آسيب شناسي مباني اعتبارسنجي روايات تفسيري معصومان:

Pathology of the fundamentals of validity assessment of the interpretive traditions related from the Infallibles (‘a.s.)

يكي از منابع مهمّ تفسير قرآن، روايات معصومان: است. با توجّه به وقوع جعل در ميان برخي روايات، درباره لزوم اعتبارسنجي روايات منقول از ايشان:، اختلافي نيست، اما در اعتبارسنجي آن روايات و نتايج آن ناهمساني فاحشي است. برخي با پذيرش سهلگيرانه، روايات نامقبول را مستند تفسير قرار دادهاند و برخي با ردّ شتابزده، روايات تفسيري فراواني را از گردونه اعتبار بيرون راندهاند. آسيبهاي بسياري كه در اعتبارسنجي آن روايات رخ داده، ناشي از مباني سستبنياد برخي حديثپژوهان است. اين مقاله در صدد آسيبشناسي مباني اعتبارسنجي روايات تفسيري برآمده و به تبيين آنها پرداخته است كه عبارتاند از: 1. قطعيالصدور پنداري همه روايات منقول از منابع پيشين، 2. انگاره تنافي غلوّ و وثاقت، 3. انگاره تلازم غلوّ راوي و برساختگي رواياتش، 4. مشروط دانستن صحّت روايات تفسيري به بودن مضمون آنها در قرآن، 5. انحصارپنداري اعتبار خبر واحد به وثاقت مخبري، 6. مشروط دانستن صحّت روايات تأويلي به مطابقت با سياق.

One of the major sources of the commentary of the Qur’an is the traditions transmitted from the Infallibles (‘a.s.). Considering the occurrence of fabrication among certain of traditions, there is no disagreement about the necessity of validity assessment of the traditions transmitted from them. However, there is a terrible lack of harmony between the validity assessment of those traditions and the results achieved from them. Having applied a leniently acceptance some scholars have relied on unacceptable traditions for their commentary, while some others due to their impetuous rejection have excluded numerous interpretive traditions from the scope of validity. The damages occurred in the validity assessment of those traditions originate from weak foundations of certain scholars’ hadith scholarship. This article intends to detect the damages of the validity assessment fundamentals of the interpretive traditions and to explain them. They include: 1) assuming that all traditions cited from past sources have definitely been issued from the Infallibles; 2) the assumption of contradiction between extremism (ghuluww) and reliability (withāqah); 3) assumption of ghuluww of a hadith transmitter (rāwī) entails the fabrication of his traditions; 4) holding that the authenticity of the interpretive traditions depends on the occurrence of their purport in the Qur’an; 5) assuming that the validity of the isolated tradition (khabar al-wāhid) depends on the reporter's reliability (withāqah mukhbiriyyah); 6) holding that the authenticity of the interpreted traditions depends on their conformity with the context (siyāq).