Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi

Öz

The attitude of Mu‘tazila, which is considered the most rational sect of the Islamic tradition, towards isrāʾīliyyāt knowledge found in commentaries, especially within the framework of Qur’ānic stories, is intriguing. Although the attitude of some Mu‘tazilī commentators towards isrāʾīliyyāt is mentioned in some studies, the attitude of Mu‘tazila as a school has not been the subject of any research when it comes to criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt narrations. In fact, in recent studies on isrāʾīliyyāt, while it is said that the criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt can be traced back to names such as al-Ṭūsī, al-Māwardī and even al-Māturīdī before Ibn al-‘Arabi a reading is made entirely through Sunnī and Shīʿīte commentators and the views of Mu‘tazilī commentators are not included. Criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt was made by Mu‘tazilī names such as Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm (d. 200/816), Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303/916) and Abū Muslim al-Isfahānī (ö. 322/934), before Sunnī and Shīʿīte commentators such as al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058), al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067), Ibn al-‘Arabī (d. 543/148) and Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373). Even though they do not use the concept of isrāʾīliyyāt, they direct these criticisms sometimes to the source of the narrations and sometimes to their content, in other words, that they are contrary to Islam. Later Mu‘tazilī scholars systematically continued this criticism based on certain verses. In the present study the theoretical framework is drawn regarding the view of Israel by commentators such as as Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm, Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī, Abū Muslim al-Isfahānī, Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, al-Ḥākim al-D̲h̲us̲h̲amī (d. 494/1101) and al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144), who lived in the period from the 2nd century to the 6th century, and then the theoretical framework of these commentators is drawn. The attitude of the mentioned commentators towards different isrāʾīliyyāt narrations is evaluated with the descriptive analysis method. Additionally, reference is made to the approach of Sunnī commentators of the same period to these narrations. While discussing the Mu‘tazilī commentators' approach to isrāʾīliyyāt a distinction is made regarding different situations such as their rejection of these narrations, their quoting the isrāʾīliyyāt narrations without comment, prefer rational interpretation to isrāʾīliyyāt narrations, and their interpretation of the verses with isrāʾīliyyāt. Although Mu‘tazilī commentators quote many isrāʾīliyyāt narrations in their works, the first examples of critical approach in the interpretation of some problematic narrations, especially in the tafsīr tradition, are also in their commentaries. In this context, it has been concluded in the study that Mu‘tazilī commentators were pioneers in the criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt in the classical period, and that the criticism of some narrations about prophets and angels first started with them. It has also been pointed out that Sunni and Shiite commentators such as al-Māturīdī, al-Māwardī, and al-Ṭūsī make references to Mu‘tazilī names in some places while criticizing the mentioned narrations. Finally, although Mu‘tazilī commentators do not make a systematic criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt, they define the narrations in question as "Jewish fabrications and originating from the Torah". This reveals that although their reference points were their own theological understanding, they also criticized the narrations in terms of their sources. As a matter of fact, while Ibn Kathīr, a systematic isrāʾīliyyāt critic, rejects some narrations that are incompatible with the name of the Prophets without including them in his commentary, he quotes some isrāʾīliyyāt narrations that depict miraculous events in an exaggerated way without commenting. Therefore, it is a noteworthy attitude that Mu‘tazilī figures were critical of isrāʾīliyyāt narrations that were incompatible with the Islamic faith in the early period and did not take them into consideration.