عصیان و غوایت حضرت آدم (ع) از منظر مفسران فریقین؛ تفسیر آیه 121 سوره طه (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
آیات مربوط به تنقیص موردی و یا انتساب گناه و معصیتی خاص به ساحت پیامبران بزرگ الهی همواره محل بحث و نزاع مفسران بوده است. آیه 121 سوره طه از زمره همین آیات جنجالی است که در آن، دو فعل «عصیان» و «غوایت» به حضرت آدم (ع) نسبت داده شده است. پرسش اصلی پژوهش پیش رو این است که آیا می توان افعال «عصیان» و «غوایت» در مورد آدم (ع) را به رغم عصمت پیامبران بر معانی ظاهری آنها حمل کرد یا ناگزیر بایستی همچون سایر مفسران راه تأویلات پیچیده و گاه ناسازگار با ظاهر آیه را در این باره پیمود؟ این پژوهش به روش تحلیلی تطبیقی انجام شده و نتیجه نهایی آن این است که در آیه موردبحث نه تنها قرینه صارفه متقن و موجهی برای تأویل معانی ظاهری افعال «عصیان» و «غوایت» درمورد آدم (ع) به معانی مورد ادعای برخی مفسران وجود ندارد، بلکه، مؤیدات فراوانی در تعیین معانی ظاهری این افعال به عنوان مدلول اصلی کلام الهی قابل استنباط است.The Disobedience of Adam: An Comparative Interpretation of Verse 121 of the al-Ṭāhā Chapter
The verses related to instantial denigration or attribution of specific sins and wrongdoings to the great Divine Prophets have always been a subject of discussion and dispute among Quranic exegetes. Verse 121 of the al-Ṭāhā Chapter is one of these controversial verses, in which the two verbs, “disobedience” (ʿiṣyān) and “misguidance” (ghiwāyat) are attributed to Prophet Adam (peace be upon him). The main question of this study is whether it is possible to conceive the verbs “disobedience” and “misguidance” in relation to Adam (peace be upon him)–despite the belief in the infallibility of the prophets–in their literal meanings, or must one, like other commentators, resort to complex interpretations that are sometimes inconsistent with the apparent meaning of the verse? This research, conducted through an analytical-comparative method, concludes that in the verse under discussion, not only is there no accurate and justified metaphorical context (i.e., qarīna-yi ṣārifah: a context that takes a word from its real meaning to its metaphorical one) for interpreting the apparent meanings of disobedience and misguidance in relation to Adam (P.B.U.H.) in the manner suggested by some exegetes, but there are numerous corroborators that can be derived for determining the literal meanings of these verbs as the primary intended meaning of the Divine speech. Introduction The verses related to specific denigration or attribution of specific sins and wrongdoings to the great Divine Prophets have always been a subject of discussion and dispute among Quranic exegetes. A brief review of the views of exegetes on similar subjects suggests that there are fundamentally two major groups of exegetes who have serious disagreements regarding such verses: The first group, invoking the general principles of the infallibility of the Prophets in the Quran and narrations, and relying on theological assumptions, rejects the literal meanings of such verses and inevitably resorts to their interpretation. In contrast, the second group considers the literal aspect of such verses as the intended meaning of the speaker by maintaining the authority of the literal meanings of the verses and the lack of accurate and justified metaphorical contexts. Verse 121 of the al- Ṭāhā Chapter is one of these controversial verses, in which the verbs disobedience and misguidance are attributed to Adam (A.S.). The main question of this study is whether it is possible to conceive “disobedience” and “misguidance” in relation to Adam (A.S.), despite belief in the infallibility of the Prophets, in their literal meanings, or must one, like other exegetes, resort to complex interpretations that are sometimes inconsistent with the literal meaning of the verse? The assumption of this study is that the human dimensions of the Divine Prophets (A.S.) are similar to other human beings in terms of commitment and inclusion in divine obligations and trials throughout their blessed lives. The result of this research is a correct understanding of the meanings of such verses and a more realistic recognition–free from exaggeration and diminution–of the status of the Divine Prophets as pillars of guidance in order to properly emulate them. A Comparative Analysis of the Verse in the Exegeses of the Two Sects A review of the opinions of commentators–within their historical context–shows that in the early centuries, the main approach of commentators, especially those of the Sunni tradition, was simplicity, reliance on the apparent meanings of the verses, and avoidance of complex interpretations regarding the verses under discussion. From the fifth century onward, with the expansion of jurisprudential and theological schools and the debates among their followers, along with the coherence and spread of the theological beliefs of the Shiite school, the emphasis on the infallibility of the Prophets and the effort to reinterpret and harmonize the meanings of the verses with this belief became the dominant approach among many Shiite exegeted. This approach was also followed and strengthened by other commentators of this sect in later centuries, such as Tabarsi and Abu al-Futuh al-Razi. The stance of Shiite exegetes on the views of Sunni scholars—such as Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi, al-Qurtubi, al-Alusi, and others—was also influential, leading to an interpretation of Adam’s (A.S.) disobedience as an instantial and relative deficiency. Allamah Tabatabai and his students in the contemporary centuries, under the influence of the narrations of the Ahlulbayt (A.S.), especially the narration of Imam Reza (A.S.) and the justifications of the Hadith (Akhbārī: those who accept only narrations and reject reasoning) scholars, have adopted the guidance-oriented nature of God’s prohibition in this regard as their preferred opinion. Critics such as Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Fazlullah, Qaraati, and Sadeqi Tehrani in various centuries have worked to critique and clarify the incorrect consequences of some prevalent opinions among exegetes and to correct them. In the author's view, Imam Khomeini's (R.A.) perspective is a comprehensive one, harmonizing both the apparent and deeper meanings of God’s words, while simultaneously embodying free thought and profound insight. Conclusion A general summary of the linguistic, literary, comparative, narrative, rational, and mystical discussions in the interpretation of the verse in question reveals that not only is there no solid and justified metaphorical context to reinterpret the apparent meaning of this verse into the suggested interpretations, but on the contrary, there is numerous supporting evidence for affirming the apparent meaning of the verse and the actions used within it as the primary denotations of the speaker’s words. Of course, the sin of the prophets should be considered in light of their high status and the severity of their trials, and to attribute it to the sins and faults of ordinary and imperfect human beings is a highly erroneous judgment.
تبلیغات
