Irab

Bu çalışmada es-Semîn el-Halebî’nin biyografisi incelenmekte, kaleme aldığı ed-Durru’l-masûn adlı eseri tanıtılmakta ve eserde ele alınan merfû‘ât konularıyla ilgili tartışmalar tespit edilerek değerlendirilmektedir.
el-Halebî, Halep’te doğmuş daha sonra Mısır’a yerleşmiş, hayatının sonuna kadar orada kalmış ve daha çok dil ilimlerinde öne çıkmış bir âlimdir. Onun ed-Durru’l-masûn adlı eseri, sarf, nahiv, lügat ve belâğat ilimleri açısından Kur’ân ayetlerini açıklayan bir tefsirdir. Eser, söz konusu ilimlerin yanında kıraatler ve lehçeler açısından da önemli açıklamaları ihtiva etmektedir.  el-Bahru’l-muhît, el-Keşşâf, el-Muharraru’l-vecîz ve el-İmlâ gibi eserler, onun en çok yararlandığı kaynaklar arasındadır. ed-Durru’l-masûn’da nahiv ilmi ile ilgili açıklamalar diğer ilimlere göre daha yoğun olarak yer almaktadır. Müellif bu ilimle ilgili açıklamalarda bulunurken birçok tartışmalı meseleye değinmektedir. Bu tartışmalarda müellif, farklı görüşleri bir araya getirmekte, onları bir eleştiri süzgecinden geçirmekte ve kendi tercihini belirtmektedir. Tercih ettiği görüşü desteklemek için semâ ve kıyasa müracaat etmektedir.  Genellikle Basra ekolü ve cumhura ait görüşleri tercih etmekte, Kûfe ekolüne muvafakat ettiği görüşler azınlıkta kalmaktadır.

Ibrāhīm bin Hasan al-Kūrānī is one of the famous scholars of Islam world. He was an author in many areas such as Islamic law, hadith (the Prophet Mohammad's sayings), language and literature. al-Kūrānī who gave lessons in al-Masjīd al-Nabawī in Medina over the years and was the sheikh of several cults gave lessons to many students and then his views which have been still discussed have been disseminated by the students across the world. al-Kūrānī wrote three books on syntax and morphology sentence " lā ilāha illāllāh/There is no god but Allah ". His work called " Inbāh al-Anbāh 'alā Tahqīq I'rāb Lā Ilāha Illāllāh " is the most extensive one of them. As in the other books he wrote on this subject, al-Kūrānī analyzes kalimah al-tawhīd as syntax and conjugation/morphological in terms of Arabic language and considers the discussions on this subject in this work.

el-Halebî, Halep’te doğmuş ve Mısır’a yerleşip oradaki meşhur âlimlerden ders alarak
yetişmiş bir âlimdir. Mısır’da İbn Tolun ve İmam Şâfi‘î camilerinde kıraat ve nahiv
dersleri okutmuş, kadılığa niyâbet etmiş, nahiv, sarf, belağât, tefsir ve kıraat ilimlerinde
döneminin meşhur âlimleri arasına girmiştir. Bu çalışma onun hayatını ve ilmî yönünü
ayrıntılı olarak ortaya koymayı ve böylece onu ilim dünyasına daha iyi tanıtmayı hedeflemektedir.

According to the majority of linguists, case markers at the end of a declinable word, which could be of vowel, letter or elision type, are indicators of meaning. In other words according to the general acceptance, the iʿrāb signs at the end of words help one to understand the function of a given word in a sentence. Knowing the functions of the words of a sentence in turn enables the sentence to be understood correctly. Although there are those who say that iʿrāb signs at the end of the words do not have anything to do with the function of words in a sentence, and that they only function to facilitate the transition between words, this view was not accepted by the majority. For this reason, thisarticle examines the iʿrāb-meaning within the scope of the prevailing attitude of naḥw scholars and Quranic exegetes. The majority of linguists accept that iʿrāb is an indicator of meaning. For this reason, explanations of iʿrāb, which are frequently used in Quranic commentaries, are aimed at understanding the sentences in the verses more accurately. The fact that Abū al-Aswad al-Duʾalīput vowel marks on certain words of the Quran was to facilitate the correct reading of the Quran and prevent a wrong vowel mark from causing any misunderstanding. Therefore, the close relationship between iʿrāb and meaning is clearly emphasized in naḥw books. Although it is stated as a general rule that iʿrāb is key in desciphering the meaning, there are cases where this general rule does not hold. This happens when there is a discrepancy between an iʿrāb sign at the end of a givenword and its meaning. Such situations are considered by naḥw scholars as qurb al-jiwār. According to this exception, a word does not take the iʿrāb indicator appropriate to its position in sentence and instead takes the same iʿrāb indicator of the previous word so as to be in harmony with it. The purpose of this is to prevent any disruption to the phonetic flow of the sentence rather than to function as an indicator of meaning. In fact, this phonetic harmony is not only limited to the iʿrāb at the end of words. In order to ensure harmony within a word, changes can be made in morphology of the word in question. This stems from the importance Arabs attach to the harmony of both intra-word and inter-word vowels, despite its contradiction to the rules of morphology and syntax. As a matter of fact, this kind of reading provides a sense of cohesion in terms of both ease of pronunciation and correspondence. In this article, I claim that the iʿrāb signs is not always a sign that reveals the meanings in the verses of the Qurʾān. In the light of this view, some of the verses of the Qurʾān comprise case endings that are contrary to the meaning for the sake of phonetic harmony, just as is the case in the current usage in Arabic language. This situation shows that besides the literary arts related tomeaning, those which are related to phonetic arts also constitute important literary aspects of the Qurʾān. The approaches of the Qurʾānic commentators towards the verses in which this feature, which is expressed as qurb al-jiwār in Naḥw, is found differ from each other. On the basis of these different approaches, the relevant narrations, syntax school, etc. that the commentators have generally considered matters are included. In fact, given that they lead to no confusion, irregularities contrary to the established grammar rules are tolerated. For this reason, qurb al-jiwār is used in the absence of ambiguity even though it is contrary to iʿrāb al-naḥwī. Unlike the Basran Grammarians, who regard qurb al-jiwār as a mere use, the Kufan Grammarians made the issue a regular grammar rule and used it as the basis for the jussiveness of apodosis of conditional clauses. Although qurb al-jiwār is accepted as a usage both in the Arabic language and the Quran by the majority of grammarians, there are differences of opinion in terms of the place of its use. While there is no clarity on this subject among the early grammarians, according to the general of late naḥw scholars, the issue of qurb al-jiwār is reserved for noun-adjective, corroborating-corroborated and connective explanation. However, it is controversial whether or not the qurb al-jiwār can be used in connectives. While in the early periods when controversies arose for the first time, qurb al-jiwār was generally unacceptable, in later periods it started to became more widely accepted. Extrapolating a theoretical framework for the issue based on primary classical sources on Naḥw constitutes a core methodology used in this work. According to the theoretical framework thus put forward, the discussions about the verses that are the subject of the iʿrāb of vicinity in the primary tafsīr sources from the first period to the present have been examined from an analysis-semantic perspective.

Iʿrāb is a phenomenon which has carried on its importance since the beginning of codification activities on Arabic language and Islamic sciences. For this reason, it has been one of the basic elements taken as a foundation for most of the Islamic sciences. Iʿrāb is a part of tafsīr, which is one of these sciences and whose primary purpose is to contribute understanding the Qur’ān. As a matter of fact, it is possible to speak about a truly conducted tafsīr only by pursuing the qualities that a language has in the strict sense. One of the most obvious qualities of the Arabic language related to tafsīr is iʿrāb. Therefore, iʿrāb takes an important place in the mufassirs’ (interpreters) methodology of tafsīr. Bayḍāwī, who is one of the mufassirs giving remarkable coverage to iʿrāb in their tafsīrs, is a mufassir who is widely respected in the Islamic world and especially in the eyes of Ottoman scholars. Hence, his tafsīr has been subject to many other studies in terms of some aspects such as sharḥ, hashiya, abbreviations etc. Furthermore, some of the other tafsīr books have been written using this tafsīr as the base.  In this study, the tafsīrs of the two interpreters, Bayḍāwī and Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī – an Ottoman period mufassir – are compared in terms of their approach to iʿrāb. It is understood that the source of most of Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī’s opinions on iʿrāb was Bayḍāwī and that Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī preferred to summarize, explain and comment on Bayḍāwī’s ideas on the subjects he agreed. However, in some cases, he disagreed with Bayḍāwī’s opinions in a manner that shows his competence in the language and especially in iʿrāb. In this case, he supported his opinions with the opinions of other mufassirs, al-Zamakhshari, al-Rāzī and Abū Ḥayyān being in the first place. In this study which makes a comparative analysis of the opinions of two mufassirs based on some examples, apart from the books of these two mufassirs, the books of other mentioned mufassirs, in whose tafsīrs the subject of iʿrāb holds an important place and is analyzed as part of the topic.

Summary: Iʿrāb means explanation and specification. It functions through the rules by which edits the signs at the end of words in the Arabic language and makes them connect with each other, and thus it determines their values of meaning. Hence, in a sentence iʿrāb has a role which -by removing ambiguity- helps reveal the elegant meanings, and makes it easier to understand the deep meanings of the statement. Therefore, iʿrāb has always been one of the most fundamental properties that Arab linguists hold to as well as other scholars who work in fields where the qualities of language are looked after, such as ḥadīth, fiqh and kalām, and write books. In the tafsīr of the Qur’ān, iʿrāb has been one of the leading factors. Hence, the basic dynamic for the establishment of iʿrāb rules is to keep the Qur’ān safe from the misreading called lahn. The mufassirs (commentators) have greatly benefited from iʿrāb in understanding the Qur’ān as well. One of the scholars who benefit from iʿrāb in understanding the Qur’ān is the famous mufassir  ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad al-Bayḍāwī (d. 685/1286) in his work Tafsīr al- Bayḍāwī which is also known as Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Ta'wīl. This book is a tafsīr which has gained wide acceptance in the scholar circles.  Another scholar to use iʿrāb frequently like Bayḍāwī in his tafsīr is Muḥammad b. Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī (d. 1202/1788) who is also known as Göğsügür Lütfullah Efendi. The title of Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī’s tafsīr, who is one of the Ottoman period scholars and wrote books in various fields, is Rāmūzu't-Tahrīr ve't-Tafsīr. As this tafsīr gives wide coverage to the properties of language and iʿrāb, it is also possible to be called a lugawī tafsīr. The commentator mostly preferred to explain Bayḍāwī’s opinions as well as benefiting from his opinions on iʿrāb. In addition to this, he benefited from the opinions of other mufassirs such as al-Zamakhshari, al-Rāzī and Abū Ḥayyān and many others for the subjects related to iʿrāb.


In this study, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Ta'wīl by Bayḍāwī and Rāmūzu't-Tahrīr ve't-Tafsīr by Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī are compared in terms of their approach to iʿrāb. The determinant for choosing these two tafsīrs is that the way these books approach iʿrāb show similarities. The aim of this study, which comparatively analyzes the subject through some examples, is to determine the quality of the relationship in terms of their evaluating iʿrāb by determining the approach of these two mufassirs to iʿrāb in understanding the Qur’ān verses. Another aim of this study is to analyze the evaluations of Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī, who lived later than Bayḍāwī, on the subjects he thought similarly or he disagreed.  At this point, the subject, which is analyzed through examples of iʿrāb in both works, is discussed comparatively with the opinions of al-Zamakhshari, al-Rāzī, Abū Ḥayyān and other mufassirs who gave wide coverage to iʿrāb in their works.

The two scholars, whose opinions on iʿrāb are analyzed in this study, undoubtedly have been the subject of many other studies with their various aspects. Over the years, there are more and more studies on Bayḍāwī who gains more and more reputation and whose works draw more attention. Related to our subject some studies analyze the way he used iʿrāb in interpreting the method in his tafsīr and verses of the Qur’ān. However, this study, unlike previous ones, discusses the way Bayḍāwī and Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī, who lived later than him, used iʿrāb in their tafsīrs rather than explaining the method in Bayḍāwī’s tafsīr and how he used the properties of language and iʿrāb in tafsīr. On the other hand, though Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī was not studied as much as Bayḍāwī, it is seen that some of his works have been the subject of various studies. Some studies analyze his works in terms of language. However, this study, by making a comparison of the opinions of these two writers on this subject, tries to present the subjects that Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī agreed or disagreed with Bayḍāwī in his tafsīr book when he appealed to Bayḍāwī’s opinion on iʿrāb and the sources of the opinion differences between them as well as evaluating Bayḍāwī’s approach to ʾiʿrāb. In addition, this study aims to evaluate by determining which forms Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī used from quoting, explaining or referencing in points about which he had the same idea as Bayḍāwī. On the other hand, it is tried to be determined for the subjects he disagreed with Bayḍāwī whether it was the writer’s own opinion or it was opting for one over another after evaluating the opinions of previous scholars.



About the approaching styles to subjects related to iʿrāb in the two works that are the subjects of this study, these conclusions have been reached: Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī mostly agreed with the opinions of Bayḍāwī. Although he preferred to summarize most of Bayḍāwī’s opinions, he felt the need to make explanations in some cases. More examples for this subject, about which some examples are given in the study, can be given from the works of both writers. For the subjects he disagreed, Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī presented some other opinions in other tafsīrs he considered more to the point. For the subjects he disagreed with Bayḍāwī, he primarily benefited from the Al-Kashshāf by al-Zamakhshari, Mafātihu'l Ghayb by al-Rāzī, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ by Abū Ḥayyān and from different opinions related to iʿrāb in other tafsīrs. In some of the opinions, he neither agreed with Bayḍāwī nor with other mufassirs and he stated his own opinion. These evaluations on iʿrāb have been able to appear in the form of valuing one opinion above any other that has an obvious effect in determining the meaning as they can be from a writer who has never been mentioned previously. Lutfullāh al-Ardurūmī justified it when he agreed with Bayḍāwī’s opinions by presenting various evidence. This shows us that the role of mufassirs who follow the previous ones is not only to summarize and gloss them but on the contrary they have some methods, evaluations and criterion special to themselves. On the other hand, these results obtained by comparing the two works that are the subjects of this study show us that although the accumulation of knowledge and compilations left by the previous scholars to the later ones are abundant in either language or other fields, a group of conclusions that were not reached by them can be reached by the later ones as a result of extensive evaluations and researches.