جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "هرمنوتیک فلسفی" در نشریات گروه "علوم قرآن و حدیث"

Understanding the truth of the language of the Qur'an requires complete thinking in the "intratextual" and "extratextual" challenges of this holy book. This article, by entering the field of "hermeneutics", while overviewing this science, has criticized and evaluated the most serious doubts and challenges of "textual hermeneutics" (specifically: philosophical hermeneutics), and tried to solve them with adjusting the view, or rejecting doubts, in order to open the way for a hermeneutic that is compatible with the classic view of Islam on the category of understanding and interpretation. According to the fixed principles and the absolutist nature of the Islamic religion, and the strong rational and narrative proofs, the extreme relativistic view of understanding the meaning in the "modern" period, and some of the viewpoints inclined to it in the "post-modern" period, are in complete conflict with the inherent nature of religion, and contradict God's wisdom in sending the "messaging text of the Qur'an" and the” sending of the Messenger". Therefore, establishing the language of this book on the unclear and shaky principles of understanding in these periods is ruled out. On the other hand, adjusting the view based on absolutist and methodical hermeneutics in the Classical and Neoclassical or even Preclassical periods, is the only way to achieve a suitable hermeneutic for the book of the Qur'an. However, the specific differences between the Qur'an and other books, require the establishment of a "special and appropriate hermeneutic for this book".

Different and sometimes conflicting interpretations of religious texts are one of the new issues raised in Islamic culture today. Among the appropriate platforms that provide the basis for this theory are the semantic plurality of the Qur'an and philosophical hermeneutics. As the major source of understanding religion, the Qur'an has multiple and different fields of meaning, and philosophical hermeneutics is a special approach to the problem of understanding and interpreting texts. In addition, accepting plurality of readings gives validity to all readings and understandings of religious texts, including the Qur'an, which itself causes confusion and misguidance of people. This article, through a descriptive-analytical method, while referring to various foundations, the proposal of the theory of plurality of readings and the consequences resulting from the acceptance of this theory, has discussed and examined the two foundations of the semantic plurality of the Qur'an and philosophical hermeneutics. The result suggests that, from Mesbah Yazdi's viewpoint, the meaning of the Qur'an's inner parts, the understandings of length and depth, are non-contradictory and regular, which has no relationship with philosophical hermeneutics and the plurality of readings. Therefore, the possibility of different readings of the same text is the result of a kind of attitude about philosophical hermeneutics

As a factor for realizing the phenomenon of understanding, “dialogue with the text” is a common paradigm has been greatly emphasized by both Muḥammad-Bāqir al-Ṣadr (1935-1980) in his thematic interpretation of the Qur’an and Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900- 2002) in his philosophical hermeneutics. Of course, the former’s approach to understanding the Qur’anic text seems normative, while the latter’s approach to understanding the text per se is descriptive. Through a comparative study of these two different approaches, the present study has examined the validity of al-Ṣadr’s methodological viewpoint according to Gadamer’s phenomenological perspective. In addition, it has endeavored to pursue this crucial question to what extent do’s and don’ts in al-Ṣadr’s interpretive method correspond to the is and isn’t of Gadamer’s hermeneutics. However, the suggested model does not have the same origin in the thought of these two leading thinkers. The similarity of their theories seems structural, hence, the present study can evidently be categorized as an example of macro-comparative studies based on structural similarities. Investigating the elements of conversation in both theories has convincingly proved the legitimacy of “dialogue with the text” as a model for the thematic interpretation of the Qur’an. It shows as well that the differences between the two theories stem from some issues outside the essence and process of understanding and therefore do not methodologically undermine the ontological validity of the thematic interpretation.

Orientalists’ followers who tie their horizons of thought to the Orientalists and use their foundations, methods and tendencies to deduce, give value to philosophical hermeneutics for reading and understanding texts and view the text as the dialogue of the object (text) and subject (interpreter), combine them with historical hypotheses historical presupposes. So, we have tried with descriptive – analytical method to explain the viewpoints of Orientalists’ followers like Soroush, Shabistani, Abu Zayd, and Fazlur Rahman in accordance the philosophical hermeneutics, to criticize the plurality in meaning and its fluidity in other words, its cognitive relativism and its usage by the Orientalists is regarded incompatible with the Islamic interpretive tradition in understanding the texts of revelation

The quiddity of the Qur'anic revelation is one of the most important issues about which neo-mo'tazelehs has raised challenging viewpoints. Consequently, in this respect, many intellectuals and open-minded scholars have gained secular approaches to the revelation knowledge inspiring neo-mo'tazelehs thoughts. The common feature of neo-I'tizali viewpoints are extremist intellectualism, historicism, mythology, and critical linguistics to the recitation of the Qur'an and tendency to philosophical hermeneutics. In this research, the most important principles of neo-I'tizali thought which is the cause of the Qur'anic verses and intellectual reasons has been criticized using library research and narrative and rational principles. As the results of this research show, the principles of this thought, due to an extremist approach taken by its advocates to intellectualism and findings of empirical science and denying the Prophet's knowledge by presence in considering the divine verses, are in contradiction to the definitive ontological realities and monotheism.

Philosophical hermeneutics analytically explores the interpretation of texts. The birthplace of this knowledge which is western philosophy is intermingled with the name of philosophers such as Heidegger and Gadamer. Among Muslim thinkers, the investigation of the process of Qur'anic exegesis and the effect analysis of commentator’s preconceptions and tendencies on his interpretation has a long history. Also in contemporary Islamic theological research, some innovative thinkers adapting common Western philosophical hermeneutics and a maximal approach have started to theorize the susceptibility of theological studies from human knowledge. The impact of some presumptions known as “the principles of Qur'anic exegesis” is commonly agreed; however, the effect of philosophical, Kalami, mystical, psychological, and political preconceptions as well as the influence of commentator’s assumptions and interests on Qur'anic exegesis are yet controversial fields which need further research. This article aims to comparatively analyze and explore the philosophical hermeneutic approaches in the Qur'anic exegesis using descriptive analysis, and by classifying the existing approaches to extremist, conservative, and moderate, it attempts to critically analyze the first two approaches. Finally, by approving and confirming the moderate approach, the article introduces wisdom and purification of Nafs (soul) as essential conditions for applying preconceptions and tendencies.

Philosophical hermeneutics which means ontology of understanding delves into the ontological foundations of understanding and its existential conditions from philosophical perspective. Gadamer as a representative of this school of thought developed hermeneutics from the realm of methodology into ontology. The present study entitled “A Comparative Study of the Hermeneutics of Mulla Sadra and Gadamer” revealed that many hermeneutic features of Gadamer such as essence of understanding, ontology of text and interpreter, multiplicity of understandings, and the commentator’s presumptions are evident in the perception of Mulla Sadra from the Holy Quran. However, their hermeneutics are basically different in each of the above points. More importantly, Mulla Sadra believes that the Quran is determined by God so he does not believe in relativism which is the outcome of Gadamer’s hermeneutics. In fact, Mulla Sadra believes in the cautious integration of meaning horizon between the commentator and the text in accordance with the author’s will, so he regards accurate understanding of the texts achievable relying on the key role of the commentator on the one hand, and the author’s knowledge on the other hand.

Mujtahid Shabestari regards the interpretation of scriptures as subject to the hermeneutic general rule i.e. an understanding based on the logic of question and answer. He believes that, this question and answer are based on the interpreter's pre-knowledge, interests and expectations and the process of understanding is based on a hermeneutic circle, which all of them correspond to the basic bases of the theory of philosophical hermeneutics. Using a descriptive- analytical method the paper studies the hermeneutic thoughts of Shabestari and philosophical hermeneutics with a comparative perspective. The research findings show that, the hermeneutic thought of Mujtahid Shabestari, has an incoherence and internal contradiction, due to the combination of fundamental philosophical and principled analysis of hermeneutics, such as intentionalism, seeking the text's meaning in the historical context, necessity of refining the pre-knowledge and separating valid understanding from an invalid understanding. Also, the hermeneutic thought of Shabestari, which is in line with philosophical hermeneutics, has been criticized.

Given the profound effect of hermeneutics in religious understanding, study and criticism of it is an avenue to reply existing doubts in this area and to develop religious sciences. Paul Ricœur, the contemporary philosopher, is a prominent thinker in the hermeneutics and methodologies of sciences, strengthened the philosophical hermeneutics versus other related thoughts concerning the methodology of understanding, and developed a reformed and compound method in interpretation of texts and understanding of religion. He has endeavored to provide a logical process from stage of reading to interpretation of understanding, employing phenomenological method and combining the element of structure explanation with element of understanding and ownership. The process, from one hand, has been formed based on independence of the meaning of text from intention of the author and unity of the meaning of the text, and from other hand has resisted absolute relativity, and have presented a criterion for judgement among interpretation. This article endeavors to address the most important element of hermeneutics of Paul Ricœur, criticizing the weak points and strong points of it by using fundamental thoughts of Islamic sciences.

Hermeneutics, as a science, has had its own ups and downs in its not so long history. This science has entered a new phase with the advent of Heidegger and Gadamer and gone beyond the methodological view and, then, has become a kind of ontology of understanding. This approach has provided grounds for some contemporary theological challenges and a basis for different readings of religion. With the prevalence of philosophical hermeneutics and in particular Gadamer's views, several critical schools emerged against it. Meanwhile, "Eric Hirsch" is one of those who has had a tremendous share in the critical course and explanation of his views is very important to criticize Gadamer's hermeneutic achievement. The present paper, with a descriptive and analytical approach, examines Hirsch's critique of philosophical hermeneutics and attempts to analyze the critical points and fundamental objections of philosophical hermeneutics from Hirsch's point of view, And Gadamer's approach will be clearly criticized. The findings of this research show that Hirsch, in addition to his fundamental critique of philosophical hermeneutic foundations, has had some kind of reasonable hermeneutical foundations and has used those foundations in his critical thinking. Hence, in this paper, critiques of philosophical hermeneutics and comparison of Hirsch’s critical view with Gadamer's points of view are classified into five categories and each has been considered independently and analytically.

Hermeneutics is the theory and practice of ta’wil. The factors which gave rise to widespread ta’wiland the possibility of interpreting religion in different waysin the West,particularly in the history of Christianity, include ambiguity in religious teachings, contradictions and conflicts related to the life and character of Jesus (AS), the challenge of religion and reason, incompatibility of religion and knowledge, and restriction in the Christian religion.However, due to its revealed nature, unity and uniformity, compatibility with wisdom and knowledge, comprehensiveness, dynamism and enjoymentof the principle of ijtihad, Islam is not certainly threatened by any restriction and insufficiency to be repaired by the secretions of ordinary human thought and to bemingled with the worldly rules. Thus,hermeneutics emerged in the contestof Christianity with its previously-mentionedbackground and historical courseto help it overcome the obstacles put in its way. Moreover, relativist epistemology and the possibility of interpreting religion in different waysstrongly contributed to the development of philosophical. The outcomes of philosophical hermeneutics are: 1) interpreter-orientedness, 2)instability of understanding and interpretation of texts, 3)lack of understanding and perception of the very text, 4)limitless interpretive perceptions and discernments, 5) lack of any logic and criterion for the soundness of understanding and interpretation, and 6) relativism.Interpretation denotes clarification of the meaning and intention of God’s book andta’wil refers torenderingthe likely meaningof the Quranic verses from their apparent meaning. Subjective interpretationrefers to erroneous explanation of the word God on the basis of guess work, preference and whim of the soul, which will be naturally inconsistent with reason and Sharia’ and contrary to the aim and intention of God and the owner of the text.The position of those who believe inphilosophical hermeneutics is more radical and destructive than the followers of subjective interpretation since they resort tota’wilboth to clarify allegorical and unambiguous versesand denigrate objective andfaithful-to-authorinterpretation. They both believe inlimitless readings and consider no boundary and criterion for discriminating valid understanding and interpretation from the invalid ones. They both believe that interpretation is unstable and are plagued with relativism and confusion in understanding religious texts.

Sayyid Mohammad Baqir Sadr is amongst those few Muslim thinkers theorizing on thematic exegesis of Holy Quran. The fundamental concept of his theory is Istintaq that means to ask Holy Quran new questions and to get suitable responses from it. Due to Sadr's summary theory on one hand and the efficiency of this theory on the other hand, the elaborating on this theory is essential. The similarity between dialogue model in Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics and Istintaq model in Sadr's theory paves the way for reviewing of Sadr's theory and illuminating the hidden aspects of it through asymmetric comparative study. This study can make clear some components in Sadr's theory like the dialogue between interpreter and Holy Quran, the various layers of the meaning of Quran, the different layers of exegete's understandings, to raise questions based upon new needs and to receive suitable replies. In addition to illuminating the hidden aspects of Sadr's theory, this essay also emphasizes the importance of thematic exegesis besides running one.

The name of Gadamer correlates with Philosophic Hermeneutics and specially his book "truth and method".In this book he has proceeded with the analysis and critique of Methodical Hermeneutics. The goal of Methodical Hermeneutics is to offer principles, rules and methodology of an authentic interpretation of texts, while Gadamer bases his hermeneutic system on denial of method, phenomenology of existential understanding and practical understanding and relaying on his philosophical bases and hermeneutic principles he presents the model of dialectical understanding. The present article describes Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutic system and analyzes it so in addition to explanation of the philosophical background of Gadamer and the quality of mixture of philosophy and hermeneutic and the birth of existential understanding based on phenomenology and dialectic understanding in Gadamer's intellectual system, it will be able to provide an opportunity for the critical examination of this hermeneutic system. It will turn clear that the model presented by Gadamer is paradoxical, lacks an authentic methodology of theorization, and ruins the systematization of claimed philosophical system and support the multiplicity of interpretations, relativism, and pluralism.

In this study , the concept of religious epistemology and its accomplishment in different historical eras has been discussed , indicating the invalidity of different theories in this connection and emphasizing on the contemporary evolution of the religious epistemology in result of imposing questions to the text and methodically reaching its implications. According to this study the evolution of the religious epistemology is due to newly appeared questions in each era which has been raised by the necessities and requirements of the time. These new question demand answers from the text which ends in the evolution of religious epistemology. In this connection, the difference between imposing questions to the text and getting the answers from it has been discussed which indicates that premises and presupposition in this procedure and the interpreter's expectations should be taken into consideration only when imposing questions to the text. In addition we show that although the questions are consistent with time and therefore contemporary, the answers are not so; that is the refutation of the theory of historical limitation of comprehension. </Abstract>