Quranic Studies and Islamic Culture

Abstract Introduction
Since the late 19th century, when language began to acquire a philosophical dimension, the groundwork for understanding the proper function of language alongside other sciences was established. The term “pragmatics” emerged in the late 1930s in the United States, marking a development that spanned over a century and positioned pragmatics in relatively comprehensive relation with ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology (Niu, 2023: 54). In 1938, Charles Morris, a professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago, proposed pragmatics as a component of a semiotic theory (the theory of signs), which studied signs in terms of their relations to objects (semantics), to one another (syntax), and to persons (pragmatics) (Morris, 1938). Many scholars assert that pragmatics originates from the concept of “how to do things with words,” introduced by John L. Austin (1911–1960). C. Levinson (1947–), Geoffrey Leech (1936–2014), Noam Chomsky (1928–), and others have continually developed and expanded speech act theory, which has now significantly matured and flourished (Niu, 2023: 54–55).
A review of pragmatics studies in Iran, based on searches in databases such as Elmnet and the Iranian Scientific Information Database (GANJ), shows the earliest research dating back to the 1980s. In 1983, a master’s thesis in English Language and Literature titled “The Effect of Explicit Pragmatic Instruction on the Comprehension and Production of Speech Acts by Iranian EFL Students” was completed by Azizollah Fattahi Milasi under the supervision of Zohreh Eslami Rasekh at Iran University of Science and Technology, utilizing John Searle’s speech act theory (Fattahi Milasi, 1983). Gradually, further research emerged across various disciplines, including studies related to the Qur’an. The Holy Qur’an, as the eternal miracle of Islam, represents one of the most important sacred text-based treasures, which has been the subject of significant pragmatic studies. This paper attempts a systematic review to examine approaches and orientations in pragmatic research on the Qur’an in Iran. A systematic review of studies in any thematic field reveals statistical data in various dimensions, approaches, orientations, research gaps, challenges, and opportunities.
 
Research background
 
A comprehensive and systematic review of pragmatic studies on the Qur’an in Iran, covering 281 works (books, theses, and articles), has not yet been conducted. While scholars like Ali Sharifi (2020), Sajedeh Banaei et al. (2021), Amini et al. (2022), and Haji Akbari & Hosseini (2023, 2024) have explored related areas—such as linguistic approaches, interdisciplinary trends, and meta-analyses of Qur’anic research—these studies have been limited in scope or focused on specific journals, models, or themes. The present study stands out for its systematic review of four decades of pragmatic Qur’anic research in Iran, offering both statistical analysis and a critical evaluation of trends, approaches, and scholarly orientations.
 
Research method
 
The present study is a systematic review. Systematic review is, in fact, an observational study of existing research (Cook, 1997) and, like other research types, consists of three main stages: 1) precise identification of the problem, 2) collection and analysis of information, and 3) interpretation of results (Hall, 2003: 92–98). Accordingly, after clearly defining the issue and setting the objective—namely, to identify and analyze pragmatic studies on the Qur’an in Iran—the authors conducted keyword searches such as “pragmatics,” “discourse analysis,” “utterance,” “speech act,” “context,” “intentionality,” “intended meaning,” “speaker meaning,” “implicit meaning,” “speech act,” “text,” “contextual meaning,” “intent analysis,” and “textual analysis” in search engines and databases including IranDoc, Elmnet, NoorMags, Magiran, Civillika, as well as websites of linguistics journals. Relevant research works were thus collected. For data extraction and analysis of the identified studies, an analytical-content table was used, containing sections such as research title, authors, academic specialization and field, year of publication, abstract, keywords, and finally the determination of affiliation to a particular linguistic theory. It should be noted that if the research was a published journal article, the journal’s name was recorded, and if it was a thesis, the university name was included. The authors classified the studies in four separate tables according to the decades of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 1400s (Persian calendar).
 
 
 
 
Result
Pragmatic-oriented research in Iran has generally been produced since at least the 1980s (Persian calendar decade 1360s), with the majority being master’s theses in the field of English Language. According to conducted reviews, the first Qur’anic study with a pragmatic approach dates back to the 1990s (Persian calendar decade 1370s) and is a master’s thesis in English Language entitled “Context and the Holy Qur’an,” completed at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Until the 1990s, only researchers in the English Language field engaged in pragmatic studies related to the Qur’an, with their number not exceeding four. Statistically, the most frequently used theories are those of Austin and Searle. In terms of authors’ specialization and academic discipline, the field of Qur’anic and Hadith Sciences ranks first, followed by Arabic Language and Literature, and English Language in second and third places, respectively. Although, out of a total of 490 authors identified in the extracted studies, 290 belonged to various language-related fields (including Arabic Language and Literature, Linguistics, English Language, Persian Language and Literature, French, and German), indicating a clear dominance of pragmatic Qur’anic research by scholars from language disciplines. Among theses, Shiraz University holds the highest frequency. Among journals, the Journal of Linguistic Studies of the University of Isfahan ranks first. Three main approaches were identified in pragmatic studies of the Qur’an: 1) Discourse analysis and speech acts in the Qur’an, 2) Comparison and evaluation of Qur’anic translations, and 3) Ontology, assessment, and localization of pragmatic theories in Qur’anic studies. The first approach is analyzed through three orientations: “problem-solving and addressing doubts,” “application of Qur’anic teachings,” and “implementation and discovery of speech acts.” A potential drawback in applying pragmatic theories is the neglect of the linguistic theories’ origin and validity concerning the sacred text and the Qur’anic language. The second approach compares and evaluates translations in various ways, such as examining the influence of the translator’s discourse gender or the translators’ success in conveying the situational context of the Arabic text into Persian, based on linguistic theories. In the third approach, most studies focus on the ontology of pragmatic theories, their validation and verification, and efforts toward localization, innovation, and integration of pragmatic theories specific to the Qur’anic text. Other approaches may have been overlooked by the authors, warranting further research. Additionally, as a limitation, it was found that searching scientific databases such as NoorMags, Elmnet, and Magiran does not always retrieve all relevant studies using the chosen keywords. Therefore, despite being time-consuming, reviewing individual journal websites yielded more accurate results for researchers.

Abstract Introduction
Justice is one of the concepts and values ​​that human religions and schools of thought have addressed for thousands of years. Justice, which literally means equality and the opposite of oppression, has various meanings in terminology and is somewhat ambiguous and multifaceted. Various words, including justice and fairness, and dozens of verses in the Holy Quran express the importance and necessity of justice in individual and social relationships. However, the concept of justice is not the same for all interpreters and readers of the Holy Quran in different eras. In fact, on the one hand, justice has different aspects, and on the other hand, the concept and mindset of commentators about justice has changed throughout history.
Research Background
Martyr Morteza Motahhari (d. 1979), a 14th-century Hijri scholar, proposed three balanced meanings for justice within the framework of Quranic teachings: balance (moderation), equality and non-discrimination, and ultimately, the observance of individuals' rights—that is, granting each rightful claimant their due. According to Motahhari, justice is interconnected with issues such as determinism and free will, intrinsic good and evil, and the purposes and ends of actions, and has been discussed from philosophical, theological, and even jurisprudential perspectives. On the other hand, justice is also tied to social matters, as it inherently carries the meaning of opposition to oppression (Motahhari, 2023: 21-56). The concept of justice carries distinct meanings across various disciplines.In Imami theology, justice is defined as granting rights according to one's capability and qualification (Shaykh al-Mufid, 1413 AH: p. 103).In moral philosophy  justice refers to virtuous disposition of the soul that enables a person to  oderate all attributes and actions , allowing the ational faculty to govern and prevail over other faculties (Naraqi, n.d.: vol. 1, p. 51; Naraqi, 1999: p. 78). Muslim philosophers  regard justice as a sychic force that balances the  appetitive ( shahwiyya ), irascible ( ghadabiyya ), and imaginative ( wahmiyya ) faculties, preventing excess and deficiency (Mulla Sadra, 1982: p. 264). In Islamic jurisprudence , most jurists contrast justice with  moral corruption ( fisq) , equating it with avoiding major and minor sins (Najafi, 2012: vol. 13, p. 144).In the social sciences , justice entails safeguarding public welfare and ensuring  all members of society enjoy political, economic, and social rights .  
 Research Method
This article, using a library method and a descriptive historical approach, and It has analyzed the viewpoints of interpreters related to justice across different historical periods
Result
The analysis reveals that the concept of justice among Quranic commentators has been distinctly defined in each historical period, subsequently evolving through later eras. Judicial justice - meaning the impartiality and fairness of judges in verdicts - represents the earliest conception of justice among Quranic exegetes.Following the emergence of theological schools in the Islamic world, creative justice (al-'adl al-takwīnī) developed as justice manifest in creation and cosmic phenomena. Subsequently, with the spread of humanist and socialist ideologies, new conceptions took shape in commentators' thought: social and economic justice. More recently, interpretive works have begun articulating gender justice as another dimension of this evolving paradigm.

Abstract Introduction
The miracle of the Holy Quran depends on the combination of words and their application. Therefore, it is necessary to reflect on the verses that speak about a specific axis with different combinations. One group of these verses is the four verses that refer to the guidance of the Prophet (PBUH) and express the recitation, purification, and teaching of the Book and wisdom with different combinations as stages of guidance. The careful analysis of this group of verses, in addition to being an approach to the miracle of the Quran, also illuminates the guidance strategy for educators based on the stages of guidance in the Quran.
The research question is, from a Quranic perspective, what is the relationship between the combination of these words? Should purification be prioritized over teaching or teaching over purification, or is simultaneousness the most desirable method?
Research background
Numerous studies have been conducted regarding the order of recitation, purification, and teaching in the verses of the Quran. Since the focus of this article is on criticizing the views of commentators, this section will provide a general review of related research, which is mainly based on Quranic interpretations:
In total, three main views have been put forward in this field

Time limit for the priority of purification over education

Some researchers consider the priority of purification over education to be limited to the specific conditions of the Prophethood era and do not consider it a comprehensive educational principle.
Mohammad Hassani (2006) states in an article with this approach: “The priority of purification over education in the verses of the Quran is focused on the specific social conditions of the Prophethood era and is not considered a general and permanent rule in education. Also, this priority is more concerned with the specific content of the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH), and the assumption of the rank priority of purification over education causes a false separation and distinction between education and upbringing.” (Hosani, 2006: p. 119)
This view is a matter of reflection, considering the finality of the Prophet (PBUH) and the eternity of the Quran; because finality requires that divine commands be valid for all ages. In addition, the argument of this theory is based on the lack of distinction between education and upbringing, while in the Quran, the word "education" is used to mean physical and bodily development (Isra: 24). Accordingly, this theory's reliance on the lack of distinction between education and upbringing requires revision (Baqari, 2007, vol. 4: p. 38)

Education is the prelude to purification

The second view considers education to be prior to purification and cites verse 129 of Surah Al-Baqarah, in which education is prior to purification. Allama Tabataba'i (1417 AH) states:
"The verse in which education is given priority over purification is in the position of the request of the Prophet Abraham (AS) to God. Since in the external world, knowledge is the prelude to action, in this verse education is mentioned before purification. However, in the verses in which purification is given priority over education, it is a description of the way the Prophet (PBUH) raised the believers, and in this position, purification takes priority over education." (Tabatabai, Vol. 19: p. 447)
According to this theory, knowledge of religious teachings is a factor in creating motivation for purification. However, this view does not pay attention to the fact that the necessary knowledge for purification is not achieved solely through the study of the Book and wisdom. Rather, reciting the verses can also provide this knowledge. This point will be examined in the section on criticism of interpretations

The priority of purification over education

The third view accepts the priority of purification over education as a Quranic principle and considers it to be based on the verses of the Quran itself
Zahra Abbasi (2012) writes in her thesis, examining the priority and delay of education and purification: “In the prayer of Prophet Abraham (PBUH), the priority of education over purification indicates the natural state of teaching theoretical sciences, but in cases where purification is mentioned first, this priority is not temporal, but rather a priority of rank. In these cases, the meaning of knowledge is present and intuitive knowledge that can only be achieved through purification and purification of the soul.” (Abbasi, 2012, abstract)
These two views are based on different Quranic interpretations. However, given that the concepts of recitation, purification, and teaching have the same meaning in all four verses, and the purpose of prayer and response in training is the same, these interpretations can also be criticized and will be examined in the following sections of the article.
Research method
This research, with the approach of content analysis and reflection on Quranic verses, examines the above reasons and shows that considering the commonality between the official context of requesting training and the official context of its realization, as well as the unity of the subject of prayer and response (training) and the priority of recitation as a prerequisite for both categories of purification and training, these interpretations cannot justify the difference in combination.
Result
In interpretations, the reasons for the difference in combination of recitation, purification, and teaching in four verses of the Holy Quran can be summarized in two general reasons: 1. Difference in official context 2. Difference in external existence with importance and rank.
In our opinion, the combination of recitation, purification, and teaching in all four verses is based on the order of the stages of guidance. Considering the human perspective and horizontal perspective and throughout his time, Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) considers the sequence of guidance to be the accompaniment of recitation by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the teaching of the Book and wisdom by him in order to provide the prerequisites for purification and then the purification of individuals throughout history and based on the prerequisites provided by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and asks God for it. And God Almighty, in response to his prayer, states recitation, purification and teaching of the Book and wisdom as the correct sequence of stages of guidance and emphasizes this sequence in three verses and with this difference, states the accompaniment, purification as the introduction to accepting the Book and wisdom in the sense of the Quran and guardianship.
Considering the presence of the component of recitation in all three verses before purification and teaching, the problem of the necessity of teaching before purification is also eliminated. In other words, with a comprehensive look at these three components, there is no need to justify the appearance of the verses.

Abstract Studies on "Women and Gender" have attracted the attention of contemporary researchers in recent decades. Among these, some scholars in the field of Islamic studies have established a connection between gender studies and the status of women in the Quran, referring to the interpretations of commentators on verses related to women in their analyses. Karen Bauer is a contemporary thinker who, in her book "Gender Hierarchies in the Quran: medieval Interpretations, Modern Responses," examines the views of Muslim scholars on the interpretation of verses concerning "gender hierarchies."
Among the various foundations that Bauer adopts in her research, "the impact of intellectual context and social conditions on interpretation" is her significant theoretical basis.
Bauer sees addressing social concerns as a result of the changing intellectual context of modern scholars and their common ground, which over time has led to a change in the way interpretations are written. Among modern scholars, conservatives, while adhering to previous interpretations, provide scientific and rational justifications in defense of them. In contrast, reformists seek to provide interpretations that are in line with contemporary needs, and therefore, while incorporating their prior knowledge and employing "interpretative hermeneutics," they reinterpret verses. This is while justified and permissible channel of prior knowledge in interpretation should be taken into consideration and imposing prior knowledge on the text and interpretation by opinion should be avoided. In addition, it should be noted that the presentation of "contemporary interpretation" must be systematic and aimed at answering the questions of the age and time, otherwise it will lead to "modernization of religious knowledge" and "pluralism of understandings" which is in conflict with the guiding purpose of the Quran. In the present study, the effect of intellectual context and social conditions on the interpretation of verses regarding gender hierarchy is explained and the results based on it are evaluated using a descriptive-analytical method.

Abstract .

Introduction

The profound transformations in the Islamic world over the past century have reshaped all spheres of society. Within this dynamic context, the "woman issue" faced heightened challenges. In contemporary religious discourse, any perspective on women inherently necessitates a stance on hijab. These viewpoints, despite cultural diversity, are rooted in the Qur’an as the primary source and its interpretation. This study emphasizes a fundamental distinction in Islamic rulings: some injunctions are timeless, while others were revealed in response to specific social contexts, making it unreasonable to expect fixed implementation details across all historical periods. The latter category can be termed "social injunctions," meaning their revelation was based on the social exigencies of the time of revelation and they possess the capacity for adaptation to changing spatio-temporal circumstances.  
The central research question is: Can hijab also be classified as one of these social injunctions and thus evolve according to social exigencies? Accordingly, the subsidiary research questions are: How are the social exigencies of the hijab injunction manifested in the Qur’anic verses? ; What differing explanations regarding the scope and philosophy of hijab have contemporary Muslim intellectuals offered in response to modern social changes?  

Background

Extensive research on hijab, employing diverse approaches, has examined topics such as precise juristic rulings on dress, the individual and social effects of hijab, the government's role in enforcing it, the chronology of hijab verses, and the evolution of their interpretations. Key studies relevant to this research include:  

1. Purely Jurisprudential-Exegetical Studies: Some research (e.g., the article "The Juristic Ruling on Women's Dress Based on Verse 59 of Al-Ahzab") focused on the literal meanings of the verses (e.g., the term "jilbab"), concluding, for instance, that comprehensive coverings like the chador are perpetually obligatory, without centering the analysis on the social context of revelation.  
2. Semantic Analyses: Studies like "The Semantic Analysis of the Verse 'That is more suitable that they should be known' Regarding Hijab" concentrated on analyzing the wisdom and philosophy of hijab (distinguishing chaste women from non-chaste) but paid less attention to the relationship between this wisdom and changing social conditions.
3. Debates on the Individual/Social Nature of the Ruling: Works such as "The Obligation of Hijab: An Individual Ruling with Social Effects" investigated arguments for the inherently individual or social nature of the hijab ruling. Accepting its individual aspect, they emphasized the necessity of governmental intervention due to its social effects. This perspective differs from this study's definition of "social" (capacity for change based on temporal exigencies).
4. Evolution of Exegesis: Research like "The Historical Evolution of Exegesis of Qur'anic Hijab Verses" demonstrated the evolution of interpretations of hijab verses throughout history, primarily within official theological exegeses.

The primary gap addressed by this study is the scarcity of research that simultaneously investigates the following two axes with a focus on 'social nature' as adaptability to temporal exigencies:  
   Contextual and Social Reexamination of the Qur'anic Text Itself: Deep analysis of the socio-historical context of the hijab verses, demonstrating the intrinsic link between the ruling and the specific conditions of its revelation as evidence of its inherent "social" nature.  
   Analysis of Contemporary Intellectual Perspectives in Interaction with Society: Focusing on the views of intellectuals (beyond traditional exegetes) who have directly engaged with modern social challenges and have attempted to offer interpretations of hijab suited to these new exigencies. Contrary to the predominant literature focusing on intra-textual developments within exegesis, this study centers on the evolution in the sociological and intellectual perspectives of Muslim thinkers confronting shifting social realities.  

Methodology

This study employs a qualitative approach using a descriptive-analytical method. Data was collected and analyzed from two main sources:  

1. Sacred Texts (Qur’an): Key verses related to hijab were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, focusing on explaining themes. The primary objective was extracting and describing the social dimensions embedded within these verses. This included analyzing the historical-social context of revelation, understanding the initial audience's perspective, key concepts within the context of the revelation era, and the reasons or wisdom stated within the verses themselves.
2. Opinions and Views of Contemporary Muslim Intellectuals: A spectrum of views from Muslim scholars and intellectuals from the Constitutional Era onwards, who addressed the issue of hijab and related social transformations, were examined. The primary method in this section was descriptive analysis of these opinions, aiming to describe and explain the intellectual evolution of these thinkers in confronting the challenges of modernity

4.Results
   Verse 59 of Al-Ahzab: A contextual reexamination revealed that the injunction to use the "jilbab" (a comprehensive outer garment) was a direct response to a tangible social problem in Medina: the harassment of believing women by hypocrites. Its primary objective was to establish a social distinction to identify and protect them. The initial interpretation of this distinction as separating free women from enslaved women (a product of the prevailing social context of slavery), and its subsequent evolution after the abolition of slavery into distinguishing chaste women from non-chaste, clearly demonstrates that interpreters understood this verse as belonging to its social context and adaptable to changing societal conditions. This verse is strong evidence for a ruling issued based on specific social exigencies (Social Imperative).  
   Verse 31 of An-Nur: The primary purpose of this verse is to establish the general principle of "social chastity". While foundational commands like "lowering the gaze" and "guarding chastity" are explicit, the directives concerning women's dress (the scope of the "khimar" [head covering], what constitutes "zeenah" [adornments]) suffer from ambiguity and lack of detail. This ambiguity indicates that the practical realization of this "social chastity" is inherently dependent on the customary understanding and socio-cultural context of the audience community. Just as the original audience understood the verse's intent based on their own norms and conditions, Muslim communities across different eras have necessarily determined the specifics and manner of observing this public chastity according to their own cultural and social exigencies. This inherently contextual and flexible nature of the dress directives in this verse further confirms the social nature of the hijab injunction.  
  The engagement of Muslim intellectuals with modern social transformations (especially the necessity of women's education and social presence) led to a fundamental revision of the traditional view of hijab, which included elements like seclusion (pardeh), covering the entire body including the face, and restrictions on social presence.  
   This revision was accompanied by the introduction of new foundational concepts, including criticism of seclusion and the face veil (burqa). Heated debates about removing the face veil paved the way for novel juristic discussions concerning the actual boundaries of hijab and challenged the alleged consensus of earlier jurists on fixed, unchangeable limits.  
   Some intellectuals went further, proposing the need for a renewed reading of the hijab issue, emphasizing the necessity of returning to the fundamental principles and essence of Sharia and understanding rulings in light of evolving social conditions.  
Overally, Hijab is a social, not just individual, phenomenon. Its meaning and boundaries evolve with societal changes, prompting continuous reinterpretation by scholars across eras.

Abstract Introduction
One of the most well-known historical controversies concerning the Qur’an pertains to the expression "O sister of Aaron" (Yā ukhta Hārūn) used in reference to Mary, the mother of Jesus (Qur’an 19:28). This phrase has been a focal point of interreligious debate between Muslims and Christians from the earliest Islamic centuries. According to various hadith sources, including accounts cited by al-Suyuti, Christians in Najran challenged the Prophet Muhammad’s envoy, al-Mughīra ibn Shu‘ba, regarding the temporal discrepancy between Aaron, the brother of Moses, and Mary, mother of Jesus, questioning how they could be siblings despite the centuries that separate them. While the authenticity of this hadith may be debated, its presence in early Islamic literature confirms the antiquity of this theological challenge.
Critics, particularly among Western orientalists and scholars of the Bible, have argued that this expression reflects a confusion on the Prophet’s part between Mary (Maryam) and Miriam (sister of Moses and Aaron), allegedly due to his indirect knowledge of Biblical narratives. In response, Muslim scholars and exegetes have offered a range of interpretations, rooted primarily in traditional and historical frameworks. As this study reveals, there are approximately 14 distinct theories proposed to resolve this issue. This article aims to critically and analytically assess these various interpretations. The central research question is: among the 14 proposed explanations, which hold the strongest evidential and interpretive merit, and why?
Research background
Beyond the interpretations offered by exegetes, numerous scholarly studies have been conducted on the subject of this research. To the best of the author’s knowledge, these investigations have yielded fourteen distinct hypotheses, which will be addressed in detail throughout the main text of this study. A number of these valuable contributions are as follows:

Al-Sa‘idi (1313 AH): Adopting a comparative approach, he argues that Mary was maternally descended from Aaron and, after the death of her parents, was genealogically connected to the priestly household of Zechariah, a descendant of Aaron. He maintains that this new affiliation justifies the Qur’anic titles “daughter of ʿImrān” and “sister of Aaron.” However, this argument lacks historical support and contradicts established Jewish inheritance customs, which do not allow such lineage affiliation except through a son-in-law.
Erjan Çelik (n.d.): Çelik interprets verses 33–37 of Sūrat Āl ʿImrān as relating to the biblical narrative of Amram and his wife Jochebed, suggesting that Miriam was the initial response to Jochebed’s prayer, with Mary being the ultimate fulfillment. This conceptual link allows the Qur’an to refer to Mary as “daughter of ʿImrān” or “sister of Aaron.” However, this hypothesis lacks coherence with the thematic structure of the surah and fails to yield convincing conclusions.
Angelika Neuwirth (2005, 2009): In her works, Neuwirth views the reference to Mary as “sister of Aaron” in Sūrat Maryam as a typological identification with the biblical prophetess Miriam. She argues that this reflects early Christian exegetical efforts to parallel the stories of Moses with those of Mary and Jesus. Though more nuanced than other Orientalists, her claims—such as the later insertion of the verses to appeal to Jewish audiences—remain debatable.
Mohammad Shokri et al. (2016): These scholars argue that the title “sister of Aaron” has long been problematic for critics of the Qur’an due to the lack of a direct historical reference to Mary having a brother named Aaron. They suggest, based on the Prophet Muhammad’s response to Mughīra ibn Shuʿba, that the expression is an honorific or metaphorical title common in Jewish-Arabic usage. While their criticism of classical exegeses is justified, their proposed solution remains open to further scrutiny.
Tuyserkani (2007): Contrary to the claims of Orientalists, he maintains that the Qur’an makes no confusion between Miriam and Mary, nor between ʿImrān and Amram. He argues that the confusion arises from misinterpretation, suggesting that Mary’s father might have been Joachim (as in apocryphal gospels), with ʿImrān being the Arabic equivalent. Despite aiming to defend the Qur’an, his views rest primarily on conjecture rather than solid evidence.
Azam Sadat Shabani et al. (2023): Drawing from Christian typological hermeneutics and Qur’anic exegetical traditions, these researchers claim that Mary, like her cousin Elizabeth, belonged to the priestly class and thus was associated with Aaron's lineage. They assert that the phrase “sister of Aaron” aligns with Semitic language norms and cultural conventions. Nevertheless, their interpretation assumes a priestly role for Mary that is not substantiated by Qur’anic discourse, which remains silent on such affiliations.
Eyvazi (2013): Through a comparative study, he highlights that the canonical Gospels do not mention Mary’s parents, and even Christian exegetes view Joachim traditions as weak. He posits that Mary was paternally from the tribe of Judah and maternally linked to the tribe of Levi, justifying the title “sister of Aaron.” This explanation, grounded in social and tribal realities of the time, is among the more plausible interpretations.
Sabbah (2011): Examining commonalities between the Qur’anic and Gospel accounts, Sabbah contends that the Qur’an symbolically connects Mary to the prophetic and priestly household of Amram, paralleling the biblical Miriam, sister of Moses. He sees the title “sister of Aaron” not as literal, but as emphasizing Mary’s spiritual and theological affiliation with a revered lineage. His symbolic interpretation reflects an effort to honor Mary’s exalted status within the prophetic tradition.
Ali-Mohammadi (2012): He critiques Sabbah’s position, arguing that the Qur’anic narrative elevates Mary’s lineage in contrast to the Gospels' silence. From his perspective, the Qur’an seeks to defend Mary against the slanders of the Jews, emphasizing her noble ancestry. He views the reference to ʿImrān as a defense mechanism to affirm Mary’s and Jesus’s sanctity and prophetic dignity within a hostile socio-religious context.

Research method
The method of this article is analytical-critical method, employing both historical and literary approaches.
Result
Research findings indicate that among the 14 existing possibilities, the strongest probability is an indirect lineage-based or genealogical connection between Mary and Aaron. This view is reinforced by narrative and contextual evidence and aligns with the literary exegesis of the Qur’an. Following this, the probability of a genealogical link through a namesake half-brother of Aaron holds significant credibility, as it does not conflict with the verse’s context or other logical principles, though it diverges from rhetorical and literary-exegetical approaches. Finally, the likelihood of Maryam’s resemblance to Aaron in terms of priestly status ranks third among the most probable views on this matter.