Microsoft Word Elmi Mecmue 28

Prıncıples of Hamîduddîn al-Farâhî’s Exegesıs of the Qur’an and Interpretatıon of Surah al-Fil
  
243 
communities in general, and Islamic scholars. We can see the clues of this on Farâhî’s 
interpretation of Surah of al-Fil (The Elephant).  
5. Regarding the meanings attributed to Quranic terms, we can see that Islam 
scholars have increasing interest in Quran’s modern interpretations. We can say that 
this is an outcome of the sociocultural structure present in Muslim world. After 
centuries of decline and inertia, the fight against the colonists and plundering of the 
lands of the Muslim in one hand; the inner-search of the Muslims for the origins in 
the other hand. This situation leads the Muslims to search and evaluate the spiritual 
heritage and it brings along the interest in the Quran research. New interpretation and 
approaches to Quran, cause excitement among Quran researchers and dynamism 
among the Muslim. Farâhî’s commentaries around the Surah of al-Fil (The Elephant) 
can be taken into consideration within this frame.  
6. Farâhî’s idea of word of Quran, his way of handling the surah, his deep analysis 
on verses, his literary and logical proofs are remarkable. However, these principles, 
must not cause the hadith to be forgotten at whatsoever cost. However, what we 
observe regarding Farâhî’s interpretation of Surah of al-Fil (The Elephant); hadiths, 
reason of sending of the verses, miracles and historical rumours. Farâhî’s 
interpretation of Surah of al-Fil (The Elephant), involves his base principle in both 
internal-external approach elements, and his different commentary about the surah, is 
that he considers the Quran as definite proof. Farâhî considers Quran to be a definite 
proof and meanwhile it seems that he is in an effort to exclude hadith altogether. If 
the Glorious Quran is definite proof and there is no need for hadith in understanding 
of it; then there is also no need for Farâhî’s interpretation as well. If the Quran is 
definite proof then everybody can understand it, why would Farâhî’s explanation be 
necessary. How can Quran be in need of Farâhî’s interpretation of its meaning and 
concepts but not that of Our Master the Prophet (pbuh)? Such interpretations and 
points of view can open the way to a new sort of debater. The Mutezili have ignored 
the reliable hadiths and interpreted the issues through common sense therefore causing 
differentiation among the community, and it is similar to what is mentioned above. 
This sort of attempts deserves to be rejected.  
7. Scholars with “word of Quran”(nazm) approach; cause some new concerns and 
bring-forth some new principles. To the extent that; Farâhî addresses the surah in 9 
groups while for his student Amîn Ahsan Islâhî this number is seven. If they cannot 
come to a conclusion how can those who follow unite? New principles might seem 
attractive to young earners of Quran. However, the commentaries in this context 
should be well-balanced. This is the truth that lies behind our critical approach to 
Farâhî’s interpretation of Surah of al-Fil (The Elephant). 
What matters for our study is to adopt every point of view which is based on 
reliable sources, rather than directly denying classic or modern commentaries. 
Because the glorious history of the Muslim, relates back not only the Islamic heritage 
of the middle ages but also the modern heritage. These to do not deny each other but 
instead they are connected to each other. Islamic heritage from the middle ages is not 

---

Ass. Prof. Hayrettin Öztürk
  
244 
something to dispose of during the following phases of social evolution. On the 
contrary, it is something to be protected along with the acquisitions of modern times 
and to be transferred to following generations. 
 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
al-Andulusî, İbn Atiyye Ebî Muhammad Abdu’l-Hak, al-Muharraru’l-Vacîz fî 
Tafsîri’l-Kitâbi’l-Azîz, Katar, 1404/1984; (Beyrut, 1993). 
al-Azdî, Ebu’l-Hasan Mukâtil b. Süleyman b. Bashîr al-Azdî bi’l-Valâi’l-Belhî, 
Tafsîr-i Mukâtil bin Süleyman, Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-Ilmiyye, 1. edition, Beyrut, 
1424/2003. 
 al-Azrakî, Ebu’l-Velid Muhammad, Kâ’be ve Mekke Tarihi, trc: Y. Vehbi 
Yavuz, Çağrı Press, İstanbul 1974. 
al-Buhârî, Muhammed b. İsmâil, al-Câmiu’s-Sahîh, Dâru’s-Salâm li’n-Neşr ve’t-
Tavzîh, 1. Edition, Riyad, 1421/2000. 
al-Câhız, Ebû Osman Amr b. Bahr, al-Hayvân, Dâru’l-Ceyl, 1416/1996. 
al-Farâhî, Hamîd al-Dîn Ebu Ahmad Abd al-Hamîd al-Ansârî, Mukaddime 
Nizâmu’l-Kur’ân, translate: Mevlânâ Amin Ahsan Islâhî, First Edition, Daire-i 
Hamidiye, Azam Garh, nd. 
_____, Tafsîr-i Nizâmi’l-Qur’ân, Fâtiha-i Nizâmi’l-Qur’ân, Translation: Amin 
Ahsan Islâhî, Dâire-i Hamidiye, Saraymir, Azam Garh, 1990. 
______, Dalâilu’n-Nizâm, Azam Garh, ed-Dâiretu’l-Hamidiye ve Mektebetühû, 
Hindistan, 1388/1968. 
______,  et-Tekmîl fî Usûli’t-Te’vîl, ed Dâiretü’l-Hamidiye, Azam Garh, İndia, 
1388/1968. 
______,  Macmû’âyi Tafâsîr-i Farâhî, trc: Amîn Ahsan al-Islâhî, Encümen-i 
Huddâmi’l-Kur’ân, Lahor 1393/1973. 
______, Tafsir of al-Fil Azam Garh, Matba‘a Ma‘ârif,1354/1935. 
______, Asâlîbu’l-Qur’ân, ed-Dâiretü’l-Hamîdiye, Medresetü’l-Islâh, Saraymir, 
Azam Garh, 1389. 
______,  Tafsir-i Nizâmi’l-Qur’ân and Ta’vîli’l-Furkân bi’l-Furkân, ed-
Dâiretü’l-Hamîdiye, Azam Garh, nd. 
al-Kurtubi, Abû Abdillah Muhammed b. Ahmed b. Bekr b. Farh, al-Câmi’u li 
Ahkâmi’l-Qur’ân, translation: M. Bashir Eryarsoy, Buruc Publishing, İstanbul 2003. 
al-Mavdûdî, Ebu’l-‘Â’lâ, Tafhîmu’l-Qur’ân, İnsan Press, İstanbul 1996. 
al-Müslim, Haccâc al-Kuşeyri, al-Câmiu’s-Sahîh, Dâru’s-Salâm li’n-Neşr ve’t-
Tavzîh, 2. edition, Riyad, 1421/2000. 
an-Nadvî, Seyid Suleiman, Arzu’l-Qur’ân, Dâru’l-Musannifîn, 4.edition, Azam 
Garh, 1955. 
Ateş, Süleyman, Yüce Kur’ân’ın Çağdaş Tefsiri, İstanbul, 1988. 

---