Abstract

This research critically examines the validity of the semantic methodologies of Toshihiko Izutsu (emphasizing synchronic and diachronic analysis) and Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr (focusing on thematic exegesis and systematic questioning) in elucidating the semantic evolution of the word “‘Adl” (Justice). This term, particularly in seemingly contradictory verses 3 and 129 of Surah An-Nisa, has been a focal point of interpretative challenges within both Shi’a and Sunni traditions. Employing a comparative-analytical method with a comprehensive inductive approach, this study gathers data from twelve early to late Shi’a and twelve early to late Sunni exegetical commentaries.

Initially, the semantic field of “‘Adl” was analyzed using Izutsu’s tools, including associative and substitutive relations and its evolution from the pre-Islamic era to the contemporary period. Subsequently, it was analyzed through Sadr’s systematic questioning, examining related concepts such as taqwa (piety), qist (equity), and mu’allaqah (dependency/suspension, context-dependent).

The findings indicate that Izutsu’s method successfully maps structural oppositions (e.g., practical/heartfelt), but it proves insufficient in explaining the context of revelation, specific historical-narrative backgrounds, and the Quran’s educational and reformative dimensions. Conversely, Sadr’s methodology, by extracting a realistic socio-educational model, holds greater validity for contemporary application. It offers a dynamic framework for analyzing Quranic concepts and addressing the needs of familial justice while preserving Islamic coherence.

Ultimately, this research demonstrates that integrating both methodologies can lead to a more comprehensive and balanced analysis of Quranic concepts.