Isrāʾīliyyāt in the Mu‘tazilī Tradition of Tafsīr

Ersin Çelik

Makale detayları

Isrāʾīliyyāt in the Mu‘tazilī Tradition of Tafsīr

Yazarlar:

Ersin Çelik

Yayıncı:

Sivas Cumhuriyet University

Ana Başlıklar:

Tefsir

Dergi:

Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.28 Issue 1, pp.325-349

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319247

pISSN:

2528-9861

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 The attitude of Mutazila, which is considered the most rational sect of the Islamic tradition, towards isrāʾīliyyāt knowledge found in commentaries, especially within the framework of Qurānic stories, is intriguing. Although the attitude of some Mutazilī commentators towards isrāʾīliyyāt is mentioned in some studies, the attitude of Mutazila as a school has not been the subject of any research when it comes to criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt narrations. In fact, in recent studies on isrāʾīliyyāt, while it is said that the criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt can be traced back to names such as al-Ṭūsī, al-Māwardī and even al-Māturīdī before Ibn al-Arabi a reading is made entirely through Sunnī and Shīʿīte commentators and the views of Mutazilī commentators are not included. Criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt was made by Mutazilī names such as Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm d. 200816, Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī d. 303916 and Abū Muslim al-Isfahānī ö. 322934, before Sunnī and Shīʿīte commentators such as al-Māturīdī d. 333944, al-Māwardī d. 4501058, al-Ṭūsī d. 4601067, Ibn al-Arabī d. 543148 and Ibn Kathīr d. 7741373. Even though they do not use the concept of isrāʾīliyyāt, they direct these criticisms sometimes to the source of the narrations and sometimes to their content, in other words, that they are contrary to Islam. Later Mutazilī scholars systematically continued this criticism based on certain verses. In the present study the theoretical framework is drawn regarding the view of Israel by commentators such as as Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm, Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī, Abū Muslim al-Isfahānī, Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, al-Ḥākim al-Dhushamī d. 4941101 and al-Zamakhsharī d. 5381144, who lived in the period from the 2nd century to the 6th century, and then the theoretical framework of these commentators is drawn. The attitude of the mentioned commentators towards different isrāʾīliyyāt narrations is evaluated with the descriptive analysis method. Additionally, reference is made to the approach of Sunnī commentators of the same period to these narrations. While discussing the Mutazilī commentators approach to isrāʾīliyyāt a distinction is made regarding different situations such as their rejection of these narrations, their quoting the isrāʾīliyyāt narrations without comment, prefer rational interpretation to isrāʾīliyyāt narrations, and their interpretation of the verses with isrāʾīliyyāt. Although Mutazilī commentators quote many isrāʾīliyyāt narrations in their works, the first examples of critical approach in the interpretation of some problematic narrations, especially in the tafsīr tradition, are also in their commentaries. In this context, it has been concluded in the study that Mutazilī commentators were pioneers in the criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt in the classical period, and that the criticism of some narrations about prophets and angels first started with them. It has also been pointed out that Sunni and Shiite commentators such as al-Māturīdī, al-Māwardī, and al-Ṭūsī make references to Mutazilī names in some places while criticizing the mentioned narrations. Finally, although Mutazilī commentators do not make a systematic criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt, they define the narrations in question as Jewish fabrications and originating from the Torah. This reveals that although their reference points were their own theological understanding, they also criticized the narrations in terms of their sources. As a matter of fact, while Ibn Kathīr, a systematic isrāʾīliyyāt critic, rejects some narrations that are incompatible with the name of the Prophets without including them in his commentary, he quotes some isrāʾīliyyāt narrations that depict miraculous events in an exaggerated way without commenting. Therefore, it is a noteworthy attitude that Mutazilī figures were critical of isrāʾīliyyāt narrations that were incompatible with the Islamic faith in the early period and did not take them into consideration.

 The attitude of Mutazila, which is considered the most rational sect of the Islamic tradition, towards isrāʾīliyyāt knowledge found in commentaries, especially within the framework of Qurānic stories, is intriguing. Although the attitude of some Mutazilī commentators towards isrāʾīliyyāt is mentioned in some studies, the attitude of Mutazila as a school has not been the subject of any research when it comes to criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt narrations. In fact, in recent studies on isrāʾīliyyāt, while it is said that the criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt can be traced back to names such as al-Ṭūsī, al-Māwardī and even al-Māturīdī before Ibn al-Arabi a reading is made entirely through Sunnī and Shīʿīte commentators and the views of Mutazilī commentators are not included. Criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt was made by Mutazilī names such as Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm d. 200816, Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī d. 303916 and Abū Muslim al-Isfahānī ö. 322934, before Sunnī and Shīʿīte commentators such as al-Māturīdī d. 333944, al-Māwardī d. 4501058, al-Ṭūsī d. 4601067, Ibn al-Arabī d. 543148 and Ibn Kathīr d. 7741373. Even though they do not use the concept of isrāʾīliyyāt, they direct these criticisms sometimes to the source of the narrations and sometimes to their content, in other words, that they are contrary to Islam. Later Mutazilī scholars systematically continued this criticism based on certain verses. In the present study the theoretical framework is drawn regarding the view of Israel by commentators such as as Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm, Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī, Abū Muslim al-Isfahānī, Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, al-Ḥākim al-Dhushamī d. 4941101 and al-Zamakhsharī d. 5381144, who lived in the period from the 2nd century to the 6th century, and then the theoretical framework of these commentators is drawn. The attitude of the mentioned commentators towards different isrāʾīliyyāt narrations is evaluated with the descriptive analysis method. Additionally, reference is made to the approach of Sunnī commentators of the same period to these narrations. While discussing the Mutazilī commentators approach to isrāʾīliyyāt a distinction is made regarding different situations such as their rejection of these narrations, their quoting the isrāʾīliyyāt narrations without comment, prefer rational interpretation to isrāʾīliyyāt narrations, and their interpretation of the verses with isrāʾīliyyāt. Although Mutazilī commentators quote many isrāʾīliyyāt narrations in their works, the first examples of critical approach in the interpretation of some problematic narrations, especially in the tafsīr tradition, are also in their commentaries. In this context, it has been concluded in the study that Mutazilī commentators were pioneers in the criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt in the classical period, and that the criticism of some narrations about prophets and angels first started with them. It has also been pointed out that Sunni and Shiite commentators such as al-Māturīdī, al-Māwardī, and al-Ṭūsī make references to Mutazilī names in some places while criticizing the mentioned narrations. Finally, although Mutazilī commentators do not make a systematic criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt, they define the narrations in question as Jewish fabrications and originating from the Torah. This reveals that although their reference points were their own theological understanding, they also criticized the narrations in terms of their sources. As a matter of fact, while Ibn Kathīr, a systematic isrāʾīliyyāt critic, rejects some narrations that are incompatible with the name of the Prophets without including them in his commentary, he quotes some isrāʾīliyyāt narrations that depict miraculous events in an exaggerated way without commenting. Therefore, it is a noteworthy attitude that Mutazilī figures were critical of isrāʾīliyyāt narrations that were incompatible with the Islamic faith in the early period and did not take them into consideration.

 The attitude of Mutazila, which is considered the most rational sect of the Islamic tradition, towards isrāʾīliyyāt knowledge found in commentaries, especially within the framework of Qurānic stories, is intriguing. Although the attitude of some Mutazilī commentators towards isrāʾīliyyāt is mentioned in some studies, the attitude of Mutazila as a school has not been the subject of any research when it comes to criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt narrations. In fact, in recent studies on isrāʾīliyyāt, while it is said that the criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt can be traced back to names such as al-Ṭūsī, al-Māwardī and even al-Māturīdī before Ibn al-Arabi a reading is made entirely through Sunnī and Shīʿīte commentators and the views of Mutazilī commentators are not included. Criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt was made by Mutazilī names such as Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm d. 200816, Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī d. 303916 and Abū Muslim al-Isfahānī ö. 322934, before Sunnī and Shīʿīte commentators such as al-Māturīdī d. 333944, al-Māwardī d. 4501058, al-Ṭūsī d. 4601067, Ibn al-Arabī d. 543148 and Ibn Kathīr d. 7741373. Even though they do not use the concept of isrāʾīliyyāt, they direct these criticisms sometimes to the source of the narrations and sometimes to their content, in other words, that they are contrary to Islam. Later Mutazilī scholars systematically continued this criticism based on certain verses. In the present study the theoretical framework is drawn regarding the view of Israel by commentators such as as Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm, Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī, Abū Muslim al-Isfahānī, Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, al-Ḥākim al-Dhushamī d. 4941101 and al-Zamakhsharī d. 5381144, who lived in the period from the 2nd century to the 6th century, and then the theoretical framework of these commentators is drawn. The attitude of the mentioned commentators towards different isrāʾīliyyāt narrations is evaluated with the descriptive analysis method. Additionally, reference is made to the approach of Sunnī commentators of the same period to these narrations. While discussing the Mutazilī commentators approach to isrāʾīliyyāt a distinction is made regarding different situations such as their rejection of these narrations, their quoting the isrāʾīliyyāt narrations without comment, prefer rational interpretation to isrāʾīliyyāt narrations, and their interpretation of the verses with isrāʾīliyyāt. Although Mutazilī commentators quote many isrāʾīliyyāt narrations in their works, the first examples of critical approach in the interpretation of some problematic narrations, especially in the tafsīr tradition, are also in their commentaries. In this context, it has been concluded in the study that Mutazilī commentators were pioneers in the criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt in the classical period, and that the criticism of some narrations about prophets and angels first started with them. It has also been pointed out that Sunni and Shiite commentators such as al-Māturīdī, al-Māwardī, and al-Ṭūsī make references to Mutazilī names in some places while criticizing the mentioned narrations. Finally, although Mutazilī commentators do not make a systematic criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt, they define the narrations in question as Jewish fabrications and originating from the Torah. This reveals that although their reference points were their own theological understanding, they also criticized the narrations in terms of their sources. As a matter of fact, while Ibn Kathīr, a systematic isrāʾīliyyāt critic, rejects some narrations that are incompatible with the name of the Prophets without including them in his commentary, he quotes some isrāʾīliyyāt narrations that depict miraculous events in an exaggerated way without commenting. Therefore, it is a noteworthy attitude that Mutazilī figures were critical of isrāʾīliyyāt narrations that were incompatible with the Islamic faith in the early period and did not take them into consideration.

 İslâm geleneğinin en akılcı fırkası kabul edilen Mutezilenin özellikle Kuran kıssaları çerçevesinde tefsirlerde yer bulan israilî rivayetler karşısındaki tutumu merak uyandırıcıdır. Bazı çalışmalarda kimi Mutezilî müfessirlerin isrâiliyyât karşısındaki tutumuna değinilse de İsrâilî rivayetlerin tenkidi söz konusu olduğunda Mutezilenin bir ekol olarak tutumu herhangi bir araştırmaya konu edilmemiştir. İsrâiliyyât üzerine yapılan son çalışmalarda isrâiliyyât eleştirisinin İbnül-Arabî öncesinde Tûsî, Mâverdî hatta Mâtürîdî gibi isimlere kadar geri götürülebileceği söylenirken tamamen Sünnî ve Şiî müfessirler üzerinden bir okuma yapılmakta Mutezilî müfessirlerin görüşlerine yer verilmemektedir. Oysa bu çalışmalarda bahsedildiği üzere erken dönem isrâiliyyât eleştirilerinin genelde ismet meselesi ekseninde yapılması, Mutezilî müfessirler özelinde bir incelemeyi zorunlu kılmaktadır. Nitekim isrâiliyyât eleştirisinde ön plana çıkartılan Mâtürîdî ö. 333944, Mâverdî ö. 4501058, Tûsî ö. 4601067, İbnül-Arabî ö. 5431148 ve İbn Kesîr ö. 7741373 gibi Sünnî ve Şiî müfessirlerden önce Ebû Bekir el-Esam ö. 200816, Ebû Alî el-Cübbâî ö. 303916 ve Ebû Müslim el-İsfahânî ö. 322934 gibi Mutezilî isimler tarafından isrâiliyyât eleştirisinin yapıldığı görülmektedir. Her ne kadar onlar eserlerinde isrâiliyyât kavramını kullanmasalar da bu eleştirileri bazen rivayetlerin kaynağına bazen de içeriğine yöneltmektedir. Daha sonraki Mutezilî âlimlerin de belli âyetler üzerinden bu eleştiriyi sistematik olarak devam ettirdikleri söylenebilir. Çalışmada öncelikle hicrî 2-6. asırda yaşamış el-Esam, Ebû Ali el-Cübbâî, Ebû Müslim el-İsfahânî, Kâdî Abdülcebbâr ö. 4151025, Cüşemî ö. 4941101 ve Zemahşerî ö. 5381144 gibi müfessirlerin, israiliyata bakışına odaklanılmaktadır. Söz konusu müfessirlerin farklı israilî rivayetler karşısındaki tutumu betimsel analiz yöntemiyle değerlendirilmektedir. Ayrıca aynı dönemdeki Sünnî müfessirlerin bu rivayetlere yaklaşımına da atıfta bulunulmaktadır. Mutezilî müfessirlerin isrâiliyyâta yaklaşımı ele alınırken; onların bu rivayetleri reddetmeleri, isrâilî rivayetleri yorumsuz aktarmaları, aklî yorumu isrâilî rivayetlere tercih etmeleri ve isrâiliyyâtla âyetleri tefsir etmeleri gibi farklı yaklaşımlar hususunda ayrıma gidilmektedir. Mutezilî müfessirler eserlerinde birçok İsrâilî rivayet aktarsa da özellikle tefsir geleneğinde sorunlu bazı rivayetlerin tevilinde eleştirel yaklaşımın ilk örneklerinin onlardan gelen tefsirlerde olduğu söylenebilir. Bu bağlamda çalışmada klasik dönemde isrâiliyyat eleştirisinde Mutezilî müfessirlerin öncü olduğu, özellikle ismet-i enbiyâ ve ismet-i melâike ile ilgili bir takım rivayetlerin eleştirisinin ilk önce Mutezilî müfessirlerle başladığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Yine Mâtürîdî, Mâverdî ve Tûsî gibi Sünnî ve Şiî müfessirlerin kimi yerlerde söz konusu rivayetleri eleştirirken Mutezilî isimlere referansta bulunmasına da dikkat çekilmiştir. Son olarak Mutezilî müfessirler, küllî bir isrâiliyyât eleştirisi yapmasalar da bazı yerlerde söz konusu rivayetleri Yahudi uydurması ve Tevrat kaynaklı olarak tanımlamaktadırlar. Bu da onların referans noktaları kendi kelâmî anlayışları olmakla birlikte rivayetleri kaynak açısından da eleştirdiklerini ortaya koymaktadır. Nitekim sistematik bir isrâiliyyât münekkidi olan İbn Kesîr de Peygamberlerin ismetiyle bağdaşmayan kimi rivayetlere tefsirinde yer vermeksizin reddettiği görülürken mucizevî olayları abartılı şekilde resmeden bazı isrâilî rivayetleri yorumsuz aktarmaktadır. Dolayısıyla Mutezilî isimlerin İslâm inancıyla bağdaşmayan isrâilî rivayetlere erken dönemde eleştirel yaklaşması ve bunları nazara itibara almaması kayda değer bir tutumdur.

Makale detayları

Isrāʾīliyyāt in the Mu‘tazilī Tradition of Tafsīr

Yazarlar:

Ersin Çelik

Yayıncı:

Sivas Cumhuriyet University

Ana Başlıklar:

Tefsir

Dergi:

Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.28 Issue 1, pp.325-349

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319247

pISSN:

2528-9861

Tafsīr

Mu‘tazila

isrāʾīliyyāt

Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm

al-D̲h̲us̲h̲amī

Al-Zamakhsharī.Tefsir

Mu‘tezile

isrâiliyyât

Ebû Bekir el-Esam

Cüşemî

Zemahşerî.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Ersin Çelik

Yayıncı: Sivas Cumhuriyet University

Ana Başlıklar: Tefsir

Dergi: Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.28 Issue 1, pp.325-349

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001319247

pISSN: 2528-9861

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ersin Çelik

Yayıncı:

Sivas Cumhuriyet University

Ana Başlıklar:

Tefsir

Dergi:

Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.28 Issue 1, pp.325-349

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319247

pISSN:

2528-9861