Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi

Öz

In the history of İslāmic thought, Māturīdī is a famous scholar both in
the field of kalām and tafsir. Being approved by Māturīdī, the distinction of
tafsir and ta’wīl, which makes possible to take the comments made about the
verses into sistematic framework, is quite important. There is an important
information both about content of the distinction approved by Māturīdī and the
main reasons that necessiated this distinction in the introduction of
Samarqandī’s Sharh at Ta’wīlāt. From this information, it is understood
that the distinction of tafsir and ta’wīl had dated back to older time than
Māturīdī and previous scholars dealed with the problem that necessiated this
distinction and Māturīdī inherited this distinction from his predecessors.
Information in the Sharh at Ta’wīlāt reveals that according to Māturīdī
the companions had made interpretation (ta’wīl)
in addition to tafsir and the explanations made by certain evidences is tafsir
too. Therefore this information gives us the opportunity flexing the acceptance
of the idea “tafsir, is dedicated to the companions, ta'wīl is dedicated to
fuqaha (jurists)” and asserting that companions and scholars made both tafsir
and ta’wīl. In this paper, we will research whether the distinction tafsir and
ta’wīl regarded by Māturīdī completely belonged to his or not and content of
the distinction and its reasons. We will also analyze this distinction
according to examples in the Ta’wîlāt.                   

Summary: An important distinction is
made between the concepts of tafsir and ta’wīl in the short preface of
Māturīdī's tafsir, and this distinction is particularly prominent in
contemporary tafsir studies. Because from the point of view of the value they
carry, the explanations for these differences and concepts express the
legitimacy of the following mufassirūn
(writers of a commentary on the Qur’an) to be able to perform tafsir, as well
as the value of the explanations found in tafsir literature in terms of
certainty. In Ta'wīlāt, tafsir is described as the precise determination
of what is intended. Determination of what is exactly intended in verse/wording
is bound to certainly know the conditions under which it was revealed. Because
they are the first to be addressed directly and they witnessed the context, the
tafsir is only for the companions (ṣaḥābah pl. aṣḥāb). On the other hand, ta’wīl is not a definite determination of what is
intended, but rather it is explained as putting the possibilities forward. In
this case, ta’wīl is dedicated to the scholars after the companions. When we look at the other tafsir sources that include his views, it can
be understood that this brief information in the preface of the tafsir which
survived to our day is partially incomplete. Samarqandī's Sharhu’t-ta'wīlāt
is the most important of these sources. According to the information here,
Māturīdī states that some scholars distinguish tafsir and ta’wīl from each
other. In these distinctions, tafsir is either described in relation to a
definitive statement or in relation to being familiar with the conditions of
revelation, while ta’wīl is described as extracting meanings from the verses
and making possible meanings without claiming certainty. These explanations
show that the distinction between tafsir and ta’wīl in Ta'wīlāt's
preface was mainly based on the period before Māturīdī. These statements, which
Māturīdī transmitted from some scholars in the beginning of Sharhu’t-ta'wīlāt,
were then transmitted by Omar al-Nasafī, Mahāyimī and Molla Husrev. In some
sources, it was also transmitted that similar explanations were made by
scholars such as an-Nadr b. Shumayl, al-Hussein b. Fadl al-Bacelī and Ibn
Durayd before Māturīdī.

Some explanations of Māturīdī in Ta'wīlāt enables the theory of
tafsir-ta’wīl to be understood at a wider level. When the examples are
examined, it is observed that Māturīdī exhibited two types of attitude against
the tafsir of the companions. He states that one of these is that if the
transmission is true, what is intended is exactly what is stated in the
narrated. The second is that he sometimes does not accept these explanations and
suggests additional opinions. The reason he refuses is that sometimes he does
not find the transmission reliable, and sometimes he thinks that companions
performed ta'wīl. If this is the case, the dedication of ta’wīl to those coming
later should not be absolutized. Because the companions can perform both tafsir
and ta’wīl. The examples in Ta'wīlāt clearly reveal what areas tafsir,
which is defined as a definite statement, covers. According to this, first,
tafsir is related to the field of “invisible” about the past and the future.
Secondly, its meaning and practice is only about the information of the
“statement” about the issues that can be revealed by the Prophet (pbuh). In the
third aspect, it is related to “revelation” information reporting the context
in which the verses descended.

In the beginning of Sharhu’t-ta'wīlāt, Māturīdī says that the
explanations made based on the definitive evidences such as mutawātir (repetition; narration reported by large number reporters) and ijmā (consensus) also fall under the category of tafsir. However,
it is also necessary to add intellectual evidence to these evidences. Because
intellectual evidence is also important in the epistemology of Māturīdī. In
fact, the truthfulness of nass (text)
is primarily based on intellectual evidence. First, the issues of theology are
proven by certain intellectual evidence, and then, on the basis of this, the
meanings expressed by the nass acquire the value of certainty and truthfulness.
With the definitive acceptance of reason in theology, what some nass express
confirm each other and are used as evidence in the process of interpretation.
Therefore, since some of the intellectual evidence, ijmā and mutawātir news
provide definitive information, explanations based on them are also seen as
tafsir. Considering the fact that the above-mentioned evidence was also used by
those coming after the companions, it can be concluded that tafsir can be
performed by not only the companions but also those coming after them. In this
case, it should be accepted that tafsir is not performed only by the
companions, and that the succeeding mufassirūn can also perform tafsir as well
as ta’wīl. When we look at the examples based on these evidence, there are two
different situations in Ta'wīlāt. The first is that Māturīdī sometimes
has views on evidence based on mutawātir and ijmā and sometimes suggests
different opinions from the assumptions that he said there was ijmā in
particular. Because these evidences are certain, it is understandable that he
remains bound to them. However, as a possible reason for his opposition to
ijmā, it can be said that he thinks only the following generations enter the
scope of ijmā. Because, according to Samarqandī, Māturīdī's objection to such information
does not seem possible, since ijmā of the companions in a matter is accepted.
Although he sometimes said that there was ijmā, the reason why no such ijmā was
mentioned in other tafsir sources and sometimes, it may be considered that he
did not respect other views in the face of ijmā as a reason for including
different views or it may be thought that he was unaware of the different views
that were transmitted. The second remarkable situation is that according to
Māturīdī, intellectual evidence, in particular, can reveal only the “knowledge
of existence” of the issues related to theology. Māturīdī thinks that their
nature cannot be certainly known, and that the explanations made regarding
their nature are only ta’wīl. For this reason, he firmly rejects the
interpretation of the khabarī attributes about Allah in accordance with the
idea of tashbīh and tajsīm (anthropomorphism).