Detailed Abstract
Research Objective:
This study was conducted with the aim of performing a comparative analysis of the hermeneutical foundations (mabāni), source materials (manābi‘), and exegetical orientations (gerāyeshhā) of Allameh Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i in his commentary Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an and Allameh Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah in his commentary Min Wahy al-Qur'an. It seeks to address the primary research question: despite their shared utilization of the "Quran-by-Quran" (tafsīr al-Qur'ān bi-al-Qur'ān) method, what points of convergence and divergence exist between these two exegetes across these three domains? Additionally, the secondary research questions focus on examining their shared and distinct principles, the sources utilized, their exegetical orientations, and the influence of their social concerns and rational approaches on their respective commentaries.
Research Methodology:
This study employs a descriptive-analytical methodology, utilizing library-based research to compare the hermeneutical foundations, source materials, and exegetical orientations of Allameh Tabataba'i and Allameh Fadlallah, who are among the most prominent contemporary Shia commentators.
Research Findings:
: Exegetical Foundations (Mabāni): In the domain of hermeneutical foundations, the findings indicate that both commentators subscribe to several shared principles, such as the preservation of the Quran from alteration (ʿiṣmah al-Qur'ān min al-taḥrīf), the general intelligibility of the verses for the public, the authoritative validity of the apparent meanings (hujjiyyah al-ẓawāhir), and the acceptance of the abrogation (naskh) of certain Quranic rulings.
However, notable differences exist in their perspectives: Tabataba'i views the inimitability of the Quran (iʿjāz) as comprehensive and multi-faceted, encompassing eloquence (balāghah), unseen reports (akhbār al-ghayb), and the absence of internal contradiction, whereas Allameh Fadlallah restricts the miraculous aspect of the Quran primarily to its expressive (bayāni) dimension. Furthermore, Allameh Tabataba'i employs exegetical traditions (riwāyāt) as corroborating evidence (mu'ayyad), whereas Allameh Fadlallah only accepts traditions that actively facilitate the comprehension and derivation of meanings from the verses, placing a rigorous emphasis on the critical evaluation of their chains of transmission (asnad).
Research Findings: Exegetical Sources (Manābi‘):Regarding exegetical sources, both commentators utilize the Quran as their primary source, alongside the Sunnah, intellect (ʿaql), hadith collections, and preceding commentaries. However, Allameh Tabataba'i considers the intellect as an independent source in exegesis and draws upon a broader range of narrative sources, including the Four Books (al-Kutub al-Arbaʿah) of the Shia and the Six Books (al-Ṣiḥāḥ al-Sittah) of the Sunni traditions. In contrast, Allameh Fadlallah treats the intellect primarily as an instrumental tool for comprehending the Quran and the Sunnah, and exhibits greater caution in employing hadith narratives due to concerns regarding potential chains of transmission weakness.
Research Findings: Exegetical Orientations (Gerāyeshhā):In terms of exegetical orientations, both commentators share common social and literary orientations while avoiding an overly juridical (fiqhi) approach. Nonetheless, Allameh Tabataba'i exhibits a prominent philosophical and theological (kalāmi) orientation, analyzing theological matters through the lens of philosophical rationality. Conversely, Allameh Fadlallah lacks a philosophical orientation, opting instead to emphasize innate/primordial rationality (al-ʿaqlāniyyah al-fiṭriyyah) in theological analysis. While the social orientation in Al-Mizan is pursued through a balanced approach aligned with Quranic teachings, it is significantly more pronounced in Min Wahy al-Qur'an, which focuses intensively on contemporary issues and the immediate needs of modern society, particularly within the dynamic sociopolitical context of Lebanon.
Research Findings: Socio-Political Influences: In response to the influence of social and political concerns, the findings indicate that the serene and scholarly atmosphere of Qom steered Allameh Tabataba'i's commentary toward comprehensiveness and systematic balance in philosophical, theological, and social discussions. Conversely, the turbulent and dynamic environment of Lebanon directed Allameh Fadlallah's commentary toward practical social and educational (tarbawi) issues, seeking direct answers to contemporary exigencies. Furthermore, the divergence in their rational frameworks—Allameh Tabataba'i's systematic philosophical rationality versus Allameh Fadlallah's innate rationality—has led to distinct methodologies in their respective theological and exegetical analyses.
Final Conclusion:
This research demonstrates that despite their shared reliance on the Quran-by-Quran exegetical methodology, their divergences in foundational principles (such as the nature of inimitability and the role of traditions), sources (the role of intellect and the extent of hadith utilization), and orientations (philosophical and theological versus social and educational) stem primarily from their distinct intellectual anxieties, life environments, and rational frameworks. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the diversity of exegetical approaches within the Shia tradition and illustrate the profound impact of contextual and environmental factors on Quranic hermeneutics.