Evaluating Reports in Tafsīr Al-Marāghī Through Tamḥīṣ Al-Riwāyāt

Modern Qur’anic exegesis often calls for the critical screening of inherited reports, yet the relationship between an exegete’s declared standards and their actual practice remains insufficiently examined. This article investigates how Aḥmad Muṣṭafā al-Marāghī applies the principle of tamḥīṣ al-riwāyāt, articulated in the introduction to Tafsīr al-Marāghī, when interpreting narrative verses. Using qualitative library research and a comparative reading of the primary text, the study identifies eleven candidate passages and examines four selected cases in detail: Hārūt and Mārūt (Q. 2:102), Moses’ tablets (Q. 7:145), the accusation against Joseph (Q. 12:77), and the number of the Companions of the Cave (Q. 18:22). The analysis reconstructs three dimensions: sources of information, mechanisms of validation, and the epistemic status assigned to reports. The findings suggest that al-Marāghī’s screening is not synonymous with formal isnād criticism. His approach involves rational assessment, comparative verification of scriptural sources, explicit rejection of unreliable narratives, and interpretive preference accompanied by caution toward unsupported claims. The cases demonstrate different evaluative procedures that broadly correspond to al-Marāghī’s declared principles, although the grounds of particular decisions are not always sufficiently explicit to establish methodological consistency with equal certainty. The article therefore distinguishes internal methodological coherence from external verification and identifies a limited, functional role for information from the People of the Book.