نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
1 دانشجوی دکترای علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشگاه پیام نور ،تهران، ایران
2 دانشیار گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشگاه کاشان، کاشان، ایران
3 استادیار گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشگاه پیام نور ، تهران، ایران
عنوان مقاله [English]
Ţabrisī's method of transmitting the occasions of revelation is in the form of a report, but in some cases he has confirmed or rejected it by presenting criteria such as jurisprudential necessity, the appearance of the verse and history. At the same time, his negligence in quoting some traditions and the occasions of revelation cannot be ignored. On the one hand, he presented weak quotations such as the praise of Abdullah ibn Sallām, the mention of the story of Warqat ibn Nawfil, etc., and on the other hand, he did not make the slightest comment about their weakness. Abdullah Ibn Sallām was one of those who fabricated hadiths to attract the public's attention, and hadiths have been quoted in his description that are mainly weak in authenticity and invalid. The footprints of this person can be observed in different sections of the book Majma' al-Bayān. In this article, we are reviewing the traditions of the book Majma' al-Bayān, and refering to the interpretations and library sources and in-text analysising the critique of the distorted traditions of the occasions of revelation in Majma' al-Bayān, which related the verses to Abdullah Ibn Sallām, to points such as the lack of mention of some revelations by commentators before or after Ţabrisī, expressing the view of Ţabrisī instead of the dignity of revelation, quoting the material following the Sunni commentators. While the Shiite scholars did not pay attention to it and the occasions of revelation containing the praise of Abdullah ibn Salam do not have a historical correspondence with the time of his conversion to Islam. Perhaps Ţabrisī's purpose in quoting these traditions is to acquaint the reader and compare it with other opinions. This method invites the reader to think and is very valuable, but the lack of criticism and definite comment from Ţabrisī is one of the important weaknesses of this interpretation.