Often anti islam critics quote this tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas.
Here it is detailed how it is not authentic:
https://studentofknowledge20.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/is-tanwir-al-miqbas-min-tafsir-ibn-abbas-authentic/Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas (Arabic: تنوير المقباس من تفسير بن عباس) is a tafsir, attributed to Abd-Allah ibn Abbas, but which contains much atypical content for a tafsir of the sahabah.[1] It is said to have been collected by Abu Tahir Muhammad ibn Yaqub al-Fayruz Aabadi (1329–1414).
Authenticity
Many scholars have clarified that this work is not authentically attributed to Ibn Abbas.[3] The translators of the work into English have detailed in their introduction to the work:
There is no doubt that this commentary is not the work of Ibn ‘Abbas. The chain of transmitters of this commentary goes back to Muhammad Ibn Marwan> al-Kalbi> Abu Salih which is described by Hadith experts as the chain of lies (silsilat al-kadhib), for this line of transmission is utterly dubious and unreliable. One does not even need to use the criteria for reliable transmission applied by Hadith experts to decide this commentary’s wrong attribution to Ibn ‘Abbas. It is easy to detect obvious anomalies in the text of Tanwir al-Miqbas which leave one with no doubt that whoever wrote it lived many centuries after Ibn ‘Abbas. One finds it, for instance, references to Hasan al-Basri, al-Suddi and even the grammarian Yahya Ibn Ziyad alFarra’ (d. 207/822).6 In a few places, after giving different meanings of the same verse, the author(s) or compiler(s) proceed(s) to say: “… and this is the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas” or: “Ibn ‘Abbas says…”, forgetting that the entire commentary is supposed to be an accurate transmission of what is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas. [4]
Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani has written in his ‘Uloomu–l-Qur’aan (An Approach to the Qur’aanic Sciences) (page 469-470):
…when Muhammad Ibn Marwaan As-Suddi As-Sagheer reports from Kalbi, this is regarded by the authorities as a false sequence … It is wrong to ascribe it to Ibn Abbas because this book has been based on the reported sequence of Muhammad Ibn Marwaan As-Suddi from Muhammad Ibn Saa’ib Al-Kalbi from Abi Salih from Ibn Abbas (R) … this has been regarded by the Muhadditheen as “chain of falsehood” and hence cannot be relied upon.
Dr Bilal Philips writes in his work Usool at-Tafseer:
This tafseer was compiled by Muhammad ibn Ya’qoob al-Fayroozabadi (d.1414 CE/817 AH), who was a Shafi’ee scholar and author of the famous dictionary, al-Qamoos al-Muheet. The vast majority of this tafseer consists of explanatory statements attributed to the great sahabi and mufassir, Ibn ‘Abbas. The author mentions the chains of narrators for each section of tafseer. Hence, this tafseer is considered as being among the tafseers bir-riwayah. However, chains of narration attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas vary in their level of authenticity, depending upon the reliability of the narrators themselves. Chains from Mu’awiyah ibn Salih and Qays ibn Muslim al-Koofi are considered saheeh (highly authentic) and those of Ibn Is-haq (the historian) are considered hasan (authentic); while those from Isma’eel ibn ‘Abdur Rahman as-Suddi al-Kabeer and ‘Abdul Malik ibn Jurayj are doubtful. Those from ad-Dahhak ibn Mazahim al-Hilali, ‘Ateeyah al-‘Awfi, Muqatil ibn Sulayman al-Azdi, and Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib al-Kalabi, who was accused of fabricating hadiths, are all da’eef (unacceptable). Nearly all of the socalled “Tafseer of Ibn ‘Abbas” is based on statements narrated in chains containing Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib al-Kalabi. Hence, this tafseer is considered unreliable for the most part; and, despite its popularity among the masses, it is totally rejected by Muslim scholars. [See Mabahith fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’an, Pp. 360-362 and at-Tafseer wa al-Mufassiroon, Pp.81-83] [5]
The entire book is based on this chain of narration, which Sheikh Saleh Al ash-Sheikh described as the weakest chain of narration from ibn Abbas, as it is a fabricated and false route of transmission.[6]
The Egyptian scholar of hadith Abu Ishaq Al Huwayni has detailed that this tafseer is not authentic. [7]
The Islamic Scholar Muhammad Husayn Ath-Thahabi has stated:
“It is sufficient for us commenting on that is what was reported from the route of Ibn ‘Abd Al-Hakam who said, ‘I have heard Ash-Shaafi‘i say, ‘Nothing was authentically reported from Ibn ‘Abbaas regarding Tafseer except about one hundred Ahaadeeth.’ This narration, if Ash-Shaafi‘i really said it, indicates the extent of how daring the fabricators were to invent such a huge amount of Tafseer that was attributed to Ibn ‘Abbaas. Nothing can prove that better than the apparent contradictions between narrations in that Tafseer attributed to Ibn ‘Abbaas and reported from him.”[8]
In a fatwa (Islamic Ruling) from the Islamic website Islamweb.net details the following on the in-authenticity of this tafseer:
Question: Is (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas) a authentic Hanafi tafsir?
Answer:
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is His Slave and Messenger.
Some scholars have contested attributing the Tafseer in question to the well-known linguist Al-Fayrooz Abaadi, the author of Al-Qaamoos (a famous Arabic language dictionary). It was mentioned that a copy of it was found before Al-Fayrooz Abaadi.
Moreover, it is not correct to attribute all what is mentioned in that book to Ibn ‘Abbaas for all what is reported from Ibn ‘Abbaas in that book is mainly reported from Muhammad ibn Marwaan As-Suddi As-Sagheer from Muhammad ibn As-Saa’ib Al-Kalbi from Abi Saalih from Ibn ‘Abbaas . Such Isnaad (i.e. chain of narrators) is one of the weakest chains of narrators from Ibn ‘Abbaas to the extent that As-Suyooti described that chain of narrators as “the chain of telling lies.”
Muhammad Husayn Ath-Thahabi has talked about that book. Amongst his words about it: “It is sufficient for us commenting on that is what was reported from the route of Ibn ‘Abd Al-Hakam who said, ‘I have heard Ash-Shaafi‘i say, ‘Nothing was authentically reported from Ibn ‘Abbaas regarding Tafseer except about one hundred Ahaadeeth.’ This narration, if Ash-Shaafi‘i really said it, indicates the extent of how daring the fabricators were to invent such a huge amount of Tafseer that was attributed to Ibn ‘Abbaas. Nothing can prove that better than the apparent contradictions between narrations in that Tafseer attributed to Ibn ‘Abbaas and reported from him.” [End quote]
Allaah Knows best.[9]
References
^ IbnAbbas.pdf, page v-vi
^ Manna’ al-Qattan, Mabahith fi Ulum al-Quran, Maktaba al-Ma’arif, p. 371
^ “Is Tafseer “Ibn ‘Abbaas” Tanweer al-Miqbaas min Tafseer Ibn ‘Abbaas Authentic?”.
^ Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās (PDF). Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought. 2007. pp. V.
^ Philips, Bilal (2005). Usool at-Tafseer. International Islamic Publishing House. p. 64. ISBN 9960-9533-2-7.
^ Al ash-Sheikh, Saleh. المناهج المفسرين.
^ “هل تصح نسبة كتاب (تنوير المقباس من تفسير ابن عباس) – للشيخ أبو إسحاق الحويني”.
^ “Tanweer Al-Miqbaas min Tafseer Ibn ‘Abbaas”.
^ “Tanweer Al-Miqbaas min Tafseer Ibn ‘Abbaas”.
Read:
https://studentofknowledge20.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/is-tanwir-al-miqbas-min-tafsir-ibn-abbas-authentic/
