Detailed Abstract
Research Objective: This article conducts a comparative study of the Quranic hermeneutical method known as the "Quran-by-Quran exegetical method" in two prominent Qur’anic exegeses: Tafsīr al-Mīzān by Allamah Ṭabāṭabāī and Tafsīr al-Furqān by Ayatollah Ṣādiqī Tehrānī. Although both exegetes employed the Quran-by-Quran method, their interpretive outcomes in certain cases differ and at times, contradict one another. The primary aim of this research is to address the following questions:  
- Are the interpretive results of these two exegetes consistent despite their shared methodology?  
- What are the points of convergence and divergence between these two exegeses in interpreting specific verses?  
- On what exegetical foundations and interpretive styles are these differences based?  
Research Methodology: This study adopts a comparative and analytical approach to examine the Tafsīr al-Mīzān and the Tafsīr al-Furqān. For this purpose, Qur’anic verses related to women (namely verses 222 and 223 of Surah Al-Baqarah and verses 34 and 128 of Surah An-Nisa) were selected as case studies. The interpretations of these verses in both al-Mīzān and al-Furqān were meticulously analyzed word by word. The analysis focused on identifying points of convergence and divergence in interpretive methods, the use of similar verses, attention to variant readings (qirāʾāt), and interpretive outcomes.  
Research Findings: 
- Points of Convergences: Both exegetes utilize the Quran-by-Quran method and acknowledge the role of hadith alongside the Quran in interpretation. Additionally, both exegetes address social and jurisprudential issues and maintain independence from the opinions of other commentators.  
- Points of Divergences: Significant differences are observed in the interpretive styles and outcomes of the two exegetes. For instance, Allamah Ṭabāṭabāī places greater emphasis on the context of the verses, while Ṣādiqī Tehrānī maximizes the lexical potential of the words. Furthermore, Ṣādiqī Tehrānī presents unique and, at times, unconventional jurisprudential opinions that are absent in Tafsīr al-Mīzān.
- Interpretation of the Verses: In interpreting verses related to women, notable differences emerge between the two exegeses. For example, in interpreting verse 222 of Surah Al-Baqarah, Allamah Ṭabāṭabāī views the isolation of women during menstruation as a prohibition on sexual intercourse, whereas Ṣādiqī Tehrānī extends this prohibition to include any form of physical intimacy, including touching and stimulation. Similarly, in interpreting verse 34 of Surah An-Nisa, both exegetes affirm the guardianship of men over women, but Ṣādiqī Tehrānī conditions this guardianship on the man's ability to fulfill his responsibilities.  
Final Conclusion: This article sought to examine the Quran-by-Quran interpretive method and demonstrate that, although contemporary exegetes such as Allamah Ṭabāṭabāī and Ayatollah Ṣādiqī Tehrānī are proponents of this method, their shared methodology does not lead to identical interpretive outcomes. In many cases, their interpretations diverge or even contradict each other, addressing the first research question.  
The second research question was answered by examining four verses related to women, highlighting the points of convergence and divergence between the two exegetes. Reiterating these findings would unnecessarily extend the discussion.  
Regarding the third research question, it can be concluded that while the foundational principles of both exegetes are largely similar, differences in their application lead to divergent conclusions. For example, Ṣādiqī Tehrānī's approach includes: maximizing the lexical potential of Qur’anic words, occasionally presenting jurisprudential opinions without detailed reasoning, placing greater emphasis on variant readings (qirāʾāt), Attention to the different meanings of synonymous words in the Qur’an, utilizing the causes mentioned in certain verses—without examining whether these causes are sufficient (sufficient cause) or incomplete (incomplete cause)—and presenting an interpretation based on assuming them to be sufficient causes, Unique and, at times, unconventional jurisprudential opinions, and so on.