As for the leading scholars of Quranic commentary—such as Muhammad ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī, Baqī ibn Makhlad, Ibn Abī Hātim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Abd al-Rahmān ibn Ibrāhīm Duhaym, and their peers—they did not include in their commentaries (1) any such fabrications.

This is to say nothing of those more knowledgeable than they, such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishāq ibn Rāhawayh, and their commentaries. Indeed (2), nothing of this sort (3) is found even in the works of Ibn Humayd or Abd al-Razzāq (4), although Abd al-Razzāq inclined toward Shiism and narrated many reports concerning the merits of Alī, even when they were weak. Nevertheless, he was far too eminent to narrate such an obvious lie.

Hadith scholars have unanimously agreed that it is impermissible to adduce a report as evidence merely because it was transmitted by one person when that person is someone like al-Thalabī, al-Naqqāsh, al-Wāhidī, or similar commentators. This is because so many of the hadiths they transmit (5) are weak or even fabricated. Even if we had no other means of knowing that what these men narrated was false, it would still be impermissible to rely on the report simply because al-Thalabī and others like him narrated it. How then could we do so when we know that it is false?!

Allah Most High willing, we shall explain how its falsehood is established by both reason and transmitted evidence. The purpose here is merely