Detailed Abstract
Research objective:
The present study aims to provide a comparative analysis of the views of Sunni and Shia Qur’anic scholars regarding the authority of custom (‘urf) in the process of interpreting Qur’anic verses. Understanding and interpreting the Qur’an, as the foundational text of divine revelation, has always required the use of reliable sources and tools to correctly grasp God’s intended meaning. Among these tools, ‘urf—understood as the set of prevailing beliefs, behaviors, and practices of rational individuals in social and linguistic life—holds particular significance.
This study seeks to address the central question of whether the authority of ‘urf in Qur’anic exegesis is limited solely to the level of “comprehending the concepts of the verses” (practical or conventional meaning), or whether it also plays a role in “identifying specific instances and the intended meanings” (serious or intended reference).
Methodology:
The research in this study adopts a comparative approach based on descriptive and critical analysis. To this end, the views and arguments of prominent Sunni and Shia Qur’anic scholars were carefully examined and compared. The primary sources of data include authoritative Qur’anic exegeses and works of notable scholars such as Allameh Tabataba’i and Ayatollah Ma‘refat. After collection, these sources were critically analyzed to identify and clarify the precise points of convergence and divergence among the different approaches.
Findings:
The findings of this study indicate that at the basic level and in terms of conventional meaning, ‘urf (custom) is recognized as a valid and widely accepted criterion in the views of scholars from both sects. This authority arises from the connection between the language of the Qur’an and the colloquial Arabic, as well as the rational modes of human speech. At this level, ‘urf plays a central role in understanding and explaining the apparent meanings and fundamental concepts of the text.Most exegetes hold that the conventional understanding of Qur’anic vocabulary forms the basis for the validity of interpretation and cannot be disregarded.
However, the first major divergence occurs at the level of intended meaning and the identification of specific instances of the verses. Some Shia exegetes and Qur’anic scholars, such as Allameh Tabataba’i, by emphasizing the distinction between “conventional meaning” (marad-e estemali) and “intended meaning” (marad-e jeddi), do not accept the role of ‘urf in identifying the specific referents of the verses. Others, such as Shahid Sadr, limit its applicability to cases where the concepts are perceptible, experiential, and tangible, such as social rulings and matters comprehensible to reason and custom.
This is because many Qur’anic truths—including unseen realities, divine attributes, the afterlife, and supra-sensory meanings—are beyond conventional understanding, and comprehending the specialized terminology of the Qur’an requires reflection on the entirety of its verses and relevant narrations.
In contrast, the views of Sunni exegetes are generally more comprehensive and inclusive, recognizing ‘urf (custom) as authoritative at both the levels of conceptual meaning and identification of specific instances. They only set aside the use of ‘urf when there is conclusive textual or rational evidence to the contrary.
This approach allows ‘urf to function as the primary criterion for understanding and interpreting Qur’anic verses to the greatest possible extent. The fundamental difference between the two sects does not lie in the validity of ‘urf itself, but rather in the scope and domain of its applicability at the level of intended meaning (marad-e jeddi).
One of the most important findings of the study is the classification of Qur’anic concepts into two main groups: “ontological–real” (haqiqi–takwini) and “conventional–legislative” (‘itibari–tashri‘i). Ontological concepts include perceptible and tangible truths that can be comprehended by ‘urf, as well as supra-sensory knowledge such as divine attributes and the afterlife.
Conventional concepts pertain to legal or religious truths with specific Qur’anic terminology, as well as general conventional concepts without specialized terminology. The role of ‘urf is evaluated differently in the exegesis of these two categories, reflecting variations in how customary understanding can inform interpretation across different types of Qur’anic concepts.
Final conclusion:
The study emphasizes that rational custom (‘urf) can serve as a valid interpretive criterion in the exegesis of the Qur’an across three domains:
1.Fully and reliably understanding general concepts and the primary meaning of all verses (conventional meaning, marad-e estemali).
2. Clarifying the specific instances and intended meanings (marad-e jeddi) of verses that contain perceptible, experiential, and tangible concepts, such as social, ethical, and legal matters.
3. Interpreting verses that lack specialized or technical Qur’anic terminology and are comprehensible to the general public.
These three domains constitute the context in which ‘urf can play an effective role in approximating divine understanding.
However, in cases where the verses refer to supra-sensory knowledge, specialized terminology, profound doctrinal truths, or unseen realities, exclusive reliance on ‘urf is not justified. In such cases, it is necessary to employ rational reflection (both theoretical and practical), definitive sciences, authentic narrations, and other certain sources. Attention to this principle prevents the imposition of subjective interpretations and safeguards the exegesis from potential distortions.