نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
Detailed Abstract
Research objective:
The present study aims to identify and analyze the relationship between two fundamental Qur’anic concepts: Arsh (the Throne) and Kursi (the Footstool). These concepts have long been central to exegetical and theological discussions among Muslim scholars and have consistently raised significant questions in the fields of theology, divine attributes, and the structure of existence.The main question of this research is whether, according to Islamic exegetes and narrations, Arsh and Kursi are considered a single, unified reality with the same meaning, or whether they possess two distinct and independent essences. The significance of this question becomes even clearer when considering that accepting either perspective carries substantial theological and exegetical implications for understanding divine attributes such as sovereignty, knowledge, and providence.
Research method:
The research employs an analytical, critical, and comparative approach. Initially, the lexical sources were consulted to examine the basic and etymological meanings of Arsh (the Throne) and Kursi (the Footstool). Subsequently, the views of both Shia and Sunni exegetes were analyzed from historical and content-based perspectives.
Following this, prominent narrations concerning these two concepts, as recorded in the hadith collections of both sects, were collected and examined. Finally, by integrating lexical, exegetical, and narrational data, the study formulated its final perspective.
A key methodological feature of this research is that, rather than relying solely on the opinions of exegetes, it seeks to evaluate the consistency or contradiction of these opinions with narrations and linguistic foundations, thereby providing a clearer and more nuanced understanding through critical analysis.
Findings:
1.Proponents of the Unity of Arsh and Kursi;This minority group considers the Arsh (Throne) and Kursi (Footstool) as a single reality. Some, such as al-Tabarani, interpreted both terms literally as “throne” and thus did not distinguish between them. Others, particularly influenced by aniconic and anti-corporeal tendencies, allegorically interpreted both as representing “divine sovereignty and dominion.”
2.The main argument of this group rests on lexical similarities and the aim of avoiding attributing corporeality to God. However, careful examination reveals that this approach faces serious challenges. Interpreting Arsh and Kursi literally as thrones implies the acceptance of analogy and corporeal imagery for God, while allegorizing both as “sovereignty” effectively diminishes the evident distinctions present in Qur’anic and narrational texts.
3.Opponents of the Unity of Arsh and Kursi:The majority of exegetes fall into this category. While acknowledging lexical similarities, they emphasize the essential distinction between the two concepts. Among them, a variety of perspectives have been proposed: Some, such as al-Tabari and Allameh Tabataba’i, view the Arsh as the manifestation of divine sovereignty and overall providence, and the Kursi as a symbol of divine knowledge. Others describe the Arsh and Kursi as two separate creations, with one encompassing the other. Another group regards them as two immense and independent entities.
4.Additionally, some mystics, such as Ibn ‘Arabi, provide an esoteric interpretation, identifying the Arsh with the heart of the Prophet and the Kursi with the hearts of the believers. Each of these views justifies itself based on lexical, Qur’anic, or narrational evidence; however, they also face various critiques and challenges.
Final conlusion:
Ultimately, the research concludes that although there are lexical similarities between Arsh (the Throne) and Kursi (the Footstool), they exhibit a clear ontological and epistemological distinction. The Arsh symbolizes divine sovereignty and the overarching dominion of God, serving as the source of cosmic governance, whereas the Kursi reflects detailed divine knowledge and encompasses the physical worlds.
This conclusion is fully consistent with the narrations of the Imami tradition, confirming the distinction between the two concepts while emphasizing the superiority and encompassing nature of the Arsh over the Kursi. Therefore, the comparative analysis demonstrates that the Imami perspective is more comprehensive and closer to the narrational texts, providing a reliable framework for correctly understanding the relationship between Arsh and Kursi in Islamic thought.
کلیدواژهها English
