Mâtürîdî’nin Tabiat Anlayışı Hakkındaki Literatürün Tematik Analizi: Yaklaşım ve Argümanlar
A Thematic Analysis of the Literature on al-Māturīdī’s Conception of Nature: Approaches and Arguments

Summary/Abstract: Purpose: In the classical Ḥanafī-Māturīdī tradition, with a few exceptions in the later (mutaʾakhkhir) period, discussions of being and nature—understood as a constituent part of being—are not treated in detail but are addressed “to the extent required by religion,” in accordance with the systematics of the school. In this respect, the works of the school’s founding figure, Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), are particularly noteworthy. Although he does not construct a systematic cosmology in his Kitāb al-Tawḥīd and Taʾwīlāt al-Qurʾān, his conception of nature—articulated through such concepts as ṭabʿ, ṭabīʿa, jawhar (substance), jism (body), ʿaraḍ (accident), and aʿyān (entities)—has attracted the attention of contemporary scholars. A survey of the relevant scholarship reveals that four distinct characterizations have been proposed regarding al-Māturīdī’s conception of nature: (a) “naturalist,” (b) “accidentalist,” (c) “atomist,” and (d) “neutral” with respect to theories of nature. These divergent approaches appear to stem from the flexible translation strategies adopted in rendering al-Māturīdī’s works, the polysemous structure of the texts, and the methodological preferences of modern researchers. Rather than directly determining al-Māturīdī’s conception of nature directly, this study aims to examine the arguments underlying these four approaches in the literature and to identify the methodological limitations that have led to these interpretations. Method: Designed within a qualitative research framework, this study employs “Thematic Analysis” as a textual analysis technique. The data consist of twenty-four studies published between 1974 and 2025 in Turkish, English, German, and French, each addressing alMāturīdī’s conception of nature either directly or indirectly. These works were analyzed using the aforementioned method; subsequently, recurring patterns of meaning were categorized and examined under common themes with the assistance of MAXQDA, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. Findings: The findings demonstrate that al-Māturīdī’s conception of nature cannot be confined to a single interpretive framework. Within his texts, atomism, naturalism, and accidentalism can each be substantiated on various levels. The distinction between atomism, as a particulate theory, and naturalism, which posits that the universe is explained by the intrinsic natural properties of bodies, is not confined solely to the cosmological plane. The respective understandings of causality adopted by these approaches also bear significant implications for human acts and other theological (kalām) issues. Consequently, the fact that al-Māturīdī’s theory of nature can be characterized through markedly different theoretical frameworks—both in terms of its foundations and its implications—emerges as a noteworthy issue. The description of his position as “neutral” with regard to theories of nature raises the question of whether a coherent theory of nature exists within his intellectual framework. If no such theory exists, it remains debatable whether this results from a principled stance or from the relative limitations of available natural-philosophical knowledge in the early formative period. Conclusion: Evaluations of al-Māturīdī’s conception of nature remain open to diverse interpretations due to the contextual structure of his works and the polysemous character of the concepts he employs. This situation indicates the difficulty of reducing his theory of nature to a single ontological category. The coexistence of concepts and explanations drawn from different theoretical frameworks in his writings suggests that his conception of nature can only be properly understood through contextual readings that take conceptual continuities into account. A dedicated and comprehensive study based on this approach is a significant scholarly necessity.

• Details
• Contents