دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 Critique of Peter Coppensʾ Methodological Frameworks in Analyzing Sufi Qurʾanic Exegesis نقد چارچوب‌های روش‌شناختی پیتر کوپنز در مطالعۀ تفاسیر صوفیانۀ قرآن 11 34 226660 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.518560.1288 FA سیدعلی مستجاب الدعواتی پژوهشگر پسادکتری گروه فلسفه و کلام اسلامی، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اهل‌بیت (ع)، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران. 0000-0002-4805-5305 مجید صادقی حسن آبادی دانشیار گروه فلسفه و کلام اسلامی، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اهل‌بیت (ع)، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران. 0009-0003-7711-1315 Journal Article 2025 04 22 This study critically examines the methodological frameworks of “crossing the boundary” and “center and periphery” proposed by Pieter Coppens in analyzing Sufi interpretations of the Qurʾān, highlighting their limitations and proposing alternative indigenous approaches. Coppensʾ frameworks, introduced in his book Seeing God in Sufi Qurʾan Commentaries: Crossings between This World and the Otherworld, focus on the relationship between the worldly and the otherworldly (crossing the boundary) and the position of Sufism within the broader Islamic tradition (center and periphery). This study employs critical textual analysis, historical-social contextualization, and interdisciplinary methods to evaluate these frameworks, drawing on key Sufi exegeses such as Haqaʾiq al-Tafsīr by al-Sulamī (d. 412 AH), Latāʾif al-Ishārāt by al-Qushayrī (d. 465 AH), Kashf al-Asrār by Maybudī (6th century AH), and ʿAraʾis al-Bayān by Ruzbihān Baqlī (d. 606 AH), alongside historical sources like Tarikh Nishabūr and Tārikh Baghdād. The Crossing the Boundary framework, inspired by Christian Langeʾs concept of a thin boundary between this world and the next, posits that Sufi exegetes viewed divine vision (ruʾya) as a bridge traversable through mystical states. However, this framework oversimplifies the conceptual diversity in Sufi thought (e.g., fanāʾ, qurb, wahdat al-wujūd), ignores regional variations (e.g., Nishabūr, Baghdād, Andalusia), and relies heavily on non-indigenous theories, lacking sufficient textual evidence. Similarly, The Center and Periphery model, adapted from Edward Shilsʾ sociological framework, positions Sufis like Qushayri and Sulami at the core of Islamic tradition due to their engagement with orthodox discourses. Yet, it fails to account for the complex, dynamic interactions between Sufis and traditional scholars, oversimplifies institutional rivalries, and applies a Western-centric model unsuitable for the decentralized Islamic context of the medieval period. Textual evidence from Sufi exegeses reveals that concepts like tajalli (divine manifestation) and qurb (proximity to God) challenge the notion of a metaphysical boundary, as seen in Ruzbihanʾs view that “God manifests in the heart, negating the need for a boundary”. Historical sources, such as Tārikh Baghdād, confirm the marginalization of figures like al-Hallāj, contradicting the notion of Sufis consistently occupying the center. To address these shortcomings, this study proposes indigenous frameworks rooted in Sufi concepts like fanāʾ, qurb, and tajalli, alongside methodological approaches such as textual-historical analysis, phenomenological inquiry, discursive analysis, and social network analysis. These alternatives, informed by scholars like Chittick, Saleh, Asad, and Safi, better capture the diversity and dynamism of Sufi exegesis within its Islamic context. The findings contribute to refining the methodological tools for studying Sufi Qurʾanic interpretations, emphasizing the need for contextually grounded approaches that avoid orientalist stereotypes and overly generalized frameworks. By integrating indigenous concepts and interdisciplinary methods, this study strengthens the link between Sufi texts and their historical-social contexts, offering new avenues for future studies in Islamic mysticism. این مطالعه به نقد روش‌شناختی چارچوب‌های گذار از مرز و مرکز و پیرامون پیتر کوپنز در تحلیل تفاسیر صوفیانۀ قرآن می‌پردازد. یافته‌های این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که چارچوب گذار از مرز، برگرفته از نظریۀ غیربومی لانگ، با نادیده‌گرفتن مفاهیم بنیادین صوفیانه نظیر فنا، قرب و تجلی و نیز نادیده‌انگاری تفاوت‌های جغرافیایی و تاریخی در مناطقی چون نیشابور، بغداد و اندلس، به ساده‌سازی و یکسان‌سازی ناصحیح تنوع مفهومی و تاریخی این تفاسیر منجر می‌شود. هم‌چنین، مدل مرکز و پیرامون کوپنز، با اتکا به نظریۀ شیلز و نادیده‌گرفتن ساختار غیرمتمرکز اقتدار دینی در اسلام قرون وسطی، پیچیدگی‌های تعاملات و رقابت‌های میان صوفیان و علماء سنتی را ساده‌سازی می‌کند؛ شواهد متنی از آثار سُلَمی، قُشَیری، مِیبُدی و روزبَهان بَقلی و نیز شواهد تاریخی از منابعی مانند تاریخ نیشابور و تاریخ بغداد، این محدودیت‌ها را تأیید کرده و موقعیت متغیر و گاه حاشیه‌ای صوفیانی نظیر حَلّاج (درگذشتۀ ۳۰۹ق) را در برابر گفتمان‌های غالب دینی و سیاسی تصدیق می‌کنند. در نتیجه برای رفع این کاستی‌ها و دستیابی به تحلیلی بومی‌تر و جامع‌تر، این مطالعه مفاهیم اصیل صوفیانه و روی‌کردهای روش‌شناختی جای‌گزین از قبیل تحلیل متنی ـ تاریخی، پدیدارشناسانه، گفتمانی و تحلیل شبکه‌های اجتماعی و نهادی را پیش‌نهاد می‌کند تا درک عمیق‌تری از تفاسیر صوفیانه و پیوند آن‌ها با زمینه‌های غنی اسلامی فراهم آید.

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_226660_7f26bde93a64160afc066dfa25706e30.pdf

دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 Earth Inheritance in Muslim Exegesis: From Sacred Territory to Global Rule of the Righteous تطور معنای وِراثَت ارض در تفاسیر؛ گذار از تبیین سرزمینی ـ اخروی به حاکمیت جهانی صالحان 35 50 226688 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.529068.1309 FA رضا ملّازاده یامچی پژوهشگر پسادکتری علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران. 0009-0001-6593-7545 میثم شعیب دانش‌آموختۀ دکتری فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران. 0000-0003-2904-9601 Journal Article 2025 06 09 Verse 105 of Sūra Al-Anbiyāʾ —“And We have already written in the Psalms, after the [previous] mention, that the earth will be inherited by My righteous servants”— presents an unbreakable divine promise regarding the ultimate rule of the righteous over the earth, and serves as a foundational principle in Quranic theology. However, despite its apparent clarity, the ambiguity surrounding the exact referents of its key terms, particularly “al-arḍ” (the earth) and “ʿibādī al-ṣāliḥūn” (My righteous servants), has turned this verse into one of the most debated in the history of Islamic exegesis. This study employs qualitative content analysis with a historical-comparative approach to trace the evolution of interpretive understandings of this verse within the exegetical traditions of both Sunni and Shiʿi schools from the early classical period to contemporary times. The primary goal is to identify the dominant interpretive paradigms of each era and to analyze the conceptual mechanisms and textual-narrative factors that facilitated the shift from narrow “territorial–eschatological” interpretations to broader visions of “global sovereignty.” Additionally, the paper investigates how the concept of ṣalāḥ (righteousness) evolved from an individual moral quality to a comprehensive notion of “civilizational competence.” The conceptual analysis of the verse rests on three foundational elements: 1) Identifying the referents of “Zabūr” and “Dhikr”, which frame the divine promise. Interpretations vary between understanding them as “the Psalms of David and the Torah,” “all revealed scriptures and the Preserved Tablet,” or “books revealed after the Torah.” 2) Determining the meaning of “al-arḍ”, which has given rise to two primary paradigms: 2-1) The eschatological inheritance view sees “the earth” as referring to Paradise (supported by verses like Al-Zumar/ 74) and the idea that Paradise is exclusive to the righteous. 2-2) The worldly inheritance paradigm branches into more specific interpretations, such as “the Holy Land” for the Israelites, “lands of the disbelievers” for the Umma of Muhammad, and ultimately, “the entire earth” in the eschatological future. Analyzing the concept of “righteousness” (ṣalāḥ) as a precondition for inheritance, which has undergone a historical transformation. It moved from early definitions focused on faith and individual piety —like monotheists or inner sincerity— to a modern, multidimensional concept encompassing scientific, military, economic, and social-organizational capabilities, alongside faith. Historical findings of the study highlight a three-stage developmental trajectory: In the first stage (early exegesis), the fundamental paradigm centered on a dual reading of “Paradise” and “Holy Land,” with the promise of inheritance viewed either as entirely eschatological or confined to a historical-geographic event (i.e., the inheritance of the Holy Land by the Israelites). The second stage (medieval period) witnessed a systematization of views within the theological schools of both Sunni and Shiʿi traditions. Sunni exegesis tended toward a universalist reading, broadening the promise to include the global dominance of the Muslim Ummah —referencing traditions like “the earth was folded for me”. In contrast, Shiʿi exegetes, drawing on the narrations of the Imams, adopted a particularist and eschatological interpretation, culminating in the idea that the global inheritance of the earth will be realized in the universal government of al-Mahdi. The third stage (modern paradigm) is marked by a rereading of the verse in light of new social and intellectual needs. Here, interpreters from both schools regard the “inheritance of the earth” as a social law and divine causal principle —no longer just a mystical promise, but one contingent on acquiring tangible civilizational qualifications. The final analysis reveals that the transition from limited interpretations to a global vision results from an interaction between textual elements and contextual dynamics. A key mechanism in this shift is the generalization of narrative evidence —moving from narrations confined to historical events (e.g., Israelite inheritance) to those with a global scope (e.g., hadiths on Mahdī or the Umma's future dominion). Moreover, the tension between worldly and eschatological inheritance has opened space for comprehensive theories like that of Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī, who frames both realms within a single divine law of rewarding the righteous, thereby resolving the apparent conflict. Ultimately, the modern functional reinterpretation of ṣalāḥ —linked to divine laws governing civilizational rise and decline— transforms this verse from a purely theological statement into a social theory and a model for overcoming passivity and achieving civilizational merit. This study thus demonstrates that the understanding of verse 105 of Sūra Al-Anbiyāʾ has dynamically evolved through history, expanding from narrow scopes to a global horizon and from individual implications to civilizational significance. آیه ۱۰۵ سوره انبیاء، وعده‌ای الهی مبنی بر وراثت زمین توسط بندگان شایسته را مطرح می‌سازد. با این حال، ابهام در مصادیق کلیدواژگانی چون «الارض» و «الصالحون»، این آیه را به یکی از پرچالش‌ترین مباحث تفسیری بدل کرده است. این پژوهش با روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی و رویکردی تاریخی-تطبیقی، سیر تطور معنای «وراثت ارض» را در تفاسیر فریقین (شیعه و سنی) از متقدمان تا دوره معاصر ردیابی می‌کند. هدف، شناخت پارادایم‌های اصلی تفسیری و تحلیل چگونگی گذار از تبیین‌های محدود سرزمینی-اخروی به چشم‌انداز حاکمیت جهانی صالحان و نیز تطور مفهوم «صلاح» از امری فردی به صلاحیتی تمدنی است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که در تفاسیر سلف، معنای وراثت عمدتاً به بهشت یا سرزمین مقدس محدود بود. در دوره میانی، دیدگاه‌ها در سنت اهل سنت به وراثت امت محمد (ص) و در سنت امامیه به دولت جهانی مهدوی(عج) نظام‌مند شد. در دوره معاصر، وراثت ارض به مثابه یک سنت اجتماعی و قانون علّی و معلولی الهی بازخوانی شده که تحقق آن منوط به کسب صلاحیت‌های جامع تمدنی است. این گذار تحت تأثیر جایگزینی و تعمیم ادله روایی و نیاز به ارائه الگوهایی برای پیشرفت در مواجهه با تحولات اجتماعی صورت پذیرفته است. واژگان کلیدی: وراثت ارض، آیه ۱۰۵ سوره انبیاء، تفاسیر فریقین، سیر تطور معنایی، حاکمیت صالحان، ارض جنت، ارض مقدسه، دولت مهدوی، سنت اجتماعی، مفهوم صلاح

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_226688_a10e774504c45fb60a5643105ba6093c.pdf

دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 The Polysemy of the Qurʾanic word Ibn from the Viewpoint of Historical Semantics: A Supplement to the So-called Interpretive Subgenre al-Wujūh wa al-Naẓāʾir وجوه معنایی اِبن در قرآن کریم با روی‌کرد معناشناسی تاریخی: تکمله‌ای‌بر سنّت تفسیری وجوه و نظائر 51 88 226701 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.529559.1310 FA محمدحسین شیرزاد استادیار گروه معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران (ایمیل: mh.shirzad@umz.ac.ir). 0009-0006-1678-7022 Journal Article 2025 06 10 This study investigates the semantic plurality of the Qurʾanic term ibn through the lens of historical semantics, situating its analysis within the interpretive tradition of al-wujūh wa al-naẓāʾir. Rather than treating ibn as a static lexical item denoting biological descent or genealogical affiliation, the article traces its conceptual evolution across various exegetical contexts, highlighting its polyvalent functions in theological, eschatological, and symbolic registers. The inquiry begins by problematizing the assumption of semantic stability in Qurʾanic vocabulary, arguing that diachronic shifts in interpretive frameworks—especially those shaped by sectarian, philosophical, and mystical currents—have led to layered understandings of key terms. The term ibn, often rendered simply as ʿson,’ emerges as a site of exegetical tension, particularly in verses where its referent is ambiguous, metaphorical, or embedded within polemical discourse. Drawing on a wide range of classical tafsīr sources from both Sunni and Shiʿi traditions, the article identifies several semantic clusters associated with ibn, including its use in expressions of spiritual affiliation, moral typology, and eschatological categorization. For instance, the designation ibn al-sabīl is examined not merely as a legal category but as a conceptual node linking themes of mobility, vulnerability, and divine care. Similarly, the phrase ibn al-dunyā is shown to function as a moral epithet, indexing a particular orientation toward worldly life. These usages suggest that ibn operates not only as a relational marker but also as a vehicle for ethical and theological valuation. The article further explores how exegetes have negotiated the tension between literal and figurative readings of ibn, especially in verses involving divine sonship, where polemical concerns vis-à-vis Christian doctrine have shaped interpretive strategies. The methodological framework employed combines historical semantics with a comparative hermeneutic approach, allowing for the reconstruction of semantic trajectories across time and across interpretive communities. The study pays particular attention to the genre of al-wujūh wa al-naẓāʾir, which catalogues Qurʾanic terms with multiple meanings and attempts to systematize their semantic range. While this genre has often been dismissed as lexically reductive, the article argues that it provides valuable insight into the epistemic assumptions of early exegetes and their efforts to stabilize meaning in the face of textual ambiguity. By revisiting this genre with contemporary semantic tools, the study reveals its latent potential for tracing conceptual shifts and mapping exegetical priorities. In addition to its lexical focus, the article engages broader questions about the nature of Qurʾanic language and the dynamics of meaning-making in Islamic intellectual history. It suggests that semantic plurality is not a defect to be resolved but a feature to be interpreted, one that reflects the Qurʾān's dialogical engagement with its audience and its layered modes of address. The term ibn, in this regard, serves as a prism through which to examine the interplay between language, theology, and community formation. The article also considers how later mystical and philosophical readings reconfigure the term within metaphysical frameworks, such as the notion of spiritual filiation or ontological dependence, thereby extending its semantic field beyond its original lexical bounds. By offering a diachronic and cross-sectarian analysis of ibn, the study contributes to ongoing debates in Qurʾanic semantics, tafsīr methodology, and the historiography of Islamic thought. It challenges the tendency to treat Qurʾanic terms as semantically fixed and instead advocates for a more dynamic understanding that accounts for historical context, interpretive plurality, and genre-specific conventions. The article concludes by reflecting on the implications of semantic instability for contemporary Qurʾanic studies, particularly in relation to translation, interfaith dialogue, and the construction of meaning in pluralistic settings. It calls for renewed attention to the semantic lives of Qurʾanic terms and the interpretive traditions that have shaped them, arguing that such inquiry is essential for a nuanced and historically grounded understanding of the Qurʾanic text. اِبن از جملۀ کهن‌ترین واژه‌های سامی است که با درنظر گرفتنِ اَشکال مختلف صرفی، 162 بار در 132 آیه از قرآن کریم به کار رفته است. تصور غالب نزد عالمان لغت و تفسیر آن است که اِبن واژه‌ای تک‌وجهی در قرآن کریم است که تنها بر معنای پسر (فرزند مذکّر) دلالت دارد. به همین جهت است که در کتب وجوه و نظائر باب مستقلّی دربارۀ آن گشوده نشده، و برخلاف واژه‌های هم‌حوزه ــ‌نظیر أب و اُمّ و أخ‌ــ به بحث درنیامده است. بااین‌حال مُداقّه در کاربردهای قرآنیِ واژۀ اِبن ازیک‌سو و پی‌جویی هم‌زادهای آن در زبان‌های سامی از سوی دیگر نشان از آن دارد که برخلاف تصور اولیه، اِبن واژه‌ای با وجوه معنایی متعدد است. بر همین اساس، در پژوهش حاضر کوشش می‌شود با بهره بردن از روش معناشناسی تاریخی، سابقۀ واژۀ اِبن و سیر تحولات معنایی آن از زبان‌های نیا تا عربی قرآنی کاویده، و وجوه معناییِ آن در قرآن کریم بازشناخته شود. برآیند این پژوهش آن است که کاربردهای قرآنی واژۀ اِبن نه بر یک معنا، که بر چهار معنا دلالت دارد که عبارتند از: پسر (فرزند مذکّر)، فرزند (اعمّ از فرزندان ذُکور و اِناث)، عضوی از یک جماعت، و مَرد.

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_226701_85787e312560b7200c0305412321b261.pdf

دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 Historical Approaches to the Qurʾānic Text: Merzouk Lamri's Critique نقد رویکردهای تاریخی نگر به متن قرآن از دیدگاه مرزوق عمری 89 114 227260 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.530311.1312 FA مرضیه محصص دانشیار گروه معارف اسلامی، دانشکدۀ الهیات و ادیان، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. 0000-0002-2332-410X هاجر حردان دانشجوی دکتری مدرسی معارف قرآن و حدیث، دانشکدۀ الهیات و ادیان، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. 0009-0008-0357-5690 Journal Article 2025 06 16 This article examines the critique presented by the contemporary Algerian thinker, Merzouk Lamri, against historicist approaches to the Qurʾānic text. The central issue addressed is the theory of the historicity of the Qurʾān, which posits that the text is inherently influenced by the specific historical, geographical, cultural, and epistemological conditions of its initial audience in seventh-century Arabia. Proponents of this view argue that understanding the Qurʾān requires situating it within its temporal context, suggesting that its content, formulation, and interpretation are subject to historical relativity. This idea is considered a fundamental challenge in contemporary religious reform discourse. The article positions Lamri as a significant critic of this theory. Despite his extensive critical engagement with the historicity thesis, his work has not received comprehensive or systematic attention. This study aims to fill that gap by providing a detailed formulation of Lamri's perspective and analyzing its place within the contemporary discourse critiquing the historicity of the Qurʾān. The introduction outlines three main currents regarding the historicity of religious texts, ranging from an extreme denial of historicity, as seen in traditional Salafī thought, to an extreme historicist current that views the text as entirely determined by its historical context, exemplified by thinkers like Muḥammad Arkūn and Naṣr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd, and finally a moderate approach that acknowledges historical context for initial understanding but affirms the text's semantic dynamism and enduring relevance, as advocated by figures such as Ṭāhā ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. The article details Lamri's academic background and his extensive publications critiquing modern methodological approaches to Islamic texts. His central argument is that conventional methods for studying human texts are incompatible with the revealed nature of the Qurʾān. He criticizes the application of Western-derived historical, linguistic, and anthropological methods to the Qurʾān, arguing that they fail to account for its sacred, metaphysical, and divine origins. Lamri asserts that these methods often involve selective and non-scientific biases, such as relying on weak historical narrations or marginal Ḥadīths to support preconceived conclusions about the text's human and historical dimensions. A significant portion of his critique focuses on specific methodological challenges. He argues that secular Western analytical tools are fundamentally mismatched with a text believed to be of divine origin, pointing to the selective use of sources by historicists. For instance, they may privilege certain weak narrations to reduce the experience of revelation to a human, psychological phenomenon, while ignoring stronger, more central Islamic sources. Lamri also addresses the hermeneutical challenge, distinguishing between traditional Islamic taʾwīl, which aims to discover the divine intent, and modern Western hermeneutics, which he sees as prioritizing the reader's context, leading to a relativistic understanding where human reason becomes the ultimate source of meaning. Furthermore, he counters the historicist argument that the prevalence of specific occasions of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl) proves the entire Qurʾān's historicity by noting that only a small fraction of verses have a known cause, and generalizing from these few cases is an unjustified leap. Finally, he refutes claims that delays in the official codification of the Qurʾān until Caliph ʿUthmān's era imply human alteration, emphasizing that the initial writing occurred under the Prophet's supervision and later efforts were about standardization, thus preserving the text's integrity. In conclusion, the article summarizes Lamri's view that the historicist approach, despite its claims of scientific rigor, is rooted in a secular rationality that seeks to fundamentally redefine religion. Its primary outcome is the reduction of the Qurʾān from a sacred, eternal, divine text to a mere linguistic, social, and historical phenomenon. This, Lamri warns, leads to the negation of revelation's sanctity, the relativization of truth, and the loss of the Qurʾān's religious authority. Instead of adopting external methods, Lamri calls for a critical and creative return to the Islamic interpretive tradition as a path to intellectual and epistemological renewal within an authentic Islamic framework. As a criticism of Lamri's view, it can be said that while Lamri's critiques are valuable, his perspective sometimes tends towards a binary opposition between traditional and modern reason and could benefit from distinguishing more clearly between the methodological tools of analysis and their underlying philosophical foundations. تاریخ‌مندی قرآن به معنای تأثیرپذیری متن از شرایط تاریخی، جغرافیایی، فرهنگی و معرفتی مخاطبان عصر نزول، مستلزم فهم قرآن در چارچوب زما‌ن‌مند تفسیرِ بشری است؛ به‌گونه‌ای که صورت‌بندی مضامین قرآن هم متأثر از دانش، ظرفیت‌های ادراکی و نیازهای مخاطبانِ آن مقطع ارزیابی شود و نسبیت تاریخیِ بر تفسیر قرآن سیطره یابد. این پنداره یکی از چالش‌های بنیادین در گفتمان نواندیشی دینی معاصر به‌شمار می‌آید. مطالعۀ حاضر با هدف واکاوی دیدگاه یکی از اندیشوران معاصر دربارۀ این نظریه، به تبیین آراء مرزوق عُمَری، اندیش‌مند الجزایری و ناقد نظریۀ تاریخ‌مندی قرآن می‌پردازد و به ارائۀ تصویری جامع، منقح و روش‌مند از دستگاه فکری او در نقد روی‌کرد تاریخ‌مندی متن قرآن می‌کوشد. این مطالعه در پی آن است که صورت‌بندی جامعی از دیدگاه وی عرضه کند و جایگاه اندیشۀ او را در گفتمان معاصر نقد تاریخ‌مندی قرآن به‌روشنی تحلیل نماید. عُمَری با تأکید بر ناسازگاری روش‌های مرسوم مطالعه متون بشری با متن وحیانی بازگشت نقادانه به میراث تفسیری را ضروری می‌داند. عُمَری ضمن صورت‌بندی خلاء‌های روی‌کردهای تاریخی‌نگر، خواستار بازگشت به سنت تفسیری اسلامی نه به معنای جمود و تکرار گذشته، بل‌که در قالب تجدید عقلانی و معرفتی در چارچوب معرفتی اسلامی است. در مقام نقد دیدگاه عُمَری نیز می‌توان گفت، اگرچه انتقادات او درخورتأمل است، نگرش او گاهی اوقات به افکندنِ تقابلی دوگانه میان عقل سنتی و مدرن گرایش دارد و اگر او بتواند تمایزگذاری واضح‌تری میان ابزارهای روش‌شناختی تحلیل و مبانی فلسفی زیربنایی آن‌ها بنهد بر غِنای تحلیلیِ نظریه‌اش خواهد افزود.

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_227260_5382876e0e5c43e36f0beab26f588df5.pdf

دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 Rational Abrogation Theory in the Qurʾān: Scrutiny of its Foundations, Methodology, and Consequences نقد نظریۀ نسخ عقلی قرآن در پرتو سیّالیت معنایی: تحلیل مبانی، روش‌شناسی و پی‌آمدهای معرفتی‌ـ‌هرمنوتیکی 115 144 227551 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.524036.1297 FA علی فرزین دانشجوی دکتری مدرسی معارف اسلامی، گرایش قرآن و متون اسلامی، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران. 0009-0004-3959-2004 مجید معارف استاد بازنشستۀ گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه تهران،تهران، ایران. 0000-0001-6370-3393 احمد سعدی دانشیار گروه شیعه‌شناسی، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران. 0009-0001-1259-2862 Journal Article 2025 05 16 The theory of rational abrogation (al-Naskh al-ʿAqlī) of the Qurʾān is a significant and contentious subject in contemporary Quranic hermeneutics, advanced by some modern intellectuals aiming to reconcile religious tenets with modernity. This approach integrates principles from philosophical hermeneutics into Quranic exegesis, emphasizing concepts such as semantic fluidity, the active role of human reason in understanding religious texts, and the flexibility of religious rulings. Proponents argue that human intellect, capable of discerning the underlying rationales (al-maqāṣid) and benefits (al-maṣāliḥ) or harms (al-mafāsid) of divine injunctions, can abrogate specific Quranic rulings that are deemed incompatible with contemporary ethical standards, human rights norms, or changing spatio-temporal contexts. This paper critically examines the theoretical foundations, methodological approaches, and epistemological-hermeneutical consequences of this theory through a descriptive-analytical and critical lens. The foundational premises of rational abrogation include the autonomy of human reason in independently perceiving the goodness (al-ḥusn) or badness (al-qubḥ) of actions, the dichotomy of Quranic rulings into primary/secondary, fixed/variable, and essential/accidental categories, and the characterization of the Quranic text as semantically fluid or even silent (ṣāmit), meaning its meaning is not fixed but determined through the interpreter's engagement. Key methodological strategies involve reverse abrogation (al-naskh al-mʿakūs), where later Meccan verses —considered to contain universal principles—are proposed to abrogate earlier Medinan verses —seen as context-specific and temporary legislation. Furthermore, rulings are classified as foundational (aṣlī or dhātī) versus secondary (farʿī or ʿarḍī), or as ratificatory (imḍāʾī) versus foundational (taʾsīsī), with the former categories in each pair deemed susceptible to change by rational judgment. The epistemological and hermeneutical implications of adopting rational abrogation are profound. It leads to semantic fluidity, where the meaning of the text becomes relative, contingent upon the interpreter's pre-understandings, cultural context, and philosophical presuppositions. This perspective challenges the possibility of accessing a single, objective, and authorially-intended meaning (al-murād al-jiddī) of the text (according to the terminology of Shiite jurists), ultimately fostering epistemological and religious pluralism. From the viewpoint of its critics, primarily traditional Shiite jurists (al-uṣūlīyyūn) and commentators (al-mufassirūn), this theory undermines the divine authority, eternal validity, and miraculous nature (al-iʿjāz) of the Qurʾān. They argue that the Qurʾān possesses a determinate meaning, discoverable through established principles of language (dilālat al-alfāẓ), legal theory (uṣūl al-fiqh), and the teachings of the Infallibles (al-maʿṣūmīn). For them, reason (al-ʿaql) functions as a vital tool for discovering (kashf) divine law, operating in harmony with revelation (al-naql) through the principle of correlation (qāʿidat al-mulāzamah), but it lacks the authority for independent legislation or abrogation (al-Tashrīʿ al-Mustaqill). The study systematically critiques the core pillars of the rational abrogation theory. It questions the capacity of human reason to fully grasp the particular rationales (al-malakāt) behind specific divine rulings, arguing that such knowledge ultimately rests with God. It challenges the validity of dichotomous classifications of rulings as lacking rigorous criteria and potentially leading to arbitrary selectivity, thereby contradicting the Qurʾān's claim to be a perpetual guidance. The concept of reverse abrogation is criticized for violating the established condition in Islamic jurisprudence that the abrogating text must be chronologically later than the abrogated one. Finally, the premise of textual silence (the silent shariʿa) and semantic fluidity is contested on linguistic, theological, and pragmatic grounds. It is argued that this leads to interpretive anarchy, severs the connection between text and authorial intent, and is incompatible with the finality of prophethood (al-khātamiyyah) and the Qurʾān's role as a clear, guiding light. In conclusion, while seeking to address modern challenges, the theory of rational abrogation, grounded in semantic fluidity and an expansive role for human reason, faces significant epistemological and theological challenges from a traditional Shiite perspective. It potentially leads to relativism and undermines the stability of religious knowledge. The critique reaffirms the position that the Quranic text possesses objective meanings, and the role of reason, though crucial, is circumscribed within a framework that upholds the divine origin and authority of the revelation. The study highlights the fundamental tension between adapting religious interpretation to contemporary contexts and preserving the perceived integrity and eternality of the divine text. نسخ عقلیِ قرآن ازجمله مباحثی است که روشن‌فکران، به‌خصوص در عصر حاضر، با هدف ایجاد هم‌آهنگی میان دین و مدرنیته بر آن تأکید دارند. اینان بر خلاف نگاه سنتی که معتقد است نسخ قرآن جز با قرآن یا سنت قطعیه ممکن نیست بر این باور اند که عقل توانایی نسخ احکام قرآنی را دارد. پی‌آمد چنین نگاهی استمرار نسخ، امکان تغییر و تعدیل احکام شرعی به‌‌واسطۀ حکم عقل، و قابلیت تقیید زمانیِ احکام شرعی است. در این جستار با روش توصیفی و تحلیلی و نگاه انتقادی مسئله نسخ عقلیِ قرآن و مبانی آن، با تأکید بر سیّالیت معنا، کاویده شده است. فرضیۀ مطالعه آن است که نسخ عقلیِ قرآن مبتنی است بر توانمندی عقل در تشخیص مصالح و مفاسد احکام و کشف ملاکات آن، تقسیم دوگانۀ احکام به اصل و فرع، و ثابت و متغیر و نیز صامت‌انگاری متن دین. نتیجۀ این روی‌کرد هم سیّالیت معنای متن و دست نیافتن به معنای حقیقی و عینی و مراد جدی متکلم، و درنتیجه پلورالیسم معرفتی و دینی خواهد بود. این درک درتقابل با نگرش اصولیان و مفسران مسلمان در طول تاریخ است که معتقد اند هر متنی معنای متعینی دارد و این معنا تابع وضع و ارادۀ متکلم و مؤلف است. آن‌ها ازهمین‌رو به دنبال کشف مراد جدی خدا در تفسیر قرآن و کشف معنای واحد از آن اند و درنتیجه سیّالیت و تعدد معنا را‌ نمی‌پذیرند. در مطالعۀ کنونی به این تقابل هم‌چون زمینه‌ای برای نقد آراء تفسیری نواندیشان و بازخوانی مبانی فهم دینی و بررسی نسبت عقل و وحی در فرآیند تفسیر نگریسته خواهد شد.

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_227551_272e75b056afa00044d330054f4459d9.pdf

دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 The Descent of Jesus or His Person? A Critical Inquiry into the Exegesis of Qurʾān 43:61 (innahū la-ʿilmun li-al-Sāʿa) تحلیل آراء مفسران دربارۀ إنَّه لَعِلْمٌ لِلسَّاعَةِ (زخرف/ 61) با تأکید بر نقدِ دیدگاه مشهور 145 174 227863 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.527238.1308 FA حسین براتی استادیار گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی شهید مطهری، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران. 0000-0002-9722-0688 Journal Article 2025 06 07 Focusing on the verse “innahū la-ʿilmun li-al-Sāʿa” (Indeed, he is a knowledge of the eschaton; Qurʾān 43:61), this study undertakes a critical examination of its interpretations by Quranic exegetes, with the specific aim of challenging the dominant one. The verse has been a subject of extensive scholarly dispute, primarily regarding the referent of the pronoun “he/it” (hu in the word innahū) and the meaning of the term knowledge (ʿilm). The most prevalent view among both Sunni and Shiʿa commentators identifies the referent as the descent of Jesus before the Day of Resurrection, considering it a major eschatological sign. This study posits that this popular interpretation faces significant challenges according to Islamic Theology and may not represent the most accurate understanding of the verse. The analysis begins by exploring preliminary matters, including variant readings of the word ʿilm—such as ʿalam (meaning a sign)—and the semantic fields of the key terms ʿilm (knowledge) and al-sāʿa (the Hour, meaning Eschaton). The study then systematically reviews the dominant opinion, tracing its roots and widespread acceptance across major classical and modern Sunni and Shiʿa exegeses. It demonstrates how this view became entrenched through the influence of specific eschatological narratives (ahādīth al-Malāḥim wa al-Fitan) prevalent in Islamic tradition, which describe Jesus's descent to combat the Antichrist (al-Masīḥ al-Dajjāl) and establish justice. Subsequently, this study evaluates alternative interpretations. These include views that the pronoun refers to the Qurʾān itself, arguing it provides knowledge of the Eschaton; to the Prophet Muhammad, based on traditions linking his advent to the Eschaton's proximity; or to the Shiʿa Imams, specifically Imam ʿAli or Mahdi, as found in certain Shiʿa narrative sources. Each of these opinions is critically assessed and found to be inconsistent with the immediate context (siyāq) of the verses in Surah al-Zukhruf, which centrally and continuously discuss the person and nature of Jesus Christ. The core of the study presents a detailed critique of the dominant view. It identifies several methodological and contextual weaknesses according to Islamic theology. Firstly, it argues that the interpretation has been overly dictated by the narrative discourse surrounding Jesus's descent, often at the expense of a close textual analysis of the Qurʾānic passage itself. Secondly, it highlights an incompatibility with the verse's context; the surrounding verses (43:57-66) focus on affirming the true, human nature of Jesus as a servant of God and refuting claims of his divinity, not on outlining eschatological signs. Introducing the concept of his future descent appears disruptive to this coherent thematic flow. Thirdly, the study questions the linguistic necessity of the dominant reading, pointing out that accepting it often requires imposing two implied words—descent (nuzūl) for Jesus and nearness (qurb) for the Eschaton—which violates the hermeneutical principle that avoids unnecessary assumptions in the text: ʿadam al-taqdīr awlā min al-taqdīr. Furthermore, it distinguishes between the Qurʾānic concepts of knowledge for the Eschaton (ʿilm li'l-sāʿa) found in this verse and the ‛portents of the Hour’ (ashrāṭ al-sāʿa) mentioned elsewhere (e.g., 47:18), arguing they are not synonymous. Finally, adherence to the dominant view frequently necessitates abandoning the canonical reading of ʿilm for the less common ʿalam, a shift seemingly motivated by exegetical preference rather than textual evidence. In contrast, the study advocates for an interpretation, supported by exegetes like Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī, contemporary Shiite commentator and author of al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, that the pronoun refers directly to the person of Jesus. His miraculous life story—including his virgin birth, his miracles like reviving the dead, his ascension, and his general exceptional nature—serves as profound knowledge that substantiates the possibility and reality of the Hereafter. This reading coherently links to the verse's subsequent command, falā tamtarunna bihā (meaning “so do not doubt it”) as the extraordinary nature of Jesus's own existence provides a tangible basis for believing in the ultimate power of God to resurrect, thereby addressing the doubts of the initial Qurʾānic audience and readers throughout time. This interpretation is found to be more consistent with the immediate context, linguistically sound without requiring textual emendation, and logically connected to the verse's exhortative conclusion. The study concludes that while traditions about Jesus's descent may hold their own validity within Islamic eschatology, they should not be conflated with the exegesis of this specific verse, whose primary intent is to present the person of Jesus himself as a compelling evidence for the Escahton. مفسران قرآن در تفسیر آیۀ «إنّه لَعلم لِلسَّاعَةِ» (زخرف/ 61)، به‌ویژه در تعیین مرجع ضمیرِ کلمۀ إنَّهُ، وحدت‌نظر ندارند و بنابر مبانی تفسیری‌شان آراء متفاوتی ارائه کرده‌اند. مشهورترین دیدگاه مرجع ضمیر هاء را نزول عیسی(ع) به‌مثابۀ نشانه‌ای آخرالزمانی برمی‌شمرد. در مطالعۀ فرارو کوشش می‌شود این تفسیر مشهور و هم‌چنین دیگر دیدگاه‌ها دربارۀ مسئله بررسی شود. فرضیۀ مطالعه آن است که تفسیر مشهور که بیش‌تر در میان مفسران اهل سنت مطرح بوده است نمی‌تواند بهترین تفسیر آیه باشد. سیطرۀ گفتمانِ روایات آخرالزمان بر فهم آیه، پیوند خوردنِ اکثریِ انگارۀ نزول عیسی(ع) با تفسیر این آیه، خروج از قرائت مشهور، در تقدیر گرفتن دو واژۀ نزول و قرب و ناسازگاری قول مشهور با سیاق آیات این سوره و دیگر آیات پذیرش دیدگاه مشهور به‌عنوان بهترین قول تفسیری را با چالش مواجه می‌سازد؛ چنان‌که پذیرش دیگر اقوال مفسران هم با مشکلاتی روبه‌رو است. در این میان، چنان‌که برخی مفسران نیز اذعان داشته‌اند، مناسب‌تر آن است که ضمیر هاء به شخص عیسی(ع) و نه لزوماً به نزولِ وی بازگردانده شود تا بتوان فهمی هم‌سو با سیاق آیه و مفهوم عام آن بازنمود.

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_227863_41ed44d6ae98714b627927bd43353532.pdf

دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 The Divine Law of Repelling in the Qurʾān: A Critique of Commentators' Views on Q 2:251(Were it not for Allah's repelling the people by means of one another…) سنت الهی دَفع در قرآن کریم؛ نقد آراء مفسران دربارۀ دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَ بَعْضَهُمْ بِبَعْضٍ (بقره/ 251) 175 198 228374 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.527031.1304 FA زینب پورکاویان دانش‌آموختI دکتری علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکدۀ الهیات، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران. 0009-0007-3964-3707 بی بی سادات رضی بهابادی دانشیار گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکدI الهیات، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران. 0000-0003-3548-348X Journal Article 2025 05 31 This study undertakes a critical re-examination of classical and modern Quranic commentaries (tafasīr) concerning verse 251 of Surah al-Baqarah, with a specific focus on the pivotal phrase: “Were it not for Allah’s repelling of the people, some by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted” (wa-lawlā dafʿu allāhi al-nāsa baʿḍahum bi-baʿḍin la-fasadat al-arḍ). The primary research question guiding this inquiry is to determine the most accurate and explicit meaning of this verse, derived from a close analysis of its textual context (siyāq) and a systematic critique of the diverse interpretive opinions found within the exegetical tradition. The author's approach is grounded in the premises of Islamic theology, engaging with the scripture as a divine revelation and operating within its hermeneutical framework. The investigation is structured around three core components of the phrase. First, it explores the nature of “Allah’s repelling” (dafʿu Allāh). The research identifies and critiques three major interpretive trends among the commentators: 1) viewing it as an innate, natural law governing creation; 2) equating it with the concept of the “struggle for existence”; and 3) understanding it primarily as the divine injunction of jihad and armed combat. The study argues that the immediate narrative context of the verse, which recounts the military conflict between the Israelites under Ṭalut (Saul) and the army of Jālūt (Goliath), lends strongest support to the third interpretation, wherein God’s repelling is actualized through the divinely sanctioned military struggle of the believers. Second, this study analyzes the agents involved in this dynamic, encapsulated in the phrase “some by means of others” (baʿḍahum bi-baʿḍ). It catalogues the wide spectrum of opinions on the identity of these groups, which range from the repelling of wrongdoers by other wrongdoers to the repelling of people of falsehood (ahl al-bāṭil) by the people of truth (ahl al-ḥaqq). After a critical review, the study concludes that the context unequivocally points to a confrontation between two morally and theologically opposed factions: a group upholding truth and monotheism, and a group embodying falsehood and oppression. Consequently, interpretations that align with this binary, such as the repelling of disbelievers and polytheists by Muslims and believers, are validated, while interpretations suggesting a repelling among wrongdoers themselves are deemed inconsistent with the verse's plain meaning. Third, the paper examines the meaning of the consequent clause, “the earth would have been corrupted” (la-fasadat al-arḍ). It discusses the various interpretations of this corruption, including the ruin of the earth's physical benefits, the corruption of its inhabitants, and the societal collapse of human communities. By cross-referencing the verse with its close parallel in Surah al-Hajj (22:40), which states that without this divine repelling, “monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which Allah's name is much mentioned would have been demolished”, the research contends that the corruption primarily denotes tangible, worldly ruin. This includes the destruction of places of worship, the killing of innocent people, and the general breakdown of social order that would ensue from the unchallenged dominance of oppressive forces. In conclusion, the synthesis of the critical analysis of classical commentaries, reinforced by the comparative study of Q 2:251 and Q 22:40, affirms that the explicit meaning of the verse is the establishment of a divinely ordained law of social and military confrontation between truth and falsehood. This confrontation, manifested in the divinely sanctioned struggle of the believers against oppression, serves as the divinely instituted mechanism (dafʿ) through which God prevents the total corruption (fasād) of the earth, thereby preserving the possibility of a just and pious social order. این مطالعه با هدف بازخوانی و نقد آراء مفسران دربارۀ آیۀ ۲۵۱ سورۀ بقره، با تأکید بر عبارت «وَلَوْلَا دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَ بَعْضَهُمْ بِبَعْضٍ لَفَسَدَتِ الْأَرْضُ»، انجام شده است. پرسش اصلی مقاله این است که با توجه به سیاق آیه و نقد دیدگاه‌های مفسران، مفهوم مناسب و صریح این آیه چیست. نویسندگان با پذیرش مبانی الهیات اسلامی و با اتکاء به روش تحلیلی‌ـ‌انتقادی، آراء مختلف در زمینۀ چیستی دَفعُ الله، فاعلان و مفعولان «بَعْضَهُم بِبَعضٍ»، و مصادیق فَساد الأرض را بررسی می‌کنند. نتایج مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که با توجه به سیاق آیات مربوط به داستان طالوت و جالوت و هم‌چنین آیۀ ۴۰ سورۀ حج، مراد صریح آیه تقابل‌و رویارویی نظامیِ دو گروهِ حق و باطل است. بر این اساس، آرائی مانند دفع کافران و مشرکان به دست مسلمانان و مؤمنان تأیید، و دیدگاه‌هایی مانند دفع ظالم به دست ظالم دیگر رد می‌شود. هم‌چنین، اگرچه هر دو نوع فساد دنیوی و اخروی در تفسیر آیه قابل‌طرح است، با توجه به فضای نزول، مفاسد دنیوی و اجتماعی مورد تأکید بیش‌تری قرار دارد. درنهایت نویسنده نتیجه می‌گیرد که سنت الهی دفع از طریق این تقابل مانع سلطۀ فراگیر فساد در زمین می‌شود.

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_228374_0995c9d1763a680f3ad348f217f7e54c.pdf

دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 Context as an Interpretive Method: A Study of Sabzawārī's Mawāhib al-Raḥmān رویکرد سیاق‌محور در تفسیر مواهب الرحمن: تحلیل نوآوری‌های روش‌شناختی عبدالاعلی سبزواری 199 220 228544 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.537252.1329 FA حسین نوروزی دانشجوی دکتری علوم قرآن و حدیث، گروه الهیات و معارف اسلامی، واحد گرگان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، گرگان. 0000-0002-5618-5206 سید رضا موسوی استادیار گروه الهیات و معارف اسلامی، واحد گرگان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، گرگان، ایران. 0000-0002-5618-5206 محمدعلی خالدیان استادیار گروه زبان و ادبیات فارسی، واحد گرگان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، گرگان، ایران. 0000-0002-5618-5206 مهدی افچنگی استادیار گروه الهیات و معارف اسلامی، واحد گرگان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، گرگان، ایران. 0000-0002-5462-886X Journal Article 2025 07 27 Interpreters of the Qurʾān have traditionally recognized siyāq (context) as a fundamental hermeneutical tool, generally defined as the ensemble of intra-textual indicators surrounding a verse that are essential for its correct exegesis. While its importance is widely acknowledged, a segment of classical and modern exegetes has expressed reservations, cautioning against a rigid, exclusive application of siyāq to all verses, which they argue can lead to artificial interpretations or impose unwarranted constraints on meaning. This study provides a critical examination of the distinctive context-oriented methodology employed by the contemporary Shīʿī scholar, Sayyid ʿAbd al-Aʿlā Mūsawī Sabzawārī, in his voluminous exegesis, Mawāhib al-Raḥmān. It argues that Sabzawārī not only champions siyāq as a central interpretive principle but also radically expands its conventional scope, transforming it from a primarily linguistic aid into the foundational pillar of his entire exegetical system. This study delineates a dual approach in Sabzawārī's work. On one hand, he aligns with mainstream exegetical tradition by treating siyāq as a dynamic and constructive mechanism for discerning divine intent. He leverages it to reveal the conceptual and objective coherence (munāsabah) between words, verses, and the overarching objectives of revelation. On the other hand, and this constitutes his primary innovation, Sabzawārī departs from the majority by advocating for a significantly broader conception of siyāq. For him, it is not confined to the immediate verbal environment but encompasses all textual and extra-textual indicators that can illuminate a verse's meaning. This inclusive definition integrates cultural, social, political, and historical evidence pertaining to the circumstances of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl) as integral components of siyāq. This methodological expansion is consciously deployed to overcome the limitations and potential artificiality he identifies in narrower, purely linguistic applications of context. Operating within the framework of Islamic, and more specifically, Shīʿī theological and hermeneutical principles, Sabzawārī's application of siyāq is both meticulous and systematic. The study meticulously catalogues the diverse functions of siyāq in Mawāhib al-Raḥmān, which can be categorized across two primary levels of operation. At the micro-analytical level (sentence and phrase), siyāq is employed to: determine the precise semantic value of words; differentiate between near-synonyms, expand or restrict lexical meanings based on the surrounding discourse, identify the correct referents of pronouns, elucidate subtle rhetorical devices such as emphasis (taʾkīd) and specificity (ḥaṣr), and ultimately, ascertain the primary intended meaning of a verse. This granular application serves to prevent misinterpretation and provides Sabzawārī with a robust, text-based criterion for critically evaluating and often refuting the opinions of other exegetes. At the macro-analytical level (text and sūra), siyāq evolves into a powerful tool for establishing the Qurʾān's structural and thematic coherence. Sabzawārī utilizes it to: reconstruct profound semantic links between seemingly disconnected verses, resolve apparent contradictions between different Quranic passages, explain complex pronominal references across verses, analyze the rhetorical architecture of larger passages, and demonstrate the intricate thematic unity within and across sūras. This higher-order application allows him to present a holistic, problem-oriented, and systematic interpretive model that treats the Qurʾān as an integrated whole. In conclusion, the findings of this study demonstrate that Mawāhib al-Raḥmān offers a paradigm for the systematic and hierarchical application of siyāq. Sabzawārī’s methodology successfully integrates lexical analysis, semantic coherence, rhetorical examination, and intertextual reading into a unified exegetical framework. His work, therefore, represents a significant advancement in Quranic hermeneutics, effectively elevating siyāq from its conventional status as a supplementary literary clue to that of a central, indispensable, and sophisticated methodological principle. As such, Mawāhib al-Raḥmān stands as a pioneering work in intra-textual and intertextual analysis, providing a valuable and stimulating model for future research in Quranic interpretive methodology and critical exegetical studies. مفسران سیاق را به معنای مجموعۀ قرائنِ درون‌متنیِ ضمیمه به هریک از آیات قرآن می‌انگارند و آگاهی از آن را کمابیش برای تفسیر قرآن ضروری می‌دانند؛ گرچه بعضی از ایشان تفسیر همۀ آیات با نظر به سیاق را نیز برنمی‌تابند و در آن تکلفات یا محظوراتی می‌بینند. در مطالعۀ کنونی روی‌کرد سیاق‌محور سید عبدالأعلی موسوی سبزواری، مفسر معاصر (درگذشتۀ 1414ق/ 1372ش)، در تفسیر مواهب الرحمن بازشناسانده می‌شود. مؤلفِ این تفسیر ازیک‌سو همانند بسیاری دیگر از مفسران به سیاق هم‌چون ابزاری سازنده و پویا برای کشف مراد الهی در فرآیند تفسیر می‌نگرد که با تکیه بر آن می‌توان پیوستگی ذهنی و عینی میان واژه‌ها و مقاصدِ وحی را بازشناخت. ازدیگرسو، برخلاف غالبِ مفسران، وی مفهومی وسیع‌تر از سیاق اراده کرده، آن را مشتمل بر همۀ قرائن متنی و برون‌متنیِ حاکی از معنای آیه شناسانده، شواهد فرهنگی، اجتماعی، سیاسی و تاریخیِ مرتبط با نزولِ هر آیه را هم‌چون بخشی از سیاق برشمرده، و این‌گونه، کوشیده است بر محظوراتی که گاه در حمل آیه‌ای بر سیاق به معنای مُضَیَّقِ آن حاصل می‌شود غلبه کند. هدف مطالعۀ کنونی بازشناسی روی‌کردِ خاصِّ سبزواری به سیاق و راه‌کارهای او برای تحلیل ساختار معنایی و روابط بینامتنی، رفع تعارضات ظاهری، و تفسیرِ نظام‌مندِ آیات است. یافته‌های این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که در تفسیر مواهب الرحمن، سیاق ابزاری کارآمد و چندبعدی شناسانده می‌شود که توجه به آن، نه‌تنها به فهم دقیق‌تر معانی و مفاهیم آیات قرآن کمک می‌کند، مانع تفسیر نادرست نیز می‌شود.

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_228544_542149b1d61dd1e551dab70cadd05465.pdf

دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 The Application of Reason in Quranic Interpretation: A Comparative Study of Javādī Āmolī and Nuṣrat Amin’s Views کاربست عقل در تفسیر قرآن: مطالعۀ تطبیقی آراء جوادی آملی و نصرت امین 221 246 228726 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.522145.1295 FA سیده خدیجه مرتضوی دانشجوی دکتری علوم قرآن وحدیث، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران. 0009-0001-4025-7113 محمد شریفی دانشیار، گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران. 5042-5127-0002-0000 سید علی اکبر ربیع نتاج استاد، گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکده الهیات و معلرف اسلامی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران. 3371-0729-0003-0000 رضا آقاپور استادیار گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران. 0000-0002-8300-3885 Journal Article 2025 05 21 The role of reason in interpreting the Qurʾān constitutes a fundamental and perennial subject within Islamic hermeneutics. In light of contemporary interpretive challenges, a systematic re-examination of this role is necessary. This study identifies a central problem in modern Qurʾanic hermeneutics: the need for a methodological model that leverages the capacities of reason while simultaneously avoiding arbitrary interpretation (al-tafsīr bi al-raʾy) and subjective idealism, thereby integrating reason (ʿaql) effectively with transmitted sources (naql) and spiritual intuition (kashf). To address this theoretical gap, the present study undertakes a comparative analysis of the hermeneutic systems of two prominent contemporary Shīʿī exegetes: ʿAbd-Allāh Javādī Āmolī, whose commentary Tasnīm exemplifies a philosophical-theological approach, and Nuṣrat Amīn, whose work Makhzan al-ʿIrfān represents a gnostic (ʿirfānī) tradition. The core hypothesis is that each scholar, operating within the framework of Shīʿī theological principles, highlights distinct facets of intellectual function—Javādī Āmolī champions a demonstrative reason (al-ʿaql al-burhānī) framed by authoritative transmission, while Amīn advocates for an ontological, intuitive intellect (al-ʿaql al-nūrī) as a guide to the Qurʾān's esoteric dimensions. Employing a qualitative content analysis within a comparative-analytical framework, this study constructs a three-tiered hermeneutic model—demonstrative (burhānī), transmitted (naqlī), and mystical (ʿirfānī). This model is conceptually inspired by the gradations of knowledge in Transcendent Philosophy (al-Ḥikmat al-Mutaʿāliyah). Its proposed structure ensures a disciplined interaction: the demonstrative tier establishes a rigorous logical and linguistic framework based on Arabic philology and philosophical principles; the transmitted tier validates these findings against authoritative narratives (riwāyāt) from the Prophet and the Shīʿa Imams, serving as an ultimate criterion for authenticity; and the mystical tier, governed by the controls of the former two, facilitates a regulated engagement with the esoteric depths (buṭūn) of the Qurʾān, thereby preventing a descent into mere personal taste. The model's practical utility is tested through a detailed exegesis of pivotal verses from Sūrat Āl ʿImrān (Q 3:7 and Q 3:190-191). In analyzing verse 3:7, concerning the definitive (muḥkam) and the ambiguous (mutashābih), Javādī Āmolī's method rigorously employs philosophical reasoning and linguistic analysis to posit the Qurʾān's inherent coherence, strictly limiting the comprehension of ultimate esoteric meaning (taʾwīl) to the Infallibles. Within his system, transmitted sources function as a definitive control mechanism for reason. Conversely, Amīn, while maintaining fidelity to the transmitted framework, conceptualizes reason as a divine light which, when purified through spiritual practice (sulūk), becomes a vehicle for accessing the Qurʾān's inner meanings, thereby granting a broader, though still disciplined, scope for intuitive understanding to the non-infallible seeker. A parallel divergence is evident in their interpretations of verses 3:190-191. Javādī Āmolī utilizes sophisticated philosophical arguments, including the impossibility of infinite regress (tasalsul) and the theory of substantial motion (al-ḥarakat al-jawhariyyah), to rationally prove God's unity (tawḥīd) from the phenomena of creation. His exegesis remains firmly anchored within a demonstrative and transmitted (naqlī or riwāyī) structure. Amīn, while also adducing rational arguments from the unity of creation, places greater emphasis on the believer's spiritual journey. She delineates ascending stages of remembrance (dhikr)—linguistic, cardiac, and spiritual—and stages of existential unification (fanāʾ fī al-tawḥīd), positing a synergistic relationship where reason, transmission, and intuition collectively guide the believer toward a direct, intuitive knowledge (maʿrifah) of the Divine. <span style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.5pt; font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: IRLotus; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">The comparative analysis conclusively demonstrates that Javādī Āmolī's hermeneutic system is grounded in the demonstrative level, where transmitted sources act as the final arbiter and the mystical level is cautiously circumscribed. This approach constructs a robust defense against subjective interpretation but may consequently limit the operational role of intuition for the non-infallible. In contrast, Nuṣrat Amīn's system originates from the mystical-intuitive level, where demonstrative reason and transmitted sources primarily serve as foundational supports and validators. This offers a more expansive horizon for spiritual comprehension but inherently carries a greater risk of lapsing into subjective idealism if the stringent disciplinary controls of the proposed model are not meticulously applied. The study concludes that the proposed three-tiered model offers a viable, balanced framework for contemporary Qur'anic hermeneutics, capable of integrating the strengths of both approaches while mitigating their respective limitations. <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">از نگاه درون‌دینی، جایگاه عقل در تفسیر<span dir="RTL" lang="FA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> قرآن <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">همواره از مباحث بنیادین تفسیرپژوهی بوده و در رویارویی با چالش‌های هرمنوتیک معاصر نیازمند بازخوانی است. مسئلۀ محوری مطالعۀ حاضر این است که چه‌گونه می‌توان الگویی ارائه کرد که ــ‌ضمن پرهیز از تفسیر به رأی و ذهنی‌گرایی‌ــ ظرفیت‌های عقل را در کنار نقل و شهود به‌کار گیرد. به این منظور، در مطالعۀ پیشِ‌رو آراءِ دو مفسرِ شیعیِ شاخص معاصر، نصرت امین در <span dir="RTL" lang="FA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">مخزن العرفان<span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"> و جوادی آملی در تفسیر <span dir="RTL" lang="FA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">تسنیم<span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">، با روی‌کردِ تحلیلی‌ـ‌تطبیقی و روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی بررسی شده است. فرضیۀ پژوهش آن است که هر یک از این دو دیدگاه بخشی از کارکردهای عقل در فهم<span dir="RTL" lang="FA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> قرآن <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">را برجسته کرده‌اند: جوادی آملی عقل را در چارچوب برهان و هم‌آهنگی با نقل محدود می‌سازد؛ درحالی‌که نصرت امین با نگرش وجودشناختی عقل را نوری الهی و راه‌گشای بطون<span dir="RTL" lang="FA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> قرآن <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">می‌داند. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که با ترکیب این دو روی‌کرد می‌توان الگویی سه‌سطحی (برهانی، نقلی، عرفانی) سامان داد که هم با معیارهای نقلی معتبر سازگار است، هم امکان بهره‌گیری از ظرفیت‌های عقلِ شهودی را فراهم می‌آورد. آزمون این الگو در آیات 7 و 190ـ191 سورۀ آل‌عمران می‌تواند کارآمدی آن را در تحلیل نظام‌مند<span dir="RTL" lang="FA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> قرآن <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-size: 16.5pt; mso-ansi-font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: IRLotus; mso-ascii-font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: Junicode; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">نشان دهد و افقی تازه برای گفت‌وگوی میان‌رشته‌ای در قلمرو هرمنوتیک دینی و کلام جدید بگشاید.

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_228726_21266c94a02d0e885704b8b8661a52d4.pdf

دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 Al-Qushayri’s Approach to Interpreting the Basmala: Evaluation of His Exegetical Technique in Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt روی‌کردِ قُشَیری در تفسیر بَسمَله و ارزیابی عمل‌کرد وی در لطائف الإشارات 247 270 228980 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.541965.1334 FA محمد سجاد زارع بیدکی دانش‌آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه میبد، میبد، ایران. 0009-0009-3803-682X یحیی میرحسینی دانشیار گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه میبد، میبد، ایران (Mirhoseini@meybod.ac.ir). 0000-0001-5695-8267 حمید حمیدیان دانشیار گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه میبد، میبد، ایران. 0009-0007-2097-176X Journal Article 2025 08 18 Abu’l-Qāsim Al-Qushayrī (d. 465 AH), in his commentary Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt, adopted an innovative approach to the Basmala of each surah, providing unique explanations for each. While these explanations often share a common underlying theme, they exhibit significant differences at the lexical level. This methodology is distinct from other commentaries and given its early date, is considered pioneering. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical method, focuses on Al-Qushayrī's explanations under the Basmala to discern his objectives in selecting these specific topics for inclusion in his interpretation of this verse. To this end, two hypotheses can be evaluated: first, that Al-Qushayrī's explanations are related to the openings and closings (Fawātiḥ and Khawātim) of the same surah; and second, that these interpretations are connected to the central theme of the surah. An examination of Al-Qushayrī's interpretation of 113 instances of the Basmala in the present study reveals that in both hypotheses, the most frequent type of relationship between the exegete's explanations and the surah is one of correspondence, though in numerous cases, it is one of divergence. In other words, in many instances, Al-Qushayrī's explanations are of the nature of subjective insights that bear no relation to the surah's central theme. Our study demonstrates that Al-Qushayrī's discussions under the Basmala can be categorized into three main themes: Firstly, he considers the interpretation of the Basmala in each surah as an opportunity to elucidate the Divine Names and Attributes and to engage in their esoteric interpretation (taʾwīl) and mystical unveiling. All his explanations—such as those clarifying names like Allāh, al-Raḥmān, and al-Raḥim, his esoteric interpretations of the Divine Names, or his commentary on the letters constituting the verse of Tasmiyah—fall under this overarching category. Secondly, he regards the interpretation of the Basmala as a chance to expand the spiritual experiences of his readers. He strives to create these experiences through expressions of praise and eulogy for the Divine, intimate prayers, allusions to the majesty of hearing the name Allah, or by describing the spiritual graces (karāmat) associated with reciting the Tasmiyah verse. The reason for this is that he elevates the Basmala to the most important invocation and litany that can enable a mystic or Sufi to attain the higher stages of the spiritual path (suluk). Thirdly, he occasionally presents scattered admonitions (mawāʿiz), such as reminders of the possibility of attaining happiness through obedience, or allusions to the characteristics of the believers and the mystics. Qushayrī’s interpretations reveal that his intellectual framework is dominated by tabshīr (encouragement) and rajāʾ (hope), in contrast with a fear-centered approach. In other words, he emphasizes God’s vast mercy and directs his audience’s attention to Divine compassion and forgiveness, even toward sinners and wrongdoers. Nevertheless, the present study, considering Al-Qushayrī's methodology, defends the hypothesis that he regarded each Basmala as specific to its respective surah. In Al-Qushayrī’s approach, both his adherence to the Shāfi‘i madhhab and his Sufi inclination were influential. قُشَیری (درگذشتۀ 465ق) در تفسیر لطائف الإشارات نگرش نوآورنه‌ای را ذیل بسملۀ هر سوره در پیش گرفته و توضیحاتی منحصر به فرد ارائه نموده است. این توضیحات بعضاً ‌درون‌مایۀ یک‌سانی دارند؛ اما در سطح واژگان تفاوت‌های قابل‌ملاحظه‌ای میان‌شان دیده می‌شود. این عمل‌کرد با دیگر تفاسیر متمایز است و از جنبۀ قِدمَت، پیش‌گام محسوب می‌شود. این مطالعه با روش توصیفی تحلیلی بر توضیحات قشیری ذیل بسمله تمرکز دارد تا به اهداف قشیری از انتخاب این موضوعات برای درج ذیل تفسیر بسمله دست یابد. بدین‌منظور دو فرضیه قابل‌ارزیابی است: نخست آن‌که توضیحات قشیری با فواتح و خواتیم همان سوره مرتبط باشد؛ دوم آن‌که این تفاسیر با محور اصلی سوره در ارتباط باشند. بررسی تفسیر 113 بسملۀ قشیری در مطالعۀ کنونی نشان می‌دهد که در هر دو فرضیه، بیش‌ترین نوع رابطه میان توضیحات مفسر و سوره از نوع تطابق، و البته در موارد پرشماری هم از جنس تباین است. به بیان دیگر، توضیحات قشیری در بسیاری از موارد از جنس ذوقیاتی است که هیچ ربطی به محور اصلی سوره ندارد. در برخی موارد حتی رابطۀ تضاد نیز مشاهده می‌شود؛ یعنی توضیح قشیری در نقطۀ مقابل محور اصلی سوره قرار دارد. درهرحال در مطالعۀ کنونی با نظر به عمل‌کرد قشیری از این فرضیه دفاع می‌شود که او هر بسمله را مختص به همان سوره می‌داند.

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_228980_0454f87544d500e126d6f38ff97827f5.pdf

دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 Feminist Hermeneutics of Women's Verses in the Qurʾān: Case Study of Wadud and Mernissi Through the Lens of Shiite Exegesis خوانش فمینیستی از آیات زنان در قرآن در ترازوی تفاسیر شیعه: مطالعۀ موردی آراء تفسیری آمنه ودود و فاطمه مرنیسی 271 294 229571 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.522657.1293 FA مریم ولایتی کبابیان استادیار گروه علوم و معارف حدیث، دانشگاه قرآن و حدیث، تهران، ایران. فرزانه بابایی دانش‌آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. 0009-0003-5607-237X Journal Article 2025 05 19 Contemporary Islamic thought has witnessed the emergence of significant feminist hermeneutical projects aimed at reinterpreting the Qurʾān. Prominent among these are the works of Amina Wadud and Fatima Mernissi, who have sought to deconstruct patriarchal readings of scriptures concerning women. This study undertakes a critical examination of their interpretations of verses related to women, specifically evaluating their methodological premises and conclusions through the lens of classical and modern Shiite exegesis (al-tafsīr al-Shīʿī). The study is situated within the broader discourse on gender and scripture, addressing a critical gap by systematically contrasting these influential feminist readings with an established, theology-rich interpretive tradition that has often been overlooked in their analyses. The primary objective is to identify points of convergence and, more significantly, divergence between the approaches of Wadud and Mernissi and those of authoritative Shiite commentators such as Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Ṭabarsī, and Bānū Noṣrat Amīn Esfahānī. The central research question probes the extent to which these feminist hermeneutics can be reconciled with the foundational principles of Shiite tafsīr, which are deeply rooted in the teachings of the Imams, reason (ʿaql), and established transmitted sources (naql). The necessity of this research lies in its potential to foster a more nuanced inter-traditional dialogue and to critically assess the claims of universal applicability often made by modern hermeneutical approaches. The study employs a comparative-analytical methodology. It first delineates the core hermeneutical strategies of each thinker: Wadud’s thematic and holistic approach, which seeks to extract overarching Quranic values like justice and equality, and Mernissi’s historical-critical method, which subjects the patriarchal hadith tradition to rigorous sociological and psychological scrutiny of its transmitters. These frameworks are then juxtaposed with the methodological principles of Shiite tafsīr, which prioritize the Quran's self-interpretation, the elucidations of the Prophet and the Imams, and intellectual reasoning. The analysis reveals a complex landscape of limited agreement amidst fundamental disagreement. A key finding is a shared conclusion on a specific issue: both Wadud and Mernissi, alongside Shiite commentators, reject the literalist interpretation of woman's creation from Adam's rib, classifying such narratives as Isrāʾīliyyāt (narratives of Judeo-Christian origin) that are incompatible with the Quranic depiction of a shared primordial origin for humanity from a single soul (nafs wāḥidah). This agreement on the ontological equality of men and women in their creation and spiritual potential represents a significant common ground. However, the research identifies profound divergences that stem from their core methodological and theological commitments. From the perspective of Shiite exegesis—which this study adopts as its analytical framework—the most critical point of contention concerns the origin of gender roles. Wadud, in particular, argues that gender-specific roles are primarily sociocultural constructs, with the Qurʾān addressing only biological functions like childbearing without endorsing them as inherent, fixed traits. Shiite theology, in contrast, posits that certain complementary roles and inherent dispositions (e.g., heightened emotional intelligence in women, greater physical endurance in men) are teleological and inherent to the divine wisdom (ḥikma) embedded in creation. Therefore, from this viewpoint, Wadud's dismissal of these roles as purely cultural is seen as a rejection of a divinely ordained balance (taqwīm) and leads to a flawed understanding of gender relations. Furthermore, the study critiques the selective use of sources. It argues that both feminists, particularly Mernissi, focus almost exclusively on Sunni hadith compilations and early Islamic history narrated through a Sunni lens, largely ignoring the vast corpus of Shiite hadith and interpretive works. This results in an incomplete historical and textual analysis. For instance, Mernissi’s historical critique of misogynist hadith, while powerful, is applied selectively to figures like Abū Hurayra and Abū Bakra, without engaging with the Shiite tradition’s own rigorous system of hadith criticism (al-jarḥ wa al-taʿdīl) or its positive narratives about female authority and intellect, exemplified by the towering status of Fāṭimah al-Zahrāʾ. <span style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.5pt; font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: IRLotus; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: FA;">The conclusions of this study, framed within its Shiite theological perspective, are twofold. First, it affirms that the hermeneutical projects of Wadud and Mernissi, while groundbreaking in challenging patriarchal interpretations, are significantly influenced by the specific socio-legal conditions of Arab Muslim societies and a methodology that selectively engages with Islamic sources. Second, and consequently, it finds that their interpretations, by often disregarding the theological and metaphysical foundations of gender roles in Shiite Islam, ultimately prove inadequate for constructing a sustainable framework for women's rights within an Islamic paradigm. Despite their aim of empowerment, their approaches are judged within this study's framework as potentially undermining the ontological and legal status of women as conceived within a Shiite worldview, failing to provide a practical, theologically coherent solution for the believing Muslim woman. در عصر کنونی روی‌کردهای فمینیستی به متون دینی، به ویژه قرآن کریم، جایگاه قابل‌توجهی در گفتمان‌های اسلامی پیدا کرده‌اند. در این مطالعه با روش توصیفی‌ـ‌تحلیلی و با اتکاء به چارچوب نظری تفاسیر شیعه به واکاوی و نقد دیدگاه‌های دو تن از نظریه‌پردازان شاخص فمینیسم اسلامی، آمنه ودود و فاطمه مرنیسی، دربارۀ آیات مرتبط با زنان در قرآن می‌پردازیم. پرسش محوری آن است که این خوانش‌ها تا چه اندازه با مبانی تفسیری شیعه سازگاری یا تعارض دارند. یافته‌های پژوهش حاکی از آن است که علیٰ‌رغمِ وجود نقاط اشتراکی چون نفی روایت آفرینش زن از دندۀ چپ مرد و باور به منشأ واحد و ارزش برابر انسانی زن و مرد، شکاف‌های بنیادینی در مبانی روشی و محتوایی میان این دو خوانش فمینیستی و تفسیر شیعی وجود دارد. از نگاه این پژوهش که با پذیرش پیش‌فرض‌های الهیات شیعی پیش می‌رود، مهم‌ترین این اختلافات نادیده‌انگاری منشأ الهیِ نقش‌های تکوینی و شرعی زن و مرد و نیز بهره‌گیری از روشی گزینشی و فاقد ضوابط مسلّم تفسیر است. در این مطالعه هدف آن است که نشان دادن شود روی‌کرد ودود و مرنیسی، متأثر از بستر اجتماعی جوامع عربی و با غفلت از منابع معتبر شیعی، اگرچه در پی احیاء جایگاه زن است، اما در عمل به دلیل عدم التزام به مبانی استوار دینی، نه‌تنها راه‌کارِ عملی برای زنِ مسلمان ارائه نمی‌دهد، بل‌که به فروکاستنِ جایگاه او در هستی و تضعیف حقوق او در منظومۀ اندیشۀ اسلامی می‌انجامد.

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_229571_426a337878dfc70b877fbd11fd48c5ea.pdf

دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد، ایران پژوهش نامه نقد آراء تفسیری 2783-5308 6 1 2025 08 23 Reading the Quranic Story of Mary: Lintvelt's Narratology in Dialogue with Ṭabāṭabāʾī's Al-Mīzān تحلیل روایت‌شناختیِ داستان مریم(س) در قرآن بر اساس نظریۀ ژُپ لینِت‌وِلت و آراء سیدمحمدحسین طباطبایی در تفسیر المیزان 295 318 229824 10.22034/naghdeara.2025.531736.1317 FA پیمان صالحی استاد گروه زبان و ادبیات عربی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران. 0000-0002-2164-0950 زهرا یاره دانش‌آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد زبان و ادبیات عربی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران. 0000-0003-4289-5992 الهام ثباتی استادیار گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران 0000-0002-1068-6582 Journal Article 2025 07 08 This study presents a narrative analysis of the story of Maryam (Mary) in the Qurʾān, employing the theoretical framework of Jaap Lintvelt's narratology and engaging with the exegetical insights of Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabāʾī from his seminal work, Al-Mīzān. The primary objective is to elucidate the narrative structure of Maryam's story, delineate the types of narrative modes utilized, and demonstrate how such a narratological analysis can reinforce and complement traditional interpretive hypotheses, as exemplified in Ṭabāṭabāʾī's commentary. The research adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology, treating the Quran as a cohesive macro-narrative despite the story's dispersion across different chapters, primarily Surah Āl ʿImrān and Surah Maryam. The analysis reveals that the dominant narrative mode in the Quranic account of Maryam is heterodiegetic, featuring an omniscient narrator who exists outside the story's world of characters and events. This narrator, positioned in a transcendent realm, possesses comprehensive knowledge of both external actions and internal states of the characters. However, the narrative is not monolithic; it exhibits a dynamic and integrated approach. The narrator fluidly shifts the focalization between what Lintvelt terms the "auctorial narrative type," where the reader's focus is guided by the narrator's overarching perspective, and the "actorial narrative type," where the center of orientation temporarily rests upon a specific character, primarily Maryam herself. This is particularly evident in dialogue-heavy scenes, such as the annunciation to Maryam and the infant Jesus speaking from the cradle, allowing readers to experience events through the characters' perspectives while maintaining the narrator's ultimate authority. A central feature of the narrative is the dialectical relationship between the omniscient narrator and the story's actants. The narrator actively guides the reception of the narrative, managing the reader's focus and conveying intended meanings, while characters like Maryam are portrayed as dynamic and influential agents whose actions and choices are crucial to the plot's progression. This interaction underscores a synthesis between human agency and divine guidance. The narrative pattern follows a complete structural model, moving from an initial equilibrium to its disruption by a destructive force, followed by a phase of conflict and struggle, and ultimately resolved by an organizing, divine force that restores a new, elevated equilibrium. Key climaxes include Maryam's virginal conception and the miraculous speech of Jesus in his cradle, which serve to resolve critical conflicts and affirm divine power. Despite the story's distribution across multiple surahs, the study argues for its inherent narrative coherence. When the scattered segments are assembled, they form a linear, causally connected macro-structure. The singular, omniscient narrator is the key agent in creating this cohesion, orchestrating the various episodes into a unified whole with a clear beginning, middle, and end, all serving the Quran's overarching theological and didactic objectives. The analysis of specific narrative elements—such as time, dialogue, point of view, characterization, and dramatic conflict—further enriches the understanding of the story. The strategic use of time, including analepsis (flashback) and variations in narrative pace, along with shifting points of view during key dialogues and internal monologues, deepens the dramatic impact and character portrayal. Maryam is characterized through her actions, reactions, and struggles—both internal and external—as a model of faith, purity, and steadfastness. Crucially, the findings of this narratological investigation are placed in dialogue with the exegetical positions of Ṭabāṭabāʾī in Al-Mīzān. The study demonstrates a significant convergence between the two approaches. For instance, the narratological identification of the guiding, external omniscient narrator aligns with Ṭabāṭabāʾī's emphasis on God's preemptive knowledge and overseeing role in the narrative. The analysis of the plot's pattern, identifying disruptive forces and divine resolutions, corroborates his interpretations concerning God's management of crises and support for righteous believers. Furthermore, the narrative's portrayal of Maryam's character, emphasizing her piety and God-given status (iṣṭifāʾ), reinforces Ṭabāṭabāʾī's theological argument for her ʿiṣmah (infallibility/protection from sin). <span style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.5pt; font-family: Junicode; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: IRLotus; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: FA;">It is important to note that the author's analysis proceeds from within the framework of Islamic theology, accepting its foundational tenets regarding the nature of the Quranic text and divine intervention. The study concludes that Lintvelt's narratological theory provides a robust and effective analytical tool for examining the sophisticated narrative structures of the Quran. When applied to the story of Maryam, it not only reveals its artistic coherence but also acts as a complementary methodology to traditional exegesis, validating and deepening interpretive insights found in works like Al-Mīzān. This interdisciplinary interaction enriches the contemporary understanding of the Quranic narrative, making its ethical and spiritual messages more accessible while highlighting the text's enduring literary power. مطالعۀ حاضر، با هدف تحلیل ساختارِ رِواییِ داستان مریم(س) در قرآن کریم و تبیین اهمیت و ضرورتِ بررسی روایت‌شناختی آن، به روش توصیفی‌ـ‌تحلیلی و بر اساس نظریهٔ ژُپ لینِت‌وِلت و آراءِ سیدمحمدحسین طباطبایی در المیزان صورت گرفته است. هدف از این مطالعه آن است که نوع، ساختار و طرح روایت داستان مریم(س) در قرآن بازنموده، و هم‌چنین، نشان داده شود که چه‌گونه یک‌چنین تحلیل روایت‌شناسانه‌ای می‌تواند به تقویت فرضیاتِ مفسّران، دست‌کم در مطالعۀ موردیِ تفسیر المیزان، بینجامد. نتایج مطالعه نشان می‌دهد در روایت داستان مریم(س)، انواع شیوه‌های رِوایی از سوی روایت‌گر روی‌دادها ــ‌که از موضعِ دانای کل آن روی‌دادها را روایت می‌کند‌ــ به شکلی ناهمگون و با روی‌کردی تلفیقی ــ‌یعنی موضع یک روایت‌گر که هم‌زمان هم متن‌نگار و هم کنش‌گر است‌ــ به‌ کار رفته است؛ به‌گونه‌ای که گاه تمرکز بر راوی و گاه بر کنش‌گران داستان قرار می‌گیرد. راوی، هرچند از شخصیت‌های داستان نیست، با قرار گرفتن در بیرونِ روایت گاه با تمرکز بر خود و گاه با توصیفِ اَعمال و نقش‌های شخصیت‌ها وجهِ هدایت‌گرانۀ خود را آشکار می‌کند. طرحِ داستان‌ها کامل است و بیش‌تر اوقات نیرویی تخریب‌کننده وضعیّتِ آغازین را به‌هم می‌زند که پس از کِش‌مَکِش، نیرویی سامان‌بخش‘ اوضاع را به حالتِ نخست بازمی‌گرداند. هرچند حکایت زندگیِ مریم(س) در چند سوره از قرآن آمده است گردآوردنِ اجزاءِ آن یک ساختارِ رِواییِ منسجم و خَطی، با روابط علّی و معلولیِ روشن، پدید می‌آوَرَد. بازخوانیِ این روایت بر پایۀ نظریه ژُپ لینِت‌وِلت، دیدگاه‌های تفسیر المیزان را نیز استحکام می‌بخشد و توان بالای این نظریه را در تحلیل متون دینی نشان می‌دهد.

https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_229824_e741ada526015e4d34281e50a6d422b2.pdf