نوع مقاله : ترویجی
نویسندگان
1 نویسندۀ مسئول، استادیار گروه معارف دانشگاه صنعتی شاهرود
2 استادیار گروه معارف اسلامی دانشگاه صنعتی شاهرود، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The concept of abrogation (naskh) has been one of the most significant and contentious issues in the fields of Quranic interpretation, Quranic sciences, and Islamic jurisprudence throughout history. A review of the existing literature reveals that little research has been conducted to comprehensively examine the similarities and differences between the perspectives of major scholars on this topic. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method to conduct a comparative analysis of the views of Sheikh Tusi, presented in the first comprehensive Shia exegesis Al-Tibyan fi Tafsir al-Quran, and Ayatollah Ma‘rifat, outlined in the first comprehensive collection of Shia Quranic sciences Al-Tamhid fi Ulum al-Quran. The findings indicate that, while Ayatollah Ma‘rifat aligns with Sheikh Tusi in most theoretical aspects of abrogation, he diverges in two categories: "abrogation of the text without the ruling" and "abrogation of both the text and the ruling," where he denies the occurrence of abrogation. Moreover, Ayatollah Ma‘rifat introduces innovative classifications, such as "conditional abrogation" and "gradual abrogation," adapting the concept to contemporary socio-temporal contexts. On the exegetical level, despite shared views on the abrogation of certain verses, Ayatollah Ma‘rifat disagrees with Sheikh Tusi regarding verses such as 2:240 and 2:109 of Surah Al-Baqarah, rejecting their abrogation. This study emphasizes the importance of revisiting the concept of abrogation to better articulate the relationships among Quranic rulings.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)