The case of Gorgias’ profession has been an object of ongoing dispute among scholars. This is mainly because in some dialogues Plato calls Gorgias a rhetorician, in others a sophist. The purpose of this article is to show that a solution only emerges in the Gorgias, where Plato presents Gorgias’ goals as a rhetorician and its associated arts. On this basis, Plato introduces a systematic division between genuine arts and fake arts, including rhetoric and sophistry, thereby identifying their conceptual differences (...) and similarities. The paper concludes by arguing that Gorgias can be called both a rhetorician and a sophist, provided that the labeling is done from different perspectives. (shrink)

In this work the Persian and English texts are edited and published together for the first time. This is Tusi’s major Ismaili work and the most important primary source on Ismaili doctrines during the Alamut period.

This is a translation of three philosophical questions raised by Tusi (1201–1274) in his letter to Khusrawshahi (1184-1254). These critical questions are related to three main fields of philosophy: Philosophy of Nature, Philosophical Psychology (or Philosophy of the Soul) and Philosophical Theology which is traditionally subsumed as one of the proper subtopics of Metaphysics. Although Tusi did not receive any recorded response from Khusrawshahi, his short letter attracted considerable scholarly attention and received some remarkable responses, in later Islamic philosophy and (...) thus provided an exemplar of the traditional technique of debating by way of “question-answer” correspondence. (shrink)

This is the original Arabic text of three philosophical questions raised by Tusi (1201–1274) in his letter to Khusrawshahi (1184-1254). These critical questions are related to three main fields of philosophy: Philosophy of Nature, Philosophical Psychology (or Philosophy of the Soul) and Philosophical Theology which is traditionally subsumed as one of the proper subtopics of Metaphysics. Although Tusi did not receive any recorded response from Khusrawshahi, his short letter attracted considerable scholarly attention and received some remarkable responses, in later Islamic (...) philosophy and thus provided an exemplar of the traditional technique of debating by way of “question-answer” correspondence. (shrink)

Avicenna (d. 1037) and Tūsī (d. 1274) have different doctrines on the contradiction and conversion of the absolute proposition. Following Avicenna's presentation of the doctrine in Pointers and reminders, and comparing it with what is given in Tūsī's commentary, allow us to pinpoint a major reason why Avicenna and Tūsī have different treatments of the modal syllogistic. Further comparison shows that the syllogistic system Rescher described in his research on Arabic logic more nearly fits Tūsī than Avicenna. This in turn (...) has consequences for analysing Avicenna's logic, and for writing the history of a fascinating period of change and diversity in the discipline in the medieval Islamic world. (shrink)

This essay deals with a selected part of an epistemological controversy provided by Tūsī in response to the skeptical arguments reported by Rāzī that is related to what might be called "intellectual skepticism," or skepticism regarding the judgments of the intellect, particularly in connection with self-evident principles. It will be shown that Rāzī has cited and exposed a position that seems to be no less than a medieval version of empiricism. Tūsī, in contrast, has presented us with a position that (...) rejects such empiricism. The comparative aim of this essay is to draw attention to some similarities as well as some points of divergence between the kind of skeptical debate we are focusing on here, and some relevant epistemological discussions in the later traditions in the West. ". (shrink)

Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī’s _Nasirean Ethics_ is the single most important work on philosophical ethics in the history of Islam. A fine example of medieval Persian-to-Arabic translation technique, this first edition carefully reproduces Middle Arabic elements that can be found throughout the text.

T?s?, a thirteenth century logician writing in Arabic, uses two logical connectives to build up molecular propositions: ?if-then?, and ?either-or?. By referring to a dichotomous Tree, T?s? shows how to choose the proper disjunction relative to the terms in the disjuncts. He also discusses the disjunctive propositions which follow from a conditional proposition.

Özet Şii-İmamiyye’nin usûlde Mu’tezilenin etkisinde kaldığı iddiaları, hicri dördüncü asırdan itibaren dile getirilmektedir. Buna karşılık usûlî düşüncenin ilk mümessili sayılan Şeyh Müfîd’den itibaren mezhep içinden yükselen sesler bu iddiaları şiddetle reddetmişlerdir. Biz bu çalışmada Mu’tezile kelamına sistematik hüviyet kazandıran ve yazdığı eserlerle Mu’tezile kelamının bugüne ulaşmasında büyük pay sahibi olan Kâdî Abdülcebbâr ile İmamiyye’nin kelam düşüncesinin istikrar bulmasında ve Şeyh Müfîd’le başlatılan usûlî yaklaşımın benimsenip yaygınlaşmasında büyük bir yeri olan Ebû Ca’fer et-Tûsî arasında adalet ilkesi üzerinden bir karşılaştırma yaparak, söz (...) konusu iddiaların ne kadar sübut bulduğunu tespit etmeye çalıştık. Kısmi farklı izahları bir kenara bırakırsak, adalet ilkesinin ispat ve yorumlanmasında iki kelamcı arasında kayda değer bir farklılığın olmadığı görülmektedir. Abstract The claim that the Shi’i Imamite thought is heavily influenced by the Mu’tazilite outlook has been alleged since the fouth century of hijra. However, beginning with Shaikh Mufid, the first representative of the Usuli branch of Shi’a, the Shi’is vehemently denied this allegation. In this article, this issue is dealt with by making a comparison between the idea of Qadi Abd al-Jabbar, the prominent Mu’tazilite scholar who made a major contribution to the consolidation of the schools’ theaching and that of al-Tusi, who also made a contrubitued to the integration of the Shi’ite kalam and the spreading of the usuli approach initiated by Shaikh Mufid. Leaving aside the differences in deatil, it seems that there is no noteworthy difference between their approcah to the issue of justice. Key Words: Qâdî Abd al-Jabbâr, Abû Ja’far al-Tûsî, Husn-Qubh, Divine Justice, Free Will. (shrink)

The Mongols’ invasion of the territories of the Islamic world, especially Baghdad, the seat of the Islamic Caliphate, had great consequences, including the fall of Baghdad and the Bani Abbas Caliphate, the killing of the Caliph, and extensive destruction in the geography of their invasion. About half a century after the invasion of the Mongols, Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), regardless of historical documents, accused Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, a prominent thinker, of collusion and cooperation with Hulagu Khan. After Ibn Taymiyyah Harrani, these (...) accusations were followed and disseminated in religious, historical, rijal (the study of hadith narrators and their personality), and even moral books by his students, such as Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyya (1292-1350). This article is an attempt to deny these accusations. Relying on the earliest historical documents, it tries to describe the historical event as it happened. In this regard, the article first provides the text of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi’s short treatise “On the Baghdad Incident”, included in Aladdin Atamalik Juveyni’s “Tarikh-i Jahangusha”, and then presents its descriptive interpretation separately. Although this treatise is short, it contains all the important points, from Hulagu Khan’s decision to go to war to the conquest of Baghdad and the analysis of the internal factors of the fall of the caliphate. This treatise, above all, is a very solid argument. For its author first of all was the witness of the Baghdad events. Secondly, in this writing, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi examines the Mongols’ attack on Baghdad but does not mention his own activity or role in the attack on Baghdad. Thirdly, if he had an activity and a role in this incident, or if he had an intention to take revenge on his religious opponents considering the situation, he should at least have hinted and expressed his approval, which is not the case at all. (shrink)

Euclid's Elements were translated into Hebrew from Arabic in the 13th century; but precious few of the Arabic commentaries have come down to us in a Hebrew version. Nonetheless, a study of several texts dealing with the Fifth Postulate of Book I reveals that the Hebrew authors are greatly indebted to Arabic sources.

This study discusses the classifications of sects in a treatise named Firqa-ye Nājīye, written in Persian by a Shiite scholar in 982/1574. In this treatise, which is in the Merkez-i İḥyâʾi Heritage Library and has no other copy as far as we know, it has been tried to prove that the Twelver Shiʿa is the saved sect (firqa-yi nājiya) through seventy-three sects classification. The author summarized the seven doubts raised by the devil, the first events that caused the Muslim community (...) (umma) to disagree, and the general information about the sects from al-Milal wa-l-niḥal, the classifications of the sects from Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, but reconstructed the data in these texts according to the Shiite understanding. On the other hand, the main reason for writing this treatise is to respond to Jalāl al-Dīn Davānī’s claims rather than the classification of sects. Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī determined a method for the identification of the saved sect as "differentiating from all sects in matters of theology". He claimed that the Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from the other sects in all matters of theology and was therefore the saved sect. Davānī stated that Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from other sects only with the belief in imamate, which is not the subject of creed, and that it generally agrees with Mu'tazila in other creeds, thus claiming that Tusi's claim is baseless. He also said that, when considered through the same method, Ashʿarīsm is more worthy of being the saved sect, because this sect differs from all sects in matters related to the creeds. Contrary to Davānī's claim, the author of Firqa-ye Nājīye stated that imamate was one of the most important principles of religion and also claimed that the Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from other sects in matters of creed other than imamate. However, he failed to provide sufficient data to justify this claim. (shrink)

Philosophy in Iran finds its own way after Avicenna’s death in 1037 and goes it until the late 17th century AD. The article looks at the period following his death and pays special attention to Naṣîr ad-Dîn aṭ-Ṭûsî, and Ibn al-Muqaffa̔ are influential in Ṭûsî’s thought.

The Mongols’ invasion of the territories of the Islamic world, especially Baghdad, the seat of the Islamic Caliphate, had great consequences, including the fall of Baghdad and the Bani Abbas Caliphate, the killing of the Caliph, and extensive destruction in the geography of their invasion. About half a century after the invasion of the Mongols, Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), regardless of historical documents, accused Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, a prominent thinker, of collusion and cooperation with Hulagu Khan. After Ibn Taymiyyah Harrani, these (...) accusations were followed and disseminated in religious, historical, rijal (the study of hadith narrators and their personality), and even moral books by his students, such as Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyya (1292-1350). This article is an attempt to deny these accusations. Relying on the earliest historical documents, it tries to describe the historical event as it happened. In this regard, the article first provides the text of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi’s short treatise “On the Baghdad Incident”, included in Aladdin Atamalik Juveyni’s “Tarikh-i Jahangusha”, and then presents its descriptive interpretation separately. Although this treatise is short, it contains all the important points, from Hulagu Khan’s decision to go to war to the conquest of Baghdad and the analysis of the internal factors of the fall of the caliphate. This treatise, above all, is a very solid argument. For its author first of all was the witness of the Baghdad events. Secondly, in this writing, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi examines the Mongols’ attack on Baghdad but does not mention his own activity or role in the attack on Baghdad. Thirdly, if he had an activity and a role in this incident, or if he had an intention to take revenge on his religious opponents considering the situation, he should at least have hinted and expressed his approval, which is not the case at all. (shrink)

RésuméDans les Sphériques, Ménélaüs ne démontre pas l'importante proposition III.5, mais propose seulement une esquisse de démonstration. Une fois le livre des Sphériques traduit en arabe, les mathématiciens, à partir de la fin du IXe siècle, ont voulu en donner une démonstration complète. Le développement de la géométrie sphérique a permis à Ibn ʿIrāq de parvenir au but. Un premier article a été consacré à sa contribution. Deux mathématiciens du XIIIe siècle – Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī et Ibn Abī Jarrāda – (...) ont repris la démonstration de cette même proposition, à partir de Ménélaüs et des acquis d'Ibn ʿIrāq. C'est le sujet du présent article. (shrink)

In this article we study the development of the mathematical theorem, now known as the T Couple, and discuss the difference between its plane and spherical applications.

RésuméLes mathématiciens et les philosophes arabophones, comme leurs prédécesseurs grecs, ont soulevé plusieurs questions épistémologiques fondamentales. Parmi ces questions figure celle qui porte sur le concept d’égalité et sur celui de congruence des grandeurs géométriques. Mais qu'entendait-on par de tels concepts? quelle était leur relation à l'idée de mouvement? Comme les réponses à ces questions combinaient souvent des éléments métriques et d'autres, philosophiques, j'ai choisi d’étudier celles d'un mathématicien, d'un philosophe et d'un mathématicien-philosophe.

To say ‘mysticism versus philosophy’ in the context of Islamic civilization means something far different from what it has come to signify in the West, where many philosophers have looked upon mysticism as the abandonment of any attempt to reconcile religious data with intelligent thought. Certainly the Muslim mystics and philosophers sometimes display a certain mutual opposition and antagonism, but never does their relationship even approach incompatibility.

adr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī (d. 1498) has proposed a solution to the liar paradox according to which the liar sentence is a self-referential sentence in which the predicate ‘false’ is iterated. Discussing the conditions for the truth-aptness of the sentences with nested and iterated instances of the predicates ‘true’ and/or ‘false’, Dashtakī argued that the liar sentence is not truth-apt at all. In the tradition of Arabic logic, the central elements of Dashtakī's solution—the self-referentiality of the liar sentence and the implicit (...) iteration of the predicate ‘false’—were initially highlighted in two earlier solutions proposed by Naīr al-Dīn al-ūsī (d. 1274) and Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d. 1322), respectively. Here I investigate all three solutions and show that Dashtakī's solution can be taken as a synthesis of the other two. None of these solutions seems to be convincing at the end of the day. Nevertheless, all of them include significant logical and philosophical insights. In particular, although Dashtakī's solution is not itself compelling, it is only a few steps away from a promising solution. The appendix to this paper includes translations of the relevant passages. (shrink)

It seems Avicenna’s passages regarding God’s knowledge of particulars are susceptible of being given two different types of interpretation. The main difference between these two accounts of his theory concerning God’s knowledge of particulars is that one of them, which I call the Neglected Interpretation, appeals to some metaphysical entities as the proxies of concrete particular objects, which are distinct from God’s essence, to explain God’s knowledge of particulars, while the other type does not. The views of post-Avicennian thinkers like (...) Suhrawardī and Ṭūsī of Avicenna’s account are classifiable under the Neglected Interpretation, as shown by their objections to Avicenna’s theory of God’s knowledge of particulars. This type of interpretation of Avicenna’s theory of God’s knowledge of particulars has been neglected in the secondary English literature on the issue. In this paper, I will present a reconstructed version of this type of interpretation of the Avicennian theory of divine knowledge. (shrink)

The Mongols’ invasion of the territories of the Islamic world, especially Baghdad, the seat of the Islamic Caliphate, had great consequences, including the fall of Baghdad and the Bani Abbas Caliphate, the killing of the Caliph, and extensive destruction in the geography of their invasion. About half a century after the invasion of the Mongols, Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), regardless of historical documents, accused Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, a prominent thinker, of collusion and cooperation with Hulagu Khan. After Ibn Taymiyyah Harrani, these (...) accusations were followed and disseminated in religious, historical, rijal (the study of hadith narrators and their personality), and even moral books by his students, such as Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyya (1292-1350). This article is an attempt to deny these accusations. Relying on the earliest historical documents, it tries to describe the historical event as it happened. In this regard, the article first provides the text of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi’s short treatise “On the Baghdad Incident”, included in Aladdin Atamalik Juveyni’s “Tarikh-i Jahangusha”, and then presents its descriptive interpretation separately. Although this treatise is short, it contains all the important points, from Hulagu Khan’s decision to go to war to the conquest of Baghdad and the analysis of the internal factors of the fall of the caliphate. This treatise, above all, is a very solid argument. For its author first of all was the witness of the Baghdad events. Secondly, in this writing, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi examines the Mongols’ attack on Baghdad but does not mention his own activity or role in the attack on Baghdad. Thirdly, if he had an activity and a role in this incident, or if he had an intention to take revenge on his religious opponents considering the situation, he should at least have hinted and expressed his approval, which is not the case at all. (shrink)

This paper shall look briefly into the treatment of some topics related to scepticism in general in works by Barhebraeus, the famous Syrian Orthodox polymath and theologian (1226–1286). He addresses scepticism both directly by a discussion of sensory and intellectual fallacies or sceptical scenarios as well as indirectly by the definition of knowledge and the role of intuitive knowledge regarding primary notions and logical principles, which have an impact on establishing secure knowledge. Despite writing in Syriac, his dealing with the (...) matter is heavily indebted to Arabic sources, primarily contemporary post‐Avicennan authors, and here especially Fakhr al‐Dīn al‐Rāzī (1149–1209) and Naṣīr al‐Dīn al‐Tūṣī (1201–1274) but also Avicenna (980–1037) himself, although Barhebraeus adds a decisively Christian note in some instances. The Syriac tradition, therefore, should not be neglected when dealing with medieval scepticism. (shrink)

Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad, 1201-1274's Tajrīd al-ʻaqāʼid; selections; philosophy, Islamic; early works to 1800.

Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad, 1201-127 ; Risālah-i is̲bāt al-ʻaql - Criticism and interpretation.

Avicenna holds that since God has existed from all eternity and is immutable and impassible, he cannot come to have an attribute or feature that he has not had from all eternity. He also claims for the simultaneous causation. A puzzle arises when we consider God’s creating this world. If God is immutable and impassible, then his attributes associated with his creating this world are unchanging. So, God must have been creating the world from all eternity. But then God’s creative (...) act, one might object, seems to be no different from a matter of natural necessity. This is a threat to divine freedom, for God would then have no choice concerning his creative action. Anthony Ruffus and Jon McGinnis argue that this puzzle can be solved in such a way that Avicenna can consistently affirm divine freedom along with divine simplicity. They suggest that Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī’s interpretation might help to show that it is false that Avicenna’s God cannot choose absolutely. For it is still open to him to choose either to create eternally or to refrain from creating anything at all. Ruffus and McGinnis argue that since creating or not creating anything at all do not correspond to two distinct concepts, Avicenna’s account of divine simplicity, which denies any multiplicity in divine mind, is safeguarded along with divine freedom. I claim that God’s omnirationality requiring that he always acts for reasons is a serious threat to such an interpretation. (shrink)

Extensive scientific, philosophical and artistic activities were carried out in the Islamic World’s various science and civilization centers during the early Middle Ages. In these centers, noteworthy works of mathematics, astronomy, geography, medicine, pharmacology, optics, botany, chemistry and other fields of science, which would later determine improvement paths for these fields, were created. Abu al-Izz Ismail ibn al-Razzaz al-Jazari (12th-13th centuries), was a magnificent Muslim scientist known for his work named The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices (Kitab fi (...) ma‘rifati’l-hiyal al-handasiyya) and he was born in geography where many scientists were trained. He contributed to the development of science and civilization, the joint legacy of humanity and demonstrated his true capability and success in the field of ilm al-hiyal (the scientific field which addresses the information and practices regarding mechanical technology and engineering in Islamic science history). From this perspective, it is evident that al-Jazari had a wide field of interest, made his mark in the age he lived in with his brave and innovative ideas, and was a wise engineer. al-Jazari’s detailed descriptions and explanations of water clocks, oil lamp clocks and water pumping machines, as well as their construction, were astounding. In addition, al-Jazari’s studies on metal casting techniques, cone valves, wheel balance and the real-world use of aspiration tubes are important in contemporary engineering studies. When all these are considered, it becomes clear that his designation as the “Leonardo da Vinci of the Islamic World” is not a coincidence. Many studies on al-Jazari’s scientific legacy have been conducted in various parts of the world. There are various manuscripts of his aforementioned book. Based on these manuscripts, the work has been -fully or partially- translated into many languages, including Turkish. The German and English translations served as a basis for studies on al-Jazari in other languages. In recent years, studies conducted on al-Jazari in Türkiye (books, articles, domestic and international symposiums, congresses etc.) have demonstrated his brilliance and competence as a scientist. Furthermore, studies on al-Jazari are still ongoing in Türkiye. As for Russia, the scientific legacy of the scientists raised in the Islamic World such as Avicenna, al-Farabi, Abu Bakr al-Razi, Abu Rayhan al-Biruni, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, al-Battani, al-Kashi, Abd al-Rahman al-Khazini, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi was researched within the scope of a special plan and program. Depending on the relevant studies, al-Jazari and his work drew attention as well. A small portion of the aforementioned Russian studies is known in Türkiye. It is safe to assume that al-Jazari studies in Russia are virtually unknown in Türkiye. The present study primarily aims to contribute to the literature on the scientific legacy of al-Jazari, a Middle Age Islamic scientist best known for his famous work in the mechanical field. More specifically, the present study aims to: 1) to identify the studies on al-Jazari in Russia, and in the former USSR countries, where academic studies are still in Russian after the Soviet Union period, to create a chronological biography and to set forth their compilation; in other words, to create a bibliography which includes Russian studies on al-Jazari; 2) to provide information on the structure and content of the studies in question, to detect the methodological issues encountered in these works, and make solution recommendations to solve these issues; 3) to contribute to continuing and future studies in Türkiye on al-Jazari in terms of source and material index. In conclusion, it should be stated that comparative reading was conducted centered on The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices (Kitab fi ma‘rifati’l-hiyal al-handasiyya). It should also be noted that Russian popular internet publications (which are not based on academic research and are created/reproduced for commercial and personal purposes) were excluded from the assessment. (shrink)

İslâm geleneğinin en akılcı fırkası kabul edilen Mu‘tezile’nin özellikle Kur’an kıssaları çerçevesinde tefsirlerde yer bulan israilî rivayetler karşısındaki tutumu merak uyandırıcıdır. Bazı çalışmalarda kimi Mu‘tezilî müfessirlerin isrâiliyyât karşısındaki tutumuna değinilse de İsrâilî rivayetlerin tenkidi söz konusu olduğunda Mu‘tezile’nin bir ekol olarak tutumu herhangi bir araştırmaya konu edilmemiştir. İsrâiliyyât üzerine yapılan son çalışmalarda isrâiliyyât eleştirisinin İbnü’l-Arabî öncesinde Tûsî, Mâverdî hatta Mâtürîdî gibi isimlere kadar geri götürülebileceği söylenirken tamamen Sünnî ve Şiî müfessirler üzerinden bir okuma yapılmakta Mu‘tezilî müfessirlerin görüşlerine yer verilmemektedir. Oysa (...) bu çalışmalarda bahsedildiği üzere erken dönem isrâiliyyât eleştirilerinin genelde ismet meselesi ekseninde yapılması, Mu‘tezilî müfessirler özelinde bir incelemeyi zorunlu kılmaktadır. Nitekim isrâiliyyât eleştirisinde ön plana çıkartılan Mâtürîdî (ö. 333/944, Mâverdî (ö. 450/1058), Tûsî (ö. 460/1067), İbnü’l-Arabî (ö. 543/1148) ve İbn Kesîr (ö. 774/1373) gibi Sünnî ve Şiî müfessirlerden önce Ebû Bekir el-Esam (ö. 200/816), Ebû Alî el-Cübbâî (ö. 303/916) ve Ebû Müslim el-İsfahânî (ö. 322/934) gibi Mu‘tezilî isimler tarafından isrâiliyyât eleştirisinin yapıldığı görülmektedir. Her ne kadar onlar eserlerinde isrâiliyyât kavramını kullanmasalar da bu eleştirileri bazen rivayetlerin kaynağına bazen de içeriğine yöneltmektedir. Daha sonraki Mu‘tezilî âlimlerin de belli âyetler üzerinden bu eleştiriyi sistematik olarak devam ettirdikleri söylenebilir. Çalışmada öncelikle hicrî 2-6. asırda yaşamış el-Esam, Ebû Ali el-Cübbâî, Ebû Müslim el-İsfahânî, Kâdî Abdülcebbâr (ö. 415/1025), Cüşemî (ö. 494/1101) ve Zemahşerî (ö. 538/1144) gibi müfessirlerin, israiliyata bakışına odaklanılmaktadır. Söz konusu müfessirlerin farklı israilî rivayetler karşısındaki tutumu betimsel analiz yöntemiyle değerlendirilmektedir. Ayrıca aynı dönemdeki Sünnî müfessirlerin bu rivayetlere yaklaşımına da atıfta bulunulmaktadır. Mu‘tezilî müfessirlerin isrâiliyyâta yaklaşımı ele alınırken; onların bu rivayetleri reddetmeleri, isrâilî rivayetleri yorumsuz aktarmaları, aklî yorumu isrâilî rivayetlere tercih etmeleri ve isrâiliyyâtla âyetleri tefsir etmeleri gibi farklı yaklaşımlar hususunda ayrıma gidilmektedir. Mu‘tezilî müfessirler eserlerinde birçok İsrâilî rivayet aktarsa da özellikle tefsir geleneğinde sorunlu bazı rivayetlerin te’vilinde eleştirel yaklaşımın ilk örneklerinin onlardan gelen tefsirlerde olduğu söylenebilir. Bu bağlamda çalışmada klasik dönemde isrâiliyyat eleştirisinde Mu‘tezilî müfessirlerin öncü olduğu, özellikle ismet-i enbiyâ ve ismet-i melâike ile ilgili bir takım rivayetlerin eleştirisinin ilk önce Mu‘tezilî müfessirlerle başladığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Yine Mâtürîdî, Mâverdî ve Tûsî gibi Sünnî ve Şiî müfessirlerin kimi yerlerde söz konusu rivayetleri eleştirirken Mu‘tezilî isimlere referansta bulunmasına da dikkat çekilmiştir. Son olarak Mu‘tezilî müfessirler, küllî bir isrâiliyyât eleştirisi yapmasalar da bazı yerlerde söz konusu rivayetleri “Yahudi uydurması ve Tevrat kaynaklı” olarak tanımlamaktadırlar. Bu da onların referans noktaları kendi kelâmî anlayışları olmakla birlikte rivayetleri kaynak açısından da eleştirdiklerini ortaya koymaktadır. Nitekim sistematik bir isrâiliyyât münekkidi olan İbn Kesîr de Peygamberlerin ismetiyle bağdaşmayan kimi rivayetlere tefsirinde yer vermeksizin reddettiği görülürken mucizevî olayları abartılı şekilde resmeden bazı isrâilî rivayetleri yorumsuz aktarmaktadır. Dolayısıyla Mu‘tezilî isimlerin İslâm inancıyla bağdaşmayan isrâilî rivayetlere erken dönemde eleştirel yaklaşması ve bunları nazara itibara almaması kayda değer bir tutumdur. (shrink)