پژوهش‌های تفسیر تطبیقی (Mar 2022)

The Approach of Shi’ite and Sunni Exegetes to the Qur’anic Doubt of Jonah’s Infallibility; Analysis, Critique, and Preference

  • saeed azizi,
  • Ali Rad

DOI
https://doi.org/10.22091/ptt.2022.5788.1801
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 8, no. 1
pp. 251 – 280

Abstract

Read online

Received: 2021/9/20 | Correction: 2022/1/18 | Accepted: 2021/4/17The appearance of some Qur’anic verses seems to indicate the impatience, disobedience, and even rebellion of Jonah to carry out his prophetic mission. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) hence was forbidden, according to the Qur’an, to follow him and consequently be like him as well. This has led him to be accused by some Muslim scholars of committing sin and thus lacking infallibility. But on the contrary, another group of both Shi’ite and Sunni exegetes and Hadith scholars have tried to provide a more appropriate interpretation of the suggested Qur’anic verses and the existing Islamic narrations, exposing the weakness of this notion. Based on the results of this article, Shi’ite exegetes have offered two solutions to answer the doubts concerning the infallibility of Jonah. The first one is that Jonah only committed lapse and not sin, and the second is that the event in question preceded his prophetic mission. Although a considerable number of Sunni commentators have stated the same two ways, some have also believed in Jonah’s sin and rebellion against God. The present research however evaluates these three approaches and then proposes its own preferred theory. The evaluation and critique of the mentioned approaches indicate that the viewpoint of abandoning the best and first deed by Jonah is the only acceptable one, which seems more compatible with the Qur’anic verses and has been proposed by many exegetes as well.Keywords: Jonah, infallibility, Qur’anic doubts, the exegetes’ approach, theological exegesis, comparative exegesis Azizi, S; Rad, A. (2022) The Approach of Shi’ite and Sunni Exegetes to the Qur’anic Doubt of Jonah’s Infallibility; Analysis, Critique, and Preference. Biannual Journal of Comparative Exegetical Researches, 8 (15) 251-280. Doi: 10.22091/PTT.2022.5788.1801.

Keywords