چکیده:
نقد آرای کلامی فرق اسلامی، یکی از مباحث مهم در برخی از تفاسیر قرآن است. بررسی این نقدها باعث روشنشدن هرچه بیشتر عقاید مفسّر میشود. یکی از تفاسیر بررسیشده دربارۀ آرای کلامی خوارج، مرجیان، معتزله و ... تفسیر عرفانی کشفالاسرار و عدّةالابرار اثر ابوالفضل رشیدالدّین میبدی است. این مقاله با روش توصیفیتحلیلی نگارش یافته و به علّت توجّه ویژۀ میبدی به جهمیّان، آرای کلامی این فرقه، نقد و بررسی و دیدگاه میبدی در هر یک از موضوعات نقدشدۀ او، در این تفسیر ذکر شده است. یکی از مهمترین بدعتهای جهمیّان، انکار صفات خدا و تاویل آنها است. آنها صفات خدا را برای جلوگیری از تشبیه او به مخلوقات و پاسبانی از تجرید او تاویل میکنند. به نظر میبدی، خدا دارای صفات است (نفی تعطیل)؛ ولی بنابر قاعدۀ «همنامی اقتضای همسانی نکند»، نباید همان معنای انسانی در آنها را بر خدا حمل کرد (نفی تشبیه). همچنین، آنها را نباید تاویل و معنای مجازی کرد. به عقیدۀ میبدی، ظاهر آنها را باید به سمع قبول کرد و باطن (حقیقت معنای) آنها را باید به تسلیم به حق سپرد.
Criticism of the theological opinions of the Islamic sects is one of important discussions in some of the Qur’anic commentaries. To survey these critques causes to be clarified more own commentator’s ideas. The mystical Commentary of Kashf Al-Asrar Wa ʿUddat Al-Abrar (“The Unveiling of the Mysteries and the Provision of the Pious”) by Abu al-Fadl Rashid Al-Din Maybudi is one of the commentaries that have discussed the theological opinions of the Khawarij‚ the Jahmiyah‚ the Mu’tazilah etc. This article, which is written in descriptive and analytic way, because of Maybudi’s special attention to the Jahmiyah‚ deals with critiquing and surveying the thological opinions of this sect, and mentioning Maybudi’s view of each of criticized subjects‚ according to this commentary. Maybudi considers the Jahmiyah as innovators. Maybudi considers the false symbolic interpetation as more important innovations of the Jahmiyah. In Meybudi’s view, the false symbolic interpretation means to turn away from external meanings of the verses and the traditions and to turn to the symbolic meanings of them. Maybudi thinks the interpretation of “ ‚”استوی علی العرش“is firmly established on the throne”‚ to “domination and conquest” as one of the false symbolic interpretations of the Jahmiyah. Of course‚ Maybudi himself speaks about the true hermeneutics. It is to interpret the verse and the tradition to meaning that is possible and is agreement with the Qur’an and the tradition. The true hermeneutics can be achieved by man’s effort and divine grace. Maybudi quotes some of the commentators that they interpret the verses ”ان الله لا یستحیی...“ (البقره: 26)‚ “Surely Allah is not ashamed…” (The Cow/26) to ”لا یخشی“‚ “does not fear” and”و تخشی الناس و الله احق ان تخشاه“ (الاحزاب/37) ‚ “and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him” (The Confederates/37) to ”تستحیی“‚ “was ashamed”. For “”استحیا‚ “to be ashamed” means ”خشیت“‚ “to fear”‚ and on the contrary. Also Maybudi describes the belief in being God ‛in essence’ in any place and with any one‚ but not being He on the Throne‚ in other words‚ the rejection direction and place for God‚ as another of the Jahmiyah’s innovations. In Maybudi’s view‚ God is ‛in His essence’ in one place‚ namely the heaven and the Throne‚ and in ‛His knowledge’ in any place and with any one‚ in other words‚ in all places. Also Maybudi considers the denial of God’s eternal attributes and their false symbolic interpretation as another of the Jahmiyah’s innovations. They interpret symbolically God’s eternal attributes to hinder from His similarity to the creatures and to keep from His transcendence. In Maybudi’s view‚ both anthropomorphism and transcendence make way for blasphemy. According to Maybudi‚ God has the eternal attributes (the denial of transcendence), but according to the rule “to have one name does not invole to be one”‚ we should not apply the same meaning used in human to God (the denial of anthropomorphism). Morevere‚ they should not be interpretered symbolically. In Maybudi’s view‚ their external meaning should be heared and accepted‚ and their internal meaning should be surrenderd to the Truth. Among this Jahmiyah’s innovation‚ Maybudi mentions the rejection of describing God as “thing”‚ and the denial of the attributies of self and hand for God and their false symbolic interpretion. Also Maybudi considers the belief in accompanying God’s Makr (plan) and Keid (plan) with corruption and betrayal and deception as another of the Jahmiyah’s innovations. According to Maybudi‚ God’s Makr and Keid apply only to the best interest without corruption and betrayal and deception. God and man’s Makr and Keid are the same in name‚ but they are differences in meaning. Also‚ Maybudi considers the Jahmiyah’s belief in being created the Qur’an‚ and or according to some others of them the absence a thing of the Words of God on the earth‚ and or according to some others of them the belief in being created our letter and reading in reciting the Qur’an as another of the Jahmiyah’s innovations. In Maybudi’s view‚ these untrue ideas of the Jahmiyah result from the fact that‚ according to them‚ the Words of God are not an expression that depends on a letter and a sound‚ but they are His knowledge which subsists in the essence of Him. In Maybudi’s view‚ the Qur’an is not an expression of the Words of the Truth‚ but it is the very Words of the Truth. It is not seperate from God‚ but it is connected upon Him and subsists in Him. The Qur’an depends on a letter and a sound and any letter of it is not created. Our letter and reading in reciting the Qur’an are nor created neither among our works. It truly exists on the earth and we read it by tongue‚ hear it by ear and know it in heart. Also‚ Maybudi considers the describtion of Iman as affirmation by the heart without confessing by the tongue and acting by the members of body‚ as another of the Jahmiyah’s innovations. According to Maybudi‚ Iman consists in confessing by the tongue; affirming by the heart; acting by the members of body and property; and following the Sunnah. Also‚ Maybudi considers the independence of man from God in hindering him from sins and the annihilation of the bounties of paradise as another of the Jahmiyah’s innovations.
خلاصه ماشینی:
به نظر میبدی، خدا دارای صفات است (نفی تعطیل)؛ ولی بنابر قاعدۀ «همنامی اقتضای همسانی نکند»، نباید همان معنای انسانی در آنها را بر خدا حمل کرد (نفی تشبیه).
بنابر استدلال آنها، به سبب اینکه این صفات و افعال، متضمن تجسیم و تشبیهاند و نیز خدا مجرد از مادّه و درنتیجه، بری از هرگونه تجسیم و تشبیه است، برای نگاهبانی از تجرید خدا، لازم است تفسیر لفظی آنها رد و تأویل شود؛ به این دلیل آنها موضوعاتی چون رؤیت خدا، سخنگفتن خدا با حضرت موسی(ع) و اِستواء خدا بر عرش را بهطور مَجازی و نمادین، معنا و معنای لفظی آنها را نفی میکردند (صابری، 1383: 1/70 و 1/66؛ نیز نک: سیدتقوی، 1390: 19/71 و 72؛ مشکور، 1375: 433؛ Anawati, 1987b: 8/237 ;Montgomery Watt, 1991: 2/388).
4-2- انکار صفات خدا ازنظر میبدی، یکی از بدعتهای جَهْمِیّان این است که آنان منکر صفات خداوندند و آنها را تأویل باطل میکنند (همان: 8/486؛ نیز نک: کیلر، 1394: 49).
باری، ازنظر میبدی، باید معتقد بود خدا دارای صفات است (نفی تعطیل) و نیز بنابر قاعدۀ «همنامى، همسانى نَبُوَد»، نباید همان معانی آنها را دربارۀ خلق بر خدا حمل کرد (نفی تشبیه).
به عقیدۀ میبدی، این آیه ردِّ بر آنها است؛ زیرا خدا در آن صفت «ید» را برای خود اثبات میکند (المیبدی، 1382: 3/168).
او آیات «أُكُلُهَا دَائِمٌ وَ ظِلُّهَا» (الرعد/35) و «لَامَقْطُوعَةٍ وَ لَامَمْنُوعَةٍ» (الواقعة/33) را در اثبات این نظر و رد دیدگاه جَهْمِیّه نقل میکند (المیبدی، 1382: 5/203؛ نیز نک: همان: 9/448 و 5/444)؛ زیرا به نظر میبدی، ظاهر قرآن تصریح به تخلید بهشت دارد و از ظاهر برگرداندن آیات و روایات و حَمْل آنها بر مَجاز تأویل باطل است.