67, claims this work for Bedreddin, but the manuscript
to which he refers, clearly states the book was completed in
1114. No other evidence in the manuscript suggests any relationship
to Bedreddin.
However, Bursalı Mehmet Tahir does mention having seen an autograph manuscript of another sharḥ work on fiqh by
Bedreddin,
not apparently either the Jāmi‘ al-Fuṣūlayn or the
Tashīl, of which the autograph ms was preserved in the
Şehzade Cami (64:
‘Bir de Fıkıhtan mecma' şerhi vardır ki kendi el yazısiyle yazma nüshası Şehzade Camii Kütüphanesindedir’).
It was not possible to trace this.
While the Wāridāt is much better known to modern scholarship,
it was on his Hanafi fiqh-work Jāmi‘ al-Fuṣūlayn that
Şeyh Bedreddin’s reputation largely rested historically, surviving in numerous manuscripts.
The work was composed over a course of ten months while Bedreddīn was serving
Musa Çelebi as kazasker (qadi‘askar).
He brings together two Hanafi compendia of fatwas entitled Fuṣūl,
composed by Majd al-Dīn al-Usrūshanī (632/1235) and Zayn al-Dīn al-Marghīnānī al-Samarqandī al-ʿImādī (d. 670/1271). Dealing with the
subtleties of the law, Bedreddīn frequently inserts his own interventions. Show more
Edirne.
According to 473b, the author stated it was completed in
Safar 814. Alternatively, 65, gives 1411AD.
The first work written by Bedreddīn, the work was begun while he was still in Egypt
according to Hacı Yunus Apaydın (and not in
İznik as Kātib Çelebi and Taşköprizāde claim). It is most
likely that he also completed while in Egypt, although there is a
slight possibility he did so in Edirne sometime after
807. Adopting the structure of Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Ibn al-Sāʿātī al-Baʿalbakkī’s (d. 694 /1295)
Majmāʿ al-Baḥrayn wa Multaqa al-Nayyirayn fī’l-Fiqh al-Ḥanafī, and
referencing al-Mawsilī’s al-Mukhtār, Ḥāfiẓ al-Dīn al-Nasafī’s
Kanz al-Daqā’iq and Tāj al-Sharīʿa Maḥmūd’s Wiqāya al-Riwāya fi Masāʾil
al-Hidāya, this specialized work of law examines subtle fiqh differences (ikhtilāf). Grounded in the views of
the founders of the Hanafi school, it compares diverse juristic opinions or perspectives within the Hanafi school,
sometimes making comparisons with legal opinions from the other three schools. Bedreddīn examines certain legal
problems not dealt with in his sources, and demonstates a deep legal knowledge as mujtahid. His exercise of ijtihad
in this work has received both praise and criticism from his contemporaries and later Ottoman religious scholars.
The work is always copied together with his commentary, al-Tashīl,
and doesn’t exist on its own. Show more
, contains on fols. 1b-9a ff. a Turkish
work entitled risale-i Bedreddin to which 70 first drew
attention. The attribution is dubious as firstly, unlike all of Bedreddin’s other known works, it is in Turkish, and secondly it concludes
‘This is the treatise of Faḍlallāh’ - هذا رسالهء فضل الله. Other works in this 19th century mecmua seem to be Hurufi-inclined and it is most likely a
Turkish translation of a work ascribed to Faḍlallāh Astarabādī.
Listed in the Süleymaniye catalogue as , “Risale fi esnafi ehli’l-iradeti ve’s-suluk”,
it has not been possible to inspect this work, which does not appear in Kozan’s list of
Bedreddīn’s
works
70 gives the following catalogue reference for this work:
“Köprülü Ktp. Ahmed Paşa nr. II/329’da 33. risale.”. It was not possible to identify the manuscript.
This is Bedreddīn’s commentary on his Laṭā’if al-Ishārāt.
He began writing the work on 27 Jamadi II 816 in
Edirne while kazasker under Musa Çelebi (d. 1413), and finished it on
8 Shawwal 816 in İznik soon after the death of Musa Çelebi while in political exile. Many more manuscripts of this work than survive than do of the
Laṭā’if itself. Show more
This short work is also by far the most controversial of Bedreddin’s oeuvre, and has been discussed by several modern scholars.
To what extent the Bedreddin can accurately be ascribed
authorship directly is controversial; some scholars have suggested it was put
together by his murīds after his death; others have argued it was compiled during
his lifetime from his oral (Turkish) pronouncements by his disciples and then turned
into Arabic by Bedreddin himself (for an overview see
). However, Ḫalīl b. İsmāʿīl notes the Wāridāt as his grandfather’s last work. While the
work apparently does not express any systematic thought, it focusses on wahdat al-wujūd philosophy. Especially
controversial is Bedreddin’s treatment of the
resurrection of the dead: he argued that in the afterlife bodies would not be
reconstituted in their former forms; in addition, his treatment of the created
nature of the world attracted controversy. Several Turkish translations of the work
were made, the earliest no later than 906, but few early manuscripts of the Arabic do not seem to
have survived, in contrast to Bedreddin’s other works. Most of the surviving mss (of which Kozan
claims 12 exist) are 19th century. Further on the mss see 110-117. Show more
69 claims this work is preserved in
MS Süleymaniye, Halis Efendi 2985, but no such ‘Halis Efendi’ collection exists at the Süleymaniye,
and searches in the library brought to light no traces of the work. If such a book does actually exist it must
be a commentary on Da’ud al-Qaysari’s well-known sharḥ of Ibn ‘Arabī’s Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam.
