نشریه آموزه های قرآنی
سال بیست و یکم شماره 40 (پاییز و زمستان 1403)

According to Qur’ān 16:125, the modes of daʿwah (Arabic: دعوه, lit: religious invitation) in the Qurʾānic paradigm are Ḥikmah (Arabic: حکمه, lit: wisdom), Mawʿiẓah Ḥasanah (Arabic: موعظه حسنه, lit: good exhortation), and Jidāl Aḥsan (Arabic: جدال احسن, lit: the most refined disputation). Some exegetes and logicians have drawn parallels between these methods and the demonstrative (Arabic: برهان, Romanized: burhān), rhetorical (Arabic: خطابه, Romanized: khiṭābah), and dialectical (Arabic: جدل, Romanized: jadal) disciplines of classical logic. Consequently, it is imperative to scrutinize the correlation between Qurʾānic methodologies of invitation and the Aristotelian and Islamic logical arts. A close examination of the lexical semantics and Qurʾānic applications of these three modes in Qur’ān 16:125 reveals that they do not necessarily correspond to the logical disciplines in a strict sense. Several fundamental distinctions exist between Qurʾānic Ḥikmah (Arabic: حکمه) and logical burhān (Arabic: برهان) in terms of origination, epistemic access, scope of applicability, range of conclusions, and human influence. Similarly, Mawʿiẓah Ḥasanah (موعظه حسنه) differs from rhetorical khiṭābah (Arabic: خطابه), particularly regarding its premises, foundational principles, intended objectives, and mechanisms of psychological effectiveness. Furthermore, Jidāl Aḥsan (Arabic: جدال احسن), within the Qurʾānic epistemic framework, diverges from logical jadal, not only in the nature of its premises (truth-oriented vs. disputational) but also in its underlying intent and pragmatic function.

In positive psychology, the significance of gratitude and its impact on individual and social well-being is a relatively emerging field of study. In the Qurʾān, however, divine discourse recurrently underscores the innumerable blessings bestowed upon humankind and calls upon individuals to acknowledge and express gratitude as a means of spiritual and personal growth. While shukr (Arabic: شکر, lit: thankfulness) is conceptualized as an ethical principle in the Qurʾān, gratitude in positive psychology is primarily examined in relation to social etiquette. This distinction necessitates a comparative study of the essence of these concepts in both domains. This research, employing a genealogical approach, investigates the structural composition and functional dynamics of shukr and gratitude within the Qurʾānic framework and positive psychology. The objective is to delineate the conceptual convergences and divergences between these two paradigms. Findings indicate that the Qurʾānic perspective on shukr integrates both foundationalist and functionalist dimensions, grounded in a self-constructed Qurʾānic epistemology. Conversely, positive psychology approaches gratitude from a purely functionalist standpoint, lacking a metaphysical or transcendental dimension. Moreover, despite superficial similarities, shukr in the Qurʾān and gratitude in positive psychology exhibit fundamental ontological and epistemological distinctions, each rooted in distinct intellectual traditions.

The intellectual systems designed for the leadership of humankind and the construction of both the individual and society each propose specific plans and programs tailored to their societal and social contexts. A fundamental component of these systems is the method of distributing valuable resources within the society in question. This paper, with the objective of providing a sociological examination of the fair distribution of resources and wealth from the perspective of the Qurʾān, primarily addresses the question of what factors and obstacles can be inferred from the Qurʾānic verses concerning the fair distribution of resources and their impact on social justice. Furthermore, from a sociological standpoint, how these factors contribute to the realization of social justice and the ideal society envisioned in the Qurʾān is analyzed. The research methodology of this study is qualitative analysis, discovering themes related to the issue based on a framework of sociological concepts and direct reference to the Qurʾānic verses. The findings of the research present a model of positive and negative factors, identified as both the foundations and barriers for fair distribution. The positive factors include the promotion of a culture of charity (Arabic: صدقه, Romanized: ṣadaqah), trust-building in economic exchanges, attention to the belief in God as the provider (Arabic: رزاق, Romanized: razāq), and the payment of zakat (Arabic: زکات), all of which are recognized as key enablers of fair wealth distribution. Conversely, negative factors such as the promotion of unhealthy lifestyles, neglect of the needs of the underprivileged, the unequal accumulation of wealth, and wastefulness (Arabic: إسراف, Romanized: isrāf) were highlighted as significant obstacles to achieving social justice. The results demonstrate that Qurʾānic teachings clearly emphasize the importance of cooperation and mutual assistance within society, providing the necessary foundation for establishing a just and sustainable system.

The list of the order of revelation according to Jābir ibn Zayd represents one of the notable hadith-based chronologies in the dating of the Qurʾān. A majority of Qurʾānic scholars, when reporting or utilizing this order, primarily reference al-Itqān by Suyūṭī, disregarding other sources and versions of this narration. However, this narrative has been transmitted in earlier sources, such as al-Bayān fī ʿAdad Āyāt al-Qurʾān by Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī, through different chains of transmission and with a more complete text. Furthermore, discrepancies and omissions in various manuscripts and printed editions of al-Itqān have occurred, leading to erroneous assumptions in contemporary works that this list lacks certain surahs such as al-Nūr, al-Ḥujurāt, and al-ʿĀdiyāt. Additionally, the list in al-Itqān includes al-Fātiḥah, and several Qurʾānic scholars have used this version to date the revelation of al-Fātiḥah. Investigating the various texts of Jābir’s narration across different sources reveals that the inclusion of al-Fātiḥah in this list might be the result of subsequent scholarly interpretations. This article, by consulting the oldest available manuscripts and sources, introduces the sources of Jābir ibn Zayd’s narration and conducts a genealogical analysis, comparing different hadith lists, to explore the nature, validity, and foundational principles of this chronology. The findings demonstrate that some minor discrepancies in Jābir’s list compared to other hadith-based lists could be attributed to errors in transmission or transcription. However, significant differences, such as the placement of Sūrah al-Mā’idah among the earliest Medinan surahs and the omissions and additions concerning Sūrah al-Fātiḥah, cannot be explained as mere errors. These divergences likely arise from deliberate scholarly interpretation and adjustments in the foundational list in favor of alternative opinions.

Among the Qurʾānic terms associated with the Prophet Abraham (Ibrāhīm), the word "Āzar" holds particular significance. This term appears only once in the Qurʾān, in Sūrat al-An‘ām (6:74): "And when Abraham said to his father Āzar, ‘Do you take idols for deities?’" Lexicographers and exegetes have proposed diverse perspectives regarding the nature and meaning of Āzar. From a comprehensive standpoint, these perspectives can be examined from two fundamental aspects: its ontological status and its semantic implications. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method with a linguistic approach, drawing upon library-based research to elucidate the concept and function of this term in the Qurʾānic discourse. The research findings reveal multiple interpretations of Āzar: as a name for an idol; as a descriptive term denoting diligence and industriousness; as a word expressing reproof and prohibition of falsehood; as the name of Abraham’s servant; and as the father of Abraham during his period of polytheism, referred to as Ab. However, within Islamic tradition and post-Qurʾānic scholarship, Āzar has predominantly been perceived as the name of a polytheist and idolater, whom the Qurʾān designates as Ab (father) of Abraham. According to the predominant Shi‘a view, Āzar was either Abraham’s paternal uncle or his maternal grandfather. Conversely, the majority of Sunni scholars regard him as Abraham’s biological father. Nevertheless, several critical factors-such as the absence of Āzar’s name or title as Abraham’s father in the Biblical and historical sources, as well as the Qurʾānic distinction between "wālid" (Arabic: والد, lit: biological father) and "Ab" (Arabic: اب, lit: paternal figure)-support the conclusion that Āzar was not the actual biological father of Abraham.

Prophets of God, upon the definitive establishment of divine punishment for disbelievers, have consistently shown absolute submission and have never resisted God’s decree. However, two Quranic cases have been interpreted by some exegetes as signs of disagreement with divine command; Prophet Noah’s (pbuh) plea regarding the fate of his son and prophet Abraham’s (pbuh) intercession on behalf of the people of Lut. This research employs a library-based approach and a descriptive-analytical method to examine these two cases by analyzing relevant exegetical views and Qur’anic verses. The research proceeded by first extracting all relevant Quranic verses concerning the interactions of these two prophets with disbelievers, followed by a systematic exegetical and interpretive analysis. Findings indicate that Prophet Noah (pbuh) was unaware of his son’s spiritual state and did not request exemption from punishment but rather sought clarification. Likewise, Prophet Abraham’s (pbuh) argument, given the commendable attributes ascribed to him in the Qur’an and his lack of certainty regarding the punishment, is interpreted as a praiseworthy effort motivated by compassion and a desire for guidance. Accordingly, neither case constitutes a breach of prophetic infallibility (Iṣmah) and personality, nor do these actions contradict the broader ethical and theological framework governing prophetic conduct.

A mystical interpretation of Qurʾānic verses, grounded in rigorous exegetical principles and informed by the proper methodology of tadabbur (Arabic: التدبر, lit: deep contemplation), is not only possible but also essential, as it facilitates the discovery and extraction of novel meanings from the Qurʾān. This approach has been realized in numerous mystical exegeses. However, commentators in this tradition often fail to elucidate the methodological foundations underlying their novel understandings of the verses. Consequently, they are frequently accused of inconsistencies in tafsīr (Arabic: تفسیر) and taʾwīl (Arabic:تاویل), an overreliance on associative meanings, subjective interpretations, and methodological arbitrariness. Yet, a clear articulation of their reasoning could enhance the credibility of their interpretations. Verses 82 and 83 of Sūrah an-Nisāʾ (04), when interpreted through a conventional exoteric perspective, pertain to governance-related discussions. However, a meticulous examination of their internal and external textual context-especially in light of the preceding verse-reveals their potential to convey deeper meanings. Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, this article seeks to elucidate the evidentiary basis and contextual indicators that substantiate a mystical interpretation of these verses, thereby unveiling their semantic depth. From this perspective, these verses explicitly affirm the esoteric knowledge of those endowed with the capacity for istinbāṭ (Arabic: إستنباط, lit: deductive reasoning) concerning the inner dimensions of the Qurʾān. They further underscore the necessity of presenting such insights to the infallible (maʿṣūm, Arabic: معصوم) and affirm the absence of contradiction among the genuine spiritual discoveries of mystics. Ultimately, these verses may allude to one of the highest stations in the mystical path, namely kitmān (Arabic: کتمان, lit: concealment of esoteric knowledge).

Within the cosmic order, two profound metaphysical realities, Arsh (Arabic: عرش, lit: Throne) and Kursī (Arabic: کرسی, lit: Footstool), have been subjects of extensive scholarly discourse, among which Allamah Ṭabāṭabā’ī and the mystical school of Ibn ʿArabī stand out as central figures. These two perspectives share both commonalities and divergences in their interpretations of the essence and nature of the Arsh and Kursī. Given that the Qurʾānic exegesis, mysticism (ʿirfān, Arabic: عرفان), and rational theology (burhān, Arabic: برهان) are inherently interconnected, and considering that the interpretative framework of Arsh and Kursī in Ibn ʿArabī’s mystical school appears to differ from the interpretation of Allamah Ṭabāṭabā’ī, it is necessary to undertake an inquiry into these perspectives. This article, therefore, aims to critically and analytically examine and compare the metaphysical realities of the Arsh and Kursī from the viewpoints of Allamah Ṭabāṭabā’ī and the mystical teachings of Ibn ʿArabī, employing a descriptive-analytical and comparative methodology. Allamah Ṭabāṭabā’ī views the Arsh and Kursī as a unified metaphysical reality, encompassing both general and specific aspects. He asserts that these realities are located within the intellectual realm (ʿālam al-ʿaql, Arabic: عالم العقل), and they are borne by carriers who uphold them both in this world and in the Hereafter (akhirah, Arabic: آخره). The Arsh in this context is singular, both in its worldly and eschatological manifestations. Conversely, Ibn ʿArabī’s mystical tradition posits that the Arsh takes a circular form, originating in the world of al-ʿĀlam al-Mithāl (the World of Image, Arabic: عالم المثال), and is distinct from other forms of Arsh. The Kursī, understood as the earthly paradise (Jannat al-Arḍ, Arabic: جنه الارض), is situated within this specific Arsh. Furthermore, the Arsh is carried by four beings, in contrast to the Arsh carried in the eschatological realm, which is borne by eight beings. The key findings of this article can be summarized as follows: 1. Arsh and Kursī are two distinct metaphysical realities, each representing a different aspect of God’s active knowledge (ʿilm faʿlī, Arabic: علم الفعلی). 2. The primary carriers of the Kursī are four beings, who are conceptually linked to the Arsh due to their association with the Kursī. 3. According to specific traditions (riwāyah, Arabic: روایه), certain perfected human beings (al-insān al-kāmil, Arabic: الانسان الکامل) may be regarded as carriers of the Arsh. 4. The attribution of the Atlantean Sphere (falak atlas, Arabic: فلک اطلس) and the Sphere of Spheres (falak al-aflāk, Arabic: فلک الافلاک) to the Arsh, as described in the Ptolemaic model of astronomy, is erroneous. 5. The Arsh is a singular metaphysical reality with multiple attributes, including ʿazīm (Arabic: عظیم, lit: great), karīm (Arabic: کریم, lit: generous), and majīd (Arabic: مجید, lit: glorious), which describe its essence, rather than its separate types. 6. Based on the apparent meanings in the traditions, the Arsh in both the worldly and eschatological realms is one and the same.

Preferential exegetical principles constitute rigorous methodological frameworks enabling an exegete to ascertain the most authoritative interpretation among competing hermeneutical perspectives. One such principle, frequently invoked within the exegetical tradition, is the rule of “Prioritizing Qurʾānic Verses Over Contradictory Opinions.” According to this principle, the exegete privileges an interpretation consonant with the apparent signification of other thematically affiliated verses over hermeneutical positions that diverge from or contradict this coherence. This study undertakes a comparative-exegetical inquiry into the application of this principle by two of the most eminent contemporaneous exegetes of the Shīʿī and Sunnī traditions, ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī and Ibn ʿĀshūr, with particular focus on their interpretations of the Qurʾānic verses concerning the encounter of transgressors with the angels (al-Furqān, 25:22) and intercession (al-Baqarah, 2:48). Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, this research scrutinizes the extent to which these exegetes have engaged with and operationalized the preferential principle in their respective commentarial methodologies. The findings demonstrate that ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī systematically applies this principle in his hermeneutical deliberations on the aforementioned verses. By meticulously analyzing the syntagmatic and paradigmatic structures of Qurʾānic discourse, he construes yawm (Arabic: الیوم, lit: the day) in al-Furqān 25:22 as denoting the moment of death, thereby unequivocally repudiating alternative exegeses that depart from this reading. Conversely, Ibn ʿĀshūr exhibits an apparent disregard for the preferential principle in his exegesis of this verse, thereby incorporating and validating opposing interpretative positions. However, concerning al-Baqarah 2:48, both exegetes acknowledge the principle’s validity and affirm the plausibility of intercession contingent upon divine sanction, though ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s argumentation is considerably more robust and hermeneutically substantiated than that of Ibn ʿĀshūr.

A precise understanding of religious terminology necessitates not only an awareness of its lexical and terminological meanings but also a thorough examination of its Qurʾānic and ḥadīth-based applications. Failure to account for this dimension may lead to misinterpretations of scriptural texts. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, investigates the application of the term kufr (Arabic: کفر) in the Qurʾān with reference to a specific juridical definition, namely "the absence of Islam". Given the extensive occurrence of kufr in the Qurʾān, this research confines its scope to Sūrah al-Baqarah. The findings indicate that the usage of kufr and its derivatives in Sūrah al-Baqarah does not correspond unequivocally to its theological and juridical definition. The Ahl-al-Kitāb (People of the Book), despite their claim to faith, are designated as kuffār (Arabic: کفار, lit: disbelievers) due to their hostile stance towards their own prophets, divine injunctions, and the Prophet Muḥammad (PBUH). Likewise, the polytheists of Mecca are categorized as kuffār not merely due to their non-Muslim status but owing to their particular attributes and adversarial conduct, despite the completion of divine proof (Arabic: إتمام الحجه, Romanized: itmām al-ḥujjah) against them. Thus, an analysis of the contextual nuances of verses addressing kufr, whether concerning the Ahl-al-Kitāb (Arabic: اهل الکتاب), polytheists, or hypocrites, along with an examination of specific instances referenced in the Qurʾān, demonstrates that the designation kāfir (Arabic: کافر) does not universally apply to every non-Muslim individual per se.

The propagator of faith shoulders a momentous responsibility, treading a path first paved by the divinely commissioned prophets, who expended their utmost efforts in guiding and reforming humanity. Understanding their daʿwah (Arabic: دعوه) discourse is, therefore, an indispensable necessity for contemporary religious preachers. This study, adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, explores the prophetic discourse of daʿwah in Sūrah Hūd, which presents a structured framework outlining the methodology of prophetic invitation. The findings indicate that the prophets mentioned in Sūrah Hūd consistently called their people towards monotheism and devotion to God, urging them to abandon corruption and sin while addressing their social and economic concerns. In this endeavor, they employed a variety of persuasive techniques, including warning (Arabic: إنذار, Romanized: indhār), recounting admonitory narratives, perseverance (Arabic: صبر, Romanized: ṣabr), refusal of material compensation, and fostering fraternity and compassion. Given that most people reacted antagonistically towards the prophetic discourse, a significant section of this study examines the obstacles that led nations to reject divine guidance. These impediments include blind imitation of ancestors, accusations against prophets, arrogance, intellectual stagnation, and submission to the ruling elite. The prophets, however, systematically countered these barriers with strategic approaches aimed at dismantling societal resistance. The prophetic discourse of Sūrah Hūd, when analyzed comprehensively, offers applicable and adaptable insights for modern-day preachers and religious scholars, equipping them with timeless principles of daʿwah.

A Narrative traditions (Arabic: روایات, Romanized: riwāyāt) serve as crucial exegetical tools in Qurʾānic interpretation. However, the majority of such exegetical narrations suffer from weak chains of transmission (Arabic: اسناد, Romanized: asnād), inconsistencies, and content-related contradictions. One of the fundamental methodologies for evaluating exegetical narrations is to examine them in light of the Qurʾān itself. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical and library-based approach, conducts a case-based evaluation of the narrative and exegetical opinions concerning the controversial issue of the marriage of Ādam’s offspring, scrutinizing them against Qurʾānic verses. Findings reveal that the narrations supporting the dominant exegetical view, which holds that Ādam’s children married one another, not only contradict other narrations but are also at odds with the Qurʾān itself, undermining the claim that they align with the apparent meaning of Sūrah an-Nisāʾ (4:1). The second exegetical perspective, which suggests that Ādam’s offspring intermarried with jinn (Arabic: جن) or ḥūrīs (Arabic: حور), also suffers from content-based inconsistencies, and its reliance on Qurʾānic verses to substantiate the possibility or occurrence of such connection remains unfounded. The most coherent and defensible opinion, supported by both Qurʾānic and narrative evidence, posits that Ādam’s children intermarried with pre-existing human populations, a perspective that harmonizes with Qurʾānic discourse and select traditions.