مجله پژوهش های تفسیر تطبیقی
پیاپی 19 (بهار و تابستان 1403)

A comparative analysis of Tafsīr Qommī and Tafsīr Ṣāfī shows the difference in the stances of their authors regarding the Mustathnayāt Verses (the verses whose revelation is considered different to the revelation of the entire chapter). The importance and necessity of such a comparison is due to the fact that in a superficial and elementary view, it is thought that in the narrative exegeses, the exegetes have only collected narrations related to the words and expressions of the verses without any juristic reasoning (ijtihād). Contrary to this idea, the evidence shows that like other exegetes, the authors of the narrative exegeses, influenced by background conditions, have made juristic efforts to discover the meaning of the verses and have selected and arranged the narrations based on that. The result of this research indicates an increase in the number of Mustathnayāt Verses in Tafsīr Ṣāfī compared to Tafsīr Qommī, which is analyzed in the light of the increase in the number of Mustathnayāt in the works of Quranic scholars and exegetes over time and arises from Fayz’s adaptation of Tabarsi’s Majmaʿ al-Bayān. The confusion between the criteria of place and time in determining the Makkan and Medinite chapters, the incorrect assumptions of Quran scholars, such as the lack of contact between the Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) and the People of the Book before the emigration, and the mention of the causes of revelation whose validity is doubtful, are among the most important factors affecting this difference in outcomes.

The main point of disagreement among exegetes in the verse “that you may be witnesses to the people, and that the Apostle may be a witness to you” [al-Baqarah: 143] is the explanation of the word “shuhadāʾ.” Exegetes disagree on the meaning of this word. Some have interpreted it as a witness on the Day of Judgment, and others have interpreted it as a role model in this world. Moreover, the exegetes are not united even in determining the instances of these two views. Those who believe in the meaning as witness have provided the following instances: a) the nation of the Prophet as witnesses over the nations of previous prophets, b) the Ahlulbayt as witnesses over all other people, c) the propagators of Islam as witnesses over other people, and d) the prophets and successors of prophets of each nation as witnesses over the people of their time. The advocates of the meaning of role model follow the following instances: a) the Prophet’s nation being a role model for other nations, and b) the Ahlulbayt being a role model for all other people. This study is necessary both to resolve the differences between exegetes and to explain the position of Ahlulbayt in the Quran. In this research, which was organized using the method of comparative exegesis, according to the context of the verses and other verses and narrations, it was revealed that shuhadāʾ means role models and examples and the Ahlulbayt are the most perfect instances of the shuhadāʾ.

How the Verse of Purification [33: 33] relates to the verses concerning the wives of the Messenger of Allah (saws) in the al-Ahzab Chapter has always been a matter of dispute among the commentators of the Shiite and Sunni denominations, such that some Shiite commentators believe in the place distortion of the Verse of Purification, and some Sunni commentators have said things in this regard that are inconsistent with other verses and traditions accepted by both denominations regarding the reason of the revelation of the Purification Verse. The purpose of this research, which is organized using a comparative method, is to determine how the said link is based on Modarresi’s and Ibn Ashour’s points of view. This study has concluded that contrary to Ibn Ashour’s view, in addition to adapting to the general context governing the al-Ahzab Chapter, Modarresi’s opinions are in full harmony with the context of the mentioned verses and authentic traditions of the two denominations. According to this point of view, the cause of revelation of Verse of Purification is different from the verses related to the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) and the reason why it is placed next to the verses related to the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) is so that people do not think that all the members of the family of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) are the same in terms of emulation and following.

Fakhr Razi’s Mafātīh al-Ghayb and Alusi’s Rūh al-Maʿānī are considered prominent Sunni exegeses. “Anthropomorphic attributes” is one of the important topics in these two exegeses. The purpose of this research is to compare and evaluate the views of two exegetes on the subject of esoteric interpretation and entrustment to God of the anthropomorphic attributes, which was conducted through the comparative exegesis method. The findings of this study show that Fakhr Razi’s opinion on the topic under discussion is different: sometimes he favors entrustment to God (tafwīḍ) combined with esoteric interpretation (taʾwīl), sometimes he rejects esoteric interpretation, and, in some cases, while accepting the necessity of esoteric interpretation, he opposes entrustment to God. From his point of view, the license to interpret is the ruling of the intellect and its necessity where the intellect does not accept the literal meaning of the Quranic word. Alusi does not follow Fakhr Razi in this matter. Alusi is more inclined towards the Salafis and prefers entrustment to God and considers esoteric interpretation to be conditional on the approval of the Salafis, harmony with the Arabic language and literature, and the necessity of dispelling doubt. This shows that the validity of reason and narrations is different for both of them and both exegetes have accepted the interpretation of some verses with more or less intensity.

The infallibility of prophets is one of the basic beliefs of Muslims, but its scope is a matter of dispute. One of the disputed verses in this regard is Prophet Shoaib’s threat in the verse “or else you shall come back into our religion” (Ibrahim: 13), the interpretation of which to mean return to the religion of the disbelievers is a challenge to Shiite beliefs and requires serious analysis because the general Shiites believe that the prophets were infallible in all periods of their lives. In this study, the exegetive viewpoints have been examined through a comparative method and it becomes clear that in the analysis and justification of the aforementioned challenge, the exegetes have said that the meaning of return (ʿowd) in the verse in question is Prophet Shoaib entering the religion of the disbelievers and agreeing with them, is an explanation of the illusion of the disbelievers, and the domination and generalization of the ruling of the majority for the general and transformation. ʿOwd, meaning transformation, can be acceptable despite some caveats. Most of the exegetes have taken ʿowd to mean return, however, they have refused to accept such a meaning. From the point of view of this article, ʿowd is acceptable in the sense of return, with the explanation that Prophet Shoaib followed the religion of the previous Prophet along with his people in the period before his prophethood. Only Ibn Taymiyyah, in contrast to Sunni and Shiite exegetes, has insisted on the committing of sins by the prophets without citing the text of the verse.

Verse fifty-five of the Aal-Imran Chapter indicates the purification of Jesus (peace be upon him) by God: “…and purify you of those who disbelieve.” What is the meaning of this purification and what views exist in this regard? With the aim of explaining what this purification is through the method of comparative exegesis, the present paper seeks to study the view of exegetes about the purification of Jesus and present the adopted view based on Quranic evidence and some Jewish and Christian sources. By emphasizing that Jesus was not killed and crucified, the Quran shows that what is attributed to Jesus is unjust. The Jews had accused him of illegitimacy of birth, disbelief, witchcraft, and heresy, and believed that the punishment for these accusations was to be killed, and they insisted that they killed him. The Quran, in contrast, has purified him from these unjust accusations through different expressions, including by insisting on him not having been killed and crucified

Verse fifty-five of the Aal-Imran Chapter indicates the purification of Jesus (peace be upon him) by God: “…and purify you of those who disbelieve.” What is the meaning of this purification and what views exist in this regard? With the aim of explaining what this purification is through the method of comparative exegesis, the present paper seeks to study the view of exegetes about the purification of Jesus and present the adopted view based on Quranic evidence and some Jewish and Christian sources. By emphasizing that Jesus was not killed and crucified, the Quran shows that what is attributed to Jesus is unjust. The Jews had accused him of illegitimacy of birth, disbelief, witchcraft, and heresy, and believed that the punishment for these accusations was to be killed, and they insisted that they killed him. The Quran, in contrast, has purified him from these unjust accusations through different expressions, including by insisting on him not having been killed and crucified.

The word “returning/resurgent” (rajʿ) in the verse “By the resurgent heaven” is one of the words for which Persian and English exegetes and translators of the Quran have not provided a single meaning. Rain; rotation of the sun; moon, and stars; angels, and soul are some of the meanings mentioned for this word in exegeses, and rain and the rotation of the stars are two meanings mentioned in translations. This research studies the reasons for the differences in the meaning of rajʿ through a historical-analytical method and has taken steps to solve the problem through a new semantic and paradigmatic relations method. Examining lexical sources, the course of exegeses, and analysis of narrations show that some etymologists and exegetes have gone wrong in finding the meaning of this word. Considering the fact that the narrations in this topic have problems in terms of the chain of narrators and they themselves differ in presenting the meaning of this word, it is difficult to give preference to them. Similarly, lexical sources have also not been able to prevent the difference of views. Therefore, in the following article, by applying paradigmatic relations and considering the semantics of two similar verses from the al-Dhariyat and Buruj Chapters, the problem of the preference of narrations has been solved and the correct meaning has been presented.

Considering the principle of gender equality, feminist exegetes have interpreted the verses related to women in order to show the egalitarianism of the Quran through alternative interpretations. Gender justice, from the perspective of Islamic feminism theorists, refers to the equality of men and women in the division of tasks, responsibilities, and social, economic, and political rights. But from Allamah Tabatabai’s point of view, the essential difference between beings is a necessity of the cause and effect system, and men and women are not exempt from this law either. Thus, based on the principle of the essential difference between men and women, distinct laws have been established to protect social interests. Therefore, gender justice does not mean the equality of men and women. This study aims to explain the consequences of the views of the theorists of Islamic feminism in presenting the meaning of gender justice, which has been addressed by referring to the views of Muslim feminists in the verses related to women. The notion of exegeses being patriarchal, polytheism in gender discrimination, trans-textual exegesis, limiting the verses to the Age of Revelation, are among the implications of feminist exegeses, which are criticized and analyzed in this article with emphasis on the views of Allamah Tabatabai.

In verse 143 of the al-Baqarah Chapter, God Almighty introduces some witnesses to the actions of humans. There is a difference of opinion among exegetes as to whether the position of witnessing deeds, like prophethood and imamate, is a position exclusive to the prophets and infallible Imams or whether it can also belong to the special companions and students of the Imams. Allamah Tabatabai considers the relationship between the position of witnessing people’s deeds and infallibility to be equal and believes that witnessing people’s deeds is reserved for the Infallible. In contrast, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli considers this relationship to be absolute generality and particularity, and introduces examples of witnesses to people’s actions that include the Infallibles. It is clear that this verse can be used as one of the proofs of infallibility when there is an equal relationship between infallibility and the position of witnessing; otherwise, it will not be considered as proof of infallibility. In the present study, we have examined the views of Allamah Tabatabai and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli using the method of comparative exegesis, and after presenting and examining the evidence of both exegetes, we have shown that according to the application of the content of the verses of witnessing deeds, that literally manifests as witnessing all deeds of all nations, Allamah Tabatabai’s view is preferable.

According to Shiite teachings, the Imamate and leadership of the Islamic community and the succession of the Holy Prophet applies to religious and worldly affairs, and from the beginning of his mission, the Holy Prophet paid serious attention to the issue of the leadership of the Muslims after his death while introducing his successor. In order to prove Imamate and the succession of the Prophet, theological and historical proofs as well as verses of the Quran, such as verse 124 of the al-Baqarah Chapter, that is, the Trial of Abraham Verse are cited. Therefore, to discuss, criticize, and study the implication of the verse of Abraham’s trial in the issues of Imamate, it is necessary to clarify in advance whether the explanation of the concept of Imamate through the Quranic verses is based on previous specifications present in early Islam, or this Quranic explanation is formed based on later and newly created specifications and concepts. In the following research, the early Shiite exegeses under the verse of Abraham’s trial have been investigated. In this research, it becomes clear that the early Shiite exegetes did not take the verse of the trial of Abraham as proof of Imamate, at least until the 4th century, and they did not cite this verse regarding specific Imamate.

In some instances of the verses of the Holy Quran, there is a difference of opinion about the referent of some pronouns, and this has led to the different interpretations of some verses. There is a difference of opinion among the commentators about the referent of the pronoun “huʾ” (he/it) in the word “ṣarrafnāhū” in verse fifty of the al-Furqan Chapter. According to the preceding and following verses, some consider the referent of the pronoun to be rain, some have regarded it to refer to all the blessings mentioned in the al-Furqan Chapter, including rain; however, some exegetes, considering the instances of the usage of the word taṣrīf in the Quran and reflecting on verse fifty-two of the same chapter, which has discussed the Greater Jihad, have returned the pronoun in “ṣarrafnāhū” to the Quran. In this research, through the method of comparative exegesis, we have examined the opinions of exegetes about the referent of the pronoun in the verse in question, and by criticizing the first and second views, we have shown that apparently verses fifty to fifty-two of the al-Furqan Chapter do not have a specific semantic connection with the verses before and after them and they are an independent descent unit, so to speak and therefore, the referent of the pronoun “huʾ” in “ṣarrafnāhū” is the Holy Quran​