نشریه رهیافت هایی در علوم قرآن و حدیث
سال چهل و هشتم شماره 2 (پیاپی 97، پاییز و زمستان 1395)

In explaining the limitations of women’s covering before the strange men (other than her close relatives) and after prohibiting the disclosing one’s charms, verse 31 of Sūrat al-Nūr has referred to mā ẓahara: ﴾and not to display their charms except for what is outward﴿. This brief exception has prompted various and sometimes incorrect interpretational and legal impressions.
This article tries with the help of intra-textual and extra-textual evidences and with reliance on known interpretational and legal principles to remove the apparent brevity of this part of the verse. To this end, after stating the probabilities in the purpose of charms, the intra-textual evidences, climate of revelation, the social and environmental circumstance of the legislation age, ḥadīth evidences (including study of the sanad and content of traditions and analysis of inconsistent traditions), and the philosophy of covering are presented, resulting in the exclusiveness of mā ẓahara to the face, hands (kafayn), and conventional jewelry and its limit like kohl and ring, and the mentioned limit extends to the wrist and the cuff. Meanwhile, the incumbency of covering the face (wearing burka) and the hands (kafayn) as well as a little jewelry of the two are not provable either.

The validity of the traditions collection, Kāfī’s Uṣūl, the Imamate section, called Kitāb al-Ḥujja, which is considered as one of the most important Shī‘a ḥadīth sources on the subject of Imamate, has in general been taken for granted among earlier scholars. It has been because of their attention to authenticity of issuance as a basis for approving traditions and enjoying the external evidences of the soundness of traditions.
However, in view of the later scholars, whose reliance in assessment of traditions has been mainly focused on the authenticity of the transmitters of sanad, the statistics of valid traditions has reduced to about 40 percent. Some, with great strictness in the two fields of sanad and the text of the narrations,
have considered only 10 percent of these traditions as sound and valid.
Searching for similar traditions (mutābi‘) from other tradition sources for traditions of weak sanad in Kāfī’s Kitāb al-Ḥujja, this article indicates that 90 traditions, equaling 13.31 percent of these traditions have valid mutābi‘ according to Ayatollah Khu‘ī’s rijālī judgments.

A part of Ahl al-Bayt’s (A.S.) interpretation are their esoteric interpretations (ta’wīlī) traditions, which seem to be inconsistent with the current understanding of the verses of the Qur’ān. This part has since long ago been open to discussion; some have dealt with it with the aim of better understanding the Imam’s (A.S.) teachings, and some with the aim of rejecting and denigrating them. Naturally, the researcher’s criterion for studying and analyzing the traditions in any of the researches carried out has been different from others. Now, the questions arises as to what categories are the Ahl al-Byat’s (A.S.) ta’wīlī traditions divisible as based on the method and process of ta’wīlī (and not subject of ta’wīlī)? It is attempted to reappraise the ta’wīlī traditions of Nūr al-Thaqalayin interpretation to extract, within research limits, the process of ta’wīl according to the existing clear statements in Ahl al-Bayt’s (A.S.) sayings. This research finds out that, in Nūr al-Thaqalayin interpretation, the processes that can be set as the basis for identifying and classifying the Ahl al-Byat’s (A.S.) ta’wīlī traditions are numerous. Some of them are as follows: application of a general to one or some of the referents; predicating the verse as allegory; applicability (jary); introducing the referents of the verse (exclusive, non-exclusive); explaining the time of complete fulfilment of the content of the verse; and other instances that this research deals with.

In this writing, which has been prepared with the descriptive-comparative and with library information compiling tools, it is tried to make a comparison between the viewpoints of the most important authorities on modern hermeneutics and Ustad Allama Shahid Mutahhari concerning the most significant essentials of exegetical theory, i.e., quiddity, possibility, and elements of understanding. In this respect, we were able to present the most important questions of exegetical theory to the works left behind by Shahid Mutahhari and receive proper answers. In this way, first, a rather comprehensive and brief perspective was obtained on his exegetical theory, which in turn is regarded as one of the innovations of this research; and second, by comparing this theory with the theories attributed to modern hermeneutists, it was concluded that Ustad Mutahhari’s exegetical theory has more proximity to modern hermeneutics. However, despite its enjoyment of the positive points of these theories, namely such notions as semantic plurality and realistic view towards the nature of understanding, his theory is away from defects that these theories typically have, such as proper and improper understanding and falling into negative relativity. With respect to some of the significant characteristics of Ustad Mutahhari’s exegetical theory, namely inclusiveness, realism, semantic pluralism, methodicalness, evasion from dogmatism, and avoiding relativism, this theory can be a model for the interpreters in interpreting texts, especially interpreting legal texts and religious statutes.

In Ayatollah Khu’ī’s view, the basis for the authenticity and validity of the opinions of rijālīs (biographers of ḥadīth trasmitters) is the tradition with a single transmitter. Consequently, his method in enjoyment of special authentications (tawthīq) is restricted to the rijālīs’ sensible reports, the most valid of which are issued by the earlier rijālīs, especially the authorities in early rijālī primary principles. With respect to this basis and the assessment of various examples in narrators of traditions’ biographical lexicons, it would be clarified that Ayatollah Khu’ī has maintained the sayings of the early scholars (of ḥadīth) and the rijālī reports presented by them as the basis of the sanads for issuance of rijālī opinion only in case they have enjoyed authenticity, have had sound evidences on the rijālī opinion and be compatible with other rijālī data. Sometimes, by taking these conditions into consideration, he has proceeded to explain these reports or critically reviewed them, and in case of discrepancies, has judged among them.

One of the aḥādīth that is controversial among the Sunnī ḥadīth transmitters is the ḥadīth, “suddu al-abwāb” (seal the doors), which some have regarded as concerning ‘Alī (A.S.), and some others concerning Abū Bakr, and yet some have devised a midway between the two, meaning that the Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) has stated the above ḥadīth about both. Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl Bukhārī and Muslim b. Ḥajjāj Nayshābūrī – the authors of Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim who have endeavored to compile the Prophetic aḥādīth – have regarded the above-mentioned ḥadīth as related about Abū Bakr and as one of the sound aḥādīth. With a study and historical analysis of the first ten years of Abū Bakr’s residence in Medina, the present article has concluded that he had been living in the suburb of Medina and in a quarter named Sunḥ and had not had any house near Masjid al-Nabī (the Prophet’s [S.A.W.] Mosque). Thus, the above ḥadīth is not true about his residence and has been applicable to the residential location of ‘Alī (A.S.).

The present article addresses the way Ṭabarī interacted with the phenomenon of difference of reading (qarā‘a) under the devotional verses of ordinances (āyāt al-aḥkām) and indicates that he, as one of the eminent and early figures of exegesis writing, properly reserves for himself the right to judge and adopt an aspect from among various aspects of readings. This way, our interpreter sometimes adopts a reading as absolute and puts aside– explicitly or by implication–the reading opposite to it. (Absolute selection) Sometimes he prefers one from among two different readings but does not drive the rejected reading away from the field of permitted readings. (Relative selection) also, in some positions, regards both readings as righteous and does not make any selection between them. (Non-selection acceptance) Besides these three, sometime Ṭabarī contents himself with reporting the difference of reading without expressing his judgment in this respect. On the other hand, our interpreter attests to the following criteria for absolute or relative selection of a reading: consensus of reputable reciters, superabundance or popularity of the reading, the orthography of the Muslims’ copies of the Qur’ān, the verse’s semantic-interpretive certainty, the expressive-syntactic criteria, traditions of the Revelation occasion, traditions denoting the Prophet’s (S.A.W.) reading, and the more eloquent and more popular dialect. Meanwhile, the most important and frequently practiced criterion that our interpreter relies on in his arbitrations is the consensus of the reciters whom he calls as “authority”.