دراسة مقارنة لمنهجي الصابوني وأحمد شاكر في اختصار وتحقيق تفسير ابن كثير

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analysis of Muhammad Ali Al-Sabuni's abridgment and Ahmad Muhammad Shakir's edited abridgment of Ibn Kathir's Qur'anic Exegesis, focusing on their respective approaches to Israeli narrations (Isra'iliyyat) and their commitment to the principles of scholarly abridgment. The significance of the study stems from the distinguished status of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir and the numerous attempts to abridge it in order to facilitate its accessibility while preserving its scientific value. Employing the comparative method, the research analyzes selected passages from Ibn Kathir's Tafsir and evaluates how both scholars dealt with Israeli narrations, weak reports, and textual fidelity. The findings reveal that Ahmad Shakir remained largely faithful to the methodology he outlined in his introduction by eliminating Israeli narrations and weak traditions, preserving Ibn Kathir's reliance on interpreting the Qur'an through the Qur'an, and maintaining the integrity of the original text. In contrast, the study demonstrates that Al-Sabuni did not consistently adhere to his declared methodology, as he retained a number of Israeli narrations and introduced editorial interventions that affected the faithful transmission of Ibn Kathir's original wording in certain instances. Consequently, the research concludes that Ahmad Shakir's abridgment is methodologically more reliable and closer to Ibn Kathir's original approach. The study further recommends establishing unified scholarly standards for abridging classical Qur'anic commentaries in order to preserve textual authenticity, eliminate unreliable and Israeli reports, and enhance the quality of contemporary Qur'anic studies.