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

“List analysis” apparently differs from the oral and written distinction and rejection of the oral tradition from the Shiite culture. Given the difference in learning from the newly written and their republication, this study presents a reading aligned with current understanding and classifies the fundamentals of this theory into two categories: 1) the immunity of the written text, and 2) effects of the process of learning hadiths under two sub-categories of number of narrators and the time lapse since the issuance of the nass. The outcome of the critical analysis of these fundamentals and the ensuing reasoning is, first, the immunity of the written text compared to the oral narration, and, secondly, lack of effect of number of narratives on the process of oral and written narration. For, despite the assumptions of this approach, first, the multiplicity of narrators provides more opportunities for obtaining hadith texts, and, secondly, it is not possible to claim the possibility of oral transmission in an earlier period and rule it out in a later period.

Determining the direction of the language is one of the basics of interpretation. In the discussion of the language of the Qur'an, there are many issues, one of which is whether it is spoken or written. In this discussion, they are looking for the answer that the language of the Qur'an has in terms of expression and speech. The meaning of spoken language is to choose a language from the categories of speaking, induction, conversation, and performance, which takes into account the audience and expresses the sentences and phrases in each part in a connected and short way. However, in the written language, the arrangement and order of the words and arrangement of the contents are formed in the absence of the audience and the listener, and its denotative signs are linear. The effect of this discussion is in the interpretation of the Qur'an and in the discovery of knowledge and the general position of religion. In the realm of Qur'an expression, in determining the audience and the level of using evidences and evidences within the text and outside the text. Although this issue has been discussed sporadically in the introduction of many Qur'anic interpretations and sciences since the distant past, it has been raised in the form of linguistic terminology in the contemporary period, and most of the opinions have been raised on the orality of the Qur'anic text. The present research has expressed a detailed opinion about the cleverness of the language of the Qur'an and the proof of this theory by proposing theories and reasons and evaluating the views.

The beginning of interpretation is among the important topics that have been attended in the history of interpretation. Accordingly, the orientalists also have paid special attention to this issue. Part of the article "Interpretation in the early days of Islam and the middle ages" by Gilliot, a contemporary orientalist, is about the interpretation in the early era of Islam and its validation. Gilliot has in particular examined the previous works on the narrative interpretation in the early era of Islam. His main opinions about the narrative interpretation in the early era of Islam are as follows: (1) the Prophet's (s) era is the starting point of the interpretation; (2) during the Companions' era, ten of the Companions were among the famous interpreters; (3) during the Companions of the Companions' era, ten Companions of the Companions were among the famous interpreters; and (4) the writing of the interpretation starts after the three foregoing stages. He deems the first three stages of interpretation – that coincide with the first century AH – as the oral interpretation era, and the fourth stage – that coincides with the second century AH – as the written interpretation era. However, based on the Islamic sources, despite Gilliot's ideas, the early era of narrative interpretation has the following features: (1) the oral interpretation that entails the first three stages is wider than what has been claimed by Gilliot concerning the number of narrations, the number of narrators, and the validity of the narrations and (2) the beginning of the written narrative interpretation goes back to the time before the second century AH, i.e. the first century AH.