Klasik Dönemde Kur’an’da Neshi Reddeden Bir Müfessir: Safedî’nin Nesh Teorisine Yaklaşımı
A Commentator of Classical Period Who Rejected Naskh in the Qur’ān: al-Ṣafadī’s Approach to the Theory of Naskh

Summary/Abstract: Abrogation (naskh), as one of the most important issues in tafsīr, has been discussed since the early periods. There is a consent on the existence of abrogation in Qur’ān both in classical and modern studies. Abū Muslim al-Iṣfahānī (d. 322/934) is the only person to be mentioned to object to the consent on the existence of abrogation in Qur’ān. Today, a new tafsīr has been published in order to question this claim. A classical mufassir, al-Ṣafadī (d. 696/1296), rejects the existence of abrogation in Qur’ān in his tafsīr titled Kashf al-asrār wa hatq al-astār alongside with al-Iṣfahānī. He also mentions Muslims who completely reject abrogation since it requires badā (versatility or mutability of God) and al-Nawbakhtī (d. 310/922[?]) who thinks abrogation is not possible in Qur’ān by restricting its existence to earlier holy books. In addition, according to our findings, ‘Ubayd b. ‘Umayr (d. 74/693[?]) from tābi‘ūn is mentioned to have rejec-ted abrogation. Therefore, it was understood that al-Iṣfahānī was not the only one to have rejected the existence of abrogation in Qur’ān in the classical period. Al-Ṣafadī reasons that abrogation is possible only between Qur’ān and previous books. He bases this idea on the changes in the best interest (maṣlaḥa) of those who are the addressee of decrees and the wisdom in Allah’s actions: Provisions in the earlier books came in accordance with the best interest of those who dealt with them. Āyah (verses) that abrogated the provisions of the earlier books were revealed in accordance with the best interest of his addressees. As time passes and the addressees change, Allah may send different judgments, considering the best interest of his subjects. However, while al-Ṣafadī justifies the abrogation of previous books in Qur’ān in this way, he does not think these justifications are possible for Qur’ān verses. Ac-cording to him, the duration of Qur’ān’s revelation is not long enough to necessitate a serious change in the best interest. On the other hand, al-Ṣafadī draws attention to the disagreements among those who claim there is abrogation among verses: While they claim some verses are abrogated, some of them interpret those verses without resorting to abrogation. The most important reasoning that al-Ṣafadī puts forward while rejecting abrogation is the fact that to accept abrogation in Qur’ān is to accept there is a disagreement in Qur’ān. He explains the situation in the following way: When there is discrepancy between two verses on the same subject, abrogation is resorted. According to this, nāsikh and mansukh verses are contradictory verses in Qur’ān. Accepting that there is nāsikh and mansukh in Qur’ān means that there are contradictory verses in Qur’ān. However, Allah rejected that there was conflict in Qur’ān in an-Nisā 4/82 while he declared that no kind of superstition could approach him in Fussilat 41/42. Thus, al-Ṣafadī thinks that the claim of abrogation in Qur’ān contradicts mentioned verses. However, those who accept abrogation do not see any contradiction between these verses and this claim. In fact, the fact that al-Ṣafadī accepts abrogation in general while rejecting the claim of abrogation in Qur’ān is problematic in itself: Justifying the change in provisions with the change in best interests requires an acceptance of abrogation both between Qur’ān and earlier holy books, among Qur’ān verses and after Qur’ān. Because the change in best interests did not happen only between the period corresponding to the revelation of Qur’ān and earlier books. This change happened both in the revelation period and the period between the revelation and today. However, al-Ṣafadī, thinking that abrogation is subject to the order of Allah, he does not think abrogation is possible after the revelation even though best interests change. Because, a new order from Allah is required in order for some verses to be accepted as mansukh after the revela-tion period. The fact that al-Ṣafadī rejects abrogation after the revelation period contradicts his earlier explanations. In fact, even though best interests have changed after the revelation period, if abrogation will not occur, it would not be a strong justification to explain abrogation in earlier periods with the change in best interest.Al-Ṣafadī also refers to the difference of abrogation and badā, and states that it is important to know the best interest behind these two provisions. While the abrogation of provisions happens with the change in best interests known and supervised by Allah, the change in provisions happens with relevant best interests becoming known in later periods in badā. It is not possible to become known later in the knowledge of Allah. Al-Ṣafadī also rejects the abrogation of Qur’ān with hadith (sunna) and consensus (ijmā). According to him, it is not possible for hadith to abrogate the verse. Because, al-Ṣafadī thinks that this is only possible when hadith is equal or superior to verse. He thinks that the hadith cannot have such qualities since he forms a negative relations-hip with this possibility and the fact that verses come from waḥy. The fact that hadith is equal to verse nullifies both the prophethood of its bearer and the accuracy of that word. Moreover, al-Ṣafadī refers to the difference between “word of Prophet Muhammad” and “word of Allah” stating that hadith is not the same as verses. If the two were of the same quality, they both would be called the word of Allah. Similarly, al-Ṣafadī rejects the abrogation of verses with consensus reasoning that consensus is a word of mankind and that this kind of words cannot be of the same quality with the word of Allah. He also stipulates that the consensus should be achieved not between groups with same ideas but between foes, that is everyone from different sects, on the abrogation of consensus. This kind of consensus does not exist. In this way, after rejecting the claim of abrogation in Qur’ān, in his tafsīr, al-Ṣafadī tries to interpret the verses claimed to be abrogated, without the need for abrogation.

• Details
• Contents