Hud 25: Vow to that; We sent Noah as a Messenger to his people. He (said); “I am a clear warner for you.”

It's coming through for us too. The broadcast is continuing, he says.

Surah Hud, verse 25 is short. Once we have put this one into words too, if Allah grants it, we will end our lesson here. Tomorrow evening, if Allah gives us life, we will all meet here again together. Yes. Indeed, We sent Noah to his people as a messenger.

To them he said: I am a clear warner for you. Allah Almighty sent Noah to his people as a prophet. Noah (peace be upon him) lived a very long life among his people.

Although he invited his people to faith, his people constantly opposed Noah and insisted on not following him. They rebelled against Allah and of the Hereafter, against Noah (peace be upon him).

Here we should say ‘to the Hereafter’, not ‘of the Hereafter’. Against Allah and the Hereafter. They rebelled against Noah (peace be upon him). Noah (peace be upon him): ‘O my people, I am a messenger clearly sent to you by Allah.

There is no god but Allah.

The idols you worship are Allah's creations. I am a prophet sent to warn you of a punishment that will come from Allah’ — although he said this, his people, toward Noah, being arrogant and proud, acting haughtily: ‘You are one of the liars. You have no superiority over us,’ they said, and would not listen to Noah; they would leave him and go away. Anyway, in the verse below too, Allah Almighty says what we said: ‘Worship none but Allah. I fear for you the punishment of a painful day to come,’ He says in the verse below too. Yes. In this case, although Noah (peace be upon him) warned his people, as I just said, that people did not follow Noah. Now we are living something similar.

Right now, among our brothers in Islam, we are living something similar. Although, by fitting the Holy Quran to Arabic grammar, they ascribe attributes to Allah, we stand up against them, and although to them we tell the truth, here he makes a statement. Give me that one's paper, let me see. Now I — give it to me, bring it. Bring it to me.

Yes.

Some, he says, are statements that are no more than one of the baseless claims. Yes. A petition had been written. It should also be noted that the slanders and accusations demeaning the Presidency in that petition clearly show how personally the author approached the subject and that he is far from scholarly method, he says.

We may perhaps be far from scholarly method. But our hearts are burning. We are warning you. Whereas it should be like this, here our son, the researcher and writer, has a key point he wrote to them. The claim that all the Quran translations written in the Republican era are copies of one another and that in these translations 504 verses have been mistranslated is an unfounded claim and cannot possibly be accepted, he says. Cannot possibly be accepted. An unfounded claim, so to speak. Answer me with verses. I am answering you with verses. Do not show me the opinion of Ahmet or Mehmet, and of a word that in Arabic is a man-made invention — words that would ascribe attributes to Allah.

Show me verses. Now if I asked this person, if I said: Is Allah Almighty free from deficient attributes? Of course, he would say. Well, can you ascribe a fault to Him? Never, he would say. Well then, in that case, if You put whom You will into Paradise and whom You will into Hell — ‘well, Arabic grammar comes out like this,’ he says. Well now, does what you say add up? What kind of diet is this, what kind of pickled cabbage? Yes. What does he say? The claim that his translation corrected all the errors and answers all the needs of the age is an approach far from seriousness, he says.

An approach far from seriousness. I am telling it — I mean, here I am telling a story.

Now I say it again.

Here too he says: although the matters raised in the petition are not of a nature to be answered, he says. Look at the pride. Not of a nature to answer us, he says. Briefly answering the alleged matters in general, for (?), was considered useful, he says. It was considered useful for us, he says. Here he exposes his own ignorance. We already opened these up part by part last week, didn't we. Yes.

Not last week — in our last lesson we opened up every word, word by word, of these. Here we see who is in ignorance and who interpreted these verses wrongly. So just as with the prophets, just as people, the prophets, did not believe and, against the truth, set out to defend falsehood — for centuries, and especially after the history of the Republic, entirely fabricated — let's not say entirely, but these; there are more beyond 500, with double meanings, and those too we have not mentioned.

If these people, to the verses of the Quran, as they themselves say with their (?), according to siyaq and sibaq, that is, according to the flow of the Quran's verses, had given meaning to the verses of the Quran, they would have given the right meaning. In this case, even though they do not know the meaning of the Quran's verses, the person who comes to their mind, by his arbitrary taste acting — and a person of refined taste, he says. The translator, to the Quranic verse, I mean, giving an answer — in their own understanding, that we lack the scholarly knowledge of the Quran, it supposedly proves. By their own meanings.

That is what I said earlier: even among ourselves, saying ‘it is Islam's’, judging with falsehood, unable to concede anything from what they said, so egoistic and prejudiced, people — in not listening, putting forward their own prejudices, ascribing attributes to Allah because ‘I know Arabic grammar’, saying the lam is like this, the waw like this, the ha like this, the ya like this, and consoling themselves, with a man-made word the verse of Allah Almighty, people — I mean, as long as no harm comes to the Arabic word, even if Allah gets ascribed attributes. And look at the lack of knowledge now: these people who accuse us of fatalism, who confuse individual will with destiny, who are unaware of the agreement between universal will and individual will, who are unaware of verse 172 of Surah Al-A'raf, have risen up, and are setting out to answer us.

From here I call out to them. Gentlemen, look, I am also calling out to those who listen to me.

However many scholars you have, your scholars, however many know Arabic from its grammatical roots, gather together — you will not render the equivalent of Allah's verses. And you will render them crooked and twisted. Because you do not have that ability. That skill is not there. As long as you have not broken that nafs of yours, reached Allah's state of ilm al-yaqin and come into a state of being trained by your Lord's command, even if you put your heads together, even if all your scholars put their heads together, you cannot solve this.

To this Holy Quran that we have written you will be compelled to return.

To this, I say: who dares? Who dares? You will return to it.

As long as you (?) your nafs. Do not be prejudiced. If I, out of egoistic feelings, in your eyes, myself truly as a Quran scholar, by your understanding — but like other people, toward you, myself (?), present myself — then for the sake of Allah set me right with verses.

‘For centuries,’ he says, ‘the scholars writing it this way, the scholars writing it this way and its coming down in our religion to our time like this, that you are truly unaware of the Quran's ruling shows.’ In Arabic there are such sciences that, when translating them into Turkish, they translated them in a deviant way. Contrary to the original, they translated them. That is the first. Second: men, men yaşa — ‘men’ to a human (?) is not possible, when you say that — in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), in the pure, eloquent Arabic that was spoken, nothing was written down. Right? How many years? 200 years. 200 years.

After 200 years it began to be written. And the Arab poets (?) ‘men’ to the man who died, and they too accepted the grammatical root like this. Here you too took the ‘men’, the word men yaşa, which by siyaq and sibaq (?), and pinned it on Allah. You departed from the original of siyaq and sibaq. You departed from the original. And you very nicely (?) what you do not know. My wish for you, my prayer, is this — my prayer: may Allah give you too a good comprehension, an understanding. Not prejudiced, not egoistic, not by wrangling either.

So that verses confirm one another, so that no verse (?) any verse, as befits the glory of Allah Almighty, so that to His justice no harm comes — with individual will, and according to the verse ve men ya'mel miskâle zerratin hayran yerah, and according to the verse ve men ya'mel miskâle zerratin şerran yerah, the atom's weight of good and evil we have done, doing them within our own will, with the actual deeds we have done ourselves, what kind of person we are — with the judgments we have made in a way that proves it — without harm to Allah's justice: removing our will from upon us, using Allah's will in us, you cannot pin it on Allah.

You cannot pin it on Allah.

Think well. And think well, all of you. We are trying to save Allah Almighty from being ascribed attributes. We, these superstitions that entered religion, and the verses buried under ash, in a way that almost erases them, passed over — the verses steered by slander — to the truth we are trying to bring back. According to the verse that Allah calls no one to account for what He has not made known, to you we are trying to make the truth known. We are not slandering anyone.

Think well; the Quran is in your hands. You are compelled to return to this verse, to this Quran. If I am telling you something wrong, wrong — me, refuting with verses, and you will go out to people, you will go out — you are at the head of Islam — you will go out to people: ‘That Abdülmetin Saruhan Efendi, you know, he is an utter liar. This person is a sedition in religion, to lead people away from religion,’ you will say. And you will prove it with verses too. If you cannot, if you insult a Muslim, know that, with Allah, between you and me Allah is witness. On the Day of Resurrection I will take my right from you.

Yes.

We will talk, if Allah wills.

We will come, if Allah wills. But not prejudiced. As I said earlier. Not egoistic.

Using our reason, and not by wrangling either. There is no wrangling in religion. Leküm dînüküm ve liye dîn. Everyone has a destiny. No one can change anyone's destiny. In this case, we too, if Allah wills, will do what is necessary. We have a duty. Nor are we people living in a fantasy world, as you say. There was a remark like that in here. I couldn't find it. Yes.

Look what he says. Saruhan's statement that all translations without exception are faulty and that he himself corrected these errors is a self-proclaimed claim incompatible with scholarly facts, he says.

Talk and talk. The tongue has no bone, after all. If I am proving these to you with verses now, whose word is more valid, and, as you said here, a self-proclaimed claim — does this now apply to you or to me? Yes. If I speak with verses, if I explain the truth, and you set out to spread falsehood over the truth — merely with talk, leading people onto wrong paths, just as the two-legged taghuts lead people away from the path of truth, you too in the same way leading people away from the truth, muddying the religion of Islam, instead of explaining the truth to them, you ascribe attributes to Allah — is that not stepping into the place of the two-legged taghut?

I am asking you now. If you say it like this with your talk and cannot show a verse either, with Arabic, ‘does the letter le come here, does the letter come here’, and ascribe attributes to Allah — whereas, by what you say, the letter men, only men — when I said men yaşa, men alone in Arabic is not exclusive to Allah, it is attributed to the servant too — if you don't know this either, according to (?) (?), according to the flow of the verse, (?) and Allah's, to people, those persons they await, (?) with a demonstrative pronoun — Elestü bi-Rabbiküm — our Lord, who knows the destinies He gave them by the covenant in that address, indicating them and making them known to us — does that match your ‘it is hoped that’?

And look at the knowledge, look, the knowledge. What does he say? ‘From this,’ he says, ‘this translator of refined taste preferred one of these meanings.’ Look at the man of knowledge.

And a person who finds in himself the authority to speak on the Quran. At least listen. Use your reason a little and reflect with your knowledge. And ask, ask. Ask.

Where did it open? It opened here again. Even if you put your heads together, your scholars in a meeting — if there is no person among you trained by our Lord, I repeat, if there is no person among you trained by our Lord, you cannot get beyond giving nonsense meanings.

Now, whose fantasy world it is, here I prove to you with evidence.

And every verse I cite confirms the others.

Now we opened a place; look what comes up. In one place. They are all copies of each other anyway. ‘Surely in this and in what happened to his people there are certain lessons. Indeed, this is how We test Our servants,’ it says. Mashallah. Mashallah. Subhanallah. So by your reasoning, Allah, through the actions people do, evaluates it anyway. If a person now says worship to Allah, he is a very fine person. Then if he says disbelief, he is a bad person. That is how they understand it. That is how they know it. That is how they know it.

If you did not know it like that, in the Holy Quran you wrote, opposite the translation, below it, a mother (?) her child's (?) — you could not say this. Your tongue would be cut off, your tongue. Yes. Whereas: ‘Surely in this and in what happened to his people there are certain lessons.’ ‘Indeed, within their characters, Our servants, to make them witnesses over themselves, We put to the test,’ it says. To make His servants witnesses over themselves. What are you talking about? If you knew Surah Al-A'raf, verse 172, you would not fall into errors like this. Indeed, if you knew it, you would know the truth, more or less.

I say it again: if among you and within you there is no person trained by our Lord who is in the state of ilm al-yaqin, even if the whole world put their heads together, in rendering this Quran, according to siyaq and sibaq, this you cannot open up. You will fall into errors. Yes.