The phenomenon of irab in the tafsirs of baydawi and lutfullah al-ardurumi

Abstract

Irab is a phenomenon which has carried on its importance since the beginning of codification activities on Arabic language and Islamic sciences. For this reason, it has been one of the basic elements taken as a foundation for most of the Islamic sciences. Irab is a part of tafsir, which is one of these sciences and whose primary purpose is to contribute under-standing the Qur'an. As a matter of fact, it is possible to speak about a truly conducted tafsir only by pursuing the qualities that a language has in the strict sense. One of the most obvious qualities of the Arabic language related to tafsir is irab. Therefore, irab takes an important place in the mufassirs' (interpreters) methodology of tafsir. Baydawi, who is one of the mufas-sirs giving remarkable coverage to irab in their tafsirs, is a mufassir who is widely respected in the Islamic world and especially in the eyes of Ottoman scholars. Hence, his tafsir has been subject to many other studies in terms of some aspects such as sharh, hashiya, abbreviations etc. Furthermore, some of the other tafsir books have been written using this tafsir as the base. In this study, the tafsirs of the two interpreters, Baydawi and Lutfullah al-Ardurumi-an Ottoman period mufassir-are compared in terms of their approach to irab. It is under-stood that the source of most of Lutfullah al-Ardurumi's opinions on irab was Baydawi and that Lutfullah al-Ardurumi preferred to summarize, explain and comment on Baydawi's ideas on the subjects he agreed. However, in some cases, he disagreed with Baydawi's opinions in a manner that shows his competence in the language and especially in irab. In this case, he supported his opinions with the opinions of other mufassirs, al-Zamakhshari, al-Razi and Abu Hayyan being in the first place. In this study which makes a comparative analysis of the opinions of two mufassirs based on some examples, apart from the books of these two mufas-sirs, the books of other mentioned mufassirs, in whose tafsirs the subject of irab holds an important place and is analyzed as part of the topic. Summary: Irab means explanation and specification. It functions through the rules by which edits the signs at the end of words in the Arabic language and makes them connect with each other, and thus it determines their values of meaning. Hence, in a sentence irab has a role which-by removing ambiguity-helps reveal the elegant meanings, and makes it easier to un-derstand the deep meanings of the statement. Therefore, irab has always been one of the most fundamental properties that Arab linguists hold to as well as other scholars who work in fields where the qualities of language are looked after, such as hadith, fiqh and kalam, and write books. In the tafsir of the Qur'an, irab has been one of the leading factors. Hence, the basic dynamic for the establishment of irab rules is to keep the Qur'an safe from the misread-ing called lahn. The mufassirs (commentators) have greatly benefited from irab in under-standing the Qur'an as well. One of the scholars who benefit from irab in understanding the Qur'an is the famous mufassir Abdallah b. Muhammad al-Baydawi (d. 685/1286) in his work Tafsir al-Baydawi which is also known as Anwar al-Tanzil wa-Asrar al-Ta'wil. This book is a tafsir which has gained wide acceptance in the scholar circles. Another scholar to use irab frequently like Baydawi in his tafsir is Muhammad b. Lutfullah al-Ardurumi (d. 1202/1788) who is also known as Gogsugur Lutfullah Efendi. The title of Lutfullah al-Ardurumi's tafsir, who is one of the Ottoman period scholars and wrote books in various fields, is Ramuzu't-Tahrir ve't-Tafsir. As this tafsir gives wide coverage to the properties of language and irab, it is also possible to be called a lugawi tafsir. The commentator mostly preferred to explain Baydawi's opinions as well as benefiting from his opinions on irab. In addition to this, he benefited from the opinions of other mufassirs such as al-Zamakhshari, al-Razi and Abu Hayyan and many others for the subjects related to irab In this study, Anwar al-Tanzil wa-Asrar al-Ta'wil by Baydawi and Ramuzu't-Tahrir ve't-Tafsir by Lutfullah al-Ardurumi are compared in terms of their approach to irab. The determinant for choosing these two tafsirs is that the way these books approach irab show similarities. The aim of this study, which comparatively analyzes the subject through some examples, is to determine the quality of the relationship in terms of their evaluating irab by determining the approach of these two mufassirs to irab in understanding the Qur'an verses. Another aim of this study is to analyze the evaluations of Lutfullah al-Ardurumi, who lived later than Baydawi, on the subjects he thought similarly or he disagreed. At this point, the subject, which is analyzed through examples of irab in both works, is discussed comparatively with the opin-ions of al-Zamakhshari, al-Razi, Abu Hayyan and other mufassirs who gave wide coverage to irab in their works. The two scholars, whose opinions on irab are analyzed in this study, undoubtedly have been the subject of many other studies with their various aspects. Over the years, there are more and more studies on Baydawi who gains more and more reputation and whose works draw more attention. Related to our subject some studies analyze the way he used irab in inter-preting the method in his tafsir and verses of the Qur'an. However, this study, unlike previous ones, discusses the way Baydawi and Lutfullah al-Ardurumi, who lived later than him, used irab in their tafsirs rather than explaining the method in Baydawi's tafsir and how he used the properties of language and irab in tafsir. On the other hand, though Lutfullah al-Ardurumi was not studied as much as Baydawi, it is seen that some of his works have been the subject of various studies. Some studies analyze his works in terms of language. However, this study, by making a comparison of the opinions of these two writers on this subject, tries to present the subjects that Lutfullah al-Ardurumi agreed or disagreed with Baydawi in his tafsir book when he appealed to Baydawi's opinion on irab and the sources of the opinion differences between them as well as evaluating Baydawi's approach to irab. In addition, this study aims to evaluate by determining which forms Lutfullah al-Ardurumi used from quoting, explaining or referencing in points about which he had the same idea as Baydawi. On the other hand, it is tried to be determined for the subjects he disagreed with Baydawi whether it was the writer's own opinion or it was opting for one over another after evaluating the opinions of previous scholars. About the approaching styles to subjects related to irab in the two works that are the subjects of this study, these conclusions have been reached: Lutfullah al-Ardurumi mostly agreed with the opinions of Baydawi. Although he preferred to summarize most of Baydawi's opinions, he felt the need to make explanations in some cases. More examples for this subject, about which some examples are given in the study, can be given from the works of both writers. For the subjects he disagreed, Lutfullah al-Ardurumi presented some other opinions in other tafsirs he considered more to the point. For the subjects he disagreed with Baydawi, he primarily benefited from the Al-Kashshaf by al-Zamakhshari, Mafatihu'l Ghayb by al-Razi, al-Bahr al-muhit by Abu Hayyan and from different opinions related to irab in other tafsirs. In some of the opinions, he neither agreed with Baydawi nor with other mufassirs and he stated his own opinion. These evaluations on irab have been able to appear in the form of valuing one opin-ion above any other that has an obvious effect in determining the meaning as they can be from a writer who has never been mentioned previously. Lutfullah al-Ardurumi justified it when he agreed with Baydawi's opinions by presenting various evidence. This shows us that the role of mufassirs who follow the previous ones is not only to summarize and gloss them but on the contrary they have some methods, evaluations and criterion special to themselves. On the other hand, these results obtained by comparing the two works that are the subjects of this study show us that although the accumulation of knowledge and compilations left by the previous scholars to the later ones are abundant in either language or other fields, a group of conclusions that were not reached by them can be reached by the later ones as a result of extensive evaluations and researches.