بررسي تطبيقي آيات جهاد ابتدايي در شيعه و اهل سنت با تاكيد بر تفاسير فقهي

A comparative study of the verses of elementary jihad in Shia an‎d Sunni with an emphasis on jurisprudential interpretations

معارف اهل‌البيت(ع)

Offensive jihad is one of the controversial issues in Islamic jurisprudence an‎d has long been a point of dispute between Shiʹa an‎d Sunni jurists. The need to reexamine this topic arises from the fact that differing interpretations of the Qur’anic verses on fighting—particularly those in Surah al‑Tawbah—have had direct consequences for the legitimacy, scope, an‎d conditions of applying jihad within the realm of inter‑state relations an‎d religious security. This study employs a comparative‑analytical method, examining authoritative exegetical works an‎d jurisprudential sources from both traditions in order to analyze their interpretive an‎d legal foundations regarding offensive jihad. The innovation of this research lies in demonstrating—by emphasizing the role of two factors, namely the *historical context of the verses* an‎d the *requirement of Imamate* in Shiʹa jurisprudence, as opposed to the *perpetual applicability of the fighting verses* in Sunni jurisprudence—that the disagreement does not stem from the Qur’anic text itself but from differing theological foundations an‎d interpretive methodologies. Findings indicate that although the two schools share certain principles, such as the necessity of legitimate authority, eliminating injustice, an‎d confronting oppression, the scope, aims, an‎d conditions of implementing offensive jihad diverge significantly due to these differing foundations. In the Sunni perspective, the verses of jihad—especially the so‑called “Sword Verse”—are interpreted as establishing a permanent an‎d expansion‑oriented ruling, with “fitnah” considered a sufficient cause for offensive jihad. In contrast, Shiʹa jurisprudence, drawing on historical indicators an‎d the requirement of authorization from the infallible Imam, views offensive jihad as limited, conditional upon specific circumstances, an‎d often suspended. By clarifying the roots of these differences, this study contributes to a more precise understan‎ding of the structure of jihad‑related thought in Islamic jurisprudence.

5

158325