Kurra ve müfessirler arasında geç döneme kadar Kur'an kıraatlerinde fluluk: Ebussuud ve tefsiri örneği

Abstract

A significant topic of the Qur’anic studies is the subject of variant readings. According to Muslim tradition, the Qur’ān can be read at least in seven variant readings. Primary sources of Muslim scholarly tradition on the history of the Qur’ān exhibit, to some degree of variance, two distinct historical tiers: one is on the written form of the Qur’ān; and the other is on the oral features of the Qur’ān. Although the history of the written form of the Qur’ān seems to have culminated with the collection of the caliph ‛Uthmān (r. 26-36/646-656), the oral character of it continued to entertain variances in unspcified numbers. Attempts to limit, systematize, and cononize these variances, despite political backing at times, have failed to find reception with the scholars of Qur’anic readings and the scholars of Qur’anic exegesis well into the late middle ages. The latter, in their exegetical works, have continued to revive, utilize, and assess the readings that had been deemed non-canonical by the former. The Muslim tradition in general purports that the Qur’anic readings have been limited and systematized in non-exegetical settings, and the scholars of Qur’anic readings have allowed for the utilization of non-canonical readings for exegetical purposes. Our study here aims to assess this claim and reexamine if it can be corroborated with historical developments. We hope to demonstrate that not only does this claim stand on shaky grounds, but the exegetical literature well into the late middle ages strove to maintain the liberal ground for the oral aspect of the Qur’ān. We have tackled the issue through the exegetical work of Abū al-Su‛ūd al-‛Īmādī, Irshād al-‛aql al-salīm ilā mazāyā al-Kitāb al-Karīm, with references to earlier exegetical works on which Abū al-Su‛ūd seems to have drawn. We would like to demonstrate that the exegetes contested the Qur’anic readers in the oral features of the Qur’ān and stood their ground in keeping the liberal approach that allowed for some degree of fluidity and which was guided and governed by several different and non-fixed criteria such as tradition, meaning, literary excellence, linguistic reasoning, etc.