In the history of İslāmic thought, Māturīdī is a famous scholar both in the field of kalām and tafsir. Being approved by Māturīdī, the distinction of tafsir and ta’wīl, which makes possible to take the comments made about the verses into sistematic framework, is quite important. There is an important information both about content of the distinction approved by Māturīdī and the main reasons that necessiated this distinction in the introduction of Samarqandī’s Sharh at Ta’wīlāt. From this information, (...) it is understood that the distinction of tafsir and ta’wīl had dated back to older time than Māturīdī and previous scholars dealed with the problem that necessiated this distinction and Māturīdī inherited this distinction from his predecessors. Information in the Sharh at Ta’wīlāt reveals that according to Māturīdī the companions had made interpretation (ta’wīl) in addition to tafsir and the explanations made by certain evidences is tafsir too. Therefore this information gives us the opportunity flexing the acceptance of the idea “tafsir, is dedicated to the companions, ta'wīl is dedicated to fuqaha (jurists)” and asserting that companions and scholars made both tafsir and ta’wīl. In this paper, we will research whether the distinction tafsir and ta’wīl regarded by Māturīdī completely belonged to his or not and content of the distinction and its reasons. We will also analyze this distinction according to examples in the Ta’wîlāt. Summary: An important distinction is made between the concepts of tafsir and ta’wīl in the short preface of Māturīdī's tafsir, and this distinction is particularly prominent in contemporary tafsir studies. Because from the point of view of the value they carry, the explanations for these differences and concepts express the legitimacy of the following mufassirūn (writers of a commentary on the Qur’an) to be able to perform tafsir, as well as the value of the explanations found in tafsir literature in terms of certainty. In Ta'wīlāt, tafsir is described as the precise determination of what is intended. Determination of what is exactly intended in verse/wording is bound to certainly know the conditions under which it was revealed. Because they are the first to be addressed directly and they witnessed the context, the tafsir is only for the companions (ṣaḥābah pl. aṣḥāb). On the other hand, ta’wīl is not a definite determination of what is intended, but rather it is explained as putting the possibilities forward. In this case, ta’wīl is dedicated to the scholars after the companions. When we look at the other tafsir sources that include his views, it can be understood that this brief information in the preface of the tafsir which survived to our day is partially incomplete. Samarqandī's Sharhu’t-ta'wīlāt is the most important of these sources. According to the information here, Māturīdī states that some scholars distinguish tafsir and ta’wīl from each other. In these distinctions, tafsir is either described in relation to a definitive statement or in relation to being familiar with the conditions of revelation, while ta’wīl is described as extracting meanings from the verses and making possible meanings without claiming certainty. These explanations show that the distinction between tafsir and ta’wīl in Ta'wīlāt's preface was mainly based on the period before Māturīdī. These statements, which Māturīdī transmitted from some scholars in the beginning of Sharhu’t-ta'wīlāt, were then transmitted by Omar al-Nasafī, Mahāyimī and Molla Husrev. In some sources, it was also transmitted that similar explanations were made by scholars such as an-Nadr b. Shumayl, al-Hussein b. Fadl al-Bacelī and Ibn Durayd before Māturīdī.Some explanations of Māturīdī in Ta'wīlāt enables the theory of tafsir-ta’wīl to be understood at a wider level. When the examples are examined, it is observed that Māturīdī exhibited two types of attitude against the tafsir of the companions. He states that one of these is that if the transmission is true, what is intended is exactly what is stated in the narrated. The second is that he sometimes does not accept these explanations and suggests additional opinions. The reason he refuses is that sometimes he does not find the transmission reliable, and sometimes he thinks that companions performed ta'wīl. If this is the case, the dedication of ta’wīl to those coming later should not be absolutized. Because the companions can perform both tafsir and ta’wīl. The examples in Ta'wīlāt clearly reveal what areas tafsir, which is defined as a definite statement, covers. According to this, first, tafsir is related to the field of “invisible” about the past and the future. Secondly, its meaning and practice is only about the information of the “statement” about the issues that can be revealed by the Prophet (pbuh). In the third aspect, it is related to “revelation” information reporting the context in which the verses descended. In the beginning of Sharhu’t-ta'wīlāt, Māturīdī says that the explanations made based on the definitive evidences such as mutawātir (repetition; narration reported by large number reporters) and ijmā (consensus) also fall under the category of tafsir. However, it is also necessary to add intellectual evidence to these evidences. Because intellectual evidence is also important in the epistemology of Māturīdī. In fact, the truthfulness of nass (text) is primarily based on intellectual evidence. First, the issues of theology are proven by certain intellectual evidence, and then, on the basis of this, the meanings expressed by the nass acquire the value of certainty and truthfulness. With the definitive acceptance of reason in theology, what some nass express confirm each other and are used as evidence in the process of interpretation. Therefore, since some of the intellectual evidence, ijmā and mutawātir news provide definitive information, explanations based on them are also seen as tafsir. Considering the fact that the above-mentioned evidence was also used by those coming after the companions, it can be concluded that tafsir can be performed by not only the companions but also those coming after them. In this case, it should be accepted that tafsir is not performed only by the companions, and that the succeeding mufassirūn can also perform tafsir as well as ta’wīl. When we look at the examples based on these evidence, there are two different situations in Ta'wīlāt. The first is that Māturīdī sometimes has views on evidence based on mutawātir and ijmā and sometimes suggests different opinions from the assumptions that he said there was ijmā in particular. Because these evidences are certain, it is understandable that he remains bound to them. However, as a possible reason for his opposition to ijmā, it can be said that he thinks only the following generations enter the scope of ijmā. Because, according to Samarqandī, Māturīdī's objection to such information does not seem possible, since ijmā of the companions in a matter is accepted. Although he sometimes said that there was ijmā, the reason why no such ijmā was mentioned in other tafsir sources and sometimes, it may be considered that he did not respect other views in the face of ijmā as a reason for including different views or it may be thought that he was unaware of the different views that were transmitted. The second remarkable situation is that according to Māturīdī, intellectual evidence, in particular, can reveal only the “knowledge of existence” of the issues related to theology. Māturīdī thinks that their nature cannot be certainly known, and that the explanations made regarding their nature are only ta’wīl. For this reason, he firmly rejects the interpretation of the khabarī attributes about Allah in accordance with the idea of tashbīh and tajsīm (anthropomorphism). (shrink)

Translated works emerge in a social, cultural and political environment. Tanslations are handled independently of their social and historical context makes it difficult for us to understand the reasons for their emergence. The subject of the study is the tafsir translations that emerged in the late Ottoman period. In the literature review, it was seen that the Turkish translation tafsirs were generally evaluated in terms of language and style, and the changing social and cultural conditions of the modernization period (...) were not taken into account sufficiently in these evaluations. In this respect, the study aims to reveal the reasons for the emergence and popularity of Turkish translation tafsirs in the late Ottoman period, in particular, in the work of İsmail Ferruh Efendi (d. 1840) named Tefsîr-i Mevâkib. In the final analysis, it was seen that this popularity was mainly related to the institutional, social and political changes of the period. (shrink)

The Mamluk period of Islamic history witnessed a very vivid life of scientific endeavours. This was mainly due to the fact that the higher education institutions (madrasa) established by the Seljuqid and Ayyubid dynasties continued to develop as well as that Mamluk sultans and their commanders gave great importance to charitable institutions of education. With the facilities provided by these charities, Cairo and Damascus grew into important centres of attraction for scholars and teachers from all over the Islamic world. In (...) this atmosphere, a serious training activity was going on in almost every branch of religious and intellectual sciences alongside production of scientific works in these areas, in which both scientific traditions of earlier generations was preserved and continuity was maintained with considerable amount of detail and depth. The Mamluks, thus, became an important basin that nourished all regions of the Islamic world in terms of science and intellectual culture. The Mamluk period was also prolific in terms of tafsīr literature. A tafsīr chair was established in each one of the educational institutions, such as madrasas, mosques and khangāhs, where various tafsīr courses were taught, and tafsīr texts were read, by distinguished figures of the era. In these courses, the main text was usually the al-Kashshāf of al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144), who had hitherto gained a dominant position in the tafsīr science, followed by the tafsīrs by al-Bayḍāwī (d. 685/1286) modelled on al-Kashshāf and al-Baghawī (d. 516/1122). Moreover, one of the peculiarities of the Mamluks in the scientific life was the public courses, called al-mīʿād, in which books were perused in public on tafsīr, ḥadith, or admonitions (mawʿiẓa). It is evident that these lessons and the tafsīr books had serious contributions to the development of the tafsīr literature and these tafsīrs were welcomed in every part of the Islamic world and have been taught until today. Works by prominent exegetes, such as al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273), al-Khāzin (d. 741/1341), Abū Ḥayyān (d. 745/1344), Samīn al-Ḥalabī (d. 756/1355), Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), al-Biqāī (d. 885/1480) and al-Suyūtī (d. 911/1505) are most notable examples of such works of the period. In the Mamluk period, a good number of works was produced in the literary forms of commentary (sharḥ), gloss (ḥāshiya) and adjudication (muḥākamāt), a fact that reflects the scientific and intellectual level of the time. While commentaries and glosses were generally focused on the tafsīrs by al-Zamakhsharī and al-Bayḍāwī, the critiques and the adjudications, discussing different positions in these tafsīrs or commentaries and glosses on them constitute the textual evidence attesting to the high level of scientific activities. Of these texts comes first the commentary on al-Kashshāf by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 766/1365) which has determined the course of the discussions of the later commentaries. Among the most remarkable works of the Mamluks was the commentary on al-Kashshāf by the Hanafīte verifying scholar, Akmal al-Dīn al-Bābartī (d. 786/1384), and ʿAbd Allah b. Yūsuf al-Zaylaʿī’s (d. 762/1360) work. Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), who lived in Damascus at an early period of the Mamluks, developed a system of thought and science, at the heart of which he placed the Prophet, his companions and the following generation (al-salaf). This approach, which amounts the revitalization of the Salafist thought, was also reflected in the tafsīr area, while Ibn Taymiyya adopted a tafsīr method based on narrations, assumed a staunch attitude against the opinions based on sectarian affiliations, and, in this context, made harsh criticisms against the tafsīrs written before him. The tafsīr work, which was targeted most by his criticism arrows, was the al-Kashshāf, the most commonly read exegesis in the madrasas of the Mamluk period. He also sometimes accused the exegetes, such as Ibn ʿAṭiyya (d. 541/1147), a Sunnite exegete, of giving weight to the views of the theologians and stated that the ideal exegesis was that of al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), which generally depends on the views of al-Salaf with solid transition chains.Tafsīr education and works in the Mamluk period have not yet been given sufficient scholarly attention. This study therefore aims to show that this period had many peculiar aspects regarding tafsīr education and studies and that it had notable influence both on the Ottoman period and the modern times. Based on the historical data and products it contends that this period successfully continued the tradition of tafsīr as well as enjoyed a dynamic and an in-depth scholarly vitality on the area. (shrink)

It was a strange posthumous fate that awaited the Englishman Robert of Ketton : he was to be both best known and most strenuously criticized for a work that he surely viewed as a sideline to his own interests and career. By trade Robert was a Latin translator of Arabic scientific and mathematical works, one of those remarkable twelfth-century men who, as his contemporary Petrus Alfonsi put it, were willing “to traverse distant provinces and withdraw into remote regions so as (...) to be able to attain fuller knowledge of the astronomical art.” Like other contemporary translators, such as the Italian Gerard of Cremona , Robert had left his birthplace—in his case Rutlandshire—and traveled to Spain in order to have access to the great works of Arabic astronomy and mathematics that could be found in the still very Arab Iberian Peninsula. By 1141 we find him and his close friend Herman of Carinthia studying and translating scientific works together in northeastern Spain, and in later years his astronomical interests and ecclesiastical responsibilities led him to travel widely in Spain and England. As a scientific translator, he is perhaps best known for his Liber algebrae et Almucabola, a Latin version of al-Khwarazmī's great manual of algebra, Al-Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-jabr wa-al-muqābalah. (shrink)

In Islamic thought, the accumulation regarding Tafsir appears in various ways. One of them is the type of work called Anmudhaj that contains chapters about Tafsīr. In the An-mudhaj type of works, the determination of the sciences to investigate may occur according to different criteria. These criteria may occur as a classification of science and they also can be limited to a few sciences. In this article, we will examine the Tafsīr chapter from the work of Sipāhīzādah who took (...) charge as a teacher and judge in the Ottoman Empire. That part cons-titutes the first chapter of the work called Anmūdhaju’l-Funūn which he symbolically limited the investigated sciences to seven. The other investigated sciences in the work are Ḥadīth, Kalām, the methodology of Islamic Law, Fiqh, Bayân, and Medical Science. In the Tafsīr chap-ter of the work of Sipāhīzādah called Anmūdhaju’l-Funūn, seven different issues are investi-gated in total. Those questions are “Does Bismillah count as a vow?” and “What is the order of the creation of the earth and the heavens in the light of the verse al-Baqarah 2/29?” and “Do the names of the numbers imply limitation (hasr)?” and “What is the reason behind the borrowing of Israelites the jewels of the Egyptians in the light of the verse al-Baqarah 2/50?” and “The entry order to the city was given to Israelites in the verses al-Baqara 2/58-59, was this order given to them before or after their deviation?” and “Where is the prostrated door which is mentioned in the verse?” and “How can we assess Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s questions and answers regarding the narrative differences between the verses al-Baqarah (2/58-59) and al-A‘râf (7/161-162)?” Sipāhīzādah examined the issues of Tafsīr through a historical which makes him the participant of the debate and allows him to the continue the present discourse through a critical reading. This makes the subject of work quite important. Because thanks to the work, it will be possible to catch some clues about the progress of the accumu-lation regarding Tafsīr in the era the author lived.Summary: In Islamic thought, the accumulation regarding Tafsīr appears in various ways. One of them is the type of work called Anmudhaj that contains chapters about Tafsīr. In Anmudhaj type of works, the determination of the sciences to investigate may occur according to diffe-rent criteria. These criteria may occur as a classification of science and they also can be limi-ted to a few sciences. In this article, we will examine the Tafsīr chapter from the work of Sipāhīzādah who took charge as a teacher and judge in the Ottoman Empire. That part cons-titutes the first chapter of the work called Anmūdhaju’l-Funūn which he symbolically limited the investigated sciences to seven. The other investigated sciences in the work are Ḥadīth, Kalām, the methodology of Islamic Law, Fiqh, Bayân, and Medical Science.The work of Sipāhīzādah, Anmūdhaju’l-Funūn consists of seven chapters and also seven is-sues are investigated in the Tafsīr part of the work. The first investigated issue in the Tafsīr part is the issue of Basmalah and in our opinion, it would not be surprising to accept that in one dimension it is a conscious choice aimed at the beginning of the work. His general attitude is presenting the issues firstly. He constituted all of the issues through the trio of al-Zamakhs-harī, al-Rāzī, and al-Bayḍāwī either one or two of them. Another remarkable point in the de-velopment of the issues is Sipāhīzādah begins with Basmalah according to the Mushaf com-position and proceeds to al-Baqarah verse 59 in a particular order. According to this, the aut-hor takes the problems he detected in the relevant parts as a subject.The issues that are investigated in the Tafsīr chapter can be listed as follows:1. Can Bismillah be used as a vow? According to Sipāhīzādah, al-Bayḍāwī, al-Jurjānī and Mollā Khusraw claim that there is a difference between vowing in the name of God and starting something with Bismillah and this difference should be rejected through the work of al-Mergīnānī that is called Hidâye and Ibn al-Humām’s Sharh. Thus, according to him one of the differences between Billah and Bismillah is not that they count as a vow.2. What is the order of the creation of the earth and the heavens in the light of the verse al-Baqarah 2/29? Sipāhīzādah mentions that the creation and the arrangement of the earth did not happen at the same time.3. Do the names of the numbers imply limitation (hasr)? Regarding this issue, Sipāhīzādah took the verse that says “…and made them seven heavens” as the focal point and claimed that the mentioned number in this verse indicated limitation and gave examples from verses, hadith, linguists and scholars of the methodology.4. What is the reason behind the borrowing of Israelites the jewels of the Egyptians in the light of the verse al-Baqarah 2/50? Sipāhīzādah criticized the two arguments of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. Sipāhīzādah criticized the assessments that Ancient Egyptians pursued those properties which they lent before and Israelites kept those jewels and he rejected them.5. The entry order to the city was given to Israelites in the verses al-Baqara 2/58-59, was this order given to them before or after their deviation? He criticized the argu-ments of al-Zamakhsharī and al-Bayḍāwī which they have given to prove that this order was given to them after their deviation. He offered arguments and emphasi-zed that the entry order to the city was given before their deviation.6. Where is the prostrated door which is mentioned in the verse al-Baqara 2/58? It is controversial if it is Jerusalem or the door of the Mosque in which they were perfor-ming the prayer. al-Zamakhsharī and al-Bayḍāwī claim that it is Jerusalem. Was this order given before or after the death of the prophet Moses? Sipāhīzādah thinks that it has to be the door of Jerusalem.7. How can we assess Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s questions and answers regarding the nar-rative differences between the verses al-Baqarah (2/58-59) and al-A‘râf (7/161-162)? Sipāhīzādah criticized the responses which are given by al-Rāzī and gives contrary responses.It is obvious that the author is Hanafi in the matters of Islamic Law. Besides this, we can say that Sipāhīzādah did not examine the issues of Tafsīr through a sense of belonging, he emp-hasized the opinions of people which he found compatible with his beliefs. Hence, He someti-mes comes to an agreement with al-Bayḍāwī who is a Shaffi in the matters of Islamic Law and from time to time he affirms al-Zamakhsharī who is a Mutazilite in the matters of faith. Sipāhīzādah examined the issues of Tafsīr through a historical depth and this both makes him a participant of the debate and allows the continuation of the present discourse through a critical reading. Thus, an attitude of critical consistency is prominent in his works. In our opi-nion, this attitude of critical consistency is an action of consolidation for the maintenance of the power of the relevant text-centered linguistic system. In this regard, we can say that Tafsīr remained its liveliness in the geography in which the author lived. So, the founders of the system which we can list as al-Zamakhsharī, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, and al-Bayḍāwī and the ones who caused it to continue which we can list as Sayyid Sharif al-Jurjānī, Mollā Khusraw, and Ibn Kamāl Pasha have been read critically by the author. This makes the subject of work quite important. Because thanks to the work, it will be possible to catch some clues about the progress of the accumulation regarding Tafsir in the era the author lived. Even though it was negative in the issues that are investigated by the author, the fact that the Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī is a prominent figure is an indicator of the maintenance of the dominance of Rāzī. It would be more appropriate to link this with his effectiveness rather than the Kalāmī power of his Tafsir. For Rāzī is not taken as the focal point by Sipāhīzādah only in issues of Kalām. Besides that, he renders Rāzī as a participant of the subject in linguistic issues too such as whether if the name of the numbers implies limitation or not and the usage of varied phrases in verses. (shrink)

Characteristics of Kiai Haji Ahmad Dahlan, the founder of Muhammadiyah, in Javanese philosophy.

In the era Islam emerged, Arabs were calling Jews and Christians as Ahl al-Kitāb, respecting them and affected by them in many ways. When they failed in their debates against the Prophet, they were referring to the scholars of Ahl al-Kitāb and relying on the information they got from them, they were trying to force and beat the Prophet intellectually by their questions. In the Meccan period, no clashes had happened between the Muslims and Ahl al-Kitāb. Jewish scholars had been (...) admitting that they knew the similarity in the topics of Qurʾān and Tawrāt, the Qurʾān were telling the truth and the Prophet was conveying the message of the truth. In some of the verses, these right attitudes of the scholars of Ahl al-Kitāb are used as a reference against Mus̲h̲riks. In the verses said, those scholars are praised and indicated as a source of information for the Prophet as well. The verses related with the topic were understood in parallel with the context and direct meaning of the Nass by some scholars, yet, they were explained not taking the Nuzul environment and process into consideration by some other scholars. It is mentioned that ʿAbdallāh b. Salām and his friends who became Muslims in Medina period have been told in these verses. In this study, level of validity for these interpretations will be evaluated based on Qurʾān –relationship and the fact that some of the asbab al-nuzul (circumstances of revelation) are known to be jurisprudential; and it will be argued that the true meaning of the naṣṣ is overshadowed.Summary: Tafsir is an effort to understand the divine address, and also to understand the relationship between Muslim, polytheist, and People of the Book (Ahl al-kitāb) in the revelation and experience in this context. Since these issues are not explained in a wide and clear manner in the Qur’ān, the hadīths, prophetic biography, narratives of asbâb al-nuzul and the opinions of the companions and the views of the Companions and Tābi‘īn gain importance in understanding the verses. As the narrations of asbâb al-nuzul contain some problems, it is proposed to evaluate this information based on sigas and hadīth method in classical Qur'ānic sciences studies. Although this approach is effective in solving many problems, it does not solve all problems.The question of whether the narrators of asbâb al-nuzul is the real reason for the verse has been discussed from the very beginning. According to Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) al-Zarkashī (d. 794/1392) and al-Dihlawī (d. 1176/1762), the expression that “This verse has been revealed on this particular event” does not mean that the verse is revealed particularly and only for this event but rather that it is revealed for an event which is similar to that event, and that, subject verse also covers this provision. A. Nedim Serinsu and A. Rıza Gül also drew attention to this fact and the narratives were divided into two as the real cause of nuzul and virtual cause of nuzul. When this issue is not known, it may become inexorable to analyze and make observations, and there may be problems regarding the interlocutors, date of births, being Meccan or Medinan.Those who want to learn the first-hand meaning of the verses, their interlocutors and the environment of nuzul are facing difficulties to choose between the contradictory narrations especially in narrative-weighted commentaries. It is necessary to pay attention to some points to evaluate the narrations correctly and make the right choice. These points are prophetic biography, the stages of nuzul, information about being Meccan or Medinan, the stages of development of relations between polytheists and Muslims, and tafsīr explanations about nuzul. One of the issues with contradictory narratives and interpretations is ʿAbdallāh b. Salām. As one of the notables of the Medina Jews, he came to him when the Prophet arrived in Kuba, he asked some questions, and when he got the right answers, he became a Muslim saying that they could only be known by a prophet. It is claimed that he believed in the period of Mecca and the eighth year of the Hijr, but this information was not well accepted.Although it was not very intense in Mecca, there were certain relations between Jews and Christians and Muslims. Since there was no conflict between Muslims and the People of the Book, these verses are often praised by their scholars, and they were also cited as a reference for the Prophet and idolaters Some Meccan verses mention the following: Jews who are righteous; the fulfilment of the requirements of the book, and the prayers of the Muslims that will not be wasted; the fact that the scholars of the Israelites know the truths in the Qur'an should be a proof for the idolaters; The Ahl al-kitāb know that the Qur'ān is a divine book; if he has doubts about the verses revealed to the Prophet, he should ask the Jewish scholars; Jews witnessed and believed the truth of the prophethood of the Prophet; the fact that Ahl al-kitāb were delighted with the Qur'ān. In the exegesis of these verses, it has been commented that the interlocutors are ʿAbdallāh b. Salām and his friends, Prophet Muhammad's companions, Selman al-Fârisî, Ali and the kitāb who believed in the Prophet.Since the commentators did not consider the process experienced with the Ahl al-kitāb sufficiently, the verses that were written before becoming Muslim were associated with ʿAbdallāh b. Salām. However, Masrūk (d. 63/683), Sha'bî (d. 104/722) and Said b. Jubayr (d. 94/713 [?]) refused to relate the Meccan verses to ʿAbdallāh b. Salām because they had considered the process of nuzul. When the revelations are evaluated on the basis of the Qur'ān and prophetic biography relationship and the process of nuzul, it is understood that the interlocutors are the scholars of Ahl al-kitāb who know and acknowledge that the Qur'ān and the prophethood are right, as some commentators have indicated. In this case, it is understood that the commentators make comments that are not appropriate to the context, wording and nuzul process of the verses based on the narratives that are not true and that they use the name of ʿAbdallāh b. Salām as a kind of filling material since the information about the interlocutors is limited. It is not acceptable to praise one of them in the revelations when we evaluate the Ahl al-kitāb by generalizing the truth, their hostility towards Islam and the wars. However, there were no clashes with Jews and Christians in Mecca and there were scholars who expressed the truth. They were praised when necessary, and also cited as a reference source for the Prophet and idolaters. In addition, in the verses that criticize the Ahl al-kitāb in the verses Medinan, those who make the mistakes in question are not criticized as a whole. As in these examples, we need to evaluate the verses in the context of the individual process, not with the influence of our established perceptions and with a wholesale mind. Otherwise, unintentional results can be reached. It can be claimed that the Predecessors fell to an anachronism in their explanations about ʿAbdallāh b. Salām which did not conform to the date and time. However, when we consider the views of Ibn Taymiyya, al-Zarkashī and al-Dihlawī, it is understood that the Predecessors expressed views in terms of exegesis, opinion-based sampling rather than an anachronism. These interpretations of the Predecessors also depict that the information available to the interlocutors of the verses is insufficient. The fact that the historical information errors in Predecessors’ illustrations and explanations show that the information transferred from them should be examined carefully and that one must not surrender him/her without investigation. It is a clear fact that those who accept interpretations based on ijtihâd as an actual asbâb al-nuzul fall into anachronism. In this respect, it is understood that asbâb al-nuzul narrations should be evaluated in accordance with the principles mentioned and it is necessary to distinguish between those who tell the real reason and those who do not and make a preference among them. (shrink)

This paper aims to provide insight and new perspectives in cutting the chain of absolutism interpretation through tradition criticism interpretation that emphasizes the values of objectivity, comprehensiveness, scientific and systematic. Because in reality absolutism interpretation still becomes mainstream among the general public even an interpreter generation. Absolutism of interpretation becomes one of dangerous threat which can lead to stagnation of the science and the obstacle of civilization. Whereas interpretation is no more just a product of the times and continuous process (...) in exploring the meanings of the Qur'an. So there is no ‘final word’ in an interpretation. To answer the problem, this reseach uses science philosophy approach as its analysis tools. In conclusion, there are at least four operational steps in carrying out the work criticism interpretation that boils down to the region of the ontology, epistemology, and axiology i.e; Firstly, the critic must first understand the substance of exegesis interpretation as process and interpretation as product. Secondly, understand the construction criticism interpretation are the historicity of criticism, the base of criticism, the purpose of criticism, as well as the principles and parameters of criticism. Thirdly, start working criticism interpretation with two work areas that are criticism intrinsic and criticism extrinsic. Fourthly, give the review and assessment of the object of study of criticism that is good and feasible to use, or deviate and not unworthy to use. (shrink)

Anachronism, which is defined as the conscious or unconscious neglect or falsification of the chronological relationship between any event, phenomenon, person, object, etc., is used in many fields, especially in literature, history and art. Although different classifications are made, anachronism can be considered in three parts as factual, linguistic and attitudinal. Although it has positive results according to its usage and purpose, anachronism, which has a negative perception in general, is also in question in the understanding and interpretation of the (...) verses. However, in this action, lack of sufficient knowledge about the concept of anachronism and the subject under investigation or subjective approaches lead to erroneous anachronistic evaluations. One of the areas where these evaluations are frequently seen is scientific interpretation. In this study, the definition of anachronism, its historical process, types and usage patterns are explained and evaluated with examples of factual, linguistic and attitudinal anachronisms seen in the understanding of scientific tafsir. (shrink)

There are some verses in the Qur'an that can be understood at first glance to mean that Allah Almighty knew certain things afterwards. Based on such verses, it has been claimed that Allah Almighty knew the voluntary acts of the slaves afterwards. This view, whose historical origin goes back to Cehmiyya, is defended by Abdülaziz Bayındır today. Adopting an approach that understands and explains the verses he refers to as the main reference on the subject, Abdülaziz Bayındır argues that the (...) thirty-first verse of the chapter of Muhammad and other verses with a similar notion indicate that Allah does not know beforehand the optional actions of His servants. In this study, the rational and narrative evidences that Bayındır presented as a justification for his views were examined within the framework of the basic procedural principles of the science of tafsir. In our study, the method of analysis and criticism has been adopted. While interpreting the verses that Bayındır examined as a basis for his thesis, the method he put forward was verified through different verses, and it was seen that this method did not offer an accurate and authentic methodology of understanding and interpretation. It has been seen that the verses that Bayındır put forward as a basis for his thesis do not indicate that Allah knows the voluntary actions of the servants afterwards, but that he reveals what he knows in his pre-eternal knowledge. (shrink)

The 19th century constitutes the most unsteady period of the Ottoman Empire on the basis of military, political and scientific senses. Although not as much as in previous centuries, respected scholars and mystics continued to be upbrought in this century. Muhammed Tevfîk Bosnevî Efendi (1866) is one of the leading scholar mystics who upbrought in the Ottoman science and wisdom climate in the aforementioned period. After he was promoted to the caliphate post in eleven sects carrying out active guidance activities (...) in Istanbul, he consented to become a devout disciple of the famous Halwati-Shabani Sheikh of the time, Kuşadalı İbrahim Efendi, and received his ijazah by completing the entire course of mystical training under his supervision. Upon the death of his sheikh, he took the position of guidance and assumed the duty of guidance for twenty years. He also adopted the understanding of ignoring the cult rituals such as the crown, cardigan, and fleece, which were the most distinctive qualities of his sheikh, and disregarded such images throughout his life. He has a deep knowledge of Islamic sciences such as fiqh, tafsir, hadith and kalam, as can be understood from the works that were written by his students in the lesson circles called Council [Majlis]. In this study, which examines the work named "Tefsîru ve'd-Duhâ li'l-Hammâmî", his hermeneutics method is discussed. At the end of the study, it is understood that he explained the Qur'an in the light of the Qur'an, hadith-i sharifs, and the words of the Companions. It is also clear that in order to consolidate the subjects, he included legends from the life of our Prophet Muhammed, Companions and Saints (Awliya). Although he interprets words, it is observed that his main priority is not words but their meaning, he focuses on verses’ messages and aimed to deliver them to the addressee. It has been determined that he preferred the explanations of the past scholars rather than interpreting the verses personally, and he referred to both the first period hermeneutics works written in Arabic and the ones written by the Ottoman scholars. (shrink)

The great majority of commentators have evaluated the splitting of the moon. The vast majority of them think that it occurred in the Prophet’s period basing their view on the clear statement of al-Qamar 54/1 verse and on related rumors. However, some commentators claim that the moon will split on the doomsday, by referring to the context of the same verse. The same names criticize the rumors claiming that they cannot constituteevidence for the splitting of the moon. To those who (...) think so, from the fact that the splitting of the moon was related by few companions and that it was not recorded in various geographies it is evident that the incident did not happen. It cannot be said that the commentators, who took that the view that the split of the moon were in the period of the Prophet, have similar views in this regard. They have different interpretations in matters such as the realization and the shape of the event. On the other hand, those who claim that the split of the moon is only an idiomatic statement and that the event is only a lunar eclipse, declare that the split of the moon never actually happened. In this study which deals with various interpretations of tafsirs of the splitting of the moon, it is aimed to criticize different opinions on this issue. Document analysis and comparison methods were applied in the article.Summary: The issue of the splitting of the moon has attracted many names from various disciplines, notably the commentators. In the verse of al-Qamar 54/1 mentioning the splitting of the moon has been an important factor for the commentators to evaluate this issue. The ḥadīth narratives regarding the cleavage of the moon are found in many ḥadīth sources, in particular, Ṣahīh al-Bukhārīand Ṣahīh al-Muslim. The rumors about the splitting of the moon, albeit with different forms, are attributed to Anas b. Mālik (d. 93/712), Jubayr b. Muṭ‘īm (d. 59/678-679), ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās (d. 68/687-688), ʿAbdallāh b. ‘Omar (d. 73/692), and ʿAbdallāh b. Masʿūd (d. 32/652-653) One of the rumors about the splitting of the moon, although it is based on ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661)is not found in the authentic ḥadīth sources. In some narrations, it is said that the miracle of the moon's splitting took place upon the request of the polytheists while the others are only mentioned how this miracle happened. On the other hand, it cannot be said that the commentators agree on the split of the moon. The main purpose of this study is to identify these opinions with its basis. Apart from those who do not accept the occurrence of the incident, there are differences of opinion among the commentators who see this event as a miracle of the Prophet Muḥammad. It is possible to classify the disagreements of the commentators in this subject in two headings as the time and manner of occurrence of this incident.Most of the classical commentators, on the basis of narrations, think that the splitting of the moon occurred during the period of Mecca. Among these commentators, al-Wāḥidī (d. 468/1076) and al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273), as well as the rumors of this evidence, offer as a proof the verse, "if they see a miracle, they turn away and say that this is a great magic." (al-Qamar 54/2). Some commentators, such as al-Qushayrī (d. 465/1072), accept that this phenomenon has taken place in the past by referring to the opinion of the commentators about the split of the moon. The views of many of the modern-day commentators such as Siddiq Ḥasan Khan (d. 1307/1890), Mawdūdī (d. 1399/1979) and Sābūnī, on this issue, apart from the narrations related to the subject have shaped the general opinion of the commentators. There are differences of opinions among some of the commentators, who accept that the splitting of the moon takes place during the time of the Prophet Muḥammad, as to the reasons and arbitrariness of the incident. According to classical period commentators such as al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), al-Samarqandī (d. 373/983), Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273), and Shīʿī commentators al-Qummī (d. 329/941), this incident took place upon the Prophet Muḥammad asked for a miracle as evidence for his prophethood by Meccan polytheists. Therefore, these commentators establish a relationship between the splitting of the moon and the prophethood of the prophet Muḥammad. On the other hand, commentators like Sayyid Quṭb (d. 1385/1966) argue that the splitting of the moon cannot be regarded as evidence of the prophethood, citing the fact that the miracles of the Prophet Muḥammad except the Qurʾān were not reported. There is a disagreement about the validity of the narrations related to the events among the commentators, who see the splitting of the moon as a miracle of the Prophet Muḥammad. Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373) and Shawkanī (d. 1250/1834) commentators, such as the rumors about this issue as a precise; ibn ʿĀshūr (d. 1879/1973) does not accept the news on this issue as a precise. There are also some commentators who suggest that the splitting the moon will take place in the future. The commentators, who shared this view, especially Rashīd Riḍā (d. 1353/1935) argued that the splitting of the moon did not take place in the past, pointing out that the validity criteria of narrations related to the splitting of the moon, and contradictory issues in the content of the rumors, also most of the people narrated by him/her cannot witness the incident and that it is not possible for people in a certain geography to witness this incident.There are few classical period commentators who suggest that the moon will be split in the future during the apocalypse. The prominent names are al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, (d. 110/728), ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ (d. 114/732) and Abū Bakr al- Aṣamm (d. 200/816). On the other hand, many names such as Rashīd al-Riḍā (d. 1353/1935), al-Marāghī (d. 1364/1945) and al-Shinqīṭī (d. 1394/1974) from the modern period declare that the moon will split during the apocalypse.According to these, in the verses of the al-Qamar 54/1 that apocalyptic scene is mentioned.In the verse, they try to justify the use of the verb meaning of a split in the past tense by introducing some evidence from other verses.According to them, in many verses that speak of apocalyptic scenes, events are expressed in the past tense. There are also commentators who have different evaluations on the way of the occurring event instead of the time concept. Al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), Muḥyiddīn Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 638/1240) and Shāh Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī (d. 1052/1642) do not see the splitting of the moon as a real split mentioned in the verse of the al-Kamer 54/1. According to them, the event is an optical illusion. Muḥammad Asad (d. 1412/1992) connected this illusion to the lunar eclipse. Trying to explain the splitting of the moon by some commentators is one of the commentary differences in this issue. According to Mawdūdī, who did not see this event scientifically impossible, it is possible to reunite a fragmented star with gravity. Without a doubt, Ṭanṭawī al-Jawharī (d. 1940) is one of the names who make the most striking evaluations in this issue. According to him, the miracle of the moon's splitting has many aspects to shed light on scientific studies. Ṭanṭawī al-Jawharī sees the verse as the sign of the moon instead of any other celestial body, as a sign that the moon had long ago broken off from the world. Therefore, Ṭanṭawī al-Jawharī establishes a relationship between the splitting of the month mentioned in the verse and the theories about the separation of the moon in the modern period.One of the arguments about the splitting of the moon is related to the fineness of the language. Some commentators, who draw attention to the expression of the splitting of the moon, which is the expression in the Qurʾān, argue that the purpose of the separation of the moon is the occurrence of truth. According to the advocates of this view, the Arabs use such a statement to express that a work has come to light. According to this, the term "splitting the moon" as means that the Qurʾān expands the darkness in its period. In summary, the commentators make various comments on different grounds such as the narrative expression of the verse al-Qamar 54/1 regarding the splitting of the moon, the narrations about the event, and the language subtleties. (shrink)

The issue of how to read and interpret the Qur’ān has been the subject of Islamic sciences such as Kalām, Fiqh and Taṣawwuf. Each discipline has put forward an interpretation methodology according to its point of view. While interpreting the verses, the Ṣūfīs who are members of Taṣawwuf also produced some methodological concepts for several reasons. They interpreted the Qur’ān with the sign (ishāra), a method of interpretation suitable for the characteristics of Taṣawwuf. The ishāra is a secondary method of (...) interpretation compared to tafsīr (the Qur’ānic exegesis). In this context, the ishārī tafsīr is the interpretation of the verses by kashf and ilhām. It is also the narration of the signs claimed to exist in the verse. However, while the ṣūfīs wanted to explain their inferences regarding the verses on the one hand, they had to hide them on the other hand. These attitudes led to the paradox of statement-concealment as a problem peculiar to the ishārī tafsīr. The goal of this study is to evaluate the tradition of ṣūfī tafsīr / exegesis in terms of this paradox. One of the aims of this study is also to determine the tools that the ṣūfīs use for some reasons in interpreting the Qur’ān and how they conceptualize them. In this perspective, the function of symbolic means such as letter and sign in Taṣawwuf has been emphasized. The formation of a number of methods and instruments specific to ishārī interpretation and the influence of Ibn al-ʿArabī on this method have been discussed. To achive the objectives of this paper, this research article conducted a detailed literature review. As a method, the phenomenological approach and historical methodology have been used in order to present the ṣūfīs interpretation methodology objectively. The concept analysis method has used in order to exhibit a detailed analysis of some concepts directly related to the subject of the study. There are many studies about ishārī tafsīr, the method of interpretation of the Qur’ān by the ṣūfīs in Turkey and abroad. These works are mostly of classical-style works based on determining the nature and position of the ishārī tafsīr or discussing the ishārī interpretation style of a ṣūfī mufassir. For example, Yaşar Kurt’s work titled Ni’metullah Nahcivânî ve Tasavvufî Tefsiri, Mehmet Okuyan’s work named Necmuddin Daye ve Tasavvufi Tefsiri are doctoral theses on this subject. If we need to mention some studies directly related to the subject and the purpose of our article; they are as follows: Among the works written today are Yunus Emre Gördük’s Tarihsel ve Metodolojik Açıdan İşârî Tefsir, Davut Ağbal’s book titled İbn Arabî’de İşârî Tefsir, some communiqués in the book published by Kuramer under the name of Kur’an’ın Bâtınî ve İşârî Yorumu. Ekrem Demirli’s article “Kuşeyrî’den İbnü’l-Arabî’ye İşârî Yorumculuk Hakkında Bir Değerlendirme” is one of the sources of this research. As for the works written in the past; early ṣūfīsm classics, al-Ghazālī’s and Ibn al-ʿArabī’s writings, some boks on the methodology of Qur’ānic interpretation written by scholars such as al-Dhahabī and al-Zurḳānī can be given. The findings and results obtained inthe light of this study are: The ṣūfis have named their experiences they wanted to express, as ishāra. They have wanted to declare their feelings as a result of the spiritual states they were in while reading or listening to the Qur’ān. At the same time, they tried to hide their feelings with the concern of not being understood, not being accepted, being accused or harming those who did not taste the same pleasure. The desire to explain their enthusiastic feelings and experiential knowledge on the one hand and the need to conceal them on the other, seemingly have caused a paradox. Therefore, they have made use of some conceptual tools while interpreting the Qur’ān and used a covered language. In this framework, Ibn al-ʿArabī and his successors have a different position and style. Ibn al-ʿArabī’s approach to the Qur’ān has been named as theoretical ṣūfī tafsīr instead of ishārī ṣūfī tafsīr from now on. His main instrument is iʻtibār / taʻbīr as a way of ta’wīl. His followers such as Kāşhānī, Nakhčiwānī and Brūsawī have been influential in the spread and acceptance of the ishārī interpretation activities. This article fills the gap in the literature. Because it is a methodological analysis and an evaluation of the terms and methods that ahl al-taṣawwuf have produced in order to explain or conceal some of their thoughts about the verses, it will also make a contribution to the ishārī tafsīr literature. Although the article is presented as a result of a careful and detailed research, there are some missing points in it. Thus, further studies that will contribute positively to the debates on the legitimacy of the ishārī tafsīr and its method can be produced. (shrink)

[vol. non numéroté] Notice. 1952. v. 1. Livres petit alif, grand alif ba' gim. 2. éd. 1967. v. 2. Livres dal, he zay, hha', tta' 2. éd. 1967. v. 3. Livres ya' et lam, et index alphabétiques des 3 volumes. 1948.

On philosophical thoughts of Nikolaus Driyarkara, an Indonesian Jesuit educator and philosopher; collection of articles.

The traditions about isrāʾīliyyāt that were seen almost in all the types of Islamic sciences appeared in the sources of tafsīr from early periods. These traditions that were generally used to explain the Qurʾān were seen problem and critisized by some exegetical specialists. Even though corresponding to a relative later period in the classical era, an approach was tried to put forward in view of the traditions about isrāʾīliyyāt. This methodological concern for isrāʾīliyyāt in classical period has increased and been (...) influential for many researchers from east and west to work on this issue in modern times. There has been reached to important results about the issues of the definition of isrāʾīliyyāt, the source of it, its spread in Islamic sciences, its aim of usage, the progress of these positive-negative attitudes against these traditions in historical process. But it is important to discuss some evaluations and analysis again that put forward in this process when different cases about the issue are taken into consideration. According to this, a series of problem, such as how the isrāʾīliyyāt can be defined in tafsīr, when the criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt started, whether Biqāʿī was the first exegete who made reference to Bible or not will be discussed considering relevant resources in this article.Summary: Since the early periods, isrā’īliyyāt narratives were used as a source of information in tafsīrs. These narratives, which are transmitted in various tafsīrs of the Qur’ān, one of the main sources of Islamic religion, have also taken the methodological interests of some exegete since the early periods. This interest continued in the modern period, and both Western and Eastern researchers made research on isrā’īliyyāt. Some of the findings, analyses, and claims available in researches on this subject will be reexamined in this article. The first of these is the problem of the definition of isrā’īliyyāt. In contemporary research, inclusive definitions are made for isrā’īliyyāt, seen in all sources. These definitions do not allow for a refined description of isrā’īliyyāt which is handled in terms of different intentions in the sources of each different field and which varies in terms of the issues it covers, leading to the underestimation of some of its aspects in relevant fields. In the definitions, it is stated that isrā’īliyyāt is mostly learned from the Ahl al-Kitāb, (the People of the Book) it became widespread along with Islām and it included narratives about caliphs, dynasties, and Mahdī, as well. Another issue is to be emphasized that they are fictive or mythological. In classical tafsīrs, isrā’īliyyāt is observed to be related mainly with the history of the Ahl al-Kitāb or with the subjects they know about. In the modern era, the narratives about the ancestors of the Arabs have been identified as isrā’īliyyāt. If some of the isrā’īliyyāt narratives are related to the history of Arabs, then their resource should be the historical-cultural memory of Arabs. However, as almost all Qur’ānic stories were somewhat known before the revelation period and relations with the Ahl al-Kitāb dated back to times long before the Islamic period, the claim that these narratives became widespread along with Islām should be revised. It is also problematic to emphasize the legendary nature of some of the isrā’īliyyāt and to make that as a reason to reject all. Such emphasis also leads to the underestimation of the functions of narratives in tafsīrs. In isrā’īliyyāt, tafsīr was used for i) interpreting the ambiguous words in the stories, ii) to bring evidence to the Ahl al-Kitāb, and ii) tarhīb-targhīb (encouragement-warning). These narratives can be used as a source in tafsīr unless they are explicitly falsified by the data of fields such as history, history of religions and archaeology as well as the Qur’ān and the true Sunnah. The first criticisms of isrā’īliyyāt are claimed to belong to exegete like Ibn al-‘Arabī (d. 543/148) or Ibn ‘Aṭīyah (d. 541/1147). However, criticism of isrā’īliyyāt is also observed in the tafsīrs of earlier exegete, such as al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058) or al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067). They do not necessarily have to use the term isrā’īliyyāt explicitly in their criticism like the later ones. If the narratives they criticize and the reasons for their criticism are the same as those of the later exegete, it will be necessary to date the criticism of isrā’īliyyāt back to the 4th Century of the Hegira. The understanding that "the expression in the story is sufficient, it is unnecessary to deal with the ambiguities; instead, it is necessary to deal with the lesson and wisdom in the story" is one of the criteria that Muḥammad ‘Abduh (d. 1905), who is deemed to be the pioneer of the strict criticism of isrā’īliyyāt in the modern period, took as basis in this criticism, is valid for the exegete of the classical period, as well. Although exegete, such as al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), al-Māturīdī, al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), and Abū Ḥayyān (d. 745/1344) who had this understanding, gave place to isrā’īliyyāt, these people recognized that "these narratives were not final, binding or necessary”, indeed. The understanding that such expression in the story is sufficient, which is one of the reasons for such awareness in the classical period, seems to have turned into a strict rejection in the modern period. Another issue is the claim that Biqā‘ī (d. 885/1480) was the first exegete to systematically benefit from the Bible in tafsīr in the classical period. However, al-Daylamī (d. 593/1197) before Biqā‘ī, is also observed to have used the Old Testament systematically in tafsīr. He cited the Tanakh in his period in two ways. He either directly quoted from the translation of Tanakh or the Hebrew text written in Arabic letters. Another exegete who used the Tanakh as a source in his tafsīr was al-Ṣafadī (d. 696/1296). He enriched his tafsīr with systematic quotations from the Tanakh. Therefore, the use of the Bible as a source of interpretation in the classical period should not be started with Biqā‘ī. The reason why the pioneer exegete of the classical period did not directly use the Bible is claimed to be the fact that they falsified it and deemed the isrā’īliyyāt narrated from the predecessors to be more reliable. However, it is known that a significant portion of the isrā’īliyyāt, which was orally transferred from the predecessors, is based on written sources, particularly including the apocryphal texts. So just like the Bible, isrā’īliyyāt, which was orally transferred from the predecessors, is problematic in terms of authenticity. This allows us to argue that classical exegete have an inconsistent attitude, indeed. On the other hand, when we take into account the fact that classical exegetes criticize these narratives from time to time and believe that they are not final or binding, the problem of potential inconsistency disappears. Accordingly, they did not deem chain transmission of these narratives from the predecessors by reliable transmitters to be a sufficient reason for their acceptance and adoption for good and all. (shrink)

Muḳātil b. Sulaymān’s (d. 150/767) tafsīr named al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, is accepted as the first completed tafsīr that has reached us from the early sources of tafsīr literature. One of the issues that the mufassir, deals with emphatically by emphasizing the concealment of the Prophet’s tabs̲h̲īr in the Bible. The Mufassir make a connection between the concealment of the Prophet’s tabs̲h̲īr and the falsification of the Bible. When we examine the verses that Muḳātil commented to prove his claim related with falsification (...) of these books, we encounter the phenomenon of takhṣīs in tafsīr. Takhṣīs is a term used in the literature of fiḳh method, in the sense of explaining with a word, with a proof, that some of the individuals it covers are meant. Considering the content of this term, it is understood that Muḳātil’s takhṣīs in tafsīr means limiting the meaning of words with many meanings to only one content. The main issue that prompted Muḳātil to make a takhṣīs in tafsīr is falsification. The issue of falsification of the Bible has been a subject that attracted the attention of Muslim scholars. Because in the Ḳurʾān, the distortion of the Torah is described in the following terms: يحرفون “they distort”, فبدل “altered”, يلون السنتهم “who twist their tongues”, يكتمون “they conceal”, ولا تلبسوا الحق بالباطل “confound not truth with falsehood”, وتكتموا الحق “conceal the truth”, يكتبون الكتاب بِاَيْد۪يهِمْ “They write the book with their hands”. The Ḳurʾān’s statement on this matter encouraged the criticism of the scholars about the Torah. Among the issues criticized there are; tabs̲h̲īr of Muḥammad in previous books, the origin of the Torah, inaccuracy in chronological order, stylistic differences, information errors and contradictions. Among these criticisms directed at the People of the Book, Muḳātil focuses on tabs̲h̲īr. The main source that leads him to argue that Muḥammad was heralded in previous books is the verses of the Ḳurʾān. In addition to this, it is highly probable that the geography where the mufassir lived was also influential in shaping his criticisms. Considering the Jewish population in the neighborhoods where he lived, such as Balk̲h̲ and Marw, it is possible for the commentator to develop a dialogue with the Jews, and it is also possible that his criticisms will be shaped within the framework of these dialogues. Muḳātil’s falsification criticism is expressed in the context of the Prophet’s tabs̲h̲īr. However, the mufassir’s emphasis on tabs̲h̲īr goes beyond the criticism of falsification. The mufessir always keeps the issue alive on the reader’s agenda with short phrases such as “كتم أمر محمد / بكتمان أمر محمد Muḥammad’s subject is hidden in the Torah”, “نعت محمد / صفة محمد / Muḥammad’s qualification”. As far as we can determine, there are fifty-two verses in al-Tafsīr al-kabīr that Muḳātil consider directly related to tabs̲h̲īr. He deals with the issue of distortion in thirty-eight verses. The number of verses that the mufassir associates with both distortion and tabs̲h̲īr is thirty-six. The number of verses that he does not associate with falsification but only about tabs̲h̲īr is twelve. Among them, it has been determined that Muḳātil made takhṣīs in the interpretation of forty-eight verses in total. When we classify his takhṣīs’s, we can form a tidy framework under four main headings: in the interpretation of sila sentences, idioms and idiomatic expressions, determining the content of words, and indicates of pronoun. Since the thought of tabs̲h̲īr is one of the main motifs in the mind of the commentator, his tafsīr’s follow a parallel course to this motif. In the interpretation of many verses, there are examples of interpretations that will legitimize this thought and confirm this claim. As a matter of fact, in the interpretation of the expression يلوون ألسنتهم بالكتاب “While reading the Book, they bend their tongues” in the 78th verse of sūrat āl ʿImrān, it is said that Muḥammad’s qualification in the Torah were deleted and other adjectives were written instead of it. In the tafsīr of the 37th verse of sūrat al-Nisāʾ, there are the expressions like this: “The concealment of Muḥammad’s tabs̲h̲īr and its removal from the Torah (بكتمان أمر محمد و محوه من التوراة)”. Muḳātil narrowed the content of the expression, which has a wide meaning area. This narrowing of the meaning is technically considered an example of takhṣīs. Other examples where takhṣīs made in tafsir are present in the interpretations of the phrases of guidance/aberration, right/false, belief/disbelief, verse, word, stinginess, knowledge, promise, declaration, turning away and the book of Allah. The tafsīr’s extreme loyalty to the context is accompanied by his limiting the meaning of words with broad content to a narrow content. (shrink)

This article explores the long-contested question about the role of individual judgement vis-à-vis the authority of tradition in the interpretation of the Qurʾān. It focuses on the notion of al-tafsīr bi-l-raʾy – interpretation of the Qurʾān by “personal opinion” – and offers an insight into medieval Muslim debates over the legitimacy of this type of exegesis, its alleged prophetic disapproval, and the scope and conditions of its use. Based on the Sunnī tafsīr works from the 3rd/9th to the 6th/12th centuries, (...) the article examines how in the course of these debates Muslim authors negotiated the meaning of al-tafsīr bi-l-raʾy. Against the view that it encompassed any interpretation beyond tradition-based tafsīr, their reinterpretations of the term implied that philological, juridical, and Ṣūfī tafsīr could not be categorized as al-tafsīr bi-l-raʾy, thereby narrowing the meaning of this concept and broadening the scope of legitimate exegesis and interpretative authorities in Sunnī tafsīr tradition. (shrink)

al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273) was a scholar of tafsīr, ḥadīth and fiqh. He experienced both Western and Eastern civilizations in the geography of Andalusia and Egypt, respectively. In his famous Tafsīr called al-Jâmi li-Aḥkâm al-Qur’ān, al-Qurṭubī comparatively explained and interpreted all legal verses. Also, in addition to exploring the spesific legal rulings denoted in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah, al-Qurṭubī has largely interpreted the legal norms regarding the issues of jurisprudence. By doing this, al-Qurṭubī contributed to the formation and development of (...) a civil codification activity under a kazuistic format. The casuistic structure of the legal exegesis of the Qur’ān is anlaysed in terms of the form and content in the sample of al-Jâmi. Therefore, neither the similarity or similarity of the schools of the legal exegesis of Qur’ān and of the legal schools nor the disciplines of positive law, but their kazuistic structures, which systems they built and which interpretation methods and techniques they operated on this basis, were evaluated in terms of their original structure. In this direction, the article emphasizes that the casuistic structure of the legal exegesis of Qur’ān is established on and by the Prophet’s sayings and practices. Although, it has been observed that it is a unique tradition, both as form and content, and that the interpretation means are identified with its own unique structure, it has been concluded that the casuistic method is not one of the fundamental elements of both this tradition and Islamic legal thought. This means that the casuistic method is always a tool that can be changed and transformed according to the conditions of time and space.Summary: As it is stated in al-Isrāʾ 17/106: “And (it is) a Qur’ān which we have separated (by intervals) that you might recite it to the people over a prolonged period. And we have sent it down progressive.”, the Qur’ān is revelaed in about twenty-three years by taking into consideration the sociocultural positions of its interlocutors. The Prophet Muḥammad explained the Qur’ān by the virtue of the ayah: “(We sent them) with clear proofs and written ordinances. And We revealed to you the message (i.e. that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.” (an-Naḥl 16/44). Of course, there is no subject integrity in this Qurānic chronology-which also reflects life. As a matter of fact, the issues related to individual and society have been independently analyzed by a casuistic/case-based method and ruled in accordance with the intention of Allāh. It can be seen that the ayahs “They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, ‘In them is great sin and (yet, some) benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit.’ And they ask you what they should spend. Say, ‘The excess (beyond needs).’ Thus Allāh makes clear to you the verses (of revelation) that you might give thought.” (al-Baqara 2/219) and other ayahs such as (al-Baqara 2/186; al-Nisāʾ 4/176; al-Anfāl 8/1) reflect the casuistic method in terms of form and content. This can also be exemplified by the Sunna. For example, when the question “Is it permissible to perform ablutions with sea water?” was posed to Messenger of Allāh. He said that “It’s water is clean and his dead (fish) are lawful “(Abū Dāwūd, “Ṭaḥāra”, 41). By this answer, the Prophet Muḥammad indeed ruled and established a general rule.It can be said that this early example table formed the basis of the legal exegesis of the Qur’ān in terms of origin, source and application, and that its shape and content are often immanent in the examples it contains. In this article, based on the prophetic period, the legal exegesis of the Qur’ān and casuistic structure has been studied with an analytical and critical approach. Again, because the casuistic method is one of the universal concepts of east-west science and cultural life, an interdisciplinary approach was exhibited in this study. The roots of the casuistic method date back to 5000 BC and the legal systems of the society and states of antiquity are examined from this method. This method is chosen and used in the legal exegesis of the Qur’ān. However, this study does not analyse the sameness or the similarity of the legal exegesis of the Qur’ān and the legal schools nor the positive law disciplines, but the casuistic structures used by these, the systems they have built on this basis and the interpretation methods and techniques they have been used and analyzed in terms of their originality.In effect, the article embodies the Qur’ānic exegesis called al-Jâmi li-Aḥkâm al-Qur’ān by al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273), a scholar of tafsīr, ḥadīth and fiqh. In addition to the works of the aḥkām al-Qur’āns, which deal with the interpretation of the ayahs related to the subjects of ʿibādāt, muʿāmalāt ve ʿuḳūbāt, many other works have been used in parallel with the development of the legal exegesis of the Qur’ān. al-Qurṭubī, who comparingly explained the legal verses in his tafsīr, investigated the aspects of the Qur’ān and Sunna that indicate the aḥkām, generally interpreted the existing legal norms within the framework of evidence and introduced his own opinions and etasblished his ijtihād. Thus, he benefited from the tafsīr accumulation and contributed to the formation and development of a civil legalization activity with casuistic format. As a matter of fact, the casuistic/case-based method has been used as a codification/tadwīn technique by Western and Eastern legal disciplines and systems. The casuistic method covers both concrete event and abstract ruling methods. In the casuistic method, which is fact-based event, the laws are organized according to all possible events that can be experienced. On the other hand, the abstract method, which is defined as the abstract ruling method, aims to organize the laws in a general and abstract framework. In the article, it is stated that the legal exegesis of the Qur’ān contains both concrete and abstract dimensions in its own way. It has been emphasized that the legal exegesis of the Qur’ān is based on divine revelation (waḥy) and that it is separated from human law as its origin and source, and that this feature is its most faithful characteristic. On this basis, the legal exegesis of the Qur’ān is a separate scholarly tradition and has its own definition, subject and purpose. Its original structure and function have been noted. As a matter of fact, the subject and purpose of the legal exegesis of the Qur’ān always require the tafsīr and taʾwīl of the legal verses having regard to the Qur’ān and Sunna. It is also necessary for the purpose of investigating the ways in which nuṣūṣ (an explicit statement upon which a ruling is based) can refer to the provisions and to resolve the issues related to individuals and society. As a matter of fact, the legal verses function as a guide for humanity until the day of judgment as the inspiration for religious-legal matters; they contain the content and provisions that offer happiness in the two worlds. (shrink)

This article focuses on the intricate nature of the science of tafsir. It discusses the function of tafsir within the framework of identifying the principles of tafsir methodology and tafsir narrations. The book’s contribution to the science of tafsir is emphasized by underlining that it aims to provide essential details for understanding and addressing the subject and comparing classical and modern understandings of tafsir. In addition, the scientific value of tafsir and its relationship (...) with other Islamic sciences is examined. The work primarily focuses on identifying and analyzing the discussions regarding the nature of tafsir within Islamic thought. (shrink)

Abdullah Bosnawī is one of the representatives of the Ibn al-‘Arabī school, which has an important place in the tradition of Islamic thought as well as in the field of Sufism. He is also an Ottoman intellectual who successfully annotated the Ibn al-‘Arabī's "Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥıkam" in Turkish and Arabic for the first time. Most of the treatises that Bosnawī wrote in the field of tafsir and mysticism are in manuscript and are waiting to be introduced to the world of (...) science. His treatise, which contains original interpretations, in which he interprets the story of Dhu’l-Qarnayn according to the theory of waḥdat al-wujūd, which is influential in Islamic thought, is one of them. In the study, the method of examining, comparing and evaluating the tafsir and mysticism literature was applied to the extent of its relevance to the subject. After giving information about the author, the literal and isharī interpretations on the story of Dhu’l-Qarnayn were examined and compared with the comments of Bosnevi. The interpretation method of the author in the treatise is researched, evaluated and introduced. The position of the interpretations of the author in the tradition of isharī tafsir has been tried to be revealed within the framework of the historical stages of Sufism. The content of the treatise has been introduced under the appropriate headings for the handling of the subject. It has been seen that the author, who is observed to use tafsir methods such as explaining the verse by verse, considering the siyâk-sibâk relationship, does not go into too much detail, although he uses classical tafsirs in his literal interpretations. It has been understood that in his isharī tafsirs, he adapted to the tradition of ṣūfī-naẓarī interpretation and made ontological explanations about the creation of man by Almighty Allah. The author has tried to explain throughout his treatise that the curtains of the subtleties of creation will be opened according to the sulūk levels. With these aspects, bringing the work to the literature is important in terms of introducing the isharī interpretations made by a professional scholar about the place, person and objects in the verses related to the story of Dhu’l-Qarnayn in a manuscript. (shrink)

The history of the mushaf, which began with the collection of the verses of the Qur'an in the era of Hazrat Abu Bakr, holds a significant place in terms of the science of qiraat and the methodology of tafsir. It is not possible to say that the subject, which is the focus of Western researchers especially to prove their thesis that the Qur’an is the human word, is popular in our country. At this point, in this study prepared with (...) the aim of contributing to the field, tafsir introductions and mushaf history issues were examined. Many of the tafsir works provide valuable information about the history of the mushaf. In this direction, one of the important works of tafsir, Garāib al-Qur'ān, Tafsīr al-Khāzin, Jawāhir al-ḥisān, Fath al-rahmān Rūh al-meānī, Tafsīr al-Marāgī and Tafsīr al-hadīs were analyzed. They constitute the basis of our research because they contain rich information about its history and have not yet been examined in this respect. In this regard, the introductions of the aforementioned commentary works are examined under headings created according to the subjects. First of all, the issue of turning the Qur’anic verses into mushafs during the period of Hazrat Abu Bakr is discussed, and then the principles observed in the mushaf copying activity in the Hazrat Osman period, how many companions were in the commission, the number of mushafs that were copied and sent to the leading towns of the period, and who made the surah arrangement in the mushafs are examined. In addition, information shared about the official mushaf rules and whether these rules must be taken as a basis in the writing of the mushafs is included. Finally, within the context of personal companions’ mushafs, the study delves into the claims, accusations, and debates surrounding the mushafs with Hazrat Osman. (shrink)

27-28 Mayıs 2016 tarihinde Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Tefsir Anabilim Dalı'nın organizasyonu ile yapılan XIII. Tefsir Akademisyenleri Koordinasyon Toplantısı ve Akademik Tefsir Çalışmaları Sempozyumu toplantısının tanıtım yazısı.

Sunnah is an issue that Muslims pay special attention to it, since it is the second source of the religion of Islam. After the Prophet’s passing away, both the companions (al-saḥāba) and the successors (tābiʻūn) and tabaʻu al-tābiʻūn made extraordinary efforts to understand and interpret the Sunnah correctly. In fact, since the science of hadith is the common denominator in all fields of basic Islamic sciences, all scholars have tried to explain the transmission of hadith, the way it was narrated, (...) whether the narrators were competent to narrate, the explanation of unknown words in the hadith, etc. Although it is possible to find this activity during the Prophet’s time, it continued in a semi-systematic manner over time, especially after the third century. After the fourth century of hijri, the hadith commentary (sharḥ) process took on a completely systematic character and the science of hadith commentary became a sub-discipline of the hadith department. The process of writing commentaries, which started in the Islamic world and became a tradition over time, concentrated on the books that established the dominance on Muslim society. In this framework, serious contributions were made to the commentary literature in the following periods of time and an enormous commentary literature was formed. However, in the formation of the hadith commentary literature, the sectarian affiliation of the commentator was one of the most influential factors in determining the content of the commentary. In this context, Imām Mālik’s study named al-Muwaṭṭaʼ and al-Kutub al-Sitta took the lead in the development of the hadith commentary literature. In particular, al-Imām Mālik’s al-Muwaṭṭaʼ attracted the attention of the scholars of Andalusia who were interested in the science of hadith, and scholarly trips were made to Medina, one of the eastern Islamic countries, for the education and training of hadith, and as a result of these trips, the people of Andalusia adopted the Mālikī sect. Therefore Imām Mālik’s study named al-Muwaṭṭaʼ became one of the most important books. In Andalusia, serious commentaries were written on the aforementioned study in almost every century starting from the third century of hijri. One of these commentaries is Abū al-Muṭarrif al-Qanāziʻī’s study named Tafsīr al-Muwaṭṭaʼ, which is the subject of our research paper. There is no detached study on this study. For this reason, this study is important in terms of obtaining information about Andalusian hadith commentary. Likewise, it is expected that this study will also be a source of literature for comprehensive studies such as Maliki hadith commentarism and hadith methodology. (shrink)

This article examines tafsir (interpretation of the Qurʾān) - translation relationship in the example of the translation of verse 184 of the Surat al-Baqara into Turkish. Undoubtedly, when the verses are translated into another language, it is necessary to reflect to translate what the first interlocutors understood from them. The fact that the rules (hukm) in some verses were repealed (naskh) or allocated (takhsis) later does not change this requirement. In verse 184 of surat al-Baqara, those who can afford (...) to fast but choose not to fast are ordered to pay ransom (fidya) for every day, that is, to pay the daily amount to feed a poor person. According to the detailed information and rumors in the tafsir literature; this rule was applied when the fast was made obligatory (fard) for the first time, and then it was abrogated. However, this practice, which was canceled for healthy and unexcused people, remained as a permission (rukhṣa) for those who were too old and sick to fast. Both the narrations conveyed from the companions (sahaba) and the general opinions of the mufassirs confirm the abrogation of this rule and that it remains a rukhṣa. The fact that the situation is described as naskh or takhsis does not make a difference in terms of transferring the verse to Turkish or another language. The verses on the subject were examined in the light of the most basic tafsir sources. To give an example that reflects the general opinion; It is stated in the thirty-five narrations reported by Tabari from the companions and tābiʿūn that the 184th verse expresses the option (takhyir) of not fasting in return for fidya for those who can fast. This option has been canceled in the next verse but it has remained for, -some people with special conditions-, as the elderly who cannot afford to fast, pregnant women and breastfeeding women who worry about harm to themselves or their childrens. According to the qirāʾa that is "وعلى الذين يُطوَّقونه", it is said that the verse is not abrogated, it is meant for old men and women. But as emphasized by Abū Ḥayyān, it is understood that this qirāʾa is not actually a qirāʾa but a kind of interpretation of the expression "وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُطِيقُونَهُ" in terms of rukhṣa. Therefore, the claim that it has not been repealed is probably due to the continued practice of fiqh. On the other hand, also rational evidence shows that the right to choose (takhyir), which was given initially, was later repealed. For example, in verse 184, it is stated that those who are sick and travelers should perform fasting on other days with the expression "فَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْكُمْ مَرِيضًا أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ"; The same issue is stated in verse 185 with the expression "وَمَنْ كَانَ مَرِيضًا أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ". The repetition in question shows that the two verses were sent not together but at different times. This state of affairs confirms that the second verse has repealed the right of choosing (takhyir) in first one. In addition, as Imam Māturīdi's determined by hit, if those who cannot endure fasting were meant in verse 184, it would be unwise to call these people at the end of the verse as "However, that you fast is better for you, if you only knew!" In the overwhelming majority of Turkish translations of the Qurʾān, it is seen that there is no emphasis on the meaning of the verse when it was first sent. Even the expression “Upon those who are able to fast...” in the verse is translated as “Upon those who aren’t able to fast...”. Whereas it is more consistent and appropriate to reflect the literal meaning of the verse in the translation and explain the situation with additional notes. In this way, it will be understood that two verses that contain the same words and come one after another are sent different times and about different things, hence the reader will be given accurate information. In the nearly thirty examples of translations in the article, it is seen that the translations belonging to Mehmet Akif and Süleyman Tevfik and the translation of the delegation chaired by Hüseyin Kazım are in full harmony with the data in tafsir literature and the general opinion of mufassirs. Rifat Börekçi, the first president of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, has criticized the translation committee headed by Hüseyin Kazım extremely harshly. Then, with the choice made by Elmalılı Hamdi, almost the direction of the wind changed and the translators could not surpass it. Although there have been some translations in line with the text of the verse, the relevant explanations of these authors reveal that they did not understand the issue in detail and did not make a conscious translation. Meantime the analysis made in the aforementioned verse example shows that reliable translations cannot be made without referring to detailed tafsir information and therefore a correct Qurʾān translation is often not possible without tafsir. (shrink)

This article examines the tafsīr on the Qurʾānic verses pertaining to suicide, qatl al-nafs. The majority of exegetical discussions on suicide center on Moses and originate from his command to the Banū Isrāʾīl in Q 2:54, uqtulū anfusakum, which can be interpreted as “kill yourselves” or “kill one another.” On the basis of etymology and historical context, commentators associate this passage with Q 4:29 and 4:66. Another such passage, Q 2:84, which outlaws bloodshed, is also associated with the Banū Isrāʾīl, (...) in a different context. Adding Q 18:6 and Q 2:195 to the list of verses under consideration, this article traces interpretations of self-destruction from early works of tafsīr down to the late fourteenth century. Though the Qurʾānic attitude toward suicide is notoriously ambiguous, by examining the various grammatical constructions and interpretations given to these verses, one is able to establish trends and motivations in exegesis. The discussions of suicide, and condemnations where appropriate, focus on the motivation and intention of the individual rather than the act itself. Obedience to God, the nature of his commands, and the well-being of the community of believers also emerge as some of the key ethical issues in the commentaries. (shrink)

There are two widely accepted definitions of ilm al-tafsīr in the hāshiyahs on Anwār al-Tanzīl. The most accepted ones are as follows: Tafsīr is the science that investigates the states of the word of Allah in terms of signifying the will of Allah. This definition mainly belongs to al-Taftāzānī in his hāshiyah on al-Kashshāf. Despite the objections directed to it, the definition was accepted in the later phases and there were not any detailed discussions on it. From this point of (...) view, it can be concluded that there is a common tafsīr definition in Anwār al-Tanzīl hāshiyahs due to the fact that the majority concurred with this definition. The prevalence of this definition is also out of the question for al-Kashshāf hāshiyahs. Its prevalence in the following literature may be attributed to its implementation in accordance with the definition requirements. Because in the definitions made based on the subject, the subject is regarded as genus, and how this subject is addressed is also considered as a difference (fasl). Accordingly, in the above definition, the subject of the tafsīr is explained as the states of Kalam, and the direction in which it is addressed is expressed in terms of the will of Allah. Thus, the subject of tafsīr and its research direction were explained and its difference from other sciences researching the Qur’ān was also stated. According to the second most widespread definition in the hāshiyahs, tafsīr is a science in which the meanings of the Kalam of Allah are known in terms of human capacity/capability. This definition is more or less a description (rasm) compared to the previous one. Hence, it is a looser definition. For this reason, the definition does not allow tafsīr to be separated from other sciences. Because, the meanings of words in the Qur’ān, language sciences and religious sciences are also explored. However, in the other definition, the difference of tafsīr was taken into consideration by including the directional record and the will/intent expression more quickly. On the other hand, the second definition has a limitation of being based on human capacity/capability that reveals some features of the tafsīr more clearly. This limitation expresses that the research in tafsīr is based on suppositional data in one way and continuity in another. Both definitions in the hāshiyahs show that there are clear and common definitions of ilm al-tafsīr between the hijri 9th and 12th centuries. It is stated that with a few exceptions, in almost all of the hāshiyahs, the ilm al-tafsīr is divided into two parts as tafsīr and ta’wīl. The tafsīr here is based on narrative, and ta’wīl is based on reason. Explanation of both of them in this way can be seen in al-Kashshāf. Accordingly, it is understood that both concepts become evident in al-Kashshāf and Anwār al-Tanzīl hāshiyahs. However, when we look at some tafsīr introductions, and literature of ulūm al-Qur’ān, it is observed that vastly different explanations have been made about them. This gives the impression that there is no clear and widespread acceptance of them. However, by explaining as mentioned, their meaning becomes clear in the next literature. Because this explanation about them is essentially a statement that al-Māturīdī conveyed from his predecessors. Accordingly, an explanation about both concepts that was conveyed from the early period has gained acceptance and became widespread especially in the sharhs-hāshiyahs for the following process. Since al-Baydāwī associates both concepts with muhkam and mutashābih, the commentators also explained this relationship. They contain the definitions of the muhkam and mutashābih, which al-Baydāwī made in accordance with Shāfi‘ī method. Accordingly, muhkam are the ones that is clear in terms of what is meant, and do not need further explanation. Examples of muhkam are verses about shari‘a 'orders, inheritance distribution, transactions, and marriage issues. The provisions on these issues should be based on narrative, not reason. Thus, the explanation of muhkam becomes tafsīr. The mutashābih is interpreted since the meaning is not clear. In this case, their interpretation is also ta’wīl. The religious sciences that tafsīr benefits from are explained as being hadith, fiqh, theology, mysticism, and usūl al-fiqh, and this case expresses a general opinion. Literary sciences required for tafsīr are also described as glossary, derivation, morphology, grammar, bayān, ma‘ānī, and badī‘. However, there are two opinions about the knowledge of disciplines such as prosody, rhyme, qard al-shi‘r, khat, and inshā. According to one opinion, since these sciences are not related to the Qur’ān, it is not necessary to know them in order to interpret them. According to the other one, for a competent interpretation activity, these sciences must be known, and their data are thought to contribute to tafsīr. (shrink)

The Tafsīr al-Muqātil (d. 150/767) is the oldest available complete commentary text. In this respect, it has been a focus of attention. In this tafsīr, the references to the Battle of Badr in the explanation of some Makkī surahs are remarkably numerous. Badr was the first war that the Prophet made with the polytheists of Makkah, and it took place in the second year of the migration to Madīna (A. H. 2). The polytheists were far superior to the Muslims in (...) terms of both equipment and numbers. Therefore, the success achieved in this expedition meant a lot not only in terms of survival but also in terms of morale of Muslims. Details of this war are included in Surah Anfāl, and various aspects of it are referred to in other Madanī surahs. It is not difficult to understand the mention of such an important war in Madanī surahs. However, the references to the Battle of Badr -which has not yet taken place- in the commentary of the Makkī surahs, are particularly challenging. In this tafsīr, 66 verses of various Makkī surahs are explained through the Battle of Badr. This study was carried out in order to reveal the background of the Badr references of the Makkī surahs in Muqātil tafsīr. Muqātil stands out in the Hadith in terms of reliability, and in the Kalām as a widely discussed personality with his various views. Although he has been criticized from various aspects of his Tafsīr, it is generally considered a great authority. His work is easy to understand; it combines narration and insight. The similar of every possible verse has been given. The author's mastering at the Arabic language showed itself in the words of the Qur’ān. Almost no words remained unexplained. Muqātil is closely related to the Arabic language that had been in effect in the era of revelation, and he generally carried out his tafsīr activities by considering the era of revelation. In Muqātil's view of tafsīr, no verse is independent from the experiences of the period, and each verse gains meaning with its context. In his tafsīr, Muqātil draws a view of Badr without alternatives. While other tafsīrs include other achievements of Muslims in addition to Badr, such as the victory of the Battle of the Ditch and the conquest of Makkah, in the tafsīr of Muqātil the difference of Badr as the biggest blow against the polytheists of Makkah is clearly stated. It may not be very convincing to explain his insistence on Badr as random touches and sometimes anachronistic mistakes, given his skill in tafsīr and his command of the Qur’ān in terms of both content and language. Badr stands as a conscious choice, not a mistake in Muqātil. As it can be seen in examining the verses, the forward-looking statements present in the majority of the verses; this emphasis also prepared the ground for Muqātil's explanations. In any case, Muqātil sometimes did not care about falling into historical inconsistency. If we exclude these 5 verses, which can be explained with Badr although they are Makkī, the attitudes of other commentators regarding the emphasis of Badr in the Makkī verses in the remaining 61 verses are as follows: al-Ṭabarī (d.310/923) included the views pointing to Badr in only 3 of the 61 verses in his tafsīr. This shows us that the emphasis of Badr in the Makkī verses was not generally adopted by other early commentators except Muqātil. Because in al-Ṭabarī's tafsīr, the views on tafsīr from the era of Aṣ-ṣaḥābah (the Companions), Tābiʿūn (the second generation following the Companions) and Tābiʿū al-Tābʿīn (the third generation) are mentioned together with isnad (the chain of reporters), except for Muqātil and al-Kalbī. al-Zad̲j̲d̲j̲ād̲j̲ (d. 311/923), who was contemporary of Ṭabarī, included Badr in only two of the 61 verses in his philological tafsīr. In other words, al-Zad̲j̲d̲j̲ād̲j̲ is on a very different line from Muqātil regarding Badr. al-Māturīdī (d. 330/944) included Badr among other explanations in only 4 of the 61 verses in his tafsīr, and did not mention Muqātil's view even among the possible meanings of the other verses. al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) included Badr in 10 of 61 verses among other explanations. In the remaining 51 verses, he did not find it necessary to mention Muqātil's view along with other possibilities. Apparently, al-Rāzī, like others, did not consider Muqātil's explanations reasonable. Nevertheless, Razi was the commentator who gave greater place to the Badr emphasis of Muqātil in his tafsīr. In this case, how can the passion for Badr, seen in the Muqātil tafsīr, be explained? We think it would be correct to seek the reasons of Muqātil's -sometimes reasonable, sometimes inappropriate, and sometimes anachronistic- explanations of Badr in the importance he gave to this expedition and in the method of relying on concrete data in the interpretation of the Qur’ānic verses. In his view of tafsīr, no verse is independent of the experiences of the period. (shrink)

Preference, defined as “Considering something better, superior or im-portant than another, preferring it, weighing it up”, is one of the most im-portant elements that shape the lives of human beings. The different sources that people consume causes their mindsets to differ, and as a result, differ-ent opinions emerge. Preference also has an important function in Islamic sciences. In fiqh, fiqh methodology and hadith sciences, preference refers to a methodology frequently used when evaluating different opinions and nar-rations. Although not as important (...) as these sciences, preference also plays an important function in the science of tafsir. The basic element that re-quires choice in interpretation is the disagreements of commentators about a verse. However, the interpreter does not always have to make a choice be-tween different views, as in these sciences the preference is inevitable, espe-cially in conflicting issues regarding belief and practice. It is appropriate to date the phenomenon of preference in exegesis from the tadwin period when different interpretations of the verse were brought together in real terms. Ibn Juzay al-Kalbi is one of the commentators who gives systematic information about the phenomenon of preference in the introduction of his tafsir al-Tashīl and frequently applies preference among different interpreta-tions of the verses. Addressing the phenomenon of conflict and choice be-tween different views in the introduction of his commentary al-Tashīl, Ibn Juzay states that the following issues cause the difference in interpretation between the verses: To interpret with Quran, the hadith of the Prophet, with the interpretation of the majority of commentators, interpretation of the rightly guided caliphs and the prominant commentators such as Abbas b. Abbas (d. 68/687-88), with the data of the Arabic language; to resort to the meaning, to prioritize the meaning that comes to the mind at the first stage, to attribute the real meaning to metaphor, the general to the particu-lar, the absolute to the literal, the presentation of the apparent noun to the literal and the existing syntax of the word. Although Juzay mentions twelve criteria in the introduction of at-Teshîl, when the applications in his tafsir are examined, it is seen that the number of these criteria increases to twenty-five. In practice, Ibn Juzay also applies the criteria of before word, common meaning, absolute meaning, plausibility of the meaning, widespread use, compliance with the requirements, purpose of the verse, order of im-portance of the subject, to Meccan-Medinan, historical data, Arab custom and suitability for the prophet’s title of innocence. Although there are stud-ies in the Arab world that discuss Ibn Juzay's preferences on a sura basis, the fact that no study has been conducted those deals with his preference criteria in tafsir independently constitutes the main reason for writing this article. In this article, prepared using the document scanning technique of the qualitative research method, it is aimed to contribute to the literature by examining the preference criteria between different interpretations in tafsir of Ibn Juzay, a commentator belonging to the Andalusian tafsir tradition and to introduce readers to the principles that can form a basis for choosing between different interpretations of a verse. (shrink)

The Sunnah has an important role in the correct understanding and the protection from wrong interpretations of the Qurʾān. Accordingly, ḥadīth played a crucial role in shaping the opinions of the mufassirs. In this article, the tafsir titled Kur’an Yolu written by a group of scholars and first published by the Presidency of the Religious Affairs in 2003 which is widely read in Tur-key is examined from ḥadīth usage point of view. The problems in ḥadīth usage are classified under (...) headings such as insufficiency/incorrectness in the explanation of verses due to insuffi-cient usage of ḥadīth, not including ḥadīth which corroborate the verse, wrong conclusions derived from ḥadīth, problems with citations, ḥadīth translation problems, wrong explanation of ḥadīth, problems with some issues related to Sunnah. Over fifty examples where there were wrong citations of ḥadīth, wrong conclusions were derived, there was mixing up of ḥadīth and translation errors leading to wrong meanings were determined and the most important ones were studied. Due to these problems regarding ḥadīth usage, it was seen that sometimes the unity of Qurʾān and Sunnah was violated and some wrong explanations were given. The article is important due to determination of these mistakes and attracting attention to care and pre-caution in ḥadīth usage in this kind of works. This study indicates the importance of Qurʾān-Sunnah unity and shows the important role that ḥadīths play in understanding the verses. It is observed that in case hadiths related to a verse are not given or given in an insufficient or in-correct manner the verse in question is understood or interpreted incorrectly. Therefore, the correct translation and explanation of the ḥadīth, avoiding citation mistakes and making use of primary sources are very important. The factors that lead to wrong conclusions are not evalu-ating a ḥadīth in its entirety (taking into account only the first part of the ḥadīth), not evaluat-ing the ḥadīths related to a subject in entirety (taking into account only certain ḥadīths), not making use of commentaries in order to understand a ḥadīth correctly and wrong citation of a ḥadīth. The fact that the ḥadīth which is about the gladness of Allah due to the repentance of a person has been confused with another ḥadīth and an additional error has been made in the text of this ḥadīth indicates that the authors have remembered this ḥadīth incorrectly and they have not verified this ḥadīth in its source. Given the material mistakes in many other examples under the citation errors title, it has been concluded that the wrong citation of ḥadīths in a way that affects the meaning constitutes a serious problem for the work under examination. As to the translation problems, it is observed that they arise from wrong citation of the ḥadīth from its sources (for instance omitting a word or adding expressions that are not found in the ḥadīth) or not making use of commentaries in understanding the ḥadīth. It is necessary that for the analysis of the ḥadīth the authors make use of the tafsir of Ibn Kathīr who is a ḥadīth schol-ar along with the works of other scholars who are not specialized in ḥadīth in order to correct-ly determine the accuracy level and meaning of the ḥadīth. It seems necessary that a commis-sion that includes ḥadīth scholars review this work in order to correct the mistakes that are found and to make use of the suggestions that are put forward. This step is important for cor-recting the mistakes found in this prestigious and widely used work. Furthermore, since many readers gain knowledge about Qurʾān using this work, consideration of issues raised in this study will contribute to the forthcoming edition of the work. It is surprising that despite pro-posed corrections since its initial publication, so many material mistakes still exist in this valu-able work which is a product of great effort. It is hoped that it will continue to become useful for people by making necessary corrections. (shrink)

When viewed the history of Islamic thought, it is seen that the scholars have made an effort to understand the nature of the speech of God and make sense of it. Essentially, understanding and grasping of the words of God are an effort to look from the physical realm to the metaphysical one. In spite of this fact, the scholars as the indomitable seekers of truth are in search of finding some clues to say about it. While some of them (...) consider the “divine speech” as an attribute of God, many others view it as a divine act. It is also admitted by all of them that whether being attributive or act of God, the reflection of the divine speech is the Qur’ân. In this sense, three views have been put forward on the question of the belonging of the Qur’ânic words. According to the dominant and preferred point of view among these views, Qur’ân belongs to God in terms of wording and meaning. Accordingly, the revelation of the Qur’ân, which was revealed to the Prophet Mohammed consists of both wording and meaning. Therefore, there is no intervention or contribution of Gabriel or Muhammad in constituting of Qur’ân. According to the second approach, the meaning of Qur’ânic text belongs to God, however, its words pertain to Mohammed. This view signals that Gabriel revealed nothing more than the meanings of Qur’ân. Mohammed understands the meanings conveyed to him and then said them in Arabic expression patterns and phrases. According to the third approach, the meanings of Qur’ânic text belongs to God, however, its words pertain to Gabriel. In other words, only meanings of text were given to Gabriel, and its words are formed by him. In the present study, the mentioned approaches which are put forward by scholars about the belonging of Qur’ânic words will be examined in terms of the integrity of the Qur’ân and Tafsir rumors (riwâyât) of the classical period. In a nutshell, it can be said that there is no disagreement among scholars in the field of the belonging of the meanings of Qur’ânic text to God. The main disagreement is whether the Qur’ânic words belong to God, Gabriel or Muhammad. Considering the integrity of Qur’ân and Tafsir rumors regarding to the circumstances of sending down of the Qur’ânic revelation, it has been determined that the prevailing view is more consistent than the other two views. (shrink)

Ahmed Mâhir, who was born in Kastamonu in 1860-70, is one of the last period Ottoman scholars and is known by the penname "Ballıkızâde". He lived in the 19th century, during the Constitutional Monarchy period when the West progressed in many directions and the Ottoman Empire began to lose land alongside its reforms. After taking lessons from the scholar Ahmed Hicâbî, he also gave lectures and educated many students, and taught tafsir and theology for thirteen years at Daru'l-Fünûn Faculty (...) of Theology and Medresetü'l-Vâizîn. In addition to this, the scholar, who has served as a member of the Supreme Court, a judge, and a deputy, also appears as a political personality. Mâhir, who has four published works, is one of the important personalities that Kastamonu raised in religious, political, and literary fields. In this study, the Constitutional Era and the position of the science of tafsir in this period are discussed. Secondly, after transferring information about Ahmed Mâhir's life, his exegesis method on the works of "Mu'cizât-ı Kur'âniyye" and "al-Fâtiha fî Tefsîri'l-Fâtiha" was examined. The qualitative research method and document analysis technique wasused for this study. In addition, the data were analyzed with the help of description, sampling and association techniques. The fact that Ahmed Mâhir has both a political and religious personality and that we have four works about him today makes it important to research him. In this context, the study aims to reveal Ahmed Mâhir's exegesis based on his works. A doctoral thesis on him, in which his mystical aspect was emphasized, and an article by the same person, again, two master's theses were made about the work he wrote in the field of Sufism. Some sources provide concise information about his life and works, and brief information given in some biographical or literature studies. But his works named "Mu'cizât-ı Kur'âniyye" and "al-Fâtiha fî Tefsîri'l-Fâtiha" have not been studied academically. This situation made this study important. In addition, the existence of various interpretations on whether the author's interpretation of Surah Fâtiha is original or not has caused us to consider this issue as a problem. As a result of our analysis, Ahmed Mâhir has conveyed the negative political or religious situations of his period, especially in his work "Mu'cizât-ı Kur'âniyye". Based on the idea that the Qur'an is perfect and contains everything, he used the verses to correct these situations. His work "el-Fâtiha fî Tefsîri'l-Fâtiha" shows us both the traces of the Ottoman tafsir accumulation of that period and that this scholar has a scientific tradition on tafsir, hadith, and literature. (shrink)

Despite the hadiths and narratives that warn about the interpretation of the Qur’ān by opinion, the question of how Qur’ānic verses can be understood is about the nature of Qur’ānic exegesis. These narratives, which limit the interpretation to the exact field and indicate the invalidity of the specification of the intention with the imprecise information, bring with it the question of how to understand the Qur’ān in each period and society. The issue that has been questioned in the frame of (...) the commentary from the earliest periods is based on the possibility of commenting besides the narration and defining the area that the thought belongs to the commentator. In this context, it is seen that the distinction between the conceptualization of tafsīr-taʾwīl words in classical commentary literature deals with the subject of the tafsīr, their belongings, epistemological values and contexts. Mainly, this study will question whether authors who do not distinguish between tafsīr-taʾwīl categorize the information about commentary in a different context, then it will analyze two basic approaches on tafsīr and taʾwīl. In the paper, it will be suggested that these classifications in the classical literature should be evaluated together within the framework of the search for methodology in exegesis. Summary: The Prophet, who was the first glossator of the Qur’ān, forbade people to talk about the Qur’ān with their own judgments. The prominent people of the companions refused to comment on some words that were closed in meaning (garīb). The words quoted from Abū Bakr and ʿUmar on this subject are quite famous. However, the Qur’ān is a universal book revealed to be understood in all ages and geographies till the doomsday. The fact that all the verses were not interpreted by the Prophet, and the expansions of meaning observed in the Qur’ān wording necessitate the interpretation of the Qur’ān. The fact that the Prophet forbade people to talk with their own judgments about the Qur’ān and the necessity of understanding the Qur’ān in every era constitutes a dilemma that must be explained. The resolution of this issue will both determine the legitimacy of tafsīr (interpretation) and reveal the difference between the Prophet's tafsīr and the tafsīrs by other people. In this context, a distinction was made between the interpretations of the Prophet and of the companions who witnessed the revelation period from the Tabarī (d. 310/923) in the classical tafsīr literature and the interpretations by glossators in terms of their bindingness and information values. Thus, before even starting the interpretation, glossators questioned the possibility of interpretation of the Qur’ān without the tafsīr of the Prophet and the narratives from the companions that have the force of hadith marfūʿ.It is seen in classical tafsīr literature that distinctions between the tafsīr of the Prophet and the interpretations of the glossator are usually constructed on the terms of tafsīr and ta'wil, to which terminological meanings are attributed. In this regard, the methodology of Māturīdī (d. 333/944) is quite specific and clear. According to Māturīdī, tafsīr is an exact field. Only the tafsīr of the Prophet and the narratives of the companions that have the force of marfūʿ can be included in this field. Taʾwīl, on the other hand, is an area based on supposing. Preferences to be made from possible meanings are supposition and related to taʾwīl. The fact that Māturīdī included the explanations of the Prophet and his companions in the tafsīr field and stated that they expressed exact information shows that he regarded this information in the value of the statement of mutakallim. The data included in the field of taʾwīl are not as the data included in the field of tafsīr in terms of their bindingness and information value. The interpretations made in the field of taʾwīl include supposition; so they cannot be attributed to the desire of God. The field that the Prophet forbade people from declaring their own views is the field of tafsīr in the methodology of Māturīdī. The exactness of this field is an indication that the tafsīr is related to God's desire. It is not right to declare an opinion with supposition in the field that is exact and definite. Even though the interpretation in the field of tafsīr is in accordance with the truth, this cannot eliminate the responsibility of the interpreter that make determinations based on supposition in the exact and definite field. Some scholars, such as Qushayrī (d. 465/1072), also classify the narrative-sagacity areas by means of tafsīr-taʾwīl concepts. This classification deals with the data that is the subject of tafsīr in terms of their belongingness. Indeed, tafsīr science includes both the data that are linked with transmission and non-transmittable elements that can be achieved by following a methodology. Non-transmittable elements included in the taʾwīl field by those who make a distinction between tafsīr and taʾwīl based on narrative-sagacity are the meanings reached through linguistic efforts. Language is an element that holds possibilities in itself. Considering closeness of meaning, multi-meanings, metaphors and allusions in the wording, it can be thought that the meanings reached by linguistic methods include supposition. In the methodology of Māturīdī, the field of tafsīr is composed of the explanations of the Prophet and the narratives of the companions who witnessed the revelations while in the classifications of those who make a distinction between tafsīr and taʾwīl based on narrative-sagacity, tafsīr generally includes narratives. When the issue is handled within the framework of the desire of God and the statements of the mutakallim, it seems that the classification of Māturīdī is more punctual. However, it is understood that this approach does not give a satisfactory answer to the subsequent situations and bindingness of the mentioned data. In the classifications based on narrative-sagacity, the narratives in the field of tafsīr are taken as a whole without analyzing their health grades and their signification. However, some of these narrations are not authentic; so, in this respect it is a problematic issue that they are the subjects of the field of tafsīr. Besides, sometimes there can be different narrations about the tafsīr of verses from the companions. The evaluation these narratives in a field attributed to the desire of God may also pose a problem. The linguistic data that both Māturīdī and those who make a distinction between tafsīr and taʾwīl based on narrative-sagacity include in the field of taʾwīl does not appear to have a homogeneous structure -as is the case with the narratives-. Indeed, among this data, there are elements whose meanings are quite hard to determine as well as firm ones that possibly have only one meaning. It is controversial that these expressions, which have only one meaning and to the validity of whose meaning other evidence point out are included in the field of taʾwīl.The distinction between meaning and interpretation fields in tafsīr is very important in terms of tafsīr methodology. This field designation is in a way a description of nature of the science of tafsīr. Thus, in matters where the human intelligence remains insufficient with the tafsīr narratives from the Prophet, the bindingness of the narratives from the companions are clarified; furthermore, beyond the narrative, the validity and the information values of interpretations of the glossator are determined. In this regard, the tafsīr-taʾwīl distinctions made in the classical tafsīr literature provide us with a rich content and a multifaceted point of view. However, when addressed separately, these distinctions present a number of problems in terms of scope and applicability. Our study proposes the evaluation of tafsīr-taʾwīl distinctions in classical literature together while the meaning-interpretation fields are specified in the framework of the search for methodology in tafsīr. Thus, the incomplete aspects of the classification will be eliminated and a much more comprehensive and functional classification will be achieved. At this point, the methodologies of some figures as Tabarī, who is known to have used the terms of tafsīr and taʾwīl in the same meaning, must also be evaluated separately. Indeed, when the works of these names are analyzed, it is seen that these names also distinguish the meaning-interpretation fields in tafsīr, but they do not do this through the tafsīr-taʾwīl concepts. (shrink)

Divine revelation (waḥy), as a Qur'anic and religious concept in exegetical sources, isusually mentioned together with the institution of Prophethood (nubuwwa). Revelation came to itsend with the end of Prophethood. Therefore, although some have evaluated inspiration (ilhām) andtrue dream (ruʾyā sādiqa) within the this context of revelation, according to most of Islamic scholars,it is not permissible to refer to the recevings of the divinely saints as revelation. Revelation, for whichthe holy Qur'an designates three pattern of descension, is discussed also in (...) three categoriesthroughout the history of Islamic intellectual thought. Scholars of tafsir and theologians,philosophers, and mystics, all hold and bolster different views on the nature of revelation. Claims inSufi literature that inspiration can descend to divinely saints -beyond immediate delivery to theheart- through direct or indirect divine communication from behind a veil and through angles can beevaluated as an effort to create a conception of revelation that corresponds to the three modes ofrevelation, adressed in Qur’an, peculiar to prophets. With regard to the issue of continuity of divine revelation, a thorough examination of the Sufiliterature leads to the conclusion that revelation continues to decsend in its verbal form asinspiration but also, according to some Sufi authorities, in its noun forms unaniously considered aspeculiar to the prophets. Therefore, especially since the period of Sufism’s intermingling withphilosophy, the issues of accommdating sainthood (walāya) within the framework of generalprophethood (nubuwwa ʿāmme), the distinction between revelation and inspiration and itscontinuity appear as a very complex, unframed and unlimited field. This can be observed in theinstances addressed in this study. (shrink)

This study focuses on the narration, "Whoever makes a tafsīr the Qur'an according to his own opinion, let him prepare his place in Hell," which Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944) considered as a basis while defining the terms tafsīr and tawīl in the introduction of his work titled "Ta'wilatu'l-Qur'an." Various scholarly studies have examined al-Māturīdī's distinction between the terms tafsīr and tawīl from both theoretical and practical perspectives. However, it has not been examined in terms of the narration, authenticity status, (...) and its impact on subsequent works when explaining the difference between these words, while making a choice among the various wordings and containing the verb "فَسَّر". In this study, initially, an investigation of how the terms tafsīr and tawīl were used in dictionaries, ḥadīth literature, and exegesis works before al-Māturīdī’s time a diachronic reading was conducted to comprehend the intellectual background that led al-Māturīdī to distinguish between them. Explanations and narrations related to these words found in dictionaries and exegesis works after al-Māturīdī were excluded from the scope of the study. Subsequently, other narration variants distinct from the one al-Māturīdī utilized in his argumentation, which prohibited making interpretations about the Qur'an through personal opinion and which differed from al-Māturīdī’s preferred variant, were examined. The study also presents the approach of early Islamic scholars to this issue. Finally, al-Māturīdī's interpretation, defined as "the only and definitive explanation made with Allah as a witness regarding the verses," and his preference for the variant of the narration, "Whoever makes a tafsīr the Qur'an according to his own opinion, let him prepare his place in Hell," are analyzed in terms of their authenticity, their impact on Islamic sciences, and the possible reasons behind al-Māturīdī's choice of this particular variant. (shrink)

The dehumanisation of women has been recorded in world history. In religions one can easily find interpretations that tend to be discriminatory against women. This research aims to see the humanisation of women in the Tafsir Faidh Ar-Rahman by Kiai Sholeh Darat towards the position of women in Islam. This research is a library research. Data collection was done through documentation. Furthermore, the data were analysed qualitatively by a descriptive method. The results of the study showed that. The humanisation (...) of women in the Tafsir Faidh Ar-Rahmân by Kiai Sholeh Darat on the position of women in Islam is; he emphasised that women have an equal position with men. In terms of inheritance, Kyai Sholeh Darat wanted flexibility in understanding the verse regarding the portion of inheritance 2:1 so that the provisions can adapt according to the situation. In certain contexts, women may get the same share as men. Contribution: The thoughts of Kiai Sholeh Darat have contributed to being one of the references in looking at women’s issues in Islam objectively. (shrink)

This year, Şanlıurfa hosted an important event on the science of tafsîr (XVI. Tafsîr Coordination Meeting). On this occasion a symposium (Ibrahim and prophethood) was held, the problems of the tafsîr were discussed and tafsîr academics met among themselves and exchanged informa-tion. In this article, XVI. Tafsîr Coordination Meeting was widely introduced, and different meetings related to science of tafsîr and tafsîr education were mentioned.

One of the divine quotations narrated from the timeline of Qur’ānic revelation is seen as a word of Prophet Mohammad in the 30th verse of the surah of al-Furqān. It’s observed that the speaker of this verse is Prophet Mohammad and he complains to God about his tribe which neglects the Qur’ān. In the present study, semantic structure and the meaning area of the phrase “mahjūr”, which is the key word in this verse, the meaning of it in the timeline (...) of Qur’ānic revelation and the interpretations attributed to it in the following centuries are traced. Likewise by examining Qur’ānic exegesis chronologically and investigating the interpretations of the exegetes on the relevant verse, it’s tried to see the semantic breaking points, changes and transformations regarding this verse in the historical process. Finally, the approaches of the exegetes who interpreted this verse in terms of the method of maqāsidī tafsir or the principle of teleological interpretation are determined. The approaches detected in this respect are first explained in a descriptive style, and then they’re evaluated in an analytical point of view. The findings and conclusions we reached in this study are as follows: As stated by the majority of exegetes, especially Qatāda, al-Zamakhsharī, Ibn Atiyya, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and al-Sa‘ālibī, the aforementioned verse belongs to the Prophet Mohammed in terms of both wording and meaning. It hasn’t been determined that there’s a conflict about the pertaining of this word to him. According to this hadith quoted in surah al-Furqān, the Qurayshi polytheists made unwarranted objections to the Prophet and the divine instructions that he brought, his heart was narrowed in the face of their attitude towards the Qur’ān, and for these reasons he complained about his tribe to God. It can be said that this meaning seen in Mecca in the tenth year of his prophethood, namely, insulting the Qur’ān, abandoning it, and denying the themes in it, also includes Muslims after the revelation period. Accordingly, it can be thought that the aspect and situation of not acting on the provisions of the Qur’ān and not thinking about its verses are also valid for the interlocutors of the next period. In this direction, when we look at the history of tafsir, it has been determined that the exegetes who interpreted this verse in terms of teleological interpretation asserted different approaches. It was seen that al-Zamakhsharī, al-Rāzī, Abū al-Barakāt al-Nasafī, al-Bikā‘ī, Kamālpasazāde, Sayhzāda and Ibn ʻĀshūr interpreted this complaint of the Prophet by associating it with the coming of punishment. Therefore, in compliance with them, this verse aimed to threaten all the interlocutors, especially the Quraysh. On the other hand, it has recognized that Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyah, Ibn Kathir, Bursavī and Sayyid Qutb evaluated this verse in the context of the types and ways to abandon the Qur’ān. Thus, they interpreted the relevant verse in terms of maqāsidī tafsir in a way that would cover both the first addressees of Qur’ānic revelation and other interlocutors in the following periods. In a nutshell, it can be considered that not endeavoring to understand and interpret the Qur’ān, or keeping it away from family and social life, law, understanding of earning and spending, not referring to it in such matters, or giving up living a life pursuant to it, are some of the routes and sorts of abandonment of it for Muslims. (shrink)