اضافة :اقتباسالمشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة محمد سني 1989
ان من قال بالاقتباس هنا من المستشرقين ،ك Wensinck، فانما اعتمد على ما ذكر في التفاسير ( كتفسير قتادة رحمه الله ) و ظن ان تفسير التابعي او الصحابي حجة كحديث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم !! و الحق انه لا علاقة بين القصة القرانية و ما ذكره المفسرون اذ هو اجتهاد منهم اضافوه على القصة بعد ذلك لما سمعوا بخبر نبع الحياة في المصادر الاخرى و لذلك رد عدد من النقاد على Weisinck و من نحى نحو رايه في هذه القضية و من اولئك الناقد Branonn M. Wheeler في كتابه Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis حيث انتقد منهجهم في اسقاط التفسير القراني المتاخر على النص القراني للجزم باقتباس القران من The Alexander Romance النسخة اليونانية و انكر الاقتباس من قصة الاسكندر .
نقرا ما يقوله الدكتور ويلر في كتابه Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis الصفحة 10 :
((Wensinck,followed by others,also asserts that verses 60-65 are dependent upon stories from the Alexander Romance and the Epic of Gilgamesh. A closer analysis of the sources called upon by Wensinck and others demonstrates ,however, that there is no evidence to make Q18:60-82 dependent on a particular Jewish or Christian source. This type of earlier scholarship does not make an adequate distinction between the information contained in the Quran and what is said by the Muslim exegetes about these verses. Such an approach understands the Quran and its exegesis to be confused version of stories borrowed from earlier Jewish and Christian sources. ignores the possibility that the Muslim exegetes might, for their own purposes ,appropriate motifs and conflate characters from extra Quranic sources. The following pages examine selected exegesis on Q18:60-82 with special attention to the purposeful interpretive strategies of the Muslim exegetes in appropriating extra-Quranic motifs and characters to their own agenda.Each of the three sections focuses on particular details from Q18:60 82 as treated by the Muslim exegetes,and as interpreted by earlier Western scholarship. This analysis shows how previous scholarship, in its assumptions about the derivation of the Quran and lack of distinction between the Quran and its exegesis ,misses the opportunity to discern the intent of Muslim exegetes in their use of extra-Quranic materials.))
و نقرا من الصفحة 13 من نفس المصدر :
((There are a number of reservations against the identity of the fish in the Alexander romance and Q18:61 and 63. The identity of the two fish is itself problematic. While the story in 18:60-65 has in common with the fish episode in Jacob of Serughs sermon a fish whose escape is either made or noticed just before it is eaten,and mention of some unusual water, is not necessary to equate the two stories. Given the information in the Quran alone,it is uncertain that the fish in 18:61 and 63 was dead and escaped by being brought back to life in the water of life. ))
و نقرا من الصفحة 14 :
((More problematic for identifying Q18:60-65 with the Alexander stories is the tendency to confuse the information given in the Quran with its interpretation in the commentaries .In the case of the fish episode, Wensinck and others have not paid close enough attention both to the variety within the early exegesis, and to the development of the explanations of Q18:60-65 from earlier to later exegesis ))
و نقرا من الصفحة 22 اضافة مهمة لا علاقة لها بالاقتباس من قصة الاسكندر من عدمه الا انها مهمة في بيان تعسف بعض المستشرقين في اتهام القران بالاقتباس من مصادر شتى حتى و ان لم توجد مشابهة دقيقة في القصة :
(( The idea that the story in the Quran combines disparate elements from motifs current in late antiquity is a promising explanation, partly because it recognizes the relative originality of Q 18:65-82. Unfortunately, but perhaps because of his vast knowledge of folklore motifs, Schwarzbaum is too specific in identifying particular stories as the source for the story in the Quran. In addition, his assumption that parallels represent borrowings, or that an earlier context explains the use of the motif or story in another context, is unfounded . On the one hand, it is not necessary to identify the ideas associated with a supplicant seeking an oracle or seer to receive a word from a deity specifically with those of the "gnostic ascetic" in monastic Christianity. Nor would it seem necessary to attribute the originalities of the story in the Quran to a garbled oral transmission or a confused recounting. Any number of stories from ancient and late antique milieus involving these same elements could be adduced. The motif of a prophet, theurgist, or holy man seeking an immortal being, often by ascending to heaven, in order to receive esoteric knowledge is one common in late antiquity milieus involving these same elements could be adduced. ))
هذا وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على اله وصحبه وسلم
رد مع اقتباس
المفضلات