Zamakhshari

Bu tezde Eş'arî kelâmcısı Ebû Ali es-Sekûnî'nin (ö. 717/1317) Temyîz adlı eserinde Mu'tezilî Zemahşerî'ye (ö. 538/1144) yönelttiği eleştiriler incelenmektedir. Sekûnî, Endülüs topraklarında yetişmiş daha sonra Mağrib'e göç etmiş ilmiyye sınıfından bir aileye mensuptur. Kelâm ilminde bir dönüm noktası olan Fahreddîn er-Râzî (ö. 606/1210) sonrasında yaşamasına rağmen döneminde yaygın olan Râzi mektebini eleştiriye tâbi tutmuş, daha çok mütekaddim kelâmcılarını özellikle de Bâkıllânî'yi (ö. 403/1013) takip etmiştir. Yazıldığı günden itibaren geniş bir etki alanına sahip olmuş Keşşâf, barındırdığı i'tizâlî düşünceler nedeniyle birçok Ehl-i sünnet kelâmcısı gibi Sekûnî'nin de tepkisini çekmiş ve kendisinin Temyîz isimli Keşşâf eleştirisini kaleme almasına sebep olmuştur. Temyîz başında müstakil bir kelâm eseri sayılabilecek uzunca bir mukaddime içermektedir. Sekûnî bu mukaddimede kelâm ilminin temel kaidelerini vaz etmiş, daha sonra eleştirilerini bu ilkelere büyük ölçüde riayet ederek gerçekleştirmiştir. Fâtiha'dan başlayıp Nâs'a kadar her sûrede i'tizâl tespit etmeyi başaran Sekûnî, bazı hususlarda Hanefîler ile Mu'tezile arasındaki ortak görüşleri de sadece Mu'tezile'ye nispet etmiştir. Sekûnî gerek yaptığı i'tizâl tespitleriyle –ki Keşşâf'a Temyîz'den daha geniş bir i'tizâl eleştirisi yazılmamıştır- gerekse Zemahşerî'nin düşüncelerine karşı kullandığı delillerle başarılı bir Mu'tezile eleştirmenidir. Tezde onun i'tizâl eleştirileri ağırlıklı olarak Fâtihâ ve Bakara sûresinden seçilen örnekler üzerinden ele alınmıştır.

This thesis will take into account aspects of the Ash'ari theologian Abū Alī al-Sakūnī's criticism in his al-Tamyīz towards the Mu'tazilī al-Zamakhshari. Sakūnī was from a scholarly family, he was initially brought up in Andalusia and thereafter migrated to Maghreb. Although he lived in the era after Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī which was a turning point in the science of theology, he has made criticism to the Rāzī school despite it being the prominent thought of the time. Sakūnī has rather followed the footsteps of the mutaqaddimūn scholars, especially al-Bāqillānī. Al-Kashaf has had great influence since the day it was written, however due to the i'tizāl-oriented views it has been criticised by Sakūnī and many other orthodox theologians. Thus this has caused him to compile the study Tamyīz as a criticism to such thoughts. Tamyīz consists of a long introduction that can itself be counted as a theological study piece. Sakūnī in this introduction has mentioned the core principles of the theology science, thereafter criticisms are made within these principles. Sakūnī has managed and succeeded in finding the i'tizāl thoughts from al-Fātiha until al-Nās, in instance of common grounds with the Hanafiyyah he has only attributed the opinions to the Mu'tazila. A successful proposition criticism has been made whether it be Sakūnī's detection of i'tizāl (yet there is not a more in-depth study in this regard) or it be against Zamakhshari's thoughts. This study has mainly taken into account examples of i'tizāl-oriented seen in Suras of al-Fātiha and al-Baqara.

Öz:
Tefsir alanındaki otoritesinin yanı sıra Arap dili ve edebiyatına dair kaleme aldığı eserler ile tanınan Zemahşerî (ö. 538/1144), Hârizm bölgesinde bulunan Taşavuz (Daşoğuz, Taşauz) şehrinde dünyaya gelir. Hârizm, Buhara ve Bağdat gibi dönemin önemli bilim ve kültür merkezlerinde eğitim gören Zemahşerî’nin kaleme aldığı Nevâbiğu’l-kelim adlı risale, Arap edebiyatını etkileyen önemli eserlerdendir. Hikmetli sözlerden oluşan ve ahlakî ilkeler bağlamında dünya hayatı ile öte dünya arasında nasıl bir ilişki kurulması gerektiğine dair çerçeve çizen bu risale üzerine Teftâzânî (ö. 793/1390) ve Hâdimî (ö. 1213/1765) gibi âlimler şerh yazmıştır. Ayrıca pek çok defa basılan bu eser, birçok batı diline de tercüme edilmiştir. Bir ahlak risalesi hüviyetine sahip olan bu risale, pek çok konu hakkında çeşitli öğütler içerir. Metnin içerdiği hikmetli sözlerin yanında yoğun olarak kullanılan teşbîh, istiâre, mübâlağa, itbâk ve cinâs gibi çeşitli edebî sanatlar, risalenin sonraki dönem edebiyatçıları tarafından kabul görmesinde ve üzerine çok sayıda şerh kaleme alınmasında etkili olmuştur. Bu doğrultuda çalışmamızın girişinde Zemahşerî’nin edebî kimliği hakkında bilgi verilecek, ardından birinci bölümde Nevâbiğu’l-kelim’in muhtevâsı ile edebiyat dünyasındaki etkisi üzerinde durulacaktır. Son bölümde ise eser üzerine kaleme alınan şerhler tespit edilip bir şerhe neden ihtiyaç duyulduğu incelenecektir.//

Abstract: al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144), known for his authority in the field of commentary on the Qurʾān and his works on Arabic language and literature, was born in the city of Taşavuz (Dashoguz), located in the Khwārezm region. The book called Nawābigh al-kalim, written by al-Zamakhsharī, who study in the important scientific and cultural centers such as Khwārezm, Bukhārā and Baghdad, is one of the important works that influenced Arabic literature. Many scholars, such as al-Taftāzānī  (d. 793/1390) and Khādimī (d. 1213/1765) have written commentaries on this book, which consists of wise words and draws a framework for how the relationship between world and the afterworld should be established. In addition, this work, which has been printed many times, has also been translated into many western languages. This book, which is about morality, contains various advice on many topics. In addition to the wise words, various eloquence (al-Balāghah) arts such as Analogy (Tamthīl), simile (tashbīh) and metaphor (istiᶜārah were influential in the acceptance of the book by later literati and in the penning of a large number of commentaries on it. In this direction, the introduction of our work provides information about the literary identity of al-Zamakhsharī, and the first chapter focuses on the content of Nawābigh al-kalim and its impact on the literary world. In the last part, the annotations written on the work are determined and it is discussed why a commentary is needed.

This work deals with Mollā Gūrānı̄’s critique (d. 813/1488) of Qāḍı̄ al-Bayḍawı̄ (d. 596/1200) and Zamakhsharı̄ (d. 538/1144). The Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara sūras in his manuscript tafsı̄r “Ghāyat al-Amānı̄” are chosen as the texts to examplify Mollā Gūrānı̄’s critique. His criticism is mostly related to language, qirāʾa (recitation and vocalization of Qur’ānic text), conceptual meaning and disagreement in interpretations of the Qur’ānic verses in question. Gūrānı̄ primarly criticisez Qāḍı̄ due to his reputation among Ottoman scholars. Guranı̄ has not only criticized Kādı̄ and Zamahsharı̄ in the commentary of the surahs Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara but also Taftāzānı̄ and Kavāshı̄. This clearly shows thah he is a well-versed scholar in researching especially in comperative analysis. In this study, our investigation is limited to, however, Zemakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄. This stuyd shows that Zemakhsharı̄ is strictly bound to Ahl al-Sunnah. Moreover, the hadith reports are considerably important for him in understanding and interpreting the Qur’ānic verses. He closely follows the interpretive traditions of early Muslim scholars, especially on the matters that Muslim scholars had an argeemnet.

Summary: This study discusses the criticism of Mollā Gūrānı̄ (d. 813/1488), one of the Ottoman commentary scholars, against Qāḍı̄ al-Bayḍāwı̄ (d. 685/1286) and Zamakhsharı̄ (d. 538/1144). The two Qur’ānic Surahs Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara are chosen from his critiques in a manuscript of his commentary called Ghāyat al-Amānı̄. Mollā Gūrānı̄’s manuscript is registered in Sulaymāniye Library, Dāmād Ibrāhı̄m Pasha Section at number 146 and consists of 352 pages in total. This copy is one of the oldest among other its existent copies. The main reason of our preference of this copy is that it is both legible and at the end of the book (the farāgh part), it writes that it was proofread by his author himself and that handwriting notes at the margins of the pages belonged to the author. We have examined this copy by comparing another copy which is again in the Sulaymāniye Library, Haji Maḥmūd Efendı̄ section at number 162, consisting of 484 pages in total, comparatively. We have examined critiques of 41 verses in total from Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara surahs.

Gūrānī’s critiques of Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄ are too wide to be discussed within the limits of an article. Therefore, we have tried to briefly introduce these critiques. While presenting the commentators views, we tried to make their inexplicit expressions clear and furthermore elaborate their purposes by making use of some other resources. We have to say that we also used bracketed explanatory statements while giving commentators opinions.

Most of the critiques of Gūrānı̄ are aimed at Qāḍı̄ since the latter’s commentary was one of the favourite ones among Ottoman intellectual circles. Therefore, in writing his commentary manuscript, Gūrānı̄ ambivalently both followed and criticized Qāḍı̄’s commentary. When Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara surahs are used as a base, it is evident that Gūrānı̄’s commentary Ghāyat al-Amānı̄ is a reason-based (dirāyah) in line with those of Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄ as commentary methodology. Gūrānı̄ modelled himself so much on Qāḍı̄ in this commentary of his that it seems as an abridged copy of Qāḍı̄’s. Ghāyat al-Amānı̄ as a commentary example of Ottoman era shows that the commentary methodology of the time did not change even four hundred years after Zamakhsharı̄.

It is possible to say that Gūrānı̄ criticized Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄ in this commentary in a meticulous manner. Although many of his critiques are disputable, his rigorous approach to texts and his courage of critique, instead of imitative attitude, of Qāḍı̄’s commentary, which was held in high esteem in madrasahs of the time, and of commentary of Zamakhsharı̄, who was competent in Arabic language, is of great significance. Gūrānı̄ used a comparative scientific methodology and was a prominent. When his commentary manuscript examined it can be seen that it was not only Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄ but also Taftāzānı̄ (d. 792/1390) and Kavāshı̄ (d. 680/1281) who got their shares from his critiques. Most of Gūrānı̄’s critiques were on the subtleties of Arabic language. He sometimes expressed his criticism using Arabic grammar rules and sometimes rhetoric requirements. His other critiques involved topics such as, conceptual meaning, verses integrity, recitation and some interpretations of verses that he disagreed with. His critical method was based on the integrity of the Qurʾān, interpretive traditions, Salaf’s views and logical contradictions. We ought to mention that Gūrānı̄ showed his strong commitment to his predecessors and scholars for matters on which they had consensus. We comprehend this commitment on occasions when he rejected the claim that, for instance, a given form of qirā’a from Salaf was wrong according to Arabic grammar in favour of Salafı̄ reciter.

The aim of this study is to give an idea about commentary understandings and methods of commentators in Ottoman era and to make contribution to introducing Gūrānı̄, who criticized Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄, two prominent commentators competent in their field, to researchers in terms of his attribute as a critic. An earlier study on his critiques made in this commentary of Gūrānı̄ only covered his critiques of Qāḍı̄ for some of his interpretations in Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara surahs. Therefore, another important factor leading to this study was to cover all critiques he made against the views and comments of both Zamakhsharı̄ and those shared by Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄. Hence, this study aims to contribute to the fiedl as an analytical study or a translation made by researchers on this concise and handwritten manuscript.

Some conspicuous features are seen in Gūrānı̄’s critiques. As he pointed out in his reviews, in case of subjects with availability of narratives (rivāyah) and of suitability of the literal meaning of verses, he did not prefer allegorical interpretation. He gives the impression that he based his reviews on Ahl al-Sunnah, and he took pains to follow Ashaʿrı̄te school of thought. Although Gūrānı̄, did not see harm in sharing the same things with Zamakhsharı̄, opposing Qāḍı̄ as regards Arabic language, he was always in opposition with Zamakhsharı̄ in relation to commitment to sectarian view and Ḥadı̄ths. It can also be said that Gūrānı̄ did not favour esoteric-allusive commentary style.

It can also be said that Gūrānı̄ had sound and deep knowledge in the field of Kalām. This can be deduced from his considering Qāḍı̄’s arguments to criticize Muʿtazila as insubstantial and sometimes from his criticism of Qāḍı̄ for his careless selection of phrases he used in theological issues. Meanwhile, Gūrānı̄ criticized some views which did not belong to Qāḍı̄. For example, it is seen that he criticized Qāḍı̄ for his citation of an opinion through the phrase “it is said that” as if it was his own view by writing an annotation on the margin that it was Qāḍı̄ who said it. In our opinion, the most important thing that the critique of Gūrānı̄ shows is his scholarly identity and his outspoken character of enunciating of what he believed scholarly and conscientiously. This, also, shows the existence of critical thinking in Ottoman scholarship tradition.

Because of its unique stylistic features, many scholars have written commentaries on al-Zamakhshari’s book al-Mufassal. One of the most famous ones is a manuscript commentary by Izz al-Din Kashi, who was an Iranian poet, author, and sculptor of the late seventh and early eighth centuries AH. In addition to numerous works in the field of Persian and Arabic poetry and prose, Izz al-Din Kashi has written Sharh al-Mufassal, which is an extensive commentary on the book al-Mufssal. The present article tries to examine the syntax of Sharh al-Mufassal in order to underline Izz al-Din Kashi’s role as a prominent Iranian figure. The use of plain language unlike the literary language used in Ibn al-Yaish’s commentary and the rational and logical language of Ibn al-Hajib’s commentary, his attention to lexical issues and causation, the explanation of the scope of syntactic terms, and the use of dialects in expressing syntactic discussions are among the features of this book. In his commentary, he is mostly from the followers of the visual school, but apparently, he does not want to play the role of a narrator who merely follows syntacticians, but in some cases, he criticizes the ideas of some of them, in particular, Zamakhshari and Ibn al-Hajib, and this reveals his independent scientific character. Moreover, this shows his mastery over Arabic language, as well as his deep understanding of Arabic grammar and linguistics. Kashi looks at terms with an open and deep view, and expands syntactic issues, without blindly following a person or a syntactic school. His works reflect the characteristics of his scientific personality. He is an example of a prominent Iranian author who has written a successful commentary. However, unfortunately, his name and scientific character have not been known to researchers so far and his works are in need of much research.

Öz: Ahzâb 33/72-73. âyetlerinde anlatılan "emanetin arz edilmesi" tefsir geleneğinde farklı şekillerde anlaşılmıştır. Önce Zeccâc (ö. 311/923), Matürîdî (ö. 333/944) ve Nehhâs (ö. 338/949) tarafından ifade edilen, daha sonra Zemahşerî (ö. 538/1143) tarafından de-lillendirilerek öne çıkarılan bir yorum, sonraki tefsir geleneği üzerinde çok etkili olmuş görünmektedir. Özellikle emanetin sunulması (arz) ve yüklenilmesine (haml) ilişkin ifadelerin mecaza hamledilmesi yaygın bir kabul görmüştür. Zemahşerî'nin yorumu, diğer yorumlar karşısında güçlü bir argümantasyona sahip olsa da kusursuz değildir. Bu yazıda âyetin tefsirindeki ihtilaf noktalarını özetledikten sonra Zemahşerî'nin yo-rumunda başarılı bir şekilde cevaplandırılmadığı düşünülebilecek soruları sormaya, meseleyi bu yönüyle tartışmaya çalışacağız. Anahtar Kelimeler: Emânet, Akıl, İtaat, Zemahşerî. Delillendirme Zamakhsharī's Interpretation of the Qur'anic Verse of the "Offering the Trust" Abstract: The expression of "offering the Trust" stated in the Quran, chapter al-Ahzāb (The Joint Forces) 33/ 72-73, is interpreted divergently in the commentary tradition. One of the well-supported interpretation, which is first stated by Zajjāj (d. 311/923), Māturīdī (d. 333/944) and Nahhās (d. 338/949) and supported by evidence by Zamakhsharī, has been quite influential on the commentary tradition later on. Especially the relationship between the terms, "offering of the Trust" (arē) and "under-taking it" (ģaml) is most often taken as a metaphor. Although Zamakhsharī's interpretation has a stronger argumentation than other interpretations, it is not flawless. In this article I am going to discuss difficulties inherent in Zamakhsharī's interpretation. First, I am going to highlight issues of disagreement, then I am going to raise the questions that may not be satisfactorily answered by Zamakhsharī's interpretation. I-Giriş 33/Ahzâb Sûresinin 72. âyetinde emanet'in göklere, yere ve dağlara sunulduğu (arz), fakat onların bu emaneti yüklenmekten (haml) kaçındıkları (ibâ ve işfâk), bundan çekin-dikleri, buna karşılık insanın (el-İnsân) bu emaneti yüklendiği (haml) ifade edilmekte, deva-mında da insanın (el-İnsân) çok zalim (zalûm) ve çok cahil (cehûl) olduğu belirtilmektedir. Tefsir geleneğinde âyetteki emanet, sunma (arz) ve yüklenme (haml) kelimelerinin anlamı üzerinde olduğu gibi "çok zalim" (zalûm) ve "çok cahil" (cehûl) olarak nitelenen el-İnsân kelimesinin bütün insan cinsini içine alıp almadığı üzerinde de farklı yorumlar yapılmıştır. Bu farklılıklara bağlı olarak âyetin metin içindeki bağlamı ile birlikte bir bütün olarak nasıl

Keşşâf tefsiri Mutezilî yorumlar sebebiyle eleştirilse de içerdiği eşsiz dilbilimsel ve kelami yorumları sebebiyle bu alanlardaki hemen her çalışmada kendisinden istifade edilen bir eser olmuştur. Bu özelliğinin yanı sıra doğrudan ya da dolaylı olarak birçok müstakil çalışmanın da ana konusunu oluşturan eser hakkında onlarca şerh, haşiye ve talik türü çalışmalar yapılmıştır. Ayrıca çeşitli akademik araştırmalara da konu olan eser hakkında son dönemde Türkiye’de ve dünyanın çeşitli ülkelerinde kitap, tez, makale, bildiri ve ansiklopedi maddesi ile çevirilerden oluşan onlarca çalışma yapılmış ve yapılmaya devam etmektedir. Bu çalışmaların tefsir ilmi başta olmak üzere dilbilim ve kelam alanlarında yoğunlaştığı, bunlar arasında tahkik ve mukayese çalışmalarının da önemli bir yer tuttuğu görülmektedir. Biz bu çalışmada etkisi günümüzde de devam eden Keşşâf tefsirini Türkiye başta olmak üzere Arap dünyası, Batı dünyası ile çeşitli Asya ve Afrika ülkelerinde doğrudan konu edinen akademik araştırmalar hakkında literatür çalışması yaparak alana katkı sunmayı hedeflemekteyiz.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Tefsir, Keşşâf Tefsiri, Zemahşerî, Araştırma, Literatür.
Even if Kessaf commentary is criticised due to Muʿtazila’s comments, it has become a work which has been used nearly in all the studies in this field because of its unique linguistic and theological comments. Moreover, tens of annotation, commentary, şarh, hashiya and talika have been made about the work which comprises the main subject in many self-contained studies directly or indirectly. Furthermore, tens of studies which consist of the translations with the book, thesis, article declaration and encyclopedia items have been made about the work as the subject of various academic searches in Turkey and in the different countries of world in the recent period, and they have gone on being made. It is seen that these studies intensify especially in the commentary science and the linguistic and theology fields, they have an importance place in the investigation and comparison studies among them. We aim to contribute to the field in this study as the literature review is made about the academic searches which have Kashshāf commentary that its impact goes on today, directly as a subject especially in Turkey, Arabian world, western world and various Asian and African countries.
Keywords: Commentary, Kashshāf Commentary, Zamakhsharī, Survey, Literature.

This article deals with the formation and interpretation of several verbs of 5th form tafa‘‘ala, to which the grammarian Zamaḫšarī (d. 538/1144) attributes “the meaning to abstain from something” (ma‘nā al-taǧannub), e.g. ta’aṯṯama “to abstain from an ’iṯm (a sin or a crime)”. Such a verb can be explained neither by the root / pattern principle nor by the normal derivation process I ➝ II ➝ V. It is better explained by the crossing of two words: the noun ’iṯm and the verb taǧannaba, which is with ta’aṯṯama in the semantic relation of a hyperonym to a hyponym. Since Zamaḫšarī speaks of ma‘nā al-taǧannub, it is a phenomenon of grammaticalization of a lexical meaning, rather than of lexicalization of a grammatical pattern, as in the case of qasāma (“collective oath”).

The Qur’an, the primary source of knowledge for all Muslims, contains universal principles. This Holy Book has been interpreted numerous times by scholars since its revelation. Despite being a single text, just 300 pages long, the rich content of the Qur’an has afforded multiple types of exegesis, each of them different according to the capacity of the scholar, the conditions of the time, and the mentality behind the approach. Great linguists tried to interpret the Qur’an by following the guidelines of Arabic grammar while Kalam scholars aimed to establish the sound pillars of Islamic theology with their Qur’anic exegeses. Since the revelation of the Qur’an, which took place over a period of twenty-three years, some scholars produced thematic Tafsir books to enable an easy comprehension of the Divine messages by laymen. In order to draw attention to the fact that Islam is not just set of rules or acts to perform, but a holistic religion which combines both the spirit and body, Sufi masters produced many Sufi Tafsir books. In the modern age, scholars have tried to interpret the Qur’an pragmatically and in harmony with modern sciences. In this book, Dogan aims to show the different approaches in Qur’anic exegesis and elaborate each method with examples.

When the Mu'tazila dropped and being exiled, there was an icon who write an exegesis contradict with the public-views (the orthodox). This war beetwen Mu'tazila and Orthodox was not an underestimate-war,  this was a big-wave war. How did Zamakhsari wrote an exegesis directly opposite with the government views. here is . . .

Ebu'l-Kâsım Mahmûd b. Ömer b. Ahmed ez-Zemahşerî (ö. 538/1143), Harezm bölgesinde yetişen önemli Mutezilî âlimlerden biridir. İlim ve edebiyatın zirveye ulaştığı bir dönemde yaşayan Zemahşerî, tefsir, hadîs, kelâm, fıkıh, dil ve edebiyat gibi birçok sahada elliye yakın kitap kaleme almıştır. Eserleri, ilim camiası tarafından takdir edilmiş ve büyük değer verilmiştir. Bu makalede Zemahşerî'nin en önemli eserlerinden olan ve aynı zamanda çok sayıda rivâyete yer veren el-Keşşâf an Hakâiki Ğavâmizi't-Tenzîl ve 'Uyûnu'l-Ekâvîl fi Vücûhi't-Te'vîl, Rabîu'l-Ebrâr ve Fusûsu'l-Ahbâr ve Ruûsu'l-Mesâil isimli kitaplarında bulunan hadîslerin kaynakları tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler bir bütünlük içerisinde değerlendirilip tablo ve grafiklerle takdim edilmiştir. Çalışma neticesinde, bu eserlerde bulunan hadîslerin büyük bir kısmının hadîsçiler tarafından muteber kabul edilen hadîs kaynaklarında yer aldığı sonucuna varılmıştır.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Zemahşerî, Mutezile, Sünnet, Hadîs, Hadîs Kaynakları. Sources of the Hadiths in Works of Zamakhsharî Abstract Abu'l-Qasım Mahmud b. 'Umar al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1143) is one of the significant Mu'tazilite scholars who raised in the Harezm region. Zamakhshari, who lived in a period when science and literature reached its peak, wrote about fifty books on many fields, such as tafsir, hadith, kalam, fiqh, language and literature. His works have been appreciated and valued by the scholars. This study tries to establish the sources of the hadiths which were included in one of the Zamakhshari's most important pieces of work titled: al-Kashshâf an haqâ'iq ghawâmid al-tanzîl wa-uyun al-aqâwîl fi wujûh al-ta’wîl, Rabîu’l-Ebrâr and Ruûsu’l-Mesâil. It has been found that a large part of the hadiths that found in these works are included in the sources of hadiths which were accepted by the muhaddiths. The obtained data were evaluated in a unity and presented with tables and graphs. As a result of the study, a large part of the hadiths found in these works came to be found in muhaddiths accepted sources of hadiths.
Keywords: Zamakhsharî, Mu’tazila, Sunnah, Hadîth, Sources of Hadîth.