الاتجاهات الفكرية المعاصرة وأثرها في تجديد علوم القرآن : دراسة نقدية لآراء عالم سبيط النيلي

Abstract

This study deals with the intentional trend of Al-Nili and its impact on renewing the Quranic sciences issues and aims to criticize and review it, as Al-Nili claimed that he had a new theory of language that believes in the physical relationship between sound and meaning and that the best method for studying the Quran is the verbal method, which he started with by distinguishing between the language of the Quran and the Arabic language. He rejected the concepts of synonymy, metaphor, metonymy, simile, advancement, delay, deletion and estimation. He rejected the application of grammatical rules, the methods of the Arabs and their vocabulary, and the science of the principles of jurisprudence and its tools in understanding the Quranic text. He also denied the multiplicity of Quranic readings, rejected the authority of Tawatur's evidence in proving the Quran, and criticized the methods of interpretation. He aslo has a new reading of the Quranic miracle, the repetition of stories, the Quranic comma, the issue of the decisive and the ambiguous in the Quran, among other things. The research applied three methods to analyze and discuss these views of Al-Nili, and the study came out with several results, including: that the roots of Al-Nili’s views are found in various sciences related to modern linguistics, Western philosophy, and Arab modernity, so they are nothing more than a selective thought, but Al-Nili was able to formulate it in a somewhat systematic way, and that Al-Nili went beyond the mechanisms and controls of renewal in the sciences of the Qur’an, so his views included many contradictions and problems, starting with the incompleteness of his verbal approach, which was based on incomplete induction, and then his various applications, as his treatment of the multiplicity of readings led to the statement of the distortion of the Qur’an, and that his exclusion of the Prophetic Sunnah and his disregard for the reasons for revelation made him stumble in controlling the meanings of words in the Qur’an, and that his rejection of the grammatical and morphological rules and the methods of the Arabs made him burden himself with interpreting the meanings of the Qur’an’s vocabulary, and calling for the establishment of a Qur’anic grammar science, disconnected from the speech of the Arabs in a way that made him fall into the contradictions that other interpreters were described with.