Öz Kur'an'ın Türkçe dahil, farklı dillere çevirisi, öncelikle meşruiyet, daha sonra da dil, üslup ve nitelik tartışmalarına konu olmuştur. Bunların yanı sıra son dönemlerde, meallerdeki teviller, anlam takdirleri ve öznel yorumlar da tartışılması gereken bir konu olarak gündeme gelmiştir. Mustafa Öztürk'ün Anlam ve Yorum Merkezli Çeviri'si, dil, üslup ve ayetlerin Türkçeye başarılı bir şekilde çevirisi ve bağlama göre anlamların tespit edilmeye çalışılması gibi özellikleri ile ön plana

more »

... . Ancak meal, gerek klasik tefsirlerden tedarik edilen şaz yorumların, gerekse modern döneme ait tevillerin ve öznel yorumların kendilerine yer bulduğu bir özelliğe de sahiptir. Bu yorumların çoğu zaman Kur'an'ın sahih bir anlamı olarak sunulmaya çalışılması, Kur'an'ın üzerinde icma edilen bir kısım anlamlarının gölgelenmesine neden olmuştur. Bu çalışma Mustafa Öztürk'ün söz konusu mealindeki, klasik kaynaklarda var olmakla birlikte yeterli delile dayanmayan kimi tevil ve tercihleri, dönemsel koşulların ortaya çıkardığı kimi öznel yorumları tartışmak amacıyla kaleme alınmıştır. Existence of Marginal Interpretations in Qur'an Translations and Subjectivity Problem -The Case of Mustafa Öztürk's Meaning-and Interpretation-Centered Translation The translation of the Qur'an into different languages and Turkish has been subject to debates on first legitimacy and secondly language, style and quality. In addition to these, in recent times, the interpretations, preference of meanings and subjective interpretations in translations have come out as a topic to be discussed. Mustafa Öztürk's Meaning-and Interpretation-Centered Translation stands out for its advantages such as language, style and successful translation of verses into Turkish and its endeavor to determine the meaning according to the context. However, the translation has another aspect that it features both the marginal interpretations gleaned from the classical exegesis and the interpretations and subjective comments of the modern times. The attempt to acknowledge these interpretations as the true meaning of the Qur'an often overshadows some of the meanings of the Qur'an, which have been agreed upon by scholars. This study discusses the interpretations and preferences in Mustafa Öztürk's translation, present in the classical sources though hardly justified and the subjective comments, which result from the current conditions. Summary The rise of nation states, coupled with the prevalence of the production of scholarship in vernacular languages, accelerated translation of the Qur'ān into such national languages. Due to this reason, in the late Ottoman and early Republican years, one can observe a noteworthy increase in the number of the Turkish Qur'ān translations. Though this was not without debates over the legitimacy of this initiative in the beginning, these debates disappeared over time, the focus shifting to the linguistic and stylistic accuracy of the translations and leading to the production of many such translations with a view to overcoming this problem. In addition, following the translation into Turkish of the Message of the Qur'ān by Muhammad Asad, the problem of the subjectivity in the Qur'ān translations has come to the foreground. Kur'an-ı Kerim Meali: Anlam ve Yorum Merkezli Çeviri (A Turkish Rendition of the Qur'ān: A Meaning-and-Interpretation-Centered Translation) by Mustafa Öztürk, however successful it may be with respect to Turkish translation technique, it is a distinctive translation in terms of exhibiting the feature above conspicuously. In clearer terms, this translation includes and favors some noncanonical (shādhdh) interpretations occurring in the classical exegetical literature along with some subjective interpretations elicited by the modern conjecture. Such interpretations by Öztürk in his translation brings about a debate over whether one can speak of a consensus as regards the meaning of the Qur'ānic text. In fact, although the leading classical exegetical authorities such as Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) and Māturīdī (d. 333/944) talked of the existence of such consensus in the domain of the Qur'ānic exegesis and the early scholars of the Qur'ān agreed over the meaning of a certain Qur'ānic verse, they claimed for the prohibition of any further reasoning (ra'y) on them. Thus, any meanings given to the verses in conflict with the interpretation by such scholars have been called shādhdh, i.e. noncanonical. Though it is acceptable for such noncanonical interpretations to be discussed in detail in the exegetical literature, in the Qur'ān translations which are expected by very nature to impart the reader a straightforward meaning of the Qur'ān, the preference of the noncanonical interpretations seems to be problematic. The reader may take such interpretations as the straightforward meaning of the Qur'ān, suffering a profound confusion. Öztürk, under the influence of certain presuppositions shaping his mental background, adopts such noncanonical interpretations, reflecting them in his own translation. For example, whereas the overwhelming majority of Qur'ānic exegetes interpret the verses 15 and 16 of the chapter Nisā in association with the married and singles individuals, who committed adultery, as well as the punishments set for them, on the basis of the classical theory of abrogation (naskh), Öztürk, relying on Abū Muslim al-Iṣfahānī (d. 322/934) who rejects the theory of abrogation, translates those people referred to by the verses as lesbians and homosexuals. However, in the milieu in which the Qur'ān was revealed, lesbianism was almost nonexistent and homosexuality was rare. Such sexual perversions spread after the Muslim society came into contact with various peoples. Therefore, it seems unreasonable to think that the verses of legislative nature that were mostly revealed to solve the problems existing in the society came down as determining a punishment for the uncommon actions. This interpretation must have been adopted by Öztürk because it is "a mold-breaking interpretation" as he terms. Likewise, he translates the term "al-masjid al-aqsā" occurring in the first verse of the chapter Isrā as a certain mosque located in Jirāna through a distortion of the report cited by the historian al- Wāqidī (d. 207/823), translating the accounts cited in the verses 13 to 18 of the chapter Najm as the incidents that occurred in Mecca and its vicinity without relying on any sources, exegetical or historical. However, the former unquestionably refers to the Aqsā Mosque in Jerusalem, telling of the Isrā miracle of the Prophet Muḥammad. The latter talk of the miracle of Mi'rāj as the continuity of the Isrā -though there have been ongoing debates over the nature of the Mi'rāj / Ascension-as well as the wondrous phenomena seen by the Prophet. The preference of this interpretation by the translator can be explained on the basis of his aversion to the reality of physical miracles. His adoption of historicism also led him to render the verses, which he thinks to support this doctrine, in line with it, interpreting the clearly anti-historical verses otherwise. The most striking example for this is his rendition of the verse 28 of the chapter Saba. Though the verse makes it clear that the Prophet Muḥammad is "sent to all humanity as a prophet", the translator rendered the expression, again relying on al-Iṣfahānī, as "preventing people from idolatry and sins", exploiting the interpretation, though mentioned as richness by al-Iṣfahānī, for