the views held by people and what they transmitted concerning it, even though some of it is authentic and some of it false. When someone adduces a weak report such as this(1), or others like it, by citing(2) some of the transmitted reports concerning the interpretation of the verse while disregarding all the other reports that contradict it, this is among the most unsound forms of argumentation. It is like relying on a witness who testifies in one’s favor even though his integrity has not been established and he has, in fact, been duly discredited, while his testimony is contradicted by many upright witnesses(3) who testify to the contrary; or like relying(4) on the report of a single person whose integrity has not been established and who has, in fact, been duly discredited, while disregarding the reports(5) of many upright narrators who have related(6) the contrary.

Even if this hadith were assumed to have been transmitted by trustworthy, upright narrators, while other trustworthy, upright narrators transmitted reports contradicting it, the two reports would still have to be examined: Which is more firmly established and carries greater weight? How much more so, then, when specialists in transmission unanimously agree that the reports contradicting(7) this hadith are the established, authentic ones? Indeed, this hadith contradicts what(8) is known through mass transmission, and many(9) leading Quran commentators did not mention(10) it at all because they knew it to be false.