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)

Fahreddin er-Râzî (öl. 606/1210) bazı eserlerinde dile getirdiği naklî/lafzî delillerin zannîliği meselesini temellendirirken zikrettiği öncüllerden en önemlisi “naklî delile muârız olacak aklî bir delilin bulunması ihtimali vardır” şeklindedir. Bu öncül aklî delilin kesinlik verdiği üzerine kuruludur. Şöyle ki naklî bir delilin aklî bir delille teâruz etmesi hâlinde ya ikisinden birisi kabul edilip diğeri reddedilir ya her ikisi de kabul edilir ya da hiçbirisi kabul edilmez. Son iki ihtimal çelişiklerin aynı anda bir arada olması veya aynı anda olumsuzlanması imkânsız olduğundan uygulanamaz. (...) Akıl naklin aslı olduğundan ve aklî delil kesinlik bildirdiğinden naklî delil kabul edilip aklî delil reddedilemez. Öyleyse aklî delil kabul edilir ve naklî delil ret ya da tevil edilir. Sonuç olarak naklî delilin kesinliği ortadan kalkar. Bu söylem günümüzde kendisine nispet edilen bazı iddialar sebebiyle Râzî özelinde önemli bir probleme sebep olmaktadır. Zira özellikle el-Metâlibü’l-ʻâliye isimli eserinin mukaddimesindeki ifadeleri delil gösterilerek Râzî’ye “aklın metafizikte kesinliğe ulaşamayacağı” görüşü nispet edilmiştir. Dolayısıyla Râzî görünürde akıl ve aklî delil hakkında iki çelişik hüküm vermektedir. Bu çalışmada yukarıda tasvir edilen problem çözüme kavuşturulmaya çalışılacaktır. Öncelikle Râzî’nin aklın sınırından bahseden ifadeleri bağlamı içinde aktarılacak ardından bu ifadeler tahlil edilecektir. Temel iddiamız Râzî’nin gerçekte akıl hakkında iki zıt söylemi olmadığı şeklindedir. (shrink)

Tanrı tasavvuru, İslam düşünce tarihinin en temel problemlerinden biri kabul edilmektedir. Tanrı’nın aşkın varlığı, O’nun standart kalıplarla tanımlanmasını olanaksız kılmaktadır. İlahi olanla beşeri olanın iletişimi ve etkileşimi, yapısal farklılık bakımından bir takım sorunları da beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu sorunlardan biri de insan biçimci Tanrı tasarımıdır. Bu tasarım, dinlerin ve felsefenin çözümlemesi gereken önemli bir mesele olarak önümüzde durmaktadır. Biz de Orta Çağ’ın önde gelen dinler ve felsefe tarihçisi, aynı zamanda da kelâm bilgini Şehristânî’nin bu meseleyi nasıl aktardığını, analiz ettiğini ve meselenin (...) çözümüne ilişkin hangi önerilerde bulunduğunu araştırdık. Bu çalışma sayesinde kurumsal anlamda mensupları ve eserleri neredeyse yok olmuş ekollerin görüş ve yöntemleri güvenilir bir şekilde ortaya konularak düşünce tarihi bir boyutuyla aydınlanmış olacaktır. Şehristânî, ne Tanrı’nın mahlûkata ne de mahlûkatın Tanrı’ya benzeyebileceğini savunmaktadır. Dolayısıyla ona göre Tanrı; cevher, cisim, araz, uzay-zamana bağımlı, arazları kabule elverişli ve yaratıklara mahal olamaz. O, Gulât-ı Şîa’nın Tanrı konusunda iki tür teşbih/benzetme yaptığını aktarmaktadır: Birincisi, yaratanı yaratılana; ikincisi ise yaratılanı yaratana benzetmektir. Bu ifade, ne Tanrı’da yaratılış emaresi ne de mahlûkatta ulûhiyet vasfı bulunabileceğine dikkat çekmektedir. O’na göre Gulât-ı Şîa, bu görüşlerinde gayr-i İslami inanç ve ideolojilerin etkisinde kalmıştır. Şehristânî, kimi Kerrâmiyye mensuplarını da Tanrı’yı cevher ve cisim olarak nitelendirmekle itham etmektedir. İslâm düşüncesinin henüz erken dönemlerinde terminolojik bir ittifakın oluşmaması ilerleyen dönemlerde böylesi tartışmalara kapı aralamıştır. Ayrıca Şehristânî, onların Tanrı’nın zâtını hâdis şeylere mahal olarak konumlandırdığını da iddia etmektedir. Oysaki Kerrâmiyye, Tanrı’nın zâtında sonradan ortaya çıkan şeyler/havâdis ile ezeli sıfatlar arasında bir ayrım yapmakta ve sonradan ortaya çıkan şeyleri “ilahi sıfat” olarak değil, hâlikiyyet, mürîdiyyet ve mütekellimiyyet gibi kavramlarla nitelendirmiştir. Nihayetinde Şehristânî, Kerrâmiyye’nin söylemlerini tevil kabul etmeyecek katı antropomorfik ifadeler olarak nitelendirmektedir. (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)

Ibn Lebbân (d.749/1349), who originally belonged to a family from Siirt, is a Sufi Islamic scholar who wrote important works in many fields, especially the Quran, Hadith and Sufism. He lived during the period of the Bahri Mamluks (1250-1382), who ruled in Syria and Egypt and were known as the founding family of the Mamluk state. Ibn Lebban was engaged in science throughout his life, trained students, gave fatwas and guided the people. Many scholars who came after him spoke highly (...) of him in their works. His work titled "İzâletü'ş-şübühât ʿani'l-âyât ve'l-eḥâdîsi'l-müteşâbihât", which is one of the important works of Ibn Lebban that is known and has survived to the present day, is about the mutashabih attributes mentioned in verses and hadiths and attributed to Allah. It contains useful and enlightening information regarding the interpretation of these adjectives. In this article, Ibn Lebban el-Is'ırdî's life, his scientific personality, his work named "İzaletü-ş Şübühât" and his comments on some mutashabih adjectives that constitute the content of his work and his approach on this subject will be discussed. (shrink)

The first century of Hijri is an extremely important period for the science of tafseer. Because the comprehensibility of the revelation, which was revealed for the addressees of that period, was at a high level. Factors such as the Prophet’s (pbuh) declaration of some verses, the witness of the revelation of the Qur’an by the addressees of the period, and the fact that the Qur’an was revealed on the Arabic language enabled the verses to be better understood. From this point (...) of view, the study of the approaches of the companions who witnessed the revelation of the Qur’an will make important contributions to the correct understanding of the verses. As a matter of fact, many interpretations of the companions about the verses of the Qur’an have been conveyed to us. When we look at the tafseer narrations, it is seen that Ibn Abbas (ra) is at the forefront of the names who are among the companions who best understand and interpret the Qur’an. Because of the fact that he is one of the people who knows the Arabic language and culture best, the fact that he received the prayers of the Prophet (pbuh) and received education from important companions put him in front of many companions. As a result of the research, the narrations reveal that he expressed an opinion on almost every verse of the Qur’an and shared important detailed information about some concepts of the Qur’an. In this context, the examination of both Ibn Abbas’ method of inter-pretation and the subtleties of his method of interpretation is important in terms of reflecting the approach and interpretations of the companions to the Qur’an. Therefore, in this study, Ibn Abbas’ sources of tafseer and the subtleties of his method will be revealed by referring to the important works of the field. (shrink)