Papers by ayse uzun
Salâh Abdülfettâh el-Hâlidî’nin Kur’ân Kıssalarına Yaklaşımı -el-Kasasu’l-Kur’ânî Adlı Eseri Bağlamında-, 2023
Bu yazıda, el-Kasasu’l-Kur’ânî -Arzu Vaqâi‘a ve Tahlîlü Ehdâs- adlı kitabında Salâh Abdülfettâh e... more Bu yazıda, el-Kasasu’l-Kur’ânî -Arzu Vaqâi‘a ve Tahlîlü Ehdâs- adlı kitabında Salâh Abdülfettâh el-Hâlidî’nin (öl. 2022) Kur’ân kıssalarına yaklaşımı ele alınacaktır. Eserin metin tahlili yoluyla incelemesine dayanan bu çalışma, müellifin Kur’ân kıssalarını incelerken dayandığı temel parametreleri ortaya koymayı hedeflemektedir. Ona göre Kur’ân kıssalarını yorumlamak için iki temel kaynak Kur’ân ve sahih hadistir. Kıssaların tefsirini yapan müellifin, kısmen dilbilimsel tefsir yaptığı söylenebilir. Özellikle Râgıb el-İsfahânî (öl. V./XI. yüzyılın ilk çeyreği) ve Semîn el-Halebî’den (öl. 756/1355) yararlanmaktadır. İsrâiliyatın Kur’ân tefsirinde kullanılmasına karşı çıkan müellifin, bu düşüncesini eserinde ilke olarak belirlediği anlaşılmaktadır. Benzer şekilde, mübhemât konusunda Kur’ân’da sükût edilen yerlerde konuşulsa bile isabet edilemeyeceği kanaatindedir. Bununla birlikte, Kur’ân coğrafyasına meraklı biri olan Hâlidî’nin, Müphemâtü’l-Kur’ân’dan biri olan coğrafî yerlerin gerçek konumunu tespit etmek için çabaladığı tespit edilmiştir. Hâlidî’nin, Kur’ân kıssalarının yorumunda, dava-aksiyon ekolünün ve içtimâî tefsir ekolünün yaklaşımıyla benzerlik gösterdiği anlaşılmaktadır. Büyük ölçüde tasviri yöntemle konunun ele alındığı makalede kısmen eleştirel bir tutum benimsenmiştir.
Tefsir Tarihinde Elitizmin İzini Sürmek: Taberî Örnekliğinde Tahlil Denemesi, 2023
Qur'anic commentaries are texts in which subjectivity is manifested in terms of language, content... more Qur'anic commentaries are texts in which subjectivity is manifested in terms of language, content and methodological differences. One of the most important factors determining the subjectivity of the exegete (mufassīr) is his biological and intellectual life story. The life story is a wide range of contents that includes the social ties of the exegete such as his family, teachers, and students; the geography where he grew up, his scholarly studies, the places he traveled for this purpose, the political power that ruled in the temporal interval in which he lived, the critical events that took place in the historical process, and the cultural environment that shaped the person; and access to knowledge, livelihood concerns, and status that surround the person. The subject of this article is the relationship between some of the content in the those mentioned above and the texts that are being produced. More specifically, the paper aims to traces the elitism in the history of tafsīr and examines the relationship between the status of the exegete in his period and the his text. In order to concretise the issue of status and elite with the data obtained from biographical dictionaries, the example of Abū Ja'far Muhammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) was chosen. In the article, which is prepared with a qualitative method by considering the historiography of tafsīr from the perspective of social history, theoretical discussions and conceptual framework are predominant, but the practical dimension of the issue is also touched upon. The portrait of Ṭabarī is the first stage of the practical dimension of the article. The second stage is to follow the exegete's explanation and emphasis in interpreting verses with economic content in Ṭabarī's tafsīr. We find various information about Tabari's attitude towards the ruling elite, never accepting a gift that he could not reciprocate, not standing up in the presence of the ruling class, living off the income of ancestral lands instead of working hard to provide his livelihood, and his social networks. When we observe the reflection of these characteristics on the interpretation of the verses, the result leads us to the conclusion that there is a unity between the material provided by the biographical dictionaries and the interpretation of the exegete.
Taberî Tefsirinde ‘fî Kelâmi’l-Arab’ Neye Tekabül Eder?/What Does ‘fī kalām al-‘Arab’ Correspond to in Ṭabarī’s Tafsīr?, 2023
Abstract
Ṭabarī, used the Arabic language as a source while interpreting the verses of the Qur’ā... more Abstract
Ṭabarī, used the Arabic language as a source while interpreting the verses of the Qur’ān. The
conceptualized form of the reference to this source is the expression “fī kalām al-‘Arab” (Ar-
abic language use). In his commentary, he used the phrase “fī kalām al-‘Arab” 304 times. This
study aims to reveal what Ṭabarī means with the phrase “fī kalām al-‘Arab” in his tafsīr Jāmi‘
al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān. When we examine the usages of “fī kalām al-‘Arab” in the pre-
Ṭabarī period, it becomes clear that it is limited in number and it is Ṭabarī who conceptualizes
the phrase. When the context analysis is made in the parts where Ṭabarī mentions the phrase
“fī kalām al-‘Arab”, the main thematic emphases can be listed as follows: To provide lexico-
logical information by making only a word-by-word analysis, to support the word analysis
with poetry, after mentioning various opinions and narrations, the evaluation passage of the
most authentic and reliable opinion in the eyes of Ṭabarī, the issues of recitation, comparisons
about the Kufa and Basra language schools, dialect knowledge. In addition to these thematic
emphases, prominent names and styles in the passages in which Ṭabarī uses the aforemen-
tioned pattern are also taken into account in this study. In this context, what is meant by style
is rating statements. It is seen that he refers to Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Qatada and Ibn Zayd in
the parts where he includes the expression“fī kalām al-‘Arab”. This research, which can be
considered as a source investigation in Ṭabarī’s tafsir, reveals that in many places where he
mentions “fī kalām al-‘Arab”, he quotes from Arabic poetry. It has been determined that in
one third of the places where the mufassir mentions “fī kalām al-‘Arab”, he applied to Arabic
poetry. When these poems are examined, it is seen that there are data belonging to the period
covering the second century of the hijri. This research, which can be considered as a source
investigation in Ṭabarī’s tafsīr, reveals that in many places where the mufassir mentions “fī
kalām al-‘Arab”, he quotes from Arabic poetry. It can be said that what is meant by “fī kalām
al-‘Arab” in al-Tabarī’s tafsīr largely corresponds to the written literature. To support this
claim, the uses of “fī kalām al-‘Arab” in tafsir were examined and numerical evaluations were
made. The study was written by using text analysis method.
Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi /Journal of Sakarya University Faculty of Theology, 2022
Abstract
This article examines the classification of the material produced by the tradition of Is... more Abstract
This article examines the classification of the material produced by the tradition of Islamic tafsīr.
The exegesis of the Qur’an has been classified in various ways. A chronological classification has
been made by listing the tafsīrs written from the time the tafsīr first appeared until today. The
chronology is followed from the beginning of the Qur’anic exegesis, that is, the Prophet’s interp-
retation of the Qur’an, to the contemporary exegetical works. The time after the commentary of
the Prophet, the Prophet’s companions (ṣaḥāba), and their followers (tābiʿūn) can be classified
according to centuries, or it can be classified by taking into account the political and economic
events that had an impact on the history of Islamic culture. For example, when we classify the
tafsīrs as the tafsīr of the Abbasid period, the tafsīr studies of the Umayyad period, the tafsīr
literature created by the Fatimids and the Ayyubids, the tafsīr works written by the Andalusian
Umayyads, the tafsīrs developed by the Mamluks and the Ottomans, we will make a chronological
classification by centering the regime established by the political authorities. It is also possible to
classify tafsīrs based on geography only. For example, a classification can be made as Qur’anic
commentaries written in Asia, Africa, America, and Oceania. However, the geographical bounda-
ries that have changed in the historical process may make this classification difficult. When we
say that political, cultural, and economic events are taken into account, we are talking about a
classification by accepting, for example, the periods of translation activities, crusades, Mongolian
invasions, and fa mines as turning points. Than ks t o this cla ssi ficati on , it ma y be easier to e xamine
the effects of these events on tafsīr. At the same time, the historiography of tafsīr can be re-
constructed from the perspective of social historiography and cultural historiography.
Thematic classifications were made by bringing together the works emphasizing similar issues
in terms of subject. For example, in the studies that classify the contemporary tafsīr literature,
tafsīrs which are called social, scientific, literary, themed, actional, mystical and modern are clus-
tered around a specific subject.
The tafsīrs are named according to the method or the material they use. While the tafsīrs in
which narrations have a dominant character are called narrative exegeses; the existence of po-
etry and istishhad, qirā’ah analyzes and preferences have caused tafsīrs to be in the category of
dirāyah. The intensive use of philological analyzes and lexicographic explanations made it neces-
sary to open the title of linguistic exegesis.
It can be said that the discussion of “types of tafsīr” has clearly entered the literature together
with the books which deal with the history of Qur’anic commentary that carry out historiography
by making a selection and evaluation over the history of tafsīr studies. It is frequently stated that
Ignaz Goldziher took the lead in this field. al-Dhahabï (d. 748/1348) quoted from Goldziher and
Ismail Cerrahoğlu continued this chain of reference with very minor differences.Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 24, Sayı: 46 (2022)
John Wansbrough’un Kur’ân Tefsirlerinin Tasnifine Yönelik Yaklaşımının
Köken İddiaları Bağlamında İncelenmesi | 423
When we evaluate the current classifications for the Qur’anic commentaries, we understand
that all these categorization processes are directly related to the person who makes the classifi-
cation. We are talking about a highly subjective field, due to conceptualization and interpretation
in line with the mental judgments of the classifier and the criteria he has determined. However,
the classifications formed by subjective judgments; it may have an almost partially objective or
“agreed on” character, as it is frequently repeated with little changes. Although it is possible to
consider certain classifications as standard forms, this does not guarantee avoidance of criticism
directed at these classifications. The main subject of this article is the analysis of the origin prob-
lem related to the cla ssification of tafsīr pr oduced in the traditi on o f Isl amic tafsīr. In the Principle s
of Exegesis section of John Wansbrough’s book Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scrip-
tural Interpretation, written in 1977, Wansbrough’s allegation, which persistently uses the clas-
sifications in the Bible exegesis, in naming the Islamic exegesis heritage is discussed.
In Wansbrough’s book named Quranic Studies, the classification of Qur’anic exegesis is made
as haggadic, halakhic, masoretic, rhetorical, and allegorical. It is understood that this naming is
not due to ignorance of the concepts and nomenclature used in Islamic literature, from the aut-
hor’s use of the concepts appropriately in many parts of the book. It is understood that Wansbro-
ugh means by haggadic exegesis the narrative exegesis, by halakhic the aḥkām exegesis, and by
Masoretic the linguistic exegesis. So, rejecting the nomenclature used in the Islamic tradition,
such as riwāyah-dirāyah, and using the conceptualizations in the biblical exegesis literature as
an alternative to these brings along the claims of interaction or plagiarism in the two tafsīr tradi-
tions.
The article, which deals with the issue of types of tafsīr, which can be considered as one of the
problems of the historiography of tafsīr, in a problematic and thematic setting, aims to analyze
John Wansbrough’s plagiarism claim. Questioning the possibility of proving the claim of interac-
tion in naming tafsīr types, this article will analyze the historical background by starting from the
establishment of two interpretation traditions. This way, the receiver and transmitter elements
of the interaction will be understood. By addressing other cultural interaction areas, the nature
of the superiority debate will be pointed out.
This article, which aims to discuss the conceptualizations in the history of tafsīr by taking into
account the history of interaction, aims to analyze the issue and evaluate the claims properly,
rather than producing a defensive antithesis against Wansbrough’s thesis. In order to achieve
this goal, studies focusing mainly on the history of biblical exegesis and literature dealing with
the interaction between the materials produced by the two cultures will be used. The article claims
to prove that the style used by Wansbrough in the classification of Qur’anic exegesis is specula-
tive, and the examples he gives while explaining the interpretation classifications are inconsistent
and contradictory.
Tefsirde Tahsis: Muḳātil b. Suleymān’ın Kitāb-ı Muḳaddes’in Tahrifine Dair Âyetleri Hz. Muhammed’in Tebşiri Özelinde Yorumlaması, Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi, Cilt 25, Sayı 3, 1001 - 1020 , 2021
Takhṣīs in the Tafsīr: Muḳātil b. Sulaymān’s Interpretation of Verses regarded with Falsification... more Takhṣīs in the Tafsīr: Muḳātil b. Sulaymān’s Interpretation of Verses regarded with Falsification of Bible in the Context of’s Muḥammad’s Tabs̲h̲ īr
Abstract: 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 tabs̲h̲ īr in the Bible. The Mufassir make a connection between the concealment
of the Prophet’s tabs̲h̲ īr 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”,
وال تلبسوا الحق بالباطل ,“conceal they “يكتمون ,“tongues their twist who “يلون السنتهم ,“altered “فبدل
“confound not truth with falsehood”, الحق وتكتموا” conceal the truth”, مْ
ِه يكتبون الكتاب
ِاَْي۪دي
They “ب
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; tabs̲h̲ īr 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 tabs̲h̲ īr. 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 Balk̲ h̲ 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 tabs̲h̲ īr.
However, the mufassir’s emphasis on tabs̲h̲ īr goes beyond the criticism of falsification. The
mufessir always keeps the issue alive on the reader’s agenda with short phrases such as “ كتم
/ نعت محمد / صفة محمد” ,“Torah the in hidden is subject s’Muḥammad أمر محمد / بكتمان أمر 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 tabs̲h̲ īr. He deals with the issue of distortion
in thirty-eight verses. The number of verses that the mufassir associates with both distortion
and tabs̲h̲ īr is thirty-six. The number of verses that he does not associate with falsification but
only about tabs̲h̲ īr 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 tabs̲h̲ īr 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 بالكتاب ألسنتهم يلوون” 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
tabs̲h̲ īr and its removal from the Torah (التوراة من محوه و محمد أمر بكتمان .“(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
Uzun, Ayşe. “The Relationship Between Tafsir and Classical Arabic Dictionaries in The First Four Centuries after Hijrah”. ULUM 3/2 (2020), 475-480., 2020
III. TLCK-I. Cilt (Sosyoloji, Ilahiyat, Egitim) by ayse uzun
Books by ayse uzun
Karşı Pencere -Din ve Kadın Temsiline Kurgudan Bakmak, İlav Yayınları, 2022
Thesis Chapters by ayse uzun
Tez, klasik Arapça sözlükler ve tefsirler arasındaki ilişkiyi hicrî ilk dört asır zaman sınırland... more Tez, klasik Arapça sözlükler ve tefsirler arasındaki ilişkiyi hicrî ilk dört asır zaman sınırlandırması çerçevesinde incelemektedir. Bu konunun incelenmesi, tefsir tarihine iki açıdan katkı sağlamaktadır. Bu, tefsir ilminin himayesinde gelişen filolojik disiplinlerin keşfedilmesine imkân tanıdığı kadar dilbilimin bir alt dalı kabul edilen sözlükbilimle tefsirin yoğun temasını ortaya koyması bakımından önemlidir.
Çalışmada takip edilen yöntem, metin incelemesidir. Hicrî ilk dört asrın temsil değeri yüksek Arapça sözlüklerinde tespit edilen tefsir malzemesi, tefsir ilminin konuları merkeze alınmak suretiyle tasnif edilmiştir.
Bu araştırmanın ilk dört asır şeklinde zaman hududuna tabi tutulmasının müspet yönü, sözlükbilimde ve tefsirde güçlü metinlerin telif edildiği teşekkül dönemine ait eser muhtevasını yansıtmasıdır. Söz konusu sınırlandırmanın menfi tarafı ise tefsir telifinin hicrî ilk dört asrın başında yoğunlaşırken sözlüklerin dördüncü asrın sonunda telif edilişidir. Menfilik, telif sürecinde eser türlerinin zamansal dağılımından kaynaklanmamaktadır. Esas olumsuzluk, bu dağılımın türler arasındaki ilişkiye etkisinin tespit edilmesiyle alakalıdır. Çünkü sözlüklerin ve tefsirlerin teşekkül ettiği bu kronolojik seyirde, tefsirlerin sözlükler üzerindeki etkisini incelemek gayet mümkünken, sözlüklerin tefsirler üzerindeki etkisini incelemek zorlaşmaktadır.
Hazırlanan bu incelemenin temel iddiası, hicrî ilk dört asra ait klasik Arapça sözlükler ve tefsirler arasında etkileşim olduğudur. Bu iddianın ispatlanması suretiyle tefsir ilminin sözlükbilimle yoğun irtibat içerisinde şekillendiği açığa çıkmaktadır. Aynı zamanda tefsir ilminin salt dilden ibaret gibi algılanan sözlükbilimi yönlendirdiği de
anlaşılmaktadır. Zira ayetlerin istişhad malzemesi olarak kullanılması onların tefsir edilmesini de gerektirmiştir.
Çalışmamız öncelikle Arapça sözlükçülüğün doğuşu ve gelişimine odaklanarak tarihî arka planı kendine zemin edinmektedir. Ardından sözlüklerdeki tefsir malzemesi, dil ve Kur’an ilimleri temalı tasnif edilmiştir. Ayrıca bu tasnife kelâmî ve fıkhî içeriklerin sözlüklere yansıması da eklenmiştir. Bu verilerin bir sağlaması ve tefsir – sözlük ilişkisinin diğer kutbunu yoklama amacına matuf olarak tefsirlerdeki sözlük mirası da aynı başlıklar üzerinden incelenmiştir.
Anahtar kelimeler: tefsir, klasik Arapça sözlükler, ilişki, yorum, tefsir tarihi
Conference Presentations by ayse uzun
Meallerde Geliştirilmeye Açık Alanlar Çalıştayı Tebliğ Metinleri, DİB Yayınları, 2022
Sözün Tarihi-Tarihin Sözü: Tarih ve Edebiyat Arasında Yeni Yaklaşımlar Sempozyumu, Paradigma Akademi, 2021
SÖZÜN TARİHİNDEN MEDET UMAN TEFSİR
Ayşe Uzun
(Dr. Öğretim Üyesi, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversi... more SÖZÜN TARİHİNDEN MEDET UMAN TEFSİR
Ayşe Uzun
(Dr. Öğretim Üyesi, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi, Tefsir Anabilim Dalı,
uznays@gmail.com)
Câmiʿu’l-beyân ʿan teʾvîli âyi’l-Ḳurʾân ve Târîḫu’l-ümem ve’l-mülûk adlı eserleriyle
meşhur Taberî, ilahiyat araştırmalarında önemli bir başvuru kaynağıdır.
Taberî’nin hicrî ilk üç asrın ilmî mirasını kayıt altına alması, onun müfessir ve
tarihçi kimliğinin vurgulanması için başlı başına yeterli bir özellik kabul edilir. Söz
konusu kaydetme işinin, rivayetleri derlemekle gerçekleştiğine vurgu yapılırken
müellifin eseri “ansiklopedik” olmakla nitelenir. Nakil verilerinin zenginliğine
işaret eden bu ifade, onun tarihçi yönünün, yazdığı metinlere sirayet etmesi
biçiminde okunabilir. Zira Taberî, geçmişin yorum havuzundan seçtiği bilgileri
kaydederek onları tarih haline getirmektedir. Özellikle Kur’ân ayetlerini tefsir
ettiği Câmiʿu’l-beyân için bu söylemin güçlü bir tez olduğunu iddia etmek
mümkündür. Rivayet arşivinden yaptığı seçkiyle müellif, ilahî sözün yorumunun
tarihini yazmaktadır.
İlahî hitaptan murad edilen manayı açığa çıkarma maksadıyla müfessir, dil
ve tarih rivayetlerini tefsirinde yoğun bir biçimde kullanmıştır. Kur’ân tefsirinde
yararlanılan nüzul sebepleri, tarihsel arka plan bilgisi ve Arap kültür tarihine ilişkin
bilgiler tarih üst başlığı altında derlenebilir. Filolojik tefsir malzemesi sayılabilecek
verilerin, Kur’ân tefsirinde müracaat edilen temel araçlar olduğu malumdur. Bu
dilsel malzemelerden Arap şiiri, klasik Arapça sözlükler, garîbü’l-Kur’ân, meâni’lKur’ân ve müşkilü’l-Kur’ân literatürünün yazılı kaynaklar arasında birincil kaynak
statüsünde yer aldığı söylenebilir. Bunun yanı sıra gündelik dilin tarihi de aşikâr
düzeyde tefsirde kendine yer bulur. Nitekim Taberî’nin Câmiʿu’l-beyân’ adlı
tefsirinde “Fî kelâmi’l-Arab / Arap dil kullanımında” şeklindeki ibareleri, beşerî
bir üretim mahiyetindeki gündelik dil kullanımının, ilâhî kelâmı tefsir etmedeki
işlevine dikkat çeker. “Fî kelâmi’l-Arab” şeklinde yapılan referanslar, Kur’ân’ın
nüzulünden önceki süreci, nüzul aşamasını ve nüzulden sonraki kesiti içeren
zamansal çerçeveye sahiptir. Genel anlamda dilin özelde ise lafızlarının delaletinin
kronolojisini keskin biçimde sunmak dilin doğası gereği pek kolay değildir.
Bu yazının amacı Taberî’nin tefsirinde yer alan “fî kelâmi’l-Arab”
ifadelerinin kaynağını ve kullanım sahasını tespit etmektir. Bir başka deyişle,
Arapların dil kullanımına yapılan atıfların, diğer yazılı kaynaklardaki bilgilerle
Sözün Tarihi – Tarihin Sözü
16
örtüşüp örtüşmediği merak konusudur. Taberî’nin kütüphanesinde bulunması
kuvvetle muhtemel dilbilimsel kaynaklar üzerinden bu örtüşme incelenecektir.
Bilhassa Kitâbü’l-Ayn ve Kitâbü’l-Cîm gibi erken dönem sözlükbilim kaynaklarında
yer alan bilgiler, Taberî’nin tefsirinde “fî kelâmi’l-Arab” bağlamında zikredilen
materyal ile karşılaştırılacaktır. Ayrıca söz konusu ibarenin sıklıkla kullanıldığı
konuların tespiti yapılacaktır. Taberî’nin “fî kelâmi’l-Arab” ibaresine inanç, ahlak
ve hukuk içerikli yorumlardan hangisinde ağırlık verdiğini saptamak da bu metnin
uğraş alanına dahildir. Bunun yanı sıra müfessirin Arap dil kullanımında sahih,
hatalı, meşhur, fasih, ma‘dûm, gayru mevcûd şeklinde değerlendirdiği kısımların
tasnifine yer verilecektir. Bu sayede, adeta tarihin sözü sayılabilecek ve ekseriyetle
insan tecrübesinin ürünü olan filolojik kullanımların, ilahî sözün yorumunun
tarihine eklediği katmanlar açığa çıkacaktır. Kaynak eser merkezli bir yöntemin
takip edildiği bu yazı, müfessir ve tarihçi hüviyetlerini taşıyan Taberî’nin dil ve
tarih arasında kurduğu bağları sorgulama çabasındadır.
Anahtar kelimeler: Filolojik tefsir; Taberî; Tarih
Tahrifin Tebşirinden Tebşirin Tahrifine Savrulma: Mukâtil b. Süleyman’ın Tefsirinde Kutsal Kitapların Tahrifi İddiası ve Hz. Muhammed’in Tebşiri, 2019
Birinci Dünya Savaşı ve Yirminci Yüzyıla Etkileri, 2019
Book Reviews by ayse uzun
Müphemlik Kültürü ve İslâm Farklı Bir İslâm Tarihi Okuması, 2021
Muhammed Halil Çiçek. Uslûbu’l-Azame fi’l-Kur’âni’l-Kerîm. Beyrut: Dâru’l-Muktebes, 2019, 273 s.
Uploads
Papers by ayse uzun
Ṭabarī, used the Arabic language as a source while interpreting the verses of the Qur’ān. The
conceptualized form of the reference to this source is the expression “fī kalām al-‘Arab” (Ar-
abic language use). In his commentary, he used the phrase “fī kalām al-‘Arab” 304 times. This
study aims to reveal what Ṭabarī means with the phrase “fī kalām al-‘Arab” in his tafsīr Jāmi‘
al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān. When we examine the usages of “fī kalām al-‘Arab” in the pre-
Ṭabarī period, it becomes clear that it is limited in number and it is Ṭabarī who conceptualizes
the phrase. When the context analysis is made in the parts where Ṭabarī mentions the phrase
“fī kalām al-‘Arab”, the main thematic emphases can be listed as follows: To provide lexico-
logical information by making only a word-by-word analysis, to support the word analysis
with poetry, after mentioning various opinions and narrations, the evaluation passage of the
most authentic and reliable opinion in the eyes of Ṭabarī, the issues of recitation, comparisons
about the Kufa and Basra language schools, dialect knowledge. In addition to these thematic
emphases, prominent names and styles in the passages in which Ṭabarī uses the aforemen-
tioned pattern are also taken into account in this study. In this context, what is meant by style
is rating statements. It is seen that he refers to Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Qatada and Ibn Zayd in
the parts where he includes the expression“fī kalām al-‘Arab”. This research, which can be
considered as a source investigation in Ṭabarī’s tafsir, reveals that in many places where he
mentions “fī kalām al-‘Arab”, he quotes from Arabic poetry. It has been determined that in
one third of the places where the mufassir mentions “fī kalām al-‘Arab”, he applied to Arabic
poetry. When these poems are examined, it is seen that there are data belonging to the period
covering the second century of the hijri. This research, which can be considered as a source
investigation in Ṭabarī’s tafsīr, reveals that in many places where the mufassir mentions “fī
kalām al-‘Arab”, he quotes from Arabic poetry. It can be said that what is meant by “fī kalām
al-‘Arab” in al-Tabarī’s tafsīr largely corresponds to the written literature. To support this
claim, the uses of “fī kalām al-‘Arab” in tafsir were examined and numerical evaluations were
made. The study was written by using text analysis method.
This article examines the classification of the material produced by the tradition of Islamic tafsīr.
The exegesis of the Qur’an has been classified in various ways. A chronological classification has
been made by listing the tafsīrs written from the time the tafsīr first appeared until today. The
chronology is followed from the beginning of the Qur’anic exegesis, that is, the Prophet’s interp-
retation of the Qur’an, to the contemporary exegetical works. The time after the commentary of
the Prophet, the Prophet’s companions (ṣaḥāba), and their followers (tābiʿūn) can be classified
according to centuries, or it can be classified by taking into account the political and economic
events that had an impact on the history of Islamic culture. For example, when we classify the
tafsīrs as the tafsīr of the Abbasid period, the tafsīr studies of the Umayyad period, the tafsīr
literature created by the Fatimids and the Ayyubids, the tafsīr works written by the Andalusian
Umayyads, the tafsīrs developed by the Mamluks and the Ottomans, we will make a chronological
classification by centering the regime established by the political authorities. It is also possible to
classify tafsīrs based on geography only. For example, a classification can be made as Qur’anic
commentaries written in Asia, Africa, America, and Oceania. However, the geographical bounda-
ries that have changed in the historical process may make this classification difficult. When we
say that political, cultural, and economic events are taken into account, we are talking about a
classification by accepting, for example, the periods of translation activities, crusades, Mongolian
invasions, and fa mines as turning points. Than ks t o this cla ssi ficati on , it ma y be easier to e xamine
the effects of these events on tafsīr. At the same time, the historiography of tafsīr can be re-
constructed from the perspective of social historiography and cultural historiography.
Thematic classifications were made by bringing together the works emphasizing similar issues
in terms of subject. For example, in the studies that classify the contemporary tafsīr literature,
tafsīrs which are called social, scientific, literary, themed, actional, mystical and modern are clus-
tered around a specific subject.
The tafsīrs are named according to the method or the material they use. While the tafsīrs in
which narrations have a dominant character are called narrative exegeses; the existence of po-
etry and istishhad, qirā’ah analyzes and preferences have caused tafsīrs to be in the category of
dirāyah. The intensive use of philological analyzes and lexicographic explanations made it neces-
sary to open the title of linguistic exegesis.
It can be said that the discussion of “types of tafsīr” has clearly entered the literature together
with the books which deal with the history of Qur’anic commentary that carry out historiography
by making a selection and evaluation over the history of tafsīr studies. It is frequently stated that
Ignaz Goldziher took the lead in this field. al-Dhahabï (d. 748/1348) quoted from Goldziher and
Ismail Cerrahoğlu continued this chain of reference with very minor differences.Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 24, Sayı: 46 (2022)
John Wansbrough’un Kur’ân Tefsirlerinin Tasnifine Yönelik Yaklaşımının
Köken İddiaları Bağlamında İncelenmesi | 423
When we evaluate the current classifications for the Qur’anic commentaries, we understand
that all these categorization processes are directly related to the person who makes the classifi-
cation. We are talking about a highly subjective field, due to conceptualization and interpretation
in line with the mental judgments of the classifier and the criteria he has determined. However,
the classifications formed by subjective judgments; it may have an almost partially objective or
“agreed on” character, as it is frequently repeated with little changes. Although it is possible to
consider certain classifications as standard forms, this does not guarantee avoidance of criticism
directed at these classifications. The main subject of this article is the analysis of the origin prob-
lem related to the cla ssification of tafsīr pr oduced in the traditi on o f Isl amic tafsīr. In the Principle s
of Exegesis section of John Wansbrough’s book Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scrip-
tural Interpretation, written in 1977, Wansbrough’s allegation, which persistently uses the clas-
sifications in the Bible exegesis, in naming the Islamic exegesis heritage is discussed.
In Wansbrough’s book named Quranic Studies, the classification of Qur’anic exegesis is made
as haggadic, halakhic, masoretic, rhetorical, and allegorical. It is understood that this naming is
not due to ignorance of the concepts and nomenclature used in Islamic literature, from the aut-
hor’s use of the concepts appropriately in many parts of the book. It is understood that Wansbro-
ugh means by haggadic exegesis the narrative exegesis, by halakhic the aḥkām exegesis, and by
Masoretic the linguistic exegesis. So, rejecting the nomenclature used in the Islamic tradition,
such as riwāyah-dirāyah, and using the conceptualizations in the biblical exegesis literature as
an alternative to these brings along the claims of interaction or plagiarism in the two tafsīr tradi-
tions.
The article, which deals with the issue of types of tafsīr, which can be considered as one of the
problems of the historiography of tafsīr, in a problematic and thematic setting, aims to analyze
John Wansbrough’s plagiarism claim. Questioning the possibility of proving the claim of interac-
tion in naming tafsīr types, this article will analyze the historical background by starting from the
establishment of two interpretation traditions. This way, the receiver and transmitter elements
of the interaction will be understood. By addressing other cultural interaction areas, the nature
of the superiority debate will be pointed out.
This article, which aims to discuss the conceptualizations in the history of tafsīr by taking into
account the history of interaction, aims to analyze the issue and evaluate the claims properly,
rather than producing a defensive antithesis against Wansbrough’s thesis. In order to achieve
this goal, studies focusing mainly on the history of biblical exegesis and literature dealing with
the interaction between the materials produced by the two cultures will be used. The article claims
to prove that the style used by Wansbrough in the classification of Qur’anic exegesis is specula-
tive, and the examples he gives while explaining the interpretation classifications are inconsistent
and contradictory.
Abstract: 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 tabs̲h̲ īr in the Bible. The Mufassir make a connection between the concealment
of the Prophet’s tabs̲h̲ īr 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”,
وال تلبسوا الحق بالباطل ,“conceal they “يكتمون ,“tongues their twist who “يلون السنتهم ,“altered “فبدل
“confound not truth with falsehood”, الحق وتكتموا” conceal the truth”, مْ
ِه يكتبون الكتاب
ِاَْي۪دي
They “ب
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; tabs̲h̲ īr 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 tabs̲h̲ īr. 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 Balk̲ h̲ 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 tabs̲h̲ īr.
However, the mufassir’s emphasis on tabs̲h̲ īr goes beyond the criticism of falsification. The
mufessir always keeps the issue alive on the reader’s agenda with short phrases such as “ كتم
/ نعت محمد / صفة محمد” ,“Torah the in hidden is subject s’Muḥammad أمر محمد / بكتمان أمر 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 tabs̲h̲ īr. He deals with the issue of distortion
in thirty-eight verses. The number of verses that the mufassir associates with both distortion
and tabs̲h̲ īr is thirty-six. The number of verses that he does not associate with falsification but
only about tabs̲h̲ īr 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 tabs̲h̲ īr 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 بالكتاب ألسنتهم يلوون” 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
tabs̲h̲ īr and its removal from the Torah (التوراة من محوه و محمد أمر بكتمان .“(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
III. TLCK-I. Cilt (Sosyoloji, Ilahiyat, Egitim) by ayse uzun
Books by ayse uzun
Thesis Chapters by ayse uzun
Çalışmada takip edilen yöntem, metin incelemesidir. Hicrî ilk dört asrın temsil değeri yüksek Arapça sözlüklerinde tespit edilen tefsir malzemesi, tefsir ilminin konuları merkeze alınmak suretiyle tasnif edilmiştir.
Bu araştırmanın ilk dört asır şeklinde zaman hududuna tabi tutulmasının müspet yönü, sözlükbilimde ve tefsirde güçlü metinlerin telif edildiği teşekkül dönemine ait eser muhtevasını yansıtmasıdır. Söz konusu sınırlandırmanın menfi tarafı ise tefsir telifinin hicrî ilk dört asrın başında yoğunlaşırken sözlüklerin dördüncü asrın sonunda telif edilişidir. Menfilik, telif sürecinde eser türlerinin zamansal dağılımından kaynaklanmamaktadır. Esas olumsuzluk, bu dağılımın türler arasındaki ilişkiye etkisinin tespit edilmesiyle alakalıdır. Çünkü sözlüklerin ve tefsirlerin teşekkül ettiği bu kronolojik seyirde, tefsirlerin sözlükler üzerindeki etkisini incelemek gayet mümkünken, sözlüklerin tefsirler üzerindeki etkisini incelemek zorlaşmaktadır.
Hazırlanan bu incelemenin temel iddiası, hicrî ilk dört asra ait klasik Arapça sözlükler ve tefsirler arasında etkileşim olduğudur. Bu iddianın ispatlanması suretiyle tefsir ilminin sözlükbilimle yoğun irtibat içerisinde şekillendiği açığa çıkmaktadır. Aynı zamanda tefsir ilminin salt dilden ibaret gibi algılanan sözlükbilimi yönlendirdiği de
anlaşılmaktadır. Zira ayetlerin istişhad malzemesi olarak kullanılması onların tefsir edilmesini de gerektirmiştir.
Çalışmamız öncelikle Arapça sözlükçülüğün doğuşu ve gelişimine odaklanarak tarihî arka planı kendine zemin edinmektedir. Ardından sözlüklerdeki tefsir malzemesi, dil ve Kur’an ilimleri temalı tasnif edilmiştir. Ayrıca bu tasnife kelâmî ve fıkhî içeriklerin sözlüklere yansıması da eklenmiştir. Bu verilerin bir sağlaması ve tefsir – sözlük ilişkisinin diğer kutbunu yoklama amacına matuf olarak tefsirlerdeki sözlük mirası da aynı başlıklar üzerinden incelenmiştir.
Anahtar kelimeler: tefsir, klasik Arapça sözlükler, ilişki, yorum, tefsir tarihi
Conference Presentations by ayse uzun
Ayşe Uzun
(Dr. Öğretim Üyesi, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi, Tefsir Anabilim Dalı,
uznays@gmail.com)
Câmiʿu’l-beyân ʿan teʾvîli âyi’l-Ḳurʾân ve Târîḫu’l-ümem ve’l-mülûk adlı eserleriyle
meşhur Taberî, ilahiyat araştırmalarında önemli bir başvuru kaynağıdır.
Taberî’nin hicrî ilk üç asrın ilmî mirasını kayıt altına alması, onun müfessir ve
tarihçi kimliğinin vurgulanması için başlı başına yeterli bir özellik kabul edilir. Söz
konusu kaydetme işinin, rivayetleri derlemekle gerçekleştiğine vurgu yapılırken
müellifin eseri “ansiklopedik” olmakla nitelenir. Nakil verilerinin zenginliğine
işaret eden bu ifade, onun tarihçi yönünün, yazdığı metinlere sirayet etmesi
biçiminde okunabilir. Zira Taberî, geçmişin yorum havuzundan seçtiği bilgileri
kaydederek onları tarih haline getirmektedir. Özellikle Kur’ân ayetlerini tefsir
ettiği Câmiʿu’l-beyân için bu söylemin güçlü bir tez olduğunu iddia etmek
mümkündür. Rivayet arşivinden yaptığı seçkiyle müellif, ilahî sözün yorumunun
tarihini yazmaktadır.
İlahî hitaptan murad edilen manayı açığa çıkarma maksadıyla müfessir, dil
ve tarih rivayetlerini tefsirinde yoğun bir biçimde kullanmıştır. Kur’ân tefsirinde
yararlanılan nüzul sebepleri, tarihsel arka plan bilgisi ve Arap kültür tarihine ilişkin
bilgiler tarih üst başlığı altında derlenebilir. Filolojik tefsir malzemesi sayılabilecek
verilerin, Kur’ân tefsirinde müracaat edilen temel araçlar olduğu malumdur. Bu
dilsel malzemelerden Arap şiiri, klasik Arapça sözlükler, garîbü’l-Kur’ân, meâni’lKur’ân ve müşkilü’l-Kur’ân literatürünün yazılı kaynaklar arasında birincil kaynak
statüsünde yer aldığı söylenebilir. Bunun yanı sıra gündelik dilin tarihi de aşikâr
düzeyde tefsirde kendine yer bulur. Nitekim Taberî’nin Câmiʿu’l-beyân’ adlı
tefsirinde “Fî kelâmi’l-Arab / Arap dil kullanımında” şeklindeki ibareleri, beşerî
bir üretim mahiyetindeki gündelik dil kullanımının, ilâhî kelâmı tefsir etmedeki
işlevine dikkat çeker. “Fî kelâmi’l-Arab” şeklinde yapılan referanslar, Kur’ân’ın
nüzulünden önceki süreci, nüzul aşamasını ve nüzulden sonraki kesiti içeren
zamansal çerçeveye sahiptir. Genel anlamda dilin özelde ise lafızlarının delaletinin
kronolojisini keskin biçimde sunmak dilin doğası gereği pek kolay değildir.
Bu yazının amacı Taberî’nin tefsirinde yer alan “fî kelâmi’l-Arab”
ifadelerinin kaynağını ve kullanım sahasını tespit etmektir. Bir başka deyişle,
Arapların dil kullanımına yapılan atıfların, diğer yazılı kaynaklardaki bilgilerle
Sözün Tarihi – Tarihin Sözü
16
örtüşüp örtüşmediği merak konusudur. Taberî’nin kütüphanesinde bulunması
kuvvetle muhtemel dilbilimsel kaynaklar üzerinden bu örtüşme incelenecektir.
Bilhassa Kitâbü’l-Ayn ve Kitâbü’l-Cîm gibi erken dönem sözlükbilim kaynaklarında
yer alan bilgiler, Taberî’nin tefsirinde “fî kelâmi’l-Arab” bağlamında zikredilen
materyal ile karşılaştırılacaktır. Ayrıca söz konusu ibarenin sıklıkla kullanıldığı
konuların tespiti yapılacaktır. Taberî’nin “fî kelâmi’l-Arab” ibaresine inanç, ahlak
ve hukuk içerikli yorumlardan hangisinde ağırlık verdiğini saptamak da bu metnin
uğraş alanına dahildir. Bunun yanı sıra müfessirin Arap dil kullanımında sahih,
hatalı, meşhur, fasih, ma‘dûm, gayru mevcûd şeklinde değerlendirdiği kısımların
tasnifine yer verilecektir. Bu sayede, adeta tarihin sözü sayılabilecek ve ekseriyetle
insan tecrübesinin ürünü olan filolojik kullanımların, ilahî sözün yorumunun
tarihine eklediği katmanlar açığa çıkacaktır. Kaynak eser merkezli bir yöntemin
takip edildiği bu yazı, müfessir ve tarihçi hüviyetlerini taşıyan Taberî’nin dil ve
tarih arasında kurduğu bağları sorgulama çabasındadır.
Anahtar kelimeler: Filolojik tefsir; Taberî; Tarih
Book Reviews by ayse uzun
Ṭabarī, used the Arabic language as a source while interpreting the verses of the Qur’ān. The
conceptualized form of the reference to this source is the expression “fī kalām al-‘Arab” (Ar-
abic language use). In his commentary, he used the phrase “fī kalām al-‘Arab” 304 times. This
study aims to reveal what Ṭabarī means with the phrase “fī kalām al-‘Arab” in his tafsīr Jāmi‘
al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān. When we examine the usages of “fī kalām al-‘Arab” in the pre-
Ṭabarī period, it becomes clear that it is limited in number and it is Ṭabarī who conceptualizes
the phrase. When the context analysis is made in the parts where Ṭabarī mentions the phrase
“fī kalām al-‘Arab”, the main thematic emphases can be listed as follows: To provide lexico-
logical information by making only a word-by-word analysis, to support the word analysis
with poetry, after mentioning various opinions and narrations, the evaluation passage of the
most authentic and reliable opinion in the eyes of Ṭabarī, the issues of recitation, comparisons
about the Kufa and Basra language schools, dialect knowledge. In addition to these thematic
emphases, prominent names and styles in the passages in which Ṭabarī uses the aforemen-
tioned pattern are also taken into account in this study. In this context, what is meant by style
is rating statements. It is seen that he refers to Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Qatada and Ibn Zayd in
the parts where he includes the expression“fī kalām al-‘Arab”. This research, which can be
considered as a source investigation in Ṭabarī’s tafsir, reveals that in many places where he
mentions “fī kalām al-‘Arab”, he quotes from Arabic poetry. It has been determined that in
one third of the places where the mufassir mentions “fī kalām al-‘Arab”, he applied to Arabic
poetry. When these poems are examined, it is seen that there are data belonging to the period
covering the second century of the hijri. This research, which can be considered as a source
investigation in Ṭabarī’s tafsīr, reveals that in many places where the mufassir mentions “fī
kalām al-‘Arab”, he quotes from Arabic poetry. It can be said that what is meant by “fī kalām
al-‘Arab” in al-Tabarī’s tafsīr largely corresponds to the written literature. To support this
claim, the uses of “fī kalām al-‘Arab” in tafsir were examined and numerical evaluations were
made. The study was written by using text analysis method.
This article examines the classification of the material produced by the tradition of Islamic tafsīr.
The exegesis of the Qur’an has been classified in various ways. A chronological classification has
been made by listing the tafsīrs written from the time the tafsīr first appeared until today. The
chronology is followed from the beginning of the Qur’anic exegesis, that is, the Prophet’s interp-
retation of the Qur’an, to the contemporary exegetical works. The time after the commentary of
the Prophet, the Prophet’s companions (ṣaḥāba), and their followers (tābiʿūn) can be classified
according to centuries, or it can be classified by taking into account the political and economic
events that had an impact on the history of Islamic culture. For example, when we classify the
tafsīrs as the tafsīr of the Abbasid period, the tafsīr studies of the Umayyad period, the tafsīr
literature created by the Fatimids and the Ayyubids, the tafsīr works written by the Andalusian
Umayyads, the tafsīrs developed by the Mamluks and the Ottomans, we will make a chronological
classification by centering the regime established by the political authorities. It is also possible to
classify tafsīrs based on geography only. For example, a classification can be made as Qur’anic
commentaries written in Asia, Africa, America, and Oceania. However, the geographical bounda-
ries that have changed in the historical process may make this classification difficult. When we
say that political, cultural, and economic events are taken into account, we are talking about a
classification by accepting, for example, the periods of translation activities, crusades, Mongolian
invasions, and fa mines as turning points. Than ks t o this cla ssi ficati on , it ma y be easier to e xamine
the effects of these events on tafsīr. At the same time, the historiography of tafsīr can be re-
constructed from the perspective of social historiography and cultural historiography.
Thematic classifications were made by bringing together the works emphasizing similar issues
in terms of subject. For example, in the studies that classify the contemporary tafsīr literature,
tafsīrs which are called social, scientific, literary, themed, actional, mystical and modern are clus-
tered around a specific subject.
The tafsīrs are named according to the method or the material they use. While the tafsīrs in
which narrations have a dominant character are called narrative exegeses; the existence of po-
etry and istishhad, qirā’ah analyzes and preferences have caused tafsīrs to be in the category of
dirāyah. The intensive use of philological analyzes and lexicographic explanations made it neces-
sary to open the title of linguistic exegesis.
It can be said that the discussion of “types of tafsīr” has clearly entered the literature together
with the books which deal with the history of Qur’anic commentary that carry out historiography
by making a selection and evaluation over the history of tafsīr studies. It is frequently stated that
Ignaz Goldziher took the lead in this field. al-Dhahabï (d. 748/1348) quoted from Goldziher and
Ismail Cerrahoğlu continued this chain of reference with very minor differences.Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 24, Sayı: 46 (2022)
John Wansbrough’un Kur’ân Tefsirlerinin Tasnifine Yönelik Yaklaşımının
Köken İddiaları Bağlamında İncelenmesi | 423
When we evaluate the current classifications for the Qur’anic commentaries, we understand
that all these categorization processes are directly related to the person who makes the classifi-
cation. We are talking about a highly subjective field, due to conceptualization and interpretation
in line with the mental judgments of the classifier and the criteria he has determined. However,
the classifications formed by subjective judgments; it may have an almost partially objective or
“agreed on” character, as it is frequently repeated with little changes. Although it is possible to
consider certain classifications as standard forms, this does not guarantee avoidance of criticism
directed at these classifications. The main subject of this article is the analysis of the origin prob-
lem related to the cla ssification of tafsīr pr oduced in the traditi on o f Isl amic tafsīr. In the Principle s
of Exegesis section of John Wansbrough’s book Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scrip-
tural Interpretation, written in 1977, Wansbrough’s allegation, which persistently uses the clas-
sifications in the Bible exegesis, in naming the Islamic exegesis heritage is discussed.
In Wansbrough’s book named Quranic Studies, the classification of Qur’anic exegesis is made
as haggadic, halakhic, masoretic, rhetorical, and allegorical. It is understood that this naming is
not due to ignorance of the concepts and nomenclature used in Islamic literature, from the aut-
hor’s use of the concepts appropriately in many parts of the book. It is understood that Wansbro-
ugh means by haggadic exegesis the narrative exegesis, by halakhic the aḥkām exegesis, and by
Masoretic the linguistic exegesis. So, rejecting the nomenclature used in the Islamic tradition,
such as riwāyah-dirāyah, and using the conceptualizations in the biblical exegesis literature as
an alternative to these brings along the claims of interaction or plagiarism in the two tafsīr tradi-
tions.
The article, which deals with the issue of types of tafsīr, which can be considered as one of the
problems of the historiography of tafsīr, in a problematic and thematic setting, aims to analyze
John Wansbrough’s plagiarism claim. Questioning the possibility of proving the claim of interac-
tion in naming tafsīr types, this article will analyze the historical background by starting from the
establishment of two interpretation traditions. This way, the receiver and transmitter elements
of the interaction will be understood. By addressing other cultural interaction areas, the nature
of the superiority debate will be pointed out.
This article, which aims to discuss the conceptualizations in the history of tafsīr by taking into
account the history of interaction, aims to analyze the issue and evaluate the claims properly,
rather than producing a defensive antithesis against Wansbrough’s thesis. In order to achieve
this goal, studies focusing mainly on the history of biblical exegesis and literature dealing with
the interaction between the materials produced by the two cultures will be used. The article claims
to prove that the style used by Wansbrough in the classification of Qur’anic exegesis is specula-
tive, and the examples he gives while explaining the interpretation classifications are inconsistent
and contradictory.
Abstract: 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 tabs̲h̲ īr in the Bible. The Mufassir make a connection between the concealment
of the Prophet’s tabs̲h̲ īr 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”,
وال تلبسوا الحق بالباطل ,“conceal they “يكتمون ,“tongues their twist who “يلون السنتهم ,“altered “فبدل
“confound not truth with falsehood”, الحق وتكتموا” conceal the truth”, مْ
ِه يكتبون الكتاب
ِاَْي۪دي
They “ب
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; tabs̲h̲ īr 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 tabs̲h̲ īr. 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 Balk̲ h̲ 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 tabs̲h̲ īr.
However, the mufassir’s emphasis on tabs̲h̲ īr goes beyond the criticism of falsification. The
mufessir always keeps the issue alive on the reader’s agenda with short phrases such as “ كتم
/ نعت محمد / صفة محمد” ,“Torah the in hidden is subject s’Muḥammad أمر محمد / بكتمان أمر 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 tabs̲h̲ īr. He deals with the issue of distortion
in thirty-eight verses. The number of verses that the mufassir associates with both distortion
and tabs̲h̲ īr is thirty-six. The number of verses that he does not associate with falsification but
only about tabs̲h̲ īr 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 tabs̲h̲ īr 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 بالكتاب ألسنتهم يلوون” 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
tabs̲h̲ īr and its removal from the Torah (التوراة من محوه و محمد أمر بكتمان .“(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
Çalışmada takip edilen yöntem, metin incelemesidir. Hicrî ilk dört asrın temsil değeri yüksek Arapça sözlüklerinde tespit edilen tefsir malzemesi, tefsir ilminin konuları merkeze alınmak suretiyle tasnif edilmiştir.
Bu araştırmanın ilk dört asır şeklinde zaman hududuna tabi tutulmasının müspet yönü, sözlükbilimde ve tefsirde güçlü metinlerin telif edildiği teşekkül dönemine ait eser muhtevasını yansıtmasıdır. Söz konusu sınırlandırmanın menfi tarafı ise tefsir telifinin hicrî ilk dört asrın başında yoğunlaşırken sözlüklerin dördüncü asrın sonunda telif edilişidir. Menfilik, telif sürecinde eser türlerinin zamansal dağılımından kaynaklanmamaktadır. Esas olumsuzluk, bu dağılımın türler arasındaki ilişkiye etkisinin tespit edilmesiyle alakalıdır. Çünkü sözlüklerin ve tefsirlerin teşekkül ettiği bu kronolojik seyirde, tefsirlerin sözlükler üzerindeki etkisini incelemek gayet mümkünken, sözlüklerin tefsirler üzerindeki etkisini incelemek zorlaşmaktadır.
Hazırlanan bu incelemenin temel iddiası, hicrî ilk dört asra ait klasik Arapça sözlükler ve tefsirler arasında etkileşim olduğudur. Bu iddianın ispatlanması suretiyle tefsir ilminin sözlükbilimle yoğun irtibat içerisinde şekillendiği açığa çıkmaktadır. Aynı zamanda tefsir ilminin salt dilden ibaret gibi algılanan sözlükbilimi yönlendirdiği de
anlaşılmaktadır. Zira ayetlerin istişhad malzemesi olarak kullanılması onların tefsir edilmesini de gerektirmiştir.
Çalışmamız öncelikle Arapça sözlükçülüğün doğuşu ve gelişimine odaklanarak tarihî arka planı kendine zemin edinmektedir. Ardından sözlüklerdeki tefsir malzemesi, dil ve Kur’an ilimleri temalı tasnif edilmiştir. Ayrıca bu tasnife kelâmî ve fıkhî içeriklerin sözlüklere yansıması da eklenmiştir. Bu verilerin bir sağlaması ve tefsir – sözlük ilişkisinin diğer kutbunu yoklama amacına matuf olarak tefsirlerdeki sözlük mirası da aynı başlıklar üzerinden incelenmiştir.
Anahtar kelimeler: tefsir, klasik Arapça sözlükler, ilişki, yorum, tefsir tarihi
Ayşe Uzun
(Dr. Öğretim Üyesi, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi, Tefsir Anabilim Dalı,
uznays@gmail.com)
Câmiʿu’l-beyân ʿan teʾvîli âyi’l-Ḳurʾân ve Târîḫu’l-ümem ve’l-mülûk adlı eserleriyle
meşhur Taberî, ilahiyat araştırmalarında önemli bir başvuru kaynağıdır.
Taberî’nin hicrî ilk üç asrın ilmî mirasını kayıt altına alması, onun müfessir ve
tarihçi kimliğinin vurgulanması için başlı başına yeterli bir özellik kabul edilir. Söz
konusu kaydetme işinin, rivayetleri derlemekle gerçekleştiğine vurgu yapılırken
müellifin eseri “ansiklopedik” olmakla nitelenir. Nakil verilerinin zenginliğine
işaret eden bu ifade, onun tarihçi yönünün, yazdığı metinlere sirayet etmesi
biçiminde okunabilir. Zira Taberî, geçmişin yorum havuzundan seçtiği bilgileri
kaydederek onları tarih haline getirmektedir. Özellikle Kur’ân ayetlerini tefsir
ettiği Câmiʿu’l-beyân için bu söylemin güçlü bir tez olduğunu iddia etmek
mümkündür. Rivayet arşivinden yaptığı seçkiyle müellif, ilahî sözün yorumunun
tarihini yazmaktadır.
İlahî hitaptan murad edilen manayı açığa çıkarma maksadıyla müfessir, dil
ve tarih rivayetlerini tefsirinde yoğun bir biçimde kullanmıştır. Kur’ân tefsirinde
yararlanılan nüzul sebepleri, tarihsel arka plan bilgisi ve Arap kültür tarihine ilişkin
bilgiler tarih üst başlığı altında derlenebilir. Filolojik tefsir malzemesi sayılabilecek
verilerin, Kur’ân tefsirinde müracaat edilen temel araçlar olduğu malumdur. Bu
dilsel malzemelerden Arap şiiri, klasik Arapça sözlükler, garîbü’l-Kur’ân, meâni’lKur’ân ve müşkilü’l-Kur’ân literatürünün yazılı kaynaklar arasında birincil kaynak
statüsünde yer aldığı söylenebilir. Bunun yanı sıra gündelik dilin tarihi de aşikâr
düzeyde tefsirde kendine yer bulur. Nitekim Taberî’nin Câmiʿu’l-beyân’ adlı
tefsirinde “Fî kelâmi’l-Arab / Arap dil kullanımında” şeklindeki ibareleri, beşerî
bir üretim mahiyetindeki gündelik dil kullanımının, ilâhî kelâmı tefsir etmedeki
işlevine dikkat çeker. “Fî kelâmi’l-Arab” şeklinde yapılan referanslar, Kur’ân’ın
nüzulünden önceki süreci, nüzul aşamasını ve nüzulden sonraki kesiti içeren
zamansal çerçeveye sahiptir. Genel anlamda dilin özelde ise lafızlarının delaletinin
kronolojisini keskin biçimde sunmak dilin doğası gereği pek kolay değildir.
Bu yazının amacı Taberî’nin tefsirinde yer alan “fî kelâmi’l-Arab”
ifadelerinin kaynağını ve kullanım sahasını tespit etmektir. Bir başka deyişle,
Arapların dil kullanımına yapılan atıfların, diğer yazılı kaynaklardaki bilgilerle
Sözün Tarihi – Tarihin Sözü
16
örtüşüp örtüşmediği merak konusudur. Taberî’nin kütüphanesinde bulunması
kuvvetle muhtemel dilbilimsel kaynaklar üzerinden bu örtüşme incelenecektir.
Bilhassa Kitâbü’l-Ayn ve Kitâbü’l-Cîm gibi erken dönem sözlükbilim kaynaklarında
yer alan bilgiler, Taberî’nin tefsirinde “fî kelâmi’l-Arab” bağlamında zikredilen
materyal ile karşılaştırılacaktır. Ayrıca söz konusu ibarenin sıklıkla kullanıldığı
konuların tespiti yapılacaktır. Taberî’nin “fî kelâmi’l-Arab” ibaresine inanç, ahlak
ve hukuk içerikli yorumlardan hangisinde ağırlık verdiğini saptamak da bu metnin
uğraş alanına dahildir. Bunun yanı sıra müfessirin Arap dil kullanımında sahih,
hatalı, meşhur, fasih, ma‘dûm, gayru mevcûd şeklinde değerlendirdiği kısımların
tasnifine yer verilecektir. Bu sayede, adeta tarihin sözü sayılabilecek ve ekseriyetle
insan tecrübesinin ürünü olan filolojik kullanımların, ilahî sözün yorumunun
tarihine eklediği katmanlar açığa çıkacaktır. Kaynak eser merkezli bir yöntemin
takip edildiği bu yazı, müfessir ve tarihçi hüviyetlerini taşıyan Taberî’nin dil ve
tarih arasında kurduğu bağları sorgulama çabasındadır.
Anahtar kelimeler: Filolojik tefsir; Taberî; Tarih
top works of Arabic lexicographical studies. The author examines the dictionary, which contains rich tafsir material, in terms of tafsir discipline. The core
of this research is the Ulum al-Qur’an and language studies. This study, which
reveals the contributions of the early lexical heritage to tafsir, proves that the
history of tafsir cannot be reduced only to sources directly related to tafsir.
Sözlükbilim ve Tefsir Tehzîbü’l-Luga adlı kitap, Arapça sözlükçülük faaliyetlerinin zirve isimlerinden Ezherî’nin Tehzîbü’l-Luga adlı sözlüğü merkeze alınarak hazırlanmıştır. Zengin tefsir malzemesi barındıran bu sözlük, tefsir ilmi
açısından incelemeye tabi tutulmuştur. Bu incelemede Kur’an ilimleri ve dil
ilimleri merkeze alınmıştır. Erken dönem sözlük mirasının tefsire katkılarını
ortaya koyan bu çalışma, tefsir tarihinin sadece tefsirle doğrudan irtibatlı kaynaklara indirgenemeyeceğini kanıtlar.