Urmevî’nin Meṭâli‘u’l-envâr ve Kitâbü’l-Mebâhic İsimli Eserlerinin Bazı Mantık Konuları Bakımından Karşılaştırılması
The Comparison of Urmawī’s Books Maṭāliʿ al-Anwār and Kitāb al-Mabāḥij in Terms of Some Logical Issues

Summary/Abstract: Sirāj al-dīn al-Urmawī (d. 683/1283) is one of the important thinkers who lived in the 13th century. He has written many books. His most famous philosophical study is Maṭāli‘ al-Anwār and this book consists of three parts: logic, physics and metaphysics. One of al-Urmavî’s little-known works is Kitāb al-Mabāḥij fī sharḥ al-Manāhij fī ʿilm al-manṭiq. This work of al-Urmawī, which we briefly call Mabāhij, is a book of logic from beginning to the end. In this study, we tried to compare the logic sections of his works in order to determine al-Urmawī’s point of view about logic. Another thing we want to do with it is to determine the state of logic science in the thirteenth century within the framework of al-Urmawī’s approach since al-Urmawī is one of the important logician of his time. We have compared al-Urmawī’s Books Maṭāli‘ al-Anwār and Kitāb al-Mabāḥij fī sharḥ al-Manāhij fī ʿilm al-manṭiq in terms of logic issues in this study. Our aim at doing this is to determine the perspective of al-Urmawī regarding of logic. One of our compared books is Maṭāli‘ al-Anwār and this book consists of three parts: logic, physics and metaphysics. Various works have been focusing on this work of al-Urmawī. Maṭāli‘ al-Anwār has been studied in a doctoral dissertation in Turkey. In the work done by Hasan Akkanat, Maṭāli‘ al-Anwār was edited, translated into Turkish and an evaluation was made.Kitāb al-Mabāḥij fī sharḥ al-Manāhij fī ilm al-manṭiq is al-Urmawī’s little-known work. This book includes logic issues from beginning to the end and there has been no examination on it. This book, which we call briefly al-Mabāhij, is a comment of al-Manāhij. Al-Manāhij has been written by al-Urmawī as well.Al-Mabāhij is a manuscript. A copy of this work, which is available at the Library of Konya Bölge Yazmalar, Yusufaga section. It is registered at number 5482/2 and it is 154 pages. At the beginning of the manuscript, which constitutes the second manuscript of a compound manuscript, the name of the manuscript and the author were recorded in a white sheet which apparently was added by someone who repaired the manuscript. It is in this record that the book itself was written in 671 by al-Urmawī own handwriting. If it is accepted that the information given is correct, it can be said that this manuscript is the original manuscript. I learned from Dr. Tuna Tunagöz that another copy of al-Mabâhij. This is the record of this copy of al-Mabāhij: Saudi Arabia Camia al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saud al-Islamiyya Library, number: 7153. In the registration slip at the beginning of the work, it is written that the book belongs to Shahristānī but this information is not correct. It is understood that this manuscript belongs to al-Urmawī when al-Mabāhij is compared to Yusufaga’s 5482/2.When we look at the content in both works, we can see that the main points of logic are examined. In general, under the heading of the concepts (tasawwur) in which the topics discussed are: the requirement to logic, the topic of logic, universal and particular concepts, the five universal concepts, the four relationship with concepts and definition. In the tasdīqāt section, the propositions and the syllogism are examined. In this part, definition, nature, elements and types of propositions after that definition, nature, elements and kind of syllogism then topics related to syllogism and five arts were discussed.In both works, all logic topics are dealt with in a wide range. However, there are some exceptions to this situation. The exceptions is the following section from hypothetical syllogism in the al-Mabāhij and five arts in the Maṭāli‘ al-Anwār. The topics have been extensively explained. The objections and the discussions raised about the issues have not been neglected. Categories are not included in the logic issues as it is in after Avicenna’s tradition.If we look at the differences and similarities between the two works in terms of the handling of the logic issues, the basic definitions of the concepts and the main points of the concepts are given in Maṭāli‘ al-Anwār, but these are sometimes not exemplified. In al-Mabāhij, examples were given immediately after the basic definitions of the subject. This is one of the most remarkable differences between the two works.The fact that the plans of two works are almost the same except for the minor exceptions constitute their most important similarity. Because the main sections, top headings and subject headings are almost identical, with small differences in expression. Compared books are resembled in terms of style and content.The logical parts of Maṭāli‘ al-Anwār and al-Mabāhij seem to be quite similar to each other. On the contrary, some summary narratives in Maṭāli‘ al-Anwār were enriched in al-Mabāhij by keeping basic definitions and assumptions. For this reason, it can be said that al-Mabāhij is a commentary of Maṭāli‘ al-Anwār in a sense. In terms of the study of logic issues, it is seen that in two studies the basis of Avicenna, which precedes and centred on the peripatetic view, appears to be taken. Avicenna’s views are taken as reference in the discussion of the main issues of logic and in basic discussions. On the contrary, the approaches of thinkers like Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and Zayn al-Dīn al-Kashsī were criticized.

• Details
• Contents