Exegesis Of The Qur'an Through The Qur'an

Ahmad.G · January 30, 2011

If the Qur`an is an explainer of all things, then naturally it stands to reason that it would be an explainer of itself as well. Therefore, if there is some ambiguity in one verse of the Qur`an - and its ambiguity was for a purpose – we can resolve its ambiguity by referring to other verses which were revealed in regards to that same issue...

With complete clarity, the Qur`an introduces itself as the explainer of all things, when it states:

وَ نَزَّلْــنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِـبْـيَاناً لِّكُلِِّ شَيْءٍ

"And We have sent down The Book (Qur`an) upon you (Muhammad) as a clarifier of all things."[1]

If the Qur`an is an explainer of all things, then naturally it stands to reason that it would be an explainer of itself as well. Therefore, if there is some ambiguity in one verse of the Qur`an - and its ambiguity was for a purpose – we can resolve its ambiguity by referring to other verses which were revealed in regards to that same issue.

At this point, we present an example of this concept.

In Suratul Shu'ara (26), verse 173, Allah (swt) states the following in regards to the nation of (prophet) Lut ('a):

وَ أَمْطَرْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ مَّطَراً فَسَآءَ مَطَرُ الْمُـنْذَرِينَ

"And We rained down upon them a rain, and evil was the rain on those warned."

This verse gives us a glimpse of the sending down of something, however it is not clear what sort of precipitation this was – was it a spatter of water or was it a raining down of stones? Therefore to clear this issue up, another verse of the Qur`an, which removes the ambiguity of the verse quoted above, is referred to in which we are told:

...وَ أَمْطَرْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ حِجَارَةً مِّنْ سِجِّيلٍ...

"…and We rained down upon them stones made from baked clay…"[2]

The word "حِجَارَةٌ"(stones) is the word, which clears up the ambiguity in the first verse.

In order for us to truly comprehend this third point, we present another example.

In one instance in the Qur`an, we read the following:

هَلْ يَنْظُرُونَ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَّأْتِـيَهُمُ اللٌّهُ فِي ظُلَلٍ مِّنَ الْغَمَامِ وَالْمَلاَئِكَةُ وَقُضِيَ الأَمْرُ وَإِلـى اللٌّهِ تُرْجَعُ الأُمُورُ

"Will they wait until Allah comes to them in canopies of clouds, with Angels (in His train) and the question is (thus) settled? But to Allah do all affairs go back (for decision)."[3]

The apparent reading of this verse shows us that it is not free of ambiguity, since the coming and going of an object are characteristics for a physical entity and we know that the sacred essence of Allah (swt) is free from being a physical body. Thus, we must seek to remove the vagueness, which is contained in this verse through some other means.

One such way is to carefully review other similar verses of the Qur`an which repeat the same or close to the same wordings as this verse.

Such a similar verse is in Suratul Nahl (16), verse 33, which contains approximately the same wording. This other verse clearly shows us that the meaning of the 'coming of the Lord' as actually referring to the coming of 'the commandments' of Allah (swt) for the punishment and retribution and (also) the orders and prohibitions from Him:

هَلْ يَنْــظُرُونَ إِلاَّ أَنْ تَأْتِيَهُمُ الْمَلاَئِكَةُ أَوْ يَأْتِيَ أَمْرُ رَبِّكَ كَذٌلِكَ فَعَلَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَمَا ظَلَمَهُمُ اللٌّهُ وَلٌكِنْ كَانُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ

"Do they wait until the Angels come to them, or there comes the Command of your Lord (for their doom)? So did those who went before them (also wait). But Allah wronged them not, no, they wronged their own souls!"

With complete explicitness, this verse removes any ambiguity present in the first verse, and by adding the word "أمر"(the Command of Allah (swt)) the true subject of the verb 'come', is made clear.

This form of explanation (tafsir of one Qur`anic verse by another verse) is a certain and unfailing method, and is the tradition of the Imams of the Shi'a and is something which even until now is employed by the erudite commentator of the Qur`an.

The commentary of the Qur`an by the great teacher, Aqa [sayyid Muhammad Husayn] Tabataba'i entitled, al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur`an, has been written following this particular method of commentary.

Of course this issue is something different than the issue of 'looking at the harmony which exists between the verses of the Qur`an', which we shall cover in detail later on in this discussion.

At this stage, the goal is merely to present the synoptic view of a verse through employing another verse. However at the next level, our goal is something different and thus at that stage, in order to reach to our own deduction of understanding a verse, we must not keep other verses of the Qur`an out of our attention [and only look at one verse without paying attention to other verses on the same topic].

It is incorrect to assume that if a verse's apparent meaning is devoid of any ambiguity, one can interpret it without taking into regard those verses of the same issue and then attribute that meaning to Allah (swt)!

With that said, the difference between these two forms of commentary of the Qur`an should be clear to the reader.

http://www.abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=220970

Edited January 30, 2011 by Ahmad.G

**Fink** · January 31, 2011

While Allameh Tabtabai is big on this I personally do not see the logic of this concept. That's not to say it doesn't exist, it does but its limited.

Plus , that ayah you qouted is being used wrongly. The Quran does not explain all things- This is something basic. The verse applies to the message of Allah swt in general and not everything nor does it have anything to do with the Quran explaining itself.

Wasalam

The Persian Shah · January 31, 2011

What else do you propose?

Besides being flowery, as well having firm narrative proofs, it also possess a number of rational arguments. One:

1) Exegesis based upon prior philosophical, scientific, mystical, theological, social or political knowledge.

2) Exegesis based upon ahadith

3) Exegesis based upon other verses

The first is obviously forcing it's own views on The Noble Qur`an. The second is infeasible, since we simply don't have sufficient ahadith for each and every verse, although it is not entirely negated and this does not mean narrations are not used to support the primary method. The third possess none of these problems..

See "Quran in Islam" or the preface to "Al-Mizan" by Allameh Tabataba`i [QS], for more information, reasoning and logic on this methodology..

Replicant · January 31, 2011

I've seen some people call this method Qiyas. But I think it's a great method, and you can't really go wrong with it.

The Persian Shah · January 31, 2011

I've seen some people call this method Qiyas. But I think it's a great method, and you can't really go wrong with it.

What do you mean by that? Qiyas, as in jurispendence (fiqh), is a fallacious method of analogical reasoning. But qiyas in logic (mantiq) and philosophy (falsafa) means syllogism, a type of deductive proof which yields certainty (yaqeen)..

That latter I could accept, but if you are espousing the former, than that needs clarification..

guest 34193 · January 31, 2011

1 Ëæ ãÚ : ÇÈä ÇáæáíÏ ¡ Úä ÇÈä ÃÈÇä ¡ Úä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÓÚíÏ ¡ Úä ÇáäÖÑ Úä ÇáÞÇÓã Èä ÓáíãÇä ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÞÇá : ãÇ ÖÑÈ ÑÌá ÇáÞÑÂä ÈÚÖå ÈÈÚÖ ÅáÇ ßÝÑ

Thawab al-A`mal and Ma`ani al-Akhbar: Ibn al-Walid from Ibn Aban from al-Husayn b. Sa`id from an-Nadr from al-Qasim b. Sulayman from Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: A man has not struck part of the Quran by (another) part of it but that he does kufr.

**Fink** · January 31, 2011

Persian shah ,

How does the 3rd not have the noted problems?

how do we get the exegesis of the verses to use them ? So in reality, we go back to square 1: opinions imposed on the Quran. My point is that the Quran is so deep , its impossible, yes impossible to do full tafseer.

The way I see it, we can't have an absolute truth concerning this matter, and that's ok.

The Persian Shah · January 31, 2011

1 Ëæ ãÚ : ÇÈä ÇáæáíÏ ¡ Úä ÇÈä ÃÈÇä ¡ Úä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÓÚíÏ ¡ Úä ÇáäÖÑ Úä ÇáÞÇÓã Èä ÓáíãÇä ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÞÇá : ãÇ ÖÑÈ ÑÌá ÇáÞÑÂä ÈÚÖå ÈÈÚÖ ÅáÇ ßÝÑ
Thawab al-A`mal and Ma`ani al-Akhbar: Ibn al-Walid from Ibn Aban from al-Husayn b. Sa`id from an-Nadr from al-Qasim b. Sulayman from Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: A man has not struck part of the Quran by (another) part of it but that he does kufr.

Immaturity of your comments is always amusing. What even is your intention by posting this super-vague solitary hadith? I don't see the point in this constant trolling or creating unnecessary fitnah/confusion, just to show off your superficial knowledge. If you would like to make a point, please clarify, otherwise I do not think even mentioning the following in way of refutation is necessary here:

1) What do you think "struck" (ÖÑÈ) here even means? Apparently, it is not the same as combining two verses. Rather, it implies using one verse to negate another. As such, it even lends support to the tafsir method advanced by Allameh Tabataba`i [QS]. Thanks.

2) How does putting together two verses result in "unbelief" (ßÝÑ)? For example, consider the standard example (the two verses concerning the case of Lut), where the "rain" from one verse and the "stones" from another is put together, to deduce a "rain of stones". Even if somehow incorrect, how do you interpret this as kufr, except perhaps in a metaphorical way (in which case it _wouldn't_ be kufr)?

3) What do the rest of the narrations? The wealth of the corpus explicitly support the former proposition:

"Ali (a.s.) said, inter alia, speaking about the Qur'an in a sermon: "Its one part speaks with the other, and one portion testifies about the other."

Thus, it is clear that this narration does not disprove what you wish to create doubt about.

The Persian Shah · January 31, 2011

Persian shah ,
How does the 3rd not have the noted problems?
how do we get the exegesis of the verses to use them ? So in reality, we go back to square 1: opinions imposed on the Quran. My point is that the Quran is so deep , its impossible, yes impossible to do full tafseer.
The way I see it, we can't have an absolute truth concerning this matter, and that's ok.

Fink, I think the answer to your first question here is self-evident. It suffices just to pay attention to the definitions of each of the three possible methods stated.

Your following argument is not stated in a very logical form, however from what I understand:

I don't see why you jump to the conclusion that personal opinion is suddenly introduced. The verses of the Qur`an are placed as the two premises of a syllogistic argument to yield the respective conclusion. The only way to introduce opinion would be to combine one verse of the Qur`an as a one premise with the other premise being the opinion - but then this is the definition of the first method and not the third one. If you mean to say that our selection of which verses to use (where more than one is relevant), may influence and potentially yield different answers, then yes, this may be true - but it's not "opinion" - and there is no necessity in either one being wrong. It is well known in science of exegesis (tafsir) that one verse may have numerous meanings, on different levels and even on the same plane, all of which may be valid - and of which there are numerous examples for you to study:

"Of course, there are traditions narrated from the Prophet and the lmams of Ahlulbayt (a.s.) saying for example: "Verily the Qur'an has an exterior and an interior, and its interior has an interior up to seven (or according to a version, seventy) interiors"

http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/

In light of this, I agree with your comment that "full tafseer" or "absolute truth" (in sense of fathoming all the mysteries of one verse) may not be attained by all us, and the full knowledge remains with Allah's [sWT] specially chosen servants [AS]:

"That (this) is indeed a noble Qur'an. In a Book kept hidden. Which none toucheth save the purified" [56:77-79]

Gypsy · January 31, 2011

(salam)

I have great respect for the author of al-Mizan, Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei.

Personally, I don’t see a problem with using one verse to clarify, explain and elaborate another verse.

Apart from using the Quranic verse, the Allamah is also using hadeeths/traditions from ahlul bayt and employing other diverse areas (language, history etc) to write interpretation of the Quran.

Since he is not infallible, then it is possible to make mistakes. But don’t just focus on mistakes, see his complete work.

Here is a brief introduction to al-Mizan

http://www.quran.org.uk/articles/ieb_quran_almizan.htm

**Ruh.Mujarad** · January 31, 2011

Al-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

The tafsīr of the Qur'an via the Qur'an is a method that can be traced through narrative sources to Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Ahlulbeit (as). The method could also be supported by the apparent meaning of many Qur'anic verses as aforementioned in the initial post.

Amongst those who adopted this method are the following:

- Al-Ṭabarī, ar-Rāzī, al-Ṭabrsī, al-Ṭūsī and al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī

The narrative or textual proofs and evidences that support this method include, but are not limited to, the following:

1) قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: ((إن القرآن يصدّق بعضه بعضاً فلا تكذبوا بعضه ببعض)) - كنز العمال في سنن الأقوال والأفعال، ج1، ص619، الحديث 2861<br style=""> <br style="">

Translation:

The Prophet (saw) said: "One part of the Qur'an testifies to the other part, so do not falsify one part with the other."

(source: Kanz al-ʿUmmal fī sunan al-Aqwāl w-al afʿāl, v. 1, p. 619, hadīth no. 2861)

2) قال علي عليه السلام: " كتاب الله تبصرون به، وتنطقون به، وتسمعون به، وينطق بعضه ببعض، ويشهد بعضه على بعض، ولا يختلف في الله ولا يخالف بصاحبه عن الله)) - نهج البلاغة، الخطبة 132

Translation:

Imām ʿAli (as) says:

"The Book of Allah is that through which you see, you speak and you hear. Its' one part speaks for the other part and one part testifies to the other. It does not create differences about Allah nor does it mislead its own follower from (the path of) Allah."

(source: Nahjul Balāgha, sermon 132)

Undoubtedly, there are many other narrations that support this method. This method needs to be clarified as well, as it has its own conditions and criteria for its application. However, neither the time nor ability assist in providing them. Therefore, the floor is open to the pious and knowledgeable brothers such as the dear brother The Persian Shah to elucidate this issue and clarify any misconceptions that arise.

On a final note, the usage of the mantiqī qiyās: al-qiyās al-manṣūṣ al-ʿella is permitted in Usūl al fiqh according to the Usūlī school of thought and it is this concept that the akhbārī's have attacked the usūlī's on. However, there are many proofs (such as the one's provided by the brother The Persian Shah) which refute the akhbārī claim.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Imami_ali

PeaceLoving · January 31, 2011

If the Qur`an is an explainer of all things, then naturally it stands to reason that it would be an explainer of itself as well.

Please always quote the sura and verse number as for example [x:y].

æó äóÒøóáúÜÜäóÇ Úóáóíúßó ÇáúßöÊóÇÈó ÊöÜÈúÜíóÇäÇð áöøßõáööø ÔóíúÁò

What is the sura and verse number for this verse ?

æó äóÒøóáúÜÜäóÇ Úóáóíúßó ÇáúßöÊóÇÈó ÊöÜÈúÜíóÇäÇð áöøßõáööø ÔóíúÁò...æó ÃóãúØóÑúäóÇ Úóáóíúåöãú ÍöÌóÇÑóÉð ãöøäú ÓöÌöøíáò...

What is the sura aned verse number for shis verse ?

æó äóÒøóáúÜÜäóÇ Úóáóíúßó ÇáúßöÊóÇÈó ÊöÜÈúÜíóÇäÇð áöøßõáööø ÔóíúÁò...æó ÃóãúØóÑúäóÇ Úóáóíúåöãú ÍöÌóÇÑóÉð ãöøäú ÓöÌöøíáò
åóáú íóäúÙõÑõæäó ÅöáÇøó Ãóäú íøóÃúÊöÜíóåõãõ Çááøñåõ Ýöí Ùõáóáò ãöøäó ÇáúÛóãóÇãö æóÇáúãóáÇóÆößóÉõ æóÞõÖöíó ÇáÃóãúÑõ æóÅöáÜì Çááøñåö ÊõÑúÌóÚõ ÇáÃõãõæÑõ

What is the sura and verse numbers for these vsrses ?

The Prophet (saw) said: "One part of the Qur'an testifies to the other part, so do not falsify one part with the other"

What is the meaning of this statement ?

guest 34193 · January 31, 2011

Immaturity of your comments is always amusing. What even is your intention by posting this super-vague solitary hadith? I don't see the point in this constant trolling or creating unnecessary fitnah/confusion, just to show off your superficial knowledge. If you would like to make a point, please clarify, otherwise I do not think even mentioning the following in way of refutation is necessary here:
1) What do you think "struck" (ÖÑÈ) here even means? Apparently, it is not the same as combining two verses. Rather, it implies using one verse to negate another. As such, it even lends support to the tafsir method advanced by Allameh Tabataba`i [QS]. Thanks.
2) How does putting together two verses result in "unbelief" (ßÝÑ)? For example, consider the standard example (the two verses concerning the case of Lut), where the "rain" from one verse and the "stones" from another is put together, to deduce a "rain of stones". Even if somehow incorrect, how do you interpret this as kufr, except perhaps in a metaphorical way (in which case it _wouldn't_ be kufr)?
3) What do the rest of the narrations? The wealth of the corpus explicitly support the former proposition:
"Ali (a.s.) said, inter alia, speaking about the Qur'an in a sermon: "Its one part speaks with the other, and one portion testifies about the other."
Thus, it is clear that this narration does not disprove what you wish to create doubt about.

You know, it is possible to engage in discussion without resorting to petty insults. I quoted a well known hadith and said nothing of my own and in return get the above. Oh well, par for the course with you it seems.

Anyhow, Shaykh Saduq said this in explaining this hadith:

ÞÇá ÇáÕÏæÞ ÑÍãå Çááå : ÓÃáÊ ÇÈä ÇáæáíÏ Úä ãÚäì åÐÇ ÇáÍÏíË ÝÞÇá : åæ Ãä ÊÌíÈ ÇáÑÌá Ýí ÊÝÓíÑ ÂíÉ ÈÊÝÓíÑ ÂíÉ ÇÎÑì

I asked Ibn al-Walid about the meaning of this hadith. So he said: It is that the man responds regarding the tafsir of an ayat by the tafsir of another ayat.

Your interpretation of "striking" as negating doesn't make sense and it would seem you're thinking in English rather than the Arabic.

The problem with using any method of explaining the Quran other than through riwaya is that you fall easily into tafsir bi ra'y when you do so. It's not that the Quran does not have it's own internal consistency, but a fallible is not the one to be determining that so and so ayat in fact explains this other _minus_ a clear proof from the Infallible that this is so. Otherwise, just imagine what you could end up with, where someone could come along and take the mutashabihat and use those to explain the muhkam.

Ahmad.G · January 31, 2011

Please always quote the sura and verse number as for example [x:y].
What is the sura and verse number for this verse ?
What is the sura aned verse number for shis verse ?
What is the sura and verse numbers for these vsrses ?
What is the meaning of this statement ?

(bismillah)(salam)

This was copied from an article, I didn't write it myself, hence the website is provided at the very bottom in red. If I had written it myself, it would have been provided. I simply share what I read online so as to inform others, not to get involved in arguments with other members about the subject (not saying that you were arguing with me, just in general).

**Ruh.Mujarad** · January 31, 2011

You know, it is possible to engage in discussion without resorting to petty insults. I quoted a well known hadith and said nothing of my own and in return get the above. Oh well, par for the course with you it seems.
Anyhow, Shaykh Saduq said this in explaining this hadith:
قال الصدوق رحمه الله : سألت ابن الوليد عن معنى هذا الحديث فقال : هو أن تجيب الرجل في تفسير آية بتفسير آية اخرى
I asked Ibn al-Walid about the meaning of this hadith. So he said: It is that the man responds regarding the tafsir of an ayat by the tafsir of another ayat.
Your interpretation of "striking" as negating doesn't make sense and it would seem you're thinking in English rather than the Arabic.
The problem with using any method of explaining the Quran other than through riwaya is that you fall easily into tafsir bi ra'y when you do so. It's not that the Quran does not have it's own internal consistency, but a fallible is not the one to be determining that so and so ayat in fact explains this other _minus_ a clear proof from the Infallible that this is so. Otherwise, just imagine what you could end up with, where someone could come along and take the mutashabihat and use those to explain the muhkam.

What al-Saduq (ra) refers to is giving the interpretation of one verse as the interpretation of the other, and not interpreting one verse with the other.

Anyhow, please provide the source of al-Saduq's words. It might be true that he does not agree with this method, but that doesn't mean that he was correct, nor can we use his belief as hujjah upon our other scholars.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Imami_ali

guest 34193 · January 31, 2011

What al-Saduq (ra) refers to is giving the interpretation of one verse as the interpretation of the other, and not interpreting one verse with the other.

Right, this is correct, though the narration doesn't explicitly state that (bi-ba`dihi bi-ba`d).

As to the source you can find it in his Ma`ani al-Akhbar.

In terms of the sources you quoted, I wanted to mention that I don't see why you'd cite Tabari and Razi as they aren't even Shi`a. And the first hadith you cited, it's from a Sunni book. And as to Tabarsi and Tusi (whose tafsir at-tibyan I like to use myself), how exactly do they employ this method?

**Ruh.Mujarad** · January 31, 2011

Right, this is correct, though the narration doesn't explicitly state that (bi-ba`dihi bi-ba`d).
As to the source you can find it in his Ma`ani al-Akhbar.
In terms of the sources you quoted, I wanted to mention that I don't see why you'd cite Tabari and Razi as they aren't even Shi`a. And the first hadith you cited, it's from a Sunni book. And as to Tabarsi and Tusi (whose tafsir at-tibyan I like to use myself), how exactly do they employ this method?

Thank you for providing the source.

At-Tabarai and ar-Razi wre both mentioned as Muslim scholars who had also adopted this method and one of the proofs they supported and justified their implementation of this method is the first narration provided. It is also evident that the narration that has been mentioned in Kanz al-'ummal is supported by Imam Ali (as)'s statement which was quoted from Nahjul balagha, therefore the matn is correct (however, I did not look up the sanad to see whether it is authentic/reliable or not).

As for at-Tabari and at-Tusi and their usage of this method, insha'Allah example's will be provided (most likely tomorrow as the time is late now) along with more textual/narrative proofs and evidences of Ahlulbeit (as)'s support and application of this method.

Wasalam

Edited January 31, 2011 by Imami_ali

siraatoaliyinhaqqun · January 31, 2011

åóáú íóäúÙõÑõæäó ÅöáÇóø Ãóäú íóøÃúÊöÜíóåõãõ Çááñøåõ Ýöí Ùõáóáò ãöøäó ÇáúÛóãóÇãö æóÇáúãóáÇóÆößóÉ õ æóÞõÖöíó ÇáÃóãúÑõ æóÅöáÜì Çááñøåö ÊõÑúÌóÚõ ÇáÃõãõæÑõ
"Will they wait until Allah comes to them in canopies of clouds, with Angels (in His train) and the question is (thus) settled? But to Allah do all affairs go back (for decision)."[3]

in tafseer burhan; Allah azwj relates His Hujjat ajf's coming to them in canopies of cloud as His (Allah azwj's) coming to the people as related by imam Sadiq asws.

One such way is to carefully review other similar verses of the Qur`an which repeat the same or close to the same wordings as this verse.

Such a similar verse is in Suratul Nahl (16), verse 33, which contains approximately the same wording. This other verse clearly shows us that the meaning of the 'coming of the Lord' as actually referring to the coming of 'the commandments' of Allah (swt) for the punishment and retribution and (also) the orders and prohibitions from Him:
åóáú íóäúÜÜÙõÑõæäó ÅöáÇóø Ãóäú ÊóÃúÊöíóåõãõ ÇáúãóáÇóÆößóÉõ Ãóæú íóÃúÊöíó ÃóãúÑõ ÑóÈöøßó ßóÐñáößó ÝóÚóáó ÇáóøÐöíäó ãöäú ÞóÈúáöåöãú æóãóÇ Ùóáóãóåõãõ Çááñøåõ æóáñßöäú ßóÇäõæÇ ÃóäúÝõÓóåõãú íóÙúáöãõæäó
"Do they wait until the Angels come to them, or there comes the Command of your Lord (for their doom)? So did those who went before them (also wait). But Allah wronged them not, no, they wronged their own souls!"

and this ayat's tafseer from imam Sadiq asws who said commandment refers to Imam e masoom asws.

The method of Zawahir al Quran will ultimately be wrong and as macissac stated it is comparision of tafaseer if not You just made Allah azwj His commandment by comparing the two ayats, which was denial of atleast one either Allah or His commandment and in Both cases denying both.

Ya Ali Madad

The Persian Shah · January 31, 2011

I quoted a well known hadith and said nothing of my own and in return get the above.

No need to play puppy-eyes innocent, I didn't say anything offensive - posting only vague bits of information to advance only one side of the story is a distortion of the truth.

I asked Ibn al-Walid about the meaning of this hadith. So he said: It is that the man responds regarding the tafsir of an ayat by the tafsir of another ayat.

This was refuted by Sheikh Imami_ali (#15), and you seemingly accepted (#16) - what would be interesting though, is to see if you knew and withheld that information before you were told..

Your interpretation of "striking" as negating doesn't make sense and it would seem you're thinking in English rather than the Arabic.

Why don't you clarify this properly, rather than just merely saying "your wrong"? How does Arabic "striking" differ from English "striking" exactly? Do the Arabs have blunt swords? :lol: No doubt the same connotation which implies negation (or rather, "replacing", as we found out is the actual correct view) is prevalent in the Arabic and the English.

The problem with using any method of explaining the Quran other than through riwaya is that you fall easily into tafsir bi ra'y when you do so.

I can't believe anyone would even think about advocating this view. Oh, wait :squeez:..

Refuted #3. Let me know if you need more..

Otherwise, just imagine what you could end up with, where someone could come along and take the mutashabihat and use those to explain the muhkam.

Muhkamat, by definition, don't need interpreting. Only the mutashabihat are interpreted with the muhkamat. I didn't want to get into details.

3:7 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning);

they are the foundation of the Book

: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except

Allah

. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

I should also highlight another closely-related point however - that the muhkamat and mutashabihat are relative (as a simple example, what is ambiguous for me is not ambiguous for the Imam [AJTF]). I know you like to mock and belittle "populist" works, however, I think you would benefit greatly if you educated yourself by reading "Qur`an in Islam"..

Edited January 31, 2011 by The Persian Shah

**Ruh.Mujarad** · February 1, 2011

Right, this is correct, though the narration doesn't explicitly state that (bi-ba`dihi bi-ba`d).
As to the source you can find it in his Ma`ani al-Akhbar.
In terms of the sources you quoted, I wanted to mention that I don't see why you'd cite Tabari and Razi as they aren't even Shi`a. And the first hadith you cited, it's from a Sunni book. And as to Tabarsi and Tusi (whose tafsir at-tibyan I like to use myself), how exactly do they employ this method?

Let's begin by examining how Ahlul-Bayt (as) employed this method of tafsīr.

1) ÓÃá ÒÑÇÑÉ æãÍãÏ Èä ãÓáã ÃÈÇ ÌÚÝÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã Úä æÌæÈ ÇáÞÕÑ Ýí ÇáÕáÇÉ Ýí ÇáÓÝÑ ãÚ Ãäå ÓÈÍÇäå íÞæá: ((æáíÓ Úáíßã ÌäÇÍ)) æáã íÞá ÇÝÚáæÇ¿

ÝÃÌÇÈ ÇáÅãÇã Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÈÞæáå ((ÃæáíÓ ÞÏ ÞÇá Çááå ÚÒ æÌá Ýí ÇáÕÝÇ æÇáãÑæÉ: (Ýãä ÍÌ ÇáÈíÊ Ãæ ÇÚÊãÑ ÝáÇ ÌäÇÍ Úáíå Ãä íØæÝ ÈåãÇ)) ÃáÇ ÊÑæä Ãä ÇáØæÇÝ ÈåãÇ æÇÌÈ ãÝÑæÖ¿))

Zurārah and Muḥammad bin Muslim asked Abā Jaʿfar (as) about the wujūb (i.e. act of obligation) [of praying] qaṣr during travelling although He, the Exalted, says, 'there is no blame on you' [4:101] and He did not say "do"?

The Imam (as) replied by saying: "Has God, Almighty and Exalted, not said in [regards to] al-ṣafā and al-marwah, 'so whoever makes a pilgrimage to the House or pays a visit (to it), there is no blame on him if he goes round them both' [2:158]? Do you not see that [performing] ṭawāf around them is an obligation"?

(source: wasāʾil al-Shīʿa, v. 5, chapter 22, ḥadīth 2)

2) [it is reported on the authority of Yunus, on the authority of al-Hasan:]

A woman was brought before 'Umar. She had given birth six months earlier and he now intended to stone her. The Commander of the faithful, peace be on him, said to him: "If you quarrel with the Book of God, I will dispute with you. God, the exalted says: "The (period) of pregnancy and weaning (of a child) is thirty months" (XLVI 15). And He, the High, (also) says: "Mothers suckle their children for two complete years for anyone who wants to carry out (the full period of) suckling" (II 233). When the woman has carried out the suckling for two years, and the (period of) pregnancy and suckling (of the child) is thirty months . .. . . .. At the moment (she has only fulfilled) the responsibility (of suckling) for six months (and therefore cannot be killed)."

'Umar freed the woman and confirmed the decision concerning that.

(source: Kitāb al-Irshād, p. 149. Link: http://shiastudies.com/library/english/00-noor/wit/019-KITAB-AL-IRSHAD/ir05.htm)

Evidently, many other narrations of this sort exist, all one must do is refer to the ḥadīth books where he could find an abundant source of similar narrations. I don't have much time to translate each one of them, but insha'Allah I can provide the references or the original Arabic text since it is an easier and less time consuming task.

In the following post:

1) Examples from the books of at-Tabari and ar-Razi.

2) Supportive arguments for the legitimacy of this method.

3) Conditions and criteria needed to be fulfilled before one can exercise this method of tafsir.

Wasalam

Nader Zaveri · February 1, 2011

(salam)

(bismillah)

Let's begin by examining how Ahlul-Bayt (as) employed this method of tafsīr.

What you've seem to forget is that they are ma`soomeen. The Imaams (as) would know which qur'aanic verse to use to interpret another Qur'aanic verse. You are giving too much credit to our scholars, and attempting to put them at the level of a ma`soom. Using a Qur'aanic ayah to interpret another Qur'aanic ayah can be problematic.

1.) Your interpretation could contradict a well known saheeh hadeeth

2.) The other qur'aanic ayah has it's own hadeeth from the imaam, You must know what the Imaams have said about that verse, before trying to apply it to another verse.

3.) Also you must take into account the asbaab al-nuzul of the ayah

I have seen many scholars interpret Qur'aanic verses by their whims that are SO FAR from the Imaams (as) authentic hadeeth that interpret the verse.

The best way to interpret the Qur'aan is through authentic hadeeth from the Ahl Al-Bayt (as) in Shee`ah books.

Otherwise, the other forms of interpretation would be based off of dhann (speculation). And speculation in religion is wrong.

(salam)

**Ruh.Mujarad** · February 1, 2011

correction:

#1 = Tabarsi and Tusi, not Tabari and Razi.

siraatoaliyinhaqqun · February 1, 2011

Yes the majority saw the debates of imams and concluded it's ilm ul kalam so ilm ul kalam without use of ahadees is right! but on the other hand imam asws's kalam is the right ilm ul kalam and the human kalam in debates is not liked by imams.

The same way with zawahir al Quran. They say imams used it so it must be right. Hey ur not equal to masoom and it isnot what imam does but what he orders to u should be adhered.

Ya Ali Madad

muhibb-ali · February 1, 2011

Salam.

Let's begin by examining how Ahlul-Bayt employed this method of tafsīr.

Do we have any Hadees of a Masoom (as) wherein they have permitted/asked us to employ this method?

And when done by a Falliable, how is this method different from Tafseer Bir Rai which has been condemned in many Hadees? Because you could possibly end up using your our opinion in doing Tafsir??

As has been pointed out that the Imam's (as) being Infallible removed the possibility of any error. So how do we apply the same to non Masoom??

So the question is not whether the Imam's (as) did it or not, but whether they asked/permitted others do to such tafsir? If we get any hadees on these lines that could clarify all the doubt.

Wassalam

Edited February 1, 2011 by muhibb-ali

**rotten_coconut** · February 1, 2011

(salam)
(bismillah)
What you've seem to forget is that they are ma`soomeen. The Imaams (as) would know which qur'aanic verse to use to interpret another Qur'aanic verse. You are giving too much credit to our scholars, and attempting to put them at the level of a ma`soom. Using a Qur'aanic ayah to interpret another Qur'aanic ayah can be problematic.
1.) Your interpretation could contradict a well known saheeh hadeeth
2.) The other qur'aanic ayah has it's own hadeeth from the imaam, You must know what the Imaams have said about that verse, before trying to apply it to another verse.
3.) Also you must take into account the asbaab al-nuzul of the ayah
I have seen many scholars interpret Qur'aanic verses by their whims that are SO FAR from the Imaams (as) authentic hadeeth that interpret the verse.
The best way to interpret the Qur'aan is through authentic hadeeth from the Ahl Al-Bayt (as) in Shee`ah books.
Otherwise, the other forms of interpretation would be based off of dhann (speculation). And speculation in religion is wrong.
(salam)

Don't you think that can be problematic since we have hadiths in which the ma'sumin instructed us to examine the authenticity of hadiths by comparing them to the Qur'an?

See: http://www.*******.org/hadiths/quran/abandoning-narrations-that-are-contrary-to-the-quran

But it seems like we have a circular reasoning here:

- Check hadiths' authenticity by comparing them to Qur'an

- But, to understand Qur'an, you must understand how the ma'sumin interpreted them, hence through hadiths

What's the solution here?

**Ruh.Mujarad** · February 1, 2011

Salam.
Do we have any Hadees of a Masoom (as) wherein they have permitted/asked us to employ this method?
And when done by a Falliable, how is this method different from Tafseer Bir Rai which has been condemned in many Hadees? Because you could possibly end up using your our opinion in doing Tafsir??
As has been pointed out that the Imam's (as) being Infallible removed the possibility of any error. So how do we apply the same to non Masoom??
So the question is not whether the Imam's (as) did it or not, but whether they asked/permitted others do to such tafsir? If we get any hadees on these lines that could clarify all the doubt.
Wassalam

The actions of the Imams (as) are hujjah (proof) upon us, unless they (as) clearly state otherwise. That is the general ruling. Bring forth proof that such a method has been denounced by the Imams (as), or that they (as) clearly indicated that no one other than them is permitted to use it, then we will forfeit its usage.

Anyways, await the rest of the proofs for the legitimacy of this usage before continuing with your misconceptions dear brother/sister.

Wasalam

-------------------------

Al-salamu alaikum,

The example's will be limited to one or two from each scholar. Anyone interested to find more could refer to the tafsīr books written by these scholars:

1) Tafsīr al-Bayān.

See the tafsīr of the following verse: اقْتَرَبَ لِلنَّاسِ حِسَابُهُمْ وَهُمْ فِي غَفْلَةٍ مُّعْرِضُونَ

"Mankind’s reckoning has drawn near to them, yet they are disregardful in [their] obliviousness." [Qara'i, 21:1]

Translation

Al-Ṭabrsī (ra) states that the tafsīr of " Mankind’s reckoning has drawn near to them" is that it refers to the nearness the day of judgment, then he says, as God has stated (in another verse) : The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh. [Yusuf Ali, 54:1]

The original Arabic text of al-Ṭabrsī regarding this verse:

«اقترب للناس حسابهم» اقترب افتعل من القرب و المعنى اقترب للناس وقت حسابهم يعني القيامة كما قال «اقتربت الساعة»

2) al-Ṭusī (ra) in his tafsīr al-tibyān fī tafsīr al-qurʾān.

See his tafsīr of the word "rabb" (translated as "master") in surat al-fātiḥa. He says the following:

امـا الرب فله معنيان في اللغة، فيسمى السيد المطاع ربا، ومنه قوله تعالى : (اما احدكما فيسقي ربه خـمـرا (يـعـنـي سـيـده، ومـنـه قـيـل: رب ضـيـعـة، اذا كـان يـحـاول اتمامها، و(الربانيون (من هذا من حيث كانوا مدبرين لهم .

وقـوله :(رب العالمين) اي المالك لتدبيرهم والمالك للشي ء يسمى ربه، ولايطلق هذاالاسم الا على اللّه، امـا فـي غـيـره فيقيد، فيقال : رب الدار، وقيل : انه مشتق من التربية، ومنه قوله : (وربائبكم اللاتي في حجوركم(.

(source: http://al-shia.org/h...an-01/01.htm#03)

A quick translation (for the parts that concern the discussion):

"As for [the noun] ar-Rabb, it has two meanings: the obeyed master is named "rabban", such as His saying: 'As for one of you, he will serve wine to his master' [Qara'i, 12:41], meaning his master."

Then al-Ṭusī moves on to giving the tafsīr of the verse:

" All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds" [Qara'i, 2:1], specifically the word "rabb". He (ra) says, '... it is also said that it is derived from al-tarbiyah (bringing up), such as His saying: 'and your step-daughters who are being brought up under your care' [Qara'i, 4:23]

-------------------------------

I think these two examples are sufficient. Needless to say that anyone who reads the books of these two scholars on the exegesis of the Qur'an would immediately notice their usage and employment of the method in discussion.

Moving on to point #2:

Arguments in favor of the legitimacy of this method, including Qur'anic, narrative, and rational proofs and evidences.

These will be mentioned in the next post insha'Allah.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Imami_ali

siraatoaliyinhaqqun · February 1, 2011

Don't you think that can be problematic since we have hadiths in which the ma'sumin instructed us to examine the authenticity of hadiths by comparing them to the Qur'an?
See: http://www.*******.org/hadiths/quran/abandoning-narrations-that-are-contrary-to-the-quran
But it seems like we have a circular reasoning here:
- Check hadiths' authenticity by comparing them to Qur'an
- But, to understand Qur'an, you must understand how the ma'sumin interpreted them, hence through hadiths
What's the solution here?

ilm e rijaal was not present back then. Why? because whenever someone heard a hadees they would go to imam asws and he would confirm its authenticity as well as show them ayat of Quran related to it.

The work of tafseer has been completed and repeated 12 times after rasool Allah saww even then people resort to tafseer bil ray.

Ya Ali Madad

The actions of the Imams (as) are hujjah (proof) upon us, unless they (as) clearly state otherwise. That is the general ruling. Bring forth proof that such a method has been denounced by the Imams (as), or that they (as) clearly indicated that no one other than them is permitted to use it, then we will forfeit its usage.
Anyways, await the rest of the proofs for the legitimacy of this usage before continuing with your misconceptions dear brother/sister.
Wasalam
-------------------------
Al-salamu alaikum,
The example's will be limited to one or two from each scholar. Anyone interested to find more could refer to the tafsīr books written by these scholars:
1) Tafsīr al-Bayān.
See the tafsīr of the following verse: ÇÞúÊóÑóÈó áöáäóøÇÓö ÍöÓóÇÈõåõãú æóåõãú Ýöí ÛóÝúáóÉò ãõøÚúÑöÖõæäó
"Mankind’s reckoning has drawn near to them, yet they are disregardful in [their] obliviousness." [Qara'i, 21:1]
Translation
Al-Ṭabrsī (ra) states that the tafsīr of " Mankind’s reckoning has drawn near to them" is that it refers to the nearness the day of judgment, then he says, as God has stated (in another verse) : The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh. [Yusuf Ali, 54:1]
The original Arabic text of al-Ṭabrsī regarding this verse:
«ÇÞÊÑÈ ááäÇÓ ÍÓÇÈåã» ÇÞÊÑÈ ÇÝÊÚá ãä ÇáÞÑÈ æ ÇáãÚäì ÇÞÊÑÈ ááäÇÓ æÞÊ ÍÓÇÈåã íÚäí ÇáÞíÇãÉ ßãÇ ÞÇá «ÇÞÊÑÈÊ ÇáÓÇÚÉ»
2) al-Ṭusī (ra) in his tafsīr al-tibyān fī tafsīr al-qurʾān.
See his tafsīr of the word "rabb" (translated as "master") in surat al-fātiḥa. He says the following:
ÇãÜÇ ÇáÑÈ Ýáå ãÚäíÇä Ýí ÇááÛÉ¡ ÝíÓãì ÇáÓíÏ ÇáãØÇÚ ÑÈÇ¡ æãäå Þæáå ÊÚÇáì : (ÇãÇ ÇÍÏßãÇ ÝíÓÞí ÑÈå ÎÜãÜÑÇ (íÜÚÜäÜí ÓÜíÜÏå¡ æãÜäÜå ÞÜíÜá: ÑÈ ÖÜíÜÚÜÉ¡ ÇÐÇ ßÜÇä íÜÍÜÇæá ÇÊãÇãåÇ¡ æ(ÇáÑÈÇäíæä (ãä åÐÇ ãä ÍíË ßÇäæÇ ãÏÈÑíä áåã .
æÞÜæáå :(ÑÈ ÇáÚÇáãíä) Çí ÇáãÇáß áÊÏÈíÑåã æÇáãÇáß ááÔí Á íÓãì ÑÈå¡ æáÇíØáÞ åÐÇÇáÇÓã ÇáÇ Úáì Çááøå¡ ÇãÜÇ ÝÜí ÛÜíÜÑå ÝíÞíÏ¡ ÝíÞÇá : ÑÈ ÇáÏÇÑ¡ æÞíá : Çäå ãÔÊÞ ãä ÇáÊÑÈíÉ¡ æãäå Þæáå : (æÑÈÇÆÈßã ÇááÇÊí Ýí ÍÌæÑßã(.
(source: http://al-shia.org/h...an-01/01.htm#03)
A quick translation (for the parts that concern the discussion):
"As for [the noun] ar-Rabb, it has two meanings: the obeyed master is named "rabban", such as His saying: 'As for one of you, he will serve wine to his master' [Qara'i, 12:41], meaning his master."
Then al-Ṭusī moves on to giving the tafsīr of the verse:
" All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds" [Qara'i, 2:1], specifically the word "rabb". He (ra) says, '... it is also said that it is derived from al-tarbiyah (bringing up), such as His saying: 'and your step-daughters who are being brought up under your care' [Qara'i, 4:23]
-------------------------------
I think these two examples are sufficient. Needless to say that anyone who reads the books of these two scholars on the exegesis of the Qur'an would immediately notice their usage and employment of the method in discussion.
Moving on to point #2:
Arguments in favor of the legitimacy of this method, including Qur'anic, narrative, and rational proofs and evidences.
These will be mentioned in the next post insha'Allah.

who did the above two tafaseer fallible or infallible. And yes there is a hadees on impermissability tafseer by fallible. A part of Quran can be understood by non Muslims, a part can be understood by momineen and third part can only be understood by explanation of masoomeen asws(reference ehtijaaj tabrisi) however the first two's understanding cannot be termed as hujjah because.

Imam sadiq asws said: hujja an naasa be kalami...,.(tashih ul iteqadaat and sheikh sudooq's book iteqadaat e Shia)

ya Ali Madad

**rotten_coconut** · February 2, 2011

ilm e rijaal was not present back then. Why? because whenever someone heard a hadees they would go to imam asws and he would confirm its authenticity as well as show them ayat of Quran related to it.
The work of tafseer has been completed and repeated 12 times after rasool Allah saww even then people resort to tafseer bil ray.

So, what's the solution for us right now for the circular reasoning mentioned?

What should we do?

siraatoaliyinhaqqun · February 2, 2011

So, what's the solution for us right now for the circular reasoning mentioned?
What should we do?

according to ahadees that I have read; here are few important points:

1. According to a letter of our imam e zamana ajf; we are to seek solution for our problems through ahadees, not seek which is not our problem(problems of others/which are not priorities). And pray for his ajf's zuhoor.

2. Do not be among doubters(in fadail of ahlebayth and/or ahadees)

3. Do not seek religion from opinions of others or ur own rather through ahadees related to ur problem.

4. Understand that Allah azwj is testing u to know who does His itaat through imam e masoom asws and who remains loyal to His Hujja ajtf..

5. Understand that usool should be perfected for acceptance of furoo and there is no difference between usool and furoo as they both come from Allah azwj and are not man made.

6. Do Amal on a issue; that which u have a hadees and wait for the ones you do not know because Allah azwj only accepts deeds that are based on His rules.

7. Understand that imperfections in ur deeds will be perfected by love for ahlulbayth asws and u will be questioned about their love and all ur amal is ur preparation for barzakh.

8. Allah azwj is not zalim and He made an easy deen for u and He does not burden a soul that which it can't bear. And seeking the knowledge of religion is every individuals responsibilty and u cannot transfer this responsibility to another. as Allah azwj says in a hadees e qudsi: I wished to finish the whole creation before the advent of rasool Allah saww but changed my decission as I know momineen would seek knowledge and will derive benefit from it.

9. On the day of Judgement Allah azwj will punish and/or reward based on the AQL of an individual not on the amount of deeds but quality deeds based on knowledge.

10. If seeking religion was so difficult then Allah azwj would not make His hujjah hidden. So, do not say if I have knowledge I fear I won't be able to do Amal rather say if I gain knowledge inshallah I will try to do amal on it.

11. Avoid debates and seek inner purity of niyyat, soul and connection with Allah azwj through Imam ajf.

12. Be loyal to ahlulbayth asws, hate their a.s's enemies and love momineen for their a.s's sake.

Don't bother much about rijal authencity as it will lead u to doubt every single thing Before u even start to read a hadees rather read ahadees and u will slowly understand the wrong ones and right ones and you will know how to compare a hadees from Quran. Lastly, remember that neither is Aql nor Ilm is acquired but it's a gift from Allah azwj to whoever He wishes to guide however u should seek to better ur morals and the best morals that are acceptable are the morals of Allah azwj, I.e., the morals of Mohammad wa Aale mohammad asws and their Shia may Allah azwj's mercy be upon them all.

Advises are many but those who follow them are but few.

Ya Ali Madad al ajal al ajal ya saheb uz zaman ajf

Nader Zaveri · June 2, 2011

(salam)

(bismillah)

1 ثو مع : ابن الوليد ، عن ابن أبان ، عن الحسين بن سعيد ، عن النضر عن القاسم بن سليمان ، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال : ما ضرب رجل القرآن بعضه ببعض إلا كفر
Thawab al-A`mal and Ma`ani al-Akhbar: Ibn al-Walid from Ibn Aban from al-Husayn b. Sa`id from an-Nadr from al-Qasim b. Sulayman from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: A man has not struck part of the Quran by (another) part of it but that he does kufr.

قال الصدوق رحمه الله : سألت ابن الوليد عن معنى هذا الحديث فقال : هو أن تجيب الرجل في تفسير آية بتفسير آية اخرى
I asked Ibn al-Walid about the meaning of this hadith. So he said: It is that the man responds regarding the tafsir of an ayat by the tafsir of another ayat.

I was researching this hadeeth a little bit and I found a comment regarding this hadeeth from Al-Khoei.

سؤال 1412:

الرواية التي يرويها العياشي في تفسيره عن المعمر بن سليمان عن أبي عبد اللَّه عليه السّلام قال: قال أبي عليه السّلام: (ما ضرب رجل القرآن بعضه ببعض إلا كفر) ما هو معناها الحقيقي، مع شي‏ء من الأمثلة؟

Question 1412: A narration which is narrated by Al-`Ayyaashee in his Tafseer from Al-Mu`ammar bin Sulaymaan from Abee `Abd Allaah (عليه السلام) said, Abee `Abd Allaah (عليه السلام) said: A man has not struck a part of the Qur’aan with (another) part but he does kufr). What is the true meaning of it, with examples?

(الخوئي) معنى الرواية خلط القرآن بعضه ببعض، و عدم التمييز بين المحكم و المتشابه و العام و الخاص، كخلط بعضه ببعض، و المراد من الكفر حينئذ هو معناه العام لا الخاص، على ان الرواية ضعيفة، حيث ان المعمر بن سليمان لا وجود له في كتب الرجال، هذا مضافا الى ان الرواية مرسلة، و اللَّه العالم.

(Al-Khoei) The meaning of the narration is mixing the part of the Qur’aan with another, and indiscriminating between a muHkam, mutashaabih, the `aam (general) and the khaaS (specific), like the mixing of part with (another) part. The purpose of kufr at that time (?) is a general meaning not specific, and the narration is da`eef (weak) because of Al-Mu`ammar bin Sulaymaan, he is not found in the books of Rijaal, and adding to this the narration is mursal (disconnected). Wallaahu A`lim.

Source:
Al-Khoei, Al-SiraaT Al-Najaa', vol. 2, pg. 449, question # 1412

I have an issue with his answer.

First, where did he get this explanation from, Ibn Waleed kept his explanation pretty general.

Second, he is being a little disingenuous here. Sure the questioner gave the hadeeth from Tafseer Al-`Ayyaashee, but he forgets to mention this hadeeth is in other books (i.e. Al-Kaafi, Ma`aanee Al-Akhbaar, `ilal Al-Sharaa'i) with connected chains.

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ حُسَيْنِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ عَنِ النَّضْرِ بْنِ سُوَيْدٍ عَنِ الْقَاسِمِ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قَالَ أَبِي ع مَا ضَرَبَ رَجُلٌ الْقُرْآنَ بَعْضَهُ بِبَعْضٍ إِلَّا كَفَرَ
From Al-Qaasim bin Sulaymaan from Abee `Abd Allaah عليه السلام. He said: A man has not struck part of the Quran by (another) part of it but that he does kufr.
- Source:
- Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 632, hadeeth # 17

[*]عَلِيٌّ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ النَّضْرِ بْنِ سُوَيْدٍ عَنِ الْقَاسِمِ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قَالَ أَبِي ع مَا ضَرَبَ رَجُلٌ الْقُرْآنَ بَعْضَهُ بِبَعْضٍ إِلَّا كَفَرَ

From Al-Qaasim bin Sulaymaan from Abee `Abd Allaah عليه السلام. He said: A man has not struck part of the Quran by (another) part of it but that he does kufr.

Source:
Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 633, hadeeth # 25

Al-Majlisi grades both of these aHaadeeth Majhool (unknown) because of Al-Qaasim bin Sulaymaan, he has NO TRUE tawtheeq (authenticity) for him.

But by the standards of Al-Khoei, this hadeeth would considered SaHeeH, since he took the mass tawtheeqaat of all the narrators in Tafseer Al-Qummee being thiqah (trustworthy), therefore Al-Qaasim bin Sulaymaan being present in Tafseer Al-Qummee means that he is thiqah (trustworthy). (which I don't agree with, but that is another discussion)

Al-Khoei was being disingenuous when he focused just on that hadeeth from Tafseer Al-`Ayyaashee when the SAME hadeeth's wording is found in other books with connected chain, and by his standards are SaHeeH

I have an issue with his explanation, Ibn Waleed took the explanation as very general way, while Al-Khoei on the other hand made it VERY specific.

(salam)

Edited June 2, 2011 by Nader Zaveri

Sign In

Exegesis Of The Qur'an Through The Qur'an

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Topics