چکیده:
هریک از شارحان حدیث با رویکرد خاصی به تبیین روایات پرداختهاند. از این میان میتوان به دو رویکرد عقلگرایی فلسفی و نقلگرایی اشاره کرد. برای شناخت بهتر تأثیر این دو رویکرد در روش فهم و تبیین روایات، لازم است که آنها را مورد مطالعه قرار داد. برای این منظور در این پژوهش با روش مقایسهای، به مطالعۀ موردی شروح دو اندیشمند تأثیرگذار عصر صفوی (ملاصدرا و محمدباقر مجلسی) بر کتاب کافی پرداخته شده است. نتیجه اینکه گاهی نگرش منطقی و فلسفی ملاصدرا در تبیین معنای لغات تأثیرگذار بوده است. همچنین در مواردی که بحث صرفی به اختلاف در معنا منجر میشده، مجلسی به آن موارد، بیشتر توجه نشان داده است. در مباحث نحوی نیز به نظر میرسد هرچند ملاصدرا به این مباحث توجه دارد، اهتمام مجلسی به این مباحث بیشتر است. در استناد به روایات، منبع روایت برای ملاصدرا اهمیت خاصی ندارد، ولی برای مجلسی دارای اهمیت است. برخلاف ملاصدرا، مجلسی در شرح بخش اصول کافی، بسیار از دیگر شروح کافی بهره برده و تکیۀ وی بر آنها بهنحو شگرفآوری بسیار است. مجلسی هرچند در برخی موارد درخصوص فلسفه و تصوف موضعگیری منفی از خود نشان داده، گاهی در شرح خود، به نقل اقوال فلاسفه و عرفا پرداخته است.
Accepted: 11/01/2022IntroductionHadith is one of the important sources for understanding and knowing about different aspects of Islam. Hadith, like many other texts, needs explanation and interpretation, that's why scholars have been explaining it for a long time. Each of the hadith commentators has explained the hadiths with a special approach. Among these, we can mention two approaches, philosophical rationalism and transmitivism. In the Safavid era, some hadith commentators used these two approaches to explain hadiths. To better understand the effects of these two approaches in the method of understanding and explaining traditions, it is necessary to study them.Materials and MethodsIn this study, we use a comparative method to study the commentaries of two influential thinkers of the Safavid era, namely Mulla Sadra and Muhammad Baqir Majlesi, who are respectively a rationalist philosopher and a transmitivistic scholar, on the book Kafi.Results and DiscussionThe result of this study shows that although there is no significant difference between Mulla Sadra and Majlisi in explaining the meaning of words, in some cases, Mulla Sadra's logical and philosophical view has been influential in his explanation of words. In morphological topics Even though Mulla Sadra has paid attention more than Majlisi in some cases, but in cases where the discussion led to a difference in meaning, Majlisi has paid more attention to those matters than Mulla Sadra. This difference between Mulla Sadra and Majlisi is due to their attitude in explaining hadiths; Explaining that Mulla Sadra often explains traditions with one aspect and does not tend to mention different aspects, but unlike him, Majlisi is very attentive in mentioning different aspects. In the topics of syntax Even though Mulla Sadra pays attention to these topics, the Majlisi's attention to these topics is more than his. Perhaps one of the reasons for Majlisi's greater attention to these topics is his attention to different aspects of meaning in tradition, because as we have said, Majlisi is interested in mentioning different aspects of meaning in traditions, and different aspects of syntax sometimes lead to different aspects of meaning in tradition. In some cases, when Majlisi discussed syntax and Mulla Sadra did not discuss syntax, or on the contrary, Mulla Sadra discussed syntax but Majlisi did not discuss it. It is possible that there is a reason for taste. Another reason why Majlisi paid more attention to the discussion of syntax than Mulla Sadra could be that Mulla Sadra was more interested in explaining the content of the tradition and did not consider the discussion of syntax very important to him. Another possible reason is that Majlisi, influenced by some other interpretations of Kafi, raised some syntactical debates and his attention to some syntactical debates is a result of this. Another point worth noting is that the source of tradition is not particularly important for Mulla Sadra, but it is important for Majlisi. It seems that Mulla Sadra's rationalism and mysticism and Majlisi's transmitivism have been influential in giving importance to the source of the traditions they cite, and it is as if for Mulla Sadra that there is a reasonable aspect of the tradition in his opinion is enough for him to cite it, but for Majlisi, who is a transmitter, the source of the tradition is important and he was more careful in narrating the traditions. The reason for this state of tradition of Mulla Sadra may be attributed to this tolerance in quoting from various sources, and the other is his lack of mastery over Shia traditions. Another point worth noting is that Mulla Sadra used a lot of other works, with or without citing; But there is no trace of his benefiting from the explanations and margins that were written before him on Kafi. Unlike Mulla Sadra, Majlisi used a lot of other Kafi commentaries in his explanation of Kafi principles, and his reliance on them is surprisingly high. Also, it can be said that Mulla Sadra quotes other people's words along the path of his own thought system, but Majlisi does not follow a particular coherent thought system, and sometimes quoting other people's words is centered for him. Majlisi is cautious and mentions various aspects in explaining hadiths, but unlike him, Mulla Sadra explains the hadiths with a decisive statement and usually explains the traditions with only one aspect, and even if from others, what with reference and even if he quotes without reference, it is usually based on one aspect in the way of explaining the tradition.ConclusionMulla Sadra is from philosophy and mysticism and has used them in his commentary, but Majlisi does not have an optimistic view of philosophers and opposes them. However, Majlisi has quoted and used some sayings of philosophers in his description. Majlisi also disagrees with the Sufis, however, he also quotes from them. Investigations show that Majlisi was not against the principle of mysticism, but he was against some deviations. Another point is that although Majlisi did not oppose the principle of mysticism, but contrary to Mulla Sadra's description of the principles of Kafi, the talk of discovery, intuition and mysticism and their defense is not prominent in “Mir'at al-‘uqul”.
خلاصه ماشینی:
شایان توجه است حتی فیض کاشانی که از شاگردان مSصدرا و تحـت تـأثیر وی است و دارای گرایش فلسفی است ، در توضیح واژٔە «َقفَّازَانِ» وجه مورد نظر مSصـدرا را مطرح نکرد؛ اما مجلسی که رویه اش بر ذکر وجوه مختلف است ، در تبیین واژٔە «َقفَّـازَانِ » به هر دو وجه اشاره کرده است (مجلسی، ١٤٠٤ق ، ج٢: ٢٧٦).
البتـه مSصدرا نیز چنانکه گفتیم ، با استناد و بیاستناد از منابع زیادی استفاده کرده اما ظـاهراً از شروح کافی پیش از خود بهره نبرده است ؛ برخSف مجلسی که در موارد بسـیاری شـرح روایت را به نقل از شروح دیگر بیان میکند و همچنین مSصدرا ماننـد مجلسـی دغدغـۀ مطرح کردن اقوال مختلف در تبیین روایت را ندارد.
مجلسـی احتیاطگرا است و وجوه مختلف را در تبیین روایـات ذکـر مـیکنـد، امـا بـرخSف وی مSصدرا با بیانی قاطع به تبیین روایات میپردازد و معموgً تنها بـا یـک وجـه روایـت را توضیح میدهد و حتی اگر از دیگران ، چه با استناد و چه بیاستناد، هم نقل کند، معمـوgً در مسیر توضیح روایت بر پایۀ یـک وجـه اسـت (دربـارٔە قطعیـت در بیـان مSصـدرا و احتیاطگرایی مجلسی نک : فرهی، ١٣٩٩ش : ٣٤ـ٣٩).
Review of Mulla Sadra's jurisprudence-al-hadith method in the book Sharah Usul Kāfī.
Comparative study of rationalism and narrativeism in the explanation and criticism of hadiths; A case study on the description of the principles of al-Kāfī by Mulla Sadra and the Mer'aat Al-Oghoul by Allameh Majlesi.
The method of understanding and explaining hadiths in the two rationalistic and transmitivistic commentary of Kāfī by Mullā Ṣadrā and Majlisī Mohammad Mahdi Farrahi PhD.