A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF AL-WAQF AL-JĀIZ -Within the Framework of Sajāwandī's Work and Related Verses-

VAKF-I CÂİZİ DOĞRU ANLAMAK -Secâvendî’nin Eseri ve İlgili Ayetlerin Manası Çerçevesinde-

Abstract

Sajāwandī, in his Ilelu'l-Wuqūf, divided waqf into six categories. In the introduction of his work, he defined these six categories, explained the definitions with examples, and indicated which symbols would be used in his work for these categories. One of the categories in his classification is “al-waqf al-jāiz”. Sajāwandī defined “al-waqf al-jāiz” as “a waqf in which both stopping (waqf) and transition (wasl) are appropriate, because there are necessities and possible reasons for making stopping (waqf) and transition (wasl)”. Today, in some works related to the subject, “al-waqf al-jāiz” is defined as “the place where it is better to make waqf although both stopping (waqf) and transition (wasl) are appropriate.” Perhaps by virtue of the definitions made, “al-waqf al-jāiz” is generally known as such. But description of “al-waqf al-jāiz” as “the place where it is better to make waqf although both stopping (waqf) and transition (wasl) are appropriate” does not coincide exactly with the terminology of Sajāwandī, and also does not tally with the usage in his work and the proper meaning of the related verses. Firstly, in Sajāwandī’s definition of this kind of waqf, he did not pass a judgment such as “it is better to make waqf”. Furthermore, while analyzing Sajāwandī’s preference and methods, it would be seen that “al-waqf al-jāiz” is not qualified homogeneous, instead it is presented in variable forms. Likewise, in places where “ ”ج symbol which represents “al-waqf al-jāiz” in the context of his work, Sajāwandī gave different rulings. In some places he said it is preferable to make waqf, while he mentioned the preference of wasl in some other places. Moreover, in some places, the author only confined himself to stating that waqf is permissible (jāiz). Basically, as regards places where Sajāwandī did not state his preference, it is possible to say that waqf is better in some, while wasl is better in others. As for some other places where he didn’t state his choice, neither waqf nor wasl surpasses the other, but rather they are equally right. In that case, Sajāwandī’s usage of “al-waqf al-jāiz” categorization is in three different positions: 1. Places where Sajāwandī explicitly preferred the wasl or stated reasons that necessitated the wasl 2. Places where Sajāwandī explicitly preferred the waqf or stated reasons that necessitated the waqf 3. Places where Sajāwandī did not in any way declare his preference. In addition to this, it is possible to divide places where he did not state his preference into three: a. Despite Sajāwandī not stating his preference, places where wasl is more appropriate b. Despite Sajāwandī not stating his preference, places where waqf is more appropriate c. Places where wasl and waqf are equally accepted right. This being the case, it could be said that “al-waqf al-jāiz” according to Sajāwandī’s usage amounts to five situations. In this case, the definition “the place where it is better to make waqf although both stopping (waqf) and transition (wasl) were appropriate” relating to “al-waqf al-jāiz” only tallies with two of the five situations. In other words, it only covers places where the author preferred waqf and places where it is possible to say that waqf is better although he did not state any preference. Considering the other three situations, the definition in question does not cover Sajāwandī’s terminology and his usage in the content of his work. Consequently, the said definition is wrong in these three positions: The places where the author had chosen to make wasl, places where it is possible to say that wasl is better although he did not state any preference, and places where the two are equally appropriate. In addition to this, in case the “waqf is more appropriate” definition is acted upon and waqf is made in verses where wasl is actually better, the relevant verses either loses their semantic completeness or their proper meaning goes unnoticed. In such case, there is risk of defeating the purpose of sajāwands, which primary aim is to ensure proper recitation. In order to avoid this risk, the first and easiest thing to do is amending the mistakes in the definitions that does not tally with Sajāwandī’s definition and application. In other words, definitions such as “it is better to make waqf although both stopping (waqf) and transition (wasl) are appropriate” or “waqf and wasl are equally appropriate” should be transformed back to the authentic state of the author’s terminology and application. Moreover, in definitions to be made, there should be comprehensive details of the author’s usage. This little amendment is supposed to form foundation for the spread of the right information. The amendment stated above can contribute to the establishment of right information. However, in the final analysis, there is not any differentiation that show different positions of “al-waqf al-jāiz” in Mushafs in Turkey but only there is “ ج” symbol. Therefore, during recitation of the Qur’ān it is difficult to decide in which places waqf or wasl is preferred or in which places the two are equally appropriate. Hence, in order to realize the application that tallies with authentic meaning of the verses, there is need to create ideas towards the establishment of a system that conforms to the whole of “al-waqf al-jāiz” category. Thus, “al-waqf al-jāiz” category will be properly define to suit the proper meaning of the verses, and also Sajāwandī’s definition and his usage. This article is aimed at presenting the nature of the “al-waqf al-jāiz” category, within the frame of the usage in Sajāwandī's work namely Ilelü’l- Wukûf and the meaning of related verses.

Özet

Secâvendî İlelü’l-Vukûf adlı eserinde vakfı altı kategoriye ayırmıştır. Eserinin giriş kısmında bu altı kategorinin tanımını yapmış, tanımları örneklerle açıklamış ve bu kategoriler için eserinde hangi rumuzları kullanacağını belirtmiştir. Onun yaptığı tasnifte yer alan kategorilerden birisi de “vakf-ı câiz”dir. Müellif vakf-ı caizi “Hem vakf yapmayı hem de geçiş yapmayı gerekli/mümkün kılan sebepler bulunduğu için durmanın da geçmenin de caiz olduğu vakf” şeklinde tanımlamıştır.Günümüzde konuyla ilgili bazı eserlerde vakf-ı caiz, “vakfın ve vaslın caiz olmasıyla birlikte vakf yapmanın daha evla olduğu” yer diye tanımlanmaktadır. Yapılan tanımların etkisiyle olsa gerek, vakf-ı caiz genelde böyle bilinmektedir. Oysa “vakfın ve vaslın caiz olmasıyla birlikte vakf yapmanın daha evla olduğu” şeklindeki tanım, Secâvendî’nin terminolojisiyle, eserinin muhtevasındaki kullanımıyla ve ilgili ayetlerin tercihe şayan manasıyla birebir örtüşmemektedir. İlaveten, “vakf yapmanın daha evla olduğu” şeklindeki tanıma göre hareket edilip haddizatında vaslın evla olduğu ayetlerde vakf yapıldığı takdirde, ilgili ayetlerin mana bütünlüğü bozulacak ya da tercihe şayan manası gözden kaçmış olacaktır. Bu durum vakf-ı câiz kategorisinin mahiyetinin; Secâvendî’nin tanım ve kullanımının yanı sıra, ayetlerin manasına uygun olarak tespit edilmesini gerektirmektedir. Buradan hareketle kaleme alınan bu makalede, Secâvendî’nin vakf-ı caiz kategorisinin mahiyetinin ortaya konulması amaçlanmaktadır.