Kur’an’da ‘İmrae’ ve ‘Zevc’ Kelimelerinin Anlam Alanı

Öz: Farklı kelimelerin aynı anlamı ifade etmesi şeklinde tanımlanan eş anlamlılık/terâdüf kavramının, dilde mevcudiyeti, modern dilbilimcilerin yanı sıra Kur’an ile bağlantılı olması bakımından İslâm âlimleri tarafından da tartışılmıştır. Bu âlimlerden eş anlamlığın dilde varlığını kabul edenler olduğu gibi kabul etmeyenler de olmuştur. Bu çalışmada, eş anlamlı olduğu iddia edilen kelimelerin Kur’an’da birbirinin yerine kullanılmasının Kur’an’ın sahip olduğu anlam ve ahenk bütünlüğü açısından doğru olmadığı ileri sürülmüş ve bu tür kelimeler arasında anlam açısından birebir benzerlik değil sadece yakın anlamlılık ilişkisinin var olduğu vurgulanmıştır. Bu düşünceden hareketle Kur’an’da geçen ve tefsirlerde birbirinin yerine kullanılan imrae ve zevc kelimelerinin anlam alanları tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Sonuç itibariyle, imrae kelimesinin anlam alanı şöyle belirlenmiştir: Eşler arasındaki inanç farkından ve iffetsizlikten kaynaklı ihanet, kısırlık, bekârlık/dulluk, kocanın eşine karşı ilgisizliği ve cehennem ehli olma. Zevc kelimesinin anlam alanı ise şu şekilde tespit edilmiştir: Zevciyet/evlilik ve inanç birlikteliği. Bu nedenle, çalışmanın esasını oluşturan her iki kelimenin yakın anlamlı olmasına rağmen birbirinin yerine kullanılamayacağı sonucuna varılmıştır.

The Meaning Domains of The Words ‘Imrae’ and ‘Zawj’ in the Qur’ān

Abstract: The concept of synonymity, which is defined as the expression of the same meaning by different words, is discussed by modern linguists and also by Muslim scholars in relation to the Qur’ān. Among these Muslim scholars there are those who accept the existence of synonymousness in language as well as those who do not accept it.  In this study, it was argued that the use of the words alleged to be synonyms in the Qur’ān is not correct in terms of the meaning and coherence of the Qur’ān, and it is emphasized that there is only one close meaning relationship between these words in terms of meaning. This thought has been used to determine the meaning fields of the words imrae and the zawj used in the Qur’ān and used in place of each other in the commentaries. As a result, the domain of meaning of the word imrae is defined as: betrayal, infertility, bereavement/slavery, indifference of husband’s to his wife, and the inhabitants of hell due to the belief among the spouses and from laxity. The meaning domain of the word of zawj is determined as follows: Being spouse/marriage and faith together. For this reason, although both words.Summary: Synonymousness is defined as “two or more than two words expressing the same meaning”. Even though it is claimed that the words which are regarded as synonymous increase the power of expression in a given language, it appears that they also cause an ambiguity. Due to these two influences of synonymousness on language, its existence has been discussed by modern linguists as well as Muslim scholars. Among these Muslim scholars there are those who accept the existence of synonymousness in language as well as those who do not accept it. In this regard, they are divided into two different branches, namely “synonym finders” and “nuance chasers”. The synonym finders accept that there are synonymous words in Arabic language and, therefore, in the Qur’ān, while the nuance chasers embrace the idea that no word can be the same as another one, there are some nuances among them. The words used in the Qur’ān are not randomly selected. The aesthetic dimension of the Qur’ān is assigned by Almighty Allah as a necessity of its i’jāz. It is, therefore, obvious that the words assumed to be synonymous cannot be used in place of each other in the Qur’ān, and in case of being used in place of each other it would harm the harmony and the aesthetics of the Qur’ān. In the present study, through the context of the words imrae and zawj, we aim to call attention to see that synonymousness cannot exist in the Qur’ān. It is seen that the words imrae and zawj are used in place of each other in the commentaries on the Qur’ān and are translated into Turkish as “lady, spouse, wife, and woman”. As a matter of fact, the words that are treated in this way also in translations of the Qur’ān are used instead of each other both in Arabic and Turkish as “synonyms”. However, if the issue is approached with respect to Qur’ānic language, it must be stated that these words are not used in place of each other. For if the Qur’ān is carefully read, it will be seen that the contexts in which the aforementioned words are used differ from one another. We make firm that the word imrae expressing “woman” in Arabic is not used in the Qur’ān at random, but in various contexts. We can list the contexts in which this word is used in the Qur’ān as follows: The word imrae is used in the Qur’ān to characterize a woman in a context of betrayal caused by divergence of belief between the spouses. In this case, it is possible that the disbeliever is to be the husband as it is possible that it is to be the woman. In fact, the most typical example of a woman's disbelief, in the Qur’ān, is found in the case of the Prophet Noah’s wife and the Prophet Lūt’s wife. The case here is that there are two prophets’ wives who do not believe in their husbands’ prophethood, at least they exhibit an attitude of hypocrisy. On this point, the Surah al-Tahrīm 66/10 characterizes both the wife of Noah and the wife of Lūt with the word imrae. The difference in belief that the wives of the prophets have is not expressed with the terms like kufr, shirk, nifaq, etc., but with the term “betrayal”. The example in which the husband being unbeliever/polytheist and his wife being believer is found in the case of Pharaoh and his wife. The Qur’ān introduces Pharaoh as a disbeliever and his wife Asiya as a Muslim one who responds to Moses’ invitation positively. This woman is mentioned in the Qur’ān with the word imrae without mentioning its name. This expression takes place twice throughout the Qur’ān: one in the Surah al-Qasas 28/9 and the other in the Surah al-Tahrīm 66/11. In the case where the wife cheating on her husband - in consequence of unchastity - even though they are married, the Qur’ān does not use the word zawj for the woman, but the word imrae.  The example of this case is the desire of the wife of the Egyptian Aziz (Egypt’s chief minister) for young Joseph who grows up in her home. It is noteworthy that the word describing her in the Surah Yusuf 12/30 is imrae because of her unfaithfulness to her husband and that the behavior of this woman is pictured as an unfaithful act in the Surah Yūsuf 12/52. Imrae is also used, in the Qur’ān, to describe the women who are childless. One of the examples of this case is presented in relation to the wife of Abraham in the Surah al-Dhāriyāt 51/28-29, and another one in relation to the wife of Zakariyya in the Surah Maryam 19/5. In fact, the wives of these two prophets were described with the word imrae in the relevant verses in consequence of their inability to have children due to their infertility. Another example of this case is the characterization of the woman who is both fatherless and childless (kalāla) with the word imrae in the Surah al-Nisā 4/12. The word imrae is also used for single and widow women. The situation of the single daughters of Shuʻayb (al-Qasas 28/23) and the situation of the mother of Mary who became widowed after the death of her husband (ʻImrān) before her daughter was born (Al ʻImrān 3/35) are the two examples for the case as the word imrae is used to express these women. In the Qur’ān, there are two other situations in which the word imrae is used for a woman. In the first of these situations the word imrae is used to express the woman who was confronted with her husband's carelessness (al-Nisā 4/128), while in the second one it is used for Abu Lahab’s wife about whom foretold that she will be punished in the hell (al-Masad 111/4). Another word that we will deal with in our work is zawj/azwāj, which is used for the bound of marriage between every wife and husband.  The word zawj is used for Adam’s wife, Eve, who was of exactly the same essence as Adam (al-Nisā 4/1). It is also used in the Surah al-Rūm 30/22 where it is mentioned that God has put love and mercy between the spouses. In this verse, the spouses are expressed with the word azwāj (the plural of zawj). In the Qur’ān, the word zawj/azwāj is used both in the context of union of believers in belief and in the context of union of disbelievers in disbelief. In fact, in the Qur’ān, the word azwaj is used for the wives of the Prophet Muhammad and for the spouses of the believers, the dwellers of the Paradise, who share the same belief in a union (Yāsīn 36/55-56). An opposite example takes place in the Surah al-Saffat 37/22 where the word azwāj is used for those who share the same mentality in polytheism and disbelief. As a result, the word zawj contains almost all the conditions that are necessary to be a spouse, whereas the word imrae is used in cases where the conditions that are necessary to be a zawj are not fully fulfilled. It can be stated that, with reference to the words imrae and zawj in particular, there is no any ground in the Qur’ān for synonymousness in general. For this reason, we believe that it is more appropriate to use the phrase "close in meaning" instead of “synonymous” for the words used by the Qur’ān.

___

  • Abdülbâkî, Muhammed Fuâd. el-Mu’cemü’l-müfehres. İstanbul: el-Mektebetü’l-İslâmiyye, 1984.
  • Abdurrahman, Âişe. el-İcâzü’l-beyânî li’l-Kur’ân. byy.: Dâru’l-Meârif, ts.
  • Aksan, Doğan. Her Yönüyle Dil: Ana Çizgileriyle Dilbilim.3 cilt. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları, 1998.
  • Âlûsî, Ebü’l-Fadl Şihâbüddîn es-Seyyid Mahmûd. Rûhu’l-meânî. 15 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru’lkütübi’l-ilmiyye, 1994.
  • Ateş, Abdurrahman. Kur’an’da Huzur ve Sükûn: Eş-Gece-Ev. İstanbul: Çıra Yayınları, 2012.
  • Ateş, Süleymân. Kur’ân-ı Kerîm ve Yüce Meâli. İstanbul: Yeni Ufuklar Yayınları, ts.
  • Beğavî, Ebû Muhammed el-Hüseyin b. Mes’ûd. Meâlimü’t-tenzîl. 8 cilt. Riyad: Dâru Tayyibe, 1989.
  • Beyzâvî, Ebû Saîd Abdullah b. Ömer. Envâru’t-tenzîl ve esrâru’t-te’vîl. 2 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru’lkütübi’l-ilmiyye, 1988.
  • Boynukalın, Mehmet. “Zevce”. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. 44: 306. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları, 2013.
  • Bursevî, İsmâil Hakkı. Rûhu’l-beyân. 10 cilt. İstanbul: Eser Yayınları, 1389.
  • Cessâs, Ebû BekrAhmed b. Ali. Ahkâmü’l-Kur’ân. 3 cilt. Beyrut: Dârü’l-Fikr, 1993.
  • Cevherî, Ebû Nasr İsmâil b. Hammad. es-Sıhâh. Kahire: Dâru’l-hadîs, 2009.
  • Derveze, Muhammed İzzet. et-Tefsîru’l-hadîs. 10 cilt. Kâhire: Dâru ihyâi’l-kütübi’l-Arabiyye, 1383.
  • Divlekci, Celaleddin. “Kur’an’da Eş anlamlılık (Terâdüf) Olgusu (I)”. Süleymân Demirel Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 7 (2000): 149-169.
  • Ebû Hayyân el-Endelüsî, Muhammed b. Yûsuf. el-Bahru’l-muhît. 8 cilt. Beyrut: Dârü’lKütübi’l-İlmiyye, 1413/1993.
  • Elmalılı, Muhammed Hamdi Yazır. Hak Dini Kur’an Dili. 9 cilt. İstanbul: Eser Yayınları, 1979.
  • Erten, Mevlüt. “Kur’an’da “Zevc” Kelimesi ve Türkçeye Çeviri Sorunu”. EKEV Akademi Dergisi 17 (2003): 49-58.
  • Fahreddîn er-Râzî, EbûAbdillah Muhammed b. Ömer. Mefâtîhu’l-gayb. 33 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kütübi’l-ilmiyye, 1971.
  • Ferrâ, Ebû Zekeriyyâ Yahyâ b. Ziyâd. Meâni’l-Kur’ân. 3 cilt. Beyrut: Âlemü’l-kütüb, 1403/1983.
  • Hamidullah, Muhammed. Aziz Kur’an. trc. Abdülaziz Hatip ve Mahmut Kanık. İstanbul: Beyan Yayınları, 2000.
  • Harman, Ömer Faruk. “Âsiye”. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. 3: 487. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları, 1991.
  • Harman, Ömer Faruk. “Firavun”.Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. 13: 119. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları, 1996.
  • Harman, Ömer Faruk. “İmrân”.Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi.22: 232. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları, 2000.
  • Hâzin, Ebü’l-Hasen Alaüddîn Ali b. Muhammed. Lübâbü’t-te’vîlfî meâni’t-tenzîl. 4 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kütübi’l-ilmiyye, 1415.
  • Hökelekli, Hayati. “Çocuk”. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. 8: 355. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları,1993.
  • İbn Âşûr, Muhammed Tâhir. Tefsîru’t-tahrîrve’t-tenvîr.30 cilt. Tunus: ed-Dâru’t-Tûnisiyye, 1984.
  • İbn Atiyye, Ebû Muhammed Abdülhak b. Gâlib. el-Muharrerü’l-vecîz. 6 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru’lkütübi’l-ilmiyye, 1422/2001.
  • İbn Kesîr, Ebü’l-Fidâ İmâdüddîn İsmâil. Tefsîru’l-Kur’âni’l-azîm. 8 cilt. İstanbul: Kahraman Yayınları, 1985.
  • İbnü’l-Cevzî, Ebü’l-Ferec Cemâlüddin Abdurrahman. Zâdü’l-mesîr fî ilmi’t-tefsîr. 9 cilt. Beyrut: el-Mektebetü’l-İslâmî, 1404/1984.
  • İbnü’l-Enbârî, EbûBekr Muhammed b. Kâsım. el-Müzekker ve’l-müennes. 2 cilt. Mısır: Lecnetü ihyâi’t-türâs,1401/1981.
  • Kara, Ömer. “Arap Dilbilimindeki “Terâdüf” ve “Furûk” Argümanlarının Mukayeseli Tahlili”. Dinbilimleri Akademik Araştırma Dergisi 4 (2004): 117-146.
  • Kara, Ömer. Kur’an’ın Anlaşılmasında Yakınanlamlılık ve Nüans -Râğıb el-Isfahânî Örneği-.Van: Bilge Adamlar Yayınları, 2009.
  • Kınar, Kadir. Anlambilimi ve Arap Anlambilimi. İstanbul: Ravza Yayınları, 2008.
  • Kurtubî, EbûAbdillah Muhammed b. Ahmed. el-Câmi’ li-ahkâmi’l-Kur’ân. 20 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kütübi’l-ilmiyye, 1996.
  • Mâtürîdî, Ebû Mansûr Muhammed b. Muhammed. Te’vîlâtü ehli’s-sünne.10 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kütübi’l-ilmiyye, 1426/2005.
  • Mevdûdî, Ebû’l-A’lâ. Tefhîmü’l-Kur’ân. çev. Heyet.7 cilt. İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları, 1991.
  • Mukātil b. Süleymân, Ebü’l-Hasen. Tefsîru Mukātil b. Süleymân. 3 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kütübi’lilmiyye, 2003.
  • Öztürk, Mustafa. Kur’an Kıssalarının Mahiyeti. İstanbul: Kuramer Yayınları, 2016.
  • Öztürk, Mustafa. Kur’ân-ı Kerîm Meali. Ankara: Ankara Okulu Yayınları, 2014.
  • Râgıb el-İsfahânî, Ebü’l-Kâsım Hüseyin b. Muhammed. el-Müfredât fi garîbi’l-Kur’ân. İstanbul: Kahraman Yayınları, 1984.
  • Reşid Rızâ, Muhammed. Tefsîrü’l-menâr. 12 cilt. Kâhire: Dârü’l-Menâr, 1366/1947.
  • Sa’lebî, Ebû İshâk Ahmed b. Muhammed. el-Keşf ve’l-beyân. 10 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru ihyâi’ttürâsi’l-Arabî, 1422/2002.
  • Seâlebî, Abdurrahman b. Muhammed b. Mahlûf. el-Cevâhiru’l-hisân fî tefsîri’l-Kur’ân. 4 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru ihyâi’t-türâs, 1418/1997.
  • Süyûtî, Ebü’l-Fadl Celâlüddîn Abdurrahman. ed-Dürrü’l-mensûr. 8 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru’l-fikr, ts.
  • Şener, Abdülkadir, M. Cemal Sofuoğlu ve Mustafa Yıldırım. Yüce Kur’an. İzmir: TDV Yayınları, 2011.
  • Şevkânî, Ebû Abdillah Muhammed b. Ali. Fethü’l-kadîr. 5 cilt. Dımaşk-Beyrut: Dâru İbn Kesîr, 1414.
  • Şimşek, M. Sait. Hayat Kaynağı Kur’an Tefsiri. 5 cilt. İstanbul: Beyan Yayınları, 2012.
  • Taberî, Ebû Ca’fer Muhammed b. Cerîr. Câmiu’l-beyân fî te’vîli’l-Kur’ân. 12 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru’lkütübi’l-ilmiyye, 1992.
  • Vâhidî, Ebü’l-Hasen Ali b. Ahmed. el-Vasît fi tefsîri’l-Kur’âni’l-mecîd. 4 cilt. Beyrut: Dârü’lkütübi’l-ilmiyye, 1415/1994.
  • Vâhidî, Ebü’l-Hasen Ali b. Ahmed. Esbâbü’n-nüzûl. Beyrut: Dâru’l-kütübi’l-ilmiyye, 1982.
  • Vardar, Berke, N. Güz, M. R. Güzelşen, E. Öztokat ve O. Senemoğlu. Başlıca Dilbilim Terimleri. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1978.
  • Zemahşerî, Ebü’l- Kāsım Mahmûd b. Ömer. el-Keşşâf an hakāiki’t-tenzîl. 4 cilt. Beyrut: Dâru’lkitâbi’l-Arabî, ts.