I think about my own mom, and her mother, my grandmother. I remember the day I told my grandmother that I was applying for a Master’s degree. She looked at me as if I had lost my mind. I love her dearly but we sometimes just agree to disagree. The same is true with my mother, who always criticized my taste in jeans and junk food. Now that I come to think about it, we – my daughters, myself, my mom, and my grandmother – all have our unique preferences.

When it comes to spiritual matters, however, regardless of differences in our worldly pursuits, all of us, three generations, all read the Qur’an, which was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. We all receive our own share of wisdom and spiritual nutrition. This aspect of the Qur’an is striking. It’s like a table where everybody can enjoy feeding their heart and souls.

For more than 1,400 years, for Muslims all around the world, the Qur’an has been a book for supplication and remembering God, a shelter from misfortune, a source of information and wisdom, and a reference for law-making. Since the Qur’an is a manifestation of God’s infinite knowledge, it is a miraculous book that never gets outdated, but gets ever younger by having something to offer everyone willing to listen and be its student.

Imagine a person in the library reading about the Pacific Ocean. He has finished reading all the books about the ocean.. He has so much knowledge about the ocean, and yet, he has never seen one. Now imagine these other people: the first one does not have much information about the sea, but he is standing on the beach. He knows how the sand feels, he can hear the sound of the waves, he sees the blue sky over the ocean, he enjoys the sunset on the horizon. The second one comes a little closer. His feet get wet; he can feel how cold the water is. Another one is swimming in the ocean. He can taste it, the water is salty, and he can feel the thrust of the powerful waves. Some jump into it and swim forward and fast without really knowing how deep it could get, and maybe drown.

There are also the explorers. They travel long distances, see different countries, visit distant shores, swim and dive expertly, and even find treasures hidden underneath.

The Qur’an is like a big ocean, living, breathing, growing, and supporting life. It is full of treasures and beauty, over and under. Just like each person in the above analogy enjoys and benefits from the ocean differently, the Qur’an has been enjoyed and benefitted in different methods and forms, at different levels, for hundreds of years. Some learn a lot from it, but unfortunately cannot feel its true nature and depth, like the first person in the metaphor who reads about the ocean in the library. Others illuminate both their minds and their hearts as much as they can. Individuals explore different shores of the Qur’an, doing, learning, and feeling – seeing more than others. On the other hand, there are people who also read the same Qur’an but get it wrong, or maybe partially read out of context and lose their way, much like the person who gets drowned in deep waters.

One explorer of the Qur’an, Said Nursi, in his book The Words, gives an analogy about divers plunging to depths searching for the jewels of a treasure. Their eyes are closed; they understand what is they are looking for through the use of their hands. A longish diamond comes into the hand of one of them. The diver assumes that the whole treasure consists of a long diamond like a pillar. Into the hand of another passes a round ruby, while another finds a square piece of amber, and so on. If you asked each diver to describe the treasure, they would tell you what they have in their hands, which is true, only it is their own grasp, but there is more to it than that. People studying the Qur’an all have different lenses, which are shaped and colored according to their abilities, backgrounds, past knowledge, and prejudices. If you ask two people about the treasures of the Qur’an, they might give you different interpretations of the same verse. All the interpretations might be true, and there could even be more interpretations, because the Qur’an has all the wisdom and knowledge of the past and all that we will have in the future. This is also confirmed by the Qur’an itself: “With Him are the keys to the Unseen; none knows them but He. And He knows whatever is on land and in the sea; and not a leaf falls but He knows it; and neither is there a grain in the dark layers of earth, nor anything green or dry, but is (recorded) in a Manifest Book” (6:59).

By virtue of this comprehensiveness, the Manifest Book’s verses are like monumental trees. The main stem of the tree has large branches, and then there are smaller branches, leaves, flowers, fruits, and seeds. The knowledge in the Qur’an is at all of those levels. The 15th Century Ottoman Sultan Yildirim Bayezid‘s time serves as an exemplar for this phenomenon:

After the construction of Ulu Cami (The Great Mosque) was completed in Bursa, Turkey, the Sultan gave the duty of the Friday sermon to Somuncu Baba (the Baker father), by the advice of Amir Sultan, his son-in-law, a saint of his time. Everybody was surprised by this decision of giving the duty of first Friday sermon in the Great mosque to the person who supplied bread to the workers during the building of the mosque. When the day came, Somuncu Baba gave a commentary of the first Chapter, “The Opening,” (Surah Al-Fatiha) from seven different levels, using over 20 different sciences. People were astonished by his knowledge and wisdom. At the end of the sermon, Molla Fenari, another great scholar of the time, stood up in the congregation and said, “Somuncu Baba tackled our problems in the commentaries of Fatiha. The first explanation of Fatiha was known and understood by all the people in the mosque. The second commentary was understood by some, the third was understood by only the academics. The fourth and thereafter, we have never heard before. He explained, but none of us could comprehend them fully.”

Different understandings and interpretations of the Qur’an do not only arise from differences in people’s viewpoints and intellects, but also depend on the conditions of time and place. For instance, those verses that are about science and technology will be understood better with the progress made in that area. The mature and perfect understanding of the verses comes from people helping each other; it is like lifting a heavy stone together. The more hands that go under the stone, the easier it gets to move it.

Every so often many scientists, from different disciplines, come together to explain a single paradox. The acquired knowledge of a certain era shapes and strongly influences whether an individual will master the verses’ deeper meanings. A person reading this verse, “He, Who has made for you fire from the green tree, and see, you kindle fire with it…” (36:80) during the Prophet’s time could have learnt he could kindle fire from the Markh and Afar trees, which grow in the Arabian Desert. He would certainly be thankful to God for that! If he were a man in denial of the hereafter, or a man with rotten bones, he could have reflected on the fact that the One Who extracts something as luminous as fire from the dense, dark matter of a tree could easily give life and consciousness to bones which are like wood. If this very same man were not a nomad at the time of the Prophet, but a professor in the 19th century, the Markh tree might not have occurred to him. On the other hand he might have reflected more on petroleum, which is formed from rotten plants, and that Saudi Arabia, which was once lush and green, is now a country rich in petroleum. And if he were a middle school student right now, he could contemplate this verse during Science class, when learning about photosynthesis – how oxygen is produced during this process, and how you cannot burn anything in the absence of this gas that comes from trees.

All this said, the understanding of some verses about spiritual matters, like the pillars of Islam, the daily prayers, or other types of worship, do not usually change from person to person, time to time, or place to place. Unlike the improvement of existing technology, whatever has been revealed by the Qur’an has been understood and practiced first by the Prophet, and in the best possible way.

The Quran is a generous source of knowledge. Anybody knocking on its door – from innocent children, to important academics, from the contemporaries of the Prophet to the ones yet to come – will have their own share of the wisdom it carries.

Especially after the 1950s, divergent thinking has been studied a lot by psychologists. Innovations, discoveries and novelties have been associated with divergent thinking which intrigued the scholars in the fields of management, military and advertisement, as well as psychology and education. However, we lack studies that link the concept of divergent thinking to religious texts. One basic contribution of employing divergent thinking to religious texts would be to broaden the understanding of the texts and to seek alternative perspectives. Such endeavor seems consistent with the consideration that religion (hence, religious texts) is an everlasting source of wisdom and inspiration, and if so, why is it confined to the early interpretations? Why not become seekers of original interpreters of religious texts and discover the unveiled aspects of it? This article will discuss the perspective from psychology and religious texts to find an answer for these questions in the case of Islam.

Among the several views on divergent thinking, a brief psychological framework that can be applied to religious texts would be helpful. This framework was conceptualized by Donald Campbell (1960). According to this, in order for original ideas to appear, the initial task would be thinking in various ways. This phase is called “blind variation.” Think of the question “List possible uses of a brick.” Possible answers to such prompts would be “build a wall,” “break into pieces,” “step on it to reach something” or “use as a pillow.” Among those responses, the first one (“build a wall”) would be a conventional response while the second, third and fourth responses are non-conventional or original ideas. However, the fourth one “use as a pillow” does not seem to be an appropriate or useful response even though it is original. Therefore, appropriateness and originality may not go hand in hand and such original but non-useful and inappropriate ideas should be filtered out. This phase is called “selective retention” which makes the process of divergent thinking more valid and a functional way of idea generation. When we apply this two-stage method of idea generation to the field of theology, verse(s) of the spiritual texts could be regarded as prompts to ponder systematically.

Two basic approaches to religions should be recalled here. One school of thought, known as orthodoxy, refers to adherence to traditional and established views on the texts. Because of the persistence on the traditional views, orthodoxy was regarded in relation to dogmatism and accused of lacking originality (Shedd, 1893). Heterodoxy implies a departure from the established and traditional views of orthodoxy. Apparently, this article does not favor a strict orthodoxy as it does not add new perspectives to our understanding of the religions. On the other hand, the extent of departure which is not at odds with the general framework of a given religion is of interest. Given the two aspects of divergent thinking (blind variation and selective retention) discussed above, generation of original ideas and novel inspirations from the religious texts can be theoretically achieved without deviating from the given frameworks of the religions.

Divergent thinking for religious texts

If one thinks of religious texts of the monotheistic religions, Biblical Judaism goes back to 4th century BCE; Christianity has a history of more than two millennium. Islam, being the recent religion, has a history of 15 centuries. The texts are obviously old and for an academic field of study, there is an enormous amount of knowledge accumulated throughout the centuries by many scholars. On the other hand, those deeply rooted traditions have created their own ways of understanding which contributed to the convergence and contraction of the interpretations. Even though converging perspectives might yield more accurate interpretations, it is still possible that many subtle or alternative aspects of religious texts have probably been ignored or not yet discovered.

As time goes by, the discrepancy between the interpretation of human beings and the original texts have increased with excessive amounts of the interpretations masking the divine message of the original texts. Interpretations converged and shrank even more since new generations were simply taught what the early generations have understood instead of being encouraged to generate new meanings. The natural transmission of religious knowledge survived for centuries. Yet, it is possible to put forward that convergent thinking has been overwhelmingly weighted in the field of theology as in other fields for the purpose of finding the single best interpretation of religious texts. We owe current level of knowledge to those scholars with a divergent mind who intervened in the process of religious thinking and teaching, and enlarged the horizons of religious thought.

As a matter of fact, older interpretations of religious texts may not always be compatible with the problems and needs of contemporary life. Since the life conditions and the intellectual climate (or zeitgeist) have dramatically changed and today’s intellectuals are educated in a different mindset which separate religious thought and scientific/philosophical issues into two distinct categories, arguments of theologians have become less convincing than they used to be. Critically, this insufficiency has been attributed to the religion itself such as “opiate of the masses” rather than the religious scholars who are unable to reproduce the religious thinking in contemporary ages without removing it from its fundamentals or simply attempting to reform it. For a theologian who believes in the idea that the role and mission of religion never ends and the religion is able to guide human beings eternally, being satisfied with the traditional views and taken-for-granted interpretations should not suffice. Indeed, the attempt to inquire new ways of interpretations of the scriptures does not necessarily negate the previous interpretations because they had validity under certain conditions in the past, and can explain today to a considerable degree. In other words, employment of divergent thinking in understanding the texts should aim to enrich and widen perspectives of the individuals rather than replacing the current views and reforming the religions.

The contribution of divergent thinking to religions can be seen in the works of scholars who came up with divergent interpretations to the texts. Richness in their interpretations without imposing necessarily one unique truth provides the readers with room for elaborating on the texts and interpretations. This attitude helps people to diverge their thinking and even go beyond what they literally see in the texts.

Some examples

There are many examples of divergent interpretation in the works of Said Nursi who is a prominent twentieth century Muslim scholar. One of the foremost features of Nursi is his approach to questions, verses of Qur’an and hadiths (collection of writings that document the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him) in multiple ways. For example, Nursi has shown several ways to interpret one hadith about cosmology:

People asked the Prophet what the earth rests upon. He replied that the earth rests upon a fish and another time upon an ox. This hadith has been discredited given the cosmology knowledge of human beings when it is taken literally. However, alternative explanations of the hadith show how some allegoric statements in the religious texts can be understood. His first interpretation was about the angels created by God who are responsible for every creation in the universe called as “commissioned angels.”

Two angels were created for the earth. Their names were “thawr” (meaning ox) and ‘hut’ (meaning fish). With that in mind, this verse means that the earth would not survive if these angels did not take care of it.

Another interpretation was related to the way people make their living. Especially in the past, people were making their living through farming and hunting. Ox represents the farming and fish represents hunting. The third interpretation is based on the different answers given at different times. According to this interpretation, the earth was on particular cosmological position or horoscope. Nursi also argued that this kind of response is legitimate because people at that time would not understand the complexity of the cosmology and the Prophet told them the truth in a way they would understand.

Another such example that Nursi interprets by going beyond its literal meaning is the verse about Moses (peace be upon him):

Again (remember) when Moses (on an occasion when his people were without water in the desert) beseeched water for his people, so We told him: “Strike the rock with your staff!” (As soon as he struck) there gushed forth from it twelve springs. Each tribe knew their drinking place. Eat and drink of that which God has provided, and do not go about acting wickedly on earth, causing disorder and corruption. (Qur’an 2:60)

According to Nursi, this verse prophesized the discovery of sounding underground to get water. This explanation is legitimate given the context that the solution is suggested “miraculously” after the people asked help from Moses for their need for water.

Nursi, as a divergent thinker, viewed the miracles in the Qur’an in a different way than others. In classical view, the extraordinary events that take place in Qur’an were indicative of the strength that God has granted some special people in history. Nursi did not restrict those verses within this view. According to him, those verses conveyed a more critical message for us as well as their message in their own contexts. The extraordinary events that happened in the past also indicate the ultimate level human beings can arrive at by working hard on sciences. This message of the miracles is the possibility that other people who work hard on understanding the rules of the nature designed by God could also achieve what have been wondrously achieved before. Therefore, those miracles that the Qur’an mentioned are not some stories that should solely bewilder, but call human beings to go beyond their limited knowledge and discover the further facts. If every technology that we take for granted was some sort of a miracle in the past, why not chase the new “miracles” by thinking outside of the box? As a result, the miracles in the Qur’an are more than the stories of unexplainable events. Such subtle messages however, are read only by divergent minds that transcend the cursory meanings.

There are many examples which scientific advances uncovered alternative interpretations of texts. The Fountain readers are very lucky to brainstorm novel interpretations. One example of divergent explanations about the verses of Holy Qur’an is the description of creation of iron. In one issue several years back Nuh Gedik (2006) brought an interesting comment on the 25th verse of Sura Hadid: “…And We sent down Iron, in which is great might, as well as many benefits for mankind….” Scholars used to interpret “sending down” the iron as one of the God-sent blessings coming from above, His supreme treasure consisting of everything. “Sending down” is taken as metaphorical, reflecting the relationship (status) between human beings and God, rather than its literal meaning. Even though this interpretation might be correct, Gedik argued that being “physically sent down from the sky miraculously points out to a very important scientific fact that was discovered only very recently” (Gedik, 2006).

According to Gedik, supernova explosions that create very high energy and heat can allow a heavy element like iron to form. According to this scenario, formation of iron can be attributed to supernova explosions that occur in Space and “sent down” on earth rather than the scenario that presumes iron resides under the soil as a consequence of some chemical reactions. While these two scenarios do not necessarily conflict, the former and more recent one gives birth to another interpretation.

The same verse inspired other divergent minds too. Salih S. Duran (2009) explained another mechanism that results in the “sending down” of iron. According to this argument, desert sands in varied magnitude travels on the air and are hanged on the atmosphere where the miraculous chemical reactions that reduce Fe+3 to Fe+2 are fulfilled with the help of water vapor and sun. Eventually, resultant iron materials are descended to earth with the rains. Those two novel explanations are neither the best nor the ultimate perspectives, but are worth considering while reading the Qur’an.

Limitations

More examples can be found, but a critical question still remains to be answered: Can we come up with any interpretation for the verses? Are there limitations to interpret the verses? The answer for these questions lies in the perspective that is provided in the beginning of this article where I discussed the processes of blind variation and selective retention. Religions (specifically Islam in the scope of this article) have basic belief systems and the understanding of the verses and hadiths have to be understood in accordance with this basic structure. For this reason, some original interpretations may not be the valid interpretations. In fact, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, warned “Whoever explains the Qur’an according to his [wrong] personal opinion shall take his place in Hell.” Some experts who focused on the outward meanings of the Qur’an have argued that this hadith prohibits personal interpretations at all, and understanding and interpreting Qur’an should merely rely on early interpretations like those of Ibn Abbas and other exegetes. Quasam (1982) outlined Al-Gazali’s theory regarding the recitation and interpretation of the Qur’an where he objected to the interpretation of this hadith as evidence negating the attempts to make new interpretations. He argued that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, also said that “Surely the Qur’an has an outward aspect, inward aspect, a limit and a prelude.” If there is an inward aspect, how can we achieve to learn it? Assuming that early interpretations have covered all possible meanings contradicts with the presence of inward aspect. If the outward meaning is clear and enough, and there is no need to seek anything new in it, why did Ali, the fourth caliph, say “If I so will I can certainly load seventy camels with the exegesis of the Opening Sura (chapter) of the Book” while this chapter is very short? Then the question is, how can we reconcile those hadiths which seem to conflict with each other?

Al-Gazali argued that this hadith actually prohibits the interpretations which aim to adduce arguments that favor interpreters’ own purposes or passions whether it is a valid purpose or not. With such incentive, the interpretation is simply corrupt rather than a personal effort to understand the Qur’an. A second reason is to prohibit those who try to interpret the Qur’an without any fundamental knowledge of the Qur’an and Arabic language which are necessary for the outward aspects. Therefore, this hadith should be seen as a warning for the appropriateness of the interpretations. Now, the nature of divergent thinking as suggested by Campbell (1960) should be recalled. Even though developing several meanings of the religious texts corresponding to blind variation is critical, it should be tested within the overall framework of the religions which is the criterion for the stage of selective retention.

To conclude, divergent thinking is one of the promising abilities of human intellect that many fields like education, psychology, management and military have utilized. However, the need for divergent thinkers is increased in the era which people cannot appreciate the intellectual depth in religious texts. Different and legitimate interpretations of religious texts will reform people’s minds regarding the potential in the old texts for our civilization and intellectual life. Contributions of Islamic scholars like Said Nursi should encourage other divergent minds for new inspirations and state-of-art perspectives.

Zekeriya Ozsoy is doctoral student studying educational psychology. For correspondence with the author: ozsoyzekeriya@gmail.com.

References

• Quasem, A. M. 1982. The recitation and interpretation of the Qurān. Al-Ghazālī’s theory. London: Kegan Paul International
• Duran, S. S. 2009. Iron: A boon that comes with desert sands. [Turkish-Col kumuyla gelen nimet: Demir]. Sizinti, 369, 454-457.
• Guilford, J. P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist. 5, 444-454.
• Gedik, N. 2006. Supernova Explosions and a Miracle of the Qur’an. Fountain, 54,
• Shedd, W.G.T. 1893. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. New York: Scribner’s Sons.
• At-Tirmidhi, Sunan, Tafsir, 1.

El Fadl’s The Place of Tolerance in Islam consists of three parts: the author’s essay on tolerance in Islam, rebuttals to the essay, and El Fadl’s reply. While emphasizing that Islam is a tolerant religion, El Fadl also acknowledges the existence of intolerant Muslims. For him, certain interpretations of Islam, particularly those of terrorists, imply a deviation from the true message of Islam. He stresses that the existence of problematic interpretations is not exclusively a characteristic of Islam. All religious texts provide rich “possibilities for meaning…[T]he text will morally enrich the reader, but only if the reader will morally enrich the text” (p. 15).

According to El Fadl, a major reason for the emergence and popularity of misleading interpretations of religions is the claim to be searching for the “pure” version of religions. Yet, by emptying the Qur’an both of its historical and moral context, the puritan trend ends up transforming the text into a long list of morally noncommittal legal commands” (p. 15). For El Fadl, the self-proclaimed Puritans, such as Osama bin Laden, who claim to “purify” Islam from traditional deviations, misunderstand and misrepresent Islam. For example, they misuse the term jihad. In Islam, war is never holy; it is justifiable or not. Contrary to what the Puritans claim, “the highest form of jihad is struggle waged to cleanse oneself from the vices of heart” (p. 19). Nevertheless, since there is a vacuum of religious authority in Islam, the marginal puritans, may find followers.

The puritan Muslims, El Fadl notes, are intolerant of other religions. That view is against the message of the Qur’an, which says,

“Those who believe, those who follow Jewish scriptures, the Christians, the Sabians, and any who believe in God and the Final Day, and do good, all shall have their reward with their Lord and they will not come to fear or grief” (5: 69, 2: 62).

El Fadl argues that the true message of Islam is open to diversity and tolerance. There is no compulsion in matters of faith in Islam. He refers again to the Quran:

“To each of you God has prescribed a Law and a Way. If God would have willed, He would have made you a single people. But God’s purpose is to test you in what he has given each of you, so strive in the pursuit of virtue, and know that you will all return to God, and He will resolve all the matters in which you disagree” (5: 49).

The rebuttals to El Fadl’s essay are written by several well-known scholars. Two of their critiques are worth mentioning. First, some critics argue that terror can only be explained by socio-economic reasons and El Fadl’s theological discussion is therefore pointless. Second, some other critics also find the theological debate irrelevant, since the real cause of terrorism in the Middle East is historically Western colonialism and currently Western domination in this region. In his “Reply,” El Fadl emphasizes that, although socio-economic conditions are also important, theology is crucial, since Islam “remains central to the dynamics of public legitimacy and cultural meaning” in many Muslim countries. In this regard, a critical view of theology is needed to search for solutions to the socio-political problems of Muslim societies. He also adds that simply blaming the West does not contribute anything to the solution. Muslims should preserve and respect the real message of Islam, even though they have been oppressed by colonizers. Muslims, El Fadl concludes, should avoid political myopia or losing the moral ground by embracing an intolerant interpretation of their religion. Instead, they must go back to the real message of Islam, which calls for tolerance and respects religious diversity.

Lawrence first provides a summary of Prophet Muhammad’s life (peace be upon him) in chapters 1 and 2. In the following chapters, he offers succinct summaries of divergent interpretations of the Qur’an throughout history. Chapters 5 and 6 deal with examples of earlier interpretations of the Qur’an, by the Shi’ite scholar Jafar as-Sadiq and the Sunni Abu Jafar at-Tabari, respectively. The next two chapters cover rather mystic interpretations of the Qur’an. Chapter 8 surveys probably the greatest Islamic mystic Ibn al-Arabi, “a deep sea diver in the ocean of the Qur’an” (p. 109). Chapter 9 is about another mystic, Jalal ad-Din Rumi (or Mawlana), who sought to display the “everyday wonders” of the Qur’an in his Mathnawi. The last four chapters cover four different modern interpreters of the Qur’an. Chapters 11 and 12 deal with two Indian/Pakistani scholars. Ahmad Khan of chapter 11 offers an early rationalist (“militantly rationalist” in Lawrence’s words) critique of traditional interpretations in the face of Western intrusion into the Muslim world. By contrast, Muhammad Iqbal of chapter 12 makes a case for a redefined spiritual Islam in the late-colonial period and calls for revivification of moral Islamic values among Muslims. In chapter 13, the American interpreter W. D. Muhammad offers yet another interpretation that stresses racial equality more than anything else. Lastly, in chapter 14, Lawrence depicts the mind of the notorious Osama bin Laden, in whose interpretations military jihad takes precedence over all other issues. Lawrence argues that bin Laden “selects only those verses that fit his message, and then cites them exclusively for his own purpose” (p. 180).

In one unusual chapter (chapter 7), Lawrence portrays a Christian interpreter of the Qur’an, Robert of Ketton, who was the first person to translate the Qur’an into a Western language (Latin) in the twelfth century. An Englishman, Robert of Ketton moves to Toledo and becomes part of a Christian group that translates scientific texts from Arabic into Latin. He eventually finds himself heading a team project to translate the Qur’an into Latin. In a time of heated and continuous warfare between Christians and Muslims, Robert of Ketton takes a more noble way of engaging with Muslims. Islam was to be approached “not by arms, but by words; not by force, but by reason” (p. 100).

In an era when both adherents and critics of the Qur’an make claims as to what “real Islam” is, Bruce Lawrence’s survey of Qur’anic interpretations reminds us that all interpretations of the Qur’an are but partial representations that favor certain sections and meanings over others. In so doing, The Qur’an: A Biography becomes a friendly reminder that it takes more humility than most of us assume to understand and appreciate the richness of the verses of the Qur’an.

As a final note, for the more academic reader the book has a significant flaw. Although he provides a “further reading” list which includes most of the books he cites, except for the verses from the Qur’an, Professor Lawrence does not provide direct references for other quotes or opinions. I hope he will remedy this gap in a future edition.

Montaigne says that the main motivation for writing his famous Essays was to end his great solitude. Why was he lonely? Why did he feel alone and prefer conversing with his readers in an attempt to reduce his isolation? The answer to this question again can be found in his writings. He came from a wilder region of France, from behind the Alps that divided Western Europe. Thus, he was protected from the ills that the Italian Renaissance had imposed on European mentalities. What made him feel lonely was the meeting of his country with these new ideas and sects, the murder of thousands of people in the war of Saint Bartholomew (1572) on religious pretexts, and the arrival of this “European” attitude to his hometown²

This isolation preserved Montaigne from the mental crisis that his contemporaries were experiencing. He looks at both the past and the present and future within the possibilities that exist in the “thought from the wilderness.” It is for this reason that he has no prejudices. He is a free man of the world. This fact is demonstrated in his attitude toward the Orient and in particular to the Ottomans, whose images had been so distorted because of established prejudices.

Islam in European Culture

The thesis that supports the idea that there were vital differences between European and Ottoman societies and cultures and the politics of positioning them as opposites who were not willing to come to an agreement should give way to the thesis that there are more complicated and closer relationships between them. A deeper investigation will even allow us to trace signs of a “modern” mentality in the Ottoman culture that reaches all the way back to the beginning of the sixteenth century³ The Ottomans were interested in European affairs. Many historical readings bring us to a point that the survival of Protestantism owes itself to Ottoman support. It is not too difficult to find other examples.

It is known that Postel and Jean Bodin admired the Ottoman state and its administration in the sixteenth century and they were desirous to transmit these thoughts to their political theory. Likewise, Alan Grossrichard had already demonstrated that the image of the East, which was the “tour de force” of Montesquieu in his Persian Letters, was the representative of a popular ghost-that of despotism-in Europe during the seventeenth century. There are many researchers, from Bryan S. Turner to John M. Hobson, who have stated that both the negative side of European thought, like Hegel, Engels, and Marx, and the positive side, like Max Weber, shared the viewpoint of Orientalism that was against the East and Islam, particularly against the Ottomans. Even now it is questioned whether there is implicit Orientalism in the writings of European travelers-including Lady Montague, who was a most objective person. This list can be easily extended: despite his play Mahomet, which took a very negative view of the East, Voltaire was an admirer of the morality and discipline of the Muslims and the Ottomans. Lord Byron was a lover of Ottoman and Istanbul civilization, despite his political animosity that derived from his love of Hellenism. The “poet of the lakes,” Lamertine was awarded with a farm house by Sultan Abdulmecid, as a sign of appreciation for his book A History of the Turks. The father of Jean Jacque Rousseau was a repairer of clocks in Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. Goethe learned to read the Qur’an and pray from the Bashkird Turks, who were among the Russians who invaded Germany. Campanella said in his La Citta del Sole (The City of the Sun) that the utopia he had fictionalized had been realized in this world by the Ottomans. The writer of Don Quixote, Cervantes, lost one of his arms in the war of Lepanto, which he fought against the Ottomans; he wrote his novels during his imprisonment after this war inspired by Algerian scholars. The philosopher Leibniz presented a treatise of conquest to the French King in which he discussed how to destroy the Ottomans.

Montaigne

We have to add a new name to this list: Michel de Montaigne. In spite of having a few prejudices, Montaigne was one of the few modern writers who did not let prejudices dominate his view. In the first sentence of his Essays he promised that this book was going to be an honest one. Indeed, he continuously revised and edited his books before each new edition was published, including his essays on the Ottomans. He questioned his thoughts with reference to new sources he read and added new essays⁴

In the revised and extended 1595 edition of his book, which was published after his death, he advised French soldiers, whose laxity he had observed during the civil war in Perigord, to take Turkish soldiers for their model. He said that all young French soldiers should learn discipline from the Turkish armies:

Their discipline is very different from and superior to ours. At times of war, our soldiers are more irresponsible and disorderly than at times of peace; on the other hand, Turkish soldiers are moderate and reluctant to behave so, because stealing from the poor is punished with a few lashes in peace time, but very severely at war. Taking away an egg by force without paying money for it is punished with 50 lashes. Moreover, those who steal the most insignificant thing that does not even satisfy hunger nor have any value whatsoever are sentenced to death. I am surprised to read about Selim that when he conquered Damascus on his campaign to Egypt none of his soldiers took anything from the peerless gardens of this city, even though they were unprotected⁵

Montaigne, then, was not aware of “Eastern despotism,” a thesis that had been influential since the seventeenth century. Distanced from the influence of this thesis, he mentions how the philanthropic activities of the Turks extended to include fauna and flora, stating that the Turks had charities and hospitals even for animals.

Montaigne was influenced by the unfavorable winds that blew against the Ottomans through France, but he desired to use the Ottomans against his own despots as a mirror. In other words, he used a method that was similar to that of most other French intellectuals, like Montesquieu, after him.

He was aware of the power of habits and how they can capture people and he emphasized how wrong it was to label everything that is opposed to local habit as barbarism. To quote Dr Zeynep Sayin of Istanbul University:

The universal certainty that Descartes tried to find seems impossible for Montaigne because he is not in favor of certainty that is independent from conditions. On the contrary he analyses humans and societies in their differences. “I am not mislead to think that everybody should be like me…It seems reasonable to me to think that there are thousands of different lives.”⁶

Finally, Montaigne was aware of the fact that judgments do not carry the claim of universality; they are limited to the conditions in which they emerge. He was not bounded by Eurocentrism and was aware that there are different worlds and different life-styles. He did not try to regulate world according to himself, but rather realized that it is essential to recognize differences. It is probably because of this attitude that Montaigne stands in an exceptional place in Western thinking and why he does not find a place in books of “history of Western philosophy.”

Montaigne and the Ottomans

It is thanks to the magnificent study of Clarence Dana Rouillard⁷ that we learn that in the great world of Montaigne the Orient was identical with the “Turk,” i.e. the Ottomans. We are able to see that the Ottoman grew like a flower in Montaigne’s works and that he revised his thoughts and prejudices with new contributions and information with every new edition.

According to Rouillard, Montaigne-like P. Villey who prepared Essays for publication-believed in the necessity of knowing something well before judging it. More importantly, the Orient he identified with the Ottomans played a significant role in terms of widening his vision as it broadened the horizons of his era. According to Rouillard, Montaigne owes the wide vision and pluralism in his essays to the Ottomans to a great extent.

Rouillard, who surprised us with this striking information, firstly analyses Montaigne’s acquaintance with the Ottomans. According to him it is very interesting to observe the development of Montaigne’s knowledge about the Ottomans. Prior to the first publication of Essays in 1580, the only information that we get about Montaigne’s readings is that he got his information on Turks from the Italian history of Guichardin, not from the classics or chronicle writers and historians like Joinville or Froissart. The only reference to the Turks in the 1580 edition was that they partook of food by reclining on comfortable sofas and their belief that Paradise was a sensual abode. However, Montaigne’s curiosity was not confined to the borders of Western Europe and was open to all human activities experienced in modern history.

It seems that Paul Villey, a Montaigne specialist, did not study the 1582 edition of Essays attentively enough. Though rare and insignificantly small, there are some new additions to this edition. We are able to conclude from some points in this new edition that Montaigne read a new study that had been written directly about the Ottomans. Thus we got a clue that Montaigne’s interest about the Ottomans had increased.

As a matter of fact, the number of these clues increases in following editions. For the first time Montaigne encounters direct material concerning the Ottoman world in a Polish history book that he studied and used in the third edition. In this book was an engraving that displayed the celebration held on the occasion of the circumcision of Murad III’s sons. This engraving made Montaigne to think of the Ottoman world, their costumes, and context in a different way. In the last edition to be prepared before Montaigne passed away, his interest in foreign places was at its peak. In this last edition, Montaigne found, read, and analyzed books in Latin that had been written, directly or indirectly about Ottoman history, including the book of Halkokondil on the foundation and rise of the Ottomans and Postel’s De la Republique des Turcs. (He knew Postel-one of the significant intellectual of his time-personally.) There were nearly 50 references to the Ottomans in the last edition of Essays.

“The Turk the warrior!”

It seems clear that Montaigne did not believe in theological explanations concerning the defeat or victory of the Christians against Muslims. For example, he commented very dryly-which is not what one would expect from a European-on the war of Lepanto in 1571 in which the Christians won and which was followed by days of festivities:

A maritime war was won against Turks in the preceding months under the commandership of Don Juan d’Austria; but God was pleased when we saw the reverse many times in the past.

Montaigne desired that his fellow countrymen not put so much importance on this victory because the Turkish army was still standing. He recognized explicitly that the Turks had developed a considerable military force that could only be explained on the basis of material and human power. He related the Turkish ability to establish such a great army to their discipline. According to him, the Turks knew how to use their minds as much as they knew how to fight and this is what made them different from an army of barbarians.

Montaigne thought the acts of the Turks were not restrained merely because of the heavy punishments that were imposed. They were also accustomed to rigid physical discipline and sobriety. This quality made them superior to Western soldiers. He expressed his thoughts as follows:

In order to verify to what extent Turkish armies are more intelligent and behave more reasonably than ours it is enough to say that besides their other virtues they drink only water and eat rice and salty meat. Thus, each of them can carry one month’s provisions with them.

Montaigne explained another influential factor in the success of the Turks which was the Sultan being in command of their armies. Selim I thought that victories that had been won without the sultans leading the armies were not complete and thought it was shameful to be proud of such a victory. However, Montaigne did not treat all sultans identically; he did not have a holistic perspective. He was well aware of the fact that all sultans had different tendencies. According to him, surprisingly, Beyaz›d II and his contemporary Murad III’s excessive fondness for natural sciences (s’amusants aus sciences) caused harm to their countries; they not only failed to lead their country, but also caused harm.

Montaigne was closely interested in the opinion that espoused that warriors should abstain from the fine arts. He returns to this subject again in his essay “On Pedantry” in which did not only criticize the mistakes and uselessness of a few scientists, but also went further to argue that all kinds of education are useless, if not fatal, especially if education goes beyond the scope of a very few aristocratic minds to reach the general public:

Examples show us that learning the sciences does not make hearts rigid or inclined to fight, but rather more effeminate. The most powerful state nowadays seems to be that of the Turks, and they value weapons and humiliate the arts and sciences.

Montaigne can be excused for this mistaken final sentence, as he was then too distant from the time when samples of Ottoman-Divan literature were to be made available to the European public.

While his contemporaries were calling this so-called aspect of the Turks barbarism-we will not discuss whether this argument was valid or not-Montaigne looked at the issue from a very different perspective, which he claimed was essential for a people to survive. This is an example of Montaigne’s contradictory opinions.

In his essay “On Virtue” Montaigne wrote about the story of a young Turk who dared to challenge the Hungarian King Hunyadi Janos at war, despite lacking experience. This youth, when questioned by Sultan Murad, answered that he learned to be courageous from a rabbit. Fate protected the rabbit from 40 arrows he had shot and allowed it to escape the hunting dogs. The young man believed that the arrow and sword could only function if this was written in fate, and thus fought fearlessly in wars from that day on. A belief in fate was widespread among the Turks. Turkish historians wrote that soldiers felt secure against danger because they believed that the days which they would live were immutable and had already been established.

What Montaigne did was not to accumulate systematic information on a certain topic, but rather he involved in mental exercises. He lists these as the basis of the Turk’s successes in the sixteenth century.

Moral aspects of the Ottomans and Islam

Montaigne preserved his objective standing toward the Ottomans at different times. Although he was critical of many aspects of Turkish society and character, he still did not adhere to extreme definitions or popular descriptions, like the “Barbarous Turk,” or the “Lover Turk.” He even tried to alter the image of the cruel Turk in his other essays. He emphasized, for instance, that the Turks had established charities and hospitals for animals.

The only reference to Islam in the first edition of the book is concerned with worldly heaven. Montaigne was an intellectual whose eyes had not been blinded by religious prejudices and he did not refrain from calling some of their religious bigotry “stupidities.” Even when he wrote about the superstitions of the Turks he did not explain the issue in defense of Christianity, but saw such things as errors that could be found on both sides. Thus he was able to preserve the balance that he wanted to establish in his book.

Montaigne was a devout Catholic. He not only dealt with Islam, but also Calvinism and Protestantism, which came to his country from behind the Alps and he criticized the translation of the Bible into local languages, praising the Turks for their respect of the original language of their sacred revealed text. In the end, in one of the best examples of tolerance in Essays, he reminds his countrymen that the Ottomans outstripped them in terms of some Christian values.

Do you want to see it with your own eyes? Compare our traditions and customs with those of a pagan or a Muslim. [You will see that ours is beneath theirs] Although his doctrine is superior, a Christian has to accept the fact that a Muslim we underestimate can teach him many things in terms of justice, affection, and virtues.

The references to Turks increase in later editions of Essays. An interesting letter sent to Mehmed the Conqueror by Pope Pius II and the response sultan gave him is contained in one of them. Another example is Bayezid I’s and Timur’s rejection of mutual gifts. As an example Montaigne shows the pride of Turks in the leader of the Janissaries Hasan Agha, who preferred to die after he had been severely reproved by Sultan Mehmed.

The virtue of the “eye of the wilderness”

What are the results that we may extract from Essays?

First of all, Montaigne was not looking at the problems within a fixed framework. He examined the Turks, arriving at rich observations and interpretations. He was basically interested in human nature, not religious doctrines. Was he not a believer then? Since it is impossible to call anyone who fought for the Catholic cause an unbeliever, we should rather say that Montaigne did not look at Islam and the Ottomans from the perspective of the prejudices of popular theology and religion. Though there are some fictive and incorrect statements in his essays, his perspective about the Turks and Ottomans is not derived from a single source. He was not bound with a systematic connection to a doctrine and he did not have an idae fixes. He came with a new perspective and a new interpretation every time. He learned long before Nietzsche not to look at information as natural facts. According to him there are only interpretations and the interpretations of these. He approached his subject knowing that most of the information he took in his book concerning Islam was not facts, but rather interpretations.

This is the privileged standing that differentiates Montaigne from others. Maybe this was the point that made him so alone-he had no one except his friend La Boetie. We owe Montaigne’s Essays to this solitude. Though he thought that his loneliness derived from his melancholic psychology, his seclusion could have been caused by his differences in his mode of thought and perception. He refrained from lies, i.e., the knowledge of his contemporaries, which he said were interpretations of interpretations, he focused on the knowledge of objects and directed his attention to the truth. He said that “we are making interpretations of the interpretations of objects.” He transmitted the information written in the books on the Ottomans, their histories, cultures, and moral qualities, but he did not adopt them, calling them rather “our stupidities.” He tried to pass beyond this wall of information that he felt had been built around him and to hear the voices of objects. This should be one of the virtues of the eye from the wilderness that he possessed.

Notes

1. Tugrul Inal, “Denemelere bir giris denemesi” (An Introductory Effort to Essays), Frankafoni, n. 5, 1993, p. 12.
2. Semiramis Kantel, “Montaigne ve dil” (Montaigne and Language), Frankafoni, n.5, 1993, p. 33.
3. Cemal Kafadar, “The Ottomans and Europe” in Handbook of European History, 1400-1600, v.1, ed. H. Oberman and others. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), p. 622.
4. Montaigne published his Essays four times with different and extended versions each time. Corrections and editions in the fifth edition (1595) were made by his adopted daughter after his death in 1592. Thus, the book extended to 3 volumes. See J.M. Cohen, “Introduction” in Montaigne, Essays, (London: Penguin books, 1966), p. 20.
5. Ali Celebi, “Montaigne’de Turkler” (Turks in Montaigne), Frankafoni, n. 5, 1993, p. 26-27. This article uses Rouillard, whom we will touch upon in depth in the following pages. Unfortunately, this study cannot go beyond a mere translation to become an original study.
6. Zeynep B. Sayın, “Yenicağ: Descartes ve Montaigne,” Cogito, n. 10, 1997, p. 158.
7. Clarance Dana Rouillard, The Turk in French history, thought and literature (1520-1660), Ancienne Libraire Furne, Paris: 1938.

Some people discount the reality of dreams, saying that dreams are the result of a person’s dominant fluid.(1) If melancholy (black bile) is dominant, people dream of graves, as well as scary, terrifying, and dark-colored items. If choler (yellow bile) is dominant, they dream of fire, candles, and naturally colored yellowish items. If phlegm is dominant, they dream of water, rivers, waves, and white items. If blood is dominant, they dream of wine, fragrant plants, and such musical instruments as dulcimers and flutes.

These claims cover only one type of dream. However, there is more than one type of dream. For example, a true dream originates from the inner talk of soul. Dreams caused by the four above-mentioned fluids are not true, are confused, and are no more than illusions. Hence they resemble disorderly collections of plants of different sizes, colors, and conditions that are bundled together.

True dreams descend from the spiritual mind. If, however, what is seen is inspired by images and views left in one’s imagination and memory by the imaginative faculty while one is awake, then they are called confused dreams.

Dream interpretation requires a person with subtle and deep knowledge who can see and understand the relations between images in the soul and unseen events. This knowledge allows inferences to be made based on the person’s surrounding events. The main beneficiary of such knowledge is the dreamer, for he or she either receives glad tidings of the future or warnings about things to avoid or abandon.

God guides His servants to the true path in various ways, one of which is warning them of the consequences of their actions. Sometimes these warnings are communicated through Prophets, natural phenomena, disasters, or dreams. He also encourages His servants to find the straight path by thinking about various natural phenomena.

Dreams are not mere manifestations of feelings and thoughts in our subconscious, as claimed by some psychologists. Scholars divide untrue dreams into six categories:

• Dreams resulting from the carnal soul’s wishes or desires. For example, people dream that they are with their close friends, of things that scare them, that they are eating (if they sleep while hungry) or vomiting (if they sleep with a full stomach), and that they are in a burning fire (if they sleep outside in bright sunlight).

• Dreams requiring total ablution that, being of a sexual nature, need no interpretation.

• Nightmares shown by Satan to scare believers. These are harmless.

• Dreams personally inspired by Satan. Such dreams cannot be considered true.

• Dreams caused by distress, trouble, and other personal circumstances.

• Dreams reviewing important past experiences.

These have no merit in terms of interpretation.

True Dreams

True dreams are very valuable and essential, since they serve as a contact with the Unseen, they open a window to the Unseen directly by using the spiritual faculties present in one’s essence, and by avoiding the external stimuli coming from the senses connected to the physical world. Through this window a person looks at the prospective events and encounters some of fate-related scriptures or spectacles of the Tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfuz). He or she sees the hidden reality of some events. At the same time, the imagination of the dreamer intervenes and puts these realities into the mundane images. Some of these dreams happen as in their interpretations. It is known from authentic narrative records that before his prophethood, the Prophet’s (p.b.u.h.) dreams came true exactly as they were seen. (Bukhari, vol. 1, book 1, no. 3).(1)

True dreams result from a superior development of premonition, which exists in everyone and even in many animals. Most important of all, true dreams show that even minute events are known, recorded, and foreordained by God. For this reason, there is no happenstance, and events do not happen by chance or without a plan (Bayram, 41).

There are four types of true dreams:

• True dreams coming from God and are so clear that no interpretation is necessary. Anyone can have such a dream, and several will be presented below.

• Dreams conveying glad tidings from God about something that the person will perform. Some-times these dreams are sent to warn His servants away from evil or to expose their faults that need to be corrected so that they can follow the true path.

• Dreams representing reality through symbols and that come from the spiritual world.

• Dreams in which the agencies of the dream’s witness, the dreamer’s soul, and the place seen in the dream are important.

Nonbelievers, as seen in the case of the King of Egypt during the time of Prophet Joseph,(2) and even children can have true dreams.

For example, when he was seven years old, Prophet Joseph told his father that: “Father, I saw (in a dream) eleven stars, the sun, and the moon prostrating before me.” His father replied: “My son, don’t tell this vision to your brothers, lest they plot against you. Verily, Satan is the open enemy of humanity. God will choose you and teach you how to interpret dreams (and other things). He will perfect His favor on you and on the offspring of Jacob, as He perfected it on your fathers, Abraham and Isaac, aforetime. Your Lord is All-Knowing, All-Wise” (12:4-6). Everything came true later in Egypt.

Factors influencing a dream’s interpretation

A person’s similar or even identical dreams at different times might result in very different interpretations. Therefore, factors such as the time, sort, season, and even the day of a dream must be considered by the interpreter. An example is given below. Someone once told Abu Bakr that he dreamed someone had given him 70 tree leaves. Abu Bakr replied that the person would receive 70 sticks. Within a week, the person was beaten 70 times with a stick. A year later he had the same dream. This time, Abu Bakr told him he would earn 70,000 gold coins. When asked why the same dream had such radically different meanings, Abu Bakr replied: “When you had the dream last year, the trees were dropping their leaves, and branches were becoming like sticks. Hence, I interpreted so. But this year your dream was in spring (the trees were coming into leaves), and so I interpreted this year as I did.” Before long, the man earned 70,000 gold coins (Bayram, 44). The best time for interpreting a dream is between true dawn and sunrise, for at this time both the dreamer and the interpreter have clear minds free from fatigue and earthly affairs, and the dreamer can remember more of the dream’s details.

Signs of a true dream

The first sign of a true dream is that you wake up instantly after it. Those who receive good news do not sleep, just as those who receive good tidings and signs from God do not sleep; rather, they get up as soon as the dream has finished. A second sign is the continuation of the images seen. In other words, all of the dream’s details remain in the person’s mind. A person can have a true dream concerning family members, relatives, siblings, friends, and others.

Some famous historical dreams

• One day, King Philip the Lame of Macedonia dreamed a fire started in his house and spread all over the world. When he returned home, he saw that his wife had given birth to Alexander (“the Great”). He understood that his son would tyrannize everybody, terrorize the world, turn everything upside down, and destroy everything. He wanted to kill the child, but his wife prevented it.

• Osman I, founder of Ottoman State, visited Sheikh Edibaali to ask about an issue. He was treated well in the guestroom. That night before going to bed, he noticed that the Qur’an was in a case hung on the wall. Out of respect, he did not stretch himself out on the bed, but read a couple pages of the Qur’an and then kept it on his heart, while sitting on his knees, all night. Falling asleep around dawn due to extreme fatigue, he dreamed of a plane tree emerging from his chest and growing so large that its branches and leaves covered a vast area in three continents. When he related the dream to Edibaali the next morning, the scholar told him: “O Osman, you will establish a state that will spread over three continents, here at Sogut.” And so he did: The Ottoman State expanded to Europe, Asia, and Africa, and ruled a potentially chaotic region in peace for centuries. In addition, the plane tree came to be the symbol of Ottoman State.

• On April 14, 1865, a sweating President Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth president of the United States, jumped out of his bed because of a dream. He changed his clothes, read for a while, and then laid back down to sleep. Feeling that his dream was waiting for him on the bed, it took a few hours to go back to sleep. In the morning, he told his dream to his wife, relatives, and even the Congress. In his dream, the White House servants were running around a coffin draped in American flag and told him that the president was inside it. His relatives interpreted it positively, saying that he would have a long life. That night, he went to see a play at a nearby theatre with his wife, still thinking about his dream. During an exciting scene of the play, the balcony door opened, and John Wilkes Boothe fatally shot President Lincoln. His dream had come true in less than 24 hours. History records many other such dreams.

Footnotes

1. In ancient and medieval philosophy and physiological theory, it was believed that there are four basic fluids (humors) in human body, of which the dominant element determines a person’s temperament and features. In the ancient physiological theory still current during the European Middle Ages and later, the four cardinal humors were blood, phlegm, choler (yellow bile), and melancholy (black bile). The variant mixtures of these humors in different persons determined their “complexions” or “temperaments,” their physical and mental qualities, and their dispositions.
2. The King dreamed that he saw seven fat cows eaten by seven lean ones, and seven green ears of corn and seven dry ears of corn. Joseph told him that for seven years he should order the corn to be left in the ear and conserved, except for that which they needed to eat. After that, seven years of hardship would come and destroy everything but what they had stored. After that, a year of plenty would come, and the people would have enough food and would press (wine and oil) (12:46-49).

References

• Bayram, Ali, and M. Sadi Cogenli. Ruya Tabirleri Ansiklopedisi (The Encyclopedia of Dream Interpreta-tions). Istanbul: 1993.
• http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/002.sat.html#002.0507.
• Hakki, Erzurumlu Ibrahim. Marifetname (The Book of Wisdom). Turkey (then Ottoman State): 1756 ce (compiled and simplified by M. Faruk Meyan, Istanbul: 1993).
• Ibn al-Arabi, Muhyiddin. Tabirname-i Muhyiddin Arabi (The Book of Dream Interpretations by Muhyiddin Ibn al-Arabi). Istanbul: 1270 ah / 1854 ce.
• Ibn Sirin, Muhammad. Muntehab al-Kalam fi Tafsir al-Ahlaam (The Preferred Words for Dream Interpretations). Egypt: 1359 ah / 1940 ce.
• Ivadullah, Ahmed al-Sabahi. Delil-u Tafsiri’l Ahlaam (The Evidence of Dream Interpretation). N.p.: 1974. —Tafsiirul Ahlam min Vahyi’d-Din ve’l-Ilm. N.p.: 1974.
• Miras, Kamil. Sahih-i Buhari Muhtasari: Tecrid-i Sarih Tecumesi ve Serhi. (The Translation and Commentary of Selections from Sahih al-Bukhari). Istanbul: 1972
• Al-Nablusi, Abdulgani. Ta’tir al-Enam fi Ta’bir al-Menam (The Beautiful Fragrances of Sleep with Dream Interpretation). Egypt: 1359 ah / 1940 ce.
• Suleyman, Avanzade M. Muabbir Yahut Yeni ve Mukemmel Tabirname (The Interpreter or New and Excellent Book of Dream Interpretation). Istanbul: 1329 ah / 1913 ce. Tabirname (The Book of Dream Interpretation). Istanbul: 1274 ah / 1858 ce.
• Unal, Nurettin and Hekimoglu Ismail. Ilimde, Teknikte, Edebiyatta, Tarihte, Dinde Ruya ve Tabirleri (Dreams and Their Interpretations in Science, Technique, Literature, History, and Religion). Istanbul: 1982.
• Al-Zahiri, Khalil b. Shahin. Al-Isharat fi ‘Ilm al-‘Ibarat. Egypt: 1359 ah / 1940 ce.