JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE TAFSIR STUDIES
Year:2016 | Volume:2 | Issue:1 (3) |Papers Count:9

The verse تبیانا لکل شیء the Book explains clearly everything (16:89) is one of the challenging verses of the Holy Quran for which commentators have provided different commentaries, including scientific all-comprehensiveness of the Holy Quran, absolute legislative all-comprehensiveness of the Holy Quran, relative legislative allcomprehensiveness of the Holy Quran, guiding all-comprehensiveness of the Holy Quran, all-comprehensiveness of the Holy Quran along with tradition, and all-comprehensiveness of the Holy Quran especial to Infallible Imams. Using a descriptive and content analysis method, the present paper seeks to review and criticize different views about the allcomprehensiveness of the Holy Quran. The research finding indicates that the term "Tebyan" means ultimate clarity and luminosity, the phrase "kulle shai'=everything " means constitutional sciences which are rooted in the human conscience, and the Holy Qur'an as an "invocation" invokes these sciences to issue an ultimatum. Some commentary narrations about the verse are for its applicability and conformation, and refer to truths beyond the words of the Holy Quran.

The legitimacy of "mut'ah" or temporary marriage is one of the controversial issues of marriage laws among Shia and Sunni scholars. Over the history, the Twelver Shia scholars have declared and insisted on the legitimacy of temporary marriage while Sunni scholars believe in the abrogation and temporary legitimacy of this divine decree. Sunni and Shia scholars and commentators' most important reason for the legitimacy of temporary marriage is the verse 24 of the Chapter 4 (Al-Nisa', The Women) known as the verse of Istimta' (temporary marriage). Commentators can be divided into three groups regarding the interpretation of the verse: those who believe the verse signifies the permanent legitimacy of temporary marriage (Shia commentators); those who believe the verse signifies its temporary legitimacy; and a few Sunni commentators who deny such a signification and predicate its legitimacy on tradition. The last group also argues for the legitimacy of temporary marriage, that is, they accept such a signification of the verse and believe that the legitimacy of the temporary marriage is time-specific and abrogated by other verses and traditions. Using a descriptive and content- analysis method, the present paper mentions and reviews the view and arguments of each group. The research findings indicate that proposed arguments are mostly centered on the terms used in the verse and their intended interpretations. Most commentators hold that the words used in the verse, such as "Istimta'" signifies temporary marriage literally and idiomatically, and denying such a meaning necessitates something contrary to permanent marriage. There is unanimity on the legitimacy of temporary marriage in early Islam, but Sunni commentators disagree on how it has been forbidden, that is, whether it is abrogated by the Holy Quran and tradition or by Caliph, which results in the limited legitimacy of temporary marriage. The abrogation of decree of temporary marriage is not acceptable regarding other relevant contradictory verses and traditions. Interpretive traditions narrated by Infallible Imams, which explain divine decrees, are the most useful evidence for Shia commentators to interpret the decree of temporary marriage, which are unfortunately neglected by other denominations.

One of the most important moral values is honesty; the main defect of which is lying which is regarded a moral vice. Lying is forbidden in all divine religions and not permitted unless there appears an important necessity and expediency. If we are to fulfill this expediency, then lying is permitted and subject to the principle of "the most important and important", or in other word, the principle of "avoiding more corruption by means of allowing less corruption." After all, the stories of the Holy Quran mention some cases in which lying, or more exactly prevarication, is permitted due to a necessity and to protect individual and social expediency and interests. For example, Prophet Yusuf (PBUH) kept his brother, Benjamin, before himself due to some expediency through a revealed plan, and accused his brothers of stealing. Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) did not participate in pagan celebration in order to break the idols and pretended that he was sick. After breaking the idols and being asked about it, he attributed it to the great idol. There are other cases in the Holy Quran, from which commentators have deduced the permissibility of white lie and prevarication.

Divine mercy has two perpetual flows, one as compassionate mercy and the other as merciful mercy, which flow over the entire universe. The former forms the creation and the latter causes the creation to achieve its final growth. God created man to grow and take him from the former to the latter. God' compassionateness refers to His Lordliness. The world is a place for growth. God is the Lord of all creatures and provides the ground for the development, florescence, and realization of all capacities. This is the man who must create a kind of capacity in himself to attain Divine mercy in order to be included in God compassionate and merciful mercy in the world and hereafter. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the present paper seeks to comparatively review Divine mercy from the view of Shia and Sunni commentators. First, it reviews literal and idiomatic meaning of mercy and then studies the position of Divine mercy in the Holy Quran and traditions, with regard to Shia and Sunni views. Finally it explains the difference between these two kinds of mercy and specifies that curse which is contrary to mercy is not a category of speech; rather, it means separation from mercy. There is no discrimination in Divine mercy; rather, everyone can receive Divine mercy according to the capacity that he attains.

Reviewing and reflecting on the Quranic verses bring us to the terms hidayah (guidance) and zilalah (astray) which have been attributed to God the Almighty and have led to different views among Muslim scholars. The present paper reviews the foundation of guidance and astray, as viewed and depicted by Seyyed Murteza 'Alam al-Huda, a renowned Twelver Shiite scholar and thinker, and Fakhr al-Din Razi, a famous Sunni scholar. The review is of great importance because they are pundits in Islamic commentary and theology. They have provided some meanings for these two terms indicating their different views, though both think they are instances of unity of Divine acts. Using a descriptive and contentanalysis method, the paper examines the arguments provided by these thinkers and proves that Seyyed Murteza's view is acceptable for some reasons, because he views all the causes and effects of the world dependent on the Divine will, such that the ultimate effect is none but that of God, with all other causes just functions of His will. These functional effects are all harmonious with the unity of Divine acts. It follows that the “guidance” and “astray” attributed to God are complementary to the ways people have volitionally taken up. In addition to rational and traditional problems of Fakhr Razi's view, it can be said that he has made a grave mistake because he has failed to consider Quranic verses as a system, i.e., interconnected with one another, hence he viewed ”guidance” and “astray” as a phenomenon imposed on mankind.

One of the things which may happen in the family is disobedience of wife towards her husband, which is called "Nashoz" in Quranic terms. A wife can be disobedient (nashezeh) toward her husband due to different motivations such as suppressing the husband to satisfy her luxury needs, taking economic advantages, willing to associate with others, etc. The Holy Quran mentions physical punishment to avoid one's wife's disobedience. Now two basic questions are how physical punishment is consistent with woman's human dignity, and why God commands it? The present paper reviews and criticizes the issue from the view of Sunni and Shia commentators, with regard to the verse 34 of Chapter Al-Nisa. It is a problem-based research which uses a descriptive-analytical method, and a library method is used to gather the data. The research findings indicate that Sunni and Shia commentators interpret the Quranic verse as ordering the husband to advise his wife, and then avoid going to bed with her if the advice is useless. Finally, he can punish his wife under certain conditions if two pervious ways are fruitless in order to regain his rights in case she violates them. Therefore, the Quranic order of physical punishment for wife is a necessary prescription for absolutely especial conditions, that is, when the wife is disobedient. It is not only considered improper and forbidden in other cases, but also absolutely forbidden in many traditions. Thence, physical punishment never contradicts with woman's human dignity in certain cases.

The conceptual scope of the term "apostasy" in the Holy Quran is more inclusive than its concept in jurisprudence and has a legal aspect in terms of context and the combination of phrases in some verses, with regard to some conditional qualifications. Therefore, some Sunni and Shia commentators believe that apostate's repentance is absolutely allowed and should be accepted, citing the applications of arguments of repentance; whether the applications include innate apostate (born in a Muslim family, but become apostate after puberty age), inborn apostate (born in a non-Muslim family, but become apostate after converting to Islam), female apostate, male apostate, or an apostate whose apostasy is realized by heretic intention, words, or acts. There are, however, another group of Sunni and Shia commentators who believe in differentiation between types of apostates. Since the main cause of controversy in issuing the injunctions of apostasy which are related to worldly and other worldy punishments can result from both a fundamental difference and the way the related verses are interpreted, the present paper seeks to review the most important interpretive views of Sunni and Shia commentators and provide a proper solution for the controversy, using a descriptive and content analysis method.

Nowadays, we observe many and different commentaries of the Holy Quran, each indicating its author's method, principles, rules and presumptions. Among them, Sheikh Muhammad Jawad Balaghi, a Shia theologian, commentator and the author of Ala' Al- Rahman (Blessings of the All-Merciful) Commentary and Ayesha Bint Al-Shati, Sunny researcher, commentator and the author of Al-Tafsir Al-Bayani (Demonstrative Commentary) are contemporary commentators who have interpreted some chapters of the Holy Quran according to particular method and rules. Using an analytical-descriptive method, the present paper compares some of their rules and method of interpretation in aforementioned commentaries. One of the most important research findings indicates their common commitment to the interpretation of the Holy Quran by itself. There are, however, some differences in their method of interpretation in terms of using traditions, explaining Quranic words and expressions, using historical trends and their approach to scientific commentary. Despite their differences in the interpretive rules of recitation, attention to the order of descent of chapters and thematic interpretation, they have common or similar views about the authenticity and criterion of the Quran in literary sciences, the validity of generality of word and using the context of Quranic verses.

The Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has been addressed in the Holy Quran by different phrases, including "Ya Ayyohannabi" (O Prophet) and "Ya Ayyoharrasoul" (O Messenger). Commentators disagree on the meaning of these two addresses and provide five different commentaries. Based on the principle of non-synonymy, it is taken for granted that almighty God has intended special meaning for these two addresses, each with distinct and different meaning. The present paper studies and reviews the relevant commentaries of two Sunni and Shia commentators systematically and comparatively and then provides a technical criticism. The research findings indicate that whenever the Holy Prophet was addressed by "O Prophet", his "scientific superiority", which is related to revelation, was intended, and whenever he was addressed by "O Messenger", his "propagating aspect" was intended.