https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/ Critical Studies on the Quranic Exegesis en daily 1 Sat, 23 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0330 Sat, 23 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0330 https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_233287.html https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_226660.html 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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_226688.html 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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_226701.html 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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_227260.html 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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_227551.html 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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_227863.html 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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_228374.html 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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_228544.html 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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_228726.html 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.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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_228980.html 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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_229571.html 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.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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_229824.html 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).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. https://naghdeara.quran.ac.ir/article_233288.html