Обсуждение:Толкование Корана - История изменений

Maqivi в 15:29, 21 марта 2023

2023-03-21T15:29:03Z

← Предыдущая версия		Версия от 15:29, 21 марта 2023
Строка 56:		Строка 56:
	Within the genre attempts have been made to classify the various books. Attempts to describe the «method» of the books predominate in Muslim discussions, and such classifications have also found their way into scholarly works (e.g., I. Goldziher, Die Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslegung , Leiden 1920). The basic separation between tafsīr bi ’l-maʿt̲h̲ūr (or riwāya) and tafsīr bi ’l-raʾy (or dirāya), with the occasional addition of tafsīr bi ’l-ishāra, reflects a tension which runs throughout the Muslim community and its intellectual disciplines, that of the authority of the community (maʾt̲h̲ūr) versus that of the intellect (raʾy) (is̲h̲āra being the speculative «hint» or «allusion» generally connected to Ṣūfism and outside these two main classifications). ¶ This separation does not, however, provide a sufficient analytical tool by which one may characterise the wide variety of books and approaches which are contained within the broadly-defined genre of tafsīr, since it concentrates on a superficial understanding of the form of the works with little attention to their underlying substance.		Within the genre attempts have been made to classify the various books. Attempts to describe the «method» of the books predominate in Muslim discussions, and such classifications have also found their way into scholarly works (e.g., I. Goldziher, Die Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslegung , Leiden 1920). The basic separation between tafsīr bi ’l-maʿt̲h̲ūr (or riwāya) and tafsīr bi ’l-raʾy (or dirāya), with the occasional addition of tafsīr bi ’l-ishāra, reflects a tension which runs throughout the Muslim community and its intellectual disciplines, that of the authority of the community (maʾt̲h̲ūr) versus that of the intellect (raʾy) (is̲h̲āra being the speculative «hint» or «allusion» generally connected to Ṣūfism and outside these two main classifications). ¶ This separation does not, however, provide a sufficient analytical tool by which one may characterise the wide variety of books and approaches which are contained within the broadly-defined genre of tafsīr, since it concentrates on a superficial understanding of the form of the works with little attention to their underlying substance.

	Recent scholarly attempts to define the genre have concentrated on isolating the variety of elements which come together within a given text in varying proportions (see N. Calder, Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr : problems in the description of a genre, illustrated with reference to the story of Abraham, in G.R. Hawting and A.-K.A. Shareef (eds.), Approaches to the Qurʾān, London 1993, 101-40; P. Heath, Creative hermeneutics: a comparative analysis of three Islamic approaches, in Arabica, xxxvi [1989], 173—210). Different mufassirūn have different concerns and goals, and this is reflected in the relative weight they put upon elements such as history, grammar, semantics, law, theology, or folklore. All commentators are concerned with the process of analysing the text in light of the «external world», however that be defined for the individual ~~{{s\|~~author, with the aim of resolving any apparent conflict and making the text «clear». Each element that comes into play within a}} text of tafsīr acts both to prompt exegesis (in the sense that a conflict is perceived between the world and the text) and to characterise the emphasis of a given interpretative approach.		Recent scholarly attempts to define the genre have concentrated on isolating the variety of elements which come together within a given text in varying proportions (see N. Calder, Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr : problems in the description of a genre, illustrated with reference to the story of Abraham, in G.R. Hawting and A.-K.A. Shareef (eds.), Approaches to the Qurʾān, London 1993, 101-40; P. Heath, Creative hermeneutics: a comparative analysis of three Islamic approaches, in Arabica, xxxvi [1989], 173—210). Different mufassirūn have different concerns and goals, and this is reflected in the relative weight they put upon elements such as history, grammar, semantics, law, theology, or folklore. All commentators are concerned with the process of analysing the text in light of the «external world», however that be defined for the individual author, with the aim of resolving any apparent conflict and making the text «clear». Each element that comes into play within a text of tafsīr acts both to prompt exegesis (in the sense that a conflict is perceived between the world and the text) and to characterise the emphasis of a given interpretative approach.

	Pride of place in the tools used in the interpretative process has been given to grammar (including elements of lexicography and orthography). As an implement for asserting the scholar’s status and authority, arguments over grammar have had no rival (see M.G. Carter, Language control as people control in medieval Islam: the aims of the grammarians in their cultural context, in Al-Abḥāt̲h̲ , xxxi [1983], 65-84). Grammar became a specialisation within tafsīr, producing works such as Maʿānī ’l-Ḳurʾān wa iʿrābuhu by al-Zad̲j̲d̲j̲ād̲j̲ (d. 311/923; see GAS, viii, 99-101), Iʿrāb al-Ḳurʾān by al-Naḥḥās (d. 338/950; see GAS, ix, 207-9) and Mus̲h̲kil iʿrāb al-Ḳurʾān by Makkī al-Ḳaysī (d. 437/1045 [q.v.]). The historical origins of grammar and lexicographical comparison within the framework of tafsīr have become a matter of scholarly controversy in light of Wansbrough’s arguments for the relatively late introduction of both aspects (see Quranic studies, 216-27); for example, C.H.M. Versteegh, Arabic grammar and Qurʾānic exegesis in early Islam, Leiden 1993, and M. Muranyi, Neue Materialien zur tafsīr-Forschung in der Moscheebibliothek von Qairawān, in S. Wild (ed.), The Qurʾan as text, Leiden 1996, 225-55, both argue against Wansbrough’s point, citing grammar and poetical references in texts understood to be early in date. Much of the dispute depends upon dating of texts (see A. Rippin, Studying early tafsīr texts, in Isl., lxxii [1995], 310-23).		Pride of place in the tools used in the interpretative process has been given to grammar (including elements of lexicography and orthography). As an implement for asserting the scholar’s status and authority, arguments over grammar have had no rival (see M.G. Carter, Language control as people control in medieval Islam: the aims of the grammarians in their cultural context, in Al-Abḥāt̲h̲ , xxxi [1983], 65-84). Grammar became a specialisation within tafsīr, producing works such as Maʿānī ’l-Ḳurʾān wa iʿrābuhu by al-Zad̲j̲d̲j̲ād̲j̲ (d. 311/923; see GAS, viii, 99-101), Iʿrāb al-Ḳurʾān by al-Naḥḥās (d. 338/950; see GAS, ix, 207-9) and Mus̲h̲kil iʿrāb al-Ḳurʾān by Makkī al-Ḳaysī (d. 437/1045 [q.v.]). The historical origins of grammar and lexicographical comparison within the framework of tafsīr have become a matter of scholarly controversy in light of Wansbrough’s arguments for the relatively late introduction of both aspects (see Quranic studies, 216-27); for example, C.H.M. Versteegh, Arabic grammar and Qurʾānic exegesis in early Islam, Leiden 1993, and M. Muranyi, Neue Materialien zur tafsīr-Forschung in der Moscheebibliothek von Qairawān, in S. Wild (ed.), The Qurʾan as text, Leiden 1996, 225-55, both argue against Wansbrough’s point, citing grammar and poetical references in texts understood to be early in date. Much of the dispute depends upon dating of texts (see A. Rippin, Studying early tafsīr texts, in Isl., lxxii [1995], 310-23).

Maqivi в 03:01, 3 ноября 2022

2022-11-03T03:01:57Z

← Предыдущая версия		Версия от 03:01, 3 ноября 2022
Строка 129:		Строка 129:
	* [[Правила толкования Корана]]		* [[Правила толкования Корана]]
	* [[Толкование скрытого смысла]]		* [[Толкование скрытого смысла]]
	* [[~~Толкователи~~ Корана]]		* [[Комментаторы Корана]]
	* ''[[Виды толкований Корана]]''		* ''[[Виды толкований Корана]]''
	* ''[[Толкования Корана в различных течениях]]''		* ''[[Толкования Корана в различных течениях]]''

Maqivi в 22:10, 4 марта 2022

2022-03-04T22:10:51Z

← Предыдущая версия		Версия от 22:10, 4 марта 2022
Строка 127:		Строка 127:
	* ''[[История науки о толковании Корана]]''		* ''[[История науки о толковании Корана]]''
	* [[Различие между тафсиром и тавилем]]		* [[Различие между тафсиром и тавилем]]
	* [[Перевод Корана как разновидность его толкования]]
	* [[Правила толкования Корана]]		* [[Правила толкования Корана]]
	* [[Толкование скрытого смысла]]		* [[Толкование скрытого смысла]]

Maqivi в 07:50, 21 июня 2021

2021-06-21T07:50:49Z

← Предыдущая версия		Версия от 07:50, 21 июня 2021
Строка 124:		Строка 124:
	* [[Наука о толковании Корана]]		* [[Наука о толковании Корана]]
	* [[Значимость толкования Корана]]		* [[Значимость толкования Корана]]
	* ''[[Источники ~~толкований~~ Корана]]''		* ''[[Источники толкования Корана]]''
	* ''[[История науки о толковании Корана]]''		* ''[[История науки о толковании Корана]]''
	* [[Различие между тафсиром и тавилем]]		* [[Различие между тафсиром и тавилем]]
Строка 136:		Строка 136:
	* [[толкования Корана]]-->		* [[толкования Корана]]-->

	; [[Источники ~~толкований~~ Корана]]		; [[Источники толкования Корана]]
	* [[Толкование Корана на основе предания]] (tafsir bi-l-ma’thur)		* [[Толкование Корана на основе предания]] (tafsir bi-l-ma’thur)
	:* [[Толкование одних аятов Корана другими]]		:* [[Толкование одних аятов Корана другими]]

Maqivi в 00:18, 17 марта 2021

2021-03-17T00:18:25Z

← Предыдущая версия		Версия от 00:18, 17 марта 2021
Строка 127:		Строка 127:
	* ''[[История науки о толковании Корана]]''		* ''[[История науки о толковании Корана]]''
	* [[Различие между тафсиром и тавилем]]		* [[Различие между тафсиром и тавилем]]
	* [[Перевод Корана как разновидность ~~тафсира~~]]		* [[Перевод Корана как разновидность его толкования]]
	* [[Правила толкования Корана]]		* [[Правила толкования Корана]]
	* [[Толкование скрытого смысла]]		* [[Толкование скрытого смысла]]

Maqivi в 23:48, 14 марта 2021

2021-03-14T23:48:34Z

@@ Строка 105: / Строка 105: @@
 Rippin, A., «Tafsīr», in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 10 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_7294>
 {{refbegin2}}
 == Список статей ==

Maqivi в 20:28, 13 марта 2021

2021-03-13T20:28:32Z

Внесённые изменения

Maqivi в 20:22, 13 марта 2021

2021-03-13T20:22:04Z

Внесённые изменения

Maqivi в 03:23, 8 марта 2021

2021-03-08T03:23:42Z

@@ Строка 126: / Строка 126: @@
 * {{публикация|книга|автор=Д. В. Фролов|заглавие=Арабская филология. Грамматика, стихосложение, корановедение|часть=О Коране и коранических науках|ссылка часть=https://books.google.ru/books?id=7TpqAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA216|издательство=Языки славянской культуры|год=2006|страницы=216-223}}
 {{refbegin2}}
 {{тафсир}}

Maqivi в 02:59, 4 марта 2021

2021-03-04T02:59:00Z

← Предыдущая версия		Версия от 02:59, 4 марта 2021
Строка 26:		Строка 26:
	;[[История науки о толковании Корана]]		;[[История науки о толковании Корана]]
	* [[Толкование Корана на основе предания]] (tafsir bi-l-ma’thur)		* [[Толкование Корана на основе предания]] (tafsir bi-l-ma’thur)
	:* [[Толкование Корана ~~во времена пророка Мухаммада~~]]		:* [[Толкование Корана Сунной]]
	:* [[Толкование Корана сподвижников пророка Мухаммада]]		:* [[Толкование Корана сподвижников пророка Мухаммада]]
	:* [[Толкование Корана таби‘инов]]		:* [[Толкование Корана таби‘инов]]