The present study aims at explicating the reasons for contradictions in the jurists and scholars’ exegeses of women socio-political rights in canonical religious texts. According to Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, contradictions in exegeses are rooted in interpreters’ presumptions, presuppositions, and expectations. With that in view, the present study, while mentioning various presumptions hold by different intellectual approaches, has attempted to provide their exegeses with regard to women socio-political rights. It could be revealed that the extent and type of rights advocated by various approaches are closely related to their attitudes towards women. In other words, traditionalists (relying excessively on canonical texts for personal and social jurisdictional affairs) do not permit women political activities. On the other hand, reformists (believing that only general laws, with some partial details, have been mentioned in the canonical texts, and the verdicts related to details should be discerned by intellect) hold favorite views towards women political activities, even in case of governance, and do not consider gender as a determining prerequisite.
Mehrvarzian, T. (2015). The Reasons for Contradictions in the Jurists and Scholars’ Exegeses of Women Socio-Political Rights in
Canonical Religious Texts. Women Studies, 6(12), 141-169.
MLA
Tahereh Mehrvarzian. "The Reasons for Contradictions in the Jurists and Scholars’ Exegeses of Women Socio-Political Rights in
Canonical Religious Texts". Women Studies, 6, 12, 2015, 141-169.
HARVARD
Mehrvarzian, T. (2015). 'The Reasons for Contradictions in the Jurists and Scholars’ Exegeses of Women Socio-Political Rights in
Canonical Religious Texts', Women Studies, 6(12), pp. 141-169.
VANCOUVER
Mehrvarzian, T. The Reasons for Contradictions in the Jurists and Scholars’ Exegeses of Women Socio-Political Rights in
Canonical Religious Texts. Women Studies, 2015; 6(12): 141-169.
)