فصلنامه مطالعات تفسیری
پیاپی 43 (پاییز 1399)

Hamed Abu Zayd, a contemporary scholar, believes that the message of the Quran can only survive through interpretation. In his view, the verses of the Islamic rulings should be interpreted in a modern way; From the development process of the Islamic rulings in the age of revelation, a message can be deducted through which modern rulings can be obtained. Since every understanding of the Qurchr('39')an must be disciplined, it is necessary to examine the discipline of Abu Zaydchr('39')s interpretation. The present study attempts to follow the Abu Zayd’s rules of interpretation; his Hermeneutic principles and his criterion of interpretation. According to the results of the research, some factors cause misinterpretation: in the fundamentals if one neglects the authorchr('39')s intention, or if he believes in the historicity of understanding, etc.; In the method, the legibility of the message resulting from the evolution of the rulings can lead to misinterpretation. Finally, in the criteria, the conformity of new rulings with the message that stem from the development process of Islamic rulings must be observed. However, the two criteria of linking meaning with content and paying attention to different contexts of speech can restrain the extreme reading of the text.

The concept of historic recurrence implies that events from the past nations can become events of the present nations as well. The current article seeks to explore this notion in the interpretive perspective of Allameh Tabatabai. Studies show that verse 214 of chapter Al-Baqarah in Allamehchr('39')s interpretive thought is the most prominent verse that indicates the repetition of history. Allameh Tabatabaichr('39')s citations to the mentioned verse in various interpretive and theological positions show that he considered the initial interpretation of the verse in question as a general concept which corresponds to the semantic meaning of the narrations of "= حذو النعل باالنعلlike two peas in a pod". Hence, the writer of the article, being inspired by the above-mentioned verse and citing the related narrations, gives examples of ‘history repeats itself’ including the spiritual distortion of the Qurchr('39')an, the return of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS), the descent of torment on the Muslim nation, the split of Muslims and the confusion of the ummah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH and his progeny).

The present article seeks to study the possibility of Satan’s impact on physical disease of human with emphasis on verse 41 of chapter Sad and the related narrations. The objective is to find answer to the question whether the devil had a role in various afflictions of Prophet Ayyub (AS), especially his physical illnesses and consequently other human beings, and if so, what is the mechanism? One of the findings of this study is that the devil can certainly affect human through temptations and motivating his/her emotions. When human acts according to satanic temptations, its definitive result will be his physical illnesses. Moreover, the concept and example of the Satan or demons in the language of verses and especially narrations go beyond the jinn devil and includes human demons and vermin that threaten human health such as all kinds of microbes.

Verses 17 to 36 of chapter Maryam state that Hazrat Maryam’s pregnancy made her feel ashamed to face her people. Thus, she took refuge in a distant place to bear the childbirth pain, deliver her child, and avoid facing her people. But God, the almighty, comforted her by giving the good news that the spring will flow at her feet and the palm tree will drop its dates upon her. But apparently the shame of facing the people is not something that can be alleviated by food and drink. Luxenberg tried to make a connection between the two. He believes that the Quran is written in Arabic-Aramaic. And since it has been in a primitive script, without dots and clear signs, some of its words have been corrected, such as "under" and "secret" in verse 24, where "Nahit" means "delivery." And "shari" means "legitimate" in Syriac-Aramaic. However, historical evidence shows that Muslims were not influenced by the Syriac language in reciting the Qurchr('39')an, and no commentator considers these two words to be written incorrectly. Also, Syriac dictionaries do not confirm the meanings of Luxenberg. In addition, the connection of these verses has other justifications that are more acceptable.

The popular view among the jurists about confronting the People of the Book is that the People of the Book should pay Jizyah to the Muslims if they do not convert to Islam, otherwise the Muslims have to fight them. One of the most important documents on this issue is verse 29 of chapter Tawbah. This article examines the interpretation of this verse in terms of its subject matter and its ruling. The study shows that according to other verses of the Quran which are related to the People of the Book, the characteristics of the People of the Book mentioned in the verse of Jizyah do not include all the People of the Book. Moreover, considering the verses that suggest tolerance and forgiving the people of the book, the ruling on fighting the People of the Book does not apply to all circumstances. So, Jizyah is believed to be about a particular group of the People of the Book and under certain conditions, neither all of them nor under any circumstances.

Verses 172 and 173 of the Chapter Aaraf -known as the verses of the Covenant- are among the most complex verses of the Quran in terms of interpretation. One of the main issues in the interpretation of these verses is the whereabouts of the Covenant. In other words, where has this divine covenant, the contents of which are the divine lordship and the servitude of man, taken place? and where is the scene in which the question of "الست بربکم= Am I not your Lord" and the answer "Yes" has occurred? The commentators have long expressed different views about the location/place of the Covenant in these verses; For example, Allameh Tabatabai considers the heavenly kingdom as the place of the Covenant, but Ayatollah Javadi Amoli has criticized and rejected this view and considered innate nature [Fitrat] as the place of the Covenant. This article seeks to show, after interpreting the views of these two commentators, that the account that subscribes to the heavenly kingdom as the whereabouts of the covenant is more compatible with the Qurchr('39')anic and theosophical principles, and that all other locations formulated by the commentators, can be finally referred to the two celestial and terrestrial worlds.

Reflecting upon the miraculous nature of the Qurchr('39')an has provided a discourse around the Qurchr('39')an throughout the history of Islamic thought. What does this discourse have to do with the discourse of the Qurchr('39')an itself? And is this discourse a continuation of the Qurchr('39')anic discourse or has it distanced itself from the Qurchr('39')anic discourse? Some think that the difference in question is only in the superficial levels [in the conceptual and lexical differences] and the "verse" and "miracle" refer to the same meaning and claim. But the analysis and comparison of the characteristics of the two mentioned discourses shows that the dominant presence of the concept of verse in the Qurchr('39')an and the dominance of the concept of miracle in the post-Qurchr('39')anic discourse, cannot be reduced to the difference between the two synonymous words. The difference between the Qurchr('39')anic and post-Qurchr('39')anic thought about the miraculous nature of the Qurchr('39')an is as much as difference of two discourses. In the Qurchr('39')anic worldview, the whole universe, even miraculous events, are verses and manifestations of God; But the post-Qurchr('39')anic discourse is a theological discourse that does not represent this distinctive feature of Qurchr('39')anic thought. Verses in the Qurchr('39')anic discourse have a monotheistic function, but the function of miracles in the post-Qurchr('39')anic discourse, is to prove the truth of the Prophet, and this is an important and significant turn.

It is possible to understand the divine purpose and the commentators’ difference of opinion serves as evidence for this fact. The present study is to eliminate doubts from verse 67 of Surah Yusuf (AS) and choose the favorite point of view. The study is conducted in a descriptive, analytical and narrative method, and tries to highlight the Shiite and Sunnite exegetes’ views in this respect. The main question of the article is to figure out the reason for the order of Yaqoob (AS) to his children that they have to enter Egypt through different doors and separately. The verse 67 of Surah Yusuf has briefly dealt with the issue. The result of the research is coming up with five to eight views developed by the Shiite and Sunni commentators. The view that faces least disagreement is Yaqoob ordered his children to enter Egypt from different door so that there should be no hurdle in reaching Benjamin to Yusuf.