The Third Premise
On entering the fold of Islam, a sort of israiliyyat and a part of Greek philosophy assumed the garb of religion and threw minds into confusion. It was like this:
the Arabs had been an illiterate people in the Era of Ignorance. Then the truth was manifested among them and their emotions were awakened with all their potentialities. And since they had seen the Clear Religion open up a way in full view, they focused all their efforts and desires on learning it alone. And they observed the universe not with the dissecting eye of philosophy but in second place, for purposes of deduction. The only inspiration their sensitive natural intuition received was from their expansive, elevated surroundings, which were in tune with their primordial natures; and the only training and education their unsullied, capable innate dispositions received was from the Qur’an.
Later, just as the Arabs swallowed up other peoples, so too the knowledge of the other nations began to become Muslim, even. By virtue of this, such scholars of the People of the Book as Wahb and Ka‘b found a way into the treasuries of the Arabs’ imaginings and caused confusion in their unspoilt minds. Later they were even held in respect. For the scholars of the People of the Book who embraced Islam acquired great dignity and they advanced through its distinction, and their former gilded knowledge became accepted and seemingly incontestable, and it was not refuted. For since it did not clash with the principles of Islam, it was narrated like stories, and because of its unimportance, the Arabs listened without criticising it. But alas! It was later looked on as fact and became the cause of many doubts and uncertainties.
Also, the israiliyyat could have been source of some allusions of the Qur’an and Sunna, or, by some connection or other, a reference for some of their concepts. But supposing the israiliyyat had been true, since it was possible that it corroborated aspects of the scriptures’ meanings, due to their ill judgement some literalist scholars who could find no other source or did not look for one, applied certain verses and Hadiths to those israiliyyat stories and expounded them by means of them.
However, it is only the Qur’an itself and sound Hadiths that can expound the Qur’an, not the Gospels and Torah, whose injunctions have been abrogated and stories even are corrupted. Yes, the meaning of a thing and something that corroborates it (mâsadaq) are different. But then something that could have corroborated the meaning was substituted for it, and numerous possibilities were confused with facts.
Also, in Ma’mun’s time, Greek philosophy was translated so as to make it Muslim. But since it had as its source numerous myths and superstitions, it was somewhat putrid, and confused to a degree the unspoiled minds of the Arabs when it intermixed with them. So too it paved the way leading from investigative study to blind imitation.
Also, although with their innate imaginative faculties they had the ability to deduce matters from Islam, the water of life, they deigned to become pupils of that philosophy. Yes, just as when their ability to speak truly eloquent Arabic began to be impaired by mixing with non‑Arabs, the authoritative scholars codified the rules of the sciences of Arabic so as to preserve them; so too, when philosophy and israiliyyat entered the fold of Islam, some punctilious Islamic scholars attempted to sort them out and purify Islam of them. But alas! they were not altogether successful.
But that was not all; for when they endeavoured to expound the Qur’an, literalists applied the transmitted knowledge it contains (nakliyat) to some israiliyyat and adapted its verses requiring reasoned interpretation (akliyat) to the above‑mentioned philosophy. For they saw that the Qur’an comprises both transmitted (menkul) and reasoned (mâkul) knowledge. Hadiths are the same. Then they deduced a correspondence and relation between some of the true matters of the Qur’an and Sunna, and corrupted matters of the israiliyyat.
And because they imagined similarities and agreement between the matters addressing reason of the former, which are true, and philosophy, which is fallacious and delusive, they supposed that the correspondence and similarities expounded the meanings of the Book and Sunna and elucidated their purposes.
Allah forbid! The criterion of the Book of Miraculous Exposition is its miraculous inimitability. What will expound it is its own parts. Its meaning is within it. Even its shell is of pearl, not clods. Even if their purpose in disclosing the congruity had been to pronounce fit that truthful witness, it still would have been futile. For the Perspicuous Qur’an is far above such pronouncements concerning reasoned and revealed knowledge, which have anyway handed over to it the keys of submission, and it stands in no need of them. For if it does not pronounce them fit, their testimony will not be heard.
Yes, you have to search for the Pleiades in the skies not on the ground. And you should seek the Qur’an’s meanings in its shells, not in your pocket, which is all mixed up. For you won’t find them there. And even if you do, the Qur’an will not accept them, for they will not bear the stamp of miraculousness.
For it is established that the true meaning is that which the words empty out in the ear‑hole then penetrating the mind, suffuses the conscience and produces copious blossoms of ideas. For if some possibilities have impinged on your imagination due to your preoccupation with other things, or you have filched some futilities from philosophy and fables and stories, and filling your pockets with them have hidden them in amongst the convolutions of the Qur’an’s verses and Hadiths, then pulled them out, held them up and called out: “The meaning is this! Come and take it!” – if you were to do this, you would receive this answer: “Come on! This meaning of yours is unclear. It bears the stamp of blind imitation!” The assayer of truth will reject it. The Sultan of Miraculousness will send the minter packing. You will have transgressed against the orderliness of the verses and Hadiths, so they will issue a complaint against you, and the judge of eloquence will imprison your delusions in your imagination. Moreover, the customer for reality will not buy these wares of yours. He’ll say: “The verses’ meanings are of pearl and this is mere clods. What the Hadiths impart is spirit, but this resembles nothing more than a gadfly!”
An Explanatory Tale
A literary tale told by the Kurds: There was a man called Alo who used to steal honey. He was told he would be found out. So in order to fool them, he got wild bees to fill up an empty comb and stole honey from somewhere else. This he hid in the hive. If anyone asked him about it, he would say: “It’s the artwork of my bees, for they are honey engineers.” Then when conversing with his bees, they would say together: You do the buzzing, I provide the honey!
Good Sir who makes forced interpretations with good appetite! Don’t find solace in this tale; it is a parable (teşbih). The meaning you produce is not honey; it’s poison. And those words are not bees; they are the words of that consummate Book, revealing the spirits of truths to the heart and conscience, like angels. Hadiths are the source of life and inspire reality.
In Short: To be deficient is harmful, as is going to excess. Perhaps it is even more harmful. But going to excess is more at fault since it causes deficiency. Yes, excess opened the door to indulgence. For rotten things had been mixed in with those lofty truths, so the deficient and the unfair cavillers unjustly felt disgust at the truths, and, Allah forbid, deemed them blemished and worthless. But if one defaced coin is found in a treasury and one rotten windfall from elsewhere is spotted in an orchard, is it right and fair to assume that the entire treasury is false or all the apples are rotten, and so defame them by spurning them?
Conclusion
My aim with this Premise: public opinion wants a [new] interpretation (tefsir) of the Qur’an. In every era one particular thing is dominant; time too is an interpreter; situations and circumstances also disclose things. The generally held ideas of the ulema still educate public opinion. In consequence of this and basing my view on it, it is my wish that a Qur’anic commentary should be written through consultation, by setting up an assembly of deputies elected from among authoritative scholars, each a specialist in one of the physical sciences (fen), under the chairmanship of time, the supreme interpreter. They should collect together in this commentary in order to gild and emend it, the best points and virtues scattered through other commentaries. Yes, this is the time of constitutionalism; mutual consultation governs in everything. Public opinion is the watchman. The validity of the agreed opinions among the scholars (icma‑ı ümmet) is proof of this.