Marife Turkish Journal of Religious Studies

Abstract

In this study, it has been tried to deal with what Māturīdī thinks about the narrations that we think can be included in the framework of Isrāiliyat, and what kind of approach he exhibited in his commentary against the narrations. Although there have been many studies on Māturīdī in the last century, according to our research, there is no study that covers, categorizes and exemplifies his approach to Isrāiliyat. Although some studies have tried to classify the narrations included in Māturīdī's commentary, considering that they are Isrāiliyat, under several headings, it is not possible, in our opinion, to say that this classification is sufficient. As far as we can see, the examples cited as Isrāiliyat in these studies consist of narrations that Māturīdī either criticizes, keeps silent or says that it cannot be known whether they are true or not. Therefore, an example of Māturīdī's use of a narration that can be included in the framework of Isrāiliyat as an auxiliary element in understanding the verses was not included in the studies in question. Although some studies about Māturīdī have partially mentioned his thought about Isrāiliyat, it is seen that Māturīdī is not included in the process in studies that specifically focus on Isrāiliyat and try to determine the history of Isrāiliyat.
Māturīdī past societies, prophets, only the information contained in the Qur'an or Prophet states that the narrations that are certain to belong to the Prophet should be respected. According to him, the information from these two sources about the past ummahs proves the prophethood of the Prophet. The fact that the information conveyed outside of these two sources contradicts the information in the books of previous ummahs causes people belonging to those religions not to accept the Prophet. Therefore, in order to avoid such a negative situation, it is necessary to avoid such narrations in the explanation of the verses. Although he did not use the concept of Israel, it can be said that Māturīdī made evaluations about Israel due to such expressions, and that he was theoretically opposed to Israel. Some of Māturīdī's references to the Mu'tazilite scholar Abu Bakr al-Asam on this subject suggest that Asam may have had an impact on his approach to Isrāiliyat.
This study has been carried out through the narrations that Māturīdī includes in the explanation of the verses in which the tales are told, with the approach of which the theoretical framework is tried to be explained above, in the work called Ta'wīlātu'l-Qur'ān, which we think may be of Isrāiliyat origin. In the study, rather than making a right-wrong, good-bad judgment about whether Māturīdī includes Isrâiliyat or not, evaluations have been made on whether there is internal consistency in Ta'wīlāt.
The narrations that Māturīdī includes in his commentary, which we think may be Isrāiliyat, have been tried to be categorized under five headings. Thus, his approach to Isrāiliyat in a practical sense was attempted to be determined. Under the first title, examples that are thought to be used by Māturīdī in the explanation of the verse are given. Although the examples in question are not too many in our opinion, it shows that Māturīdī included Isrāiliyat in his tafsir in order to make use of it in the explanation of the verses. Therefore, these examples show that Māturīdī did not wholly reject Isrāiliyat. At the same time, these examples show that the theory in Ta'wīlāt about Isrāiliyat does not fully agree with the practice. In our opinion, it does not seem possible to explain this situation in Ta'wīlāt with Māturīdī's theory of tafsir-ta'wil. Under the second title, there are narrations that Māturīdī did not make any evaluations after transmitting them. Although these examples do not mean that he completely embraced the narrations in question, his silence implicitly implies that it would not be objectionable to understand the verses within the framework of these narrations. The examples discussed under the third and fourth headings, which include the narrations that he said and criticized that he did not need to know without transmitting, show that he did not approve of these narrations. However, the sensitivity that Māturīdī says should be shown on this issue, in our opinion, requires only pointing out some information that will enable us to understand what they are about, not the transmission of all the narrations in question. Under the last heading, there are the examples of Isrāiliyat, in which Māturīdī did not convey the whole narration, but pointed to what they were related to, and then sometimes said that there was no need to know them, and sometimes criticized. In our opinion, Māturīdī's attitude in the narrations under this headline exactly coincides with the sensitivity that he deems necessary to be shown on this issue. Therefore, it is possible to characterize the examples under this heading as the most appropriate examples that reflect theory-practice harmony.