تحلیل آراء مفسران درباره إنَّه لَعِلْمٌ لِلسَّاعَهِ (زخرف/ 61) با تأکید بر نقدِ دیدگاه مشهور (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
مفسران قرآن در تفسیر آیه «إنّه لَعلم لِلسَّاعَهِ» (زخرف/ 61)، به ویژه در تعیین مرجع ضمیرِ کلمه إنَّهُ، وحدت نظر ندارند و بنابر مبانی تفسیری شان آراء متفاوتی ارائه کرده اند. مشهورترین دیدگاه مرجع ضمیر هاء را نزول عیسی (ع) به مثابه نشانه ای آخرالزمانی برمی شمرد. در مطالعه فرارو کوشش می شود این تفسیر مشهور و هم چنین دیگر دیدگاه ها درباره مسئله بررسی شود. فرضیه مطالعه آن است که تفسیر مشهور که بیش تر در میان مفسران اهل سنت مطرح بوده است نمی تواند بهترین تفسیر آیه باشد. سیطره گفتمانِ روایات آخرالزمان بر فهم آیه، پیوند خوردنِ اکثریِ انگاره نزول عیسی (ع) با تفسیر این آیه، خروج از قرائت مشهور، در تقدیر گرفتن دو واژه نزول و قرب و ناسازگاری قول مشهور با سیاق آیات این سوره و دیگر آیات پذیرش دیدگاه مشهور به عنوان بهترین قول تفسیری را با چالش مواجه می سازد؛ چنان که پذیرش دیگر اقوال مفسران هم با مشکلاتی روبه رو است. در این میان، چنان که برخی مفسران نیز اذعان داشته اند، مناسب تر آن است که ضمیر هاء به شخص عیسی (ع) و نه لزوماً به نزولِ وی بازگردانده شود تا بتوان فهمی هم سو با سیاق آیه و مفهوم عام آن بازنمود.The Descent of Jesus or His Person? A Critical Inquiry into the Exegesis of Qurʾān 43:61 (innahū la-ʿilmun li-al-Sāʿa)
Focusing on the verse “innahū la-ʿilmun li-al-Sāʿa” (Indeed, he is a knowledge of the eschaton; Qurʾān 43:61), this study undertakes a critical examination of its interpretations by Quranic exegetes, with the specific aim of challenging the dominant one. The verse has been a subject of extensive scholarly dispute, primarily regarding the referent of the pronoun “he/it” (hu in the word innahū) and the meaning of the term knowledge (ʿilm). The most prevalent view among both Sunni and Shiʿa commentators identifies the referent as the descent of Jesus before the Day of Resurrection, considering it a major eschatological sign. This study posits that this popular interpretation faces significant challenges according to Islamic Theology and may not represent the most accurate understanding of the verse. The analysis begins by exploring preliminary matters, including variant readings of the word ʿilm—such as ʿalam (meaning a sign)—and the semantic fields of the key terms ʿilm (knowledge) and al-sāʿa (the Hour, meaning Eschaton). The study then systematically reviews the dominant opinion, tracing its roots and widespread acceptance across major classical and modern Sunni and Shiʿa exegeses. It demonstrates how this view became entrenched through the influence of specific eschatological narratives (ahādīth al-Malāḥim wa al-Fitan) prevalent in Islamic tradition, which describe Jesus's descent to combat the Antichrist (al-Masīḥ al-Dajjāl) and establish justice. Subsequently, this study evaluates alternative interpretations. These include views that the pronoun refers to the Qurʾān itself, arguing it provides knowledge of the Eschaton; to the Prophet Muhammad, based on traditions linking his advent to the Eschaton's proximity; or to the Shiʿa Imams, specifically Imam ʿAli or Mahdi, as found in certain Shiʿa narrative sources. Each of these opinions is critically assessed and found to be inconsistent with the immediate context (siyāq) of the verses in Surah al-Zukhruf, which centrally and continuously discuss the person and nature of Jesus Christ. The core of the study presents a detailed critique of the dominant view. It identifies several methodological and contextual weaknesses according to Islamic theology. Firstly, it argues that the interpretation has been overly dictated by the narrative discourse surrounding Jesus's descent, often at the expense of a close textual analysis of the Qurʾānic passage itself. Secondly, it highlights an incompatibility with the verse's context; the surrounding verses (43:57-66) focus on affirming the true, human nature of Jesus as a servant of God and refuting claims of his divinity, not on outlining eschatological signs. Introducing the concept of his future descent appears disruptive to this coherent thematic flow. Thirdly, the study questions the linguistic necessity of the dominant reading, pointing out that accepting it often requires imposing two implied words—descent (nuzūl) for Jesus and nearness (qurb) for the Eschaton—which violates the hermeneutical principle that avoids unnecessary assumptions in the text: ʿadam al-taqdīr awlā min al-taqdīr. Furthermore, it distinguishes between the Qurʾānic concepts of knowledge for the Eschaton (ʿilm li'l-sāʿa) found in this verse and the ‛portents of the Hour’ (ashrāṭ al-sāʿa) mentioned elsewhere (e.g., 47:18), arguing they are not synonymous. Finally, adherence to the dominant view frequently necessitates abandoning the canonical reading of ʿilm for the less common ʿalam, a shift seemingly motivated by exegetical preference rather than textual evidence. In contrast, the study advocates for an interpretation, supported by exegetes like Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī, contemporary Shiite commentator and author of al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, that the pronoun refers directly to the person of Jesus. His miraculous life story—including his virgin birth, his miracles like reviving the dead, his ascension, and his general exceptional nature—serves as profound knowledge that substantiates the possibility and reality of the Hereafter. This reading coherently links to the verse's subsequent command, falā tamtarunna bihā (meaning “so do not doubt it”) as the extraordinary nature of Jesus's own existence provides a tangible basis for believing in the ultimate power of God to resurrect, thereby addressing the doubts of the initial Qurʾānic audience and readers throughout time. This interpretation is found to be more consistent with the immediate context, linguistically sound without requiring textual emendation, and logically connected to the verse's exhortative conclusion. The study concludes that while traditions about Jesus's descent may hold their own validity within Islamic eschatology, they should not be conflated with the exegesis of this specific verse, whose primary intent is to present the person of Jesus himself as a compelling evidence for the Escahton.
تبلیغات
