Preference based on the evidence of the Holy Quran according to Sheikh Al-Qummi (may his secret be sanctified)

Abstract

This research examines the methodology of Sheikh al-Qummi (may God sanctify his soul) in prioritizing narrations based on the meaning of the Holy Quran. This methodology reveals an interpretive perspective that makes the Quran a fundamental criterion for evaluating narrations and distinguishing the more reliable among them. The research focuses on three main axes in Sheikh al-Qummi's prioritization: the Quranic context, the apparent meaning of the Quran, and abrogation. The analysis reveals that Sheikh al-Qummi proceeds from the definitive principle that the Qur'an is a fundamental source from which all other texts are derived, and that hadiths must be referred back to it when a contradiction arises. Within this contextual framework, Sheikh al-Qummi relies on the coherence of the verses, their semantic connections, and the context of the discourse to grasp the precise meaning and, consequently, to evaluate the hadiths related to the verse. As for the apparent meaning of the Quran, Sheikh al-Qummi considers it a clear proof that takes precedence over conflicting narrations unless there is explicit evidence that diverts the wording from its apparent meaning. Regarding abrogation, Sheikh al-Qummi adheres to a well-established Quranic principle stating that legislative abrogation is a fundamental element in understanding rulings, making it an important criterion for reconciling conflicting narrations.

The research concludes that Sheikh al-Qummi's approach represents a sound model for the Imami school in dealing with texts, revealing a delicate balance between the Qur'an and hadith, with the Qur'an taking precedence in cases of disagreement. The research recommends further study of the methodologies of early commentators to uncover the depth of the principles of preference within the exegetical tradition