A Critique of Sheikh Hurr Amili’s Objection to the Remoteness Argument of Supporters of Quranic Interpretation

The issue of the authority (hujjiyyah) of understanding and interpreting the Quran by non-infallibles is one of the longstanding and contentious topics among Shia jurists and hadith scholars. This disagreement dates back to the very beginning of Islam and continues to the present day, giving rise to various approaches to Quranic exegesis. Among these approaches is the Akhbari school, which insists that the Quran must be interpreted only in conjunction with the narrations of the Infallibles (peace be upon them) and deems any interpretation without recourse to these narrations impermissible. Sheikh Hurr Amili, a prominent Shia scholar of the Safavid era and a key proponent of the Akhbari thought, addressed this issue in his book al-Fawa’id al-Tusiyyah. In it, he presented arguments against the permissibility of interpreting the Quran independently and questioned the applicability of the apparent meanings (zawahir) of the Quranic text as muhkamat (clear and decisive verses). His views remain a subject of scholarly debate and critique. One of the arguments he offered in support of his position is based on the concept of circular reasoning (dawr). However, since the interpretation of the Quran directly affects the understanding of religion, Islamic beliefs, lifestyle, and the application of religious rulings, it is noteworthy that Sheikh Hurr Amili—despite belonging to the Akhbari school, which typically dismisses rational argumentation—resorted to logical reasoning and discussed these issues in a work like al-Fawa’id al-Tusiyyah, which reflects his theological stance. This makes a critical analysis of his views essential. This research aims to examine and critique Sheikh Hurr Amili’s arguments, particularly his reasoning regarding the circularity of Quranic interpretation, and to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of his analyses—especially concerning the permissibility of interpreting the Quran.
Using a descriptive-analytical method, the study investigates the evidence he provides for the alleged circularity in interpreting the Quran. 
Despite extensive searches among existing studies, no research directly dedicated to this specific topic was found. However, related works include ‘Ulum al-Quran ‘ind al-Mufassirin (Quranic Sciences among the Exegetes) by Markaz al-Thaqafa wa al-Ma‘arif al-Quraniyya; Akhbariyyah (History and Beliefs) by Ebrahim Beheshti; Mabani Tafsir al-Quran (Foundations of Quranic Exegesis) by Reza Modarres; the article “The Authority of Understanding and Interpreting the Quran by Non-Infallibles in Shia Narrations” by Kazem Qazizadeh and Mohaddeseh Moghiminezhad Davarani; and the article “An Examination the Akhbari Theory on the Non-Authority of Quranic Apparent Meanings” by Mohammad Javad Salmanpour. A review of these works reveals that none has comprehensively and exclusively dealt with the topic under study. Therefore, this paper explores the issue in detail for the first time.
This study aims to provide both naqdi (refutational) and halli (resolving) responses to Sheikh Hurr Amili’s arguments and to demonstrate that, according to the majority of Shia and Sunni scholars, the apparent meanings of the Quranic verses possess authoritative value. On this basis, the interpretation of the Quran by non-infallibles is not only permissible but also an indispensable necessity for the correct understanding of religion.
The study shows that Sheikh Hurr Amili sought to present a logical argument to prove the impermissibility of interpreting the Quran without the narrations and to deny the authority of the Quran’s apparent meanings. However, as demonstrated, his reasoning faces multiple objections—both refutational and resolving—such as the problem of circularity in relying on the Quran’s authority while validating it through hadith, or the establishment of the authority of the Quran’s apparent meanings through various arguments, including rational proof and the sira ‘uqala’iyya (practice of rational people). Moreover, his general claim that the Quran is qat‘i al-sudur (certain in transmission) but zanni al-dalalah (probable in meaning), as opposed to hadith, is countered by multiple evidences.
From these findings, it can be concluded that, according to the well-established opinions of leading Shia and Sunni scholars, the apparent meanings of the Quran are authoritative, and consequently, interpreting the Quran is permissible—indeed, based on strong evidence, it is deemed a necessity. Only Akhbari scholars, such as Sheikh Hurr Amili, due to their foundational differences, maintain the impermissibility of interpreting the Quran without recourse to narrations, a position rejected by exegetes (mufassirun) and usulis (principlists).