نشریه رهیافت هایی در علوم قرآن و حدیث
سال چهل و دوم شماره 1 (پیاپی 84، بهار و تابستان 1389)

Talking about paganism (jāhiliyya) is in fact a discourse about a procedure that is not limited to a specific time, since paganism is a social mode (disposition), which can appear in any time and space and has its own characteristics, goals, and standards; a reality that the Holy Qur’ān, the sunna of the Prophet (S.A.W.), as well as the researchers’ inquiries have emphasized. The Holy Qur’ān has viewed paganism as against religion and its practice as originally opposed to Islam. The inquiries conducted by scholars and researchers have designated its nature as a mode rather than a temporal stage. This writing is aimed at expressing the reality of paganism and clarifying its nature as a policy in life. It is also an attempt to draw attention to help understand its essence and the misconceptions held about it, leading to a clarification of minds through explicating its philosophy. The importance of the matter is more because of the negligence of many people, especially, the Muslims about this malady, which, as the modern paganism, is so remarkably widespread in today’s world.

Synonymy is a common phenomenon among different languages. The linguists of the world have had various views about it. Thus, first this issue is put to survey among Arabic linguists and then its scope in the Holy Qur’ān is discussed.The phenomenon of synonymy has its proponents and opponents, each having their own reasons. This disagreement stems from the lack of a comprehensive and exclusive definition of synonymy. On the other hand, the Arabic vocabulary in the Qur’ān has undergone extensive developments because of the context of the verses.Searching into the meanings of some synonymous words in the Qur’ān, this writing seeks to bring up the semantic intermingling of the related words in place of synonymy, which in turn has caused the semantic reproduction. For example, khawf (fear) and khashiyat (awe) are semantically intermingled but due to their conceptual contrast, they cannot be quite the same; but, in human beings such as the Divine Prophets, who are manifestations of Divine Attributes, khawf and khashiyat are united in terms of applicability.Appearance of the semantic networks of vocabulary in the Qur’ān is the result of semantic intermingling, which brings forth organized sets with high interdependence. These semantic networks clarify the doctrines (ma‘ārif) hidden in the verses and reinforce the idea of these doctrines as being highly organized.

There is no doubt that the way to gain access to religious rulings and doctrines is the sunna of the Prophet and the Imams, as only second to the Holy Qur’ān, which is reported in thousands of traditions in various tradition books. In the meantime, every theologian and ḥadīth researcher has to leave behind two stages for a proper understanding of traditions: in the first stage, he is to consider preparing the positive exigencies and conditions for proper understanding of the ḥadīth and in the second stage, after identifying the pitfalls and obstacles to understanding ḥadīth, is to proceed to eliminate them. Given the vulnerability of aḥādīth, making use of this invaluable treasury demands certain preparations, one of which is to identify the pathologies in order for the ḥadīth researcher to take measures in eliminating these pathologies and their undesirable consequences concerning understanding of ḥadīth.“Non-literal transmission” (naql bi ma‘nā) is one of these pitfalls that the present article is addressing with a descriptive-analytic method. After a brief account about the preparation of the ground for the discussion and pointing out its background, the writing deals with the permissibility and impermissibility of non-literal transmission from the viewpoint of traditions and Muslim thinkers in a well-reasoned way and goes on to discuss the factors and consequences of non-literal transmission. In conclusion, while presenting some examples of the undesirable consequences of this phenomenon, it provides its remedy, as well.

Terrorism is regarded as among the current issues discussed in the international community. It has particularly attracted the attention of people all over the world, both in the East and the West, after the events of September 11, 2001.However, there is no consensus in determining its semantic framework, with each definition admitting to this terms’ relativity.Our religion, nevertheless, is a faith which has been carefully distinguished in phrases, limitation of meanings, and the building of the rulings thereupon. No religious community (umma) has made so much attempt in literal study of the words and scrutiny in the meaning of their Revealed Book, and applying them in religious law (sharī‘a) as this [Muslim] community did.The present article tries to clarify the concept of terrorism and then examine the Qur’ānic terms exploited in this field.

Āyat al-Mubāhila (the verse on mutual cursing – Q. 3: 61) is among the most prominent verses of the Qur’ān, which reveals the status and excellence of the Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.)’s Ahl al-Bayt (A.S.). Relying on Divine Revelation, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) has viewed ‘Alī (A.S.) as his own soul, which obviously suggests the rightfulness of the sainthood (wilāya) and Imamate of the household of the Prophet (S.A.W.), especially that of Imam ‘Alī (A.S.). Despite this clear fact, al-Ālūsī, a Sunnī interpreter, has disputed as to the correspondence of anfusanā (our souls) to ‘Alī (A.S.). This interpreter’s approach to this verse is related to his theoretical mindset. On the other hand, this interpreter’s opinion stems from the viewpoint of such people as Ibn Taymiya and Imām al-Fakhr al-Rāzī; his confrontation with this verse is another exposition of the viewpoint of Salafī interpreters.Relying on theological principles, intellectual arguments, the traditions, and the Revelation occasion of this verse, Shī‘a interpreters believe that there is not the slightest doubt about the correspondence of anfusanā to Imam ‘Alī (A.S.). Categorizing al-Ālūsī’s confrontation with the Ahl al-Bayt (A.S.)’s traditions, the present article examines the position of this interpreter concerning Āyat al-Mubāhila

Orientalism, as a phenomenon, has a long record in the West; and the orientalists are also varied in their motivations.The orientalists have attempted throughout the history to make believe that the Prophet of Islam had not been a Prophet and that the Qur’ān is a human achievement adopted from the Torah, Gospel, etc. To prove their claim, they have alluded to some texts in the Sunnī sources, one of which is Suhayl b. ‘Umar’s conversation with the Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) during the Truce of Ḥudaybiya.The present article has examined this evidence of the orientalists and concluded that Suhayl b. ‘Umar had not said anything suggesting the Prophet’s ability to read and write before his Prophetic Mission. Besides, the orientalists’ claim is contrary to the clear assertion of the Qur’ān, the Islamic traditions, historical records, and the Muslim’s sīra, the details of which are to be found in the article.

Since the verses of the Qur’ān have been revealed for the guidance of human beings and their eternal happiness, the Holy Qur’ān makes every endeavor to illustrate human destiny on the Resurrection Day. The behavioral reaction of the deniers of the Truth and the people of falsity when witnessing the Resurrection scenes after the appearance of Truth is one of the thought-provoking issues in the Qur’ānic studies. Searching into two conflicting views, this article tries to present a third viewpoint and, thereby, critically review the exegesis presented with two different approaches to the early verses of Sūrat al-Wāqi‘a.