Anthropology in Bayan-us-sa,adah’s Exegetic and it’s comparison in Javadi Amoli’s Exegetic works.

Based on a descriptive-analytical research method and using the library data concerned, this thesis seeks to do a comparative survey on the viewpoints of the interpreters, Soltan Mohammad Gonabadi and Javadi Amoli regarding the human being and his position in the cosmos. With separation of the different domains of anthropology and with emphasis on some areas, including the areas related with the metaphysical existence of human being, we describe the viewpoints of these two famous interpreters and do a comparative analysis on anthropological viewpoints of them and prove that on many aspects their ideas are analogous, although their methods of analysis and description are different. Therefore, we believe that although each one of these two interpreters has exclusive interpretative method, there is agreement between them about Ta’vil in total, because they both believe Ta’vil is not about words and their apparent meanings, but about reality of verses; the relation between the verses and their Ta’vil is the relation between the examples and what the examples refers to, or the relation between the external and internal.

Regarding the definition of arbitrary interpretation, Javadi Amoli defines it as general, that is whether the interpretation caused by ignorance or caused by foolishness, both are arbitrary interpretation, but in Gonabadi^,s view only the interpretation caused by foolishness is arbitrary interpretation. So apart from the interpretation method and definition of human being and perfect human, in most cases the two interpreters have similar viewpoints. Although Gonabadi did not deliver a conceptual definition, in regard of actuality he considered as dead the human being who could not reach the position of Vilāyat (guardianship), a viewpoint to which Amoli approaches when he regards the human being as “the divine alive that will be dead”. In regard of definition of perfect human being, both of the interpreters also have common viewpoints and both consider the human being as comprehensive of creature position and divine position and both believe that human being is Kown-i-Jāmi‘ (Comprehensive Existence).

Regarding the concepts of Imamate and Khilāfat also – by considering of interpretative viewpoints of this two interpreters in the verses related with these concepts – we conclude that although there are some differences between them, we can see many common viewpoints between them too. But the main point in these differences is that Gonabadi in the interpretation of the verses related with Vilāyat (guardianship)’s topics have very extreme viewpoints, to the extent that in some verses he equalized God to Imams and it seems he is wrong in this point.