Search

Although al-Maturidi's work called Ta'wilat al-Qur'an has been distinguished as a commentary based on the diraya (opinion) method, it contains a significant amount of exegetical knowledge of the first three centuries of Hijra. Moreover, a part of this exegetical acquis, which also forms al-Maturidi's reference sources, is original when compared to the sources of the commentaries such as al-Tabari and Ibn Abi Hatim. Some of the exegetical knowledge transmitted by him are not found in other sources. As a matter of fact, a comparative analysis of Ta'wilat al-Qur'an with the commentaries of the same period and before enables one to determine its original sources. This may be attributed to the fact that the scholarly culture in the Transoxiana region and the works in circulation there differ in certain points from the scientific milieu in the principal science centers such as Baghdad, Basra, and Kufa. For instance, Abu Muadh al-Nahwi (d. 211/826) is one of the scholars whose views are cited in Ta'wilat al-Qur'an. Hailing from Merv, he is known as a mufassir, linguist, reciter, and narrator. Narrating from Abu Hanifa, Abdullah b. Mubarak and Ubaid b. Sulaiman, he is regarded among the trustworthy narrators. As we determine, around 140 views of Abu Muadh in the fields of tafsir and recitation (qiraat) have survived in various sources, mostly exegetical works. However, half of his views are not included in any other work than Ta'wilat al-Qur'an. Thus, it attains a unique position in ascertaining the exegetical knowledge of the first three centuries of Hijra. Abu Muadh's statements cited in Ta'wilat are mainly related to linguistic tafsir and recitation. This confirms the information about the existence of Abu Muadh's works, Ma'ani al-Qur'an, which Ibn al-Nadim states that he authored, and Kitab al-Qiraat, which Katib Chalabi mentions as his book. However, according to our findings, these books have not survived to the present day. As we examine the statements of Abu Muadh in Ta'wilat in detail, it is seen that aspects such as the meanings of some words as used in Arabic, their roots, patterns, and grammatical features are at the forefront. The meanings assigned to the words of the Qur'an are proved by Arabic sayings and Qur'anic verses. Abu Muadh touches upon the sahih (authentic) and shadh recitations and explains the differences in meaning arising from the difference in recitation. Among the opinions cited by al-Maturidi from Abu Muadh, his objections to Muqatil b. Suleiman draw attention. In the said objections, Abu Muadh criticizes Muqatil for not having theological sensitivity and not observing the context. One of the remarkable points here is that some of the issues that Abu Muadh criticizes do not appear in Muqatil's exegesis, which is available today. This, on the one hand, brings up different versions of Muqatil's commentary, and on the other hand, increases the value of the narration (riwaya) content of Ta'wilat al-Qur'an. In addition, in the references of al-Maturidi, it is seen that Abu Muadh also cites the views of the first-era mufassirs such as Mujahid, Muqatil b. Suleiman, and Kisai. In the final analysis, the fact that al-Maturidi makes numerous references to Abu Muadh may be considered a proof of that he was accepted as a respected linguist, mufassir, and reciter whose works had been widely read in the geography of Transoxiana. The fact that Abu Muadh's views cited by al-Maturidi are not found in the sources before and after al-Maturidi strengthens the possibility of that al-Maturidi saw the works of Abu Muadh personally. It may also be seen as an indication that the narration aspect of Ta'wilat al-Qur'an is neglected by the later exegetical literature. Muâz'ın, Mâtürîdî'nin Te'vîlâtü'l-Kur'ân'ında nakledilen tefsir ve kıraatle ilgili görüşleri incelenmiştir. Çalışmada Te'vîlâtü'l-Kur'ân'ın ilk üç asrın tefsir birikiminin geleceğe aktarımına katkısı vurgulanarak hem Mâtürîdî hem de Ebû Muâz özelinde tefsir tarihi araştırmalarına katkı sağlamak amaçlanmaktadır. Ebû Muâz'a Te'vîlâtü'l- Kur'ân'da nispet edilen görüşler henüz müstakil bir araştırmaya konu olmamıştır. Nitel bir araştırma olan bu makalede dokümantasyon analizi yöntemi takip edilmekte, ilgili eserler tasvirî bir yöntemle karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmektedir. Ebû Muâz'ın Te'vîlât'ta nakledilen beyanları ekseriyetle dilbilimsel tefsir ve kıraatle ilgilidir. Bu durum onun günümüze ulaşmayan Meâni'l-Kur'ân ve Kitâbü'l-Kırâât adlı eserlerinin varlığına dair bilgileri de teyit etmektedir. Zira İbnü'n-Nedîm onun bir Meâni'l-Kur'ân telif ettiğini belirtirken, Kâtib Çelebi de Kitâbü'l-Kırâât isimli bir eserinden bahsetmiştir. Ne var ki bugünkü tespitlerimize göre bu eserler elimizde mevcut değildir. Ebû Muâz'ın Mâtürîdî tarafından Te'vîlâtü'l-Kur'ân'da yer verilen açıklamalarına ayrıntılı olarak bakıldığında bazı sözcüklerin manaları, morfolojik yapıları; cümle içerisinde kazandıkları sözdizimsel özellikleri gibi hususların ön planda olduğu görülür. Ayrıca bu açıklamalar, şiir, Arapların genel kullanımları ve bir diğer âyet ile delillendirilmiştir. Ebû Muâz, sahih ve şaz kıraatlere değinmiş, kıraat farkından kaynaklanan anlam farklılıklarını izah etmiştir. Mâtürîdî'nin Ebû Muâz'dan naklettiği görüşler içinde Mukâtil b. Süleymân'a yöneltilen itirazlar da dikkat çeker. Ebû Muâz, ilgili açıklamalarında Mukâtil'e kabir azabının delillendirilmesi noktasında Cehmiyye'nin iddialarına karşı dakik olmama ve bağlama riayet etmeme gibi eleştiriler yöneltmiştir. Burada dikkat çeken noktalardan birisi ise Ebû Muâz'ın eleştirdiği bazı hususların Mukâtil'in bugün elimizdeki tefsirinde yer almıyor oluşudur. Bu ise bir taraftan Mukâtil'in tefsirinin farklı versiyonlarını gündeme getirmekte bir taraftan da Te'vîlâtü'l-Kur'ân'ın rivayet içeriğinin değerini artırmaktadır. Yine Mâtürîdî'nin atıflarında Ebû Muâz'ın Mücâhid, Mukâtil ve Kisâî gibi ilk dönem müfessirlerinin görüşlerini de naklettiği görülmektedir. Son tahlilde Mâtürîdî'nin Ebû Muâz'a çok sayıda atıf yapması onun Mâverâünnehir coğrafyasında eserleri okunup görüşlerine itibar edilen bir dil, tefsir ve kıraat âlimi olarak kabul edildiğine dayanak kabul edilebilir. Ebû Muâz'ın Mâtürîdî tarafından yer verilen görüşlerine Mâtürîdî öncesi ve sonrası kaynaklarda rastlanmaması ise Mâtürîdî'nin Ebû Muâz'ın eserlerini bizzat görme ihtimalini kuvvetlendirdiği gibi Te'vîlâtü'l-Kur'ân'ın bu özgün rivayet yönünün sonraki dönem tefsir literatürünce ihmal edildiğinin göstergelerinden sayılabilir. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Tasavvur: Tekirdag Theology Journal / Tekirdag Ilahiyat Dergisi is the property of Namik Kemal University, Faculty of Theology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the article, the workshop named "Imām Māturīdī as a Commentator" which had been held in Sakarya/Turkey on the 11th and 12th of June 2022 has been introduced and evaluated. In this workshop, it can be said that the progress had been made in the way of determining the original place of Ta'wīlāt al-Qur'ān written by Māturīdi in the history of tafsīr. However, as such interpretations have been examined and detailed, both the position of the science of tafsīr in the history of Islamic scienceculture and the function of a tafsīr in particular will be clarified. There is no doubt that this scientific meeting will open the door a little more and shed light on the researchers who will do scientific work. There is no doubt that this scientific meeting opens the door a little more and sheds light on those who will do scientific work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within the framework of today‟s human rights conceptions, the punishment envisaged by Islamic law for the thief has been found severe and the word “cut off hand” (hadd) in the relevant verse has been interpreted in different ways. However, it has been observed that these ta‟wīls (interpretations) that may constitute a source for these ta‟wīls are not included in the literature. In this context, in this study, the approaches of Imam al-Māturīdī, one of the leading commentators and jurists of the Samarkand shyakhs, and al- Jassās, one of the prominent names of the Iraqi shyakhs, are discussed. There are partial differences in usūl and furū between the legal traditions to which both authors belong. Imam al-Māturīdī has expressed his view on the hadd of theft within the framework of his methodical thought. He argues that since there is doubt about the meaning of ām words, there needs to be an evidence showing that they refer to a general or a particular meaning. However, he argues that the name "thief" in the 38th verse of the chapter of al-Mā‟idah, which regulates the crime of theft, is ām, on the other hand, the act of stealing is not of this nature and is hās (particular). Accordingly, every thief should be punished with hadd. However, not every act of theft can be punished in this way. As a matter of fact, in the verse, the value of the stolen property required for the punishment of theft to be applied, the hirz (protected area), from whom it was stolen, etc. terms are not disclosed. The determination of these is left to the mujtahids. Imam al-Māturīdī implies that the nisāb (quorum) in theft may vary in different times and geographies, based on the fact that the Sahābī and Tābi‟ūn disagreed on the value of the stolen property and made their own determinations. Al-Jassās also states that the verse refers to the general, but he is on the opinion that the crime of stealing is closed in the rukn (its conditions). It is seen that Imam al-Māturīdī and al-Jassās did not go beyond the opinions of the founding imams in their ijtihad and preferences on the provisions of theft. However, both authors put forward their own preferences on the disputed issues. In addition, both commentators gave place to the views of the Sahābī and Tābi‟ūn while dealing with the subjects. al-Jassās, acting on the views of Iraqi jurists, sometimes gave the views of jurists outside the Hanafī tradition, such as Imam Shāfī. Imam al- Māturīdī, on the other hand, while giving place to the opinions of the founding imams in the commentary of the verses containing judgment in general, did not mention their views on theft. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Kur’ân-ı Kerîm’in muhafazasına, tefsir ve teviline yönelik oluşturulan Ulûmü’l-Kur’ân’ın en önemlilerinden biri nesihtir. Birçok akademik çalışmaya konu olan ve hemen her bir müfessirin dikkate aldığı nesh, aynı zamanda İslamî ilimlerin de ortak kadim meselelerindendir. Bu makalede, Mâtürîdî’nin (ö. 333/944) Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’ân’ı ile Zemahşerî’nin (ö. 538/1144) Keşşâf’ı, nesh meselesini ele alış biçimleri mukayese edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Yapılan çalışma sonucu iki eserde de nesh konusuna yeterince yer verildiği, meselenin genel yönleriyle ele alınıp irdelendiği görülmüştür. İki müfessir de bir taraftan konuyla ilgili geleneksel ilmî mirası dikkate alırken diğer taraftan konu hakkındaki dirayetlerini ortaya koymuşlardır. Neshe dair genel anlamda yakın bir duruş sergilemekle beraber iki müfessirin rivayetleri değerlendirme ve özellikle neshe dayanak teşkil eden kaynaklar hususunda birbirinden farklı ve iç bütünlüklü bir bakış açısı ortaya koydukları görülmüştür.

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Religious Education Studies / Türkiye Din Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi is the property of Turkish Journal of Religious Education Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zbornik radova Fakulteta islamskih nauka u Sarajevu is the property of Zbornik radova Fakulteta islamskih nauka u Sarajevu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of the Faculty of Theology / Kilis 7 Aralik Universitesi Ilahiyat Fakultesi Dergisi is the property of Kilis 7 Aralik Universitesi Ilahiyat Fakultesi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Artuklu Akademi is the property of Artuklu Akademi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The polytheists of Mecca have different social structures, faith and beliefs. The Qur'an has given the news about them mostly by way of narratives. So different behaviors and thoughts of the polytheists have been melted in a single pot. The verses were read and understood as atomic and literal when this stylistic feature didn’t draw enough attention. Consequently, it has made it difficult for us to conceive the basis of the thoughts and behaviors of these Mecca pagans. al- Māturīdī (d. 333/944) had considered the style of the Qur'an and read it with a holistic eye. He also pointed out that the Meccans were in different structures and that their thought systems were different from each other. Although Māturīdī did not neglect the reports about them, by concentrating on the human nature he had done different readings apart from the tradition on the Meccans. He dealt with how the Meccans set up their rejection about the afterlife, the tawḥīd, and the prophets. This article tries to read the Mecca polytheists with Māturīdī’s eyes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Taʾwīlāt ahl al-sunna of al-Māturīdī, an exegete contemporaneous with al-Ṭabarī, is now available in three editions; we have no excuse for not consulting it. But the issue is not merely a matter of inspecting yet another of the Qur'an commentaries available. Rather, as will become apparent in this article, we have in the work of al-Māturīdī a fundamental early work that will revolutionise how we understand the development of the genre of tafsīr in medieval Islam. Recognising the central significance of the Taʾwīlāt will allow us to incorporate it as a major source alongside al-Ṭabarī, and will have profound implications for how we have been studying al-Ṭabarī and tafsīr as a whole. Tafsīr seen through the Taʾwīlāt al-Qurʾān looks different; it was pursued differently and speaks to a manner of doing tafsīr that al-Ṭabarī pretended did not exist. Al-Ṭabarī's work must be read alongside al-Māturīdī's: only then will we be able to fully grasp the significance of what al-Ṭabarī achieved. When read in this light, al-Ṭabarī is shown to be far more ideological, far more radical in his work, than we have hitherto realised. He was not gathering the Sunnī collective memory so much as reshaping it. Therefore, his work should be regarded as a representative of one particular type of tafsīr activity, rather than as the epitome of mainstream Sunnī Qur'an interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]