نشریه پژوهش های قرآنی
سال نوزدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 73، بهار 1392)

The issue of “definitive and metaphorical” (muḥkamāt and mutashābihāt) is among the issues much discussed in various Islamic sciences, which is often brought up following āya 7 of Sūrat Āl-i Imrān, ﴾Parts of it are definitive verses, which are the mother of the Book, while others are metaphorical.﴿ This paper attempts to examine the content of this noble āya and prove that, firstly, ﴾āyātun muḥkamāt﴿ (definitive verses) does not mean “manifest verses” and ﴾mutashābiḥāt﴿ (metaphorical) does not mean “succinct and ambiguous verses”, and that ta’wīl (esoteric exegesis) does not mean interpretation. Secondly, what is meant by “definitive verses” is that the verses sent down to the Prophets in various copies of Revealed Scriptures have not been distorted and transformed and that it is called “Umm al-Kitāb” (Archetypal Book). And what is meant by ﴾āyātun mutashābihāt﴿ is the verses that are the same in subject in some copies of the Revealed Scriptures and in some other copies they are different; therefore, ‘‘mutashābih” means the same as one another.

Music is regarded as one of the vast areas of the function of aesthetics and one of the secrets of the beauty of literary texts and masterpieces. In the meantime, the phenomenon of repetition has been one of the most fundamental components in the formation of this art, having greatly contributed to the creation of two types of inner and outer music. As the last written Divine communication with humankind, the Holy Qur’ān has made much use of the virtuosity of this style, as using “repetition” in the revealed āyas has led to the creation of a miraculous music that is quite compatible to the content of the āyas. The aesthetic examination of some examples of the āyas of the Holy Qur’ān in this brief study indicates how the repetition phenomenon is effective in creating images and efficacy of the meanings of Qur’ān through creating variety in music.

The story of Solomon in Sūrat Saba‘ and Sūrat al-Naml is one of the most controversial stories of the Qur’ān, in which the subjects brought up are all astounding and open to many questions. For example, the story of Solomon’s talking to hoopoe, the hoopoe distinguishing the infidelity of the disbelievers, and the rule of Queen Sheba, which were accepted by the Qur’ān, and so forth. However, one of the controversial discourses of this story is the way Solomon treats Queen Sheba by threatening and forcing her toward faith, which has been relied on as a basis for presuming the preemptive jihad. Solomon was a wise and erudite person, but why did he use a hostile approach to force a powerful ruler to either convert and surrender or encounter his mighty army? The Qur’ān tells this story in Sūrat al-Naml and not only does not criticize this approach, but confirms it as well. Various viewpoints have been presented concerning this story; the most common among them is its factuality versus the theory of its being mythical. After giving a concise account of the story, the article goes on to study its major points and concludes that there is no indication of using violence to force an ideology and then the misconception brought up are responded to.

This article is presented in two sections: the first section explains the necessity of justification in the field of innate morality, concept of justification, prevalence of “non-cognitivism” theory – which is the opposite point of “moral realism” theory and the origin of moral relativity – in the West, and the approach to inner nature (fiṭra) with a psychological view, which is also characterized with justifiability. The second section is dedicated to justification of morality from the viewpoint of the Qur’ān, in which the mechanism of the intuition of primordial dispositions, the objective effects of the actualization of the innate tendencies, and the tangible outcomes of avoidance of fiṭra as factors applicable in moral justification of fiṭra.

Twelve traditions have been related in narrational and exegetical sources as the Revelation occasion of the Sūrat al-Taḥrīm. Because of their variety and internal and external contradiction, these traditions are the most challenging traditions of Revelation occasion. In order to recognize the traditions of Revelation occasion and to verify them, three steps have to be taken, which include: valuing the traditions of Revelation occasion, evaluation of the content of the traditions, and evaluation of their chain of transmission (sanad). By a systematic study of all the traditions of Revelation occasion, we find out that none of these traditions are the real Revelation occasion of the sūra; rather they all indicate the Revelation ambience of Sūrat al-Taḥrīm in the eighth year after the Hijra, denoting the formation of a mysterious course of event among the Muslims, who were trying to weaken the Prophet’s social status. This course of event was unfortunately spread to the household of the Prophet, as well. It was in in this condition that Sūrat al-Taḥrīm was revealed, warning the Prophet’s wives to give up being disloyal to him and their complicity with the plotters.

The traditions on jary (applicability), which include a great part of the traditions in our narrational interpretations, have always been and are of interest to our interpreters. These traditions are referred to in the context of interpretation discourses. Nevertheless, the question comes to mind that whether these traditions are in principle considered as interpretational or not. These traditions seem to seek to apply the general concept of the āya to a conventional evidence irrespective of the concept of the āyas before and after it; and thus, they are quite distinguished from the traditions on inner aspects (butūn), which seek to state the esoteric meanings of the āyas as well as the traditions on evidence statement, which are merely intended to state an outer evidence for the āya. Upon explaining the concept of applicability and comparison (jary wa taṭbīq), the article proceeds to articulate the indices of the traditions on applicability and comparison, different types of tradition, their relation to the inner aspect (baṭn), and the esoteric exegesis (ta’wīl) and interpretation of the āyas.

The paper presented here is the translation of an independent discussion by Dr. Ṣā’ib ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd, published under the title ‘Ilm al-Sunan al-Ilāhiyya fī Madrasat al-‘Urwat al-Wuthqā in a volume entitled, Falsafat al-Tārīkh fī al-Fikr al-Islāmī. In this discussion, the writer views Sayyid Jamāl al-Dīn Asad Ābādī and his disciple Muḥammad ‘Abdu as the founders of the modern philosophy of the Qur’ānīc history. He traces the continuation of their school, which he mentions as ‘Urwat al-Wuthqā School, through two figures of “commentators” and “theoretician” up through the present era by mentioning some examples and then goes on to talks about the developments of this knowledge.