مطالعات تفسیر تطبیقی

مطالعات تفسیر تطبیقی

دیدگاه‌های تفسیری درخصوص اتهام سرقت به برادران یوسف (ع) در سنجه نقد

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 دانشیار گروه علوم قرآن و تفسیر، دانشگاه علوم ومعارف قرآن کریم، مشهد، ایران، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد.
2 دانش آموخته مقطع کارشناسی ارشد تفسیر و علوم قرآن، مشهد، ایران، دانشکده علوم قرآنی مشهد.
چکیده
احتمال اتهام سرقت به فرزندان یعقوب (ع) از سوی یوسف (ع) یکی از شبهات تفسیری در سوره یوسف بوده که سبب برداشت‌های ناروایی شده است. مسئله پژوهش این است که نظر به عصمت یوسف (ع) و قبح اتهام به افرادی که سرقتی مرتکب نشده‌اند، اتهام به فرزندان یعقوب (ع) چگونه توجیه می‌شود؟ ازاین‌رو این مقاله بر پایه روش توصیفی-تحلیلی، آراء و روایات تفسیری در این موضوع را در بوته بررسی و نقد قرار داده تا به خوانش بهتری از این آیه دست یابد. بررسی‌ها نشان می‌دهد دیدگاه‌های تفسیری ذیل آیه 70 سوره یوسف ازجمله «جمله پرسشی»، «توریه»، «دروغ مصلحتی»، «بیان اتهام از سوی یوسف»، «بیان اتهام از سوی منادی دربار به دستور یوسف» ضعیف و با سیاق آیات همخوانی ندارد. در این میان دیدگاه ابوعلی جبائی که با ابتکارات سید مرتضی توسعه‌یافته، بهتر می‌نماید بدین صو رت که یوسف (ع) به امر خداوند به‌منظور نگه‌داشتن برادرش جام را در رحل او گذاشت و او را از آن آگاه کرده بود. همچنین او را در معرض اتهام سرقت نگذاشت؛ زیرا وجود جام در رحل برادر، احتمالات دیگری به‌جز سرقت را در بردارد؛ پس انصراف آن به سرقت جز با دلیل ممکن نیست، ندا منادی که آن‌ها سارق هستند نیز به امر یوسف (ع) نبود. یکی از درباریان چنین ندا کرد آنگاه‌که جام را نیافتند و چنین پنداشتند که آن‌ها جام را دزدیده‌اند. لیکن با افزودن نوآوری‌های تفسیری از سیاق می‌توان این دیدگاه را مستدل و کامل‌تر مطرح نمود. همچنان‌که از این رهگذر می‌توان به شبهه عدم جواز بهره‌گیری از روش نادرست برای رسیدن به مقاصد مطلوب پاسخ داد.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Exegetical Perspectives on the Accusation of Theft Against Joseph’s Brothers: A Critical Evaluation

نویسندگان English

Mohsen Dimeh Kargrab 1
haniye sadat sayyedy 2
1 Associate Professor, Department of Quranic Sciences and Interpretation, University of Quranic Sciences and Knowledge, Mashhad, Iran, Faculty of Quranic Sciences, Mashhad
2 Graduated from the Master's Degree in Quranic Interpretation and Sciences, Mashhad, Iran, Faculty of Quranic Sciences, Mashhad.
چکیده English

Detailed Abstract
Research objective:
The possibility of the accusation of theft against the sons of Jacob (peace be upon him) by Joseph (peace be upon him) is one of the exegetical ambiguities in Surah Yusuf, which has led to some erroneous interpretations. This study aims to examine how such an accusation can be justified, taking into account the infallibility of Joseph (PBUH) and the impropriety of accusing individuals who have committed no theft. Another objective of this research is to investigate and critique the use of incorrect methods to achieve seemingly valid conclusions, based on a misreading of this narrative.
Research method:
The present study employs a descriptive-analytical method, examining and critically evaluating exegetical opinions and narrations on this topic in order to achieve a more accurate understanding of the verse.
Findings:
The main exegetical interpretations of verse 70 of Surah Yusuf, such as the “interrogative sentence,” “double entendre (tawriyah),” “white lie,” “accusation from Joseph,” and “accusation by the court announcer under Joseph’s instruction,” appear weak and unlikely, as they are inconsistent with the apparent meaning and context of the verses as well as with ethical standards; therefore, they are not supported.
Among these, Jebai’s view, despite its brevity and shortcomings, has been refined and developed through the exegetical innovations of Sayyid Morteza, including: “informing Benjamin of the plot to gain his consent,” “Joseph placing the cup in his brother’s saddlebag,” “Joseph’s stratagem does not necessarily imply a theft accusation, as other possibilities are conceivable,” “assuming theft without evidence results from haste and error,” and “the announcer’s declaration of theft reflects his own hasty judgment.” These refinements provide a more nuanced and coherent understanding of the verse.
Conclusion:
By incorporating additional exegetical innovations derived from the context of the verses, Sayyid Morteza’s interpretation can be presented more comprehensively: Joseph’s (PBUH) primary objective was to retain Benjamin, with whom he had coordinated the plan; therefore, he acted in accordance with divine command to achieve this purpose. Although Joseph placed the cup in Benjamin’s saddlebag, he never intended to accuse his brothers of theft. Furthermore, Joseph’s action itself does not imply the possibility of theft, as other interpretations are conceivable.
However, the court announcer did not find the cup and, considering that only the Canaanite brothers had entered the palace at that time, presumed that they had committed theft. Thus, the error lies with the palace announcer, whose arbitrary judgment led him to accuse the Canaanite brothers without evidence or Joseph’s consent. Joseph (PBUH) neither committed a fault nor acted improperly; rather, he carried out the divine command to keep Benjamin close, facilitate the continuation of trials for his father and brothers, and create the conditions for reuniting with his father. Placing the cup in the brother’s saddlebag was done with Benjamin’s consent and, more importantly, in accordance with divine command. Moreover, there is no phrase in the verses indicating “informing the palace announcer of the plan” or “Joseph instructing the announcer to accuse of theft.” There is no evidence that Joseph (PBUH) ambiguously communicated with the announcer.The brevity of the Qur’anic style in mentioning proper names, as well as the contrast between the mention of “Joseph” and the “announcer” in the verse, indicates that the announcer is not Joseph (PBUH) himself but one of the palace heralds. Upon discovering the cup missing and observing the presence of the Canaanite brothers in the palace, the announcer made a hasty and wrongful judgment. However, the hesitation and conditional expressions in the conversation of other palace officials with the brothers, as well as their reference to the missing cup, indicate that they refrained from the theft accusation and addressed the Canaanite brothers more courteously.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Infallibility of the Prophets
Story of Joseph (Yūsuf)
Accusation of Theft
Benjamin (Binyāmīn)
Critique of Exegetical Opinions
The Holy Qur’an
Al-Alusi, Sayyid Mahmud (1415 AH): "Ruh al-Ma‘ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim", edited by: ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Bari ‘Atiyyah, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Ibn Babawayh, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali (n.d.): "‘Ilal al-Shara’i‘", Qom: Dawari.
Ibn Babawayh, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali (1403 AH): "Ma‘ani al-Akhbar", Qom: Jame‘at al-Mudarrisin.
Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi (1416 AH): "Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal", Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Ibn Shahrashub al-Mazandarani, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali (1410 AH): "Mushkil al-Qur’an wa Mukhtalifuh", Qom: Intisharat-e Bidar.
Ibn ‘Atiyyah, ‘Abd al-Haqq ibn Ghalib (1422 AH): "Al-Muharrar al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-‘Aziz", edited by: Muhammad ‘Abd al-Salam, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Manshurat Muhammad ‘Ali Baydun.
Ibn Kathir, Isma‘il ibn ‘Umar (1419 AH): "Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim", edited by: Muhammad Husayn Shams al-Din, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Abu al-Futuh al-Razi, Husayn ibn ‘Ali (1408 AH): "Rawd al-Jinan wa Ruh al-Jinan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an", Mashhad: Bunyad-e Pazhuhesh-ha-ye Astan-e Quds-e Razavi.
Ansari, Murtada (1411 AH): "Makasib al-Muharramah", Qom: Dar al-Dhakha’ir.
Ansari, Murtada (1415 AH): "Kitab al-Makasib al-Muharramah", Qom: Kongre-ye Jahani-ye Buzargdasht-e Shaykh al-A‘zam Ansari.
Bahrani, Sayyid Hashim (1374): "Al-Burhan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an", Qom: Mu’assasat al-Ba‘thah.
Taftazani, Sa‘d al-Din (1409 AH): "Sharh al-Maqasid", edited by: ‘Abd al-Rahman ‘Amirah, Qom: Al-Sharif al-Radi.
Ja‘fari, Ya‘qub (1376): "Tafsir Kawthar", Qom: Mu’assasat-e Intisharat-e Hijrat.
Jawadi Amuli, ‘Abdullah (1379): "Tasnīm", Qom: Markaz-e Nashr-e Isra’.
Haqqi al-Burusawi, Isma‘il (n.d.): "Tafsir Ruh al-Bayan", Beirut: Dar al-Fikr.
Huwayzi, ‘Abd ‘Ali ibn Jum‘ah (1415 AH): "Tafsir Nur al-Thaqalayn", Qom: Isma‘iliyan.
Khoei, Sayyid Abu al-Qasim al-Musawi (n.d.): "Al-Makasib – Misbah al-Fiqhah", reported by: Muhammad ‘Ali Tawhidi, Qom: Ansariyan.
Raza’i Isfahani, Muhammad ‘Ali (1387): "Tafsir Qur’an-e Mehr", Qom: Pazhuhesh-ha-ye Tafsir va ‘Ulum-e Qur’an.
Zuhayli, Wahbah (1422 AH): "Al-Tafsir al-Wasit", Damascus: Dar al-Fikr.
Zamakhshari, Mahmud ibn ‘Umar (1407 AH): "Al-Kashshaf ‘an Haqa’iq Ghawa’im al-Tanzil", verified by: Mustafa Husayn Ahmad, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi.
Sayyid al-Radi, Muhammad ibn al-Husayn (n.d.): "Nahj al-Balaghah", Qom: Dar al-Hijrah.
Sayyid al-Murtada, ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn (n.d.): "Tanzih al-Anbiya’ wa al-A’immah (AS)", Qom: Intisharat-e Sharif al-Radi.
Shah ‘Abd al-‘Azimi, Husayn (1363): "Tafsir Ithna ‘Ashari", Tehran: Miqat.
Shihidi Tabrizi, Mirza Fattah (1375 AH): "Hidayat al-Talib ila Asrar al-Makasib", Tabriz: Matba‘at al-Ittila‘at.
Sadr-e Tehrani, Muhammad (1406 AH): "Al-Furqan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an bi al-Qur’an wa al-Sunnah", Qom: Farhang-e Eslami.
Tabataba’i, Sayyid Muhammad Husayn (1417 AH): "Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an", Qom: Daftar-e Intisharat-e Eslami.
Tabarani, Sulayman ibn Ahmad (2008 AD): "Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim", Irbid: Dar al-Kitab al-Thaqafi.
Tabarsi, Fadl ibn Hasan (1372): "Majma‘ al-Bayan li ‘Ulum al-Qur’an", Tehran: Intisharat-e Naser Khosrow.
Tabarsi, Fadl ibn Hasan (1412 AH): "Tafsir al-Jawami‘ al-Jami‘", Qom: Hoze-ye ‘Elmiyyeh Qom, Markaz-e Modiriyat.
Tabarsi, Fadl ibn Hasan (1410 AH): "Al-Mu’alaf min al-Mukhtalif bayn A’immat al-Salaf", edited by: Kazim Madir Shanachi et al., Mashhad: Majma‘ al-Buhuth al-Islamiyyah.
Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir (1412 AH): "Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an", Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifah.
Tantawi, Sayyid Muhammad (n.d.): "Al-Tafsir al-Wasit lil-Qur’an al-Karim", Egypt: Tuhfat Masr lil-Tiba‘ah.
Tusi, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan (n.d.): "Al-Tibyan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an", prepared by: Ahmad Qaysar al-‘Amili, Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi.
Tusi, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan (1387 AH): "Al-Mabsut fi Fiqh al-Imamiyyah", edited by: Sayyid Muhammad Taqi Kashfi, Tehran: Al-Maktabah al-Murtadawiyyah li Ihya’ al-Athar al-Ja‘fariyyah.
Tayyib, Sayyid ‘Abd al-Husayn (1378): "Atyab al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an", Tehran: Intisharat-e Eslam.
Tayyib, Sayyid ‘Abd al-Husayn (1362): "Kalim al-Tayyib fi Taqrir ‘Aqa’id al-Islam", Qom: Maktabat al-Islam.
‘Ayyashi, Muhammad ibn Mas‘ud (1380 AH): "Tafsir al-‘Ayyashi", prepared by: Sayyid Hashim Rasuli, Tehran: Matba‘at al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Fakhr al-Razi, Muhammad ibn ‘Umar (1420 AH): "Mafatih al-Ghayb", Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi.
Fadlallah, Sayyid Muhammad Husayn (1419 AH): "Tafsir Min Wahy al-Qur’an", Beirut: Dar al-Malik.
Fayd Kashani, Muhammad ibn Shah Murtada (1415 AH): "Tafsir al-Safi", introduction and verification by: Husayn A‘lami, Tehran: Maktabat al-Sadr.
Qurtubi, Muhammad ibn Ahmad (1364): "Al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an", Tehran: Naser Khosrow.
Qutb al-Din al-Rawandi, Sa‘id ibn Hibat Allah (1409 AH): "Qisas al-Anbiya’ (AS)", Mashhad: Bunyad-e Pazhuhesh-ha-ye Astan-e Quds-e Razavi.
Qummi, ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim (1363): "Al-Tafsir al-Mansub ila al-Qummi", edited by: Tayyib Musawi Jazayeri, Qom: Dar al-Kitab.
Qummi Mashhadi, Muhammad ibn Muhammad Rida (1368): "Tafsir Kanz al-Daqa’iq wa Bahr al-Ghara’ib", edited by: Husayn Dargahi, Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.
Kulayni, Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub (1407 AH): "Al-Kafi", verified by: ‘Ali Akbar Ghaffari, Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah.
Maturidi, Muhammad ibn Muhammad (1426 AH): "Ta’wilat Ahl al-Sunnah", Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Manshurat Muhammad ‘Ali Baydun.
Mazandarani, Muhammad Salih (1382 AH): "Sharh Usul al-Kafi", edited by: Abu al-Hasan Shara‘ni, Tehran: Al-Maktabah al-Islamiyyah.
Majlisi, Muhammad Baqir (1404 AH): "Bihar al-Anwar", Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Wafa’.
Mutahhari, Murtada (1383): "Majmu‘ah-ye Athar", Qom: Sadra.
Nahavandi, Muhammad (1386): "Nafahat al-Rahman fi Tafsir al-Qur’an", Qom: Mu’assasat al-Ba‘thah.
Nishaburi, Nizam al-Din Hasan ibn Muhammad (1416 AH): "Tafsir Ghara’ib al-Qur’an wa Ragha’ib al-Furqan", Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah.

  • تاریخ دریافت 25 فروردین 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری 12 شهریور 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش 15 آذر 1403
  • تاریخ انتشار 01 مرداد 1404