English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Although Islamic thought tradition is a whole, scientific disciplines such as Tafsīr, Kalām, Fiqh, Hadith are classified separately. More specifically, the tradition of Tafsīr was evaluated under two titles, dirāyah and narration. This distinction has its roots up to ten centuries ago, and it still exists today. However, some researchers have stated that this distinction is problematic. For example, the criteria for the definition of narration run counter to those of Tabarī. Because he made choices among narrations, discussed issues of Fiqh and Kalām, and used the catechetical method. When these situations are taken into consideration, it should be said that he is not a mufassir of the people of narration but of the dirāyah. Otherwise, Tabarī and Ibn Abī Hātim would be accepted as the same. This would cause other problems. Because he made a comment about which narration might be right among the narrations he conveyed. Ibn Abī Hātim conveyed the narration only. In this case, it would be wrong to evaluate both mufassirs / commentators within the same scope. One is a scholar in the field of dirāyah, and the other is a scholar in the field of narration. However, to say that Tabarī and al-Māturīdī are scholars of the same level of dirāyah would cause confusion. Because there are important differences between the two commentators. The most important of these is the effect of their tradition: Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Raʿy. The distinction between Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Raʿy was linked to Fiqh in the first place. However, some researchers did not find it correct to reduce the classification only to the field of Fiqh. Because these two schools attract attention with their unique structures of thought in the theological field. Therefore, it is possible to think that these two schools, which are associated with both Fiqh and Kalām, affect the Tafsīr field. Because if viewed from a wide perspective, the main criteria of the schools of Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Raʿy correspond to the interpretation of Tabarī and al-Māturīdī. Indeed, according to the Ahl al-Hadith criteria, the first period scholars’ words are taken as basis. Opinions would not be expressed in contrast to them. Of course, it is essential that the early scholars should not be of the Ahl al- bid‘ah /People of heresy. Otherwise, the words of the scholars would not be respected. If the narrations coming from them contradict each other, various criteria are taken as basis to understand which of the narrations is correct: For example, the narration which is the closest to the Qur’anic verses in literal consideration is considered correct. In addition, narrations conveyed in greater numbers are superior to those in fewer numbers. On the other hand, verses concerning recondite matters such as the arrival of Allah are understood literally, but its real meaning is left to Allah. It is not likely to elaborate on issues related to Kalām. Also, philosophical issues would not touched. Ahl al-Raʿy, on the other hand, took a different attitude regarding the issues men- tioned. According to them, scholars of subsequent periods may also Express their opinions against those of the first period. Scholars’ statements must be taken into account, not their identities. So isnād is not of primary importance. Narrations are submitted for the Qur’an’s appraisal. The narration that matches the purpose of the Qur’an is considered correct. Narrations which are against the Qur’an, the mind and the mainstream are not accepted. It does not matter to whom these narrations are attributed. If it’s the literal meaning that should be taken into account in the interpretation of the Qur’an, so it happens. If it is of the bāṭini kind that should be taken into account, then it is done so. However, it is decided which of these two will be taken into consideration by examining the entire Qur’an. Verses such as Allah’s arrival and passage are interpreted. It should also be touched on the issues regarding Kalām. Finally, the information contained in the philosophical works is presented to the Qur’an. However, information contrary to the Qur’an is rejected. Obviously, it is possible to see these criteria separately in each of Tabarī and alMāturīdī’s tafsīrs. Tabarī accepted the rule that it is not correct to make a statement against those of the early scholars, although he said from time to time that he had different thoughts, he insistently stated that he accepted the thoughts of the previous ones and picked out of narrations. The criterion that he pays most attention in his choice is that the narration fits the verse apparently. He also paid much attention to convey the narration with its chain of conveyors (sanad). He understood khabarī attributes literally, but left how would they happen to Allah.

TABERÎ VE MÂTÜRÎDÎ’DEN HAREKETLE FARKLI BİR TASNİF DENEMESİ: EHL-İ HADÎS - EHL-İ RE’Y TEFSİRLERİ