İlliyetin Umûr-ı Âmme’de Konumlanışı: Tûsî, Kuşçu ve Devvânî’nin Katkıları
Positioning of Causality in al-Umūr al-Āmma: Contributions of al-Tūsī, Qūshjī and al-Dawwānī

Summary/Abstract: Purpose: The present study examines the position of the issue of causality within the discussions of al-umūr al-āmma in post-classical (mutaakhkhirūn) kalam, focusing on the contributions of Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī (d. 672/1274), Alī Qūshjī (d. 879/1474) and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawwānī (d. 908/1502). The primary research problem pertains to the criteria by which issues pertaining to cause and effect are encompassed within the purview of al-umūr al-āmma. In addition, the study demonstrates how the selection of matters considered as al-umūr al-āmma was determined within the framework of the conception of causality. The objective of this study is to demonstrate that deliberations concerning causality were evaluated from various multiple vantage points within the prevailing tradition and were regarded as a component of al-umūr al-āmma, thereby underscoring the evolving character of discourse. Method: The research was conducted using a qualitative method, and the works of Tūsī, Qushjī, and Dawwānī in the genres of text, commentaries and glosses were analyzed using textual analysis. Within this framework, the works were examined comparatively, with the concepts of al-umūr al-āmma, cause-effect and secondary intelligibles placed at the center of the conceptual analysis. The subject was approached both through Tūsī’s metaphysical system and the interpretations developed in the commentaries and glosses of the Tajrīd tradition. These approaches served to highlight the aspects that contribute to the relationship between kalam and philosophy. Findings: Tūsī, in accordance with his understanding of causality, treated the issue of causation which he regarded as concerning all beings in terms of being a cause or an effect within the scope of al-umūr al-āmma, in his work Tajrīd al-‘aqāid. Qushjī, on the other hand, justified the inclusion of causality and effecthood within al-umūr al-āmma for a different reason, as a consequence of his interpretation of al-umūr al-āmma and his conception of secondary intelligibles. Dawwānī, evaluations of Qushjī’s views and his criticisms of Tūsī, introduced a new dimension to the discussion, justifying the appropriateness of examining material and formal causes within the scope of al-umūr al-āmma, given their specificity to corporeal entities. Conclusion: By including the discussions of causality within al-umūr al-āmma, Tūsī played a role in the adoption of the Avicennian approach by later kalam scholars. The treatment of these issues within the scope of al-umūr al-āmma is indicative of a methodological choice that demonstrates the relationship between kalam and philosophy but also reveals the intellectual diversity and depth of post-classical kalam. In this respect, the study clarifies the evolving course of the debate from Tūsī to Dawwānī, filling a gap in the literature and offering an opportunity to reconsider the period’s understanding of being and causality. It is suggested that subsequent research may examine the status of this discussion in different commentary traditions and its impact on subsequent Ottoman kalam scholars.

• Details
• Contents