نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشآموخته دکتری، گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
2 گروه حقوق، واحد شهرکرد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی شهرکرد، شهرکرد، ایران.
3 پژوهشگر پسادکتری، علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The Quranic injunction to safeguard "the middle prayer" (al-ṣalāt al-wusṭā) in Qur'an 2:238, despite its textual clarity, has generated one of the most extensive jurisprudential-exegetical debates due to ambiguity concerning its specific referent. Previous studies have predominantly focused on identifying the referent, attempting to favor one opinion among the numerous views proposed. Adopting a novel approach through the deconstruction and comparative analysis of inferential methodologies, this article addresses the fundamental question: what underlies this interpretive diversity? The findings reveal that the disagreement stems from four distinct methodological approaches to inference: (1) The Textual Method, in which the debate centers on whether to prioritize the interpretive narration from the Infallible Imam (the narration of Zurārah) over the historical Prophetic hadith (the hadith of the Day of al-Aḥzāb); (2) The Rational Method, which yields different conclusions by shifting the frame of reference—from temporal centrality to numerical balance; (3) The Rule-Based Method, which interprets the ambiguity in the verse as a pedagogical strategy to emphasize the importance of all prayers; and (4) The Hermeneutical (al-taʾwīlī) Method, which moves beyond the apparent juristic meaning and applies the verse to the realities of the Imamate system. This research concludes that the dispute over al-ṣalāt al-wusṭā is not merely a disagreement over subsidiary rulings, but rather reflects a plurality of foundational principles and methodological approaches to engaging with the sacred text.
کلیدواژهها [English]
قرآن کریم
)