Qur’anic studies in international academia, particularly since the nineteenth century, have undergone remarkable transformations. The entry of the Qur’an as a sacred text into the domain of scientific inquiry took shape through the application of critical, historical, and philosophical methods derived from biblical studies and Western religious sciences, gradually giving rise to diverse currents in Qur’anic research. Each of these currents, grounded in its own principles, presuppositions, and methods, has engaged in the identification, analysis, and critique of the Qur’an and related texts. Among these currents, contextualism and phenomenology have played a pivotal role as the two principal and most influential approaches in shaping Qur’anic studies within international academia.
The contextualist current, emphasizing the historical, cultural, and social contexts of the Qur’an’s revelation and drawing upon historical-critical and philological methods, seeks a more precise understanding of Qur’anic verses in light of the conditions of time and place and their interaction with Jewish and Christian sacred texts. Employing diverse historical and linguistic sources, this approach endeavors to examine the Qur’an not as an isolated text but as part of a broader cultural-historical context. Focusing on the particular historical and social conditions of Shi’i communities, this current has studied issues such as the notion of the Qur’an’s falsification (taḥrīf) from the perspective of its historical-social context, generating a variety of perspectives (Bar-Asher, 1999, 47-48; Brunner, 2005, 6-7; Kohlberg, 1972, 216-223).
The phenomenological current, by contrast, focusing on religious experience and the nature of the sacred, has offered a philosophical, hermeneutical, and symbolic approach to the Qur’an and religious doctrines. Emphasizing symbolic language, mythology, and the analysis of religious experiences, this current seeks to understand religion from within the experience of believers and in their own domain. The phenomenology of religion entered Shi’i Qur’anic studies in international academia particularly through works such as those of Meir Bar-Asher, Annemarie Schimmel, and Karen Armstrong, and by adopting a comparative perspective toward Shi’i doctrines, it has accorded a distinctive place to concepts such as imamate, messianism (mahdawiyyah), and the role of the Ahl al-Bayt (Schimmel, 1376/1997, 298-301; Armstrong, 1390/2011, 81-82; Bar-Asher, 1399/2020, 175). Despite the significance of this approach, serious criticisms have been leveled against it, chiefly emphasizing its epistemological limitations and its insufficient attention to historical and theological contexts (Alizadeh Mousavi, 2024, 101-109).
In this article, while precisely identifying the principles, foundations, and methods of these two currents, an attempt has been made to conduct a pathological and scholarly critique of the views arising from them in the study of the Qur’an and Shi’i doctrines in international academia. The particular focus on Shi’i Qur’anic studies in international academia, the examination of works produced and views advanced in this field, the subsequent identification of the two currents of contextualism and phenomenology therein, and finally the critical analysis of these two currents based on their methodological principles and foundations, constitute among the distinguishing features that set this research apart from other studies written on this subject.
The background of this research can be divided into two distinct domains. The first domain, which may also be regarded as the sources of this research, consists of works and studies written by Western Qur’anic scholars on Shi’i Qur’anology.
These works, which have predominantly addressed Shi’i Qur’anic sciences, exegetical, and doctrinal topics, serve as a resource for identifying the principal currents of Shi’i Qur’anic studies. The second domain, which in fact constitutes the specific background of this research, comprises works and studies that have undertaken the critique and analysis of these studies (see Alizadeh Mousavi, 2020).
