You are here

KUR’AN, YORUM VE ŞİDDET MESELESİ

QUR’AN, COMMENTARY AND VIOLENCE ISSUE

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.21646/bilimname.2016.10

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Nowadays, it seems as if there is a conjunction of Islam and violence in Western belief. Some might even come to connect Muslim people with a violence‐prone entity. Such perception is based on the traditional concept of war (battle) which claims that both kufr (the lack of faith) and the existence of infidels is a reason to go to war. Furthermore, it was circulated by Western researchers such as Joseph Schacht, Rudolph Peters, who suggest that the term Jihad has been exploited by certain Islamic states and Muslims for their imperialist aspirations. We would, yet, propose that such link is facilitated by groups such IS who come to justify their violent approach to terrorism with references to the Qur'an and the concept of Jihad. There seems to be a distinctive connection between terrorism, violence and the exegesis of Qur’an in many IS interpretations. It is such widespread misconception that highlights the need for a more scientific approach to the question whether religious violence is connected to the Qur'an and its exegesis or not. It is a matter of common knowledge that throughout history religion has often been perceived as the driving force behind multi‐dimensional excesses, projects of social reform or societal engineering, ambitions of power, and political squabbles and face‐offs, and has been wielded in these contexts. In the case of Islam, the instrumentalization of religion and its abuse for various agendas is a commonly encountered situation in our contemporary world, especially in the Middle Eastern landscape that includes Turkey. One factor, among many, that strips religion of its essence is the failure to properly identify points of convergence and divergence between religion and societal order/law, while treating and evaluating the religious and the non‐religious together in a haphazard way. Under these circumstances, it is not only the voices that are raised and the demands that are made in the name of religion that lose their meaning, but also the anti‐religious discourses and reactions.As a result, religion becomes the plaything of social conflicts and polarizations on the societal level and of spiritual upheavals, turmoil, and excesses on the individual level. Whether the tendency to radicalization and violence found in modern Islamist movements is caused by religion or by fundamental religious texts is a matter open to discussion. We maintain that exterior motives and global/imperialist engagements are more defining factors in radicalization and proclivity to violence than religion per se or its sources, which in this case have the status of instruments. It is even possible to argue that depending on the given social and political situation, religion can adopt various functions ranging from improving order and well‐being in society to promoting chaos; and that it is, in a way, an instrument of justification. Put more openly, religion can function as a cement supporting the present order when there is a strong and well‐functioning political order, system, and authority. On the other hand, when disorder and chaos reign in different parts of the Islamic world, as is the case today, religion can turn into a tool of conflict, disintegration, and manipulation. This also holds for religious sects. In a climate of strong political and social stability, different religious schools and sects can be an asset, or at least they can be perceived as such. However, in a contrary situation, these very same sects may be manipulated as a major factor in the retrospective clashes and conflicts among Muslims of varying propensities subscribing to different identities. As such, following the invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies in 2003, law and order in this region crumbled into pieces. In the chaotic atmosphere produced by this invasion, hundreds of thousands became victims of violence. Terrorist organizations parading a religious point of reference found themselves a firm stronghold in this atmosphere of lawlessness and chaos. These organizations mobilized religion as the most effective source of motivation in order to give a garb of meaning to their acts of terror and violence. In an atmosphere of escalating war and violence, reading and interpreting religious texts as calls to war is perceived as normal and ordinary. When looked at from this point of view, it becomes necessary to shift our attention to the matter of identifying the sociological contexts in which religion or religious texts are associated with violence, instead of directly labeling a given religion as “the source and reference point of violence”. The increasingly Middle‐Eastern‐centric nature of radical movements that feature religion as a reference point and sectarian conflicts between Muslims exhibiting various temperaments is a reality that further testifies to the fact that concepts of religion and denomination turn into tools of fragmentation,conflict, and justification in environments of political chaos. Without a doubt, imperialist engagements play a very important role in this Middle East centered chaos, which has been continuing since the day the Ottoman Empire, the last and greatest Muslim political authority in the world, retreated from the historical stage. However, it also needs to be said that the astonishing tendency shown by Muslims to being openly and easily manipulated in these exploits is closely related to the deteriorating spiritual health of the entire ummah. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that groups resorting to radicalization and violence belong more commonly to the ranks of those whose identities have been rejected and marginalized, who have been pushed out of their living space and made powerless, and who have therefore resolved to prove their identities and create a space of power and influence for themselves. For it is clear that reaching such a goal by legitimate means is both costly and laborious. The trend of radicalization in religious movements that has increasingly been gaining momentum in the Islamic world is related on the one hand to the dynamics of conflict which can in a way be described as the domestic issues of the Islamic world and whose historical roots go back to the death of the Prophet, and on the other hand to the tendency to perceive religion as an ideology and to willingly and knowingly read and understand religious texts in an anachronistic style with the purported aim of seeking out “the sole and absolute truth”, turning away from the pluralism that is to be found in the history and the tradition. Scratching the wounds of ancient conflicts and digging out the old battle axes from the depths of history are deeply painful signs of the failure of the Islamic world to come to its senses despite having been stung from the same hole countless times thanks to the Middle‐Eastcentered exploits of global actors, as well as its inability to derive a lesson from this great disgrace
Abstract (Original Language): 
Günümüz Batı dünyasında İslam ve şiddet arasında çok sıkı bir bağ kurulduğuna, hatta topyekûn müslümanların şiddetsever bir kitle olduğuna ilişkin küresel ölçekli bir algı oluşturulduğuna tanık olunmaktadır. İslam ve müslümanlar hakkında böyle bir menfi algının oluşmasında geleneksel fıkıh doktrininde savaşın temel gerekçesini küfür ve kâfirlerin varlığına bağlama anlayışının yanında Joseph Schacht, Rudolph Peters gibi Batılı bazı araştırmacıların cihad kavramını İslam ve müslümanların emperyal hedeflerine hizmet eden bir araç ve kaldıraç olarak tanımlamalarının payı bulunmaktadır; ancak bize göre söz konusu algıyı besleyen en önemli faktör hâl‐i hazırda kan gölü görünümündeki Ortadoğu coğrafyasında IŞİD (DAEŞ) gibi örgütlerce üretilen şiddet ve terörün Kur’an ve cihad gibi referanslara atıfla meşrulaştırılmaya çalışılmasıdır. IŞİD (DAEŞ) örgütüyle ilgili birçok analizde şiddet ve terörün Kur’an ve yorum meselesiyle ilgili olduğu özellikle vurgulanmaktadır. Kimilerince kabul gören bu analizler din referanslı şiddetle Kur’an ve yorum arasında doğrudan bir bağ bulunup bulunmadığı meselesini etraflıca tartışmayı gerekli kılmaktadır.

REFERENCES

References: 

AKSAN, Doğan, Anlambilim, Ankara 1999.
ÂLÛSÎ, Ebü’s‐Senâ Şihâbüddîn Mahmûd, Rûhu’l‐Meânî, Beyrut 2005.
BARDAKOĞLU, Ali, “Fıkıh Çözüm mü Üretir, Sorun mu?”, Eskiyeni Anadolu
ilahiyat Araştırma Dergisi, sayı: 29 (2014).
BEYHAKÎ, Ebû Bekr Ahmed, Ahkâmu’l‐Kur’ân li’l‐İmâmi’ş‐Şâfiî, Beyrut 1990.
BUHÂRÎ, Ebû Abdillah Muhammed b. İsmail, el‐Câmiu’s‐Sahîh, İstanbul 1981.
CÂBİRÎ, Muhammed Âbid, Fehmü’l‐Kur’âni’l‐Hakîm, Beyrut 2009.
CASSÂS, Ebû Bekr Ahmed b. Ali, Usûlü’l‐Fıkh (el‐Fusûl fi’l‐Usûl), Kuveyt, 2007.
COŞKUN, Muhammed, “Medenî Kur’ân’da Yorumlayıcı İfade Biçimi”, Kur’an
Nüzulünün Medine Dönemi (X. Tefsir Akademisyenleri Buluşması),
Kahramanmaraş 2014.
CÜRCÂNÎ, Ebü’l‐Hasen Ali b. Muhammed b. Ali, Kitâbü’t‐Ta’rîfât, Beyrut
1995.
EBÛ DÂVÛD, Süleyman b. Eş’as, es‐Sünen, İstanbul 1981.
FAHREDDÎN er‐RÂZÎ, Ebû Abdillah Muhammed b. Ömer, et‐Tefsîru’l‐Kebîr,
Beyrut 2004.
FÂYİD, Abdülvehhâb, Menhecü İbn Atıyye fî Tefsîri’l‐Kur’âni’l‐Kerîm, Kahire
1973.
FAZLUR RAHMAN, Allah’ın Elçisi ve Mesajı (Makaleler I), çev. Adil Çiftçi,
Ankara 1997.
FAZLUR RAHMAN, İslâm, çev. Mehmet Dağ‐Mehmet Aydın, Ankara 1992.
GARAUDY, Roger, Entegrizm Kültürel İntihar, çev. Kâmil Bilgin Çileçöp,
İstanbul 1995.
GARAUDY, Roger, İslâm ve İnsanlığın Geleceği, çev. Cemal Aydın, İstanbul
1995.
GÜLER, İlhami, “el‐Hakk” Kavramının Kur’ân’daki Dinî‐Ahlâkî İçeriğinin
Tahlili”, Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi cilt: XLIII, sayı
2 (2002).
GÜMAN, Osman, Fıkıh Usûlü Literatüründe Siyak, İstanbul 2013.
HATTÂBÎ, Ebû Süleymân Hamd b. Muhammed, Meâlimü’s‐Sünen, Beyrut
1991.
IZUTSU, Toshihiko, Kur’ân’da Tanrı ve İnsan: Kur’ânî Dünya Görüşünün
Semantiği, çev. M. Kürşad Atalar, İstanbul 2012.
Kur’an, Yorum ve Şiddet Meselesi
|35|
bilimname: Düşünce Platformu
XXXII, 2016/3: Şiddet
CC BY‐NC‐ND 4.0
İBN ABDİLBER, Ebû Ömer Cemâlüddîn Yûsuf, et‐Temhîd limâ fi’l‐Muvatta’
mine’l‐Meânî ve’l‐Esânîd, nşr. Saîd Ahmed A’râb, Tıtvân 1987.
İBN ACÎBE, Ebü’l‐Abbâs Ahmed b. Muhammed, el‐Bahru’l‐Medîd, Beyrut
2010.
İBN ATIYYE, Ebû Muhammed Abdülhak b. Gâlib, el‐Muharrrerü’l‐Vecîz,
Beyrut 2001.
İBN CÜZEY, Ebü’l‐Kâsım Muhammed b. Ahmed, et‐Teshîl li Ulîmi’t‐Tenzîl,
Sayda‐Beyrut 2005.
İBN FERHÛN, Ebü’l‐Vefâ Burhânüddîn, ed‐Dîbâcü’l‐Müzheb, nşr. Muhmamed
Ahmed Ebü’n‐Nûr, Kahire 1972.
İBN HACER el‐Askalânî, Ebü’l‐Fazl Şihâbüddîn, Fethü’l‐Bârî Şerhü Sahîhi’l‐
Buhârî, Riyad 2000.
İBN HAZM, Ebû Muhammed Ali b. Ahmed, el‐Muhallâ, Mısır 1347.
İBN KUTEYBE, Ebû Muhammed Abdullah, Te’vîlü Muhtelifi’l‐Hadîs, Beyrut
1995.
İBN MANZÛR, Ebü’l‐Fazl Muhammed b. Mükerrem, Lisânü’l‐Arab, Kahire
2003.
İBNÜ’L‐ARABÎ, Ebû Abdillah Muhyiddîn Muhammed, Fusûsu’l‐Hikem, Beyrut
trs.
İBNÜ’L‐ARABÎ, Ebû Bekr Muhammed b. Abdillah, en‐Nâsih ve’l‐Mensûh fi’lĶur’âni’l‐
Kerîm, nşr. Abdülkebîr el‐Alevî el‐Medgarî, Bulak 1992.
İBNÜ’L‐ARABÎ, Ebû Bekr Muhammed b. Abdillah, Ahkâmü’l‐Kur’ân, Beyrut
1988.
İBNÜ’L‐CEVZÎ, Ebü’l‐Ferec Cemâlüddîn Abdurrahman, Nüzhetü’l‐A’yüni’n‐
Nevâzır, nşr. Muhammed Abdülkerîm Kazım er‐Râdî, Beyrut 1985.
İBNÜ’L‐CEVZÎ, Ebü’l‐Ferec Cemâlüddîn Abdurrahman, Zâdü’l‐Mesîr fî İlmi’t‐
Tefsîr, Beyrut 1987.
KOÇ, Mehmet Akif, “Endülüs Tefsirciliği Üzerine Bir Giriş Denemesi”,
İslâmiyât, cilt: 7, sayı: 3 (2004).
KURTUBÎ, Ebû Abdillah Muhammed, el‐Câmi’ li Ahkâmi’l‐Kur’ân, Beyrut
1988.
KUTLU, Sönmez, “Bilinen ve Bilinmeyen Yönleriyle İmam Mâturidî”, [İmam
Mâturidî ve Mâturidîlik içinde], Yayına haz.: Sönmez Kutlu, Ankara
2003.
LANE, Edward William, An Arabic‐English Lexicon, Beyrut 1968.
Mustafa ÖZTÜRK
|36|
bilimname: Düşünce Platformu
XXXII, 2016/3:Şiddet
CC BY‐NC‐ND 4.0
MÂTÜRİDÎ, Ebû Mansûr Muhammed, Te’vîlâtü Ehli’s‐Sünne, nşr. Mecdî
Bâsellûm, Beyrut 2005.
MUKÂTİL, Ebü’l‐Hasen Mukâtil b. Süleyman, Tefsîru Mukâtil, nşr. Abdullah
Şehâte, Beyrut 2002.
MÜSLİM, Ebü’l‐Hüseyn Müslim b. el‐Haccâc, el‐Câmiu’s‐Sahîh, nşr. M. Fuad
Abdülbâkî, İstanbul 1981.
NESÂÎ, Ebû Abdirrahmân Ahmed b. Şuayb, es‐Sünen, İstanbul 1981.
NÎSÂBÛRÎ, Ahmed b. İbrahim, İsbâtü’l‐İmâme, nşr. Mustafa Gâlib, Beyrut
1984.
ÖZCAN, Hanifi, “Mâtüridî’ye Göre Din‐Şeriat Ayrımının Felsefî Temelleri”,
Büyük Türk Bilgini İmam Mâtüridî ve Mâtüridîlik‐Milletlerarası
Tartışmalı İlmî Toplantı (22‐24 Mayıs 2009), İfav, İstanbul 2012.
ÖZSOY, Ömer, Kur’an ve Tarihsellik Yazıları, Ankara 2004.
ÖZTÜRK, Mustafa, “Kur’an’ın Aktüel Değeri: Roger Garaudy’in Kur’an
Tasavvuru Üzerine”, Usûl İslam Araştırmaları, sayı: 2 (2004).
RÂĞIB el‐İSFEHÂNÎ, Ebü’l‐Kâsım Hüseyin b. Muhammed, el‐Müfredât fî
Ğarîbi’l‐Kur’ân, nşr. Muhammed Halefullah, Kahire 1970.
RİCKMAN, H. P., Anlama ve İnsan Bilimleri, çev. Mehmet Dağ, Samsun 2000.
SERAHSÎ, Ebû Bekr Şemsü’l‐eimme Muhammed, Usûlü’s‐Serahsî, İstanbul
1984.
SUYÛTÎ, Ebü’l‐Fazl Celâlüddîn Abdurrahmân b. Ebî Bekr, el‐İtkân fî Ulûmi’l‐
Kur’ân, Beyrut 2002.
ŞÂTIBÎ, Ebû İshâk İbrahim b. Musa, el‐Muvâfakât fî Usûli’ş‐Şerîa, Beyrut 1997.
TABERÎ, Ebû Ca’fer Muhammed b. Cerîr, Câmiu’l‐Beyân fî Te’vîli’l‐Kur’ân,
Beyrut 1999.
TAHA, Mahmud Muhammed, er‐Risâletü’‐Sâniye mine’l‐İslâm, Omdurman
1969.
TAHA, Mahmud Muhammed, İslâm bi Risâletihi’l‐Ûlâ Lâ Yesluhu liİnsâniyyeti’l‐
Karni’l‐İşrîn, Omdurman 1969.
VÂHİDÎ, Ebü’l‐Hasen Ali b. Ahmed, Esbâbü’n‐Nüzûl, Beyrut 1991.
WATT, W. Montgomery, Muhammad at Madina, London 1972.
WATT, W. Montgomery, Muhammad’s Mecca: History in the Qur’an,
Edinburgh 1988.
ZEBÎDÎ, Muhammed Murtazâ, Tâcu’l‐Arûs min Cevâhiri’l‐Kâmûs, Kuveyt
1987.
Kur’an, Yorum ve Şiddet Meselesi
|37|
bilimname: Düşünce Platformu
XXXII, 2016/3: Şiddet
CC BY‐NC‐ND 4.0
ZECCÂC, Ebû İshâk İbrahim b. Serî, Meâni’l‐Kur’ân ve İ’râbuh, nşr. Abdülcelîl
Abduh Şelebî, Beyrut 1988.
ZEHEBÎ, Ebû Abdillah Muhammed, Siyerü A’lâmi’n‐Nübelâ, Beyrut 1984.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com