فصلنامه مشکوه
پیاپی 132 (پاییز 1395)

Miserliness ( bukhl ) has since early times been broached in the verses of the Qur’ān and traditions and also in such fields as philology, ethics, and mysticism. These fields have each, in turn, tried to present a meaning of it. Although the concept of bukhl has the same semantic principle in all disciplines, there is a big difference between the Qur’ān and traditions and other fields in determining its semantic evidences. The present article is an attempt in determining the semantic evidences of the word buk hl from the perspective of religion and tries to portray the conceptual differences of this word in view of religious text with its application in Arabic language, which would lead to achieving evidences that fit into the concept of bukhl only from the viewpoint of religion. Furthermore, it would arrive at a positive connotation, which, contrary to its lexical use, would attribute to this word only in its narrative concept and indicates that the relation of these two fields of the concept of bukhl is absolute generality and peculiarity.

Self-compassion is an ethical concept meaning benevolence and kindness to oneself. The existence of certain religious doctrines, especially in the realm of ethics, reinforces the misconception of the incompatibility of some part of religion with this ethical principle. By analyzing these doctrines and through presenting an applied definition for compassion to one’s self, it can be said that this ethical principle has been of concern in all Islamic doctrines. In a practical definition, self-compassion has two minimal and maximal (bottom and top) levels. In minimal level, selfcompassion means not to sustain a loss to oneself and in maximal level, it means to benefit oneself. Inner self ( nafs ) contains different degrees from the physical body to the non-material celestial truth. With respect to this notion and by applying the ‚principle of preferring the most important to the important‛ and the ‚principle of no harm‛, the apparent incompatibility of all the claimed instances can be resolved.

There are exclusive rational, spiritual, and innate characteristics and capacities institutionalized in mankind, by means of which his inner nature has become heavenly, his rank has become Divine Vicegerency, and his status has turned as the most noble of all creation. With the right knowledge, man can achieve Divine excellences, meeting with the Lord, and annihilation in Allah,
purification of the soul, and pious acts; and with inner transformation go beyond receptive development and with the leave of God achieve the efficient development. At this point, he will become capable of creational powers of disposition in the terrestrial and celestial world, the inner and outer, this world and the Hereafter, the nature and the supernatural, and the macromanagement of the world of being. The great philosopher and Qur’ān interpreter, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, has expressed a special perspective on how and in what condition man can exert creational powers of disposition in the world of being, which few philosophers and religious interpreters have so explicitly dealt with. In this article, we will try to examine his special perspective in this respect.

In some verses of the Qur’ān, the attribute of revenge, which is apparently an indecent human feature, is attributed to God and sometimes God is called ‚Vengeful ( d h ū in tiq ā m ), taker of vengeance ( muntaqim )‛. Revenge, in common parlance, means ‚retaliation to soothe one’s heart‛. Actually, in the Qur’ān and traditions, human beings are prohibited from taking revenge. In this research, which is carried out with a descriptive-analytical method and with respect to the verses of the Qur’ān, traditions, and viewpoints of the interpreters, the manner in which this trait is attributed to the Almighty God is examined and it is concluded that the word revenge originally means ‚punishing the sinner‛ rather than ‚requite someone in kind‛. Divine revenge is one of the negative attributes and it is obvious that the punishment of the unruly tyrants and the powerful oppressors is desirable and necessary, and the Divine justice and wisdom does not tolerate ignoring it. Revenge is of three types: the praiseworthy and necessary revenge, permissible revenge, and blameworthy revenge. The most important characteristics of Divine revenge are: purposefulness, inclusiveness, severity, and justice-oriented. The most important reasons for Divine revenge are infidelity, tyranny, repudiation, turning away from Divine signs, and not believing in the Prophet.

‚Family‛ entry in Leiden’s Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān examines the word family in the Qur’ān and explains the Qur’ān’s view on the family and the status of man, woman, and children in family. The author of this entry, Avner Giladi, has briefly and incompletely addressed the above-mentioned issues and brought up some doubtful concepts including men’s having a rank above women, husband’s being allowed to punish his wife physically, a wife’s not being independence in her financial affairs, and divorce. In the present article, while touching upon the incomplete references made by the author of the entry, the misconceptions brought up in this entry are examined with an analysis of the above instances and reference to the interpretations. Furthermore, the Islam’s true attitude toward these issues is shown and it is clarified that these concepts have not been fully and correctly presented due to the author’s partial selection of the Qur’ān, and therefore a correct impression of this entry is not gained.

The verse seven of
Sūrat al - Shar ḥ , with the application of its wording and not mentioning its object, has caused the interpreters to give referents to determine the object of farāghat (being done) and na ṣ b (appointing). The writer has first presented different translations that are provided for the verse; then he has mentioned the exegetical viewpoints of the interpreters along with their critique; and finally, he has stated the soundest exegetical and interpretive view. The viewpoints that confirm the appointment of Amīr al-Mu’minīn (A.S.) to caliphate and wilāyat (guardianship) are mentioned as the object of fan ṣ ab (appoint) and its conformity to the context in comparison to the other interpretations of the interpreters is clarified. In this writing, two general exegetical and interpretive viewpoints are presented. Besides clarifying the revelatory and apparent meaning of the noble verse and accepting it, the research aims at proving the interpretive view concerning the verse, ﴾So when you are done, appoint﴿, which is the viewpoint based on the appointment of caliphate.