نقد رویکردهای تاریخی نگر به متن قرآن از دیدگاه مرزوق عُمَری (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
تاریخ مندی قرآن به معنای تأثیرپذیری متن از شرایط تاریخی، جغرافیایی، فرهنگی و معرفتی مخاطبان عصر نزول، مستلزم فهم قرآن در چارچوب زما ن مند تفسیرِ بشری است؛ به گونه ای که صورت بندی مضامین قرآن هم متأثر از دانش، ظرفیت های ادراکی و نیازهای مخاطبانِ آن مقطع ارزیابی شود و نسبیت تاریخیِ بر تفسیر قرآن سیطره یابد. این پنداره یکی از چالش های بنیادین در گفتمان نواندیشی دینی معاصر به شمار می آید. مطالعه حاضر با هدف واکاوی دیدگاه یکی از اندیشوران معاصر درباره این نظریه، به تبیین آراء مرزوق عُمَری، اندیش مند الجزایری و ناقد نظریه تاریخ مندی قرآن می پردازد و به ارائه تصویری جامع، منقح و روش مند از دستگاه فکری او در نقد روی کرد تاریخ مندی متن قرآن می کوشد. این مطالعه در پی آن است که صورت بندی جامعی از دیدگاه وی عرضه کند و جایگاه اندیشه او را در گفتمان معاصر نقد تاریخ مندی قرآن به روشنی تحلیل نماید. عُمَری با تأکید بر ناسازگاری روش های مرسوم مطالعه متون بشری با متن وحیانی بازگشت نقادانه به میراث تفسیری را ضروری می داند. عُمَری ضمن صورت بندی خلاء های روی کردهای تاریخی نگر، خواستار بازگشت به سنت تفسیری اسلامی نه به معنای جمود و تکرار گذشته، بل که در قالب تجدید عقلانی و معرفتی در چارچوب معرفتی اسلامی است. در مقام نقد دیدگاه عُمَری نیز می توان گفت، اگرچه انتقادات او درخورتأمل است، نگرش او گاهی اوقات به افکندنِ تقابلی دوگانه میان عقل سنتی و مدرن گرایش دارد و اگر او بتواند تمایزگذاری واضح تری میان ابزارهای روش شناختی تحلیل و مبانی فلسفی زیربنایی آن ها بنهد بر غِنای تحلیلیِ نظریه اش خواهد افزود.Historical Approaches to the Qurʾānic Text: Merzouk Lamri's Critique
This article examines the critique presented by the contemporary Algerian thinker, Merzouk Lamri, against historicist approaches to the Qurʾānic text. The central issue addressed is the theory of the historicity of the Qurʾān, which posits that the text is inherently influenced by the specific historical, geographical, cultural, and epistemological conditions of its initial audience in seventh-century Arabia. Proponents of this view argue that understanding the Qurʾān requires situating it within its temporal context, suggesting that its content, formulation, and interpretation are subject to historical relativity. This idea is considered a fundamental challenge in contemporary religious reform discourse. The article positions Lamri as a significant critic of this theory. Despite his extensive critical engagement with the historicity thesis, his work has not received comprehensive or systematic attention. This study aims to fill that gap by providing a detailed formulation of Lamri's perspective and analyzing its place within the contemporary discourse critiquing the historicity of the Qurʾān. The introduction outlines three main currents regarding the historicity of religious texts, ranging from an extreme denial of historicity, as seen in traditional Salafī thought, to an extreme historicist current that views the text as entirely determined by its historical context, exemplified by thinkers like Muḥammad Arkūn and Naṣr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd, and finally a moderate approach that acknowledges historical context for initial understanding but affirms the text's semantic dynamism and enduring relevance, as advocated by figures such as Ṭāhā ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. The article details Lamri's academic background and his extensive publications critiquing modern methodological approaches to Islamic texts. His central argument is that conventional methods for studying human texts are incompatible with the revealed nature of the Qurʾān. He criticizes the application of Western-derived historical, linguistic, and anthropological methods to the Qurʾān, arguing that they fail to account for its sacred, metaphysical, and divine origins. Lamri asserts that these methods often involve selective and non-scientific biases, such as relying on weak historical narrations or marginal Ḥadīths to support preconceived conclusions about the text's human and historical dimensions. A significant portion of his critique focuses on specific methodological challenges. He argues that secular Western analytical tools are fundamentally mismatched with a text believed to be of divine origin, pointing to the selective use of sources by historicists. For instance, they may privilege certain weak narrations to reduce the experience of revelation to a human, psychological phenomenon, while ignoring stronger, more central Islamic sources. Lamri also addresses the hermeneutical challenge, distinguishing between traditional Islamic taʾwīl, which aims to discover the divine intent, and modern Western hermeneutics, which he sees as prioritizing the reader's context, leading to a relativistic understanding where human reason becomes the ultimate source of meaning. Furthermore, he counters the historicist argument that the prevalence of specific occasions of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl) proves the entire Qurʾān's historicity by noting that only a small fraction of verses have a known cause, and generalizing from these few cases is an unjustified leap. Finally, he refutes claims that delays in the official codification of the Qurʾān until Caliph ʿUthmān's era imply human alteration, emphasizing that the initial writing occurred under the Prophet's supervision and later efforts were about standardization, thus preserving the text's integrity. In conclusion, the article summarizes Lamri's view that the historicist approach, despite its claims of scientific rigor, is rooted in a secular rationality that seeks to fundamentally redefine religion. Its primary outcome is the reduction of the Qurʾān from a sacred, eternal, divine text to a mere linguistic, social, and historical phenomenon. This, Lamri warns, leads to the negation of revelation's sanctity, the relativization of truth, and the loss of the Qurʾān's religious authority. Instead of adopting external methods, Lamri calls for a critical and creative return to the Islamic interpretive tradition as a path to intellectual and epistemological renewal within an authentic Islamic framework. As a criticism of Lamri's view, it can be said that while Lamri's critiques are valuable, his perspective sometimes tends towards a binary opposition between traditional and modern reason and could benefit from distinguishing more clearly between the methodological tools of analysis and their underlying philosophical foundations.
تبلیغات
