56- WHEN
INTERPRETATION BECOMES COMMENTARY...
“Feiza
kara’nahu fettebi’ Kur’anehu sümme inne aleyna beyanehu-When we read it,
follow the Koran attentively, We-Allah shall explain its meaning.”
(Qıyamah, 18, 19)
According to the above verse: Although our Lord explained the Koran to our
Prophet (A.S.W.), He did not interpret the verses of the Koran one by one
starting from “Elif Lam Mim- the Sura of Baqhara” to “the Sura of Nas”, which
is the last Chapter.
Hz. Ali, Ahl al Bayt and the Four Caliphs, the Companions, the Followers of
the Prophet even the people who obey the Companions of the Prophet (Tebe-i
Tabiin), the Twelve Imams, the Imams of the Four Religious Sects did not make
the commentary of the whole Koran verse by verse. Hasan al Basri, Junayd al
Bagdadi, Maruf-i Karhi, Sırri Sakati, Sayyid Abdülqadir Gilani, Sayyid
Bahaeddin Naqshibendi, Abdülhalik-i Gücdüvani, Yusuf-u Hemedani, Beyazid-i
Bistami, Zunnun-i Mısri, Ahmet Yesevi, Ahmed Faruk-u Serhindi, Jalaladdin-i
Rumi, Hadji Beqtash-i Weli, Muhyiddin-i Arabi (May peace be with them)
none of the
Sufis attempted to interpret the Koran.
These personalities are surely great scholars and Gnostics-wise people who
know Ledünni- the Knowledge of Reality and the Physical Sciences very well.
Even Hasan al Ashary and Maturidy did not attempt to comment on the Koran. (1)
These great, wise and valuable personalities explained only the necessary
verses of the Koran, they did not interpret it in details, one by one.
Nobody can claim that the Knowledge of those great personalities, mentioned
above, including the Ahla-l Bayt and the Companions have less or missing
knowledge in interpreting the Koran than those who interpreted it.
Since they
had not interpreted the Koran, those commentators are really heedless.
Who attempts to make comments on the Koran verse by verse then? As it is seen,
all the commentators are the scholars of the Physical Sciences or Exterior
Sciences. They are philosophers and theological scholars.
__________________________________________________________
(1) According to Maturidy “commentary” is the definite meaning of the word.
It means to testify that this word has such a meaning on behalf of Allah.
This can be done only with a definite proof. Or else it will be a commentary
done using personal interpretation and this is forbidden. Forced or
allegorical, symbolic interpretation (te’vil) means to prefer one of the
likely meanings without being definite.” (Itkan, vol.2, p.179)
In this case, those, who attempted to interpret the Koran during the third and
fifth centuries according to the Muslim Calendar, are the heedless of the
Reality, and unaware of the Secrecy and Reality. The heedless are ignorant.
“Eccahilü
cesurün-The ignorant are courageous.”
The Glorious Koran which spurted out from the pure spring of our dear Prophet
Muhammad (S.A.W.) had taken a completely different form because of the
personal benefits of some people, traditions, tribes, regions and the
influence under certain sovereignties afterwards. If you search it with a
well-intentioned effort impartially, you will get surprised and wondered
whether these interpretations are based on this Divine Source book or not.
We regard the good ones free from this and remember them with respect.
The following are the examples of it:
In the
commentaries of Mutazila, mind (reasoning) is essential.
His commentaries have the seal of the principle: “Everything, which mind sees
well, is good, everything, which mind sees badly is bad. As for them, the
verses (the incontrovertible proofs) narrated by the Prophet are in the second
place. They rarely explain the meanings using hadiths. They, themselves, made
up most of the hadiths concerning mind (reasoning). Among these rationalist
commentators, Carullah Mahmud Ibn Omar az Zamahsheri is the best one. Fazi
attaches importance to Philosophy and Theology in his commentaries.
Beydavi has
become the favourite of Ehl-i Sunnat because of his strong oppositions to the
precepts of Mutazila Sect in his commentaries, in general.
Eb’u Suud Efendi also shows proofs in his commentaries to defend the precepts
of the People of Sunnat.
Elmalılı
Muhammad Hamdi Yazır wrote his commentary in the view of the People of Sunnat
concerning belief (faith) and as for the practice, he wrote it according to
the view of Hanefi sect.
Thus, each commentator has attempted to comment on the Koran and explain it in
the way of his own belief. So, they suit (fit) the
religion and the Koran to their own precepts.
They suit the religion to religious sects whereas the Sects should be suited
to religion.
As a result, the religious sects take the place of the Religion and this
causes contradictions, fights, duality and divisions. Unity is broken due to
it.
There is also another claim among the Scholars of Exteriority (Externalists):
“The holy traditions are the commentaries of the Koran”. If so, there should
have been a book in which these holy traditions were collected. There is no
such a book. If there is one among the holy traditions, it is possible to
collect them. Then, why do they not collect them? Therefore, this is not a
proved claim. This is an unwarranted assertion. It is an unreal claim.
If the Holy Traditions were considered as the whole commentary of the Koran,
then, these Exterior commentators would make the commentaries of the Holy
Traditions and they should interpret the commentaries.
There is also a matter of the Translation of the Koran and the Meaning (meal)
of the Koran:
The
Koran is obviously Arabic.
It is suitable for Arabic Grammar and it is extraordinarily eloquent. For this
reason, “the Koran cannot be translated into another language” is not a
definite judgment. If so, the Koran becomes perceptible for only Arabs and for
those who know Arabic. However Allah said for our Prophet:
“Vema
erselnake illa kaffeten linnasi- I have sent you forth to all mankind.”
(Saba, 28) According to this verse, He is sent to all the people and He is a
blessing for all the people. It is also impossible to translate a language
into another language a hundred percent correctly.
None of the
languages can be translated into another correctly as a whole. However,
it can be correct ninety-five percent. There may be some difficulties in
complete translation. The right meaning of the words may not be found or there
may be some grammatical problems. In this case, the translator tries to find
the closest meaning of that word. He does not attempt to explain the meaning
of it because it becomes a short commentary then.
The
commentaries are not the translations of the Koran.
For this reason,
there are differences, conflicts and contradictions in the commentaries of it.
In addition to this, each commentator and interpreter comments or
interprets according to his own belief, his understanding, his precept and his
character. And this causes several disputes, separations and great groupings
in understanding religion. The essence of religion is affected badly due to
this. Our opinion on this subject shortly consists of these views.
We finish this chapter with an extract from Abdullah Ibn. Mes’ud:
Once, while Ibn Mes’ud was sitting with his friends, somebody came and said
that he explained the 10th verse of the Sura of Duhan according to his own
conjecture. Abdullah Ibn Mes’ud, who was one of the Prophet’s Companions,
became angry and said: “Oh!
People! Beware of Allah! If somebody knows something, he should say what he
knows, if not he should say that Allah knows the best.”
(2)
(2) Sahih-i Buhari, vol.6, p.142; Sahih-i Müslim, vol. 4, pp.2155-2156
__________________________________________________________
KAZIM YARDIMCI/ADIYAMAN
varliktanveriler@hotmail.com
bilgi@varliktanveriler.com
www.varliktanveriler.com
