جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « مفاتیح الغیب » در نشریات گروه « علوم قرآن و حدیث »

This study seeks to compare the views of Tafsir al-Mizan and Mafatih al-Ghayb on the subject of “ro’yat”. “Ro’yat” refers to seeing God with physical eyes or inner eyes. Al-Mizan does not accept the experience of “ro’yat” in the world with the eyes of the body, but it does not rule out the possibility of spiritual vision in the hereafter for believers. Arguing on the basis of the appearance of the Quranic verses, Mafatih al-Ghayb considers “ro’yat” in this world as permissible and definite in the hereafter. It holds that the appearance of the verses clearly reveal this point, and there is no need to interpret them. Therefore, Prophet Moses (p.b.u.h.) expressed his request to see God on Mount Toor, and he achieved it in a short time because the scene of the thunderbolt and his being fainted confirms it. Although the Prophet of Islam (p.b.u.h.) reached the highest position of human closeness to God in mi’raj, he did not see God with physical eyes. The Quran's account of “ro’yat” in mi’raj is a reality the quality of which is not clear to ordinary human beings.

In the verses of the Qur'an, in addition to the expressions whose appearance transfers the meaning of the words, some others imply impressions beyond these words referred to as shadows of meaning – Dhilalolma'ni. There are also signs such as the substitution of some vocabularies, advancement and deferral, antonym words that direct the Qur'anic researchers to reflect on them and to explain these concepts; therefore, the Qur'an exegetes frequently use this exegetical method citing this type of expressions in interpreting the noble verses of the Qur'an. Using Fakhr Rāzi's exegetical approach and a descriptive-analytical research method in discovering the exegete's meaning shadows, some verses and expressions are analyzed and their related evidences and documentations are dichotomized. Among the research findings, it is proven that Fakhr Rāzi, based on the non-verbal signs such as lexical or syntactic substitution, and advancement and deferral, has stated the implied shadow meaning in some verses. Similarly, the substitution method is used more frequently in the method of discovering expressions shadows of meaning.

The level of adherence of a prominent interpreter such as Fakhr Razi to a specific reading (of the Quran) and interpretation of the Quran on the basis of it is one of the points that widens the audience's horizon in using his interpretation. Using the descriptive-analytical method, this study explores Fakhr Razi's approach in Tafsir al-Mafatih al-Ghayb to the differences in readings of the Quran. In dealing with this issue, he is sometimes silent, and at times he only suffices to mention the differences in readings, and in the interpretation of some verses, he analyzes them and chooses one particular reading by mentioning the relevant reasons. Fakhr Razi has made use of the knowledge of readings (of the Quran) in interpretation to expand the meanings of verses, as well as to reinforce meanings and remove ambiguity from challenging verses.

One of the characteristics of the Holy Quran and the fundamental beliefs of Muslims is the incorruptibility of the divine word. This topic has been the focus of commentators and Quran scholars from the past until now. This article, in a descriptive-analytical way and with a Qur'anic and narrative approach, specifies that Imam Fakhrazi under the following verse: "Inna nanahu nazlana dhikr wa inna laho lahafizoon" declares his opinion on the non-distortion of the Qur'an and believes that according to this verse there is no There is no increase or decrease in the Holy Quran. Because if something was added or subtracted from it, the order of the Qur'an would be disturbed, and wise men understood this issue. Allameh Tabatabai clearly stated his opinion under the following verses: "This is the Book of Al-Aziz* La Yaatiyeh Al-Bateel Min Bayin Yadiya and La Min Khalfeh" and they believe that the Holy Qur'an is immune from any increase, decrease, or deficiency. And referring to hadiths distorts them, which are against the book and should be rejected. And the meaning of opposing these narrations with the Quran is not only opposing the appearance of the mentioned two verses, because the appearance of the words of the verse is a speculative evidence and for this reason it is against the definitive meaning of the Holy Quran.

There are verses in the Holy Quran that proves the leadership and Imamate of Ali (PBUH) after the Holy Prophet. The Sunni scholars and interpreters raise doubts about the indication of these verses. Since Fakhr-e-Razi is one of the most prominent Sunni interpreters who rejected the immediate Imamate of Ali (PBUH) and believed in the caliphate of Abu Bakr after the Prophet, review, and rejection of his misconceptions is of great importance. Therefore, present study has reviewed all doubts of Fakhr-e-Razi, according to the Kabir interpretation regarding the 12 verses from the Quran that are associated with this subject in order of verses of the Holy Quran. Fakhr-e-Razi has referred to Ali (PBUH) with respect and reverence following the doubts. However, in some cases, he hasn’t mentioned the name of Ali (PBUH) with pray that couldn’t be due to the disrespect to the majesty, since he has refered to other companions of the Prophet, such as Abu Bakr, Omar, and Osman in the same way.

Proponents of the occurrence of abrogation in the holy Quran believe that the abrogator and abrogated are among Divine commands which are carried out by God due to His knowledge of His servant's best interest. On the contrary, opponents of abrogation hold that God's Book is an all-comprehensive and everlasting command with no contradiction and falsehood. In fact, they believe that abrogation is a kind of deficit in God's knowledge and a defect. Although Fakhr Razi and Sheikh Tusi have two distinct theological views, they have certain views about abrogation, given their rationalistic approach to exegesis. Their views about abrogation are worth of studying, given Abu Muslim Isfahani's view on commentary issues, who is the most prominent Muslim Scholar denying abrogation. In the introduction of his Tebyan commentary, Sheikh Tusi elaborates on abrogation and its three types, and regards them true, while Fakhr Razi mentions different views about the occurrence of abrogation in some Quranic verses, pays particular attention to Mutazilite Abu Muslim Isfahani's views, and regards most of them as correct, which is unexpected as he is an Asharite. It seems that Fakhr Razi has tendency towards his views in terms of abrogation. Sheikh Tusi also has a view about some instances of abrogation, which is different from those of other Shia scholars.

“Enjoining to Virtue and Forbidding from Vice” is one of the practical decrees of Muslims and the verses of the holy Quran, commands Muslims to enjoin to virtue and forbid from vice, but the domain of this divine obligation and the due state and dimension in which it should be considered, has caused differences of opinion among various Islamic faiths. Imamiyah’, ‘Mu’tazila’, and ‘Asha’erah’ faiths, despite some similarities in a few features of ‘Enjoining to Virtue and Forbidding from Vice’, they have some differences. Thus, constantly there have been contradictions of opinion among interpreters and thinkers of these three schools of Islamic theology.
Analyzing and criticizing scholastic opinions and viewpoints of these interpreters and thinkers may lead to clarification of the divine path. In the current research, it has been tried to explore and clarify the issue of ‘Enjoining to Virtue and Forbidding from Vice’ in verses 104 and 110 of surah ‘Al-e-Imran’, and verse 17 of surah ‘Luqman’, through a descriptive approach and content analysis using a comparative method, from the viewpoint of three prominent Muslim interpreters, Allamah Tabatabaie, Fakhr-e-Razi and Zamakh’shari in their books of interpretation ‘Al-mizan’, ‘Mafatih-ul-qaib’, and ‘Kashaf’, respectively. Though, above mentioned interpreters have similar viewpoints on obligation of ‘Enjoining to Virtue and Forbidding from Vice’, and assume it as a consensus of ‘Ummah’ (body of Muslim nation), but yet there are differences of viewpoints among them, about the quality of obligation, limitations, conditions and instances of ‘Enjoining to Virtue and Forbidding from Vice’.

The comparative studies have gained much attentions in this century, because the advantages and disadvantages of the theories are revealed in these types of reviews. The present article has tended to "Human Surah" to achieve differences and commonalities of the two commentaries, Atib Al-Bayan and Mafatih Al-Ghaib, since the views of both Shii and Sunnis interpreters are different regarding this chapter.
The results of the article show that the Sunni commentators have spoken anomalously and it contradicts the weak narrations and doesnt have sufficient reasons to prove that the Surah is Makki. Fakhr Razi, too, has not shown fairness in expressing the descent dignity and he ignores the clear reasons he has already expressed. According to the Shia narratives, the Shii commentators believe that this Surah is Madani and it has a special descent status which is related to Ali (PBUH) and Sedigheh Tahereh and Hasanin (PBUH).

Tafsir Al-Mizan is deemed to be the criterion and measurement of many other commentaries including Mafatih Al-Gheyb Commentary written by Fakhr Razi which is significantly analyzed and criticized by Allameh Tabatabei. In this analysis, Allameh has three viewpoints about Fakhr Razi’s Commentary beliefs. Allameh has confirmed Fakhr Razi’s viewpoint in cases such as compliance with the verses of the Quran, compliance with narrations, compliance of Fakhr Razi’s comments with those of Allameh’s and he has also cited some statements of Tafsir Mafatih Al-Gheyb. On the other hand, Allameh has criticized and rejected Fakhr Razi’s ideas about lack of determining the correct meaning of the Quran’s words, lack of accurate attention to the rules of Arabic literature, incompatibility with the context of the verses, inattention to the relation between the verses, etc. and in some cases, he has mentioned Razi’s opinion without either confirming or rejecting the same.

One of the well-known Quranic expressions which has been mentioned in the seventh verse of chapter 3 is "al-Rāsikhūn fi al-'Ilm" (those who are firmly grounded in knowledge). This notion is correlated with the subject of interpretation of the ambiguous verses in Islamic commentaries. In Mullā Ṣadrā's works –including both exegetical and philosophical ones- this expression is frequently mentioned. In his exegetical works, he considers having firm knowledge as the necessary element for starting interpretation. He has also expanded the usage of the expression, using it in a wide variety of theological and philosophical matters. For instance, he regards it as a criterion to whether confirm or deny the expert's views in exegesis, philosophy and theology. Reviewing the features of "al-Rāsikhūn fi al-'Ilm" from the perspective of Mullā Ṣadrā and identifying the referents of the notion within his exegetical works, the present study aims at clarifying this expression in his system of thought.