the wording with something that is merely close in meaning rather than exactly identical, so as to bring the idea nearer to people’s minds. For instance, with the phrase dhālika al-kitāb, if one explains it as “this Qur’an,” that explanation is only approximate, for replacing that with this alters the sense: pointing to what is distant carries a nuance that pointing to what is near does not. Likewise, kitāb conveys connotations that Qur’an does not, foremost among them the notion of a collected, written compilation. This is essentially what the author means, for kitāb derives from kataba in the sense of gathering; from the same root comes katība for a squadron of cavalry, because the horses are gathered together.

Thus, if one scholar glosses an tubsala as “to be confined,” while another says “to be held in pledge,” and the like, this is not a contradiction, even though what is confined may or may not be a pledge. Each is merely approximating the intended sense, as noted earlier. Bringing together all the expressions of the early scholars in such cases is extremely beneficial, for the combined weight of their statements points to the meaning more clearly than one or two expressions alone.

Explanation

Their varied phrasing compels the student to encompass every shade of meaning that the word may bear according to the salaf. One of the most comprehensive works in this regard is the Tafsīr of Ibn Jarīr (d. 310 AH), for he collected wordings that no other commentator gathered in one place. Ibn Kathīr’s exegesis is, in effect, an abridgment of it: after stating the meaning of an āyah he says, “Such is the view of So-and-so, So-and-so, and So-and-so,” listing the exegetes who held that position, whose reports Ibn Jarīr had already cited with full chains of transmission. Hence Shaykh al-Islām—may Allah have mercy on him—says, “Gathering their various expressions is beneficial,” because the sum of their statements