Abstract:

It is possible to say that with the modern period, unlike the classical exegesis, the reasons for such a change of method are that contemporary commentators do not rely on contemporary explicators chose to interpret the verses about the peoples of antiquity mentioned in the Qur’an within the framework of the data unearthed by archaeology. Some of the Israeli narrations, which are the sources of knowledge of the classical period, and the tendency to interpret the stories with the concrete information provided by the positive science that is dominant in their age. At this point, the science of archaeology started to be functional by providing concrete information to enlighten the parables of the Qur’an, and this situation was taken natural. This study identifies areas in which the questions like ‘which method uses archaeological data in the contemporary exegesis of the Qur'an’, ‘whether the flood described in the parable of Noah occurred regionally or globally’, ‘and where is the place where the ship ran aground’ are clarified through archaeological data. Contemporary period explicators mention that there are two main views regarding the impact area of the flood - regional/local or global/universal. The greater part of these commentators is of the opinion that the flood has a regional character, based on archaeological data. The wastes/remains of marine creatures on the top of the mountains will not be sufficient to show that the flood has occurred on a global scale; but it is more likely that these waste or remnants remained from the formation period of the mountains. In addition, they add that the fact that the flood has a regional character is more compatible with the issues apparent/indicated in the Qur’an. At the same time, the commentators have different views on the place where the ship ran aground after the flood; One of the most prominent of these is the "Ararat (Mount Ararat)" mentioned by the Torah, and the other is the "Judi" mountain indicated by the Qur’an. The commentators claim that the seating place of the ship is the Mount Judi indicated by the Qur'an; They state that this view is supported by archaeological studies, by making quotations from the Babylonian-Sumerian tablets and from Akkadian texts. While supporting this view, the commentators took into account the fact that both early Muslims and some researchers today found the ship covered with snow on the Judi Mountain and witnessed this image. One of the points that this study aims to illuminate is the method that contemporary interpreters follow in using archaeological data in the interpretation of the Qur’an. It is not possible to reach correct results in the interpretation of the Qur’an without a scientific and healthy method. It is possible to summarize the conclusion we reached in our study as follows: The interpreters evaluated the archaeological data / sources / findings as a reliable source that is accepted in the interpretation of the verses as long as they do not conflict with the Qur'anic text. They mention two main elements that they pay attention to in this regard, or that lead them to be cautious in this method: First, the information provided by archaeology is not precise because scientific data are subjective - including archaeological data. Another point they attach importance to is that the data come into existence after being influenced by the beliefs and thoughts of the archaeologists, during the process of transforming archaeological data into information. It is known that the science of archaeology is created by non-Islamic minds, especially Christians and Jews. For these two reasons, the commentators followed a cautious method while interpreting the parables of the Qur’an with archaeological data; they stated that when the possibility of conflict between archaeological information and Qur'anic verse arises, the verse of the Qur’an is essential and in such a case, archaeological data will not affect the verse of the Qur’an.

Keywords: