Abstract

This study examines the variant Qurʾānic readings (qirāʾāt) cited by Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (1883–1971), one of the prominent scholars of fiqh and tafsīr of the late Ottoman and early Republican periods, in his Kur’ân-ı Kerim’in Türkçe Meâli Âlisi ve Tefsiri. It focuses on Bilmen’s treatment of the qirāʾāt, the extent to which he includes variant readings in the translation and commentary of verses, and the interpretive effects of these readings. As a significant Turkish tafsīr, the work raises questions about Bilmen’s approach to the science of qirāʾāt, the degree to which different reading forms are reflected in meaning and exegesis, and the types of readings mentioned in terms of authenticity. Although the semantic and exegetical impact of variant readings occupies a broad place in classical tafsīr sources, some Turkish translations and commentaries written in the last century have not yet been examined sufficiently from this perspective. This neglected aspect of Bilmen’s tafsīr played a decisive role in the formation of the present article. It also shows that his approach should be evaluated not only through individual examples but also in relation to the work’s target audience, purpose, style, historical circumstances, and exegetical language. The study adopts a text-based method of analysis and interpretation, taking into account Bilmen’s scholarly personality, exegetical understanding, and the general characteristics of his tafsīr. Within this framework, the variant readings in the relevant verses are examined comparatively with reference to other tafsīr works, and the reflections of the readings mentioned by Bilmen are identified. The research shows that Bilmen does not include uṣūl-type differences that do not affect meaning, such as madd, idghām, imāla, and tashīl. However, he refers, in a limited number of verses, to farshī variant readings that alter the meaning through changes in letters or vowelization. The analysis reveals that Bilmen explicitly mentions qirāʾāt differences in eight verses. Seven of these belong to sound and mutawātir readings transmitted within the ten canonical traditions, while one is evaluated as a shādhdh reading. The study concludes that these readings mostly arise within morphology, while some are related to syntax. The main morphological differences include the reading of verbs in different forms, the recitation of a verbal noun as an active or passive participle, and changes in word structure through alterations in letters and vowels. The syntactic differences are associated with changes in the iʿrāb of verbs and the different usage of particles. Bilmen avoids explicit preference and polemical discussion when dealing with these readings, and instead explains their effects on meaning in a simple and accessible manner. One significant finding is that Bilmen bases the translation section only on the Ḥafṣ transmission and does not reflect other readings in the Turkish rendering of the verses. Yet all of the variant readings he cites are included under the explanatory headings of the commentary. These readings are sometimes evaluated separately and sometimes treated together as elements that reinforce the general meaning of the verse. In some cases, as in Q 24:35, a shādhdh reading is used to support the meaning produced by the sound reading. It is particularly noteworthy that, although Bilmen is widely known as a jurist, he does not mention variant readings that affect legal rulings in verses of aḥkām. Furthermore, the points at which he cites variant readings generally relate to themes such as belief, prophetic history, the prophethood-related qualities of the Prophet Muḥammad, and the sincerity and devotion of believers. This approach appears closely connected with the fact that Bilmen composed his work as a tafsīr addressed to the general public and did not wish to occupy readers with technical issues requiring specialization.