on the concept of nature that conta-ins more uncertainty and their explanation of the order in the universe through nature, which is lack of knowledge, perception and consciousness. As for the son attribute to God, he criticizes with the thesis that the son would be created being whether it is formed through semen or in some other way.