The Transmission Process of Muḳātil’s Narrations in Tafsīr Literature

Ayşegül Balık; Süleyman Mollaibrahimoğlu

Makale detayları

The Transmission Process of Muḳātil’s Narrations in Tafsīr Literature

Yazarlar:

Ayşegül Balık | Süleyman Mollaibrahimoğlu

Yayıncı:

Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Tefsir

Dergi:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.24 Issue 1, pp.245-267

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352685

pISSN:

2757-6949

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Muḳātil b. Sulaymān d. 150767, the author of the earliest complete tafsīr that has survived to the present day, remains an influential figure in exegetical studies despite the severe criticisms directed at him. From the fourth century AH onwards, his name began to appear more frequently in tafsīr works, accompanied by a noticeable increase in citations from his interpretations. Although some studies have identified this phenomenon, the transmission journey of direct and indirect quotations from Muḳātil has not been thoroughly examined. Notably, certain pieces of information attributed to Muḳātil in both classical and modern tafsīr works do not correspond to the printed editions of his tafsīr. It is known that Muḳātils narrations were transmitted through two different recensions, one from Baghdad and the other from Merv. The critical editions of his tafsīr available today are based on manuscripts that have survived from the Baghdad recension. According to the introduction of al-Kashf wal-Bayān by al-Thalabī d. 4271035, reports from the Merv recension were incorporated into al-Kashf but have not survived as an independent work. Researchers interested in this issue argue that the presence of narrations in various tafsīr works that do not align with the existing recension of Muḳātils tafsīr is due to the transmission of his commentary through two different recensions, with possible alterations in one of them. Some have even suggested that these modifications may have been made by Muḳātil himself. While there is evidence supporting these possibilities, one overlooked aspect is that narrations attributed to Muḳātil, which differ from his extant tafsīr, have been repeatedly cited in various tafsīr works. Some of these narrations exhibit variations as they appear across different commentaries. It is plausible that those narrations that are inconsistent with the existing recension but widely cited in tafsīr works originate from the other recension of Muḳātils tafsīr. However, in some cases, a particular narration has undergone gradual modifications over centuries. Moreover, exegetes who incorporated these narrationssometimes with minor alterationsdid not disclose their own involvement in the transmission process, and the revised narrations continued to be attributed to Muḳātil. This phenomenon highlights one of the problematic aspects of the tafsīr transmission traditionnamely, the issue of attribution. Additionally, certain interpretations found in Muḳātils tafsīr have been transmitted by some exegetes without citing their source. These interpretations were not previously attributed to any other exegete in the works compiling early tafsīr reports. The fact that this exegetical material was not assigned to another mufassir suggests that Muḳātil played a crucial role in transmitting some of this material from oral culture and lost exegetical treatises into the written sources available today. The tendency of some mufassirs to omit Muḳātils name when transmitting his interpretations implies that they may have felt the need to conceal their reliance on his work. The frequency of such cases indicates that the negative perception of Muḳātil persisted among exegetes for a long time. However, the fact that these narrations were includedalbeit with distancing phrasesdemonstrates that exegetes could not ignore Muḳātils authority in tafsīr. These findings are significant in revealing Muḳātils implicit influence on tafsīr literature. Another noteworthy observation is that even those exegetes who frequently mention Muḳātils name such as al-Thalabī sometimes incorporate his narrations without explicitly citing him. This inconsistency suggests that mufassirs did not adhere to a standard approach in citing tafsīr narrations. The alignment of quotations from Muḳātil found in various tafsīr works with the critical editions of al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr, along with the modifications they underwent, has been determined using document analysis, textual analysis, and comparative methods. The research employed the al-Maktaba al-Shamela program for intra-textual searches and identifying textual discrepancies, focusing exclusively on the sources available in the program. Additionally, for the citation of certain works, editions that are not available in Shamela were also consulted.

 Muḳātil b. Sulaymān d. 150767, the author of the earliest complete tafsīr that has survived to the present day, remains an influential figure in exegetical studies despite the severe criticisms directed at him. From the fourth century AH onwards, his name began to appear more frequently in tafsīr works, accompanied by a noticeable increase in citations from his interpretations. Although some studies have identified this phenomenon, the transmission journey of direct and indirect quotations from Muḳātil has not been thoroughly examined. Notably, certain pieces of information attributed to Muḳātil in both classical and modern tafsīr works do not correspond to the printed editions of his tafsīr. It is known that Muḳātils narrations were transmitted through two different recensions, one from Baghdad and the other from Merv. The critical editions of his tafsīr available today are based on manuscripts that have survived from the Baghdad recension. According to the introduction of al-Kashf wal-Bayān by al-Thalabī d. 4271035, reports from the Merv recension were incorporated into al-Kashf but have not survived as an independent work. Researchers interested in this issue argue that the presence of narrations in various tafsīr works that do not align with the existing recension of Muḳātils tafsīr is due to the transmission of his commentary through two different recensions, with possible alterations in one of them. Some have even suggested that these modifications may have been made by Muḳātil himself. While there is evidence supporting these possibilities, one overlooked aspect is that narrations attributed to Muḳātil, which differ from his extant tafsīr, have been repeatedly cited in various tafsīr works. Some of these narrations exhibit variations as they appear across different commentaries. It is plausible that those narrations that are inconsistent with the existing recension but widely cited in tafsīr works originate from the other recension of Muḳātils tafsīr. However, in some cases, a particular narration has undergone gradual modifications over centuries. Moreover, exegetes who incorporated these narrationssometimes with minor alterationsdid not disclose their own involvement in the transmission process, and the revised narrations continued to be attributed to Muḳātil. This phenomenon highlights one of the problematic aspects of the tafsīr transmission traditionnamely, the issue of attribution. Additionally, certain interpretations found in Muḳātils tafsīr have been transmitted by some exegetes without citing their source. These interpretations were not previously attributed to any other exegete in the works compiling early tafsīr reports. The fact that this exegetical material was not assigned to another mufassir suggests that Muḳātil played a crucial role in transmitting some of this material from oral culture and lost exegetical treatises into the written sources available today. The tendency of some mufassirs to omit Muḳātils name when transmitting his interpretations implies that they may have felt the need to conceal their reliance on his work. The frequency of such cases indicates that the negative perception of Muḳātil persisted among exegetes for a long time. However, the fact that these narrations were includedalbeit with distancing phrasesdemonstrates that exegetes could not ignore Muḳātils authority in tafsīr. These findings are significant in revealing Muḳātils implicit influence on tafsīr literature. Another noteworthy observation is that even those exegetes who frequently mention Muḳātils name such as al-Thalabī sometimes incorporate his narrations without explicitly citing him. This inconsistency suggests that mufassirs did not adhere to a standard approach in citing tafsīr narrations. The alignment of quotations from Muḳātil found in various tafsīr works with the critical editions of al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr, along with the modifications they underwent, has been determined using document analysis, textual analysis, and comparative methods. The research employed the al-Maktaba al-Shamela program for intra-textual searches and identifying textual discrepancies, focusing exclusively on the sources available in the program. Additionally, for the citation of certain works, editions that are not available in Shamela were also consulted.

 Muḳātil b. Sulaymān d. 150767, the author of the earliest complete tafsīr that has survived to the present day, remains an influential figure in exegetical studies despite the severe criticisms directed at him. From the fourth century AH onwards, his name began to appear more frequently in tafsīr works, accompanied by a noticeable increase in citations from his interpretations. Although some studies have identified this phenomenon, the transmission journey of direct and indirect quotations from Muḳātil has not been thoroughly examined. Notably, certain pieces of information attributed to Muḳātil in both classical and modern tafsīr works do not correspond to the printed editions of his tafsīr. It is known that Muḳātils narrations were transmitted through two different recensions, one from Baghdad and the other from Merv. The critical editions of his tafsīr available today are based on manuscripts that have survived from the Baghdad recension. According to the introduction of al-Kashf wal-Bayān by al-Thalabī d. 4271035, reports from the Merv recension were incorporated into al-Kashf but have not survived as an independent work. Researchers interested in this issue argue that the presence of narrations in various tafsīr works that do not align with the existing recension of Muḳātils tafsīr is due to the transmission of his commentary through two different recensions, with possible alterations in one of them. Some have even suggested that these modifications may have been made by Muḳātil himself. While there is evidence supporting these possibilities, one overlooked aspect is that narrations attributed to Muḳātil, which differ from his extant tafsīr, have been repeatedly cited in various tafsīr works. Some of these narrations exhibit variations as they appear across different commentaries. It is plausible that those narrations that are inconsistent with the existing recension but widely cited in tafsīr works originate from the other recension of Muḳātils tafsīr. However, in some cases, a particular narration has undergone gradual modifications over centuries. Moreover, exegetes who incorporated these narrationssometimes with minor alterationsdid not disclose their own involvement in the transmission process, and the revised narrations continued to be attributed to Muḳātil. This phenomenon highlights one of the problematic aspects of the tafsīr transmission traditionnamely, the issue of attribution. Additionally, certain interpretations found in Muḳātils tafsīr have been transmitted by some exegetes without citing their source. These interpretations were not previously attributed to any other exegete in the works compiling early tafsīr reports. The fact that this exegetical material was not assigned to another mufassir suggests that Muḳātil played a crucial role in transmitting some of this material from oral culture and lost exegetical treatises into the written sources available today. The tendency of some mufassirs to omit Muḳātils name when transmitting his interpretations implies that they may have felt the need to conceal their reliance on his work. The frequency of such cases indicates that the negative perception of Muḳātil persisted among exegetes for a long time. However, the fact that these narrations were includedalbeit with distancing phrasesdemonstrates that exegetes could not ignore Muḳātils authority in tafsīr. These findings are significant in revealing Muḳātils implicit influence on tafsīr literature. Another noteworthy observation is that even those exegetes who frequently mention Muḳātils name such as al-Thalabī sometimes incorporate his narrations without explicitly citing him. This inconsistency suggests that mufassirs did not adhere to a standard approach in citing tafsīr narrations. The alignment of quotations from Muḳātil found in various tafsīr works with the critical editions of al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr, along with the modifications they underwent, has been determined using document analysis, textual analysis, and comparative methods. The research employed the al-Maktaba al-Shamela program for intra-textual searches and identifying textual discrepancies, focusing exclusively on the sources available in the program. Additionally, for the citation of certain works, editions that are not available in Shamela were also consulted.

 Günümüze ulaşan ilk tam tefsirin müellifi Mukâtil b. Süleyman ö. 150767, hakkında yapılmış ağır tenkitlere rağmen müfessirlerin istifade etmekten geri duramadıkları bir isimdir. Hicri dördüncü asırdan itibaren tefsirlerde adının geçmeye başladığı ve ondan yapılan alıntıların sayısında bu yüzyıldan sonra belirgin bir artış olduğu görülmektedir. Bu durumun tespitine dair bazı çalışmalar yapılmış olmakla birlikte Mukâtilden doğrudan ya da dolaylı yoldan yapılan alıntıların nakil serüveni detaylıca incelenmemiştir. Nitekim gerek klasik gerekse modern dönem tefsirlerinde Mukâtile isnad edilerek yer verilen bilgilerin bir kısmı tefsirin matbu nüshaları ile uyuşmamaktadır. Bilindiği kadarıyla Mukâtil rivayetleri Bağdat ve Merv olmak üzere iki farklı tarik ile aktarılmıştır. Tefsirin tahkikli baskıları, günümüze ulaşan Bağdat tarikli yazmalardan hareketle hazırlanmıştır. Salebînin ö.4271035 el-Keşf vel-beyân adlı tefsirinin mukaddimesinde belirttiğine göre Mukâtil tefsirinin Merv tarikinden rivayetler el-Keşfte yer almakla birlikte müstakil olarak günümüze ulaşmamıştır. Dolayısıyla bu konuyla ilgilenen araştırmacılara göre farklı tefsirlerde Mukâtilin mevcut nüshası ile uyumlu olmayan rivayetler bulunmasının sebebi Mukâtil tefsirinin iki farklı tarik ile sonrasına aktarılmış olması ve tariklerden birinde bazı değişikliklerin yapılmış olmasıdır. Bu değişikliklerin bizzat Mukâtil tarafından yapılmış olması ihtimalinden de bahsedilmiştir. Bu ihtimallerin geçerliliğini gösteren veriler olmakla birlikte araştırmacıların dikkat çekmediği bir husus daha vardır. O da tefsirlerde yer alan ve mevcut Mukâtil tefsirinden farklı olan bazı Mukâtil rivayetlerinin birçok tefsirde tekrarlanması, bazılarının ise tefsirden tefsire değişiklik göstermesidir. Mevcut nüsha ile uyumlu olmayıp birçok tefsirde tekrarlanan Mukâtil rivayetlerinin gerçekten tefsirin diğer tarikinden kaynaklanmış olması ihtimali düşünülebilir. Ancak bazı durumlarda aynı konudan bahseden bir rivayetin asırlar geçtikçe değişip dönüştüğü görülmüştür. Dahası bu rivayetlere ufak müdahalelerle de olsa yer veren müfessirlerin isimleri hep gizli kalmış, rivayetin yeni formuyla Mukâtile isnadına devam edilmiştir. Dolayısıyla Mukâtil rivayetlerinin aktarımında bazı hatalar yahut müdahaleler olmuş ve bunlar daha sonra rivayetleri asıl kaynağına müracaat etmeden aktaran müfessirlerce tekrarlanmış gibi görünmektedir. Bu vakıa tefsir nakil geleneğinin problemli yönlerinden birini -tefsirde isnad sorununu- gündeme getirmektedir. Diğer taraftan Mukâtil tefsirinde yer alan bazı bilgi ve yorumlar kimi müfessirler tarafından kaynak belirtilmeden nakledilmiştir. Söz konusu yorumlar erken dönem tefsir rivayetlerini derleyen eserlerde Mukâtilden önceki başka bir isme isnad edilmemiştir. Bu bilgilerin başka bir müfessire isnad edilmemiş olması, söz konusu tefsir malzemesinin bir kısmının hem şifahi kültürden hem de günümüze ulaşamayan tefsir risalelerinden mevcut yazılı kaynaklara aktarımında Mukâtilin etkin rolünü göstermektedir. Müfessirlerin Mukâtilin adını zikretmemek şeklindeki bu tavrı onların kaynağı büyük ihtimalle Mukâtil tefsiri olan bilgileri naklederken bunu gizleme ihtiyacı hissettiklerini düşündürmektedir. Bunun örnekleri azımsanmayacak kadar çoktur. Bu durum Mukâtil hakkındaki olumsuz algının müfessirler nezdinde uzun süre etkisini sürdürdüğünün bir göstergesi addedilebilir. Ancak temriz siygasıyla da olsa müfessirlerin bu rivayetlere yer vermeleri, Mukâtilin tefsirdeki otoritesine kayıtsız kalamadıkları şeklinde değerlendirilebilir. Bu konudaki tespitler, Mukâtilin tefsir literatüründeki örtük etkisini de göstermesi bakımından önemlidir. Dikkat çekici başka bir durum da Salebî gibi tefsirinde Mukâtilin adını sıklıkla zikreden müfessirlerin bile bazen ondan gelen rivayetlere kaynak belirtmeden yer vermeleridir. Bu tutum ise müfessirlerin tefsir rivayetlerinde standart bir tavrının olmadığını düşündürmektedir. Tefsirlerde Mukâtilden yapılan alıntıların, et-Tefsîrül-kebîrin tahkikli baskıları ile uyum durumu ve uğradığı müdahaleler doküman analizi, metin analizi ve mukayese yöntemleriyle tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmada metin içi taramalar ve metinler arası farkların tespiti el-Mektebetüş-Şamile programı üzerinden yapılmış ve yalnızca programda yer alan eserler esas alınmıştır. Bazı eserlerin kaynak gösteriminde Şamilede yer almayan baskılardan da yararlanılmıştır.

Makale detayları

The Transmission Process of Muḳātil’s Narrations in Tafsīr Literature

Yazarlar:

Ayşegül Balık | Süleyman Mollaibrahimoğlu

Yayıncı:

Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Tefsir

Dergi:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.24 Issue 1, pp.245-267

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352685

pISSN:

2757-6949

Tafsīr

Muḳātil b. Sulaymān

Narration

Process of Narrations

Isnād.Tefsir

Mukâtil b. Süleyman

Rivayet

Nakil Süreci

İsnad

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Ayşegül Balık | Süleyman Mollaibrahimoğlu

Yayıncı: Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar: Tefsir

Dergi: Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.24 Issue 1, pp.245-267

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001352685

pISSN: 2757-6949

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ayşegül Balık | Süleyman Mollaibrahimoğlu

Yayıncı:

Hitit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Tefsir

Dergi:

Hitit İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.24 Issue 1, pp.245-267

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352685

pISSN:

2757-6949