Abstract:
Abū Isḥāq Tha‘labī Nayshābūrī is an outstanding Iranian exegete of the fourth and fifth centuries LH. Tha‘labī has been so skillful in various Islamic sciences such as Arabic linguistics (including morphology, syntax (grammatical inflection), vocabulary, and rhetoric), Ḥadīth, exegesis, and qur’ānic sciences that numerous students from many near and far places attended his classes. Tha‘labī’s commentary is a comprehensive and valuable exegesis of the Qur’ān that entails the utterances and viewpoints of many scholars from various scientific fields. Since Tha‘labī’s commentary is largely comprised of the narrations by the Companions and even Ahl al-Bayt (a), it can be considered a narrative commentary. Tha‘labī’s reality-centered and fair spirit has caused him to present narrations from Ahl al-Bayt (a) throughout his commentary. This has caused some biased critics to target him with their criticisms and reproaches. Tha‘labī’s outstanding scientific personality and position has made the exegetes of the ensuing centuries to use his commentary extensively in their works.
Machine summary:
Another important point that should be noted is that talking about the progeny of the Prophet (s), pointing out their high status, and using Shī‘a Imāms’ narrations in the Qur’ān interpretation are other reasons for the provocations against Tha‘labī and his commentary, especially when it is considered that Ibn Taymiyya and other critics after him have maintained part of the weak narrations of Tha‘labī’s commentary as those that mention Imām ‘Alī’s (a) virtues.
For example, in his discussion of the Wilāyat verse and the bestowment of the ring by Imām ‘Alī (a) as a charity, Ibn Taymiyya criticizes ‘Allāma Ḥillī and writes: “The consensus among the Ḥadīth scholars is that this story is made-up and fictitious, and with regard to what Tha‘labī has narrated from Abūdhar, the Ḥadīth scholars believe that Tha‘labī uses fictitious traditions in his commentary … Tha‘labī is “ḥāṭib layl” (firewood collector at night, which is a metaphor of a person who talks nonsense).
In response to Ibn Taymiyya, it can be said that firstly, Tha‘labī is not the only person who has narrated Imām ‘Alī’s (a) bestowment of the ring as charity by his own chain of transmission; other scholars such as Ḥākim Ḥaskānī (Ḥākim Ḥaskānī, 1991, vol.
1: 56; Khaṭīb Baghdādī, 1985: 433; Ibn Ṣalāḥ Shahrzūrī, 1992: 156) that after referring to the theories of the scholars of various fields, Tha‘labī sets out to criticize and evaluate the interpretive narrations (ibid.
Moreover, Ibn Shahrāshūb has presented narrations from Tha‘labī’s commentary in his own book (ibid.