Commentary

The author—may Allah have mercy on him—states that this divergence may arise from several causes, yet the causes mentioned here are not comprehensive. In his work Rafʿ al-Malām ʿan al-Aʾimmah al-Aʿlām he lists more than are cited in the present passage. Here he says: “It may be due to the obscurity of the proof,” meaning that one does not realize the text in question actually constitutes evidence for the ruling. He has heard it, yet its probative force escapes him. He may also overlook it entirely—that is, he remembers it but it slips his mind. Or he may never have heard it at all, which is simple ignorance. The error might lie in misunderstanding the text, a deficiency of comprehension. Or again, he may believe that a stronger, contradictory proof exists; that is, although fully aware of the evidence, he thinks another proof outweighs it—whether through specification, an overriding text, restriction, or the like. Anyone who wishes a fuller treatment should refer to the author’s Rafʿ al-Malām ʿan al-Aʾimmah al-Aʿlām. We have also produced a brief summary with additional examples entitled Al-Ikhtilāf bayna al-ʿUlamāʾ: Asbābuhu wa Mawqifunā minhu (Differences among the Scholars: Their Causes and Our Stance Toward Them).

Section: The two kinds of disagreement in exegesis—those based on transmitted reports and those based on rational evidence

Differences in Qurʾanic commentary are of two kinds. The first rests solely on transmission; the second is known by other means, for knowledge is either soundly transmitted or rigorously inferred. Transmitted material is either from an infallible source or from one who is not infallible. Our concern here is to describe the class of transmitted reports, whether they come from an infallible or a fallible source. This is the first category: within it some reports can be sifted so that the sound is distinguished from the weak, whereas in others such differentiation is impossible.