تحلیل انتقادی دیدگاه اصلاحی جیمز بلمی درباره واژه «جِبْتِ» با رویکرد تفاسیر فریقین

جیمز بلَمی از مستشرقان قرآن‌پژوه با شیوه نقد متن، به تغییر و اصلاح واژگانی از قرآن اقدام نموده است. وی در مقاله «نقد متنی قرآن» در دائره‌المعارف قرآن لیدن با پیش‌فرض وقوع خطای نوشتاری در متن قرآن، مدعی است که واژه‌هایی در قرآن وجود دارد که براثر اشتباه ناسخان و کاتبان وحی از حالت نخستین تغییر کرده است و درنتیجه باید اصلاح گردد و به اصل خود بازگردد. واژه «الجِبت» یکی از این واژه‌هاست که بلمی «الجِّنت» را اصل آن دانسته است. بررسی درستی و نادرستی ادعای بلمی در این خصوص مسئله اصلی در این مقاله است. این مقاله در صدد است با استفاده از روش توصیفی تحلیلی دیدگاه‌های مفسران فریقین را با مبانی زبانشناختی بررسی کند و میزان دقیق و غیردقیق بودن ادعای بلمی را اثبات نماید. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که در مورد این واژه، هیچ‌گونه تغییر و تصحیفی اتفاق نیفتاده است که نیاز به اصلاح باشد. دیدگاه بلمی به دلیل اینکه با پیش‌فرض همسان انگاری قرآن با کتب مقدس همراه است و از دیگر سو با حقایقی از تاریخ قرآن، تواتر شفاهی متن قرآن و درمجموع با مبانی اسلامی و زبان‌شناختی لغت شناسان و مفسران اسلامی تطابق کامل ندارد، بدین ترتیب نمی‌تواند از اعتبار لازم برخوردار باشد.

a critical analysis of james bellamy’s revisionist view on the term “jibt”: an approach based on sunni and shiʿi tafsīr traditions

detailed abstractresearch objective: the central issue of this study is to examine the validity of james bellamy’s claim concerning the arabic word jibt. by utilizing the viewpoints of both sunni and shi‘i qur’anic exegetes along with linguistic principles, the accuracy or inaccuracy of bellamy’s assertion can be determined. through precise academic analysis and recourse to qur’anic lexicons, qur’anic exegeses, and historical records, the fallacy and inadequacy of bellamy’s assumption can be demonstrated. this reveals that the most accurate and effective terms and expressions are those authentically found in the qur’an and its conventional orthography. replacing such terms yields no result other than supporting the notion of verbal distortion in the qur’an. furthermore, bellamy’s theory aligns with his presuppositions and parallels with the scriptures of the bible and the torah, but cannot be fully applied to the qur’an. it must be noted that bellamy’s views are not entirely in agreement with the muslim discourse on orthographic irregularities.research methodology: this research employs a descriptive-analytical methodology with a critical approach, involving the collection and analysis of relevant data to examine bellamy’s reformist view regarding the word jibt.findings: the findings reveal that no alteration or distortion has occurred concerning this word that would necessitate emendation. bellamy’s perspective lacks credibility due to its reliance on the assumption that the qur’an is comparable to the previous scriptures and due to its incompatibility with the historical facts of the qur’an’s transmission, its oral mutawātir nature, and the foundational principles of islamic and linguistic thought as upheld by muslim exegetes and lexicographers. various interpretations have been offered by lexicographers, exegetes, and traditionists regarding the word jibt, including meanings such as idol, magician, magic, soothsayer, iblis, satan, polytheism, a certain jewish scholar, a group of jewish scholars, disbeliever, obstinate opponent, and anything or anyone obeyed in disobedience to god. therefore, the meaning of jibt cannot be confined to any one of these alone. it may refer to any object of worship other than god or anything set in opposition to him in acts of worship. as shown, qur’anic exegetes and lexicographers differ only in the origin, meaning, and referents of jibt, which is an accepted type of scholarly divergence; however, there is no disagreement among them concerning the reading, orthography, or any scribal error regarding this term. thus, no modification has occurred, and the expression used in the qur’an and the standard orthographic traditions is correct and meaningful.conclusion: the words used in the qur’an are authentic and original, and based on islamic principles (especially the doctrine of non-distortion), any replacement is inadmissible. bellamy’s proposals to substitute, add, or remove words—often resulting from his assumptions and personal interpretations—are inaccurate and invalid, especially concerning specific qur’anic terms like jibt. moreover, bellamy’s reliance on alleged errors by certain qur’anic exegetes and companions in understanding qur’anic meanings lacks the precision and credibility needed to critique the qur’anic text. semantic disagreements among muslim scholars concerning meanings and concepts of qur’anic vocabulary are widely accepted and do not, by themselves, indicate scribal errors or verbal distortion. the oral transmission of the qur’an and the precedence of recitation overwriting are among the most significant historical considerations negating the possibility of such distortions. since the qur’an has been transmitted word for word through continuous oral recitation, qur’anic recitation (qirā’ah) holds a distinct status in islamic tradition—an aspect overlooked in bellamy’s studies.