Zohreh Akhavan Moghadam; Afshan Bostakchi
Abstract
One of the characteristics of contemporary studies in the field of Islamic sciences is the confirmation of the root of Shiite intellectual and doctrinal identity and the recognition of gaps and shortcomings to compensate and prepare them. Among these works in the field of Qur'anic and Hadith sciences ...
Read More
One of the characteristics of contemporary studies in the field of Islamic sciences is the confirmation of the root of Shiite intellectual and doctrinal identity and the recognition of gaps and shortcomings to compensate and prepare them. Among these works in the field of Qur'anic and Hadith sciences are the commentaries belonging to the third century and the early years of the fourth century, entitled the commentary of the Furat Kufi and Ayyashi. These two interpretations are among the narrations, which are considered as the first Shiite interpretations and include various narrations, especially narrated from the Imams (AS). Among the issues in the above-mentioned interpretations is the subject of ijtihad and its effect on the selection, arrangement, and the number of narrations related to each surah. Intellectual religion, indigenous conditions, and the era of the two commentators, such as Zaidiyyah's dominant tendency in Kufa during the Furat Kufi, his distance from Medina and lack of access to the Imam, political pressures and hardships, the age of occultation, attribution of infallibility to the companions of Kasa and evidence of Zayd ibn Ali in the document of the narrations of the interpretation of the Furat Kufi, is one of the citations of the predominance of Zaidiyyah method and attitude on the interpretation of the Furat Kufi. On the other hand, the proximity of Ayyashi to the Imamiyya Hadith Narration Center, the selection of the titles of the narrations in the interpretation of Ayyashi, etc., are among the issues that have been effective in selecting and writing the interpretation of Ayyashi. The huge difference in the number of narrations in each surah expresses a kind of involvement of ijtihad in writing their commentaries. In this paper, the contents of these two works are compared with the analytical-comparative method, different aspects of their interpretations are analyzed and its significant results are exposed to the readers.
Hassan Rezaei Haftader; Safar Nasirian; Hosein Alavimehr
Abstract
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 ...
Read More
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.
