نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
A comparative examination of Shi‘i hadith-based exegeses reveals that their authors, influenced by their historical contexts, exercised interpretive reasoning in selecting narrations to ascertain the intended meanings of Qur’anic verses. This finding challenges the view held by some Qur’anic scholars that such exegeses are devoid of ijtihad (independent juristic reasoning). Employing a descriptive-analytical method, this study compares early and later Shi ‘i hadith-based exegeses and applies the concept of context from author-centered hermeneutical theories to examine differences in their treatment of the permissibility or impermissibility of interaction with the sultan. It seeks both to clarify overlooked aspects of this issue and to demonstrate a specific instance of interpretive reasoning in the compilation of these works. The central hypothesis is that the establishment of a fully fledged, independent Shi‘i state under the Safavids—a turning point in the history of Shi‘i political jurisprudence—constituted a significant contextual factor shaping the divergent approaches of early and later exegeses. The findings reveal differences in the number of narrations cited to interpret Qur’anic verses, their arrangement and sequence, and the sources from which they were selected. More specifically, the approaches of later exegetes, particularly Fayz Kashani, al-Huwayzi, al-Bahrani, and al-Qummi al-Mashhadi, distinguish their treatment of interaction with the sultan. Unlike exegetes of the second to fourth centuries AH, these scholars included not only narrations warning against interaction with the sultan and the royal court but also narrations permitting such interaction subject to specific restrictions and conditions and in consideration of certain interests. This divergence can be understood in light of the historical concurrence between the compilation of later hadith-based exegeses and the rise of the Shi ‘i Safavid state.
کلیدواژهها English
