مجله پژوهش های تفسیر تطبیقی
پیاپی 17 (بهار و تابستان 1402)

The Ibadis (ibāḍiah) are a branch of the Kharijites that have survived until today. Their belief system is an almost independent system and scholars and exegetes such as Attafayyash have strived to explain and protect it. An important issue is the analysis of the Ibadis’ suppositions regarding the Unity of God and comparing them to the perceptions of an exegete such as Allamah Tabatabaei who has explained Quranic monotheism through a Quran to Quran (interpreting the Quran through the Quran) method. The present study, utilizing an analytic method, is a comparative study between the exegetic understandings of Attafayyash and Allamah Tabatabaei regarding Divine Unity. Both believe in the oneness of God’s essence and the selfsameness of His attributes with His essence; however, Attafayyash’s exegetic perceptions are based on a rational, narrative, and Quranic method, are influenced by historical precedents, are a mix of the beliefs of the Asharites and Mutazilites, and a modification of the beliefs of the Kharijites. Whereas Allamah’s perception is based on a Quranic method and is free from personal intellectual affiliations. Attafayyash concludes tanzīh, God’s incomparability (the belief that God is exalted and His attributes are incomparable to those of creation) while Allamah concludes a combination of tashbīh (common conception of attributes that are shared between God and human beings) and tanzīh. Their views regarding the observability of God are different at two levels. Attafayyash accepts free will in the form of the Theory of Creation and Attainment while Allamah accepts free will with a linear view of the will of God and human beings

One of the rational principles of conversation among human beings is attention to the context of words to understand their meaning and intent. Discovering the meanings and intent of verses of the Quran is also not exempt from this because they have been revealed in accordance with human language and the rules that govern it. Quranic exegetes have a consensus regarding the actual necessity of a ttention to contexts in exegesis; however, they differ in their views and way of utilizing context and this matter has played an effective role in the emergence of exegetic differences. The present study has been organized with the aim of examining and evaluating the approaches of Sadeqi Tehran and Javadi Amoli regarding the types of contexts and their effects on the exegetic differences about the verse of shortening the prayers using an analytic-comparative method. The findings of the study show that the two exegetes operate differently in their approach to context and its applications in the interpretation of the verse despite being aligned in their exegetic methods and religious denomination and this matter has a great impact on the exegetic differences between the two. Given that Sadeqi Tehrani is inclined, to a great extent, to Quran-sufficiency in interpretation, he has mostly used the conjunct and disjunct contextual proofs of verses and since he has a critical view toward narrations, has used narrative contexts less in the interpretation of the verse. However, even though Javadi Amoli has used proofs such as context and conjunct verses, considering that he regards the abovementioned verse as one of the verses that contain a religious ruling and that there are reliable narrations from the Infallibles (peace be upon them) that explain it, he has mostly used the disjunctive context of narrations.

Mature wisdom or ḥikmatun bālighah, is one of the Quranic combinations which has given rise to various views regarding its meaning, referents, and especially, its characteristics. The present paper studies the nature and extracts the characteristics of “mature wisdom” in verse five of the al-Qamar Chapter utilizing a descriptive-analytic method (using the help of a content analysis table) and through the view of Shiite and Sunni exegesis (more than fifty Shiite and Sunni exegeses from different centuries). Findings show that most Shiite and Sunni exegeses consider “mature wisdom” to refer to the Quran. However, instances such as the following are also within the referential circle of “mature wisdom”: divine revelation, teachings and miracles of the prophets, and the course of the sending of the prophets by God. Mature wisdom possesses certain characteristics including the following: it is at the peak of the truth, steadfastness, rightness, completeness, and perfection, contains no defects, etc. In the characteristics extracted from Shiite and Sunni exegesis, epistemic categories such as infallibility and educational categories such as the wisdom to communicate to willing hearts are evident.

Delegating legislation to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) refers to God giving the power to set religious laws to the Prophet. Some exegetes among the Shiites and Sunnis oppose this view under some verses such as verses that explain remembrance (dhikr), attribute laws only to God, and verse four of the al-Najm Chapter. The present research studies the views of this group of exegetes using a descriptive and content analysis method and has replied to the question of where the role of the Prophet is in the legislation of religious law. Findings show that the arguments of the abovementioned exegetes in this opposition are incomplete because according to the logical rule that states “to affirm a truth does not mean to deny other (as yet) unaffirmed truths,” that the Prophet is one who explains and clarifies matters (mubayyin) does not refute his possession of the right to legislate religious laws. Both religious and existential legislation is essentially specific to God, the Exalted, but this does not contradict the delegation of legislation with the permission of God and secondarily to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his household). Moreover, legislative authority has been stipulated and can be proven for him in limited instances through arguments such as the verses of fayʾ (spoils of war), the judgment of God and the Prophet, the obligation of obedience to God and the Prophet, and attributing prohibitions to God and the Prophet as well as authentic narrations regarding delegation of legislation to the Prophet, reliable narrations (in terms of narrators) that consider the source of legislation as the Quran and conduct of the Infallibles, and instances of the Prophet’s legislation in historical narrative sources, and the absoluteness of the verse, “it is just a revelation that is revealed [to him],” [53: 4] (Qarai translation) – if one accepts it absoluteness and generality.

The phrase “protecting the private parts” (ḥifz-i faraj) has been repeated four times in the Holy Quran in different forms and God has advised it to the believers. However, since the object of protecting the private parts has been omitted, the implication of these verses is ambiguous. Different views have been expressed regarding the answer to the question of what the intent of the legislator (God) was concerning the object of protecting the private parts, each of which has its own specific requirements and different semantic spheres. Nowadays, in the area of medical jurisprudence, of the main reasons for opposition to phenomena such as surrogacy or some forms of artificial insemination is the contradiction of these phenomena with the obligation of protecting the private parts and the evaluation of these laws is not possible without having the correct and methodical interpretation of “protecting the private parts.” Despite the foundational role of these verses in jurisprudential inferences, so far no independent argumentative work has been authored regarding the interpretation of these verses and this very theoretical vacuum has led to the emergence of sometimes incorrect and undisciplined interpretations. The present study aims to study and critique these exegeses through a descriptive-analytic method and to show that artificial insemination and surrogacy are essentially unrelated to these verses and these two are separate from each other.

Preferential rules are criteria through which an exegete recognizes the preferred view among different views in the interpretation of verses. The rule of non-abrogation is one of the preferential rules that exegetes rely on. Based on this rule, an exegete gives preference to a rule that corresponds with non-abrogation except in instances where there are definite proofs for abrogation. The goal of this study is to study the approach of Shiite and Sunni exegetes toward this rule in the verses regarding the last will [2: 180] and ransom [47: 4]. This paper has been written utilizing a descriptive-analytic method and a comparative approach. The approach of the exegetes to the abovementioned preferential rule has been studied concerning these two verses and the findings of the study show that the exegetes have paid attention to this rule in the two verses under consideration; however, in some instances, some of them have erred in determining the place and way of the use of this rule. The proponents for the verses of the will and ransom being abrogated differ regarding the argument for abrogation and the studies that have been done show that none of these arguments are considered valid regarding the abrogation of the abovementioned verses.

Unity of Lordship (tawḥīd al-rubūbī) is one of the most important levels of monotheism in the path of servitude because most human polytheism is concerning Lordship. Thus, the Quran has used different methods to explain the Unity of Lordship among which the argument for “God’s creatorship”  - since it is believed by all – as well as “divine general guidance” are the most used and most important. Verse fifty of the al-Ṭāhā Chapter is the most comprehensive verse in this regard. Relying on that, the present article has compared the views of exegetes through a descriptive-analytic method with the aim to discover and explain the different types of arguments for Unity of Lordship and has arrived at findings that indicate four systems govern the world in proving divine Lordship, especially existential Lordship: the “agent system” based on the word rabbanā (our Lord); the “internal system” and “external system” based on the phrase “…He who gave everything its creation…” [20: 50] (Qarai translation), and the “teleological system” derived from “… and then guided it.” [20: 50]. These systems are based on proofs that are extracted from the context of the verse. These proofs are the following: three arguments for creatorship: Unity of Creatorship, the correlation between creatorship and lordship, the accompaniment of creation and management due to the harmony in the creation system; two arguments for guidance: the correlation between guidance and lordship, and the correlation between creatorship, guidance, and lordship. Thus, the context of the verse denotes generality, that is, that creation is for all creations and includes their existential guidance and there is no reason to limit the verse to meanings cited in some exegeses. The result of these comprehensive arguments is that the rabb (the managing owner) is only someone who has bestowed a specific existence to each thing according to its interests, benefits, and perfection and has guided it toward the purpose of its creation.

The goal of this study is to analyze the literary-exegetic content of Abu Muslim Isfahani – his literary view in the process of exegesis – derived from Majmaʿ al-Bayān considering the view of other exegetes with the intent to refine some of the acceptable central content in the exegesis clearly and distinctively. In the present paper, through a descriptive-analytic method of research, we have strived to answer the following questions: which of the literary content of Abu Muslim in Majmaʿ al-Bayān is general, which of the addressed literary content is different or consistent with the views of Abu Muslim and other exegetes, and which is specific to him. The result of the study is that the effect of the selected literary content has been investigated in Abu Muslim’s exegesis of these verses and their differences with other exegeses. Among the views that are specific to him, some that can be indicated are the following: the referent of the Arabic pronoun hāʾ [2: 74], allegory [2: 230], and his belief in exaggeration and emphasis [2: 90 & 7: 150] and some of the content that is not different from the views of most exegetes and is common with them is the following: the type of alif and lām (Arabic letters that may come at the beginning of a word and can have different meanings) and their meaning regarding the word “human being” (insān) [76: 1], content such as the combination and meanings of lā (letters lāʾ and alif of Arabic) [56: 75 & 75: 1], the tone and combination of the phrase “then Allah increased their sickness” [2: 10] (Qarai translation), and the referent of the pronoun in [2: 74].

Based on verses of the Holy Quran, a human being is the most noble of creations. On one hand, he has the potential to ascend to the proximity of God and on the other hand, is capable of falling to the lowest level. Honor and favor have been mentioned consecutively in verse seventy of the al-Isrāʾ Chapter. Divine Majesty has bestowed honor upon human beings so that they are in a superior position. Now what is the relationship between honoring and favoring that the Quran has addressed? The conformity of the views of Shiite and Sunni exegetes in attaining the answer to this question is important. The goal of this study is to find the most effective factor in attracting divine honoring and the realization of human superiority because this factor can identify the relationship between honor and favor. The present article has studied this topic comparatively using the descriptive-analytic method and library resources. The results of this study show that divine honoring is in two forms, general and special divine blessings that human beings possess. However, his position of favor and superiority over other creations is meaningful with God-wariness and servitude; otherwise, not only are human beings not superior, they are misguided.

Verses related to divine will are among the most thought provoking-verses of the Holy Quran and which have always been debated by the exegetes. Verse sixteen of the al-Isrāʾ Chapter, “And when We desire to destroy a town We command its affluent ones [to obey Allah]. But they commit transgression in it, and so the word becomes due against it, and We destroy it utterly” (Qarai translation), is among one of the difficult verses due to the question of God’s will to punish before the people deserve it and the referent of “we command.” Exegetes have made many efforts to eliminate the conflict of this verse with other verses and proofs and that has resulted in different views. However, the lack of a singular conclusion shows that this issue has not been resolved.We have strived in this paper, using an analytic-comparative approach in the range of Shiite and Sunni exegeses, to answer the following questions regarding the abovementioned verse: Based on the apparent words of the verse, how is the will to punish before a sin is committed justifiable? Is the referent of “we command” in the phrase “We command its affluent ones [to obey Allah]. But they commit transgression” transgression or obedience? Studies show that the will to punish is due to their previous sins not the sin that has been mentioned in the verse and “we command” refers to an existential command and thus, command has been used in its real meaning and its referent is transgressionc

The separators at the end of verses hold much importance from literal and denotative aspects. From the denotative aspect, since these separators have a strong place and connection with respect to the content of verses, they have a great impact on the interpretation of the content of the verse and can help in interpretation. Now how can the exegete use these separators in the exegesis and explanation of the content of verses? Do commentators hold the same view regarding the use of separators in the interpretation of a verse? In this article, through a descriptive-analytic method, we have reviewed and comparatively studied the uses of two great contemporary exegetes, Allamah Tabatabaei and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, in explaining the content of verses. In this comparison, it will become clear that the following functions are common in both exegeses: dispelling the illusions of doubts and ambiguities from verses, critiquing exegetic views and possibilities, explaining the content of verses and deducing a judgment from verses using separators. However, Allamah has used separators specifically for strengthening, emphasizing, and rectifying exegetic views and possibilities, critiquing narrations that explain the circumstances of the revelation of verses, and emphasizing or prioritizing a certain reading. Ayatollah Javadi has also specifically employed them in Tafsīr Tasnīm as proofs for a topic, arguments for a rule present in a verse, perceiving a message, arriving at a conclusion from the verse, and explaining the temporariness of the rule of a verse.