Kıraat Geleneğimizde Mısır Tariki Şeyh Atâullah Mesleği

The Tariq of Misir: The Maslak of Sheikh Ataullah in Our Qiraat Tradition
Its Usul, Preferences and Comparison with Schools
This study examines the methodological transformation of the science of qira’at which,
within the tradition of Islamic sciences, investigates the manner of reciting the words
of the Holy Qur’an as revealed throughout history, and explores the reflections of
this transformation in Istanbul and Anatolia during the Ottoman period, centring on
the scholarly legacy of Shaykh Atâullah. The book presents, in a chronological manner,
the evolution over time of the teaching of qira’at, which was conducted according to the
infirād method a system based on students obtaining ijāzah (certification) by reading
individually from their teachers, without any numerical restrictions, up until the fifth
century AH.
As emphasised in the work, from the fifth Hijri (11th) century onwards, the qira’at al-sab
ʿa (seven recitations) were adopted, and from the ninth Hijri (15th) century onwards,
the qira’at al-ʿashara (ten recitations); the indirâc method -which refers to the consolidation
of the various ‘vecih’ (variants) into a single recitation- was thus adopted. The
institutionalisation and widespread adoption of this systematic approach was realised
through the monumental work of Ibn al-Jazari (d. 833/1429), al-Nashr fi’l-Qira’at al-ʿAshr,
which marked a turning point in the history of recitation. However, as a natural consequence
of the ‘indirâc’ method, the geometric increase in the number of transmission
chains (tarik) associated with the recitation variants (vecih) gave rise to serious methodological
problems, such as the intermingling of variants (telfîk) and the overlooking
of specific conditions pertaining to the narrators (takyîd), which in turn compelled the
scholars to undertake ‘tahrîrât’ a process of sifting through and verifying the narrations.
Within the Ottoman world of recitation, the tahrîrât activities that developed on the
basis of Ibn al-Jazari’s al-Nashr and its verse-form version, Ṭayyibet al-Nashr, eventually
led to the emergence of different traditions of recitation practice that is, ‘meslek’ (schools).
This book focuses on the school of Sheikh Atâullah, which, amongst these schools,
continues to thrive today in Istanbul and Anatolia and is at the forefront of educational
methods.
In this study, the points at which the school of Sheikh Atâullah diverges from other schools
of recitation in terms of methodology and ferşü’l-hurûf (specific ways of pronouncing
words) are analysed through an examination of the works. The key findings and the flow
of content in the book are as follows:
• Ašru’s-Suğrâ and the Principle of Ruhsat: The principle of ruhsat, which prioritises
ease, is adopted in the practice of the school at the aşru’s-suğrâ stage (the
ten recitations according to the Šātibiyya and Durre traditions); this approach
is discussed in Muhammad Ārif al-Ḥifzī’s (d. 1238/1822) Mughni’l-ḳurrâ fî sharhi
Muḫtâru’l-iḳrâ, by ‘Abd al-Fattâh al-Pâlûwî (d. 1173/1759) Zübdetü’l-ʿirfân fî vücûhi’l-
Kur’ân and Molla Mehmed Emin Efendi’s (d. 1275/1859) ʿUmdetü’l-ḫullân fî
iḍâḥi Zübdetü’l-ʿirfân.
viii
• Aşru’l-Kubrâ and the Principle of Azimet: In the aşru’l-kubrâ (the ten recitations
of the Tayyibe method), the principle of azimet which in places advocates
caution and acting in accordance with the strongest interpretation is favoured,
as seen in the work Mürşidü’ṭ -ṭalebe ilâ iḍâḥi vücûhi baʿḍi âyâti’l-Ḳur’âniyye and
Mehmed Emin Efendi’s work Züḫrü’l-erîb fî iḍâḥi’l-cemʿ bi’t-takrîb, which demonstrate
that the principle of azimet which calls for caution in certain instances and
action in the strongest sense is favoured.
• Methodological Overlaps: In matters where Atâullah applied the principle of
azimet in his work, there are parallels with Yûsufefendizâde Abdullah Hilmi’s
(d. 1167/1754) el-İ’tilâf fî vücûhi’l-ihtilâf and Mustafa el-İzmîrî’s (d. 1154/1741) Bedâ’i
ʻu’l-burhân ʿalâ ʿUmdeti’l-ʿirfân, a work of treatises, are consulted in matters
where Atâullah applied the principle of azimet, as evidenced by concrete textual
examples.
One of the original aspects of this study is its exploration of a historical question of ‘survival’:
whilst schools such as the I’tilâf and Mutkîn strictly applied the principle of azimet,
why did they eventually fade from the historical stage in the face of the Sheikh
Atâullah and Sufi schools, which were based on the principle of ruhsat?
In seeking an answer to this question, the author attributes the success of the Sheikh
Atâullah school which emerged chronologically later than the other schools to its avoidance
of rigid dogmatism. Through the literature of tahrîrât, the work endeavours to
successfully demonstrate that this school is the sole tradition to have survived uninterrupted
to the present day, owing to its flexible, balanced and all-encompassing structure,
which does not merely adhere to a dogmatic reliance on leniency (ruhsat) but also integrates
the principle of strict observance (azimet) into its system when necessary.
Keywords: Recitation; the School of Sheikh Atâullah; the Indirâc Method; Tahrîrât; the
Ottoman Tradition of Recitation