The criticism of some evaluation and assertion about israiliyyat in tafsir

Abstract

The traditions about israiliyyat that were seen almost in all the types of Islamic sciences appeared in the sources of tafsir from early periods. These traditions that were gen-erally used to explain the Quran were seen problem and critisized by some exegetical spe-cialists. Even though corresponding to a relative later period in the classical era, an approach was tried to put forward in view of the traditions about israiliyyat. This methodological con-cern for israiliyyat in classical period has increased and been influential for many researchers from east and west to work on this issue in modern times. There has been reached to im-portant results about the issues of the definition of israiliyyat, the source of it, its spread in Islamic sciences, its aim of usage, the progress of these positive-negative attitudes against these traditions in historical process. But it is important to discuss some evaluations and anal-ysis again that put forward in this process when different cases about the issue are taken into consideration. According to this, a series of problem, such as how the israiliyyat can be de-fined in tafsir, when the criticism of israiliyyat started, whether Biqai was the first exegete who made reference to Bible or not will be discussed considering relevant resources in this article. Summary: Since the early periods, isra'iliyyat narratives were used as a source of information in tafsirs. These narratives, which are transmitted in various tafsirs of the Qur'an, one of the main sources of Islamic religion, have also taken the methodological interests of some exegete since the early periods. This interest continued in the modern period, and both Western and Eastern researchers made research on isra'iliyyat. Some of the findings, analyses, and claims available in researches on this subject will be reexamined in this article. The first of these is the problem of the definition of isra'iliyyat. In contemporary research, inclusive definitions are made for isra'iliyyat, seen in all sources. These definitions do not al-low for a refined description of isra'iliyyat which is handled in terms of different intentions in the sources of each different field and which varies in terms of the issues it covers, leading to the underestimation of some of its aspects in relevant fields. In the definitions, it is stated that isra'iliyyat is mostly learned from the Ahl al-Kitab, (the People of the Book) it became widespread along with Islam and it included narratives about caliphs, dynasties, and Mahdi, as well. Another issue is to be emphasized that they are fictive or mythological. In classical tafsirs, isra'iliyyat is observed to be related mainly with the history of the Ahl al-Kitab or with the subjects they know about. In the modern era, the narratives about the ancestors of the Arabs have been identified as isra'iliyyat. If some of the isra'iliyyat narratives are related to the history of Arabs, then their resource should be the historical-cultural memory of Arabs. However, as almost all Qur'anic stories were somewhat known before the revelation period and relations with the Ahl al-Kitab dated back to times long before the Islamic period, the claim that these narratives became widespread along with Islam should be revised. It is also problematic to emphasize the legendary nature of some of the isra'iliyyat and to make that as a reason to reject all. Such emphasis also leads to the underestimation of the functions of nar-ratives in tafsirs. In isra'iliyyat, tafsir was used for i) interpreting the ambiguous words in the stories, ii) to bring evidence to the Ahl al-Kitab, and ii) tarhib-targhib (encouragement-warn-ing). These narratives can be used as a source in tafsir unless they are explicitly falsified by the data of fields such as history, history of religions and archaeology as well as the Qur'an and the true Sunnah. The first criticisms of isra'iliyyat are claimed to belong to exegete like Ibn al-'Arabi (d. 543/148) or Ibn 'Atiyah (d. 541/1147). However, criticism of isra'iliyyat is also observed in the tafsirs of earlier exegete, such as al-Maturidi (d. 333/944), al-Mawardi (d. 450/1058) or al-Tusi (d. 460/1067). They do not necessarily have to use the term isra'iliyyat explicitly in their criticism like the later ones. If the narratives they criticize and the reasons for their crit-icism are the same as those of the later exegete, it will be necessary to date the criticism of isra'iliyyat back to the 4th Century of the Hegira. The understanding that "the expression in the story is sufficient, it is unnecessary to deal with the ambiguities; instead, it is necessary to deal with the lesson and wisdom in the story" is one of the criteria that Muhammad 'Abduh (d. 1905), who is deemed to be the pioneer of the strict criticism of isra'iliyyat in the modern period, took as basis in this criticism, is valid for the exegete of the classical period, as well. Although exegete, such as al-Tabari (d. 310/923), al-Maturidi, al-Razi (d. 606/1210), and Abu Hayyan (d. 745/1344) who had this understand-ing, gave place to isra'iliyyat, these people recognized that "these narratives were not final, binding or necessary", indeed. The understanding that such expression in the story is suffi-cient, which is one of the reasons for such awareness in the classical period, seems to have turned into a strict rejection in the modern period. Another issue is the claim that Biqa'i (d. 885/1480) was the first exegete to systematically benefit from the Bible in tafsir in the classical period. However, al-Daylami (d. 593/1197) before Biqa'i, is also observed to have used the Old Testament systematically in tafsir. He cited the Tanakh in his period in two ways. He either directly quoted from the translation of Tanakh or the Hebrew text written in Arabic letters. Another exegete who used the Tanakh as a source in his tafsir was al-Safadi (d. 696/1296). He enriched his tafsir with systematic quotations from the Tanakh. Therefore, the use of the Bible as a source of interpretation in the classical period should not be started with Biqa'i. The reason why the pioneer exegete of the classical period did not directly use the Bible is claimed to be the fact that they falsified it and deemed the isra'iliyyat narrated from the pre-decessors to be more reliable. However, it is known that a significant portion of the isra'iliyyat, which was orally transferred from the predecessors, is based on written sources, particularly including the apocryphal texts. So just like the Bible, isra'iliyyat, which was orally transferred from the predecessors, is problematic in terms of authenticity. This allows us to argue that classical exegete have an inconsistent attitude, indeed. On the other hand, when we take into account the fact that classical exegetes criticize these narratives from time to time and believe that they are not final or binding, the problem of potential inconsistency disappears. Accordingly, they did not deem chain transmission of these narratives from the predecessors by reliable transmitters to be a sufficient reason for their acceptance and adop-tion for good and all.