Interpretation of the Qur’an between the Infallible Text and Ijtihad: A Comparative Study between the Imami and Sunni Schools

Abstract

This research begins with the central problem of the relationship between the fixed Qur'anic text and the changing human authority responsible for its interpretation. It focuses on the role of the infallible as the exclusive and necessary interpreter for understanding divine intent. The research adopts a comparative perspective between the Imami view, which views the sayings of the infallible imams as definitive interpretations emanating from divine knowledge and infallible, and the prevailing Sunni view, which places the process of interpretation within the framework of human ijtihad, subject to both correctness and error, relying on linguistic, rational, and transmitted tools. The research emphasizes that the Imami school relies on transmitted evidence, such as the verse "None shall touch it except the purified" and the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, as well as rational evidence, which holds that a profound understanding of the divine text requires a mind protected from whims, a quality only found in the infallible. In contrast, it highlights the problems of the Sunni approach, such as the multiplicity and conflict of interpretations, their influence by historical and political contexts, the intrusion of Isra'iliyyat and myths into some interpretations, and the absence of a unified standard for weighing opinions. This leads to methodological fragmentation and a loss of trust. The study reviews the characteristics of the interpretive approach of the infallible ones, which combines the apparent and hidden meanings of the text, linking understanding with practical application. It considers them not only interpreters, but also the true clarifiers and key to understanding the multiple layers of the Quranic text. It concludes that the fundamental difference between interpretation by opinion and infallible interpretation is one of authority and certainty. The former is based on variable human conjecture, while the latter is based on fixed divine knowledge. This ensures the integrity and unity of religious understanding and prevents deviation and conflicting interpretations that fragment the intellectual unity of the nation.