Kader

Öz

This study analyzes the methodological defense and the approach of Ibn al-Murtaḑa (d. 840/1437), a prominent representative of the late Zaydi-Mu‘tazili tradition, in response to the comprehensive critiques put forth by Fakhr al-Din al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) against the principles of argumentation (hereinafter istidlāl) methods employed in the earlier kalām scholars. One of the earliest critiques of istidlāl methods adopted by former kalām scholars appears in Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī’s (d. 478/1085) al-Burhān fī uṣūl al-fiqh. Al-Juwaynī not only surveyed the rational istidlāl methods (istidlāl ʿaqlī) employed by theologians in knowledge production but also questioned the competence of these methods in attaining metaphysical knowledge, thereby initiating a method-based critical thinking. This intellectual orientation cultivated a systematic and theoretical framework in Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Nihāyat al-ʿuqūl fī dirāyat al-uṣūl. Al-Rāzī meticulously analyzes various forms of reasoning that had become established in the classical kalām tradition -such as “denying what has no evidence” (nafy mā lā dalīla ʿalayh), “analogical reasoning” (qiyās), “entailment” (ilzām) and “the two premises famous among theologians”- and raised substantial criticisms regarding the consistency and validity of these methods. Ibn al-Murtaḑā responded to al-Rāzī’s criticisms with the aim of preserving and strengthening the epistemological principles and istidlāl systematics of Mu‘tazilī thought in his refutation titled al-Hidāyah ilā ḥalli shubah al-Nihāyah, which he wrote on al-Rāzī’s Nihāyat al-ʿuqūl. According to him, Rāzī examined each issue in detail from both rational (ʿaqlī) and scriptural (naqlī) perspectives and raised particularly challenging objections against the theoretical foundation on which the Mu‘tazilī views were based in. Ibn al-Murtaḑā fundamentally regarded these criticisms as a profound challenge to the foundational principles of Muʿtazilī methodology, and within this framework, he both sought to substantiate the employed methods and endeavored to conceptually refute al-Rāzī’s objections. His approach, on the one hand, reveals how late-period Zaydī-Mu‘tazilī scholars defended classical kalām methods and the theoretical principles underlying these defenses, and on the other hand, contributes to understanding early theological istidlāl methods functioned during the earlier kalām periods. The study will first briefly describe and evaluate al-Juwaynī's criticisms directed at the Mu‘tazila regarding their methods of istidlāl, primarily focusing on his work al-Shāmil fī uṣūl al-dīn; then, through intertextual comparative analysis, it will examine both al-Rāzī's criticisms and Ibn al-Murtaḑā's epistemological defense against them in their own conceptual dimensions. Thus, an attempt will be made to identify how these two scholars converged within a shared discursive framework. In this regard, the study aims to elucidate the relationship between late Zaydī-Mu‘tazilī thought and classical kalām heritage, demonstrate its contributions to early theological debates, and provide a perspective that facilitates understanding of methodological continuities and ruptures.