The Evaluation of the Short Commentary by Wali al-Din Jar Allah on Birgiwi's Treatise about the Rules of Inquiry and Debate along with the Critical Edition of the Arabic Text

This article delves into how Wali al-Din Jar Allah interprets Mehmed al-Birgiwi's treatise on inquiry and debate in the context of his work al-Shar. al-.aghir and presents the critical Arabic text of his commentary. The field of adab al-bah.s. wa al-munaz.ara, which establishes the relationship between the theological sciences and the concepts of inquiry and debate, is one of the disciplines included in the Ottoman higher education curriculum. Birgiwi's one-page treatise on inquiry and debate and Jar Allah's commentaries are among the texts taught in the related courses. Jar Allah wrote three commentaries on this treatise, namely "the Great", "the Middle", and "the Short" ones. However, in the first two commentaries, Jar Allah focuses more on criticizing the four authors who had written commentaries on the treatise before him rather than on interpreting it. Consequently, this article scrutinizes Jar Allah's interpretation of the treatise based on "the Short Commentary". The reason for choosing this commentary on the treatise as the subject of examination in this article is Jar Allah's greater productivity in terms of both the number of works and the page count compared to the other fifteen commentators. Additionally, he had already authored substantial works in this field before interpreting the treatise. Moreover, despite Jar Allah's authorship of encyclopaedic works in the field of inquiry and debate, there has been a lack of attention to this aspect, particularly in academic studies focusing on his intellectual legacy. Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap in Jar Allah's intellectual profile and to illustrate the intersection of theology and Islamic sciences with the concepts of "inquiry" and "debate" through the example of the commentary. This study consists of two sections within this framework. The first section examines how Jar Allah interprets the inquiry and debate surrounding the nature of the discussion and the discussant in the treatise, as well as the aspects of narration, claim, premise, evidence, and conclusion. Additionally, it examines Jar Allah's positioning of Birgiwi within the literature on inquiry and debate. Overlapping views with other commentators by Jar Allah are demonstrated through references to the commentaries of these scholars. In this context, Jar Allah defines the technical terms used by Birgiwi, as Birgiwi summarizes the process of inquiry and debate without defining the technical terms associated with them. For example, Birgiwi uses the term "debater" without providing a definition, but Jar Allah defines the concept of "debate" as both "the contemplation by two individuals of the connection between two things to reveal the truth" and "the mutual defense of a viewpoint by two individuals to reveal the truth." Jar Allah does not agree with Birgiwi's views, and he argues that it is more appropriate to define the debater as an "inquirer," which denotes reciprocal questioning. Jar Allah disagrees with Birgiwi's opinion that the opposing party can only inquire about the premises, evidence, or narration if they do not have definitive knowledge. To support this claim, he cites al-Iji's stance on the subject, arguing that the opposing party can challenge and object, even if they already know, to obtain more precise knowledge or test a debater. While Jar Allah claims that he disagrees with Iji on certain issues, he expresses that, in terms of the organization of the debate, he is in the same position as Iji. He thinks similarly to al-Razi regarding the organization of the debate. According to Jar Allah, Birgiwi was influenced by al-Pazdawi's and al-Taftazani's opinions on the transition to another evidence, and he generally followed the views of methodist H.anafi jurists. However, Jar Allah argues that the specific details provided by Birgiwi regarding the views of H.anafi jurists in transitioning to another piece of evidence are not relevant within the discipline of inquiry and debate. In this discipline, the criteria for transitioning to another piece of evidence are determined by its own principles, and not by the criteria set by methodist H.anafi or Shafi.i jurists. For instance, when discussing conclusions and counter-evidence, if a debater prefers the transition to another piece of evidence, it should not be considered counter-evidence according to the principles of this discipline. In the second section of the article, a critical edition of the Arabic text of "the Short Commentary", for which four copies were identified, was conducted following ISAM's textual criticism principles. Additionally, four other commentaries preceding this commentary were identified. Ultimately, this study concludes that Jar Allah focused on defining the technical terms of the treatise and determining his position within the discipline based on his own views without addressing any problematic issues in his interpretations.