A Comparative Study of the Exegesis of Verses regarding the Last Will and Ransom according to Exegetes with an Emphasis on the Preferential Rule of the Principle of Non-Abrogation

Abstract

Preferential rules are criteria through which an exegete recognizes the preferred view among different views in the interpretation of verses. The rule of non-abrogation is one of the preferential rules that exegetes rely on. Based on this rule, an exegete gives preference to a rule that corresponds with non-abrogation except in instances where there are definite proofs for abrogation. The goal of this study is to study the approach of Shiite and Sunni exegetes toward this rule in the verses regarding the last will [2: 180] and ransom [47: 4]. This paper has been written utilizing a descriptive-analytic method and a comparative approach. The approach of the exegetes to the abovementioned preferential rule has been studied concerning these two verses and the findings of the study show that the exegetes have paid attention to this rule in the two verses under consideration; however, in some instances, some of them have erred in determining the place and way of the use of this rule. The proponents for the verses of the will and ransom being abrogated differ regarding the argument for abrogation and the studies that have been done show that none of these arguments are considered valid regarding the abrogation of the abovementioned verses.

Keywords

• the verse of the will
• the verse of ransom
• preferential law
• the principle of non-abrogation