Publication Details
Abstract
This study examines the methodologies used by selected Sunni and Imami Qur’anic exegetes to criticize fabricated and intrusive reports in tafsīr. The study addresses the methodological problem created by differing documentary practices: some commentaries preserve complete chains, others abbreviate transmission, and others prioritize Qur’anic coherence, doctrine, language, context, and history. Using qualitative textual research with inductive, analytical, comparative, and applied procedures, the study examines al-Ṭabarī, al-Rāzī, al-Qurṭubī, Ibn Kathīr, and al-Ālūsī alongside al-Ṭūsī, al-Ṭabrisī, al-Balāghī, al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī, and Muḥammad Hādī Maʿrifa. Five major case clusters are analyzed: the satanic verses narrative, reports about David, Hārūt and Mārūt, Zayd and Zaynab, and fabricated virtues of Qur’anic surahs. The results show that the strongest criticism integrates source tracing, isnād evaluation, matn analysis, comparison with the Qur’an and established Sunnah, doctrinal coherence, linguistic and contextual analysis, and historical plausibility. The comparison also shows that mere inclusion in a commentary does not equal acceptance, weakness does not automatically establish fabrication, and a sound meaning does not authenticate an attribution. The study proposes an eight-stage critical model for evaluating exegetical reports and argues that proportionate judgments are essential for protecting Qur’anic interpretation from invented specifications and unsupported narrative detail.