Document Type : Academicm and Research
Authors
1 Assistant Professor, Islamic Teachings Department, Faculty of Theology and Teachings of the Ahlulbayt, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2 Ph.D. Candiddate, Quran and Hadith Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Highlights
The belief of some authors of works in the field of schools of thought and exegetive currents is that the authors of narrative exegeses have only collected narrations without juristic reasoning, which often directly refer to some of the words and expressions of the verses. (To see some of these authors, see Ayazi, 1994, p. 11; Babaie, 2007, vol. 1, p. 269; Omid Zanjani, 1994, p. 192; Marfat, 2015, vol. 2, p. 225). Contrary to this idea, the evidence shows that all the authors of narrative exegeses under the influence of background conditions and in order to discover the meaning of the verses have applied juristic reasoning at least in the two categories of selecting sources and narrations. Comparing these exegeses with each other and paying attention to their different positions is a good representation of this claim. Among the stances of this difference is the approach of the authors of these exegeses towards the Mustathnayāt Verses. Mustathnayāt Verses are those verses whose revelation is considered contrary to the revelation of the entire chapter. Among the famous Shiite narrative exegeses, only the authors of Tafsīr Qommī belonging to the late third and early fourth centuries and Fayz Kashani’s Tafsīr Ṣāfī belonging to the eleventh century mentioned the Makkan or Medinite origin at the beginning of each chapter. Therefore, it is only possible to specifically and distinctly follow the Mustathnayāt Verses in these two exegeses because until the exegete’s view about the whole of the chapter is not clear in terms of revelation, there is no room left to talk about its exceptional verses. In this article, the difference between these two exegeses in the issue of the Mustathnayāt Verses and the factors affecting the reason for this stance have been explained and analyzed.
The number of verses with exceptions in Tafsīr Ṣāfī has significantly increased compared to Tafsīr Qommī. Like Qommi, Fayz Kashani has discussed at the beginning of each chapter about whether it is Makkan or Medinite, with the difference that Fayz, unlike Qommi, also refers to the Mustathnayāt Verses in each chapter. In addition to this stance, this comparison has also been made during the interpretation of the verses of each chapter. In all these cases, Fayz Kashani has taken steps in this regard under the inspiration of Tabarsi’s Majmaʿ al-Bayān. Of course, the comparison of Tafsīr Ṣāfī with Tabarsi’s Majmaʿ al-Bayān indicates that Fayz has acted differently compared to Tabarsi in some cases. The increase in the number of Mustathnayāt Verses in Tafsīr Ṣāfī compared to Tafsīr Qommī is itself an example of the increase in the number of exceptions in the works of Quranic scholars over time and can be evaluated in the light of this trend. The initiator of this trend of enumerating the Mustathnayāt Verses is Maqatil b. Suleiman; a trend that started in the second century, continued to a small extent in the third century, increased in the fourth and fifth centuries, and became completely stable and widespread in the sixth and seventh centuries. Proof of this universality is Tabarsi’s Majmaʿ al-Bayān, an exegesis under whose influence Fayz mentioned the Mustathnayāt. In other words, the selection of the source that Fayz Kashani referred to in mentioning the traditions and views in this category, which itself is an example of the exegete’s juristic reasoning, has been the basis for the extensive address of the Mustathnayāt Verses in Tafsīr Ṣāfī.
One of the influencing factors in this issue is the confusion between the criteria for recognizing Makkan and Medinite verses. Scholars have three types of theories regarding chapters being Makkan and Medinite criteria: time, place, and address. The attention in the writings of Islamic scholars shows that they sometimes ruled verses to be exceptions by confusing the criteria of time and place. Although this is also seen in Tafsīr Qommī, it is more visible in Tafsīr Ṣāfī. Among the other factors influencing the emergence of the Mustathnayāt Verses and their increase over time, are the causes of revelation, the acceptance of whose validity is worth considering. The presuppositions of the exegetes are other effective factors in the emergence of Mustathnayāt Verses and their increase over many centuries. Attention to the content of some of the Mustathnayāt Verses shows that all of them are related to the People of the Book. The common feature of all these verses is that they are all placed in Makkan chapters and the exegetes, including Tabarsi and subsequently Fayz Kashani, with the assumption that the People of the Book did not encounter the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him and his household) in the pre-migration period and their relationship and interaction with the Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) only happened during the Medina period, place all the above-mentioned verses among the exceptional verses and have considered their revelation to be related to the years after the migration of the Medina period, contrary to the general context of their chapters. It should be mentioned that the exclusiveness of the interaction of the People of the Book with the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him and his household) to the Medina era is a presupposition that is rejected according to the opinion of some researchers and based on numerous Quranic and historical evidence (cf. Kalbasi and Ahmadnezhad, 2014, pp. 175-201).
One of the examples of the reflection of the background conditions in the compilation of Shiite narrative exegeses is the difference between Tafsīr Qommī and Tafsīr Ṣāfī in dealing with the Mustathnayāt Verses. The comparison of these two exegeses shows the increase in the number of Mustathnayāt Verses in Tafsīr Ṣāfī, as a recent exegesis, compared to Tafsīr Qommī, as an earlier exegesis. We can mention the following issues among the most prominent factors affecting the difference between these two exegeses regarding Mustathnayāt Verses: confusion between the criteria of space and time in determining Makkan and Medinite chapters, incorrect assumptions of the exegetes such as the lack of encounter between the Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) and the People of the Book before emigration and mentioning causes of revelation, the acceptance of whose validity is doubtful.
Amid Zanjani, A. A. (1994). Mabani va ravesh-ha-yi tafsir-i Qurʾan. Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. [In Persian].
Ayazi, M. A. (1994). Sair-i tatawwur-i tafasir-i Shiʿa. Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. [In Persian].
Babaie, A. A. (2007). Makatib-i tafsiri. Samt-Research Institute of Hawza and University. [In Persian].
Faez, Q. (2012). A consideration of the theory of exceptions in Makki and Madani chapters. Motaleat-e Tafsiri, 2(8), 127-152. [In Persian].
Faez, Q. (2016). Barrasi va naqd-i tadakhul-i aayat-i Makki va Madani. Astan Quds Razavi Islamic Research Foundation. [In Persian].
Fayz Kashani, M. (1994). Tafsir al-safi. (H. Aalami, Ed.). Maktabat al-Sadr. [In Arabic].
Kalbasi Ashtari, Z., & Ahmadnazhad, A. (2014). Naqd-i didgah-i mufassiran-i muʿaser darbare-yi taʿamul-i Payamber ba Ahl-i Ketab dar Makkeh. Quranic Sciences and Tradition, 47(2), 175-201. https://doi.org/10.22059/JQST.2014.54275. [In Persian].
Marefat, M. H. (2015). Tafsir va mufassiran. Tamhid Publications. [In Persian].
Qommi, A. (1984). Tafsir al-Qommi. (T. Musavi Jazairi, Ed.). Dar al-Ketab. [In Arabic].
Tabarsi, F. (1993). Majmaʿ al-bayan. Naser Khosro Publications. [In Arabic].
Keywords
Main Subjects
)
Send comment about this article