Özet:

Despite the hadiths and narratives that warn about the interpretation of the Qur'an by opinion, the question of how Qur'anic verses can be understood is about the nature of the Qur'anic exegesis. These narratives, which limit the interpretation to the exact field and indicate the invalidity of the specification of the intention with the imprecise information, bring with it the question of how to understand the Quran in each period and society. The issue that has been questioned in the frame of the commentary from the earliest periods is based on the possibility of commenting besides the narration and defining the area that the thought belongs to the commentator. In this context, it is seen that the distinction between the conceptualization of tafsīr-ta'wīl words in classical commentary literature deals with the subject of the tafsīr, their belongings, epistemological values and contexts. Mainly, this study will question whether authors who do not distinguish between tafsīr-ta'wīl categorize the information about commentary in a different context, then it will analyze two basic approaches on tafsīr and ta'wīl. In the paper, it will be suggested that these classifications in classical literature should be evaluated together within the framework of the search for methodology in exegesis. The Prophet, who was the first glossator of the Qur'an, forbidden people to talk about the Qur'an with their own judgments. The prominent people of the companions refused to comment on some words that were closed in meaning (garīb). The words quoted from Abū Bakr and ʿUmar on this subject are quite famous. However, the Qur'ān is a universal book revealed to be understood in all ages and geographies until the doomsday. The fact that all the verses were not interpreted by the Prophet, and the expansions of meaning observed in the Qur'an wording necessitate the interpretation of the Qur'an.  The fact that the Prophet forbidden people to talk with their own judgments about the Qur'an and the need to understand the Qur'an in every era constitutes a dilemma that must be explained. The resolution of this issue will both determine the legitimacy of tafsīr (interpretation) and reveal the difference between the tafsīr of the Prophet and the tafsīrs by other people. In this context, a distinction was made between the interpretations of the Prophet and of the companions who witnessed the revelation period from the Tabarī (d. 310/923) in the classical tafsīr literature and the interpretations by glossators in terms of their bindingness and information values.  Thus, before even starting the interpretation, glossators questioned the possibility of interpretation of the Qur'an without the tafsīr of the Prophet and the narratives from the companions who have the strength of hadith marfūʿ. It is seen in classical tafsīr literature that distinctions between the tafsīr of the Prophet and the interpretations of the glossator are usually constructed on the terms of tafsīr and ta'wil, to which terminological meanings are attributed. In this regard, the methodology of Māturīdī (d. 333/944) is quite specific and clear. According to Māturīdī, tafsīr is an exact field. Only the tafsīr of the Prophet and the narratives of the companions who have the strength of marfūʿ can be included in this field. Ta'wīl, on the other hand, is an area based on assumption. Preferences to be made from possible meanings are supposition and related to taʿwīl. The fact that Māturīdī included the explanations of the Prophet and his companions in the tafsīr field and stated that they expressed exact information shows that he looked at this information in the value of the statement of the mutakallim. The data included in the field of taʿwīl are not as the data included in the field of tafsīr in terms of their bindingness and information value. The interpretations made in the field of ta'wīl include supposition; so they cannot be attributed to the desire of God. The field that the Prophet forbade people from declaring their own views is the field of tafsīr in the methodology of Māturīdī. The accuracy of this field is an indication that the tafsīr is related to God's desire. It is not right to declare an opinion with the assumption in the field that is exact and definite. Even though the interpretation in the field of tafsīr is in accordance with the truth, this cannot eliminate the responsibility of the interpreter that makes determinations based on the assumption in the exact and definite field.  Some scholars, such as Qushayrī (d. 465/1072), also classify the narrative-sagacity areas by means of tafsīr-taʿwīl concepts. This classification deals with the data that is the subject of tafsīr in terms of their belongingness. Indeed, tafsīr science includes both the data that are linked with transmission and non-transmittable elements that can be achieved by following a methodology. Non-transmittable elements included in the ta'wīl field by those who make a distinction between tafsīr and ta'wīl based on narrative-sagacity are the meanings reached through linguistic efforts. Language is an element that holds possibilities in itself. Considering the closeness of meaning, multi-meanings, metaphors and allusions in the wording, it can be thought that the meanings reached by linguistic methods include assumption.  In the methodology of Māturīdī, the field of tafsīr is composed of the explanations of the Prophet and the narratives of the companions who witnessed the revelations while in the classifications of those who make a distinction between tafsīr and taʿwīl based on narrative-sagacity, tafsīr generally includes narratives. When the issue is dealt within the framework of the desire of God and the statements of the mutakallim, it seems that the classification of Māturīdī is more punctual. However, it is understood that this approach does not give a satisfactory answer to the subsequent situations and bindingness of the mentioned data. In the classifications based on narrative-sagacity, the narratives in the field of tafsīr are taken as a whole without analyzing their health degrees and their meaning. However, some of these narrations are not authentic; so, in this regard it is a problematic issue that they are the subjects of the field of tafsīr. Besides, sometimes there can be different narrations about the tafsīr of verses from the companions. The evaluation of these narratives in a field attributed to the desire of God may also pose a problem. The linguistic data that both Māturīdī and those who make a distinction between tafsīr and taʿwīl based on narrative-sagacity include in the field of taʿwīl does not appear to have a homogeneous structure -as is the case with the narratives-. Indeed, among these data, there are elements whose meanings are quite hard to determine as well as firm ones that possibly have only one meaning. It is controversial that these expressions, which have only one meaning and to the validity of whose meaning other evidence point out are included in the field of ta'wīl. The distinction between meaning and interpretation fields in tafsīr is very important in terms of tafsīr methodology. This field designation is in a way a description of the nature of the science of tafsīr. Thus, in matters where the human intelligence remains insufficient with the tafsīr narratives from the Prophet, the bindingness of the narratives from the companions are clarified; furthermore, beyond the narrative, the validity and the information values of the interpretations of the glossator are determined. In this regard, the tafsīr-taʿwīl distinctions made in the classical tafsīr literature provide us with a rich content and a multifaceted point of view. However, when addressed separately, these differences present a number of problems in terms of scope and applicability. Our study proposes the evaluation of tafsīr-taʿwīl distinctions in classical literature together while the meaning-interpretation fields are specified in the framework of the search for methodology in tafsīr. Thus, the incomplete aspects of the classification will be eliminated and a much more comprehensive and functional classification will be achieved. At this point, the methodologies of some figures as Tabarī, who is known to have used the terms of tafsīr and taʿwīl in the same meaning, must also be evaluated separately. Indeed, when the works of these names are analyzed, it is seen that these names also distinguish the meaning-interpretation fields in tafsīr, but they do not do this through the tafsīr-ta'wīl concepts.

Anahtar Kelimeler: