Ana sayfa / Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā al-Sullam / Ders 12 / 18
Kilitli
The syllogism
Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā al-Sullam kitabına dönKuzey Afrika yolu · 2. seviye · Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā al-Sullam · Ders 12 / 18
The syllogism
The syllogism · al-qiyās · s. 86–89
القِياسُ
Taslak · inceleme bekliyor
Cairo 1324/1906 baskısından alıntılarla kendi derslerimiz · çeviri The Mantiqi, taslak
Bu metin hakkında
Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā al-Sullam حاشِيَةُ الباجُورِيِّ عَلَى السُّلَّمِ
Ibrāhīm al-Bājūrī (d. 1276/1860)
- Metin
- Arapça: derslerde alıntılanan pasajlar, The Mantiqi tarafından bu baskıdan aktarıldı (metnin tamamı aktarılmaz): Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā matn al-Sullam, with al-Anbābī's taqrīr in the margin, al-Maṭbaʿa al-Azhariyya al-Miṣriyya (2nd printing), Cairo 1324/1906, pp. 26–112 (passages) Taramayı gör
- Derslerin takip ettiği
- Dersler, The Mantiqi'nin Sullam üzerine beyit beyit, Ibrāhīm al-Bājūrī'yi izleyen kendi açıklamalarıdır; sözleri en önemli yerlerde alıntılanır.
- Çeviri
- The Mantiqi'nin kendi çevirisi; taslak.
- İnceleme
- Taslak, Ustadh Muhammad Yusuf tarafından incelenmeyi bekliyor.
Ibrāhīm al-Bājūrī'nin sözleriyle
Başka bir dil mi lazım? “Google Çeviri” bir pasajı Google'ın makine çevirisinde açar — ilk fikir için kullanışlı, ama bizim tarafımızdan kontrol edilmemiştir. Ya da metni dilediğin bir çevirmene kopyala.
Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā matn al-Sullam, with al-Anbābī's taqrīr in the margin, Cairo 1324/1906 baskısının Arapça metninden alıntı
(قَوْلُهُ إِنَّ القِياسَ إِلَخْ) إِنَّما أَتَى بِإِنَّ المُفِيدَةِ لِلتَّوْكِيدِ لِأَنَّ المَقامَ مَقامُ أَنْ يُتَرَدَّدَ فِي مَعْنَى القِياسِ: هَلْ هُوَ المَعْنَى الأُصُولِيُّ أَوِ المَنْطِقِيُّ.
(His words “the syllogism is …”): he uses inna, which gives emphasis, because here one may hesitate over what qiyās means: whether it is the sense of the jurists' legal theory (uṣūl) or that of logic.
Google Çeviri ↗s. 86
بَلِ المُرادُ أَنَّ الأَصْغَرَ الَّذِي اشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ الصُّغْرَى يَجِبُ انْدِراجُهُ فِي الأَوْسَطِ الَّذِي اشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ الكُبْرَى، وَذٰلِكَ كَما فِي قَوْلِكَ: كُلُّ إِنْسانٍ حَيَوانٌ، وَكُلُّ حَيَوانٍ جِسْمٌ.
Rather, what is meant is that the minor term, contained in the minor premise, must fall under the middle term contained in the major premise, as when you say: “Every human is an animal, and every animal is a body.”
Google Çeviri ↗s. 89
Ders
The Sullam defines the as a statement composed of from which another statement follows of itself. Al-Bājūrī notices that the poem opens the with inna, a particle of emphasis, and explains why: a reader might hesitate whether qiyās here means the of the jurists in uṣūl al-fiqh or the syllogism of , and the emphasis settles it.
He goes through the parts of the and the objections to them. One is that “every human is an animal, and every animal is an animal” yields the itself; the answer he prefers denies that such an counts as a at all, because one of its is faulty, having the same term on both sides.
On the poem's rule that the must “fall under” the , he explains what is meant: the , contained in the minor premise, must fall under the contained in the major premise — as in “every human is an animal, and every animal is a body”.
Terimler
- القِياسُ al-qiyās
- syllogism: propositions from which another follows of itself
- الحَدُّ الأَوْسَطُ al-ḥadd al-awsaṭ
- the middle term, repeated in both premises
- الانْدِراجُ al-indirāj
- falling under
Örnekler
كُلُّ إِنْسانٍ حَيَوانٌ وَكُلُّ حَيَوانٍ جِسْمٌ
“every human is an animal, and every animal is a body”: the minor term falls under the middle
Kendini sına
Bu ders üzerine 3 soru. 10 üzerinden 6 veya daha fazlasıyla (iki yıldız) sonraki ders açılır.
Soru 1
Why, according to al-Bājūrī, does the poem begin the definition with inna?
“Because here one may hesitate over what qiyās means: whether it is the sense of uṣūl or that of logic.”
Soru 2
What is meant by the minor falling under the major?
“The minor term, contained in the minor premise, must fall under the middle term contained in the major premise.”
Soru 3
What objection does al-Bājūrī mention against the definition?
Such an argument yields the minor premise itself; the answer he prefers is that it is not called a syllogism, one of its premises being faulty.
Sıradaki ders: The four figures
Devam et →