Detailed Abstract
Research objective:
This study aims to conduct a comparative examination of the interpretations of two prominent Shia exegetes, Allameh Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i and Allameh Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, regarding Qur’an 275
"Those who consume interest will not stand except as one whom Satan has caused to stagger by [his] touch."
The main focus of this research is to clarify the meaning of “staggering caused by the touch of Satan” and to address the fundamental question of whether this expression refers to an external reality in its literal sense or serves merely as a metaphorical and figurative description of the psychological state of usurers. By critically examining and comparing the reasoning of these two exegetes, the study seeks to evaluate their arguments and identify the interpretation that is most plausible and accurate.
Methodology:
This study was conducted using a descriptive–analytical approach with a comparative perspective. In the first step, key lexical terms—“khabṭ” (staggering), “Shayṭān” (Satan), and “mass” (touch)—were carefully analyzed through reference to classical linguistic sources. Next, opinions of exegetes from both Shia and Sunni traditions were collected and categorized into two groups: those advocating a literal interpretation and those supporting a metaphorical interpretation. Subsequently, the interpretations of Allameh Tabataba’i in Al-Mizan and Allameh Fadlallah in Min Wahy al-Qur’an were extracted and analyzed in depth. Finally, using a critical methodology, the foundations, evidence, and conclusions of both scholars’ viewpoints were compared, and their strengths and weaknesses were evaluated.
Research findings:
Allameh Tabataba’i, adhering to the literal interpretation of the verse, argues that the phrase “yatakhabbatuhu al-Shayṭānu min al-mass” refers to an external reality, according to which Satan can, through natural means, disturb human rational faculties and induce a state of madness. He rejects the metaphorical interpretation, asserting that attributing the verse to a false belief would be incompatible with the divine authority and truth of the Qur’an. Additionally, he addresses the potential objection that this interpretation conflicts with God’s justice through two arguments: naqḍī (a negating argument, pointing out that the same issue applies to all natural causes of disease) and ḥillī (a resolving argument, noting that divine accountability is lifted when the intellect is impaired.
Allameh Fadlallah, while acknowledging that this interpretation does not conflict with divine justice, advocates a metaphorical understanding of the verse. In his view, the existential nature of Satan, characterized by temptation and seduction, along with human dignity—which is realized through the gift of intellect—does not permit Satan to exert physical control over the human mind. Therefore, the term “Shayṭān” in this verse is metaphorically understood as hidden pathogenic factors (such as microbes), and “mass” refers to the onset of illness. Consequently, the verse merely compares the usurer to a person whose mind has been disturbed, illustrating the moral and psychological consequences of engaging in usury.
comparison of the arguments indicates that Allameh Fadlallah’s rationale for interpreting the verse metaphorically, rather than literally, lacks sufficient plausibility. Other Qur’anic verses (e.g., 7:201) affirm the potential influence of Satan, and no conclusive evidence restricts the concept of “Shayṭān” to merely Iblis or temptation. Moreover, if the literal interpretation were a false belief, the Qur’an would have explicitly refuted it. On the other hand, equating “Shayṭān” with microbes or natural causes lacks both rational and textual support and is inconsistent with the nature of the mental disturbances described in the verse. Accepting the metaphorical view could also provide a pretext for endorsing problematic theories, such as the claim that the Qur’an is influenced by the cultural context of its time.