The Institutionalization of Qur’anic Interpretation

Last month, a striking development emerged from the Turkish Parliament: a legislative proposal concerning Qur’anic translations (meals) was approved. One of the proposed amendments would grant the Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet, or DİB) the authority to confiscate and destroy Qur’an translations it deems “objectionable.”

This is no minor legal adjustment — it represents a serious threat to religious scholarship and freedom of expression. As someone who has authored both a Qur’anic translation (The Meaning of the Qur’an and Dictionary) and a seven-volume exegesis (Qur’anic Lessons), I believe I have both the standing and the responsibility to respond.

Before questioning why a state institution feels compelled to impose such restrictions, we must clarify the distinction between meal (interpretive translation) and tafsir (exegesis).

What Is a “Meal”?

In Turkish, the word meal denotes an interpretive rendering or “approximate meaning” of the Qur’an in another language. The term is unique to the Turkish Islamic tradition and has no exact counterpart in other languages. Crucially, calling a translation a meal rather than a tercüme (translation) reflects the established theological view that no human being can fully grasp the divine intent behind revelation. Hence, anyone who undertakes a meal — no matter how fluent in Arabic and how well-versed in Islamic scholarship — must proceed with caution and humility. The translator implicitly acknowledges: I have done my best, but I cannot claim to have conveyed the Qur’an’s meaning with full precision.

This linguistic and theological humility is a beautiful and meaningful tradition. To the best of my knowledge, no one among the roughly 200 known Turkish renderings has ever claimed their work to be a definitive “translation” of the Qur’an.

If what we are producing is meal, then two truths follow:

1. Every meal is necessarily incomplete.
2. Every meal reflects the individual scholar’s abilities, intellectual background, and interpretive efforts.

These two facts underscore that anyone capable of producing a meal must enjoy freedom — not only in the liberal sense but also from within the Islamic tradition itself. The right to seek, convey, and express understanding of divine revelation is a fundamental principle. To restrict this right is to deny the very epistemological foundation of Islamic thought. Even if a government is democratically elected, it has no legitimate authority to outlaw theological interpretation.

The Duties of Every Muslim

Every Muslim has five essential responsibilities regarding the Qur’an: to listen to it, to recite it, to understand it, to explain it, and to live by it. Those who take on the responsibility of explaining the Qur’an — whether to themselves or others — are engaging in interpretation. And in this sense, every meal is in fact a form of brief tafsir.

Tafsir requires sincere intention, spiritual integrity, scholarly knowledge, and a legitimate aim. The process of interpretation — particularly when conducted with the necessary caution — has long been a domain of serious effort in Islamic history.

One of the early authorities on this issue, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 944), the author of Ta’wilat al-Qur’an, drew a distinction between tafsir and ta’wil. According to Maturidi, tafsir was the domain of the Companions of the Prophet (ṣaḥāba), who were uniquely qualified because they lived alongside the Prophet, witnessed the context of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl), and participated in the formative events of the early Muslim community. In contrast, ta’wil was the interpretive effort of later scholars who, though well-intentioned, lacked the direct experiential knowledge of the ṣaḥāba.

Unlike tafsir, ta’wil does not claim to speak in God’s name. It is an intellectual effort — one shaped by the scholar’s own understanding and sincerity. Because the words of the Qur’an often carry multiple layers of meaning, ta’wil allows for interpretation without the strict constraints imposed on classical tafsir.

Between Maturidi and Abu Hanifa

When one closely examines Maturidi’s distinction, it becomes clear that Imam Abu Hanifa placed the opinions of the Companions as the third most authoritative source in Islamic jurisprudence, after the Qur’an and the Sunnah. He ranked qiyas (analogical reasoning) fourth and ijmaʿ (scholarly consensus) fifth. However, Abu Hanifa also emphasized that he retained the right to prefer one Companion’s opinion over another’s — a stance that complicates Maturidi’s strict separation between tafsir and ta’wil.

In reality, even when conducting tafsir, we frequently make judgments about which Companion’s views to adopt, which ones to set aside, and how to reconcile conflicting interpretations. This exercise of scholarly discernment does not violate the sacredness of the Qur’an — rather, it exemplifies the living tradition of interpretation.

What Is Tafsir? And Who May Interpret the Qur’an?

Defining Tafsir

I define tafsir as the intellectual and spiritual endeavor to uncover the divine intent (murād ilāhī) behind the words of revelation. It is a process that seeks to understand the meanings embedded in the speech (kalām) and rulings (aḥkām) of the Qur’an. This process requires not only technical mastery of relevant disciplines — such as Arabic grammar, logic, rhetoric, and jurisprudence — but also a high level of spiritual maturity and intellectual integrity.

In this sense, tafsir intersects with multiple Islamic sciences:

• Understanding the divine speech involves kalām (theology),
• Uncovering metaphysical wisdom connects to falsafa (philosophy) and taṣawwuf (spirituality),
• Deriving legal intent falls within the domain of uṣūl al-fiqh (legal theory).

Tafsir as a Civilization-Building Effort

The history of Islamic thought is, in large part, a vast and varied endeavor to interpret the Qur’an. Nearly all Islamic disciplines — and thousands of books — have emerged as attempts to understand and explain the Divine Book.

In addition to the Qur’an, God granted the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the ḥikmah (wisdom), which refers to the ability to comprehend, internalize, and communicate revelation. This ḥikmah — referred to in Qur’an 4:113 — is the epistemological foundation of tafsir.

Those who undertook the task of tafsir or ta’wil used this wisdom in different ways. While their methodologies varied slightly, each interpretation reflected a distinct intellectual tradition or school. For example:

• Zamakhshari’s al-Kashshāf represents the Mu‘tazilī rationalist tradition.
• Ibn Kathīr is favored by Salafi scholars.
• Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, blending theology and philosophy, produced Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb.
• Qurṭubī focused on jurisprudence.
• Qushayrī emphasized Sufi spirituality.
• Allāmeh Ṭabāṭabā’ī’s al-Mīzān offers a Shīʿī perspective.
• Shawkānī’s Fath al-Qadīr is still a valuable Zaydī source.

In modern times, noteworthy contributions include:

• al-Manār by Muḥammad ʿAbduh and Rashīd Riḍā,
• Fi Ẓilāl al-Qurʾān by Sayyid Quṭb,
• Tafhīm al-Qurʾān by Abul Aʿlā Mawdūdī,
• Hak Dini Kur’an Dili by Elmalılı Hamdi Yazır,
• Works by ʿIzzat Darwaza, Süleyman Ateş, and others.

Each of these texts represents a unique perspective rooted in a particular interpretive tradition.

Had historical Islamic states imposed a single official tafsir, many of these works may never have been written. Though the Abbasids and the Muʿtazilah once attempted such a doctrinal imposition, they ultimately failed. The intellectual collapse of the Islamic world began when state institutions began to interfere with independent scholarship and theology.

The Epistemological Principle: No One Owns the Truth

No matter how advanced a person’s knowledge, no individual can claim possession of absolute truth. All human understanding is probabilistic (zannī) — not definitive. A tafsir or meal merely reflects what one person has been able to glean from the Qur’an through personal effort and sincerity. That’s all.

The Qur’an describes itself as a revealed Book (Qur’an 10:37), and Muslims universally believe this to be true. Every verse is an āyah — a sign, an evidence — pointing from the world of matter to the world of meaning, from the physical realm (shahādah) to the unseen (ghayb).

The Qur’an’s real-world correlate is the natural world — the cosmos we inhabit. Like the Qur’an, nature is filled with signs that point beyond themselves. But neither the Qur’an nor nature reveals the full truth all at once or in a self-evident form. Were this the case, there would be no need for interpretation, reflection, or science. The pursuit of understanding requires insight (baṣīrah), reflection (naẓar), and contemplation — what the Greeks once called theoria.

As our investigations and experiences grow, so too does our knowledge. Tafsir, therefore, is part of this same effort — a sacred hermeneutic discipline that demands both rigor and reverence.

Misusing Hadith to Block Interpretation

Some religious groups claim that no one may interpret the Qur’an under any circumstances. They often cite a hadith attributed to the Prophet:

“Whoever interprets the Qur’an according to his own opinion, let him prepare his seat in the Fire.”
(Tirmidhi, Tafsir, 1)

However, this hadith requires careful scrutiny on three grounds:

1. During the Prophet’s time, the term “tafsir” was not yet formalized as a distinct scholarly discipline. The more common term used was tabyīn (clarification).
2. While the Prophet was alive, no one would have dared to interpret the Qur’an independently — they would simply ask the Prophet directly about meanings they didn’t understand.
3. Even if this hadith is authentic, its intent is to prevent semantic corruption of the Qur’an and to guard against the exploitation of religion for political or commercial gain. It is not directed against sincere efforts to understand and explain the divine message.

In short, this hadith is not a prohibition on responsible, well-informed tafsir efforts made with good intentions.

The Islamic Tradition: No Clerical Monopoly

In the Christian tradition, the interpretation of sacred texts is often the exclusive domain of clerical authorities — especially in Catholicism. Only those with sanctioned religious status have the right to interpret Scripture, and their interpretations carry institutional weight.

In contrast, Islamic tradition has no centralized clerical hierarchy. Anyone who has acquired the proper knowledge and methodological training may engage in tafsir. Every scholar’s interpretation is an individual effort and reflects their own understanding of the text.

As a result, no single tafsir represents an absolute or final truth. Tafsir is inherently dynamic, pluralistic, and open to growth. The vitality of the Islamic intellectual tradition depends on the freedom to explore and debate these interpretations.

This freedom must be protected from state interference. No government — and no official institution, whether the Presidency of Religious Affairs (DİB), academic theologians, religious orders, parliaments, or courts — has the authority to declare any one interpretation of the Qur’an as the only legitimate one.

The Danger of State-Enforced Interpretation

State institutions should not commission or endorse a single “authorized” tafsir or meal as binding. Doing so risks turning one particular interpretation into a tool of ideological enforcement, freezing intellectual diversity, and using religious interpretation to consolidate political power.

Indeed, some state-sponsored translations in Turkey already suffer from:

• Poor word choices for key Qur’anic terms,
• Parenthetical insertions that distort the meaning,
• Theological biases that align with official ideology.

It is important to note that many independent scholars are more competent and intellectually honest than those appointed by official institutions. The state must not act as judge and jury over religious interpretation.

Some religious scholars today, particularly those shaped by secular or modernist paradigms, approach the Qur’an with frameworks alien to the Islamic worldview. Their conclusions may be flawed, reactionary, or even offensive. But the solution is not censorship — it is open debate. Wrong ideas should be challenged by better ideas, not suppressed by law.

If Muslims are to preserve their intellectual tradition, they must protect the right to think, write, and interpret — even when they disagree.

Power, Politics, and the Battle Over Tafsir in Turkey

Religious Coalitions and State Control

In recent years, certain religious-political coalitions have gained disproportionate influence over Turkey’s religious life. The dominant group — often called the “Imam Hatip Bloc” or “Sworn Core Group” — has positioned itself at the very heart of the current government. This bloc is supported by four large religious communities, which now control a significant majority of Turkey’s religious institutions, Islamic thought, and civil society activities.

This five-part coalition, shielded by the state, has converted electoral democracy into religious authoritarianism. Their theological outlook leans heavily on mythical, mystical, and folkloric narratives, often at the expense of rational inquiry and spiritual depth.

Each of these religious groups has produced its own meal (Qur’anic interpretation) and rejects the legitimacy of all others. If they had their way, they would likely ban every alternative meal and tafsir, even going so far as to publicly burn them — much like the inquisitors of medieval Europe.

While these groups compete for influence over the Presidency of Religious Affairs (DİB), they also seek to eliminate independent scholars, thinkers, and small civil groups who lack political clout. Their influence over government policy and public religious discourse is deeply troubling.

If this trend is not checked, Turkey may soon face its own version of the Taliban — a state enforced by a radicalized version of Maturidi-Hanafi orthodoxy, backed by 18th-century jurisprudence like al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah.

The False Cure: Banning Meals for “Quality Control”

Diyanet has argued that banning certain meals is necessary for protecting public understanding of the Qur’an. Their concerns fall into four general categories:

1. Poorly informed translators who lack Arabic or theological depth may unintentionally spread misinterpretations.
2. Ideologically driven interpreters may use the Qur’an to promote secularist or modernist worldviews at odds with Islamic revelation.
3. Sectarian groups may craft self-serving translations that reflect narrow doctrinal agendas.
4. Financial opportunists may publish meals simply for commercial gain.

But none of these concerns justify censorship.

First, every meal, including those commissioned by Diyanet, is subject to limitations and errors. There is no such thing as “the perfect meal.” Even Diyanet’s own translations include multiple errors — particularly in key terms and parenthetical glosses that resemble commentary.

Second, many independent scholars exceed the competence of Diyanet’s official translators. Being a state body does not grant Diyanet the right to serve as arbiter of religious truth.

Third, ideologically driven or poorly written meals can and should be countered by better work — not by state bans. False ideas should be debated, not outlawed.

State-imposed theological uniformity suffocates religious diversity and undermines the very foundations of Islamic learning. It reduces faith to bureaucratic orthodoxy and enables governments to instrumentalize religion for political control.

Tafsir Must Remain Free — For Faith and Reason Alike

The Constitutional Contradiction

The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey declares the state to be laik — secular. Yet the same state has established the Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet, or DİB) as an official body to oversee religious life. As a result, all mosques are managed by the state, and their employees — imams, preachers, muftis, muezzins, caretakers — are civil servants.

This structure leads to a contradiction: Can state-appointed religious officials interpret Qur’anic verses that challenge secular paradigms? If the state imposes a laik (secular) lens on religious interpretation, the result is not freedom of religion, but the subtle reengineering of revelation to suit official ideology.

The Qur’an strongly criticizes earlier religious communities for precisely this — for distorting sacred texts to align with worldly interests:

“They distort words from their [right] places.” (Qur’an 5:13)

Tafsir Must Remain Civil and Independent

The authority to interpret the Qur’an must remain in civil hands. The state has no religious legitimacy to determine:

• Who may write a meal or tafsir,
• What interpretations are acceptable,
• Or which schools of thought should be promoted or silenced.

A healthy Islamic society must allow diverse interpretations to coexist. If a meal is poorly written or misleading, it will fade into irrelevance through public disinterest. This has happened many times throughout Islamic history. Controversial interpretations may cause a stir when first published, but over time, only those written with integrity, scholarship, and sincerity have endured.

Neither the state nor its religious institutions — not Diyanet, not theology departments, not parliament, not the courts — can act as gatekeepers of divine will.

The Real Danger: State-Sanctioned Tafsir

When a state institution like Diyanet commissions a meal or tafsir and presents it as the only valid version, it effectively imposes a state religion. This is not just a theoretical concern — it has already happened in other Muslim-majority countries:

• In Iran, this results in an official Shi‘a–Ja‘farī doctrine,
• In Saudi Arabia, in Salafism/Wahhabism,
• In Afghanistan, in Hanafi–Maturidi orthodoxy.

A truly Islamic government would not enforce a single doctrine. Instead, it would uphold maʿrūf (the common good) and prohibit munkar (corruption), as identified by shared ethical values — not sectarian theology.

Collective Tafsir? A Misleading Concept

Some suggest that forming committees of scholars can avoid the problem of individual bias. But even in so-called “collective” tafsir projects, each sūrah is typically written by a single author. What we call a “committee tafsir” is, in reality, a series of individual commentaries bundled together. Tafsir is inherently a personal and intellectual act; it cannot be bureaucratized.

Thus, the idea of a “collective tafsir” is an illusion. Only civil, individual initiative — grounded in sincerity and scholarly discipline — can fulfill the task of interpreting the Qur’an.

Conclusion: A Qur’anic Ethos of Inquiry

If Turkey continues down the path of suppressing civil interpretations and enforcing state orthodoxy, it risks producing a homegrown version of authoritarian religion. The Qur’an warns against such trends, and offers instead a striking ideal for the sincere seeker:

“Those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it — it is they whom God has guided, and it is they who possess true understanding.”
(Qur’an 39:18)

In the end, truth is with God alone, and no institution — whether state or sect — can claim monopoly over it. The right to interpret sacred texts is not a privilege granted by power, but a duty borne out of faith, reason, and freedom.