İmâmiyye Şîası’nın Kırâatlere Yaklaşımı: Tûsî-Tabersî Örneği
Süleyman YıldızBu makalede, klasik dönem İmâmiyye Şîası’nın önemli müfessirlerinden olan Ebû Caʿfer et-Tûsî’nin (ö. 460/1067) et-Tibyân fî tefsîri’l- Ḳurʾân’ı ile Ebû Alî Hasan et-Tabersî’nin (ö. 548/1153) Mecmaʿul-beyân fî tefsîri’l-Ḳurʾân adlı eserinden hareketle özelde Tûsî ve Tabersî’nin, genelde İmâmiyye Şîası’nın kırâatlere yaklaşımları incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda müelliflerin ahruf-i seb‘a, kırâatlerin menşei ve kırâatlerde tevâtür meselesine yönelik bakışları, kırâatleri kabul kriterleri ve tercih ettikleri kırâatler çalışmanın konusunu oluşturmuştur. Makelede, Tûsî’nin et-Tibyân’ı ile Tabersî’nin Mecmaʿu’lbeyân’ı baştan sona taramaya tabi tutularak, yukarıda işaret edilen konular ve meseleler izah edilmeye çalışılmıştır. İnceleme çerçevesinde genel hatlarıyla erken dönem ve son dönem İmâmiyye Şîası müelliflerinin görüşlerine de yer verilmiş, böylelikle İmâmiyye’nin kırâatler konusunda benzer görüşe sahip olup olmadığının tespiti yapılmıştır. Genelde İmâmiyye, özelde Tûsî ve Tabersî’nin birçok meselede Ehl-i sünnet kaynaklarına atıfta bulunmaları sebebiyle çalışmada Sünnî literatürdeki bilgilere de baş vurulmuş, ele alınan konular mukayeseli bir şekilde işlenmiştir.
Approaches of Imāmī Shī‘ite to Qirā’ahs: The Case of Ṭūsī-Ṭabarsī
Süleyman YıldızThis article is an attempt to examine the approaches of the Imāmī Shī‘ite towards qirā’a (recitation) in general and Tūsi and Tabarsī in particular, by largely drawing from two important mufassīr of the classical period of the Imāmī Shī‘ite and their works. These works include ‘At-Tibyān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān’ of Abū Ja‘far aṭ-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067) and ‘Majma’ul bayān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān’ of Abū Ḥaṣan aṭ-Ṭabarsī (d. 548/1153). In this context, the main scope of this article aims to cover the opinions of the abovementioned scholars regarding al-ahruf es-sab‘a (seven letters), the origins of the qirā’ahs, their views on the problem of tawātur (authentically wide-spread), conditions of accepting, scrutinizing of the qirā’ahs and, finally, the favoured qirā’ahs which they employed. Throughout the study, at-Tibyān of Ṭūsi and Majma‘ul bayān of Ṭabarsī were scanned in their entirety in order to properly deal with the problems and questions mentioned above. In addition to this, the ideas of scholars who are placed at the early and late periods of the imāmi Shī‘ite have been included in order to see and determine whether they had any common opinions in their approaches to qirā’a or not. The classical Sunni (Orthodoxy) literature is also examined comparatively because both Imāmī Shī‘ite in general and Ṭūsī and Ṭabarsī in particular seem to give reference to Sunni sources on many occasions.
This article seeks to answer the question of how the Imāmī Shī‘ite approached qirā’ā (recitation) -especially in regard to exegetical studies- in its classical period. In order to do this the study takes two prominent scholars who were seen as authorities in the field, namely aṭ-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067) and aṭ-Ṭabarsī (d. 548/1153). In this context, the scope of this study aims to include the opinions of the above-mentioned scholars regarding aḥruf al-sab‘a (seven letters), the origins of the qirā’ahs, their views on the problem of tawātur (authentically wide-spread), conditions of accepting, scrutinizing of the qirā’ahs and, finally, the preferred qirā’ahs they employed.
Ṭūsī and Ṭabarsī are seen as the two most prominent scholars of the classical period of Imāmi Sḥī‘ite. Both at-Tibyān of Ṭūsī and Majma‘ul bayān of Ṭabarsī, which mostly took the former as the reference point regarding method, are seen as the first moderate exegetical studies that are centered on the ‘uṣūl/dirāyah method within the tradition.
Both Ṭūsi and Ṭabarsī undertook different approaches in a number of matters compared to the early Shite exegetical scholars, primarily regarding their approach towards the qirā’a. Moreover both paved the way for a transformation within the discourse. Examples of some components of this transformation pioneered by the above-mentioned two scholars include a strong denial of the idea put forward by the early Ak̲h̲bāri S̲h̲iʾte exegetical scholars stating that the verbal recitation of muṣḥaf was distorted, and abandoning the use of extreme utterances and narrations that include defamation and despising of the first three caliphs and some companions. In addition, a philological examination of a number of verses of the Qur’ān, use of classical Arabic poetry, and conjunction by muṣḥaf are a few examples of how both scholars were in line with the commentaries of classical exegetical scholars of ahl al-Sunna.
One of the issues greatly emphasized by both Ṭūsī and Ṭabarsī is the problem of al-aḥruf al-sabʿa (seven letters) which is seen as the base for the origination of recitations. Not only Ṭūsī, but also Ṭabarsī summarized the common understanding of narrations and ḥadīt̲h̲ within the S̲h̲iʾte discourse of the past and of their time regarding al-ahrufu’s-sab‘a as follows: “The Qur’ān was revealed to one Prophet, on one letter.” Moreover, they did not stay aloof to a number of narrations, referred to as “ʿāmma”, which comes through the channel of aḥl al-Sunna, and therefore they regarded them as falling within the genus of k̲h̲abar al-wāḥid by also stating that they found the idea of “seven different recitations forms” as compatible.
Both Ṭūsī and Ṭabarsī seem to have failed to bring about a clear and distinct explanation regarding the authenticity of the recitations. However, the fact that their placement of some recitations, of which aḥl al-Sunna is regarded as falling within the category of sahīh/mutawātir (authentic), into categories of d̲h̲āif (weak), sh̲ad̲h̲ (uncommon), and further as mistaken, seems to be a good indicator of the fact that they have considered these recitations not tobe mutawātir. In addition to this, their statement that these recitations were both premised, and hence they were in circulation among the recitators of Imamite S̲h̲iʾte, shows that there did not exist a biased approach towards different recitations at the time.
This study will demonstrate that the scholars held the criteria of “compatibility with Arabic language, correctness in terms of meaning, suitability to the writing style of musḥaf, and common usage among Muslims” as the main grounds for determining the authentic recitations. Although, these conditions are not found altogether in scholars’ works, it is still possible to draw a general principle from the explanations they made at different times and in different places.
When it comes to choosing one recitation over another, both Ṭūsī and Ṭabarsī held that they were not content with the way in which the leaders of the prominent sects gave permission to conducting different recitations which were in circulation among the reciters, and they also objected to reducing the recitations to a single style and praising it. By way of reflection, in their works they tried to maintain an equal distance between all the recitations that existed within the qırā’at al-sab‘a and qırā’at al-asḥara. Although in exegesis and preference the dominance of the Ḥafs narration which stretches through the channel of ʿĀṣim (d. 127/745) is notable, they sometimes applied criticism towards some recitations within the Ḥafṣ (d. 180/796).
It should not come as a surprise that both Ṭūsī and Ṭabarsī, who shared close and complementary opinions, engaged somehow in a slightly different methodology compared to the scholars who are placed within the Sunni discourse. However, it is of great significance that both Ṭūsī and Ṭabarsī used the reference sources of Sunni scholars. The attempts of both scholars in the late period (20th century and onwards) in Sunni-Shite dialectic is called the taqrīb’ul madhāib approach and shall be seen as a significant factor. Indeed, some sources are mentioned by Ṭūsī’s al-Tibyān and Ṭabarsī’s Majma‘ul-bayān as being the first works written within the scope of taqrīb (disclosing). It might be for this reason that Ṭūsī and Ṭabarsī dealt with a number of matters, primarily the problem of recitation, which were either ignored or only lightly touched upon by the Shite scholars.
