مفهوم تأويل از ديدگاه ناصرخسرو و علامه طباطبايي در دو كتاب وجه دين و تفسير الميزان

The Concept of Tawil (Interpretation) from the Perspective of Nasser Khosrow and Allameh Tabatabai in the Two Books of Vajhe Din and Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Quran

افراط در تأويل‌گرايي، يكي از ويژگي‌هاي مهم اسماعيليه است كه موجب تمايز آنان از ساير مذاهب اسلامي مي‌شود. با توجه به آثار حكيم ناصرخسرو قبادياني، يكي از كليدي‌ترين مؤلفه‌هاي ذهني و اعتقادي اين حكيم و سخنور بزرگ ادب فارسي، مقولۀ تأويل است. او به‌عنوان «حجت» در مذهب اسماعيلي، در آثار منظوم و منثور خود بارها مسئلۀ تأويل را به كار برده است؛ چنانكه كتاب وجه دين او آكنده از تأويلات است؛ به گونه‌اي كه در اين كتاب بسياري از احكام دين و شريعت را نيز تأويل كرده و قائل شده است شريعت بدون تأويل هيچ ارزشي ندارد و همچون جسد بدون روح است. همچنين، علامه طباطبايي، فيلسوف و مفسّر معاصر، در باب تأويل براي الفاظ قرآن، معاني باطني قائل است. هر دو آنان معتقدند كل قرآن تأويل دارد؛ اما بيشتر تأويل‌هاي ناصرخسرو در باب شريعت است و بسياري از آنها از نوع تأويل مذموم؛ امّا تأويل‌هاي علامه طباطبايي براساس معارف قرآني و اهل بيت است و از نوع تأويل محمود. علامه طباطبايي با وجود اعتقاد به تأويل همۀ آيات، برخلاف ناصرخسرو به تأويل آيات‌الاحكام نپرداخته است و تأويل‌هاي ناصرخسرو با نظر او سنخيت و مطابقت ندارند. در اين مقاله، ابتدا تأويل ازنظر ناصرخسرو در كتاب وجه دين و علامه طباطبايي در تفسير الميزان به روش توصيفي – مقايسه‌اي، بررسي و سپس تشابه و تفاوت نظر آنان تبيين و تحليل شده است.

The present study compares the concept of interpretation and interpretivism from the point of view of Hakim Naser Khosrow Ghobadiani (391-484 AH) and Allameh Tabatabai (1281-1381 AH) in the two books of Vajhe Din and Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Quran using a descriptive-analytical method. Naser Khosrow, as an Ismaili authority and theologian, is influenced by the Ismailis in his thoughts and ideas and has translated and explained the teachings of the Holy Qur'an, Sunnah, and other thoughts in the form of Ismaili views. He considers the Holy Qur'an to have an appearance and depth and believes that one who does not know the interpretation of the Holy Qur'an and the Shari'a will go astray. Naser Khosrow considers interpretation not only in similar verses but in all verses of the Holy Qur'an and even interprets the verses of the rulings, which are about the Shari'a and the divine rules and limits, contrary to the appearance of the verses. He has exaggerated in his interpretation and has unjustly used the incorrect interpretation in the verses of Al-Ahkam in the book Vajhe Din. He presents the depth as more honorable than the appearance and considers the book and the Shari'a worthless without interpretation. Explaining the importance of interpretation and the search for hidden meanings in his works, Naser Khosrow considers human grace and honor over other beings in knowing the ‘meaning covered by the appearance of things’- which is the same as interpretation. On the other hand, Allameh Tabatabai, who is a Shiite commentator of the Twelve Imams (AS), considers the interpretation to be correct based on the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah and believes that a correct interpretation does not contradict the appearance of the verses. His interpretations are consistent with the meanings of the Holy Qur'an. He has never interpreted a verse contrary to its appearance. He argues for religious appearances and considers the method of correct interpretation to be the interpretation from the Holy Qur'an to the Holy Qur'an, which is the method of the Imams (AS). Allamah in Al-Mizan also considers interpretation in the whole of the Holy Qur'an. Despite this belief, he did not interpret the verses of Al-Ahkam (which are about 500 verses) at all in Al-Mizan and considers the place of discussion in the book of jurisprudence and not interpretation. According to Allameh, the interpretation is praiseworthy and permissible without any problems. He does not like and does not use the interpretation that is contrary to the appearance of the verses. But Naser Khosrow's Vajhe Din is full of misinterpretations and oppositions to the appearance because he sacrifices the appearance to the inside and considers only the inside. His interpretations are outside the rules of a correct interpretation since they are contrary to the appearance, which is not following Allameh's opinion.