# A Comparison of the Narratives in Turkey's 1931–1941 High School History Textbooks with the Qur'an

**Prof. Dr. Muhammed Fatih Talu**

**Abstract:** [*Tarih I*](https://kutuphane.ttk.gov.tr/resource?itemId=267298&dkymId=6415) and [*Tarih II*](https://kutuphane.ttk.gov.tr/resource?itemId=267295&dkymId=6416) (1931) are official textbooks, printed by order of the Ministry of Education and taught in high schools for eleven years; they do not merely recount the past but also pronounce judgement on the source of religion and of revelation. This review reads in full the two chapters that carry the books' treatment of religion — "Beşer Tarihine Giriş" (Introduction to Human History) in *Tarih I* and "İslâm Tarihi" (History of Islam) in *Tarih II* — and extracts from them the sentences that make assertions about religion, revelation, prophethood, creation, jinn and angels, the Kaaba and legal rulings; comparing **46** page-cited quotations with **38** verses, it arrives at **19** findings. At the core of these findings lies the books' own register of assertion: **the divine source of revelation is nowhere affirmed in the books' own voice but is always referred to a reported register such as "in Islamic tradition (…) is accepted", while the human explanation is given in the books' own voice and, in most places, without qualification.** Accordingly, the books put a religion of human origin in place of religion sent down by God, human reflection in place of revelation, the founding of a religion in place of prophethood, and a nature-centred explanation in place of creation. The central claim of the review is that the divergence between this official narrative and the Qur'an lies not in detail but **in the foundations of doctrine**. Every quotation has been machine-verified against the page given in its citation, the verses are taken from a single Turkish rendering of the Qur'an, and verses whose interpretation is disputed in the commentary literature have not been made the basis of any finding.

---

## 1. The official status of the source

### 1.1 The authorship and printing record

The books are not a private author's opinion. *Tarih I* **[1]** and *Tarih II* **[2]**
were written by the Turkish Historical Research Society (Türk Tarihi Tetkik Cemiyeti)
and printed at the **State Press** (Devlet Matbaası) in Istanbul for the **Ministry of
Education** (Maarif Vekâleti). The table below gives every date, figure and citation that could be established,
together with its source; the verbatim text of the colophon pages is in the
[appendices](https://tarih1931.github.io/inceleme-ekler.html).

| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| **1931** | First printing orders for *Tarih I* (**30,000 copies**) and *Tarih II* (**25,000 copies**) | [3] [4] [7] |
| **1932** | Board decisions (**27**, **213**, **239**), **amendment and correction of vols. I and II** | [8] |
| **1933** | **Second printing** · a **separate series** for middle schools: *Ortamektep için Tarih* | [11] [12] |
| **1941** | *Tarih I* reprinted; third printing order for *Tarih II* (**3,000 copies**) | [9] [13] |
| **1942** | Board decision **222**: high school years 1, 2, 3; **364**: middle-school history books | [10] |

### 1.2 What the preface declares

At the front of both volumes stands a *Mukaddime* (preface) which, apart from
differences of spelling, is identical in the two (*Tarih I*, pp. V–VI **[5]**; *Tarih
II*, pp. V–VI **[6]**; the full text is given in [Appendix
C](https://tarih1931.github.io/inceleme-ekler.html)). The preface states three things
in the books' own words. First, the committee that wrote the book is presented not as
a scholarly body but as a body given a commission: "the Turkish Historical Research
Society charged some of its members with preparing a book capable of filling this gap
in the teaching of history" (Türk Tarihi Tetkik Cemiyeti bir kısım azasını tarih
tedrisatındaki bu boşluğu doldurabilecek bir kitap hazırlamağa memur etti) (p. V).
Second, the decision to have the work taught belongs to the state: "the Society has
presented this small work, which it has prepared in four books, as a gift to the
Ministry of Education of the Turkish Republic, which has agreed that it be taught in
the schools" (Cemiyet, dört kitap halinde hazırlamış olduğu bu küçük eseri,
mekteplerde okutulmasını kabul eden Türkiye Cümhuriyeti Maarif Vekâletine hediye
etmiştir) (p. VI). Third, the committee does not regard the text as finished and
leaves the door to correction open: "it cannot be claimed that this small work will
meet the need fully and perfectly. The deficiencies will be made good later, in new
printings" (bu küçük eserin ihtiyaca tam ve mükemmel şekilde tekabül edeceği iddia
olunamaz. Noksanlar, ilerde, yeni basılışlarda tamamlanacaktır) (p. VI). The state
passed through that door: in 1932 the "amendment and correction" (tadil ve tashih) of
vols. I and II was made the subject of a Board decision **[8]**, and the book was
printed a second time in 1933 **[11]** and a third time in 1941 **[9] [13]**.

The preface also announces the books' programme together with their stance towards
religion: it writes that "bigoted historians" (mutaassıp müverrihler) presented
Turkish history as "nothing but adventures of blood and fire" (kan ve ateş
maceralarından ibaret), whereas "Turkish and Muslim historians" (Türk ve İslam
müverrihler) held "the effacing of the periods belonging to the thousands of years
that preceded Islam to be a requirement of the politics of ummah-ism and an obligation
of religious zeal" (İslamlığa tekaddüm eden binlerce yıla ait devreleri unutturmayı
Ümmetçilik siyasetinin icabı ve din gayreti vecibesi) (p. V). The stance examined in
the treatment of religion is not something that emerges later in the chapters; it is
the frame the books set for themselves at the outset.

### 1.3 The composition of the committee

The pages headed "Those who worked on the preparation of the book" (Kitabın
hazırlanmasında çalışanlar) (*Tarih I*, pp. VII–VIII; *Tarih II*, pp. VII–VIII) list
the same thirteen people in both volumes; only the titles differ slightly (Appendix
C). The committee is headed, in the capacity of president of the society, by the
**Secretary-General of the Presidency**; nine members are
**deputies** (Samih Rifat, Akçuraoğlu Yusuf, Reşit Galip, Hasan Cemil, İsmail Hakkı,
Reşit Saffet, Sadri Maksudi, Şemseddin and Yusuf Ziya Beyler), four of whom are also
named as professors of law or of history (Akçuraoğlu Yusuf: Professor of Political
History at the Ankara Hukuk Mektebi; Sadri Maksudi: one of the professors of the
Ankara Hukuk Mektebi; Şemseddin: former professor of Turkish History at the İstanbul
Darülfünunu; Yusuf Ziya: former professor of Legal History at the İstanbul
Darülfünunu); two members are **colonels** (Baki Bey, Şemsi Bey), and one member is a
**teacher** of history and civics at the Musiki Muallim Mektebi (Afet Hanımefendi).
The book attributes no chapter to any member; the text appears under the joint
signature of the committee.

---

## 2. Method and the axes examined

### 2.1 Whole-text reading and the selection of quotations

The review rests on the full text of two chapters, corrected by hand page by page
against the scanned originals: the chapter "Beşer Tarihine Giriş" (Introduction to
Human History) of *Tarih I* (printed pp. 1–24) and the chapter "İslâm Tarihi" (History
of Islam) of *Tarih II* (printed pp. 79–184). Both chapters were read in full, and the
sentences that make assertions about religion, God, revelation, prophethood, the
Qur'an, jinn and angels, the Kaaba and legal rulings were extracted. These sentences
are concentrated on pp. 2–3 and 20–24 in *Tarih I* and on pp. 79–93 in *Tarih II*; the
remainder of the chapters (the discussions of history, race and language in *Tarih I*,
and the political history after p. 94 in *Tarih II*) either does not touch on the
subject or repeats the same assertions. Where a sentence outside these pages does
touch on the subject, it is cited under the finding to which it belongs.

The criterion for selecting a quotation is that the sentence carries an assertion
about the **origin and nature** of religion or of revelation; descriptive historical
narrative (campaigns, caliphs, institutions) falls outside the scope. Quotations are
given according to the following rules:

1. The wording is taken verbatim from the 1931 printing, with its spelling preserved, from the page given in its citation.
2. Each quotation is given at a length sufficient to carry the assertion of the paragraph in which it stands. Omitted material is marked **(…)**, and only portions that do not alter the assertion, such as the definition of a term, are omitted; where necessary, the finding shows that what was omitted does not change the meaning.
3. Where an assertion occurs in more than one place in the books, all its occurrences are cited; no finding rests on a single sentence.
4. Sentences in which the books limit or soften their own assertion on the same subject (cautionary qualifications, praise of the Prophet) are not suppressed; they are treated under the finding concerned or in the section on praise.

Which sentences each finding's claim about the books rests on, and which of those
claims are built by combining several explicit sentences, is set out item by item in
the [table of grounds](https://tarih1931.github.io/inceleme-ekler.html) in the
appendices.

### 2.2 The books' register of assertion

The books deliver their assertions about religion in three distinct registers, and the
findings are built upon these registers:

- **Reported register** — the assertion is attributed to someone else: "in Islamic tradition (…) is accepted" (İslâm an'anesinde (…) kabul olunur) (*Tarih II*, p. 90), "Arab tradition (…) attributes" (Arap an'anesi (…) atfetmektedir) (p. 85), "in the view of religions" (Dinler nazarında) (p. 91), "supposedly" (gûya) (p. 91). A sentence given in this register does not count as the books' own assertion; the finding establishes that the books do *not* make that assertion in their own voice.
- **Disciplinary register** — the assertion is tied to a point of view: "from the historical point of view" (Tarihî noktai nazardan) (p. 90), "it is generally claimed" (umumiyetle iddia olunuyor) (*Tarih I*, p. 5). The books use this register for the explanations they adopt; the qualifier shows that the assertion is made in the books' own voice.
- **Unqualified assertion** — "it is evident that" (Görülüyor ki) (*Tarih I*, p. 24), "it must be accepted" (kabul etmek lâzımdır) (p. 5), "it is this phenomenon that we today call religion" (İşte bu hâdiseye biz bugün din namını veriyoruz) (p. 23), "naturally" (bittabi) (*Tarih II*, p. 85).

The observation on which the findings really rest lies less in what the individual
sentences say than in this distribution: nowhere do the books affirm the divine source
of revelation in their own voice, but always give it in the reported register, whereas
the human explanation is given in their own voice and, in most places, without
qualification.

### 2.3 The Qur'anic side: the Turkish rendering and Qur'anic commentary

The other side of the comparison is the Qur'an's own statement. The review does not
discuss whether revelation occurred historically; it compares what the books say about
religion and revelation with what the Qur'an says on the same subject. The verses are
therefore cited not as historical evidence but as the primary text of Islamic belief,
and the doctrinal ground is the verses alone; no finding is tied to the view of any
sect, school or author.

The texts of the verses are taken from the *Kur'an-ı Kerim Meâli* of the Diyanet
İşleri Başkanlığı (Presidency of Religious Affairs) **[15]**; no other rendering is
used and renderings are not compared. Since a Turkish rendering is a translation and
therefore an interpretation, the following rules are observed:

1. The text of the rendering is taken without alteration.
2. The wording that carries a finding is a sentence whose agent and subject are explicit; no finding is built on a passive verb, a pronoun or an implication.
3. Verses whose interpretation is disputed in the commentary literature — those at the centre of questions such as the vision of God (rü'yet), abrogation (nesh) and the nature of fıtrat — are not made the basis of a finding; a verse that establishes the same principle without dispute is preferred.
4. In every finding, what the verse says beyond dispute and what the review infers from it are written in separate sentences.
5. In the key concepts — religion (din), revelation (vahiy), inspiration (ilham), prophet and messenger (nebî, resul), the unlettered (ümmî), the unseen (gayb), innate disposition (fıtrat) and jinn (cin) — the word the books use and the word the Qur'an uses may not share the same semantic field; where they do not, the difference is named in the finding concerned.

The file for each verse and for each term that carries the findings is in the
[appendices](https://tarih1931.github.io/review-appendices.html), a separate document.

### 2.4 The axes examined and the limits of the review

The comparison was carried out along five axes: the origin and nature of religion
(*Tarih I*, pp. 2, 21-24); creation and the origin of man (*Tarih I*, pp. 2-7);
revelation, prophethood and the source of the Qur'an (*Tarih II*, pp. 79-80, 89-93);
the origin of belief in jinn and angels (*Tarih II*, pp. 84, 91); scriptural text,
legal rulings and sacred place (*Tarih II*, pp. 85-86, 92, 118).

Under each axis the relevant quotations and verses are set out first, and the findings
reached by assessing them together are then presented. In accordance with the rules
given above, each quotation is reproduced at the length needed to carry the
assertion of its paragraph; where material has been omitted, marked **(…)**, the finding states what was omitted. Each axis has its own heading in the axis-by-axis comparison below.

The review does not do the following:

1. It does not assess the accuracy of the books' historical narrative or its sources; its subject is not the originality of the text but the doctrinal content of an official text.
2. It passes no judgement on the personal belief of the members of the drafting committee; what is examined is the assertion made by the books.
3. It takes no side in the matters disputed among the schools of kalâm; the comparison is confined to the explicit statements of the Qur'an.
4. It neither counts the books' sentences of praise for the Prophet among the findings nor suppresses them; they are treated separately in the section on praise.
5. The findings rest on the wording of the 1931 printing; changes in later printings have not been examined.

---

## 3. Axis-by-axis comparison

### 3.1 The origin and nature of religion

#### The birth of religion is tied to a human chain

> **[[Quote-01](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0021.html)]** "Ata korkusu
> yavaş yavaş anlaşılmaz bir surette 'kabile allahı' korkusuna intikal etti. Dimağları
> bu düşünceyi geçmiyen insanlar, kâinatı da aile çerçevesi içinde gördü. İnsanlarda ata
> korkusu tehlikeli hayvanlara karşı olan korku ile karıştı. Bu suretle Allah mefhumunun
> başlangıç hali olan 'ulvileştirilmiş ata' ya, temsilî olarak, muhtelif hayvanlara ait
> şekiller verildi." — **Tarih I, p. 21**
>
> [Fear of the ancestor passed gradually and imperceptibly into fear of the 'tribal
> god'. People whose minds did not pass beyond this thought saw the universe, too,
> within the framework of the family. In people, fear of the ancestor became mixed with
> the fear felt toward dangerous animals. In this way the 'exalted ancestor', which was
> the initial state of the concept of God, was symbolically given the forms of various
> animals.]

> **[[Quote-02](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0022.html)]** "İnsanlar,
> biribirile konuşarak ta biribirinin korkularını teyit ve tekit eylediler; müşterek
> mukaddesat an'aneleri icat ettiler. Bu mukaddesat içinde memnu (haram) ve gayritahir
> (mekruh) mefhumlarına ait fikirler mühim yer tuttu; (…) Böylece ilk din esasları ve
> merasimi ile din adamları ve sihirbazlar sınıfına yol açılmış oldu." — **Tarih I, p.
> 22**
>
> [By talking with one another, people confirmed and reinforced one another's fears;
> they invented common traditions of sacred things. Among these sacred things, ideas
> belonging to the concepts of the forbidden (haram) and the impure (mekruh) held an
> important place; (…) Thus the way was opened to the first principles and rites of
> religion and to the class of men of religion and magicians.]

> **[[Quote-03](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0023.html)]** "Bu kurbanları
> kesecek diğer pak tanınmış bir sınıf meydana çıktı: ilk rahipler sınıfı. Bir de kurban
> edilen efradın etinden birer parça yemek merasimi yer tuttu. Gûya bu suretle
> fedakârlığın nimetlerinden hepsi hissement oluyorlardı. Bugün hâlâ bazı dinlerde
> mevcut olan kurban kesmek âdetlerinin menşei budur." — **Tarih I, p. 23**
>
> [Another class, held to be pure, came forward to slaughter these sacrifices: the first
> class of priests. There also arose the rite of eating a piece of the flesh of the
> individuals sacrificed. In this way all were supposedly made partakers in the
> blessings of the sacrifice. This is the origin of the custom of sacrifice that still
> exists today in some religions.]

> **[[Quote-04](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0023.html)]** "Bütün bu
> müşterek âdetler ve inanışlar insanların aralarında zihnî ve hissî birtakım bağlar
> kurdu ve insanlarda müşterek düşünce ve müşterek harekete saik oldu. İşte bu hâdiseye
> biz bugün din namını veriyoruz. İnsanlar bu hâdise karşısında basit ve mantıkî bir
> telâkki ile temasa gelmiş bulunmıyorlardı; bilâkis, birtakım ruhlara, ilhamlara,
> emirlere ve nehiylere taallûk eden karmakarışık düşüncelerle temasa gelmiş
> oluyorlardı." — **Tarih I, p. 23**
>
> [All these common customs and beliefs established certain intellectual and emotional
> bonds among people and prompted common thought and common action in them. It is to
> this phenomenon that we today give the name of religion. In the face of this
> phenomenon people had not come into contact with a simple and logical conception; on
> the contrary, they were coming into contact with a confused mass of ideas concerning
> various spirits, inspirations, commands and prohibitions.]

> **[Verse-01]** "He has ordained for you the same religion that He enjoined upon Nūḥ,
> that He has revealed to you, and that He enjoined upon Ibrāhīm, Mūsā and ʿĪsā, saying:
> "Uphold the religion and do not fall into division concerning it!" (…)" — **Ash-Shūrā
> 13**

> **[Verse-02]** "To all the prophets We sent before you, We revealed: "Truly there is
> no god but Me; so worship Me."" — **Al-Anbiyā' 25**

> **[Finding-01]** The book ties the birth of religion, from beginning to end, to a human
> chain: fear of the ancestor, the tribal god, fears reinforced through speech, the
> "invented" (icat edilen) traditions of sacred things, sacrifice, the priestly class, and
> finally the common customs to which it gives "the name of religion" (din namını). The
> chain is not an assembly made by this review: the chapter falls under the heading "D.
> The Birth of Thought" (D. Fikrin Doğuşu) in *Tarih I* (pp. 20–24) — religion is thereby
> placed in the book as one section of "the birth of thought", that is, as a product of
> the mind — and its own subheadings carry these links in order: "Primitive Philosophy"
> (İptidaî Felsefe), "The Place and Influence of the Ancestor in Religion" (Dinde Atanın
> Mevkii ve Tesiri), "Fear and Hope in Religion" (Dinde Korku ve Ümit), "Stars and
> Seasons" (Yıldızlar ve Mevsimler), "Tales and Superstitions" (Hikâye ve Hurafeler) and
> "The Mixed Nature of the Origins of Religion" (Din Menşelerinin Karışık Mahiyeti). The
> chapter opens on p. 20 with a conjectural qualifier ("what may have been going on inside
> their minds", dimağları içinde neler cereyan etmiş olabileceğinden) and continues on p.
> 21 with "it is understood" (anlaşılıyor), "suppose" (Faraza) and "it is possible to
> conclude" (hükmetmek mümkündür); from p. 22 onward the qualifiers fall away and the
> language shifts into the declarative. The quotations above belong to this second stage,
> and on pp. 22–23 the assertions are given without any conjectural qualifier: "they
> invented" (icat ettiler), "this is the origin" (menşei budur). The three sentences
> omitted from Quote-02 describe the emergence of the purification rite; they do not alter
> the assertion. Two details show where the chain is anchored: the book names the
> primitive taboo with terms drawn from fiqh, "the forbidden (haram) and the impure
> (mekruh)" (memnu, gayritahir); and it counts the content of religion as "a confused mass
> of ideas concerning spirits, inspirations, commands and prohibitions" (ruhlara,
> ilhamlara, emirlere ve nehiylere taallûk eden karmakarışık düşünceler) — the very words
> that *Tarih II* will use for revelation and legal rulings are here lodged in the mind of
> the primitive tribe. In the Qur'an, by contrast, religion is not the outcome of an
> evolution but the single foundation that Allah enjoined upon every prophet from Nūḥ to
> ʿĪsā and "ordained as religion" (din kıldığı) for them (Verse-01); the same tawḥīd was
> revealed to every prophet (Verse-02).

#### Religion is an institution brought into being by human beings

> **[[Quote-05](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0024.html)]** "Görülüyor ki
> insanlar cemaat halinde yaşamıya başladıktan sora, diğer içtimaî müesseseler gibi din
> müessesesini de vücuda getirmişlerdir." — **Tarih I, p. 24**
>
> [It is evident that, after people began to live in communities, they brought the
> institution of religion into being as well, just like the other social institutions.]

> **[[Quote-06](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0024.html)]** "İnsanların
> faaliyetleri ve inkişafları üzerinde birçok amiller ve unsurların tesiri ve yardımı
> olmuştur. Din de bu müessirlerin başlıcalarındandır." — **Tarih I, p. 24**
>
> [Many factors and elements have exerted an influence upon, and lent assistance to, the
> activities and development of human beings. Religion, too, is among the foremost of
> these influences.]

> **[Verse-03]** "(…) Today I have perfected your religion for you. I have completed My
> favour upon you and have chosen Islam as religion for you. (…)" — **Al-Mā'ida 3**

> **[Finding-02]** In the book, religion is an institution founded by people "like the
> other social institutions" (diğer içtimaî müesseseler gibi); its qualifier is "it is
> evident that" (Görülüyor ki), which makes it not a conjecture but the conclusion the
> chapter reaches. What "the other social institutions" refers to is found within the
> book itself: law is described with the same formula, "we call them laws today" (Biz
> onlara bugün kanunlar diyoruz) (*Tarih I*, p. 13). The book does not belittle religion
> — it counts it among "the foremost influences" (başlıca müessirler) on human activity
> (Quote-06) — but it counts it as a human construction; the disagreement is not over
> the value of religion but over its origin. In the Qur'an, by contrast, it is Allah who
> lays down religion, completes it and gives it its name: religion is "perfected"
> (kemale erdirilir), Islam is "chosen as religion" (din olarak seçilir) (Verse-03), and
> religion is "ordained" (din kılınır) for all the prophets (Verse-01). The two accounts
> of origin cannot be reconciled.

#### Divinity is a concept found by human intelligence

> **[[Quote-07](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0024.html)]** "Ülûhiyet
> mefhumunu bulan, bu mefhumun sırlarını keşfeden ve bugün dahi keşfetmiye devam eden,
> insan zekâsıdır." — **Tarih I, p. 24**
>
> [It is human intelligence that found the concept of divinity, that discovered the
> secrets of this concept, and that continues to discover them even today.]

> **[[Quote-08](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0024.html)]** "İnsanların
> korku ve zâf hisleri, dimağın son ve çok yeni ilmî keşiflerle nurlanması sayesinde
> gittikçe azaldı. Ve insanlar hakikati bundan sora daha bariz görmiye başladılar.
> İnsan, benliğindeki kuvveti ve ferdi olduğu cemaatin içtimaî kudretini takdire
> muvaffak olmıya başladı. Artık onun için her türlü tekâmül, huzur ve emniyet membaı,
> cemiyettir." — **Tarih I, p. 24**
>
> [People's feelings of fear and weakness gradually diminished as the mind was
> illuminated by the latest and very recent scientific discoveries. And thereafter
> people began to see the truth more plainly. Man began to succeed in appreciating the
> strength within himself and the social power of the community of which he is a member.
> Henceforth, for him the source of every kind of evolution, of peace and of security is
> society.]

> **[[Quote-09](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0024.html)]** "İnsanların, bu
> derunî ve müphem temayülleri haris, zeki, mahir yahut hilekâr birtakım insanların
> sihirbaz, rahip, hükümdar vaziyetlerini almalarına meydan açtı." — **Tarih I, p. 24**
>
> [These inward and obscure inclinations of people opened the way for certain greedy,
> clever, skilful or deceitful persons to assume the positions of magician, priest and
> ruler.]

> **[Verse-04]** "He knows what lies before them and what lies behind them (their states
> in this world and in the hereafter). Their knowledge, however, cannot encompass
> Ar-Raḥmān." — **Ṭā Hā 110**

> **[Verse-05]** "(…) He knows what lies before His servants and what lies behind them
> (what they have done and what they will do). They can grasp nothing of His knowledge
> except what He wills. (…)" — **Al-Baqara 255**

> **[Finding-03]** In the book, divinity is a concept waiting to be discovered, and it
> is human intelligence that "found" (bulan) it; the feelings of fear and weakness (zâf)
> on which religious conception rests are transient states that diminish as science
> advances, while these "inward and obscure inclinations" (derunî ve müphem temayüller)
> are a door left open to the "deceitful" (hilekâr) men who were to become magicians,
> priests and rulers. "To find" (bulmak) and "to discover" (keşfetmek) might be read as
> implying that what was found already existed; the book's own framework closes off that
> reading: every concept above nature is a "fabrication" (uydurma) of the human mind
> (Quote-10); "the initial state of the concept of God" (Allah mefhumunun başlangıç
> hali) is not a discovery but the "exalted ancestor" (ulvileştirilmiş ata) (Quote-01);
> and the "real nature" (hakikî mahiyet) at which the idea of religion arrives is a
> nature intelligible through the power and majesty of nature itself (Quote-13).
> Divinity is thus not a truth discovered but a concept constructed by human
> intelligence and reduced to nature. In the Qur'an, by contrast, human knowledge
> "cannot encompass Ar-Raḥmān" (Verse-04), and nothing of His knowledge is grasped
> except as much of it as He wills (Verse-05). An explanation that treats divinity as a
> human artefact is, in terms of Islamic belief, **a denial of divinity**.

#### The whole of the unseen is declared a "fabrication"

> **[[Quote-10](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0002.html)]** "Fakat şunu
> söyliyelim ki, insanların bütün bilgileri ve inanışları, insanın zekâsı eseridir. Zekâ
> tabiî olan dimağdan çıkar. Bundan, tabiati anlamakta zekânın, en büyük cevher ve
> müessir olduğu anlaşıldığı gibi tabiatin fevkinde ve haricindeki bütün mefhumların,
> insan dimağı için kendi tarafından uydurma şeylerden başka bir şey olmıyacağı meydana
> çıkar." — **Tarih I, p. 2**
>
> [But let us say this: all the knowledge and beliefs of human beings are the work of
> human intelligence. Intelligence issues from the brain, which is a natural thing. From
> this, just as it is understood that intelligence is the greatest substance and the
> most effective agent in understanding nature, it also becomes clear that all concepts
> above and outside nature can be nothing, for the human mind, but things fabricated by
> that mind itself.]

> **[Verse-06]** "They believe in the unseen, they perform the prayer duly, and they
> spend in the way of Allah out of what We have provided for them." — **Al-Baqara 3**

> **[Verse-07]** "(…) True righteousness is the attitude and conduct of those who believe
> in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Book and the prophets; (…)" — **Al-Baqara 177**

> **[Finding-04]** The rule is laid down before religion is discussed at all, on the
> opening pages of the volume: "all the knowledge and beliefs" (bütün bilgileri ve
> inanışları) of human beings are the work of intelligence, and from this it "becomes
> clear" (meydana çıkar) that every concept above and outside nature is, for the human
> mind, a "fabrication" (uydurma). The word "beliefs" (inanışları) plainly covers
> religion; a page later the book applies the same rule to the creation account in the
> books of religion (Quote-14). The qualifier "for the human mind" (insan dimağı için)
> might be read as tying the assertion to the limits of knowledge; but the book takes
> discovery to be the sole source of knowledge — on p. 1: "the boundary of all our
> knowledge (…) cannot pass beyond discoveries" (bütün bilgilerimizin hududu (…)
> keşiflerin ötesine geçemez) — and nowhere names revelation as a source of knowledge.
> The principle covers the whole of the unseen; belief in the unseen cannot be built
> upon it. Yet belief in the unseen is the first attribute the Qur'an lists in
> describing the believers (Verse-06); and when the objects of belief are enumerated —
> Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, the prophets (Verse-07) — all of them are
> concepts above nature, which the book has placed in the class of "fabrication".

#### Primitive man has no religion; unity comes later

> **[[Quote-11](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0021.html)]** "İptidaî insan,
> nereden geldiğini, niçin yaşadığını hiç düşünmek ihtiyacını hissetmiyordu. (…) Bu
> insanlarda henüz dinî fikir ve kanaatten eser yoktu." — **Tarih I, p. 21**
>
> [Primitive man felt no need whatever to think about where he came from or why he
> lived. (…) In these people there was as yet no trace of religious idea or conviction.]

> **[[Quote-12](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0023.html)]** "İnsanların
> hayatına taallûk eden her şeyde olduğu gibi dinî meselelerde de bir tekâmül hâdisesi
> görünür. İptidaî insanda Allah ve din hakkında hiçbir fikir ve kanaat yoktu. Bu kadar
> umumî ve şümullü telâkkilere, insanın dimağı ancak yavaş yavaş alıştırıldı." — **Tarih
> I, pp. 23-24**
>
> [As in everything that concerns human life, a phenomenon of evolution is to be seen in
> religious matters as well. Primitive man had no idea or conviction whatever about God
> and religion. The human mind was only gradually accustomed to conceptions as general
> and comprehensive as these.]

> **[[Quote-13](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0024.html)]** "Din fikri,
> insanlar cemiyet hayatına sarahaten atıldığı nispette genişlemiye başlar, vahdet
> mefhumuna yaklaşır ve nihayet, tabiatin kudret ve azametile daha ziyade anlaşılması
> kabil, hakikî bir mahiyet alır." — **Tarih I, p. 24**
>
> [The idea of religion begins to widen in proportion as people enter openly into the
> life of society, draws nearer to the concept of unity, and finally takes on a real
> nature, one more fully intelligible through the power and majesty of nature.]

> **[Verse-08]** "We have certainly sent a prophet to every community, saying: "Worship
> Allah and shun the ṭāghūt." (…)" — **An-Naḥl 36**

> **[Verse-09]** "Then Ādam received (by way of revelation) certain words from his Lord,
> (acted upon them and implored his Lord. And He) thereupon accepted his repentance. (…)"
> — **Al-Baqara 37**

> **[Finding-05]** According to the book, primitive man had no idea whatever about God
> and religion; the assertion is made in two sentences on p. 21 and repeated once more,
> unqualified, on pp. 23–24. Religion is a conception to which the mind was later
> "accustomed" (alıştırılan); the concept of unity is not a beginning but a late stage
> of evolution. The book calls this final state a "real nature" (hakikî bir mahiyet),
> but its criterion is that it be "intelligible" (anlaşılması kabil) through the power
> and majesty of nature: unity is real to the extent that it is an expression of nature.
> In one place the book weakens its own assertion: on the same page it also writes that,
> from the fact that primitive people buried their dead and left provisions and weapons
> beside them, the conclusion may be drawn that they "believed in a future life"
> (müstakbel bir hayata inandıkları). A belief in the next world cannot be reconciled
> with the assertion that there was "no idea or conviction whatever" (hiçbir fikir ve
> kanaat yoktu); the book does not resolve the contradiction. The Qur'an sets the
> sequence the other way round: the first human being is the first addressee of
> revelation — Ādam "received certain words from his Lord" (Verse-09); the verb there is
> *talaqqā*, from the same root as the book's own word telâkki — and tawḥīd was conveyed
> to every community from the outset (Verse-08). The fiṭra verse (Ar-Rūm 30) points in
> the same direction; because its interpretation admits of several aspects, the finding
> has not been rested upon it.

### 3.2 Creation and the origin of man

#### The formation of life is explained without any factor outside nature

> **[[Quote-14](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0003.html)]** "Bundan 200 sene
> eveline kadar, dünyanın 5-6 bin sene evel yaratıldığı ve insanın Basraya iki günlük
> yolda, Fırat nehri üzerinde bulunan cennette yaratıldığı zannolunmakta idi. Bu
> kanaatler hep din kitaplarındaki hikâyelerin olduğu gibi hakikat sanılmasından
> doğuyordu." — **Tarih I, p. 3**
>
> [Until 200 years ago it was supposed that the world had been created 5-6 thousand
> years earlier, and that man had been created in a paradise lying on the river
> Euphrates, two days' journey from Basra. These convictions all arose from taking the
> stories in the books of religion to be the truth just as they stand.]

> **[[Quote-15](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0005.html)]** "Fakat hayatın,
> dünya üzerinde nasıl başladığını henüz kat'î surette bilmiyoruz. Hayatın ince, sulu
> çamur şeklinde ve yarı hayat halinde, tabiî şerait altında başlamış ve sora,
> hissolunmaz surette, yavaş yavaş tamamile hayata mahsus vasıflar almış olması
> muhtemeldir. Hali hazırda, dünyanın hiçbir tarafında dünyada hayatın teşekkül ettiği
> milyonlarca sene evel mevcut olmuş bulunan kimyevî ve fizikî şartlar kalmamıştır. Bu
> sebeple şüphesiz yeniden başlıyan bir hayat yoktur. Her halde, hayatın, herhangi bir
> tabiat harici amilin müdahalesi olmaksızın dünya üzerinde tabiî, zarurî bir kimya ve
> fizik seyri neticesi olduğunu kabul etmek lâzımdır." — **Tarih I, p. 5**
>
> [But we do not yet know with certainty how life began upon the earth. It is probable
> that life began under natural conditions in the form of a thin, watery mud and in a
> half-living state, and that it then imperceptibly and gradually acquired the
> properties proper to life in full. At present, nowhere on earth do there remain the
> chemical and physical conditions that existed millions of years ago, when life took
> shape on the earth. For this reason there is undoubtedly no life beginning anew. In
> any case, it must be accepted that life is the outcome of a natural and necessary
> chemical and physical course upon the earth, without the intervention of any factor
> outside nature.]

> **[Verse-10]** "Have those who disbelieve not seen that the heavens and the earth were
> joined together and that We parted them, and that We made every living thing from
> water? (…)" — **Al-Anbiyā' 30**

> **[Verse-11]** "Allah created every living creature from water. (…) Allah creates what
> He wills. For Allah has full power over all things." — **An-Nūr 45**

> **[Finding-06]** The paragraph opens by conceding the limits of knowledge — "we do not
> know with certainty" (kat'î surette bilmiyoruz), "it is probable" (muhtemeldir) — and
> closes with a normative assertion: "it must be accepted" (kabul etmek lâzımdır). That
> assertion is not drawn from observation: the axis falls under the heading "A. The
> Universe — Nature" (A. Kâinat — Tabiat) in *Tarih I* (pp. 1–8) and proceeds deductively
> — the principle is laid down first (p. 2: nature is the owner of the laws, nothing comes
> into being out of nothing, every concept above nature is a fabrication), the religious
> account of creation is then cleared away (p. 3), and only afterwards are the chain of
> life and the genealogy of man set out (pp. 3–7); the assertion on p. 5 falls inside that
> ordering, placed within the framework already laid down on p. 2. The caution attaches
> only to the mechanism; the exclusion of any factor outside nature is given with "in any
> case" (her halde). The pattern is the same throughout the chapter: the book is cautious
> about dates, figures and fossils, and categorical in rejecting any factor outside nature
> — a question admitted to be unknown is settled by excluding one possibility from the
> outset. The book's thesis rests not on chance but on necessity ("a natural and necessary
> chemical and physical course" — tabiî, zarurî bir kimya ve fizik seyri); the
> disagreement therefore does not lie in the question "chance or design?" but in the
> question of who owns the laws (Quote-16). In the Qur'an, too, life begins from water
> (Verse-10, Verse-11): the two sides speak on the same ground, and the point at which
> they part is the agent. It is the book itself that opens the comparison — immediately
> before turning to the chain of life it classifies the creation account in the books of
> religion as "story" (hikâye) and "false idea" (yanlış fikir) (Quote-14).

#### Man is held to be a creature of nature

> **[[Quote-16](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0002.html)]** "O halde tabiat
> hem kanunların sahibidir, hem de ayni kanunların tâbiidir. (…) Bütün varlıklar, tabiatte
> dahil ve onun kanunlarına tâbi olunca, hayat sahibi olan her nevi mahlûklar, insanlar
> dahi şüphesiz bundan hariç ve müstesna olmazlar." — **Tarih I, p. 2**
>
> [Nature, then, is both the owner of the laws and subject to those same laws. (…) Since
> all beings are included within nature and subject to its laws, living creatures of
> every kind, and human beings too, are undoubtedly not outside it or exempt from it.]

> **[[Quote-17](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0002.html)]** "Filhakika,
> insan, tabiatin mahlûkudur. Hayatın büyük kaidesi de tabiate tâbi olmaktır. Tabiatte
> hiçbir şey yokolmaz ve hiçbir şey yoktan varolmaz." — **Tarih I, p. 2**
>
> [Indeed, man is a creature of nature. And the great rule of life is to be subject to
> nature. In nature nothing perishes and nothing comes into being out of nothing.]

> **[[Quote-18](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0007.html)]** "İnsanların,
> tabiî mahlûk olarak dünyada zuhûr ettiklerini gördük." — **Tarih I, p. 7**
>
> [We have seen that human beings appeared on earth as natural creatures.]

> **[Verse-12]** "It is We who created you. Will you still not affirm the truth? Have
> you considered the semen you emit?! Is it you who create it, or are We the Creator?" —
> **Al-Wāqiʿa 57-59**

> **[Verse-13]** "Indeed, We created man from an essence (extracted) from clay. Then We
> placed him as a small quantity of fluid (semen) in a secure lodging (the womb). Then
> We turned that small quantity of fluid into an "ʿalaqa". The "ʿalaqa" We then made
> into a "muḍgha". This "muḍgha" We turned into bones, and We clothed those bones with
> flesh. Finally We brought him forth as a wholly different creature. How exalted is
> Allah, the best of creators!" — **Al-Mu'minūn 12-14**

> **[Finding-07]** The sentence "İnsan, tabiatin mahlûkudur" ("man is the creature of
> nature") is not a chance turn of phrase but part of the doctrine set out on p. 2:
> nature is the owner of the laws, nothing comes into being out of nothing, and man is
> "undoubtedly" (şüphesiz) no exception to this. The sentence omitted from Quote-16 is
> an analogy between nation and state. The remark on p. 7 that "all these remains cannot
> satisfy present-day humanity" concerns the insufficiency of the evidence, not a
> withdrawal of the thesis. The book ties the origin of man to nature; it also writes
> that life came about "without the intervention of any agent outside nature" (Quote-15)
> and names no agent beyond nature. The divergence is not about matter — the book's
> "thin, watery mud" does not conflict with the Qur'an's "an extract of clay" (Verse-13)
> — but about the agent: the Qur'an puts the question at exactly this point, "is it you
> who create it, or are We the creator?" (Verse-12), and it ascribes every stage of the
> graded creation to Allah, naming Him "the best of creators".

#### Man is placed at the last link of the chain of life

> **[[Quote-19](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0005.html)]** "Hulâsa
> insanlar, sularda kaynaşıp çırpınan bir mevcuttan, çok yavaş yürüyen bir tekâmülle,
> bugünkü şekle geldiler." — **Tarih I, p. 5**
>
> [In sum, human beings came to their present form, by a very slowly advancing
> evolution, from a being that swarmed and writhed in the waters.]

> **[[Quote-20](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0004.html)]** "Bu hayvan
> zümresinin başında: sıra ile maymunlar, kuyruksuz maymunlar ve nihayet insanlar
> bulunmaktadır. Tesbit ettiğimiz hayat zincirinin başlangıcı ve nihayeti daha
> aydınlatılmak ihtiyacındadır." — **Tarih I, p. 4**
>
> [At the head of this animal group stand, in order, the monkeys, the apes and finally
> human beings. The beginning and the end of the chain of life that we have established
> still need to be further clarified.]

> **[[Quote-21](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0005.html)]** "Gördük ki,
> hayat zincirinin son halkası insandır. Bu zincire nazaran insanın sair memeli
> hayvanlar gibi, daha basit bir sınıfa ait cetlerden geldiği kanaatine varılır." —
> **Tarih I, p. 5**
>
> [We have seen that the last link of the chain of life is man. In view of this chain,
> one arrives at the conviction that man, like the other mammals, descends from
> ancestors belonging to a simpler class.]

> **[[Quote-22](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/s0005.html)]** "Filhakika
> umumiyetle iddia olunuyor ki, insanın ve büyük maymunların (…) müşterek bir cetleri
> vardır. (…) İnsan, doğmadan evel, vücudunun geçirdiği pek garip safhalar vardır ki,
> onlar bilinecek olursa, bu iddianın sıhhatini kabul etmemek mümkün olmaz." — **Tarih
> I, p. 5**
>
> [It is indeed generally claimed that man and the great apes (…) have a common ancestor.
> (…) Before birth, the human body passes through very strange phases; once these are
> known, it becomes impossible not to accept the soundness of this claim.]

> **[Verse-14]** "It is He who made good everything that He created. He began the
> creation of man from clay. Then He made his progeny from an extract of fluid, from a
> base fluid. Then He shaped him and breathed into him of His spirit. He created for you
> hearing, sight and understanding. How little you give thanks!" — **As-Sajda 7-9**

> **[Verse-15]** "O man! What has deceived you concerning your generous Lord, who
> created you, shaped you and made you well proportioned, and formed you in whatever
> manner He willed?" — **Al-Infiṭār 6-8**

> **[Finding-08]** The book presents man as having come into being from simple living
> things through a long evolution. The qualifier "it is generally claimed" (umumiyetle
> iddia olunuyor) in Quote-22 may give the impression that the book is merely reporting;
> the same paragraph closes off that reading: the claim is taken up with "it becomes
> impossible not to accept" (kabul etmemek mümkün olmaz) and with "In sum (…) they came"
> (Hulâsa (…) geldiler) (Quote-19). The cautionary sentence that follows Quote-20
> concerns the two ends of the chain; the subheadings on pp. 4–5 establish the same
> thesis with a categorical qualifier. What is omitted from Quote-22 is a reference to
> an illustration and the intermediate links of the genealogy. The Qur'an, too,
> describes the creation of man in stages — a creation that begins from clay, continues
> from an "extract of fluid" (öz su), and in which man is shaped and has the spirit
> breathed into him (Verse-14) — but the agent at every stage is Allah (Verse-15). The
> dispute should not be reduced to the question "did man descend from apes?"; this
> review ties these verses not to the mechanism of evolution but to the question of the
> agent: does divine knowledge, power and will lie behind creation, or do self-operating
> natural processes?

### 3.3 Revelation, prophethood and the source of the Qur'an

#### The divine source of revelation is not affirmed in the book's own voice

> **[[Quote-23](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0090.html)]** "Muhammedin
> koyduğu esasların toplu olduğu kitaba Kuran denir. Bu esasları ihtiva eden cümlelere
> Ayet, Ayetlerden mürekkep parçalara da Sure derler. **İslâm an'anesinde** bu ayetlerin
> Muhammede Cebrail adında bir melek vasıtasile Allah tarafından vahiy, yani ilham
> edildiği **kabul olunur**." — **Tarih II, p. 90**
>
> [The book in which the principles laid down by Muhammad are gathered is called the
> Qur'an. The sentences containing these principles are called verses, and the passages
> composed of verses are called suras. **In Islamic tradition** it **is accepted** that
> these verses were revealed — that is, inspired — to Muhammad by God through an angel
> named Gabriel.]

> **[Verse-16]** "He does not speak from his own desire. The Qur'an (which he recites to
> you) is nothing but a revelation made known to him." — **An-Najm 3-4**

> **[Verse-17]** "Thus have We revealed to you a spirit (a book that gives life to
> hearts) by Our command. You did not know what the Book is, nor what faith is. But We
> have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. (…)" — **Ash-Shūrā
> 52**

> **[Finding-09]** The discussion of revelation is not a section of its own in *Tarih II*:
> the chapter opens with the heading "A. The religion of Islam was founded in Arabia" (A.
> İslâm Dini Arabistanda Kuruldu) (p. 79), and revelation stands between "Muhammad's Call"
> (Muhammedin Daveti, pp. 89–90) and "Muhammad in Medina" (Muhammet Medinede, p. 93),
> under the sub-headings "The Qur'an and Revelation" (Kuran ve Vahiy, pp. 90–91) and "The
> First Revelation" (İlk Vahiy, pp. 91–92), recounted as one phase of a political and
> social biography. The paragraph examined here works on three levels: the definition of
> the Qur'an is given in the book's own voice and without qualification ("the book in
> which the principles laid down by Muhammad are gathered"); a neutral definition of terms
> is then interposed; the claim of a divine source, however, is referred to a third party
> with the qualification "in Islamic tradition (…) it is accepted" (İslâm an'anesinde (…)
> kabul olunur). The phrase "it is accepted" (kabul olunur) is not in itself a distancing
> qualification: the book uses the same verb of things it holds to be true — of the view
> that the sun stands at the centre it writes "this truth was accepted only in the
> seventeenth century" (Bu hakikat, ancak XVII inci asırda kabul olundu) (*Tarih I*, p.
> 2). What creates the distance is that the agent is "Islamic tradition" and that the
> book's own verdict follows immediately, introduced by "considered also from the
> historical point of view (…) it is seen that" (Tarihî noktai nazardan da (…) görülüyor
> ki) (Quote-24); the rest of the section works with this second register alone.
> "Tradition" (an'ane) is not neutral in the book's vocabulary either: traditions are
> "invented" (icat) (Quote-02), and in the discussion of the Kaaba the word stands in the
> same chain as "fabrication" (uydurma) and "fable" (masal) (Quote-36, Quote-37).
> Revelation is further glossed as "revelation, that is, inspiration" (vahiy, yani ilham)
> and tied to a primitive Arab conception. The divine source belongs to tradition, the
> human explanation to the book itself. The Qur'an, for its part, declares revelation in
> its own voice as a definitive judgement (Verse-16), and states that before the
> revelation the Prophet did not know "what the Book is, nor what faith is" (Verse-17).

#### Revelation is counted the product of a long reflection

> **[[Quote-24](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0090.html)]** "**Tarihî noktai
> nazardan** da mütalea edildiği zaman görülüyor ki: Muhammet birdenbire Allahın
> Resulüyüm diyerek ortaya çıkmamıştır. O, Arapların ahlâk ve âdetlerinin pek fena ve
> pek iptidaî ve ıslaha muhtaç olduğunu anlamış, bunları ıslah için tenha yerlere
> çekilerek senelerce düşünmüş ve yıllarca tefekkürden sora **kendisinde vahiy ve ilham
> fikri doğmuştur**. Vahiy, ilham fikri Muhammetten evel de Araplarca meçhul değildi.
> Bütün iptidaî kavimler gibi, Araplar da, şairlerin, akıl erdiremedikleri kuvvetlerden
> ilham aldıklarına inanırlardı." — **Tarih II, pp. 90-91**
>
> [When it is considered **from the historical point of view** as well, it is seen that
> Muhammad did not appear suddenly, declaring that he was the Messenger of God. He had
> understood that the morals and customs of the Arabs were very bad, very primitive and
> in need of reform, and in order to reform them he withdrew to solitary places and
> thought for years; and after years of reflection **the idea of revelation and
> inspiration was born in him**. The idea of revelation and inspiration was not unknown
> to the Arabs before Muhammad either. Like all primitive peoples, the Arabs too
> believed that poets received inspiration from powers they could not comprehend.]

> **[[Quote-25](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0089.html)]** "Muhammet 40
> yaşına geldiği zaman vatandaşlarını, **kendinin bulduğu** ve doğru olduğuna inandığı
> yeni bir dine davete başladı." — **Tarih II, p. 89**
>
> [When Muhammad reached the age of 40 he began to invite his countrymen to a new
> religion **which he himself had found** and believed to be true.]

> **[[Quote-26](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0091.html)]** "Muhammet **uzun
> bir devirdeki tefekkürlerin mahsulü olan ayetleri** lüzum ve ihtiyaçlara göre takrir
> ediyordu. Bununla beraber kendisini tahrik eden kuvvetin tabiat fevkinde bir
> mevcudiyet olduğuna samimî surette kani idi. Muhammedi harekete getiren ilk amil bu
> samimî heyecanlar olmuştur." — **Tarih II, p. 91**
>
> [Muhammad set forth, according to necessity and need, **the verses that were the
> product of reflection over a long period**. At the same time he was sincerely
> convinced that the power moving him was a being above nature. The first factor that
> set Muhammad in motion was these sincere emotions.]

> **[[Quote-27](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0092.html)]** "Kuran sureleri
> Mekkede ve Medinede söylenmiş olmak itibarile başlıca ikiye ayrılır. Birinci devreye
> ait ayetler az çok hissî ve edebîdir. Medinede söylenen ayetler ise muhteviyat
> itibarile daha ciddî olmakla beraber edebiyat noktai nazarından Mekke devri
> ayetlerinden dundur." — **Tarih II, p. 92**
>
> [The suras of the Qur'an fall mainly into two classes according to whether they were
> uttered in Mecca or in Medina. The verses belonging to the first period are more or
> less emotional and literary. The verses uttered in Medina, though more serious in
> content, are inferior from the literary point of view to the verses of the Meccan
> period.]

> **[Verse-18]** "For he thought and he plotted. May he be destroyed, how he plotted! Again, may
> he be destroyed, how he plotted! Then he looked. Then he frowned and scowled. Then
> he turned away and grew arrogant, and said: “This is nothing but magic handed
> down.” “This is nothing but the word of a human being.” I will cast him into Saqar.
> And what will make you know what Saqar is? It spares nothing and leaves nothing.
> It scorches the skin." — **Al-Muddaththir 18-29**

> **[Verse-19]** "It is not the word of a poet. How little you believe! Nor is it the
> word of a soothsayer. How little you reflect! It is sent down from the Lord of the
> worlds." — **Al-Ḥāqqa 41-43**

> **[Verse-20]** "Say: “Had God willed, I would not have recited it to you, nor would
> God have made it known to you. Before this (before the Qur'an was sent down) I lived
> among you a lifetime (of forty years). Do you not then reflect?”" — **Yūnus 16**

> **[Finding-10]** The book's verdict is given in its own voice, with the qualification
> "from the historical point of view" (tarihî noktai nazardan): the idea of revelation
> "was born" (doğmuştur) in him after years of reflection, the religion is one "which he
> himself found" (kendinin bulduğu), and the verses are "the product of reflection over
> a long period" (uzun bir devirdeki tefekkürlerin mahsulü); the idea of revelation
> itself is tied to the conception of poetic inspiration already known among the Arabs.
> The book uses the verb "to be uttered" (söylenmek) of the Qur'an and grades the suras
> by literary merit (Quote-27). Two levels must be kept apart. At the level of the
> proposition, what the book says is the very characterisation the Qur'an names and
> rejects: "This is nothing but the word of a human being" (*kavlü'l-beşer*, Verse-18).
> The Qur'an does not merely note that characterisation as a mistaken opinion; where it
> quotes it, it also states what it incurs: the sentence is followed at once by "I will
> cast him into Saqar", and the fire is described as sparing nothing, leaving nothing,
> scorching the skin (Verse-18). The Qur'an thus records the words that assign its
> source to a human being not as a neutral historical verdict but as words to which the
> gravest punishment is attached. This review's finding concerns those words themselves;
> upon whom that judgement falls is, as declared in §2, not its subject.
> At the level of attitude the book frames that proposition respectfully — the Prophet
> is "sincerely convinced" (samimî surette kani), "honourable and free of any thought of
> self-interest" (namuskâr ve menfaat fikrinden ari) (Quote-26, Quote-45) — whereas the
> addressee of the verse is a denier who rejects the Qur'an in hostility. The difference
> does not alter the proposition: what is rejected is not the intention with which the
> words were spoken but the fact that their source is human. The Qur'an rejects by name
> the possibility of a poet's or a soothsayer's word as well (Verse-19); and against the
> claim of "years of reflection" it recalls the "lifetime" spent among them before the
> revelation (Verse-20). The doctrinal consequence of this attitude is taken up at the
> end of the section on praise.

#### The Prophet is counted a founder, the description of proclamation declared an “error”

> **[[Quote-28](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0079.html)]** "A. İSLÂM DİNİ
> ARABİSTANDA KURULDU" — **Tarih II, p. 79**
>
> [A. THE RELIGION OF ISLAM WAS FOUNDED IN ARABIA]

> **[[Quote-29](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0091.html)]** "Muhammet
> bidayette irticalen dinî hitabette bulunan bir vaiz oldu. Vaizlikten Nebiliğe,
> Nebilikten nihayet Allahın Resulü haline geçti. Aralarında yaşadığı insanların manevî
> menfaati için ve büyük bir hakikat namına mücadeleye atıldı. sonunda cihanşümul bir
> dinin **müessisi** oldu." — **Tarih II, p. 91**
>
> [At the outset Muhammad became a preacher who delivered religious addresses extempore.
> He passed from preacher to prophet, and from prophet at last to Messenger of God. He
> threw himself into the struggle for the spiritual benefit of the people among whom he
> lived and in the name of a great truth. In the end he became the **founder** of a
> universal religion.]

> **[[Quote-30](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0093.html)]** "Muhammedi ve
> onun nasıl bir din müessisi ve dinî bir devlet reisi olduğunu anlıyabilmek için onun
> bilhassa askerî faaliyetlerini tetkik etmek lâzımdır. Aksi takdirde Muhammedi, **her
> şeyi bir melekten alan ve aynen muhitine tebliğ eden** ümmî, cahil, hissiz hareketsiz
> bir put derekesine indirmek **hatasından** kurtulmak mümkün olmaz." — **Tarih II, p.
> 93**
>
> [In order to understand Muhammad, and what kind of founder of a religion and head of a
> religious state he was, it is necessary to examine above all his military activities.
> Otherwise it is not possible to escape the **error** of reducing Muhammad to the level
> of an unlettered, ignorant, unfeeling and motionless idol **who takes everything from
> an angel and conveys it to those around him exactly as received**.]

> **[Verse-21]** "O Prophet! Convey what has been sent down to you from your Lord. If
> you do not, you will not have fulfilled the task of prophethood He has given you. (…)" —
> **Al-Mā'ida 67**

> **[Verse-22]** "They are those who follow the Messenger, that unlettered Prophet, whom
> they find written in the Torah and the Gospel they have with them. (…)" — **Al-Aʿrāf
> 157**

> **[Verse-23]** "Before this Qur'an you did not read any book, nor did you write one
> with your right hand. (Had you read and written) those who pursue falsehood would then
> have fallen into doubt." — **Al-ʿAnkabūt 48**

> **[Finding-11]** "Founder" (müessis) does not occur in a single place: the main
> heading presents the religion as having been "founded" (kuruldu) (Quote-28), and pp.
> 91 and 93 say "founder" (müessis); all three are in the book's own voice and
> unqualified. Prophethood is recounted, through the verb "he passed into" (haline
> geçti), as the evolution of a human role: preacher, prophet, messenger. The sentence
> on p. 93 does not reject the conveying of the message on its own; it packages it with
> an "unlettered, ignorant, unfeeling, motionless idol" and rejects it in that form. The
> dilemma the book sets up — either founder of a religion or unfeeling idol — is false:
> the command to convey is a command to struggle (Verse-21), and the activities the book
> lists on p. 93 are that struggle itself. The portrayal lies on the same line as the
> verdict that the religion is one "which he himself found" (Quote-25). In the Qur'an
> the Prophet is not a **founder** but a **conveyor of the message**. Being unlettered
> (ümmî), too, which the book names alongside "ignorant" (cahil), is in the Qur'an a
> title (unvan) (Verse-22) and evidence that the revelation is independent of any human
> accumulation: the Prophet had previously "not read any book and (…) did not write"
> (Verse-23). This contrast is independent of the debate over the lexical meaning of the
> word.

#### The same pattern is applied to Moses

> **[[Quote-31](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0080.html)]** "Musa
> gençliğinde uzun müddet Medyen de bulunmuş ve buradaki telâkkilerden mülhem olarak
> **kendi dininin esaslarını koymuştur**." — **Tarih II, p. 80**
>
> [In his youth Moses stayed for a long time in Midian and, inspired by the conceptions
> there, **laid down the principles of his own religion**.]

> **[Verse-24]** "“I have chosen you (as a prophet). Now listen to what is to be
> revealed.” “Indeed, I am God; there is no god but I. So worship Me and establish
> prayer for My remembrance.”" — **Ṭā Hā 13-14**

> **[Verse-25]** "For Moses We wrote on the tablets of the Torah an admonition
> concerning everything and an explanation of everything, and We said to him: “Now hold
> them firmly, and command your people. (…)”" — **Al-Aʿrāf 145**

> **[Finding-12]** The same explanatory pattern is applied to Moses: inspired by the
> conceptions of Midian, he laid down the principles of his religion himself. The
> sentence is given in the course of an account of the caravan route, while the
> pre-Islamic Arab states are being enumerated, as an interpolated clause and without
> qualification; the book does not even count the verdict as open to dispute. That the
> verdict extends to prophethood as a whole follows not from these two instances but
> from the book's general thesis: *Tarih I* counts religion an institution brought into
> being by human beings (Quote-05), and *Tarih II* reports that earlier prophets
> received inspiration through an angel only with the qualification that they "had said"
> so (Quote-34). Moses' stay in Midian is recounted in the Qur'an as well; the
> difference lies not in what took place but in the agent: Moses is not the founder of
> his religion but the one who is chosen and to whom revelation is given (Verse-24); and
> it is God who "wrote" the principles "on the tablets" (Verse-25).

### 3.4 The origin of belief in jinn and angels

#### Belief in jinn is tied to Arab soothsaying culture

> **[[Quote-32](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0084.html)]** "Her mabet
> kâhinler tarafından idare olunurdu. Kâhinler nezirleri, sadakaları kabul ve ayinler
> icra ederlerdi: Gûya kayıptan haber verirler, rüyaları tabir ederlerdi." — **Tarih II,
> p. 84**
>
> [Every temple was administered by soothsayers. The soothsayers accepted votive
> offerings and alms and performed rites: supposedly they gave news of the unseen and
> interpreted dreams.]

> **[[Quote-33](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0091.html)]** "Bu kuvvetler
> Araplar için cinlerdi. Cinler, **gûya**, kâhinlere kayıptan haber vermek kudretini
> ilham ederlerdi. Bu nevi itikatlar Arabistanda herzaman o kadar canlı ve derin
> olmuştur ki Muhammet **dahi** cinlerin vücuduna samimî olarak inanmıştır. O, hakikaten
> cinlerin şairlere şiir ilham ettiğine kani idi." — **Tarih II, p. 91**
>
> [For the Arabs these powers were the jinn. The jinn, **supposedly**, inspired the
> soothsayers with the power to give news of the unseen. Beliefs of this kind have
> always been so vivid and deep in Arabia that **even** Muhammad sincerely believed in
> the existence of the jinn. He was genuinely convinced that the jinn inspired poets
> with poetry.]

> **[Verse-26]** "And He created “the jinn” from a smokeless flame of fire." —
> **Ar-Raḥmān 15**

> **[Verse-27]** "(O Muhammad!) Say: “It has been revealed to me that a company of the
> jinn listened (to the Qur'an) and said: “Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Qur'an that
> guides to what is right, and we have believed in it. Never again shall we associate
> anyone with our Lord.”" — **Al-Jinn 1-2**

> **[Finding-13]** Belief in jinn is tied to the soothsaying culture of Arabia; the
> preceding paragraph places this belief in the class of "all primitive peoples"
> (Quote-24), and it is written that the Prophet acquired that belief from his
> surroundings. The discussion is not a section of its own: it falls within the "Kuran ve
> Vahiy" paragraph in which revelation is recounted (pp. 90–91), and it is treated under
> this axis because its subject is distinct. Two words take the passage out of the
> descriptive: **"supposedly"** (gûya) is the book's regular distancing qualification — it
> is used of the soothsayers on p. 84 as well (Quote-32) — and marks what the book does
> not hold to be real; **"even"** (dahi) says that a belief one would not expect him to
> share was in fact shared. What the book marks with "supposedly" — the jinn giving
> soothsayers news of the unseen — is a claim the Qur'an rejects as well; the finding
> concerns not this but the origin of belief in jinn. In the book that origin is culture:
> the Prophet believed in the jinn because those around him did, and he believed
> "genuinely" (hakikaten). In the Qur'an, by contrast, the jinn are a species of being
> that God created (Verse-26), and the source of knowledge about them is not culture but
> revelation (Verse-27). The two accounts of origin cannot be reconciled.

#### Not the source of belief in angels but its reinforcement is recounted

> **[[Quote-34](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0091.html)]** "Muhammedin
> Musa, İsa, dinlerine dair öğrendikleri de kendisinde bu itikadı
> **kuvvetlendirmiştir**. Bu Peygamberler de melekler vasıtasile ilham aldıklarını
> söylemişlerdi. O dinlerde de cin ve melek telâkkisi vardı." — **Tarih II, p. 91**
>
> [What Muhammad learned about the religions of Moses and Jesus also **strengthened**
> this belief in him. These prophets too had said that they received inspiration through
> angels. In those religions as well there was a conception of jinn and angels.]

> **[[Quote-35](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0091.html)]** "**Dinler
> nazarında** cinler, kötü ruhlar olduğundan peygamberler onlardan mülhem olamazlardı.
> Muhammet te diğer peygamberler gibi kendisine ilham eden kuvvetin insanları iğfal eden
> bir kuvvet olmayıp, onları hayır ve saadete irşat eden ilâhî bir kuvvet olduğuna
> samimî olarak inandı." — **Tarih II, p. 91**
>
> [**In the view of the religions**, since the jinn are evil spirits, prophets could not
> have been inspired by them. Muhammad too, like the other prophets, sincerely believed
> that the power inspiring him was not a power that leads people astray but a divine
> power guiding them to good and to happiness.]

> **[Verse-28]** "The Prophet has believed in what was sent down to him from his Lord,
> and so have the believers. Each one has believed in God, His angels, His books and His
> messengers (…)" — **Al-Baqara 285**

> **[Verse-29]** "O Muhammad! Say: “The Holy Spirit (Gabriel) has brought the Qur'an
> down from your Lord in truth, to make firm the faith of those who believe, to guide
> the Muslims to the straight path, and to be good news for them.” We certainly know
> that they say, “A human being is teaching him the Qur'an.” The tongue of the one they
> allude to is foreign, whereas this Qur'an is in perfectly clear Arabic." — **An-Naḥl
> 102-103**

> **[Finding-14]** The book recounts not the source of belief in angels but its
> reinforcement: what the Prophet learned from earlier religions "strengthened"
> (kuvvetlendirmiştir) that belief. This is the only thing the book carries as a verdict
> of its own; nowhere does it present belief in angels as a truth. That the source of
> inspiration was an angel "is accepted in Islamic tradition" (İslâm an'anesinde kabul
> olunur) (Quote-23); earlier prophets "had said" (söylemişlerdi) so; that the jinn are
> evil spirits holds "in the view of the religions" (dinler nazarında); that the
> inspiring power was divine is what the Prophet "sincerely believed" (samimî olarak
> inandı) (Quote-35); and Gabriel's bringing a stone to the Kaaba is a "fable" (masal)
> (Quote-37). The only explanation the book gives in its own voice is that the first
> factor was "sincere emotions" (samimî heyecanlar) (Quote-26). That a conception of
> angels is found in earlier religions as well does not contradict the Qur'an; the
> divergence lies in whether this is a truth conveyed by revelation or a conviction
> reinforced through cultural contact. In the Qur'an belief in the angels is one of the
> enumerated articles of faith (Verse-28); and the model of "learning" is rejected by
> name (Verse-29).

### 3.5 Scriptural text, legal rulings and sacred space

#### The Kaaba narrative is declared "invented fables"

> **[[Quote-36](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0085.html)]** "Kâbe çok
> eskidir. Ne vakit ve kimler tarafından yapıldığı bilinmiyor. Arap an'anesi kâbenin
> inşasını İbrahim Peygambere atfetmektedir." — **Tarih II, p. 85**
>
> [The Kaaba is very old. When and by whom it was built is not known. Arab tradition
> attributes the building of the Kaaba to the Prophet İbrahim.]

> **[[Quote-37](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0085.html)]** "Kâbenin
> kutsiyetini yahudi an'anelerine de raptetmişlerdi. Bu uydurmalara göre İbrahim, karısı
> Hacer ile oğlu İsmaili buraya getirmişti; Zemzem de onlar için fışkırmıştı; İbrahim,
> oğlu İsmail ile birlikte Kâbeyi bina etmişlerdi. Cebrail kendilerine o zaman beyaz ve
> mücellâ olan Haceriesvedi getirmişti; bu taş soradan günahkârların ellerini
> sürmelerinden dolayı kararmıştı. Bunların hepsi, **bittabi, soradan uydurulmuş
> masallardır**." — **Tarih II, p. 85**
>
> [They had also attached the sanctity of the Kaaba to Jewish traditions. According to
> these fabrications, İbrahim had brought his wife Hacer and his son İsmail here; Zemzem
> too had gushed forth for them; İbrahim, together with his son İsmail, had built the
> Kaaba. Cebrail had brought them the Black Stone, which was white and lustrous at that
> time; this stone blackened later because sinners touched it with their hands. All of
> these are, **of course, fables invented later**.]

> **[Verse-30]** "And when İbrahim, together with İsmail, was raising the foundations of
> the House (the Kaaba), they said: "Our Lord! Accept this from us. Indeed, You are the
> All-Hearing, the All-Knowing."" — **Al-Baqara 127**

> **[Verse-31]** "And when We designated for İbrahim the site of the Kaaba, saying: "Do
> not associate anything with Me; and purify My House for those who circumambulate it,
> those who stand in prayer, and those who bow and prostrate."" — **Al-Ḥajj 26**

> **[Finding-15]** The book concedes that when and by whom the Kaaba was built "is not
> known" (bilinmiyor); even so, it counts the attribution to İbrahim a "fabrication"
> (uydurma) that the Meccans "attached to Jewish traditions" (yahudi an'anelerine
> raptettiği) in order to attract pilgrims, and it declares the whole cluster, in its
> own voice and with the qualifier "of course" (bittabi), to be "fables" (masal).
> Binding a matter admitted to be unknown to a firm negative judgement is exactly the
> pattern of Finding-06. The cluster also contains elements the Qur'an does not state
> (the bringing of Hacer, the gushing forth of Zemzem, the whiteness of the Black
> Stone); the review does not take these up. But the phrase "All of these" (Bunların
> hepsi) covers the building of the Kaaba by İbrahim and İsmail as well, and this is an
> explicit declaration of the Qur'an: it is İbrahim and İsmail who raise the foundations
> (Verse-30), and it is God who designates the site of the Kaaba for İbrahim (Verse-31).
> To count as a fable a report established by a definitive scriptural text is a direct
> conflict with an explicit scriptural text.

#### The origin of the sanctity is traced to a human and political ground

> **[[Quote-38](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0085.html)]** "Kâbe bidayette
> mahallî bir mabet iken Mekke ahalisi burasını bir millî mabet derecesine
> yükseltmişlerdi. Mekkeliler Arapları kendi mabetlerine celbedebilmek için Arap
> Yarımadasının muhtelif yerlerinde mabut tanılan 360 putu Kâbede yerleştirmişlerdi." —
> **Tarih II, p. 85**
>
> [Although the Kaaba was in the beginning a local temple, the people of Mecca had
> raised it to the rank of a national temple. In order to draw the Arabs to their own
> temple, the Meccans had placed in the Kaaba the 360 idols that were held to be deities
> in the various parts of the Arabian Peninsula.]

> **[[Quote-39](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0085.html)]** "Demek ki
> Kâbenin bir köşesindeki Karataşın kutsiyet almasından, ziyaret ve tavaf edilmesinden
> çok evel Friklerde karataşın mabet ve ziyaretgâh esası olması âdeti teessüs eylemiş
> bulunuyordu." — **Tarih II, p. 85**
>
> [It follows that long before the Black Stone in one corner of the Kaaba acquired
> sanctity and became an object of visitation and circumambulation, the custom of making
> a black stone the basis of a temple and a place of visitation had already become
> established among the Phrygians.]

> **[[Quote-40](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0085.html)]** "Ticaretlerinin
> inkişafı ve Kâbeyi ziyaret etmek üzere hacıların gelmesi için emniyet ve asayişin
> temini lâzım olduğundan Mekkenin etrafında muharebelerin men'i maksadile birtakım
> kaideler konmuştu. Bunların herbirine **dinî şekiller verilmişti**. Kâbenin İbrahim
> tarafından bina edilmiş olduğu söylenerek, dört ay, etrafında muharebe etmek
> menolunmuştu. Bu tedbirlerin herbiri Mekke ve Kâbenin ehemmiyet ve şerefini
> arttırmıştı. (…) İşte bu şerait içinde Kâbe Kureyşliler için iktisadî ve ticarî
> menfaatler teminine yarıyan bir vasıta oldu." — **Tarih II, pp. 85-86**
>
> [Since the development of their trade and the coming of pilgrims to visit the Kaaba
> required that safety and public order be secured, a set of rules was laid down with
> the aim of prohibiting warfare around Mecca. **Each was given a religious form**. By
> saying that the Kaaba had been built by İbrahim, fighting around it was prohibited for
> four months. Each of these measures increased the importance and the honour of Mecca
> and of the Kaaba. (…) Under these conditions the Kaaba became an instrument serving to
> secure economic and commercial interests for the Quraysh.]

> **[Verse-32]** "God has made the Kaaba, that sacred House, and the sacred month, and
> the sacrificial offerings of the pilgrimage, and the garlands (attached to these
> offerings) a means of support (and of revival) for people (in their religion and their
> worldly life). (…)" — **Al-Mā'ida 97**

> **[Verse-33]** "And when We made the Kaaba a place of assembly and of security for
> people. (…) We commanded İbrahim and İsmail thus: "Purify My House (the Kaaba) for those
> who circumambulate it, those who devote themselves to worship there, and those who bow
> and prostrate."" — **Al-Baqara 125**

> **[Finding-16]** In the book the sanctity of the Kaaba is tied to three human factors:
> the people of Mecca raising a local temple "to the rank of a national temple" (millî
> mabet derecesine yükseltmek) and gathering 360 idols there in order to attract pilgrims;
> the giving of "religious forms" (dinî şekiller) to rules laid down in order to prevent
> warfare — the building of the Kaaba by İbrahim being one of those forms, something that
> was merely "said" (söylenmiştir); and the fact that all this became for the Quraysh "an
> instrument for securing economic and commercial interests" (iktisadî ve ticarî
> menfaatler). The sentence about the black stone adds a claim of priority to this ground:
> the book does not derive the Kaaba from the Phrygians; it says that the black-stone cult
> existed among the Phrygians "long before" (çok evel) the Kaaba. The sentence omitted
> from Quote-40 concerns the picture of Meryem. The placement of the discussion belongs to
> this same ground: the Kaaba is treated before Muhammed enters the narrative, within the
> class of "places set apart for the keeping of idols" (putların muhafazasına mahsus
> yerler) and among the economic institutions of the Quraysh (pp. 84–86). The pattern of
> economic explanation is consistent throughout the chapter (the rejection by the Quraysh,
> p. 89; the acceptance by the people of Medina, p. 90). The source of the sanctity is
> thus not revelation but earlier customs and political and economic needs. In the Qur'an,
> by contrast, the agent of each of these attributes is God: it is He who "made" the
> Kaaba, the sacred month and the sacrificial offerings "a means of support" (Verse-32),
> and He who "made the Kaaba a place of assembly and of security for people" (Verse-33).

#### The eternity of the legal rulings is abolished

> **[[Quote-41](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0092.html)]** "Kuranın
> içindekiler başlıca üç bahiste mütalea olunabilir. Birincisi ve en mühimmi Allahın bir
> olduğuna ve ondan başka Allah olmadığına ve Muhammedin onun Resulü bulunduğuna
> inanmak; İkincisi, hukukî hükümler; Üçüncüsü, tarihe ait malûmattır." — **Tarih II, p.
> 92**
>
> [The contents of the Qur'an may be considered under three main headings. The first and
> most important is to believe that God is one, that there is no god but Him, and that
> Muhammed is His Messenger; the second is legal rulings; the third is information
> concerning history.]

> **[[Quote-42](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0092.html)]** "Hukukî hükümler
> zaman ve mekân içinde içtimaî heyetlerin uğradıkları değişikliklere göre
> değişegeldiğinden on dört asır evelki zaman ve mekânın ihtiyacına göre lüzumlu ve kâfi
> görülmüş olan esaslar yerine bugün birçok mütenevvi kanunlar ve usuller konulmak
> zarureti görülmüştür. Bunlar **dahi ebedî olmayıp zamanla değişmeğe mahkûmdurlar**." —
> **Tarih II, p. 92**
>
> [Since legal rulings have always changed in accordance with the changes that social
> bodies undergo in time and place, it has been found necessary today to put many varied
> laws and procedures in the place of the principles that were deemed necessary and
> sufficient for the needs of the time and place of fourteen centuries ago. These **too
> are not eternal and are bound to change with time**.]

> **[[Quote-43](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0092.html)]** "Tarihe ait
> malûmata gelince: yeni fenler sayesinde meydana çıkarılan hakikatler en yakın tarih
> bilgilerini bile temellerinden sarsmaktadır. İmana ait olan birinci esas, sadeliği
> itibarile hakikaten pek mühimdir. Bu esasın, her muhatabın kabiliyetine göre izahında
> güçlük çekilmez." — **Tarih II, p. 92**
>
> [As for information concerning history: the truths brought to light by the new
> sciences are shaking even the most recent historical knowledge to its foundations. The
> first principle, the one concerning belief, is truly very important on account of its
> simplicity. There is no difficulty in explaining this principle to each hearer
> according to his capacity.]

> **[[Quote-44](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0118.html)]** "Muhammet, gerek
> dinî meselelerde, gerek içtimaî hususlarda bir ıslah yapmak lâzımgeldiği zaman,
> kendini hiçbir şeyle bağlı görmemiştir. Daima tekâmüle doğru yürümüştür." — **Tarih
> II, p. 118**
>
> [Whenever a reform had to be made, whether in religious questions or in social
> matters, Muhammet considered himself bound by nothing. He always moved towards
> evolution.]

> **[Verse-34]** "(…) Say: "It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I follow only
> what is revealed to me. If I were to disobey my Lord, I would surely fear the
> punishment of a great day."" — **Yūnus 15**

> **[Verse-35]** "The word of your Lord (the Qur'an) is complete in truthfulness and
> justice. There is none who can change His words. (…)" — **Al-Anʿām 115**

> **[Finding-17]** The content of the Qur'an is taken up at the end of the subsection "İlk
> Vahiy" (The First Revelation) (p. 92); there the book divides the Qur'an into three with
> its own hand: the principle of belief is "very important"; the legal rulings "have
> always changed" (değişegeldiğinden), so that other laws have today been put in their
> place; and the information concerning history has been shaken "to its foundations"
> (temellerinden) by the new sciences. The judgement about the legal rulings is therefore
> not an implication but an explicit statement: the first sentence of the paragraph says,
> in the book's own voice, that the principles of fourteen centuries ago changed with time
> and that new ones were put in their place; the sentence "These too are (…) bound to
> change" (Bunlar dahi (…) değişmeğe mahkûmdurlar) extends this to the new laws as well,
> and on either reading — "these too", "even these" — the earlier principles are assumed
> not to be eternal. Page 118 carries the same judgement over to the person of the
> Prophet: when reform was called for, he "considered himself bound by nothing" (kendini
> hiçbir şeyle bağlı görmemiştir) (Quote-44). No distinction is drawn between what is
> textually stipulated and what is derived by ijtihād. In the Qur'an, however, the Prophet
> says that it "is not for him" to change the Qur'an "of his own accord" (Verse-34); the
> word of the Lord is "complete" and "there is none who can change His words" (Verse-35).
> The changing of a ruling is the work of revelation, not of time or of society.

---

## 4. The places where Muhammet is praised and the doctrinal value of that praise

### 4.1 The sentences of praise

> **[[Quote-45](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0091.html)]** "Muhammet
> başlangıçta her halde şedit bir heyecana maruz oldu. Birtakım dinî endişeler ve
> vicdanî mülâhazalarla samimî surette üzüldü. Muhammet namuskâr ve menfaat fikrinden
> ari olarak ortaya atıldı. Onun gayesi, muhitinin ahlâkını, dinini ve içtimaî hayatını
> ıslah etmekti." — **Tarih II, p. 91**
>
> [At the outset Muhammet was in any case subject to an intense excitement. He was
> sincerely distressed by a number of religious anxieties and scruples of conscience.
> Muhammet came forward as an honest man, free of any thought of self-interest. His aim
> was to reform the morals, the religion and the social life of his milieu.]

> **[[Quote-46](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/s0093.html)]** "Muhammet
> denilen şahsiyet bizatihi mütehassis, mütefekkir, müteşebbis ve **muasırlarının en
> yükseği** olduğunu yaptığı işlerle ispat etmiş bir varlıktı." — **Tarih II, p. 93**
>
> [The personality called Muhammet was in himself a being of sensibility, of thought and
> of enterprise, one who had proved by the works he accomplished that he was **the
> highest of his contemporaries**.]

> **[Verse-36]** "Say: "I am only a human being like you. (However,) it is revealed to
> me that 'your God is but one God.'" (…)" — **Al-Kahf 110**

> **[Finding-18]** The praise does not consist of two sentences only: on pp. 90–93 there
> are at least eight favourable sentences about the person, the sincerity and the morals
> of the Prophet, and their common word is "sincere" (samimî) — five times on p. 91
> alone. The book also grants him the title "Prophet" without qualification (p. 88,
> "this Prophet of the Hijaz" (bu Hicaz Peygamberi); p. 91, "the beginning of Muhammed's
> prophethood" (Muhammedin Peygamberliğinin başlangıcı)). The qualities praised belong
> systematically to the human category: reformer, honest, a man of thought, a man of
> enterprise, the highest of his contemporaries — and he has "proved" that superiority
> "by the works he accomplished" (yaptığı işlerle ispat etmiş). In the book, Quote-46 is
> joined by the conjunction "Halbuki" (whereas) to the rejection of the conception of a
> prophet who takes everything from an angel and conveys it unchanged (Quote-30): the
> praise and the rejection of the model of conveying the message are given in the same
> pair of sentences, as opposites of each other. In the Qur'an, however, what
> distinguishes the Prophet from other people is not his personal merits but the fact
> that **revelation is sent down to him**; his being a human being and his task of
> messengership are stated together in the same verse (Verse-36).

### 4.2 The praise does not mitigate the doctrinal conflict

The book does not characterize the Prophet Muhammed as having **deceived** anyone; on
the contrary, it writes that he was "sincerely convinced" (samimî surette kani) that
the force stirring him was "a being above nature" (tabiat fevkinde bir mevcudiyet)
(Quote-26), and that he "sincerely believed the inspiring force to be a divine force"
(Quote-35). The issue, however, is not the favourable assessment of the Prophet's
person but the way the source of the Qur'an is explained. When the book's two
sentences are read side by side, the model is this: the verses are "the product of
reflection" (tefekkürlerin mahsulü), yet the Prophet supposed them to come from a
supernatural source — that is, **he took it for revelation, whereas it was the product
of his own reflection**. This is not the review's interpretation but a summary of two
sentences of the book. The Qur'an, for its part, sets the possibilities of "coming
from God" and "being invented" against each other in the verses of challenge
concerning its own origin (Aṭ-Ṭūr 33-34; Al-Baqara 23; Yūnus 37-38; Hūd 13; Al-Isrā'
88); it leaves no third option between them. The explanation of "sincere error"
therefore yields a conclusion that denies the divine source of revelation and the
claim to prophethood.

> **[Verse-37]** "Or do they say, "He invented the Qur'an himself"? No; (out of sheer
> obstinacy) they do not believe. If they are truthful, then let them bring a discourse
> like it!" — **Aṭ-Ṭūr 33-34**

> **[Verse-38]** "This Qur'an is (sent down) from God; it has not been invented by
> anyone else. (…)" — **Yūnus 37**

> **[Finding-19]** The book does not assert that the Qur'an was revealed by God, but
> that the idea of revelation arose out of the Prophet's own reflection; and it presents
> the Prophet's belief in a divine source as a sincere but mistaken conviction. The
> Qur'an establishes this pair itself: the Qur'an is "from God (…) not invented by
> anyone else" (Verse-38); between invention and revelation it leaves no third option —
> sincere error (Verse-37). On this approach, even though the Prophet's morals and
> person are assessed favourably, **the Qur'an is not accepted as the word of God, and
> the divine source of revelation is denied**.

---

## 5. Conclusion

This review has compared what the volumes *Tarih I* and *Tarih II* say about religion
and Islam with the articles of belief as the Qur'an sets them out. Across five axes,
forty-six quotations were assessed against the thirty-eight verses on which they bear,
yielding nineteen findings. **The findings point not to scattered remarks but to a
single framework: the books count religion an institution founded by human beings,
divinity a concept found by human intelligence, revelation the product of the
Prophet's reflection, and the unseen a human attribution.** The divergence between
this framework and what the Qur'an states is not one of detail but of principle; nor
does the praise directed at the Prophet's morals remove it, since that praise remains
wholly within human categories. This framework was taught not as a private author's
opinion but as **the state's official teaching** — in the 1931 printing of a series
that was printed by ministerial order, accepted by the state for use in the classroom
and kept in the high schools for eleven years.

---

## 6. Additional notes

**Quotations.** All quotations are taken verbatim from text that was corrected by hand, page by page,
against the scanned originals. That text is publicly available:

- **Beşer Tarihine Giriş** — *Tarih I*, pp. 1-24: [corrected full text](https://tarih1931.github.io/duzeltilmis/beser-tarihine-giris-tam.txt)
- **İslâm Tarihi** — *Tarih II*, pp. 79-184: [corrected full text](https://tarih1931.github.io/duzeltilmis/islam-tarihi-tam.txt)

The page-by-page view, with a link from each page to its scanned original, is in the
[index of corrected sections](https://tarih1931.github.io/duzeltilmis.html); the full
scans of the volumes are references **[1]** and **[2]** in the bibliography.

**The orthography of the quotations is that of the 1931 printing** and has not been
corrected: *sora*, *evel*, *tabiat*, *iptidaî*, *mabut*, *neş'et*. Quotation marks
inside a quotation have been rendered as single quotes (the printing has *"kabile
allahı"*, the review *'kabile allahı'*); apart from this the wording has not been
altered. All the quotations are present letter for letter in the corrected text of the
page named in their citation, and this has been machine-verified.

**Source base.** On the side of the book the only ground is the book's own wording; on
the side of the Qur'an the doctrinal ground is **the verses of the Qur'an alone**, and
the findings are not tied to the view of any madhhab, any school of thought or any
author. The texts of the verses are taken from the *Kur'an-ı Kerim Meâli* of the
Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı **[15]**; since a Turkish rendering is a translation and
therefore an interpretation, the rules governing renderings and Qur'anic commentary
are stated in the section on method. The quotations from the 1931 printing
are in the public domain, and the report's own text has been released to the public
under CC0, so that the document as a whole may be freely reproduced.

**Note on tools.** Artificial-intelligence tools were used in preparing the text: the systematic search of the source text in its entirety, the extraction of the quotation–finding–verse records, the compilation of the appendices and the machine verification of the quotations against the source page were carried out in this way. The research question, the selection of the assertions, the doctrinal assessment and the responsibility for the final text belong to the author.

**The “opinion of a commission” objection.** It may be objected that the account of religion in the books is the opinion of a
commission named at the front of the volume and cannot therefore count as "the
official teaching of the state". The official character of a text arises not from who
wrote it but from the acts of the authority that published it and had it taught; every
one of the acts listed above is the state's: the printing order, the decision to have
the work taught, the amendment of 1932, the two later printings, and the survival of
the series in the high schools until 1942 **[10]**. The committee, too, as the preface
shows, presents itself not as an academic body but as a body "commissioned" (memur
edilmiş) by the society. The personal convictions of its members are not the subject
of this review; what is examined is the wording of the text that the state printed,
approved and had taught. The books were **written for high schools** and were
distributed to middle schools and high schools alike.

**The objection to the use of artificial intelligence.** One objection that may be raised against this review is that artificial intelligence was used in preparing it, that its output is therefore biased, and that it cannot count as scholarly. The objection carries two distinct claims: that the output is biased, and that the method is not scholarly. Both can be tested on the text itself, independently of who wrote it; the review has been built so as to make that testing possible. The truth of a claim is measured by its grounds, not by who advances it. If the charge of bias becomes concrete at any point (a misreported quotation, a suppressed sentence, an inference that makes a verse say what it does not), it will be corrected once shown, and the record of the correction kept open. The findings of this review have their counterpart in the peer-reviewed academic literature on the same textbooks **[20] [21]**.

---

## 7. Bibliography

**Scanned originals** — Turkish Historical Society Library, call no. A/4789.

- **[1]** *Tarih I*, Turkish Historical Research Society, Ministry of Education, State Press, Istanbul 1931. [Library record](https://kutuphane.ttk.gov.tr/resource?itemId=267298&dkymId=6415)
- **[2]** *Tarih II*, Turkish Historical Research Society, Ministry of Education, State Press, Istanbul 1931. [Library record](https://kutuphane.ttk.gov.tr/resource?itemId=267295&dkymId=6416)

**Colophon pages** — the source of the printing order and the number of copies.

- **[3]** [*Tarih I*, colophon page](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/u005v.html)
- **[4]** [*Tarih II*, colophon page](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/u005v.html)

**The preface and the drafting-committee pages** — the *Mukaddime* and "Kitabın
hazırlanmasında çalışanlar" ("Those who worked on the preparation of the book"); the
scans are on the site.

- **[5]** *Tarih I*, pp. V–VIII: [p. V](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/u007r.html) · [p. VI](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/rvi.html) · [p. VII](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/u008r.html) · [p. VIII](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-1-1931/rviii.html)
- **[6]** *Tarih II*, pp. V–VIII: [p. V](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/u006r.html) · [p. VI](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/rvi.html) · [p. VII](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/u007r.html) · [p. VIII](https://tarih1931.github.io/tarih-2-1931/rviii.html)

**Decisions of the Board of Education.**

- **[7]** [Index of 1931 decisions](https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_04/30114318_fihrist_1931.pdf)
- **[8]** [Index of 1932 decisions](https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_04/30114318_fihrist_1932.pdf)
- **[9]** [Index of 1941 decisions](https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_04/30114319_fihrist_1941.pdf)
- **[10]** [Index of 1942 decisions](https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_04/30114319_fihrist_1942.pdf)

**Library records.**

- **[11]** [TTK Library, **AKM/K/16799** — "2nd printing" (2. basılış), Ministry of Education,
  1933](https://kutuphane.ttk.gov.tr/details?id=770536&materialType=KT)
- **[12]** [TTK Library, *Ortamektep için Tarih*, Ministry of Education,
  1933](https://kutuphane.ttk.gov.tr/resource?itemId=273987&dkymId=62876)
- **[13]** [TTK Library, **AKM/K/10726** — "3rd printing" (3. bs.), Ministry of Education,
  1932-1941](https://kutuphane.ttk.gov.tr/details?id=770538&materialType=KT). The number of copies of the 1941 printing of *Tarih II* is on the colophon page of that printing; the scan of that page is not online.

**Archive.**

- **[14]** [Board of Education, archive of decision indexes](https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/gecmisten-gunumuze-kurul-kararlari-fihrist-arsivi/icerik/808)
  — all the indexes from 1927 to 1942 were searched.

**Turkish rendering of the Qur'an.**

- **[15]** *Kur'an-ı Kerim Meâli*, prepared by Halil Altuntaş – Muzaffer Şahin, Diyanet İşleri
  Başkanlığı Yayınları, Ankara. [Online edition](https://kuran.diyanet.gov.tr)
- **[16]** *Kur'an Yolu Türkçe Meâl ve Tefsir* (online as *Kur'an Yolu Tefsiri*), prepared by Hayreddin Karaman, Mustafa Çağrıcı,
  İbrahim Kâfi Dönmez, Sadrettin Gümüş, Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Yayınları, Ankara, 5 vols.
  [Online edition](https://kuran.diyanet.gov.tr/tefsir)

**Encyclopaedia and dictionaries.**

- **[17]** *TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi* (Encyclopaedia of Islam of the Turkish Religious
  Foundation), Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi.
  [Online edition](https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr) — the entries cited are in Appendix A and Appendix B.
- **[18]** İlhan Ayverdi, *Kubbealtı Lugati — Misalli Büyük Türkçe Sözlük*, Kubbealtı Neşriyatı.
  [Online edition](https://lugatim.com)
- **[19]** Şemseddin Sami, *Kamus-ı Türkî*, İkdam Matbaası, Istanbul 1317/1901.

**Secondary literature.**

- **[20]** Yusuf Ziya Aktaş – Uğur Ünal, “1931-1977 Yılları Arasında Türkiye'de
  Okutulan Tarih Ders Kitaplarında Hz. Muhammed Anlatısı” (“The narrative of the
  Prophet Muhammad in the history course books used between the years 1931-1977 in
  Turkey”), *Eğitim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi*, 5/2 (2018), pp. 46-65.
  [Article page](https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/etad/issue/41884/426786)
- **[21]** Tercan Yıldırım – Ahmet Şimşek, “Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Lise Tarih
  Ders Kitaplarında Din Anlatısı” (“‘The narrative of religion’ in the high school
  textbooks of the early Republican period in Turkey”), *Eğitim ve Bilim /
  Education and Science*, 40/179 (2015), pp. 323-340.
  [doi:10.15390/EB.2015.4246](https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4246)

**Appendices.**

- **[22]** [Appendix A — Verse files](https://tarih1931.github.io/review-appendices.html#s-appendix-a-verse-files). For each of the thirty-eight verses cited in the main text: its place in the finding, the note in the *Kur'an Yolu Tefsiri*, and the relevant *TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi* entry.
- **[23]** [Appendix B — Term files](https://tarih1931.github.io/review-appendices.html#s-appendix-b-term-files). For the nine terms that carry the findings — inspiration/revelation (ilham/vahiy), fabrication/tale (uydurma/masal), founder/to found (müessis/kurmak), tradition (an'ane), conception (telâkki), evolution (tekâmül), concept/to find (mefhum/bulmak), nature/created being (tabiat/mahlûk), religion (din) — every use of them within the book, their dictionary meaning in 1931, the shift of meaning, and their Qur'anic counterpart.
- **[24]** [Appendix C — The preface and the drafting-committee pages](https://tarih1931.github.io/review-appendices.html#s-appendix-c-the-preface-and-the-drafting-committee-pages). The full text and the citation lines of the *Mukaddime* on which the first section rests and of the "Kitabın hazırlanmasında çalışanlar" ("Those who worked on the preparation of the book") pages.
- **[25]** [Appendix D — The grounds of each judgement](https://tarih1931.github.io/review-appendices.html#s-appendix-d-the-grounds-of-each-judgement). For every finding: the claim it attributes to the books, the sentences it rests on, and whether that claim is explicit in the books' wording or built by combining several explicit sentences.

---

*This review, together with the source text itself, has been released into the public
domain under [CC0 1.0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).*