Publication: Kur'ân'da neshin varlığına ilişkin tartışmaların kaynağı
Abstract
Nesih, tefsir ilminin tartışmalı ve önemli meselelerinden biridir. Kur’ân’da neshin varlığı konusundaki tartışmalar, erken dönemden itibaren görülmektedir ve zamanla farklı boyutlar kazanarak derinleşmiştir. Bu tezde, Kur’ân’da neshin varlığına dair tartışmaların kaynağı nedir? problematiği ele alınmış, müfessirlerin “Kur’ân’da nesih vardır/ yoktur” ifadelerinin zemini ve bu husustaki ihtilafın mensûh olduğu iddia edilen âyetlerin yorumuna etkisi incelenmiştir. Tezin birinci bölümünde, Kur’ân’da neshin varlığına dair görüş ayrılıklarının temel sebepleri sistematik biçimde incelenmiştir. İkinci bölümde ise Şah Veliyullah Dihlevî’nin mensûh kabul ettiği beş âyet üzerinden, bu tartışmaların seyri ve yorumlara yansıması analiz edilmiştir. Tezde kelime, metin ve içerik analizi, karşılaştırmalı metin incelemesi, doküman ve literatür tarama, rivayet incelemelerinde isnat, metin ve muhteva tenkidi yöntemlerine başvurulmuştur. Bu çalışma, Kur’ân’da neshin varlığına dair tartışmaların yalnızca hüküm farklılıklarına değil, aynı zamanda lafzî/ dilbilimsel sebepler, rivayet anlayışı, kıraat farkları, bazı tarihî olayların yorumu, tefsirde rivayet geleneği gibi çok katmanlı unsurlara dayandığını ortaya koymaktadır.
Abrogation (naskh) constitutes one of the most debated and significant subjects in the discipline of Qur’anic exegesis. Discussions concerning its existence in the Qur’an have emerged since the formative period of Islam and have progressively developed in complexity. This thesis explores the underlying causes of scholarly disagreement on abrogation, its roots within the exegetical tradition, and the interpretative implications of verses considered to be abrogated. The first chapter provides a systematic analysis of the primary reasons behind divergent views on abrogation in the Qur’an. The second chapter focuses on five verses deemed abrogated by Shāh Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī, examining how these cases reflect the broader exegetical disputes. The methodology employed in this study incorporates various approaches, including isnād criticism, textual and content analysis, analogical reasoning (qiyās), lexical and terminological examination, as well as both traditional (riwāyah) and rational (dirāyah) exegetical methods. This study reveals that the debates surrounding abrogation in the Qur’an are rooted not only in legal interpretive differences but also in linguistic, narrational, and historical factors, as well as in variations in Qur’anic recitation and the transmission of exegetical traditions.
Abrogation (naskh) constitutes one of the most debated and significant subjects in the discipline of Qur’anic exegesis. Discussions concerning its existence in the Qur’an have emerged since the formative period of Islam and have progressively developed in complexity. This thesis explores the underlying causes of scholarly disagreement on abrogation, its roots within the exegetical tradition, and the interpretative implications of verses considered to be abrogated. The first chapter provides a systematic analysis of the primary reasons behind divergent views on abrogation in the Qur’an. The second chapter focuses on five verses deemed abrogated by Shāh Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī, examining how these cases reflect the broader exegetical disputes. The methodology employed in this study incorporates various approaches, including isnād criticism, textual and content analysis, analogical reasoning (qiyās), lexical and terminological examination, as well as both traditional (riwāyah) and rational (dirāyah) exegetical methods. This study reveals that the debates surrounding abrogation in the Qur’an are rooted not only in legal interpretive differences but also in linguistic, narrational, and historical factors, as well as in variations in Qur’anic recitation and the transmission of exegetical traditions.
