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.
Vahid Fazaeli
Abstract
Tasvib (Approval) and Takhtaeh (Disapproval) are parts of the foundations of ijtihad. From Shiite’s point of view, there is a possibility for Takhtaeh because judicial orders by a judge might not be the same as religious orders. From Tasvib’s point of view, there is no order which covers ...
Read More
Tasvib (Approval) and Takhtaeh (Disapproval) are parts of the foundations of ijtihad. From Shiite’s point of view, there is a possibility for Takhtaeh because judicial orders by a judge might not be the same as religious orders. From Tasvib’s point of view, there is no order which covers all subjects, and that is why orders have been assigned to judges. Whatever a judge says is his decision, and that is why judges are always Mosib (true decision makers). There is a close relation between Tasvib Theory and the subject of Different Interpretations. Those who believe in Theory of Interpretations, like those of Tasvib, hold that all the different interpretations of a given text are correct, and there is no possibility for disapproval. The reference of Theory of Tasvib and that of Different Interpretations is Theory of Relativity., and Different Interpretations Theory has been influenced by philosophical hermeneutics. This paper tries to disapprove Theory of Tasvib, and approve that of Takhtaeh through verses and hadiths. To this end, the following questions should be addressed: 1. what are the reasons of those accepting Theory of Tasvib? 2. What is the reason of Shiite in rejecting Tasvib and accepting Takhtaeh? 3. Is the point of view of Sunni regarding Tasvib the same as Different Interpretations?.
