Tafsir-Ta’wil Distinction of Maturidi and an Evaluation of Its Practical Value in Ta’wilat

Abstract

In the history of Islamic thought, Maturidi is a famous scholar both in the field of kalam and tafsir. Being approved by Maturidi, the distinction of tafsir and ta'wil, 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 Maturidi and the main reasons that necessiated this distinction in the introduction of Samarciandrs Sharh at Ta 'midi-. From this information, it is understood that the distinction of tafsir and ta'wil had dated back to older time than Maturidi and previous scholars dealed with the problem that necessiated this distinction and Maturidi inherited this distinction from his predecessors. Information in the Sharh at Ta 'wilatreveals that according to MaturIdithe companions had made interpretation (ta'wfl) 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'wil is dedicated to fuqaha (jurists)" and asserting that companions and scholars made both tafsir and ta'wil. In this paper, we will research whether the distinction tafsir and ta'wil regarded by Maturidi 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'wilat.Summary: An important distinction is made between the concepts of tafsir and ta'wil in the short preface of Maturldrs 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 mu fa ssiran (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 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 (sahabah pl. ashab). On the other hand, ta'wil is not a definite determination of what is intended, but rather it is explained as putting the possibilities forward. In this case, ta'wil 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. Samarciandrs Sharhu't-ta is the most important of these sources. According to the information here, Maturidi states that some scholars distinguish tafsir and ta'wil 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'wil 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'wil in Ta 'wflaf s preface was mainly based on the period before Maturidi. These statements, which Maturidi transmitted from some scholars in the beginning of Sharhu't-ta 'midi-, were then transmitted by Omar al-Nasafi, Mahayimi 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-Baceli and Ibn Durayd before Maturidi.Some explanations of Maturidi in Ta 'wilatenables the theory of tafsir-ta'wil to be understood at a wider level. When the examples are examined, it is observed that Maturidi 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'wil. If this is the case, the dedication of ta'wil to those coming later should not be absolutized. Because the companions can perform both tafsir and ta'wil. The examples in Ta 'wilatclearly 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'wflat, Maturidi says that the explanations made based on the definitive evidences such as mutawatir (repetition; narration reported by large number reporters) and ijma (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 MaturIdI. 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, ijma and mutawatir 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 mufassirun can also perform tafsir as well as ta'wil. When we look at the examples based on these evidence, there are two different situations in Ta'wilat. The first is that Maturidi sometimes has views on evidence based on mutawatir and ijma and sometimes suggests different opinions from the assumptions that he said there was ijma 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 ijma, it can be said that he thinks only the following generations enter the scope of ijma. Because, according to Samarciandi, Maturldrs objection to such information does not seem possible, since ijma of the companions in a matter is accepted. Although he sometimes said that there was ijma, the reason why no such ijma was mentioned in other tafsir sources and sometimes, it may be considered that he did not respect other views in the face of ijma 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 Maturidi, intellectual evidence, in particular, can reveal only the "knowledge of existence" of the issues related to theology. Maturidi thinks that their nature cannot be certainly known, and that the explanations made regarding their nature are only ta'wil. For this reason, he firmly rejects the interpretation of the khabari attributes about Allah in accordance with the idea of tashbfh and tajsfm (anthropomorphism).