Tafsir at-Tabari: Jami' al-Bayan - Dar al-Tarbiyah wa al-Turath Edition

derived from faʿila yafʿalu—is a further departure than his statement "al-Raḥīm". Moreover, there is no disagreement among them that every noun that had an origin in faʿila yafʿalu—and was then a further departure from its origin in faʿila yafʿalu—that the one described by it is given preference over the one described by the noun built upon its origin from faʿila yafʿalu, whenever naming with it is praise or blame. This is what is in the statement of the speaker "al-Raḥmān" regarding the increase in meaning over his statement "al-Raḥīm" in the language.

As for from the perspective of reports and narrations, there is disagreement among the people of interpretation regarding it:

146 - Al-Sarrī ibn Yaḥyā al-Tamīmī narrated to me, he said: ʿUthmān ibn Zufar narrated to us, he said: I heard al-ʿArzamī say: "al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm": He said: al-Raḥmān toward all creation, al-Raḥīm toward the believers. (1)

147 - Ismāʿīl ibn al-Faḍl narrated to us, he said: Ibrāhīm ibn al-ʿAlāʾ narrated to us, he said: Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh narrated to us, from Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyā, from Ibn Abī Mulayka, from someone who narrated to him from Ibn Masʿūd—and Misʿar ibn Kidām, from ʿAṭiyya al-ʿAwfī, from Abū Saʿīd—meaning al-Khudrī—who said: The Messenger of God, peace and blessings of God be upon him, said: "Indeed, Jesus son of Mary said: 'Al-Raḥmān is the Merciful of the Hereafter and the world, and al-Raḥīm is the Merciful of the Hereafter.'" (2)

So these two reports have informed of the distinction between naming God, majestic is His praise, by His name which is "Raḥmān" and naming Him by His name which is "Raḥīm", and the difference in the meaning of the two words—even if they differed regarding the meaning of that distinction, where one of them indicated that this is in this world, and the other indicated that it is in the Hereafter.

If he says: Which of these two interpretations is more worthy of correctness in your view?

(1) Report 146: Ibn Kathīr transmitted it in al-Tafsīr (1/40) from this place. As for "al-Sarrī b. Yaḥyā b. al-Sarrī al-Tamīmī al-Kūfī," the sheikh of al-Ṭabarī, we did not find a biography for him except in al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl by Ibn Abī Ḥātim (2/1/285), who said: "It was not decreed for us to hear from him, but he wrote to us with some of his hadith, and he was truthful." And "al-ʿArzamī," from whom this statement is narrated here, is very weak (ḍaʿīf jiddan). Imām Aḥmad said in al-Musnad (6938): "His hadith is not worth anything." He is "Muḥammad b. ʿUbayd Allāh b. Abī Sulaymān al-ʿArzamī." As for his uncle, "ʿAbd al-Malik b. Abī Sulaymān al-ʿArzamī," he is a reliable Successor (Tābiʿī), but he is old; he died in the year 145, so "ʿUthmān b. Zufar," who died in the year 218, did not meet him. And "al-ʿArzamī" is with a fatḥa on the unpointed ʿayn, a sukūn on the rāʾ, followed by a zāy, in attribution to "ʿArzam." It occurred here in al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr as "al-ʿAzramī," placing the zāy before the rāʾ, which is a scribal error.
(2) Hadith 147: This chain of transmission is weak; rather, they are two weak chains of transmission, as we detailed previously: 140, 145.

Translation · EN

Notes