%0 Journal Article
%T Moll¨¡ G¨±r¨¡n£¿£¿¡¯s Commentary Criticism of Q¨¡£¿£¿£¿ and Zamakhshar£¿£¿ on Their Interpretations of F¨¡ti£¿a and Baqara S¨±ras
%A Kutbettin Ekinci
%J -
%D 2018
%X This work deals with Moll¨¡ G¨±r¨¡n£¿£¿¡¯s critique (d. 813/1488) of Q¨¡£¿£¿£¿ al-Bay£¿aw£¿£¿ (d. 596/1200) and Zamakhshar£¿£¿ (d. 538/1144). The F¨¡ti£¿£¿a and Baqara s¨±ras in his manuscript tafs£¿£¿r ¡°Gh¨¡yat al-Am¨¡n£¿£¿¡± are chosen as the texts to examplify Moll¨¡ G¨±r¨¡n£¿£¿¡¯s critique. His criticism is mostly related to language, qir¨¡£¿a (recitation and vocalization of Qur¡¯¨¡nic text), conceptual meaning and disagreement in interpretations of the Qur¡¯¨¡nic verses in question. G¨±r¨¡n£¿£¿ primarly criticisez Q¨¡£¿£¿£¿ due to his reputation among Ottoman scholars. Guran£¿£¿ has not only criticized K¨¡d£¿£¿ and Zamahshar£¿£¿ in the commentary of the surahs F¨¡ti£¿£¿a and Baqara but also Taft¨¡z¨¡n£¿£¿ and Kav¨¡sh£¿£¿. This clearly shows thah he is a well-versed scholar in researching especially in comperative analysis. In this study, our investigation is limited to, however, Zemakhshar£¿£¿ and Q¨¡£¿£¿£¿. This stuyd shows that Zemakhshar£¿£¿ is strictly bound to Ahl al-Sunnah. Moreover, the hadith reports are considerably important for him in understanding and interpreting the Qur¡¯¨¡nic verses. He closely follows the interpretive traditions of early Muslim scholars, especially on the matters that Muslim scholars had an argeemnet. Summary: This study discusses the criticism of Moll¨¡ G¨±r¨¡n£¿£¿ (d. 813/1488), one of the Ottoman commentary scholars, against Q¨¡£¿£¿£¿ al-Bay£¿¨¡w£¿£¿ (d. 685/1286) and Zamakhshar£¿£¿ (d. 538/1144). The two Qur¡¯¨¡nic Surahs F¨¡ti£¿£¿a and Baqara are chosen from his critiques in a manuscript of his commentary called Gh¨¡yat al-Am¨¡n£¿£¿. Moll¨¡ G¨±r¨¡n£¿£¿¡¯s manuscript is registered in Sulaym¨¡niye Library, D¨¡m¨¡d Ibr¨¡h£¿£¿m Pasha Section at number 146 and consists of 352 pages in total. This copy is one of the oldest among other its existent copies. The main reason of our preference of this copy is that it is both legible and at the end of the book (the far¨¡gh part), it writes that it was proofread by his author himself and that handwriting notes at the margins of the pages belonged to the author. We have examined this copy by comparing another copy which is again in the Sulaym¨¡niye Library, Haji Ma£¿m¨±d Efend£¿£¿ section at number 162, consisting of 484 pages in total, comparatively. We have examined critiques of 41 verses in total from F¨¡ti£¿£¿a and Baqara surahs. G¨±r¨¡n¨©¡¯s critiques of Zamakhshar£¿£¿ and Q¨¡£¿£¿£¿ are too wide to be discussed within the limits of an article. Therefore, we have tried to briefly introduce these critiques. While presenting the commentators views, we tried to make their inexplicit expressions clear and furthermore elaborate their purposes by making use of some other resources. We have to say that
%K Tefsir
%K £¿ayet¨¹¡¯l-eman£¿
%K K¨¡d£¿
%K Zemah£¿er£¿
%K Fatiha
%K Bakara
%K Ele£¿tiri
%K £¿yet
%U http://dergipark.org.tr/cuid/issue/36586/385982