A guide to understanding "The True Religion, the Language of the Qur'an"

The task of writing a Qur’an commentary, demanded of Elmalılı during the period when the Republic’s secularism policies were being applied most severely, has in fact become a far more complicated story than is supposed. What was ostensibly aimed at was the Turkification of all the sources of Islam and of the language of worship, and behind that lay the real intention: the ignorant expectation that Turkish citizens would in this way come to understand that Islam in its essence is nothing but innovation (bid‘ah) and superstition.

Truly, it is not possible to say that either Elmalılı or Mehmet Akif Ersoy was aware of this intention when they first accepted this duty. Indeed, when Mehmet Akif sensed this intention, he repaid the advance he had received and withdrew from the task. But the fact that Elmalılı continued to the end without withdrawing did not, of course, mean that he failed to see the intention or that he approved of it.

What is certain is that the commentary Elmalılı produced became an exceptional work, certainly not only in Turkey but across the entire Islamic world. His commentary is comparable to Sayyid Qutb’s Fi Zilal al-Qur’an, Mawdudi’s Tafhim al-Qur’an and the Tunisian scholar Tahir ibn Ashur’s al-Tahrir wa’l-Tanwir, which were to be written later, but unfortunately it could not attain the same circulation as they did. For it was not translated into Arabic or any other language, and did not reach the rest of the Islamic world.

This is a matter for separate evaluation, but one must dwell on why a work of Elmalılı’s scholarly level, one that could certainly address the entire Islamic world, was not translated. Before that, however, we must look at how much, with this work, Elmalılı served the Turkification project, which had behind it the intention of completely diminishing the Qur’an’s influence. Indeed, the language used in Hak Dini Kur’an Dili became quite outdated within a short time in the midst of the frenzy of purification (öz-Türkçeleştirme) of the language then being passed through. By the time the work was completed, there was no generation left that could understand it. It was seen at once that the work that emerged was already very far from the aimed-at goal of Turkification.

Those who could not understand the Qur’an because it was Arabic would not be able to understand “Hak Dini Kur’an Dili” either, because of its Ottoman and, of course, its heavy subject matter. Elmalılı’s command of philosophy was reflected in his commentary, and one would need separate training to understand many of the matters he treats. That is, the Tafsir is far from a language of propaganda capable of steering the masses in any direction; it has a quite serious approach. In this respect it may perhaps have produced a disappointment.

Moreover, in no place in the Tafsir is there even the slightest hint supporting, let alone approving, the political and social developments of the day. On the contrary, it would have the effect of further increasing the amazement and admiration of those able to read it concerning Turkish worship and the miraculous language and features of the Qur’an. This side would be a cause of an even greater disappointment. Thus Elmalılı was giving, in his own way, a tremendous answer to the intention behind the task that he took on and that, for well-known reasons, he did not refuse as Akif did.

Perhaps under the influence of this disappointment, because it was seen that Hak Dini Kur’an Dili would not fit at all the by-then thoroughly obvious political goals of that day, after being printed it was put away in warehouses and, until 1950, was not brought to light, not read, not taught.

Not only does Elmalılı have no word in this commentary approving the religious policies of the Republican period, but in his interpretation of many verses there are also very serious jabs at an Islamic political approach. Many examples could be given, but since we have to keep it short, only his commentary on verse 31 of Surat al-Tawba: he says that the role of the rabbis and priests who claimed ‘lordship’ (rabb) by taking upon themselves legislation (tashri‘), the task of determining the limits of halal and haram, could now be seen in parliamentarians. Those familiar with the language of the Qur’an would understand at once that this was a serious jab at the current politicians who had taken on the role of destroying all manifestations of Islam.

In his commentary on Surat al-Fatiha, on the other hand, after explaining that the verse “iyyaka na‘budu wa iyyaka nasta‘in” makes it obligatory for Islam to be a community, an ummah, and that one cannot appear before Allah even as an individual, he explains, with great regret, that in the present situation Muslims are deprived of this most basic state.

Without doubt, owing to its heavy and ornate language it can also be the subject of very different readings, but in every case what no one can object to is the work’s exceptional depth and competence.

Perhaps for this reason, in the mid-nineties Zaman Gazetesi distributed it to its subscribers with the promotion “the commentary of the century.” In my doctoral thesis, completed at METU in 1997, I pointed to an intention behind this promotion: this was a subtle tactic that the Gülen group resorted to in order to be rid of the authority of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. Because in Risale-i Nur circles, the Risale-i Nur is, as is well known, the commentary of the century, and no alternative to it could be thought of. With respect for Elmalılı, of course, attributing the quality of “commentary of the century” to a book outside the Risale-i Nur rested on a calculation aimed first of all at dethroning Said Nursi by way of Elmalılı and seating Gülen in his place.

Like everyone, there is of course great benefit in the CHP reading Elmalılı and understanding him well. Nobody has the right or the possibility to stand in the way of anyone’s reading.

What I got stuck on at the panel on Elmalılı was neither Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, nor Ekrem İmamoğlu, nor Canan Kaftancıoğlu. To tell the truth, what I got stuck on was only Hayri Kırbaşoğlu.

Everyone knows his heavy displeasure, which for years has treated his own colleagues almost as though they had “fallen into bad ways” because they entered the Diyanet bureaucracy or politics, practically excommunicating them like the most bigoted hocas. The pose he struck right beside the CHP Chairman, who committed the greatest oppression in our history against Elmalılı and all religious scholars, says a lot. Hasn’t it been a rather hasty pose, one that left no distance whatsoever, either regarding politics or regarding taking office in bureaucracy?

Setting aside all the accusations he made against his own friends, driven by this political distancelessness, since the practice of jarh and ta‘dil is applied to the Hadith Rijal, could hadith be narrated from him, I wonder?

Does being a hadith professor guarantee coming out sound from that test of jarh and ta‘dil?