Kenan Camurcu

I'm aware of the traumatic connotations of the title, especially in the Kurdish perception. I won't freeze the atmosphere with a cold joke suggesting that the mentality believing that male populations are appointed as guardians over half of society (women) shouldn't be shocked when a certain number of municipalities are appointed guardians. But I can hope that Sırrı Süreyya Önder will turn the matter into one of his parliamentary aphorisms that makes us all smile, as an inside joke with a significant share of truth.

However, let's not forget that the belief that God appoints men as guardians over women is a serious and grave matter. The expectation that secular women outside the field shouldn't care about this issue, and that only women who identify as Muslim should agonize over it, is comparable to the logic of asking why someone would worry about the rising exchange rate if they don't spend in dollars. Theo-politics, in its expansive web, implicates everyone.

The religiosity holding political power, focusing on pleasing God or semi-divine leaders with a belief inherited from ancient Greece, doesn't see adherence to morality as a duty. It finds no harm in disregarding the rights of others and doesn't consider refraining from harming nature and living beings as an obligation. Therefore, the psychopathological states of Islam, a direct output of this religious culture, are no surprise.

Yet, religious social regulations (ahkam), and even acts of worship, are not meant to please Allah. On the contrary, they are all for the individual perfection of human beings and for the creation of an ideal society composed of perfected individuals. For example, the warning in the verse about sacrifice is precisely for this: "Neither their meat nor their blood reaches Allah. The only thing that reaches Him is your piety (taqwa) that manifests from you" (Al-Hajj 22:37). This is what distinguishes faith in Allah from other conceptions of God. Sacrificing is for other gods; to appease their anger and gain their favor; to please them so they meet expectations. None of these apply to Allah. But the existing, established, popular, and widespread Islam does whatever it does to make Allah happy, even at the cost of harming people.

Islam as the Fifth Prison of Humanity

Let's establish that Islamic identity, in the procession visible before our eyes with all its sects and denominations, is the distorted form of Islam. That's why I propose adding Islam as the fifth prison to the late Ali Shariati's "Four Prisons of Man." If fate permits, I will write about this fifth prison.

The late Professor Yaşar Nuri (Öztürk) fought a remarkable struggle to expose the distortions. He was a pioneer in this field. As a scholar educated in both madrasas and academia, his effort to clean the sludge covering Islam has great significance within the tradition of revival and renewal. In these malicious times, when digital circulation trumps everything, those who profit from the in flagrante delicto of distortion have no place in this endeavor. On the contrary, they might even want parody oddities to remain in place for the show to continue, just as atheist activism is dissatisfied with studies that expose distortions.

Digital truth and online popularity — through conversations with my daughter, who is navigating her sociology doctorate on this topic — are on my radar with sensitive measurement. That's why I'm trying to look at the topic of Palestinian radicalization of Islam from the perspective of digital circulation. Because in the "Pallywood" industry, performance is the most important party.

As the Netanyahu government responded to the Qassamites' October 7th "Al-Aqsa Flood" attack with a devastating revenge on Gaza, we frequently encountered efforts in the Palestinian industry to gain visibility, stand out, and achieve fifteen minutes of fame. These are all examples of engineering to find optimum benefit. There is a certain rationality in IBAN-based qualified multiplication campaigns. Therefore, the financial aspect of the matter is only criminal and out of scope. What needs to be emphasized is what is related to neurotic religiosity. The situation summarized by the young girl lamenting not finding what she hoped for from protesting Erdoğan, after seeing the global impact and digital popularity of uttering a few words to the Microsoft CEO, is actually the essence of the situation.

It's high time to discuss these issues thoroughly. In my articles, "Why didn't the events of October 7th create a moral crisis in the Muslim conscience?" and "The Palestine Industry", I tried to express my thoughts as best as I could.

The Palestinian industry uses the destructive rage of Israeli conservative politics, including the Hannibal Protocol, to flatten Gaza, to cover up all problematic situations.

Despite this, we must not cease to explain the theological and political oddities of distorted neurotic religiosity. This is important for humanity's sake. Because the Muslim identity that keeps its own adherents in prison is sworn to make life a prison for others as well. It is necessary to focus on critical analyses with the hope of both freeing the absolutely obedient disciples trapped in the labyrinth of this identity and ensuring the safety of other lives.

In this article, I will examine the distorted belief that Allah created men superior, and women inferior, deficient, and flawed, and therefore, men are appointed as guardians over women. Exposing the distortion regarding the social, economic, philosophical, and legal consequences derived from this fabricated principle is of great importance.

Is Even the Most Unqualified Man Superior to the Most Qualified Woman?

The widespread belief among various forms of Islam is that men dominate women. This is because they believe that man was created superior to woman. In other words, the God in the Muslim identity's conception regards man as existentially superior to woman, even though they consider seeing imperfection as a stumbling block that corrupts faith, by attributing the perfection in creation to Allah's perfect, magnificent, flawless nature. This means that hostility towards women is so blinding that it prevents the recognition of this great contradiction and distortion in faith.

The doctrine of superiority is a malignant chain reaction. It considers humans superior to other species in nature, Muslims to other religious adherents, Sunnism to other sects, Turks to other ethnic groups, etc. It's a vintage belief inspired by the belief in the superiority of white-skinned people over black-skinned people, for which people in Western societies are thankful and proud, and which is not seen here. Yet, in their own society, there are so many races and species they place in the position of black-skinned people. The family-internal form of that dominion hypothesis is the delusion of superiority over women.

In this strange, distorted, false belief, discrimination against women is a fundamental principle of religion. In this situation, even the most ignorant, unqualified, incompetent man becomes superior to the most knowledgeable, qualified, competent woman; he has dominion over her and is appointed her guardian. Of course, there are attempts to mitigate the gravity by saying that the superiority or dominance of man over woman is not about gender, but describes the status of the husband over his wife within marriage. Even if that were the case, even if the husband's superiority over his wife were a right established by the bond of marriage, isn't the philosophical basis of this assumption the view that man is superior to woman in creation?

They also have a verse that they presume forms the basis for this claim: Surah An-Nisa 4:34, which mentions women. They translate it as: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made some of them excel others, and because they spend of their property."

Let me explain in a small parenthesis why I said "that mentions women" instead of the surah's name.

During the Prophet's time, there were no surah names. When the Qur'an was compiled into a book during the time of Caliph Uthman, surahs were determined, named, and arranged in a sequence contrary to the historical formation of the Qur'an. The beginning of distortion, meaning the disruption of meaning and context in the Qur'an, was the caliphate's act of establishing an official mushaf different from the historical Qur'an and destroying others by burning them.

The Mushaf Enigma

The Prophet, instead of using the current surah names, would refer to surahs by saying, for example, "the one that mentions the cow (Baqarah)" (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, 2008: 3/232). There are also narrations claiming that the Prophet gave names to the surahs. For instance, Aisha claimed that a man was reciting the Qur'an at night. When the Prophet heard this, he said, "May Allah have mercy on him; he reminded me of such-and-such verses that I had dropped from such-and-such surah (in another version, 'forgotten')" (Ibn Hazm, 1983: 1/493; Bukhari 5042, Muslim 788).

However, those who narrated this tradition to validate Uthman's mushaf to the Prophet probably didn't realize they were causing a much bigger problem. If that man had not recited those verses and the Prophet had not remembered these verses he had "dropped" or "forgotten" from that surah, those verses would not be in the current mushaf. Or, perhaps, was it not a matter of concern at that time if some verses were forgotten and not included in the mushaf? If so, something would have been narrated from the Prophet indicating his regret or anxiety. Which one? The possibility of verses not being in the mushaf, or the lack of concern about such a possibility?

And didn't the founding fathers of the "new Medina," when they compiled the Qur'an, accept verses only with the condition of two male witnesses and include them in the book? (Maqdisi, 1993: 184). Verses without witnesses were not accepted. So why was it not considered a problem when the man who reminded the Prophet of certain verses in a particular surah did so as the sole witness?

The claim that the Qur'an (mushaf) is protected by Allah is a theory put forward long after the Prophet, and it has neither theological nor historical basis. Likewise, the premise that all verses were memorized by many people is unfounded. When there are verses that even the Prophet, the embodied form of revelation, forgot, can those who memorized by listening be accounted for? Furthermore, if memorization and recording were given as much importance as is thought, there would be reliable and convincing information on how nearly 5,000 verses recorded in Mecca, given the claim that verses were written on materials like bones, pieces of leather, palm leaves, and stone tablets, were transferred to Medina during the Hijra.

Undoubtedly, the fate of the Meccan verses has been considered, and those who tried to solve the problem have emerged. Dr. Nemr Abd al-Mun'im, in his book on Qur'anic sciences, discusses the issue and presents different views (Abd al-Mun'im, 1983: 154-155). For example, the famous scholar of principles, Ibn Qudamah (d. 1223), born in Shiham (Nablus), claimed that Rafi' b. Malik, one of the first Muslims of Medina and from the Khazraj tribe, carried a "mushaf" containing verses revealed in Mecca from Mecca to Medina during the Hijra (Ibn Qudamah, 1972: 174).

However, Ibn Qudamah's claim that the Meccan verses were gathered in a mushaf has no basis whatsoever. It is entirely an assumption. It is more likely a theory put forward to confirm the scenario that the Meccan verses were not lost and that the transfer occurred easily. Indeed, those who object to this point out that the verses were turned into a mushaf years after the Prophet's death, and that no one in the compilation works mentioned a mushaf brought from Mecca.

The Masculine History That Excluded Women From the Qur'an's Compilation

Additionally, relevant to our topic, let's note that no verses were taken from women, nor was their testimony accepted for any verse during the compilation of the Qur'an into a book. The absence of women's participation and contribution in such a crucial task as compiling the Qur'an, which addresses all believers, male and female, in dozens of verses, should be considered tragic enough for Islam. Even Aisha, who plays a central role in Sunnism, did not have her complaint regarding the alleged deficiency in the compiled Qur'anic mushaf heeded by the Sunnite elders. They narrated those views from Aisha, but did not act upon them.

Aisha had said, "The verse of stoning and the verse of suckling adults were under my bed. When the Prophet died, while we were busy with his death, a goat entered and ate it" (Ibn Hazm, 2003: 12/177, Ibn Majah 1944).

Aisha's claim that there were verses about "suckling adults" but they were not included in the current mushaf is as follows: After the Prophet's death, his wife Umm Salamah was angry with Aisha, another wife: "Young men whom I would not like to come to my side enter your side." Aisha replied: "The wife of Abu Hudhayfah told the Messenger of Allah that [his freed servant] Salim used to come to her side, but he was now a man, and [her husband] Abu Hudhayfah did not like that. Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah said: Suckel him. Thus, he can enter your side" (Muslim 1453-29, Abu Nu'aym al-Isfahani, 1996: 4/127, hadith 3405).

In response to Aisha's claim of making an adult man a "milk-child" by suckling him, the elites of Sunnism could have asked how a non-lactating woman who had not been pregnant could suckle. They didn't. Instead, they debated how many times one should suckle for it to be valid. Three times, five times, etc. And not at different times, but all at once.

Some scholars are, of course, aware of the strangeness of "suckling an adult man." But since rejecting narrations from Aisha would mean accusing her, they found softly transitioning solutions instead. For example, after recalling a version of Aisha's narration (Ibnu Humam, 2003: 3/421), Ibn Humam stated that it was abrogated (naskh) by hadiths such as "There is no suckling except in the first two years," "There is no suckling when the bones have become firm," and "Suckling is done to relieve hunger." But he did not provide any evidence to support the abrogation theory he put forward. It was entirely his own assumption. Imam Malik also participated in the discussion by bringing Ibn Umar's authority against Aisha's through Nafi', Ibn Umar's freed slave: "There is no suckling except what happened when one was young. There is no suckling for adults" (Malik b. Anas, 1985: 603, hadith 6, digital copy).

Despite these objections, Aisha's words remain in books, and there is a voluminous fiqh built upon them. Even Izzat Atiyyah, head of the hadith department at al-Azhar, issued a fatwa stating that for a woman to work alone with a male colleague in the same environment at work, she should suckle him. This would establish a family bond that would allow them to be alone, but suckling would not make marriage unlawful.

The Chaos Caused by the Current Mushaf

The current mushaf, produced by disrupting the chronological flow of the Qur'an, created complete chaos. For example, although Surah Al-Muddaththir, which was revealed earlier, clearly states that the "frowning (abasa)" person was a polytheist (verse 11), the Umayyad insult that presented the Prophet of "sublime character" (Al-Qalam 68:4) as the "frowning (abasa)" person (verse 1) in Surah Abasa, which came after Al-Muddaththir in historical order, became the established interpretation. Even the late Aliya Izzetbegović, a representative of European Islam and critical thought, was influenced by the established Muslim understanding that the word "abasa" (frowning) in the verse referred to the Prophet and that Allah criticized the Prophet by mentioning him with an ugly attribute (Izzetbegović, 2018: 303).

There are many examples of the catastrophes caused by the confusion in the current Qur'an, compiled by Caliph Uthman. One of them is the attribution of the meaning of "Adam" to the phrase "nafs-i wahida" (single soul) in the verse from Al-A'raf 7:189 (He created you from a single soul, and from it He made its mate) (Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, 1981: 15/90). So, according to the popular interpretation, Adam was created first (nafs-i wahida / one person), and then his mate Eve was created from him (from his rib).

When commenting on the narration "Woman was created from a rib" (Bukhari 1944, Ahmad 20093, Ibn Hibban 4518), according to a story attributed to Muqatil b. Sulayman (d. 767), the author of the first Qur'an commentary, Eve was created from Adam's rib while Adam was sleeping in Paradise. He felt no pain during the creation. If he had felt pain, man would never have felt love for woman, etc. (Yusuf Efendizade, 2021: 18/29). After this strange narrative, which is understood to be quoted from a literal reading of the Bible (Genesis 2:21-22), the commentator included a relatively rational explanation that provides some relief: Rabi' b. Anas (d. 757) used the verse "He created you from clay (tin)" (Al-An'am 6:2) as evidence to say that Eve was created from Adam's essence.

According to the Bible, the source of the rib creation theory, man was created from dust (Genesis 2:7), and woman from his rib (Genesis 2:22). In the commentary of the Torah (midrash), the ultra-conservative interpretation (Bereishit/Genesis Rabbah 17:8) links why women must use perfume/fragrance while men don't need it to the fact that man was created from earth, which doesn't smell bad, whereas woman was created from bad-smelling bone (Kristen E. Kwam et al., 1999: 82). Of course, there have been objections to this approach. They argue that the rib matter is a symbolic and moral narration, based on the verse "God created man in His own image, He created them male and female" (Genesis 1:27).

It is clear that because the story of Adam is read in Surah Al-Baqarah, which is placed before Al-A'raf in the current mushaf despite needing to be after it in historical order, the verse in Al-A'raf was given the meaning "Adam was created, and from him his mate," based on this prior knowledge. This is despite the fact that in the next verse, Al-A'raf 7:190, it is stated that the created being (Adam) associated partners with Allah. Would the Prophet associate partners with Allah? This means that the person referred to is not actually the Prophet Adam. It is quite clear that the verse refers to humanity (Adam) as a species.

The phrase "nafs-i wahida" (one, same, equal) in the sentence actually expresses the common essence of the human species. Adam, the male human, created from the same essence, and his mate (Eve) are the female human. Due to Uthman's mushaf, which placed the verses and surahs that the Prophet uttered during the first thirteen years of revelation at the end of the Qur'an and mixed up the Meccan and Medinan verses, translations, as in many other places, cannot see this simple truth here either.

However, there are commentaries that mention a different view, albeit as an exception. After warning against the general view that Eve was created from Adam's rib, they nevertheless added the commentary that they are "of the same kind (species)," referring to the information in Ash-Shura 42:11 that mates of the same kind were created (min anfusikum azwajan) (Abu Hayyan, 1993: 4/436).

The current Qur'an mushaf, invented by Caliph Uthman, who burned other Qur'ans that did not conform to his arrangement, has no relation to the way the revelation descended upon the Prophet, and due to a historical ordering error, the text is dominated by confusion. This mushaf is a major obstacle to a correct understanding of the Qur'an. Publishing a mushaf that doesn't continue this error is forbidden. This is because the Mushafs Examination and Recitation Board, affiliated with the Presidency of Religious Affairs, is almost tasked with preserving the existing error and does not allow the printing of a mushaf that would aid correct understanding.

In 2012, the discovery of a 1500-year-old Aramaic Gospel in the Ankara Courthouse vault generated excitement. However, Muslims felt no sensitivity at all that this Gospel could have been preserved intact by Christian communities or individuals, and in a society where they were a minority, until now. Despite having states continuously, starting with the Umayyads after the state in Medina, Muslims could not preserve the Qur'an for 1400 years. Aside from the Prophet's time, there is no Qur'an from Umar's period, nor Uthman's mushaf. There is no text dated to the 7th century, except for fragments of some pages. It is also not certain that the existing texts belong to that date, because carbon testing can determine the date of the material on which the text was written, not the writing itself.

Let's leave the details of the Qur'an issue to our article on the ethnology and anthropology of revelation, and return to our topic.

Softening the Meaning from Male Domination to Protecting Women

Those who argue that man is superior to woman and therefore should rule over her generally translate An-Nisa 4:34, which they use as evidence, as: "Men are guardians over women, because Allah has made some of them excel others, and because (men) spend of their property" (Diyanet Old Translation).

In the commentary titled "Kur'an Yolu" (The Qur'an's Path), later prepared by Hayrettin Karaman and a committee for Diyanet, the verse is now translated as: "Men are the managers and protectors of women, because Allah has granted some of them (men) different qualities and favors than others (women), and because they spend from their wealth."

In Diyanet's old translation, the harsh phrase "men are in charge of women" has been softened to "protector" in "Kur'an Yolu" and the new translation (Altuntaş et al.). However, they have not neglected to leave the addition of "manager" in place. In almost all Turkish translations, the semantic range expands from "being in charge" to "protection and guardianship." Persian translations are the same, as are Arabic explanations.

In reformist and feminist tafsir readings, the meaning of men having authority over women is also objected to, and the meaning of support, taking responsibility, and protecting is emphasized. For example, Selma Barlas, recalling the method of distinguishing between the sacred text and the reader's interpretation, argues, citing Azizah al-Hibri, that the word "qawwam" in the verse does not mean "authority," but expresses the role of men in responsibility, moral guidance, and support towards women (Asma, 2006: 262).

However, it is surprising that even the feminist reading confines itself within the boundaries of the masculine meaning of "qawwam," a Medinan concept. This is despite the fact that "qawwam" is given the meaning of "balanced" in Al-Furqan 25:67, a Meccan verse. Even Amina Wadud, known for her radical reaction to masculine textual interpretation, speaks of men's responsibility for protecting and safeguarding women within the family (Wadud, 1999: 72-74).

A Little Etymology First

The root of the word "qawwamun" in An-Nisa 4:34 is "qawama." It has meanings such as standing up, being upright and firm, and maintaining order. "Qawwam" is derived from the word "qiyam" (standing up) in an intensified form. In Arabic, "qiyam" means standing up as opposed to sitting down and has been used in various contexts in the Qur'an. For example, "continuing in prayer" (Al-Ma'idah 5:55), acting justly (Al-Furqan 25:67), upholding justice (An-Nisa 4:135), and upholding the truth (Al-Ma'idah 5:8). "Qiyamah" is the name given to the moment at the end of time when everyone will be resurrected and stand up.

The Turkish word "kaymakam" also comes from "qa'im-i maqam," meaning the deputy who maintains and represents the office on behalf of the principal authority. The principal authority is the governor. The person who exercises the authority of governorship/dominion over the city. The theoretical distortion that romanticizes the words "wali, awliya" in the Qur'an as "friend" and thereby sideline "walayah," meaning dominion, sovereignty, or governance, also needs to be examined separately. The source of this semantic distortion here is the Prophet's statement about Ali: "To whomsoever I am a mawla, Ali is also his mawla" (Ibn Majah 116, Ahmad 18502). If they had given "mawla" the meaning of "Ali's walayah," historical writing would have been turned upside down, so they saved the system by translating all "wali, mawla, awliya" words and their derivatives in the Qur'an with the secondary meaning of "love, friend" instead of the primary meaning of "walayah." Let's leave this critical issue for a separate article.

Some people, looking at the usage in An-Nisa 4:135 ("uphold/support justice"), find the meaning of supporting and protecting women appropriate for "qawwamun" in An-Nisa 4:34.

The reason why some translations give the meaning of "protection, guardianship" rather than "dominion" to the word "qawwam," which is accepted to mean superior, dominant, or guardian, is the preposition "ʿalā" (on, over) in the sentence. However, the preposition "ʿalā" in "qawwamūna ʿala'n-nisāʾ" does not only mean "on top of," but also "over" or "with regard to." It's like the English preposition "on" used when saying "on women." In that case, the phrase "ʿala'n-nisāʾ" in the verse should be translated in Turkish as "towards women" rather than "on top of women."

Indeed, in the interpretation of the theory that can be called 'soft patriarchy', it is argued that there is a hidden genitive in the phrase "qawwamūna ʿala'n-nisāʾ," and the verse is given the meaning that the man assumes responsibility not against the woman herself, but concerning her needs and affairs (Ardabili, 2004: 4). Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Ja'fari, who criticizes other forms of harsh patriarchy, also states that decisions in the family will be made through consultation in a shura attended by adult children, and the father's role is to implement these decisions. According to him, this is the meaning of "qawwam" in the verse. "Like a CEO in a company, so to speak" (Ja'fari, 1997: 11/268).

Who Are the Men to Protect, and Who Are the Women to Be Protected?

According to some interpretations, the correct meaning of the introductory sentence of the verse should be "protection, guardianship," which implies an obligation, contrary to the assumption of superiority (and indeed ontological) that implies authority and privilege in masculine translations. However, when the introductory sentence of the verse is read together with its two subordinate clauses, it becomes clear that this finding does not solve the problem. This is because the detail overlooked by the translations is that the verse does not use indefinite (nakira) "men" and "women." The definite article "al" is present at the beginning of the words. That is, "Those men over those women."

Indeed, as an anthropological text, it is impossible for the Qur'an to contain an abstract statement, ruling, or news addressing all times, without being related to any concrete and current historical situation. This is a rule of method.

If we proceed assuming that the word "qawwam" means protection, guardianship, support, an important point is that the sentence is not a prescriptive (hüküm) sentence like "Those men are protectors over those women," but rather a declarative (haber) sentence. That is, the verse reports a historical situation lived out in life, rather than laying down a universally applicable rule. Thus: "Those men are protectors for those women." In terms of its historicity, the sentence should be read in the past tense. The contemporary Iranian philosopher Ayatollah Motahhari also believes that the sentence is declarative, not prescriptive. This is because in history and currently, there are families where women are superior, whether in rationality, foresight, knowledge, and understanding, or in economic management (Ardabili, 2004: 8).

Feminist writer Leila Ahmed, unlike feminist readings that cannot escape the limitations of classical masculine interpretations, draws attention to the historicity of the issue. Ahmed warns that the meaning of "protection, guardianship," which even Islamic feminism has adopted, was later attributed to the concept, and explains that the meaning of "authority" was shaped through the historical process and used to legitimize men's domination over women. According to her, this meaning was influenced by the social and cultural dynamics of early Islam and, over time, transformed into a tool that reinforced patriarchal structures (Leila, 1992: 65-66).

We don't know who the men and women, or man and woman, referred to in the verse are. Furthermore, the plural form of the expression does not necessarily mean there are many people. Indeed, in Al-Baqarah 2:207, although it says in plural, "And there are among the people those who sell themselves to seek the pleasure of Allah," it has been claimed that the verse is about Abu Dharr or Suhayb b. Sinan or Jundub b. as-Sakan. However, the prevailing view is that the verse is about Ali b. Abi Talib, who lay in the Prophet's bed on the night of the Hijra, thereby distracting assassins and gaining time for him (Muslim 2404, Tirmidhi 3724, Nasa'i 8342). There are many historical records confirming this. In one of them, Mu'awiya, one of the two famous Umayyads, asks Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas, "Why do you not curse Abu Turab [Ali]?" He replies, "For three reasons," and as the third reason, he states that Al-Baqarah 2:207 is about him. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas continues: "Then the Prophet called Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn and said: 'O Allah, these are my family (Ahl al-Bayt)'" (Afifi, 2006: 3/313; quoted from Tuhfat al-Ahwazi, Hadith 3808).

If it is accepted that the verse is not a ruling but rather a report, then for those who prefer the meaning of "protection, guardianship" instead of "dominant, guardian," the Turkish translation of An-Nisa 4:34 should be: "Those men are protectors for those women, because Allah has made some superior to others, and because they spend from their wealth."

Alteration of the Verse to Extract Male Superiority from Comparative Excellences

The phrase "because Allah has made some superior to others" in the sentence is translated by masculine interpretations as the superiority of man over woman. However, there is not even a hint of this in the preposition "bi-mā" in the sentence (bi-mā faddalallāhu ba'dahum ʿalā ba'd). The masculine pronoun (hum / they) in the word "ba'dahum" (some of them) is also a grammatical rule for mixed-gender groups. Therefore, what is meant in the sentence can only be the fact that Allah created/made women and men superior to each other in different aspects.

The mind that reads the language and style of revelation through the lens of a masculine conceptual world is the primary reason for the semantic distortion in the verses, seeing the ontological superiority of man over woman everywhere.

If Caliph Uthman (d. 656) had not burned the Qur'ans other than the one he had written, we would know the event to which the verse refers, thanks to the notes in them. Or, if the new rulers of Medina had not unhesitatingly rejected Ali b. Abi Talib's (d. 661) mushaf, which he had compiled with notes and explanations under the Prophet's supervision, reminding us that he "never left the Prophet's side, like a camel calf following its mother" (Radiy, 1991: 2/157), we would know clearly which verse was about whom, related to which event, when it occurred, and the correct order of the surahs and verses.

The historian Ya'qubi reports that Ali brought the Qur'an he had compiled and put into book form on a camel before the crowd and said, "This is the Qur'an I collected" (Ya'qubi, 2024: 2/92). According to records, the new rulers of Medina unhesitatingly rejected Ali's mushaf.

The detail provided by Shahristani (d. 1153) regarding the tension that occurred on that day is as follows: Ali said, "This is the book of Allah, which He sent down to Muhammad. I have collected it between two covers." They replied: "Take your mushaf back; we do not need it." Thereupon Ali said: "By Allah, you will never see it again after this. My duty was only to inform you when I collected it." Then he took the mushaf and returned to his house, reciting this verse as he left: "O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur'an as [a thing] abandoned" (Al-Furqan 25:30) (Shahristani, 2008: 1/13-14).

Given this situation, we can only make estimations with the current historical material. However, it is possible to reach the best and most authentic probability with a correct methodology. Studies conducted by following a different path from theologians and using the methods of social science disciplines such as history, anthropology, and linguistics can produce an estimation close to the truth.

Philosophical and Legal Consequences of Viewing Men as Superior

When the acceptance that man is superior to woman, and is his manager, ruler, authority, or guardian, is made a principle, it opens the way for deriving legal consequences from it. This perspective is what makes man the head of the family. That's why the spirit of the Ottoman Majalla (Civil Code) continued in secular law during the Republic era.

Article 152 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 743, dated 1926, which was adapted from the Swiss Civil Code, stated "The husband is the head of the union," which was based on the assumption that man was "qawwam/guardian." This situation continued until a change was made in the Turkish Civil Code in 2001, due to the EU harmonization process, stating, "Spouses jointly manage the marital union" (Article 186).

It doesn't take much intelligence to understand that the close interest of Islamists in family law is not for the benefit of women. The mentality behind their objections to the Istanbul Convention with baseless accusations, precisely because they show no interest in violence against women, is nothing more than preserving the authority of men over women.

It is Makruh (Repugnant) to Strike Women on the Face, Just Like Animals

On the contrary, Islam allows men to punish and discipline women by beating them. But it graciously considers striking the face as makruh (Muslim 2116, Abu Dawud 2564, Tirmidhi 1710). Makruh means disliked or reprehensible. Its literal meaning is "disgusting," but as a jurisprudential category, it refers to things that cannot be declared "haram" (forbidden). In other words, it is not forbidden to the level of haram, but it is ugly. It is better not to do it. If done, there is no punishment in this world or the hereafter.

Among women's rights are that her husband should not tell her she is ugly and should not strike her face (Abu Dawud, 2144). The reason for not being able to say she is ugly is, again, not about the woman herself. It is the belief that Allah would not create anything ugly. But when it comes to beating and striking, there is no such moral restriction.

The disapproval of striking a woman's face is comparable to the reprehensibility of striking an animal's face (Kirmani, 1981: 10/101). Just as it is makruh to strike the face of an animal, which is considered a lower species than humans, it is also makruh to strike the face of a woman, who is considered to be at the same level as a human. This is similar to the way women are mentioned alongside donkeys and dogs as things that invalidate prayer if they pass in front of a praying person (Muslim 510).

If Women Are Accepted as Prophets, the Guardianship Theory Crumbles

The philosophical consequence of the religious culture that views men as guardians over women must be described by efforts to multiply the definitions of revelation and to relegate the status of women who witness revelation to the lowest possible category. This is because speaking based on revelation carries a certain authority and power, and if they were to accept women who saw or heard revelation as prophets, the guardianship theory would crumble. They are not even willing or ready to consider prophethood an exception and separate women in this status from the general ruling on womanhood.

In her theory, Iranian Dr. Sedighe Vasmaghi, with a madrasa and law background, argues that Allah does not send prophets. Instead, she suggests that some individuals encounter revelation during intense contemplation, asceticism, and spiritual concentration (Vasmaghi, 2021). She proposes that women, like men, have encountered revelation but were unable to express it due to societal conditions. This is why there is no female prophet recorded in history. It should be disappointing that atheist activists, who attribute the absence of female prophets in history to the decay of religions, cannot realize that this is the same phenomenon as the lack of female philosophers in historical records.

In the West, female philosophers only began to emerge after the 17th century. Before that, and in ancient Greece, the women mentioned as philosophers do not have known ideas and systems that would qualify them as philosophers when compared to their male counterparts. In Islam, the presence of female thinkers is not found in any field other than Sufism. The named examples were also not considered theorists but were subjects of anecdotes related to practice.

Since Allah does not engage in ontological discrimination, the lack of known female prophets actually proves that the classical theory is wrong; that is, as Vesmegi says, prophethood is not about being "sent," but rather about the perfected human seeking truth encountering revelation. Indeed, the word "ba'th" used in relation to the emergence of prophets is given the meaning of "sending" only in verses that speak of prophets.

In Qur'anic lexicography and literature, "ba'th," if we exclude the meaning later ascribed to the word to validate the theory of prophethood, actually means to awaken, to raise up, to resurrect. For example, awakening a sleeping camel (ba'th al-ba'ir) (Raghib al-Isfahani, 1991: 1/132). The word "ba'th" (yab'athu man fi'l-qubur) is used when speaking of resurrection from the grave on the Day of Judgment (Al-Hajj 22:7).

Calling the process of prophets, who lead normal lives like everyone else in society, beginning to articulate what they witnessed in a special state during seclusion and contemplation ("revelation") as "ba'th" implies their awakening and resurrection, not their being sent. Since the knowledge they convey to people is acquired from outside the human realm, making them messengers, the verb and noun "arsala/rasul" (to make a messenger/messenger) are used in some verses.

Given that the Qur'an states that prophets emerged within every nation, yet only 25 individuals are named, one should use the method of falsification rather than proof regarding whether there were female prophets. That is, since it is nowhere stated in the Qur'an that women were not made prophets, there must have been women among the prophets who emerged in every nation. Those who translate An-Nahl 16:43 with a strange meaning like "We did not send except men to whom we revealed before you" and conclude from it that there were no female prophets are outright committing distortion. The only thing this meaning proves is their misogynistic, woman-hating obsessions. The verse is not about female and male prophets. The word "rijal" (men) in the sentence does not indicate gender. It's a linguistic rule, meaning "people." This rule exists in other languages as well. The correct translation of the sentence is: "And We did not send before you any but men to whom We revealed; so ask the people of the message if you do not know."

The verse answers the objection of Meccan polytheists who considered it impossible for a human being like themselves to access divine knowledge. Otherwise, why would it ask them to consult communities that had been reminded (ahl al-dhikr) if they did not know? Would they ask them if there were female prophets? That's not the topic of the discussion.

It has been narrated from Ibn Abbas: The disbelievers said: "Did the Great Allah make a human like Muhammad His messenger?" Thereupon Allah revealed the verse "Are people amazed that We revealed to a man from among them?" (Jonah 10:2) and said, "And We did not send before you any but men to whom We revealed; so ask the people of the message if you do not know" (An-Nahl 16:43) (Ibn Abi Hatim, 1997: 2284, hadith 12521).

The classical theory, by defining revelation as a flow of information from Allah to the prophet via an angelic messenger, both excludes women who witness revelation from prophethood and also excludes revelation to other beings apart from humans. However, there is no qualitative difference between revelation to the honeybee (An-Nahl 16:68), to the earth (Al-Zilzal 99:5), and to angels (Al-Anfal 8:12), and revelation to humans. The only difference is that humans express and convey the revelation they encounter in words.

Knowing the problem that showing Allah as speaking in words like a human would create, they put forward the theory that Gabriel was the angel of revelation and dictated the revelation in words to the prophet. But this claim has no credible basis. The verses cited as evidence for the claim that Gabriel was the angel of revelation do not mention this duty. This conclusion is drawn from interpretations based on narrations.

Moreover, the verse "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel, let him know that he has brought it down upon your heart by permission of Allah" (Al-Baqarah 2:97) should shake the classical theory of revelation to its core. This is because this definition in the Qur'an supports the theory put forward by Farabi, Ibn Sina, and Ibn Rushd (Musa, 2017: 57) that revelation descended upon the Prophet's heart not in letters and words, but potentially (bilkuvve), as Ibn Sina put it, as "seed," and that it was the Prophet who explained it to the people in a way they would understand, with the help of his imaginative faculty. What else could it be but an act of terrorism when the desperate elites of Islam declare these philosophers as infidels and legitimize shedding their blood in order to protect the official view? The mainstream of Islam grew and flourished in this path of intimidation and is not ready, nor even willing, to change this course.

What is certain is that revelation was not dictated to prophets in words. It is the prophets who transformed the revelation they witnessed into words. That is why revelation is called "the word of a noble messenger" (Al-Takwir 81:19). Muhammad in Islam is like Jesus in Arian Christianity. He is the embodied form of revelation. Umar b. al-Khattab's desire to exclude the Prophet, expressed by saying "The Qur'an is enough for us" while the Prophet was still alive and revelation was theoretically ongoing, is a copy of the concept of Torah in Judaism, which is centered on the book/text, not the prophet.

The Prophet is Allah's messenger, not the messenger of revelation. And there is no gender distinction in messengership. Those who introduced this distinction into religion are male commentators who view women as an inferior species.

All Tyrants Mentioned Negatively in the Qur'an Are Male

It should be noted that all the oppressive tyrants mentioned as examples in the Qur'an are male, whereas queens or other women are not mentioned negatively. Not even the woman (Zuleikha) who tried to seduce Joseph due to her captivating love, doing evil. Her toxic love is almost considered an excuse (Joseph 12:29, Genesis 39:10).

Therefore:

How can the claim that man is appointed guardian over woman be valid, despite the verses that speak glowingly of the historical role of women in the examples of Maryam, Moses' mother, sister, and foster mother (Asiya), the Queen of Sheba, Shu'aib's daughters, and Abraham's wife, who heard and saw revelation? Where are the men appointed guardians over their wives in these examples? Moreover, did Maryam not give birth to a child without a guardian over her and defying the male world?

If men are superior, why did no one among Aisha's contemporary and later supporters object to her leadership when she instigated and provoked the revolt against Caliph Uthman (Ya'qubi, 1939: 1/152) and then initiated a civil war by rebelling against Ali (Haythami, 1985: 3/94)? Why are the mollahs, who ardently advocate that man is the guardian, ruler, and superior, dead silent in the case of Aisha?

Did Hadrat Ali tell Fatima, the epitome of perfect womanhood, that he was superior to her, or did he say, "I am your guardian appointed by Allah"? Did the Prophet set the same example for his community regarding Khadija? Of course not.

The female examples in the Qur'an are models of perfection. However, there are two exceptions: the wives of Noah and Lot, who betrayed their husbands (At-Tahrim 66:10). It is quite significant that these two women are mentioned immediately after the extremely negative portrayal of two wives who conspired against Muhammad (At-Tahrim 66:4). Ibn Abbas asked Umar (b. al-Khattab) who the two women in At-Tahrim 66:4 who united against the Prophet and plotted behind his back were, and he replied, "Hafsa and Aisha" (Daraqutni 4014, Tabarani 12640). Hafsa was the daughter of the second caliph Umar b. al-Khattab. Aisha was the daughter of the first caliph Abdullah b. Abi Quhafah.

While Umar was narrating the conspiracy of Hafsa and Aisha during his caliphate, he lamented that in Mecca, men were dominant, but when they went to Medina, they encountered a society where women were dominant, and Meccan women learned to speak up from them (Bukhari 5191, Muslim 1479, Tirmidhi 3318).

There are different accounts regarding Aisha's and Hafsa's cooperation and plotting behind the Prophet's back. But the common point is things like Aisha and Hafsa distressing the Prophet by humiliating him (Ibn Sa'd, 2001: 10/84) or blackmailing him by revealing a secret he had told them (Shawkani, 2007: 1505, digital copy).

It is understood from Umar's advice to his daughter that he held Aisha responsible for the incident of humiliation, insult, and conspiracy against the Prophet, in which Hafsa and Aisha were severely accused in the verse: "My daughter, do not let this (Aisha) tempt you" (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, 2001: 8/537 hadith: 4913).

However, Hafsa did not listen to her father's advice. Aisha managed to tempt her once again when she incited the civil war and uprising against Ali (Basra/Battle of the Camel, 656). Had her brother Abdullah (b. Umar) not prevented her, she would have participated in the war (Tabari, 2011: 3/8).

The Neurotic Religiosity's Sickness of Superiority

Neurotic religiosity holds a schema in which the human species is superior among living creatures, and among the human species, men are superior.

So, where did the issue of male superiority over women come from?

While the social life of the community of men and women who believed in the Prophet in Medina flowed naturally, did Allah suddenly declare a radical decision, like men being superior to women, to His Prophet, and with a top-down engineering of social relations, overturn existing life and create a new legal phenomenon?

According to the claim, this is what happened: A member of the community argued with his wife and hit her. The woman went to the Prophet and asked for retribution (qisas). According to some narrations, the Prophet granted her request and ruled for retribution. But then he was warned by a verse: "Men are in charge of women" (An-Nisa 4:34).

According to some narrations, this verse came before qisas could be applied. In Qatadah's narration, the Prophet admits his helplessness by saying, "I wanted something, but Allah wanted something else." Moreover, Zuhri, one of the famous trio of Islamic historiography (Aisha-Urwah-Zuhri), says, "There is no qisas between a man and his wife except for life" (Tabari, 2001: 6/688-690).

There are many examples that prove that such narrations, which write history retroactively two or three centuries after the Prophet's death, are inconsistent with objective historicity. The most striking of these is the following: When Abdullah b. Abi Quhafah (Abu Bakr) became caliph, he made a move that would refer to the Prophet's political heir (Ali) and said, "Prophets do not leave inheritance" (Bukhari, 6725), and he seized and confiscated the land of Fadak belonging to the Prophet's daughter Fatima (Ibn Sa'd, 2001: 2/274). During Fatima's angry and passionate address targeting the new regime in the assembly where the rulers of "new Medina" and all the leading companions were present (Ibn Abi Tayfur, 1908: 16-25; Tabari, 1992: 111-1223; Qayrawani 2009: 3/34, hadith 974), no one listened to her without a word, and no one, including the caliph, dared to remind her that man was superior to woman and silence her.

Islam, a Natural Religion, is Feminine

In An-Nisa 4:1, the translation "Be mindful of Allah, through Whom you ask each other, and of the wombs (and kinship ties)" is preferred by almost all translations.

However, Cemil Said (1872-1942) departed from the translation "observance of kinship rights" and translated it as "Respect those who carried you in their wombs." Elmalılı Hamdi Yazır's translation, "Be mindful of that Allah against whom you go, and in whose and those wombs' sanctity you ask each other," is more interesting. Mustafa Islamoğlu translated "arham" in the verse as "bond of humanity" and drew attention to the fact that responsibility towards Allah and responsibility towards humanity are mentioned together in the sentence. He also narrated a hadith to confirm the interpretation that the female womb is one of the manifestations of divine mercy in humans: "The womb is a branch from the Merciful" (Bukhari 5988, Muslim 2554, Majlisi, 1983: 23/266).

But there is a much more striking narration from the Prophet: "Allah said: I am the Merciful. I created the womb and gave it My name. I will maintain ties with whoever maintains ties with it. And I will cut off ties with whoever cuts off ties with it" (Abu Dawud 1694, Tirmidhi 1907, Ahmad 1659).

According to linguists' archaeological studies of origins, the word "rehme" in Hebrew and "rahma" in Aramaic and Syriac entered Qur'anic Arabic as "rahim." This is similar to the Indo-European "uderu" taking the form "uterus" in Latin. Although it means abdominal cavity, it also has meanings of shelter and refuge.

Allah's attribute of "Rahim" must be related to the human being's safe presence in the protected womb. Birth is also the state of falling from that protected area into the conflict-ridden earth, like Adam and his wife's fall from Paradise. Therefore, every birth is a constant reenactment of the fall from paradise at the beginning of history. The difference from the "original sin" theory is that the baby is not born sinful, but rather steps into experiencing the life full of difficulties of its ancestors, Adam and his wife.

Allamah Taleghani argues that this "fall" does not mean falling from the paradise mentioned in metaphysical mythology, but rather falling from the enormous garden on earth into the reality of sustaining life through effort in a desert of non-existence and deprivation. To confirm that this paradise is on earth, he presents a narration from Imam Sadiq as evidence: "This paradise was one of the gardens on earth, and the sun and moon shone upon it. If it were the eternal paradise, they would never have left it, and Iblis could not have entered it." The late Taleghani quotes from Baydawi's commentary that this paradise was in Palestine and that Adam fell in India (Taleghani, 1983: 1/127).

In this case, is the assumption that the issue in the verses regarding "wombs" is about close relationships with relatives and being meticulous about it convincing? Or are these narrations and interpretations related to the Umayyads carefully preserving tribal and clan ties, making nepotism the essence of power, basing the state on tribal solidarity without regard for merit, and keeping others away from administration?

When the Prophet formed a community of faith and even declared them heirs to each other, it is claimed that Allah intervened with Al-Anfal 8:75, stating that relatives have priority and should inherit from each other (Suyuti, 2003: 1/73). In the commentary of Muslim (Bab Mu'akhat al-Nabi, hadith 2028), it is suggested that through the pact of brotherhood, the Muhajirun and Ansar were also made heirs to each other, but when Al-Anfal 8:75 came, the verse abrogated and nullified this practice (Muhammad b. Khalifa and Yusuf al-Sanusi al-Husayni, 2003: 8/404, hadith 2028).

Of course, there are also scholars who cannot ignore the importance of the relationship between the Ansar and the Muhajirun and who, it seems, are unwilling to discard this relationship due to blood ties. According to them, the faith-based inheritance system was not abrogated. Instead, the guardianship relationship of "owners of wombs" was given priority over the guardianship relationship determined by contract. If no relatives are found, the inheritance will be given to contractually appointed individuals. As evidence for this formula, An-Nisa 4:33 is cited, which states that heirs are determined for inheritance left by parents and relatives, but shares will also be given to contracted individuals (Tahānawī, 2017: 18/345).

It defies reason how such significant and numerous conclusions are drawn from the sentence in Al-Anfal 8:75, "And those related by womb, some of them are more entitled to others in the Book (decree) of Allah."

Did Allah reject the new social order based on faith and replace it with the old order based on lineage and blood ties? Does this meaning seem normal?

When Abraham, whom Allah made a leader for people, asked for imams to be made from his descendants, the answer he received was: "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers" (Al-Baqarah 2:124). This is because lineage and blood ties are not the basis for merit; values are important. Muhammad's Ahl al-Bayt, meaning Fatima, Ali, Hasan, and Husayn (and then their descendants), were valuable, respected, and important because they were the heir family who dedicated themselves to preserving the revelation inherited from the Prophet, human values, morality, and worldview, and transmitting them to future generations, not because of their lineage and blood ties. For the same reason, the Prophet said, even though there was no blood or lineage connection, "Salman is from us, from the Ahl al-Bayt" (Tabarani 6042, Hakim Nishapuri, 2006: 3/598).

Over time, the word "arham" (wombs) in An-Nisa 4:1 led to the conclusion that old-style blood ties should take precedence over faith-based brotherhood and new social relations, and this became the official view. Ibn Qayyim states this explicitly: "Observing kinship rights is obligatory, even if they are disbelievers" (Ibn Qayyim, 2013: 1/301). Yet, doesn't the Qur'an narrate that Prophet Abraham prayed for his father's forgiveness, but when his father "preferred to be an enemy of Allah and a disbeliever," Abraham cut ties with him? (At-Tawbah 9:114). Why, then, was Abraham's example narrated to the Muslims of that era?

So, after the hardships endured in Mecca for the sake of a new faith-based social vision, the trauma of the hijra journey leaving everything behind, and all the difficulties and wars, did they return to the tribal, clan, blood, and lineage ties of the pre-Islamic era of ignorance?

While the derivation of "rahim" from "Rahman" should primarily bring to mind a connection with Allah, why did commentators jump to the completely unrelated connection of kinship ties? Let's consider, does the message conveyed by Zechariah's wife becoming pregnant despite being barren relate to the importance of kinship ties, or to God's unique creation? What about Mary's pregnancy? What does Mary's pregnancy with Jesus have to do with preserving kinship ties? If Sarah's womb in the sentence "Sarah will be your wife, and from her a great nation will be born" (Genesis 17:16) made possible the birth of Isaac, the ancestor of the Israelite people, is the issue here God's creation of a nation, or kinship relations?

For example, there is a verse that is claimed to talk about a leadership that would sever kinship ties upon taking power. Almost all translations of Muhammad 47:22 render it as: "If you were to take power and leadership, would you then spread corruption in the land and sever your ties of kinship, so that you would then disintegrate?"

What is this about severing kinship ties upon taking power? The late Elmalılı must have realized the absurdity of the meaning, because instead of translating it, he left the sentence as it was: "And will you cause corruption in the land and cut off your wombs?" Yaşar Nuri Öztürk also said, "Will you cause corruption in the country and sever (your) wombs?" Gölpınarlı tried to find a solution due to the strangeness of the translation "severing kinship ties" and understood the meaning as the consequence that would be caused by the evils of those who take power: "Will you cause your relatives to be slaughtered and mutilated?"

There is not a single classical source that explains the etymological evolution by which the word "arham/wombs" in the verses came to mean relatives. Neither the exegetes and lexicographers nor the hadith scholars have a proper explanation. Naturally, we cannot give credence to absurd attempts that assume this was said because relatives come from a common womb.

If Allah places so much importance on close contact, relations, and ties with relatives, then why is Sunni Islam so reactive to the level of importance regarding the Prophet's Ahl al-Bayt? While this might be understandable for sections fermented with Salafism, why does mainstream Sunnism, which claims to value the Ahl al-Bayt as much as Alevis, not incorporate this requirement into its religious culture and practice? Why does it react so strongly to the acceptance that the Prophet appointed Ali as his successor, caliph, and ruler?

Who are "Ulu'l-Arham"?

Have you ever considered what "ulu'l-arham" (owners of wombs/kinship ties) (Al-Ahzab 33:6) means? Does limiting the quickly passed-over "ulu'l-arham" to solely a matter of inheritance, and restricting it to the meaning that it abrogated the Ansar inheriting from the Muhajirun (Savi, 2017: 3/782), serve any purpose other than darkening the horizon?

The Turkish translation of the sentence repeated in Al-Anfal 8:75, as it appears in Al-Ahzab 33:6, is as follows: "The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves... And as for the possessors of wombs, some of them are more entitled to others in the Book (decree) of Allah, than the believers and the Muhajirun."

The word "awla" in the sentence has been translated as "prior" or "preferred" in Turkish and Persian translations. However, there is a powerful nuance here that has escaped the attention of even the Shiites. The reason I say "even the Shiites" is because they know that the words wila, awla, mawla, waliyy, and awliya with all their derivations in the Qur'an revolve around the theme of "walaya" (guardianship/authority), but that the meaning has been corrupted by calling them "friends" or similar.

Note that the form of the word is not "oola" or "awwal", meaning "first" or "before," but "awla." That is, the transitive form of the root "wala/waliyy." For example, when it is said "أَوْلاَهُ الْمَدِينَةَ" (awlahu'l-madina), the "awla" there means "he was appointed governor of the city." In the sentence "أَوْلاَهُ عَلَى أَمْوَالِ الْيَتِيمِ" (awlahu 'ala amwal al-yatim), the correct translation of "awla" is "he was made guardian over the orphan's property."

For this reason, the late Allamah Tabatabai, in his tafsir Al-Mizan, translated the sentence "The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves" as "His Holiness has much more authority over them than they themselves." The meaning of "priority" originates from this. Tabatabai explains the reason for the meaning of "priority" as follows: "When a Muslim individual is faced with a choice between the interest shown by the Prophet and the interest determined by himself, he must choose the Prophet's interest" (Tabatabai, 1995: 16/413).

When we trace the semantic history of the word "awla," the historical context that emerges is narrated by the famous companion from Medina, Bara' b. Azib (d. 690), as follows: "We went on Hajj with the Messenger of Allah. At one point on the road, he stopped. He ordered them to gather for prayer. Then, taking Ali's hand, he said, 'Am I not more entitled to the believers than their own selves?' They said, 'Of course.' Then he said again, 'Am I not more entitled to all believers than their own selves?' They said, 'Of course, yes.' Thereupon, he said, 'Whoever I am his mawla, Ali is also their wali. O Allah, be a mawla to whoever accepts his walaya. And be an enemy to whoever shows enmity to him'" (Ibn Majah 116, Ahmad 18502).

The "awla" mentioned in this event is exactly the "awla" in the verse and is related to walaya, meaning Ali's walaya. The Prophet dictated it to the believers comparatively with his own authority and capacity of walaya. And they confirmed and affirmed it. Then, a day-long pledge of allegiance ceremony took place. The understanding of the word at that time can also be understood from Umar's reaction. When the Prophet declared himself and Ali to be "awla," he was the first to rush and congratulate Ali: "Congratulations to you, son of Abu Talib. You have become the wali (mawla) of all believing men and women" (Ahmad 18391, Ali al-Qari, 2015: 11/258).

The "awla" of the "possessors of wombs" in the last part of Al-Ahzab 33:6 is also included in this framework. When the subject is the relationship of walaya, how can giving the meaning of "relatives" to the concept of "ulu'l-arham" be appropriate? Because there is a specific situation there, and the "ulu'l-arham" in the verse resembles the concept of "ulu'l-amr" (possessors of authority) in An-Nisa 4:59. Translations know very well that "ulu'l-amr" means "ruler." Their only flaw is that they give the meaning of "from you" to the adjacent genitive "minkum." Whereas it means "among you." To those who ask what the difference is, let me remind them that in the political theory built on the meaning of "from you," the principle that non-Muslims cannot be rulers in a Muslim society is taken as fundamental. Not even at the lowest level.

Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (d. 662), the actor in the "arbitration event" that made Muawiya's coup possible, hired a Christian scribe during Umar's caliphate. Umar reacted harshly to him and said: "What is wrong with you, may Allah curse you. Do you not know the verses [Al-Ma'ida 5:55-56, Al-Anfal 8:23]?" When Abu Musa said, "He is just a scribe, his religion is his own," Umar became even more furious and declared the ideology of the dominant and imperial (conquering) state he had established by abrogating the Prophet's management based on the principle of pluralistic public life: "I will not exalt them when Allah has abased them, I will not give them honor when Allah has humbled them, I will not show closeness to them when Allah has alienated them" (Wahidi, 2018: 7/413).

At the beginning of the dialogue, when Abu Musa said he hired a scribe, Umar's question "A foreigner?" and Abu Musa's answer "No, rather, a Christian" (Bayhaqi, 1997: 10/216, narration 20409) show the nature and quality of the management model inherited from the Prophet, and Umar's reaction shows the radical change that occurred during his caliphate. In the narration, Abu Musa says that Umar, upon learning that he was employing a Christian scribe, yelled at him and hit him in the groin.

Ibn Taymiyyah, one of the architects of Sunni political theory, also vehemently supported Umar's reaction and drew some conclusions: Polytheists (he calls everyone who does not believe like him polytheists) cannot remain in their polytheism, one cannot live mixed with them, one cannot resemble them. The duty of a Muslim is to kill innovation and revive the Sunnah (Ibn Taymiyyah, 2011: 15/148). A little further on, he wrote that disbelievers are enemies of Allah and the believers, and therefore, the guardianship of disbelievers over believers is forbidden (Ibn Taymiyyah, 2011: 16/87).

This is the ideological basis for the jihadists' ardent desire to subjugate the entire world to Islam by every means, including terror. Of course, there is a high degree of audacity in the outcry of "Islamophobia" that erupts when developed Western countries say this cannot be allowed.

Sunni political theory was formed by following the path of Umar, who is the Muslim counterpart of Paul, who made Christianity compatible with the Roman Empire. This is in contrast to the Prophet's political style, which allowed Najran Christians to worship in the Prophet's Mosque, prayed towards the Temple of Solomon for years using Jewish qibla, used Byzantine currency, etc. Instead, Umar conquered Jerusalem and built a mosque on top of the Jewish qibla, the Temple of Solomon, and established a political regime with "Hajjaj's whip, more terrifying than his sword" (Ibn Khallikan, 1972: 3/14).

Let's return to the question: What is the meaning of "ulu'l-arham," which is in the same semantic pool as "ulu'l-amr," being awla to the believers and the Muhajirun? Why are the Ansar not mentioned in the verse? Why are believers and Muhajirun separated?

There are striking details and nuances in a commentary that attempts to answer these questions: "Ulu'l-arham," like "ulu'l-amr," is a word that must be understood with reference to the Prophet. That is, the Prophet's "ulu'l-arham" have the authority of walaya over other believers and Muhajirun, and the latter do not have the authority or superiority of walaya over the "ulu'l-arham." If someone is to have walaya over the Prophet's "ulu'l-arham," that person must be one of the "ulu'l-arham," not from among the other believers and Muhajirun.

The commentary reminds us that whenever the Prophet sent any delegation, including Ali, somewhere for a task, he never put anyone other than Ali at the head of the delegation, and there is not a single example of this. An interesting narration related to the topic is also conveyed: While Caliph Abu Bakr was delivering a sermon on Friday, Ubayy b. Ka'b, one of the Prophet's close companions, stood up and addressed some questions to the people. He questioned their negligent and intolerant attitude towards the Prophet's Ahl al-Bayt. One of these questions was: "Did you not know that the Messenger of Allah never appointed any of you as wali (ruler) over Ali during his lifetime, and that he appointed Ali as wali over you wherever he was not present?" (Majlisi, 1983: 28/222).

Silat al-Rahim and the Meeting/Reunion of Wombs

Muslims use the idiom "silat al-rahim" without much thought to mean "giving importance to kinship relations, visiting relatives." But why is the idiom "meeting of wombs" used to express keeping kinship relations alive? There is no convincing answer to this question in the sources, other than the claim that the womb refers to kinship.

Let's assume that "silat al-rahim" means visiting relatives. Muslims have not wondered why such a visit is defined by the idiom "meeting/reunion of wombs." However, if they had looked at the Syriac/Aramaic culture, a close relative of Islam, they would have found a clue: "In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!'" (Luke 1:39-56).

Elizabeth is Mary's aunt. She is Zechariah's wife and at that time pregnant with her son John the Baptist. Mary is also pregnant with Jesus. Zechariah, John, and his followers, the Sabians, are mentioned in the Qur'an (for example, Al-Baqarah 2:62).

Mary's visit to Elizabeth was the meeting of two wombs pregnant with prophets. It is clear that the memory of this important visit and reunion is preserved in Islam by the idiom "silat al-rahim," but Muslims are unaware of it. Without knowing its meaning and historical origin, they preach about how important "silat al-rahim" is in religion, scholars issue fatwas that it is fard/wajib, and they translate and interpret all "rahim(s)" verses in the Qur'an accordingly.

There is no obstacle to thinking that this meeting could be the inspiration for "silat al-rahim" in Islam. This incident may have become a parable about visiting relatives in Hijaz Arab culture under the influence of Syriac Christianity.

However, whether it is through the Mary-Elizabeth meeting or its interpretation as a kinship relation even without an etymological explanation, the male's self-proclaimed claim of superiority is strange in the face of the compulsion of the womb-centered concept.

Is it not clear that the example of Mary-Jesus and Mother/motherhood-Moses is narrated for us to understand the phenomenon of Amina-Muhammad? While Majid Majidi's film "Muhammad" was a correct choice to be built around the Amina-Muhammad axis, established Islam was able to criticize it as an imitation of the Mary-Jesus story.

If Mary, called "the heavenly unwed girl" in the lovable Turkish of a Gagauz hymn, reminds us of Amina, who was widowed at a very young age and spent almost her entire life unwed, struggling alone with difficulties, and devoted to her son, it makes sense. Because the Qur'an is not a history book narrating mythologies or past events.

The conception that views the creation of Eve as secondary assumes that man is endowed with creative attributes. For this reason, patriarchy is rightly described by the direct relationship between the monogenetic theory and monotheistic theology (Delaney, 1991: 34). In this religious culture, it is understandable that the father's authority in the family symbolizes God's authority in the world (Nasr, 2001:110). The belief that Allah manifests Himself in the male form is also a requirement of patriarchy. Although some scholars consider the Prophet's narration, "I saw my Lord in my dream as a respected young man" (Muttaqi al-Hindi, 1985: 1/228, hadith 1152), to be fabricated, it is a style consistent with the cultural code defined for men. This culture is entirely Althusser's "ideological apparatus" and causes deep dyslexia in the reasoning of its adherents.

However, it is quite the opposite. The creative characteristic is in women, not men. The DNA of mitochondria, which act as energy powerhouses of cells, comes from the mother. The mitochondria in the man's sperm are located in the tail, and since the tail is discarded during fertilization, they are not transmitted to the child. After fertilization, mitochondria from the sperm cell are generally destroyed or do not become active within the egg. This feature allows for tracing lineage through the mother in humans and is widely used in evolutionary genetic studies.

So, there is a material reason why women are dominant in the continuation of lineage in Judaism. The Qur'an is full of reflections of this thematic tradition from beginning to end.

Is it now understood why mothers are in leading roles with impressive examples in the verses? Are there similar male examples to the stories narrated about those mothers?

I wrote that Islam is a nature religion, nature is feminine, and Islam is a feminine religion. In Arabic, the words for earth (al-ard) and soil (turab) are feminine. Like Mother Nature, mother earth. Perhaps because Islam is feminine, Muslims are indifferent, disrespectful, careless, and cruel towards nature and its living species. The nature religion of Islam is feminine, but the artificial identity created from it, Islam, is masculine and geared towards domination. As I explained in "The Anthropology of Impatient Huri Fantasy", offering huris as a reward to men in paradise is actually a punishment for women.

In Conclusion

According to Sunni and Shiite jurisprudence, imbued with extremism, man is "qawwam" (caretaker, guardian) over woman. In Sunnism, no one has emerged to argue the contrary, but in Shiism, for example, the late Ayatollah Sanei (1937-2020) stated that a woman could also be a leader in place of Khamenei. Sanei, whose books were forbidden from being displayed at the Tehran Book Fair, famously issued a fatwa stating: "Women and men are equal in law. According to our master Imam Khomeini, women can assume the leadership of the country. They can also be a marja' taqlid (source of emulation) and a waliyy al-faqih (guardian jurist)."

If Al-Furqan 25:67 says "neither extravagant nor stingy, but balanced between the two (qawaman)," then An-Nisa 4:34 should have said, "Those men are very balanced towards those women," but because of fabricated narrations that insult and demean women, they say, "Man is guardian, supervisor over woman."

Why do they give the meaning of "balanced" to the word "qawwam" in Al-Furqan 25:67, instead of the same meaning of "guardian, superior, ruler, authority" given in An-Nisa 4:34? Because if they gave the meaning of "guardian," the translation of the verse would be absurd. So why don't they use the meaning of "balanced" instead of "ruler" in An-Nisa 4:34? Because they want to devalue women. For the same reason, they translate the last part of An-Nisa 4:34 as "As for those women from whom you fear disobedience... beat them."

Ayatollah Kamal Haydari, who is very angry at men eager to commit violence against women and trying to get the Qur'an to approve of this pathological desire, tried to show the logical fallacy and contradiction: "Do you give the meaning of 'when you strike the earth' to the phrase 'iza darabtum fi'l-ard' (An-Nisa 4:101)? No. You say 'when you go on a journey.' That is, when you leave home. Because the verb 'daraba' does not mean to beat, but to depart, to go away. What is said when workers go on strike? 'Idrab'; that is, to stay away from work, to stop work. What is said in An-Nisa 4:34 is clearly 'stay away from home.' It has nothing to do with beating or hitting. Because the mindset is based on narrations, the verse is given the meaning of hitting. However, you need to look at the Qur'an's own dictionary. Furthermore, punishing women by beating them is contrary to the logic of the Qur'an."

Additionally, if An-Nisa 4:34 discusses a wife's exceeding bounds (nushuz) in a marital dispute, then the symmetry of this verse in An-Nisa 4:128 also discusses a husband's exceeding bounds (nushuz), and it is advised that lowering the tension and reconciling would be a better option for them.

The Qur'anic interpretation of religious people who derive their religiosity from a tradition that has normalized violence against women is necessarily misogynistic. Those who attribute Umar b. al-Khattab's beating his sister to death for embracing Islam to the period of ignorance are reluctant to discuss that he continued the same behavior during his caliphate.

Anas b. Malik, from Umar's close circle, describing an environment where "Umar's slave women served us. Their hair was uncovered, their breasts swayed" (Bayhaqi 3347), states that one day when a slave woman covered herself, Umar's reaction was the same as what he did to his sister in Mecca during the "period of ignorance." He scolded the woman, saying, "Uncover your head, you cannot resemble free women" (Kandahlawi, 17/55), and he personally uncovered her head and beat her with a whip (Albani, 6/203, narrated from Ibn al-Mundhir).

Ibn Taymiyyah, by telling the lie that "slave women were like that during the Prophet's time too," praises Umar's behavior: "A free woman covers herself, while a slave woman is uncovered. When Umar saw a slave woman wearing a head covering, he would beat her and say: 'Do you want to resemble free women, O despicable one!'" (Ibn Taymiyyah, 1997: 15/217).

When the first caliph Abdullah b. Abi Quhafah (Abu Bakr) died, Umar, angered by the women weeping and lamenting at home, beat Abu Bakr's sister Umm Farwah with a stick and threw her out of the house. The section where Bukhari mentions this narration is also interesting: "Chapter on Expelling Sinners and Opponents from the House" (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, 2001: 5/90, hadith 2346). Given this, when Umar proposed marriage to Abu Bakr's daughter Umm Kulthum through Aisha during his caliphate, Umm Kulthum's answer was quite logical: "I don't need him. Because his life is harsh, and he is very cruel towards women" (Ibn al-Athir, 1987: 2/450).

No progress can be made in societal therapy without addressing the religious culture that believes in the domination of men over women and normalizes violence against women.

One of the primary proofs of Islam's regression concerns women. For example, the Prophet never referred to any woman by her husband's name. Even in the period of ignorance under the dominance of polytheists, there was no such kunya as "so-and-so's wife." The ugliness of possession, domination, and belonging came later, and the religion of contemporary Islam is inherited from those later times. Currently, they are even more backward than pagan Meccans regarding the issue of women.

Undoubtedly, the perpetrator of this anomaly is not solely the conservative man. His female counterpart is equally responsible for the crime. The decisive role played by unqualified women in the distorted writing of Islam's history years after the Prophet's death is the origin and source of the attitudes and actions found in the femi-political wing of today's sacredness. The sensitive issue is cultural, not political.

The fact that we have come from a condition where history's owner, man, did not even consider woman as human, is not a mitigating factor, and whatever a woman says is her right.

Translated by Gemini

References

• Abdulmun'im, N. (1983). Ulumu'l-Kur'ani'l-Kerim. Daru'l-Kitabi'l-Lübnani.
• Afifi, T. A. (2006). El-Mietu's-Saniye min Vesayayi'r-Resul. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Ahmed b. Hanbal, A. A. (1995). Müsnedu'l-İmami'l-Ahmed b. Hanbel. Müessesetu'r-Risale.
• Ahmed, L. (1992). Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate. Yale University Press.
• Ali el-Qari. (2015). Mirkatu'l-Mesabih. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Altuntaş, H., & Şahin, M. (2011). DİB Yayınları.
• Wadud, A. (1999). Qur'an and Woman: Reading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective. Oxford University Press.
• Barlas, A. (2006). Women's Readings of the Qur'an. In Cambridge Companion on the Qur'an. Cambridge University Press.
• Bayhaqi, A. b. H. (1997). Sunanu'l-Kubra. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Bukhari, M. b. I. (2002). Sahihu'l-Bukhari. Daru Ibn Kathir.
• Ja'fari, M. T. (1997). Tarjama wa Tafsir-i Nahj al-Balagha. Daftar-i Nashr-i Farhang-i Islami.
• Suyuti, J. (2003). Durru'l-Manthur fi't-Tafsir bi'l-Ma'thur. Markazu Hijr li'l-Buhusi'l-Arabiyya wa'd-Dirasati'l-Islamiyya.
• Daraqutni, A. b. U. (2004). Sunanu'd-Daraqutni. Müessesetu'r-Risale.
• Darimi, A. M. (1999). Fathu'l-Mannan (Kitabu'd-Darimi / el-Musnadu'l-Jami'). Daru'l-Basha'iri'l-Islamiyya.
• Delaney, C. (1991). The Seed and the Soil, Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society. University of California Press.
• Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi. (1993). Tafsiru'l-Bahri'l-Muhit. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Abu Nu'aym al-Isfahani. (1996). El-Musnadu Mustakhraj 'ala Sahihi'l-Imam Muslim. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Abu Shama al-Maqdisi. (1993). El-Murshidu'l-Wajiz ila 'Ulum Tata'allaq bi'l-Kitabi'l-Aziz. Maktabatu'l-Imami'z-Dhahabi.
• Albani, M. N. (1979). Irawu'l-Ghalil fi Takhriji Ahadisi Manari's-Sabil. el-Maktabatu'l-Islamiyya.
• Ardabili, F. A. (2004). Barresi-yi Ma'nashinakhti wa Jaigah-i Qawwamiyyat-i Mard wa Huquq-i Insani-yi Zan az Nazar-i Qur'an wa Muqayasa ba Konwansiyon-i Raf'-i Tab'iz. Kitab-i Naqd, 31, 20–35.
• Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. (1981). Tafsiru'l-Kabir / Mafatih al-Ghayb. Daru'l-Kabir.
• Hakim Nishaburi. (2006). Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn. Daru'l-Ma'rifa.
• Hakim Nishaburi. (2009). Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyyye.
• Haythami, A. B. (1985). Kashfu'l-Astar 'an Zawa'idi'l-Bazzar. Müessesetu'r-Risale.
• Ibn Abi Hatim. (1997). Tafsiru'l-Qur'ani'l-'Azim Musnadan 'ani'r-Rasul wa's-Sahaba wa't-Tabi'in. Maktabatu Nizar Mustafa al-Baz.
• Ibn Abi Tayfur, A. b. A. T. (1908). Balaghatu'n-Nisa. Matba'atu Madrasati 'Abbasi'l-Awwal.
• Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. (2001). Fathu'l-Bari, Sharhu Sahihi'l-Bukhari. Maktabatu'l-Malik Fahd.
• Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. (2008). Natayiju'l-Afkar fi Takhriji Ahadisi'l-Adhkar. Daru Ibn Kathir.
• Ibn Khallikan, A. A. S. (1972). Wafayatu'l-A'yan wa Anba'u Abna'i'z-Zaman. Daru Sadir.
• Ibn Hazm. (1983). El-Ihkam fi Usuli'l-Ahkam. Daru'l-Afaki'l-Jadida.
• Ibn Hazm. (2003). El-Isal fi'l-Muhalla bi'l-Athar. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Ibn Hibban, M. (n.d.). Sahihu Ibn Hibban. Müessesetu'r-Risale.
• Ibn Humam, K. M. (2003). Sharhu Fathi'l-Qadir. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. (2013). Ahkamu Ahli'z-Dhimma. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Ibn Qudamah, M. M. (1972). El-Istibsar fi Nasabi's-Sahaba mina'l-Ansar. Daru'l-Fikr.
• Ibn Majah. (n.d.). Sunanu Ibn Majah. Daru Ihya'i'l-Kutubi'l-'Arabi.
• Ibn Sa'd, M. (2001). Tabaqatu'l-Kabir. Maktabatu'l-Khanaqi.
• Ibn Taymiyya. (1997). Majmu'atu'l-Fatawa. Daru'l-Wafa.
• Ibn Taymiyya. (2011). Majmu'u'l-Fatawa. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Ibn al-Athir. (1987). El-Kamil fi't-Tarikh. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Izetbegović, A. (2018). My Escape to Freedom (Özgürlüğe Kaçışım). Klasik Yayınları.
• Kandahlawi, M. Z. (2003). Awjazu'l-Masalik ila Muwatta'i Malik. Daru'l-Qalam.
• Karaman, H. et al. (2020). DİB Yayınları.
• Qayrawani, Q. A. H. N. b. M. (2009). Sharhu'l-Akhbar fi Fada'ili'l-A'imati'l-Athar. Müessesetu'n-Nashri'l-Islami.
• Kirmani, S. (1981). Sharhu'l-Kirmani 'ala Sahihi'l-Bukhari, al-Kawakibu'd-Darari fi Sharhi Sahihi'l-Bukhari. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Kwam, K. E., Schearing, L. S., & Ziegler, V. H. (1999). Eve & Adam: Jewish, Christian and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender. Indiana University Press.
• Malik b. Anas. (1985). el-Muwatta. Daru Ihya'i't-Turathi'l-'Arabi.
• Majlisi, M. B. (1983). Bihar al-Anwar. Müessesetu'l-Wafa.
• Muhammad b. Khalifa al-Wushtani. (2003). Ikmalu Ikmalu'l-Mu'allim and its commentary Yusuf al-Sanusi al-Husayni. (2003). Mukammilu Ikmalu'l-Ikmal. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Musa, M. Y. (2017). Bayna'd-Din wa'l-Falsafa fi Ra'yi Ibn Rushd wa Falasifati'l-Asri'l-Wasit. Müessesetu Hindawi.
• Muttaqi al-Hindi. (1985). Kanzu'l-Ummal fi Sunani'l-Aqwal wa'l-Af'al. Müessesetu'r-Risale.
• Muslim b. Hajjaj, A. H. (1998). Sahihu Muslim. Baytu'l-Afkari'l-Duwaliyya.
• Nasr, H. (2001). Ideals and Realities of Islam. Islamic Texts Society.
• Raghib al-Isfahani. (1991). El-Mufradat fi Gharibi'l-Qur'an. Daru'l-Qalam.
• Sawi, A. b. M. (2017). Hashiyatu's-Sawi 'ala Tafsiri'l-Jalalayn. Daru'l-Fikr.
• Shahrastani, M. b. A. (2008). Mafatih al-Asrar wa Masabih al-Abrar. Markazu'l-Buhus wa'd-Dirasat li't-Turathi'l-Makhtut.
• Sharif al-Radi. (1991). Nahj al-Balagha. Daru'l-Ma'rifa.
• Shawkani, A. A. M. (2007). Fathu'l-Qadir. Daru'l-Ma'rifa.
• Tabatabai, M. H. (1995). Tarjama-i Tafsiru'l-Mizan. Jamia-i Mudarrisin-i Hawza-i Ilmiyya-i Qom.
• Tabarani, S. b. A. (1994). El-Mu'jamu'l-Kabir. Maktabatu Ibn Taymiyya.
• Tabari, M. b. J. (2011). Tarikh al-Umam wa'l-Muluk. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Tabari, M. b. J. (1992). Dala'ilu'l-Imama. Müessesetu'l-B'isa.
• Taleqani, S. M. (1983). Partawi az Qur'an. Shirkat-i Sahhami-yi Intishar.
• Tahanawi, Z. A. O. (2017). I'la'u's-Sunan. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Wahidi, A. b. M. (2018). Tafsiru'l-Basit. Maktabatu'l-Malik Fahd.
• Vesmegi, S. (2021). Masir-i Payambari. Tehran.
• Ya'qubi, A. b. I. (2024). Tarikh al-Ya'qubi. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.
• Ya'qubi, A. b. I. (1939). Tarikh al-Ya'qubi. Maktabatu Murtazawiyya.
• Yusuf Efendizade. (2021). Najahu'l-Qari li-Sahihi'l-Bukhari. Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.