Ercan Celik
Ercan Celik is a (CPA) in Turkey. He got his masters degree in economics in Northeastern University, USA. Besides, he studies Qur'anic exegesis and translations through the lense of Bibles and tries to propose new correlations among them...
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (31)
Uploads
Papers by Ercan Celik
Bunlar, aslında ilk müfessirlerin okumalardır. Süleyman kıssalarının Tevrat’ın Süleyman kıssaları ile birlikte okunmasında ise; Kuran metinlerinin bu tür bir sihir, büyü ve fabl içermediği görülmüştür.
Bu okumalarımızda: Süleyman’ın kuş lisanı bilmediği, kuşlar hakkında konuştuğu; hakiki kuşlardan ve cinlerden bir ordusunun olmadığı; Kuşlar [et-Tayr] ve Cinler [el-Cinni] tanımlarının çevre halklarının kötü lakapları olduğu; Neml sözcüğünün karınca değil ‘Liman’ anlamında olduğu; Karınca Vadisi denilen yerin Liman Vadisi olduğu; Nemletun’un karınca değil Limanlı bir kadın olduğu; Hüdhüd’ün bir kuş olmadığı, hikâyesi Tevrat’ta geçen Edom prensi Hadad olduğu; Seba Melikesinin koltuğunu uçarak getiren bir cin olmadığı, Samirilerden bir din adamı olduğu; Melikeye yapılan ‘saraya gir’ davetinin ‘dinime gir’ anlamında olduğuna dair birçok bulgu tespit edilmiştir. Bir noktada, mevcut Kuran çeviri, meal ve tefsirlerinin çarpıtma denilecek oranda hatalı yorum ve anlamalar üzerine bina edildiği sonucuna varılmıştır.
However, our paper indicates that this phrase is a direct response to the lament Jesus had uttered on the cross, "My Lord, my Lord, why have you forsaken me?" Furthermore, we have shown that the first two verses of this surah, considered as an oath, were referring to an event in Christian theology known as the "crucifixion darkness", further strengthening our argument that surah al-Ḍuḥā is addressed to Jesus and not Muhammad.
I will demonstrate that this verse never mentions an infanticide practice. It is completely misread. In effect, the prototype father of this verse, upon hearing the news of having a girl, fancies burying the male courier who brought the news to him but not his daughter. In a word, the father wants to beat the male courier. All pronouns in this verse indicate the existence of another male outside the father, to whom all of the imagined bad actions are directed. Namely, the father misdirects all his anger toward this male courier. This fact has been dismissed until now. In our reading, the frustrated man [father] fancies beating the courier by knocking him down and inserting him into the dusty ground because of the evil news he brought—the news of a girl—that inflamed his anger among his tribal men. Simply put, the Quran does not mention infanticide.
Unfortunately, and anyone's surprise, the text of the Quran does not contain such magics or wizards regarding the Solomon stories. The stories we read from the Quran, in effect, are the readings of the early translators, exegetes. Usually, we do not read the Quran. But, we repeat their readings, right or wrong. In reality, the Quran does not say what the early exegetes made it say.
Briefly, Solomon's army of the humans, the genies, and the birds do not refer to the things these words’ lexical connotations bear but to the kindred nations of him. Also, there was no a bird named Hudhud; he was a real man named Hadad in the Bible. There was no a female ant [namlatun], but she was a real woman from the port city of Edomites. There was no a genie bringing the chair of the Queen of Sheeba magically; but he was a religious man giving info about her throne. There are many no's in existing translations. All of them rest on the distorted meanings of some words and verbs. In effect, the Solomon stories contain highly political messages rather than moral and ethical lessons.
NOTE: In this version, I have added some explanations to the section titled "The Genies: Solomon's Foes from the People of the Book", on the 19-20th pages of this paper. There, I have shown how the verb أ ت ي, that is in the meaning of "to give" in Q. 27:38-39, has been distorted in three occasions by early translators. Namely, though the exact meaning of this verb is “to give”, in conventional readings it was substituted with the meanings “to bring” and “to come to”, consequently corrupting the whole story. The early readers of this paper are recommended to jump directly to these pages.
In our reading of the same verse, we read the full opposite of what the traditional readings have translated. In our reading, the Jews do not appear to be honestly confessing. Their speech is full with sarcasm and mockery, therefore it is hardly a sincere confession. In effect, they use sarcastic rhetoric to mock their opponents' charge of being ‘killers of Jesus’. In addition, the Qur'an never says that someone else was crucified in place of Jesus. In sum, the Qur'an's recounting in v. 4:157 is entirely congruent with Christian and Jewish traditions.
Qur’an sets a rule for Jesus Christ at the beginning (Q. 3:45):“…whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary”, and this affix “the son of Mary” works as a ‘sine qua non’ for him in the whole Qur’an. Whenever Īsā, Jesus the Messiah, is intended in any context then the affix “ub'nu Maryama“ is immediately added to his personal name Īsā or to his title, al-masīḥu. And this rule is broken off only in one instance in Q. 9:30: “The al-Yahūdu say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and al-Naşārā say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah"” by not bearing the necessary and indispensable affix: “ub'nu Maryama.” The next verse (9:31) calling, this time, as “al-masīḥu ub'nu Maryama“, clearly is referring to Jesus Christ. The rule set by the Qur’an leads us to assert that there are actually two messiahs in 9:30-1: a) a Samaritan Messiah in 9:30, Joshua (Jesus/Īsā); and b) a Jewish Messiah in 9:31 (Jesus Christ/Īsā). By way of this assertion all “Naşārās” in the Qur’an have been reevaluated to find out if they really refer to the Christians or to the Samaritans.
In our paper, we argue that the first Maryam mentioned in 3:35-6 is/was Miriam, the daughter of Imran, while the second Maryam alluded to in v. 3:37 and in the following verses is/was Mary, the mother of Jesus. Namely, the Quran mentions two distinct Maryams inside the same sura and establishes a familial bond between the two to show the Messianic lineage of Jesus. An intertextual reading of the Holy Scriptures also can bridge this ambiguous link between Q 3:35-6 and 37. The Quran does not conflate two Maryams but the scholars do not want to see the existence of two distinct Maryams and their role in the messianic lineage of Jesus.
This reception also forces someone to reconsider the second enigmatic hapax word "Abābīl" to reevaluate. When the Jews are put into the center of the surat then the enigmatic word "abābīl" (in the meaning of birds) also looses the hapax statutes and takes the meaning of a-Babil (Babylon) as (Q 2:102) explicitly refers to the city of Babylon. And then the surat takes a brand-new meaning as explained in the paper...The paper also tries to show the correlation of this surat to the next surat al-Quraish (Q 106).
Bunlar, aslında ilk müfessirlerin okumalardır. Süleyman kıssalarının Tevrat’ın Süleyman kıssaları ile birlikte okunmasında ise; Kuran metinlerinin bu tür bir sihir, büyü ve fabl içermediği görülmüştür.
Bu okumalarımızda: Süleyman’ın kuş lisanı bilmediği, kuşlar hakkında konuştuğu; hakiki kuşlardan ve cinlerden bir ordusunun olmadığı; Kuşlar [et-Tayr] ve Cinler [el-Cinni] tanımlarının çevre halklarının kötü lakapları olduğu; Neml sözcüğünün karınca değil ‘Liman’ anlamında olduğu; Karınca Vadisi denilen yerin Liman Vadisi olduğu; Nemletun’un karınca değil Limanlı bir kadın olduğu; Hüdhüd’ün bir kuş olmadığı, hikâyesi Tevrat’ta geçen Edom prensi Hadad olduğu; Seba Melikesinin koltuğunu uçarak getiren bir cin olmadığı, Samirilerden bir din adamı olduğu; Melikeye yapılan ‘saraya gir’ davetinin ‘dinime gir’ anlamında olduğuna dair birçok bulgu tespit edilmiştir. Bir noktada, mevcut Kuran çeviri, meal ve tefsirlerinin çarpıtma denilecek oranda hatalı yorum ve anlamalar üzerine bina edildiği sonucuna varılmıştır.
However, our paper indicates that this phrase is a direct response to the lament Jesus had uttered on the cross, "My Lord, my Lord, why have you forsaken me?" Furthermore, we have shown that the first two verses of this surah, considered as an oath, were referring to an event in Christian theology known as the "crucifixion darkness", further strengthening our argument that surah al-Ḍuḥā is addressed to Jesus and not Muhammad.
I will demonstrate that this verse never mentions an infanticide practice. It is completely misread. In effect, the prototype father of this verse, upon hearing the news of having a girl, fancies burying the male courier who brought the news to him but not his daughter. In a word, the father wants to beat the male courier. All pronouns in this verse indicate the existence of another male outside the father, to whom all of the imagined bad actions are directed. Namely, the father misdirects all his anger toward this male courier. This fact has been dismissed until now. In our reading, the frustrated man [father] fancies beating the courier by knocking him down and inserting him into the dusty ground because of the evil news he brought—the news of a girl—that inflamed his anger among his tribal men. Simply put, the Quran does not mention infanticide.
Unfortunately, and anyone's surprise, the text of the Quran does not contain such magics or wizards regarding the Solomon stories. The stories we read from the Quran, in effect, are the readings of the early translators, exegetes. Usually, we do not read the Quran. But, we repeat their readings, right or wrong. In reality, the Quran does not say what the early exegetes made it say.
Briefly, Solomon's army of the humans, the genies, and the birds do not refer to the things these words’ lexical connotations bear but to the kindred nations of him. Also, there was no a bird named Hudhud; he was a real man named Hadad in the Bible. There was no a female ant [namlatun], but she was a real woman from the port city of Edomites. There was no a genie bringing the chair of the Queen of Sheeba magically; but he was a religious man giving info about her throne. There are many no's in existing translations. All of them rest on the distorted meanings of some words and verbs. In effect, the Solomon stories contain highly political messages rather than moral and ethical lessons.
NOTE: In this version, I have added some explanations to the section titled "The Genies: Solomon's Foes from the People of the Book", on the 19-20th pages of this paper. There, I have shown how the verb أ ت ي, that is in the meaning of "to give" in Q. 27:38-39, has been distorted in three occasions by early translators. Namely, though the exact meaning of this verb is “to give”, in conventional readings it was substituted with the meanings “to bring” and “to come to”, consequently corrupting the whole story. The early readers of this paper are recommended to jump directly to these pages.
In our reading of the same verse, we read the full opposite of what the traditional readings have translated. In our reading, the Jews do not appear to be honestly confessing. Their speech is full with sarcasm and mockery, therefore it is hardly a sincere confession. In effect, they use sarcastic rhetoric to mock their opponents' charge of being ‘killers of Jesus’. In addition, the Qur'an never says that someone else was crucified in place of Jesus. In sum, the Qur'an's recounting in v. 4:157 is entirely congruent with Christian and Jewish traditions.
Qur’an sets a rule for Jesus Christ at the beginning (Q. 3:45):“…whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary”, and this affix “the son of Mary” works as a ‘sine qua non’ for him in the whole Qur’an. Whenever Īsā, Jesus the Messiah, is intended in any context then the affix “ub'nu Maryama“ is immediately added to his personal name Īsā or to his title, al-masīḥu. And this rule is broken off only in one instance in Q. 9:30: “The al-Yahūdu say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and al-Naşārā say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah"” by not bearing the necessary and indispensable affix: “ub'nu Maryama.” The next verse (9:31) calling, this time, as “al-masīḥu ub'nu Maryama“, clearly is referring to Jesus Christ. The rule set by the Qur’an leads us to assert that there are actually two messiahs in 9:30-1: a) a Samaritan Messiah in 9:30, Joshua (Jesus/Īsā); and b) a Jewish Messiah in 9:31 (Jesus Christ/Īsā). By way of this assertion all “Naşārās” in the Qur’an have been reevaluated to find out if they really refer to the Christians or to the Samaritans.
In our paper, we argue that the first Maryam mentioned in 3:35-6 is/was Miriam, the daughter of Imran, while the second Maryam alluded to in v. 3:37 and in the following verses is/was Mary, the mother of Jesus. Namely, the Quran mentions two distinct Maryams inside the same sura and establishes a familial bond between the two to show the Messianic lineage of Jesus. An intertextual reading of the Holy Scriptures also can bridge this ambiguous link between Q 3:35-6 and 37. The Quran does not conflate two Maryams but the scholars do not want to see the existence of two distinct Maryams and their role in the messianic lineage of Jesus.
This reception also forces someone to reconsider the second enigmatic hapax word "Abābīl" to reevaluate. When the Jews are put into the center of the surat then the enigmatic word "abābīl" (in the meaning of birds) also looses the hapax statutes and takes the meaning of a-Babil (Babylon) as (Q 2:102) explicitly refers to the city of Babylon. And then the surat takes a brand-new meaning as explained in the paper...The paper also tries to show the correlation of this surat to the next surat al-Quraish (Q 106).