Abrogation (naskh) is one of the controversial themes of Islamic studies, especially in later period that of principle of exegesis (uṣūl al-tafsīr). However, the recent studies on abrogation (naskh) do not offer a comprehensive analysis on the concept. In fact, the problem of naskh (abrogation) is in need of a systematic and holistic approach, which would only be possible with a detailed study on how the concept of abrogation (naskh) is understood in Islamic interpretive tradition (tafsīr). With this purpose in (...) mind, this article intends to examine two points regarding the term abrogation: first, the article will offer a analytical reflection on the diverse views of naskh, and then it will highlight how Ibn Kathīr (d. 1373) understood and applied this term to his hermeneutical framework. By doing so, the present study aims to show Ibn Kathīr’s position in Islamic interpretive tradition on the matter of naskh. The key conclusion of this study is that although Ibn Kathīr is one of the representatives of the traditional riwayah (sound transmission through a chain of exegetes) exegesis, he advances his interpretive hermeneutics with multiple aspects that also involves dirayah (personal opinion) exegesis (tafsīr). SUMMARY The problem of naskh (abrogation) is one of the most important and controversial themes of science and principle of exegesis (ʿilm wan a-l uṣūl al-tafsīr) in Islamic tradition. In order to understand naskh, which is claimed to be occurred in the Qur’ānic text, it is necessary to involve the time of the revelation of the Qur’ān. An analysis of this period reveals that first Muslims regard the naskh as a natural process of the revelation and do not dispute over this matter. In other words, the controversial theme naskh is perceived by first addresses of the Qur’ān as a hermeneutical characteristic of the Qur’ānic revelation. Therefore, naskh was not considered as a controversial concept and debated its origins based on the question whether it organically belonged to the revelation. It will be clear that the different views on naskh (abrogation), particularly after the time of the Companions is not a conceptual problem; rather Muslim scholars differed in their methodological approaches to naksh. Naskh has not been questioned as a concept in early Islamic tradition. Rather it has gradually developed over the centuries. Naskh has been elaborated with the terms of uṣūl al-fiqh (principles of Law), such as takhṣīṣ (specification) and taqyīd (restriction) and its conceptual meaning has been extended after, particularly Abū ʿAbdullah Muḥammad b. Idris b. ʿAbbas al-Shāfiʿī (d. 820). To sum up, naskh is regarded with a methodological perspective. However, in the field of Turkish Islamic studies, especially after the Cumhuriyet, the term naskh is not regarded as a natural consequence of the process of tanzīl (revelation of the Qur’ān) neglecting the gradual aspect of revelation and the disputes over the term has been concluded either rejecting or simply accepting this concept without providing a satisfactory result on the matter. This article examines one of the most prominent Muslim exegete Ibn Kathīr’s (d. 1373) approach to the problem of naskh in the context of previous modern scholarship on naskh (abrogation). However, the analysis of Ibn Kathīr’s perception of naskh does not claim to be exhaustive on the matter. This requires a more comprehensive study on the concept of naskh, which is clearly beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, the present study intends to specifically focus on general aspect of Ibn Kathīr’s understanding of naskh and how his perception is presented in modern studies. When Ibn Kathīr’s commentary is analysed, it becomes clear that his understanding of naskh is significant and not necessarily in line with his riwayah (sound transmission through a chain of exegetes) tafsīr (exegesis). For example, he notes the dates between abrogating and abrogated Qur’ānic verses and claims that it is necessary to find certain proofs to validate the claim of abrogation (naskh) for particular legal judgments and verses, which clearly shows that Ibn Kathīr approaches to the problem of naskh with a methodological perspective. Ibn Kathīr’s interpretation of the well known Qur’ānic verse Q 2.106 in a different sense and most importantly his consideration of the matter only in the Qur’ānic context are clear examples of his methodological approach. His interpretation of Q 2.106 simply shows that he meticulously distinguish between the acceptance of naskh as a concept and as an interpretive method. The modern studies on naskh, on the contrary, consider the matter only on the base of a conceptual analysis. Ibn Kathīr prefers to transmit the traditional opinions based on personal interpretation and interprets some Qur’ānic verses. This is clearly his method of re-interpretation based on rational thinking (taʾwīl). His way of rational reasoning leads Ibn Kathīr to the rejection of naskh (abrogation) and the restriction of Qur’ānic verses that are related to the theory of abrogating and abrogated verses (nāsikh-mansūkh). This clearly proves that Ibn Kathīr does not merely adopts and employs the method of riwayah, which is contrary to the supposition that he is the exegete of a commentary that heavily draws on hadith reports and transmitted traditional reports. In fact, this most importantly shows that Ibn Kathīr’s Qur’ān commentary can also be regarded as a dirayah (personal opinion) tafsīr (exegesis) and that there are enough material in traditional Muslim Qur’ānic exegesis to re-analyse the problem of naskh (abrogation). Relying on this last point, this article argues that a comprehensive analysis of naskh requires a research on the traditional interpretive sources. Therefore, it might be helpful to reconsider the matter of naskh with its conceptual background in the works of traditional Muslim exegetes rather than focusing only on whether the concept naskh exits or not in the origins of the Qur’ānic revelation. At this point, an analysis of Ibn Kathīr’s perception of naskh and his rational reasoning that is employed in his commentary will contribute to the understanding of the theory of naskh (abrogation) in the tradition of Qur’ānic exegesis. (shrink)

In the Hanafī school, the writing of the fiqh method is basically divided into two sub-schools, namely the Iraqī and Samarkand method. Alaeddin es-Samarkandī (d.739/1144), one of the important representatives of the Samarkand school, who wanted the fiqh method to be rewritten from a theological perspective, strongly criticizes the method of writing, which became widespread in the Hanafī community before him. While he criticizes the methodists such as Dabusī (d.430/1039), who continued the Iraqī Hanafī methodists’ line, he never mentions Sarakhsī (...) (d.483/1090) and Pazdawī (d.482/1089) in his work. However, when we look at the subject of naskh [abrogation], which we base our study on, it will be seen that the systematic of Samarkandī’s work called “al-Mīzān” is almost the same as the way it is handled in Sarakhsī's work of usûl. The main reason for comparing the understandings of abrogation of both scholars is the close relationship between the subject of abrogation and kalam. In this study, the focus will be on how both scholars approached abrogation and on their approaches to abrogation, and the similarities and differences between them will be pointed out. Whether this similarity and differences coincide with Samarkandī’s critique of the Iraqī sheikh; in other words, the extent to which Samarkandi was right in his criticism that the Hanafī companions before him did not include theological issues in their procedural works will be evaluated through Sarakhsī's understanding of abrogation. (shrink)

Kur’an ilimleri kaynaklarında yer alan, Kur’an’da neshin kısımları başlığı altında genellikle hükmü mensûh tilâveti bâki, tilâveti mensûh hükmü bâki ve hem tilâveti hem de hükmü mensûh âyetler şeklinde bir taksime gidilmiştir. Her iki kısmıyla tilâveti mensûh olan âyetler elimizdeki Mushaf’ta yer almamaktadır. Bu tür âyetlerin mevcut olduğuna delalet eden şey, bu konuda vârit olan âhâd hadislerdir. Âhâd hadislere dayanarak kavramsal anlamdaki bir Kur’ân ayetinin tilâveten neshedildiği sonucuna varılamayacağı gibi, tilâveti mensûh olduğu ifade edilen bir ayetin tevâtür şartını taşımıyor olması da (...) ona kavramsal anlamda Kur’an ayeti denmesini engellemektedir. Bu durum bazı araştırmacıları tilâveti mensûh âyet bulunmadığını ispatlama çabasına itmiştir. Diğer bir grup da sahih hadislerle sabit olduğundan hareketle tilâveti mensûh âyetlerin bulunduğunu savunmuştur. Her iki durumda da karşımıza çözülmesi gereken bir problem çıkmaktadır. Tilâveti mensûh ayetin bulunmadığını söylemek bu konuda vârit olan sahih hadislerin âhâd olduğu gerekçesiyle reddedilmesini gerektirirken tilâveti mensûh ayetlerin var olduğunu söylemek de mütevâtir olmayan ayetlere Kur’an ayeti denmesi gerektirir. Araştırma neticesinde bu probleme çözüm olabilecek bir çalışmanın yapılmadığı anlaşılmıştır. İşte bu çalışmayla söz konusu problemin çözümü amaçlanmıştır. Bu çalışmanın sonunda tilâveti mensûh âyetlerin bulunmadığını söyleyenlerin, tilaveti mensuh ayetlerin varlığının kabul edilmesi durumunda kavramsal anlamdaki Kur’an’a zarar verilebileceği endişesini taşıdıkları ve bundan hareketle diğerlerinin delillerini reddetme çabasına girdikleri anlaşılmıştır. Ancak tilâveti mensûh âyetlerin var olduğunu söyleyenlerden hiç kimsenin, söz konusu âyetlerin kavramsal anlamdaki Kur’an âyeti olduğu iddiasında bulunmadıkları görülmüştür. Onların tilaveti mensûh ayetten kastettiklerinin, nüzulünden Mushaf haline gelinceye kadarki kısmı da içine alan Kitab’ın ayetleri olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Bu Kitap’tan sadece kavramsal anlamdaki Kur’an ayeti olmayan bazı ayetlerin tilâvetinin neshedildiği, hadislerde ifade edilenlerin de bu ayetler olduğu görülmüştür. Dolayısıyla tilavetinin neshedildiği ifade edilen ayetlerin tevatürle sabit olan Kur’an ayeti olmayıp sadece sahih sünnetle sabit olan ve yine sahih sünnetle neshedildiği bildirilen ayetler olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Taraflar arasındaki tartışmada da ‘ayet’ kelimesinin genel kullanımı ile kavramsal kullanımı arasındaki farka dikkat edilmemesinin önemli bir etkisinin olduğu söylenebilir. (shrink)