Mukatil b. Süleyman ve Antropomorfizm

Bu makale, Mukatil b. Süleyman hakkında yapılan antropomorfizm suçlamalarının doğruluğunu inceliyor. İlk dönem müfessirlerinden Mukâtil aşırı antropomorfizmi savunmakla itham edilmektedir. Hem Müslüman hem de batılı bilginlerin bu konudaki kanaatleri kesin gibidir. Ancak, Mukatil’in tefsirine çok önem verilen Batı’da onun Kuran'daki antropomorfik ifadeleri nasıl tefsir ettiğine dair sistematik bir çalışma ortaya konmamıştır. Bu makale, dikkatli bir okuma yapıldığında Mukatil’e kolayca aşırı antopomorfist etiketi yapıştırmanın zor olduğunu ortaya koyar. Çalışma, Mukatil’e antropomorfik görüşlerin atfedildiği kaynakları incelemenin yanı sıra, erken dönem kelamî tartışmaların ışığında, sözkonusu kaynakların güvenirliğini irdeler. Ayrıca iddiaların doğruluğunu Mukatil’e ait tefsir ile el-Eşbâh ve'n-nezâir isimli eserlerden sorgular.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Mukâtil, tefsir, teşbih, anthropomorfik ifadeler

Muqātil b. Sulaymān and Anthropomorphism

The purpose of this article is to examine whether the usual accusations of anthropomorphism against the early Qur’ānic commentator Muqātil b. Sulaymān are justified. Muqātil was a controversial figure, attacked by some and praised by others. Until recently he has been accused of promoting an extreme anthropomorphism. Both Muslim and Western scholars seem to take it for granted that Muqātil had a bad reputation for one thing because he was an anthropomorphist who had no qualms in assigning to God such human attributes as bodily parts. Even though recent Western scholarship on the Qur’ānic exegesis pays much attention to Muqātil’s tafsīr, there has not been a systematic study on his interpretation of the anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’ān. This article shows that a closer reading of his tafsīr presents a different picture. Muqātil put forth a complex view of the anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’ān, one that makes it difficult to simply label him an extreme anthropomorphist. In addition to examining the sources from which the anthropomorphic views were attributed to Muqātil, this article also questions the reliability of those sources in light of the theological contestation in early Islam.

Keywords:

Muqātil, tafsir, anthropomorphism, anthropomorphic expressions,

PDF

___

Abrahamov, Binyamin , “The Bi-lā Kayfa Doctrine and Its Foundations in Islamic Theology”, Arabica 42/3 (1995), ss. 365-379.
Abrahamov, Binyamin, “Introduction to Kitabu’l-Müsterşid”, E.J. Brill. Leiden-New York-Köln 1996.
Ahmed Alî Tâhâ Rammân, Mālik b. Enes İmâm dâri’l-hicre, Kahire 1987.
Ahmed Emin, Facru’l-İslâm, Kahire 1964. 
Askalânî, İbn Hacer, Tehzîbu’t-Tehzîb, Beyrut 1968.
Calder, Norman, “Tafsīr from Tabarī to Ibn Kathīr: Problems in the description of a genre, illustrated with the reference to the story of Abraham”, ed. GR Hawting and Abdul-Kader A Shareef, Approaches to the Qur’ān, London 1993.
Crone, Patricia, “A Note on Muqātil b. Ḥayyān and Muqātil b. Sulaymān” Der Islam, 74 (1997).
Dâvûdî, Muhammed b. Alî, Tabakâtü’l-müfessirîn, ed. Ali Muhammed Ömer, Kahire 1972.
Eş‘arî, Ebu’l-Hasen, Makâlâtü’l-İslâmiyyîn ve ihtilâfi’l-musallîn, ed. H. Ritter, Visbadin 1963.
Ferrâ, Ebû Ya‘lâ, Kitâbu’l-Mu‘temed fi usûli’l-dîn, ed. W.Z. Haddad, Beyrut 1974.
Forster, Regula, “Methoden arabischer Qur’ānexegese: Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, at-Ṭabarī und ‘Abdurrazzaq al-Qashani zu Q 53, 1-18”, ed. I.P. Michel and H. Weder, Sinnvermittlung: Studien zur Geschichte von Exegese und Hermeneutik, Zurih 2000.
Forster, Regula, Methoden Mittelalterlicher Arabischer Qur’ānexegese am Beispiel von Q 53, 1-18 , Berlin 2001.
Gilliot, Claude, “Exegesis of the Qur’ān: Classical and Medieval”, ed. Jane McAuliffe, The Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān.
Gilliot, Claude, “Muqātil, Grand Exégète, Traditionniste et Théologien Maudit,” Journal Asiatique, 279 (1991), ss. 39-92.
Hatîb el-Bağdâdî, Tarîhu’-l Bağdâd, Kahire 1931.
Himyârî, Naşvân b. Saîd, el-Hûru’l-‘în, ed. Kamal Mustafa, Mısır 1948.
İbn Hazm, Ali b. Ahmed b. Saîd b. Hazm el-Kurtubî, el-Fasl fi’l-milel ve’l-ahvâ ve’n -nihal, ed. Muhammed İbrâhîm Nasr ve Abdurrahman Umayrah, Cidde 1982. 
İbn Manzûr, Cemâlüddîn Muhammed b. Mükerrem, Lisânü’l -Arab , Beyrut 1956.
İbn Teymiyye, Takiyyüddîn Ahmed b. Abdilhalîm, Minhâcü’s - sünneti’n-nebeviyye, ed. Dr. Muhammed Reşad Sâlim, Saudi Arabia 1986.
Kister, M. J., “Ḥaddithū ‘an banī isrā’īla wa-la ḥaraja”, Israel Oriental Studies, 2 (1972), ss. 215-239.
Koç, Mehmet Akif, “A Comparison of the References to Muqātil b. Sulaymān (150/767) in the Exegesis of Tha‘labī (427/1036) with Muqātil’s own Exegesis,” Journal of Semitic Studies, 53 (2008), ss. 69-101.
Mağrâvî, Muhammed b. Abdurrahmân, el-Müfessirûn beyne’t-te’vîl ve’l-isbât fi âyâti’s-sıfât, Riyad 2003.
Makdisî, Mutahhar b. Tahir, Kitâbü’l-bad‘ ve’t-tarîh, Paris 1919.
Mizzî, Yusuf b. Abdurrahman, Tehzîbu’l-Kemâl fî esmâu’r-ricâl, ed. Dr. Bişar Avvâd Ma‘rûf, Beyrut 1992.
Mukatil b. Süleymân, el-Eşbâh ve’n-nezâ’ir fi’l-Kur’âni’l-Kerîm, Abdullah Mahmûd Şahhâta’nın yazdığı girişle birlikte, Kahire 1975.
Mukâtil b. Süleymân, Tefsîru Mukâtil b. Süleymân, ed. Abdullah Mahmûd Şahhâta, Kahire 1979.
Malatî, Abu’l-Hüseyin Muhammed b. Ahmed, et-Tenbîh ve’r-redd alâ ehli’l -ehvâ’ ve’l-bida‘, ed. Muhammed Zâhid b. Hasan el-Kevserî, Beyrut 1867.
Nickel, Gordon D., “Early Muslim Accusations of Tahrīf: Muqātil ibn Sulaymān’s Commentary on Key Qur’anic Verses”, The Bible in Arab Christianity, ed. David Thomas, Leiden 2007, ss. 207-223.
Nickel, Gordon D., “Muqātil bin Sulaimān on the Verses of ‘Tampering’,” Islamic Culture: an English Quarterly, 76 (2002), 1-25.
Nickel, Gordon D., The Theme of “Tampering with the Earlier Scriptures” in Early Commentaries on the Qur’ān, Doktora Tezi, University of Calgary 2004. 
Plessner, Martin, “Mukatil b. Sulaiyman”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. M.Th.Houtsma, vd., Leiden 1936.
Rippin, Andrew, “Interpreting the Bible through the Qur’ān, Approaches to the Qur’ān.
Şahhâta, Abdullah Mahmûd, Tafsīr Muqātil b. Sulaymān: Dirāsa wa Taḥqīq, Tefsirin 5. Cilt olarak yayınlanmıştır, Beyrut 1423/2002.
Şehristânî, Tâcüddîn Muhammed b. Abdilkerîm, el-Milel ve’n-nihal, ed. Amir Ali Mahana ve Ali Hasan Fa’ur, Beyrut 1995.
van Ess, Josef, The Youthful God: Anthropomorphism in Early Islam, Tempe, AZ 1988.
Versteegh, Kees, “Grammar and Exegesis: the Origins of Kufan Grammar and the Tafsīr Muqatil”, Der Islam, 67 (1990) ss. 206-242.
Versteegh, Kees, Arabic Grammar and Qur’ānic Exegesis in Early Islam , Leiden 1993.
Versteegh, Kees, Landmarks in Linguistic Thought III: The Arabic Linguistic Tradition, (özellikle 1. Bölüm), Londra 1997.
Wansbrough, John, Qur’ānic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, Londra1977.
Watt, Montgomery, “Some Muslim Discussions of Anthropomorphism,” Transactions, 13 (1947 -1949).
Williams, Wesley, “A Body unlike Bodies: Transcendent Anthropomorphism in Ancient Semitic Tradition and early Islam”, Journal of American Oriental Society ,129/1 (2009).
Zehebî, Muhammed Hüseyin, “Israelitic Narratives in Exegesis and Tradition”, The 4th Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, Kahire 1968.
Zehebî, Şemsüddin Muhammed b. Ahmed, Tarîhu’l-İslâm ve vefayâtu’l-meşâhîr ve’l-a‘lâm (Yıl aralığı: 141-160), ed. Dr. Ömer Abdüsselâm Tadmuri, Kahire 1989.
Zehebî, Şemsüddin Muhammed b. Ahmed, Tehzîbu Tehzîbi’l-Kemâl fî esmâu’r-ricâl, ed. Mus’ad Kâmil, Eymen Selâme, ve Mecdi es-Seyyid Emîn, Kahire 2004.
Zemahşerî, el-Keşşâf an hakâiki gavâmizi’t-tenzîl ve uyûni’l-ekâvîl fî vucuhi’t–te’vîl, ed. ‘Adil Ahmed Abdulmevcud ve Ali Muhammed Mu’avvaz, Riyad 1998.