Thoughts About A Science Of Evidence

1

2

4.3.1 On the Inferential Roles of Evidence

I focus now on Twining's comment given above and his phrase: …"information has a potential role as relevant evidence if it tends to support or tends to negate, directly or indirectly, a hypothesis or probandum". Wigmore has given us a very useful classification of the roles evidence can play in the context of proof[153]. In discussing these evidential roles, Wigmore used terms that are encountered in adversarial processes in our system of laws. But I can make them quite general in their application to inferences in any context. I recall here Stephen Toulmin's comment on adversarial processes and the case we try to make from evidence in any context, and his saying that "logic is generalized jurisprudence"[154].

To make the following comments as general as I can I am going to assume just one person making an inference, namely you. We don't care about the context or substance of this inference. You are trying to reach a conclusion concerning whether hypothesis H is true or not. We might suppose that you have proposed hypothesis H. The only thing we will assume is that you are open-minded and are willing to consider evidence bearing upon both of the hypotheses: H and not-H. The evidence you will encounter may be tangible or testimonial in form and you may receive it as a result of your own efforts as well as the efforts of others from whom you may request information. You will note in this example that several of the forms, mentioned in Figure 1, and combinations of evidence that I said were "substance-blind" will arise in this example. This will satisfy Poincaré's emphasis on the importance of classification in science.

Supporting Hypothesis H.

First suppose you believe that if event E occurred, it would be directly relevant but not conclusive evidence favouring H. You then find evidence E*, that this event E occurred. This evidence may be a testimonial assertion or an item of tangible evidence. In Wigmore's analysis this would be called aproponent's assertion , if we regarded you as the "proponent" of hypothesis H. You are concerned of course about the credibility of the source of E*. Suppose you obtain ancillary evidence favourable to the credibility of this source. This would enhance your belief that event E did occur. Suppose, in addition, you query another source who/that corroborates what the first source has said; this second source also provides evidence that event E occurred. You then gather ancillary evidence that happens to favour the credibility of this second source. But you also gather evidence in support of the generalization that licenses the relevance linkage between event E and hypothesis H. This evidence would strengthen this linkage.

But you know about other events, if they occurred, would also support hypothesis H. In particular, you believe that event F would converge with event E in favouring H. You gather evidence F*, that event F occurred. You might gather ancillary evidence favourable to the credibility of the source of F, and you might also gather corroborative evidence from another source that event F occurred. You might, in addition, gather further ancillary evidence to strengthen the generalization that licenses your inference from event F to hypothesis H. So, now you have two lines of evidence which, together, would increase the support for hypothesis H. You may of course know of think of other events that would converge in favouring H.

Wigmore was no probabilist, that would have been asking too much of him, given all of his other accomplishments regarding evidence and proof. Study of probabilistic matters concerning the inferential force of evidence suggests additional ways in which we you can use evidence to support hypothesis H. First, suppose that evidence E* is testimonial and came from a source named Mary. You begin to think that the fact that Mary told you that event E occurred means more than it would if someone else had told you about E. In fact, what you know about Mary's credibility makes her testimony more valuable than if you knew for sure that event E occurred. In short, what we know about a source of evidence can often be at least as valuable as what the source tells us. I have captured this subtlety associated with testimonial evidence mathematically in a recent report[155].

Another subtlety, this time involving events E and F. can be captured that would often greatly increase the support that evidence of these events could provide for hypothesis H. Earlier in Section 4.1.2 I mentioned how items of convergent evidence, favouring the same hypothesis, can often be synergistic in their inferential force. You might believe that evidence of events E and F, taken together, would favour hypothesis H much more strongly than they would if you considered them separately or independently. This synergism can be captured in probabilistic terms[156].

These are all roles that evidence can play in support of some hypothesis. But we agreed that you are open-minded and will carefully consider counterevidence that would negate H or would favour not-H.

Negating Hypothesis H

A colleague appears who has never shown any great enthusiasm for a belief that hypothesis H is true. So far you have said that events E and F would favour H. But your colleague challenges the credibility of the sources of evidence about these events by first producing ancillary evidence that disfavours their credibility. In addition, your colleague might produce contradictory evidence from sources who/that will say that either or both of the events E and F did not occur. Wigmore referred to this evidence as constitutingopponent's denial that events E and F occurred.

But your colleague might instead, or in addition, have ancillary evidence that weakens the generalizations you have asserted that link events E and F to hypothesis H. Such evidence would tend toexplain away what you have said was the significance of events E and F. This ancillary evidence would allow your colleague to say: "So what if events E and F did occur, they have little if any bearing on hypothesis H". Wigmore termed this situationopponent's explanation .

Your colleague has yet another strategy for negating H. She might say the following: "So far you have only considered events [E and F] that you say would favour H. Are you only going to consider events you believe favour H? I have gathered evidence J* and K* about events J and K that I believe disfavours H. Wigmore termed this situationopponent's rival evidence . In this situation you would have to cope with what I termed divergent evidence. There is no contradiction here since J and K involve different events and might have occurred together with events E and F. Events J and K simply point in a different F.

inferential direction than do events E and F.

But your colleague has a final approach to undermining an inference that H is true; it involves what you might have said about the synergism involving events E and F. Your colleague says: "You have said that evidence about events E and F taken together have much more force than the would have if we considered the separately. In other words you are saying that event F has more force in light of the occurrence of E than it would have if we did not consider E. But I argue that the occurrence of E would make F redundant to some degree and so I argue that they mean less when taken together than they would do when considered separately.

In providing this illustration of the various roles evidence plays, it was not actually necessary for me to suppose that you experienced a colleague who would use these evidential strategies for undermining a belief in H. If you were indeed open minded in your inferential approach, you would have played your own adversary by considering how evidence favourable to H could be attacked or countered in these various ways by other evidence. Your conclusion may well have been that not-H is true in spite of your initial belief that H was true. What this example illustrates is the necessity for us to be unbiased or objective in the gathering and evaluation of evidence in the inferences we make from evidence. We might say that we are well served when we play the role of our own "loyal opposition" in the inference tasks we face. This is true even if we often face the often "not so loyal opposition" from our critics.

4.3.2 Stories from Evidence and Numbers

I begin by acknowledging the many studies currently being undertaken in which masses of evidence and complex processes are being analyzed in probabilistic ways in a variety of important contexts including law, medicine and intelligence analysis. Consider Figure 2 again that shows two very simple illustrations of the different forms of inference networks that have been analysed probabilistically. I will use both the Wigmore analysis of a mass of evidence and a certain process model to illustrate how it is possible, and usually necessary, to construct alternative stories that might be told about the inferential force of a mass of evidence. My examples will involve the use of Bayes' rule, but similar analyses can be performed using Shafer's belief functions or Cohen's Baconian probabilities.

Both of the examples I will discuss involve what is termed "task decomposition" or "divide and conquer". In such decompositions, an obviously complex inference task is broken down into what are believed to be its basic elements. Wigmore's analytic and synthetic methods of analyzing a mass of evidence is a very good example. We first list all of the evidence and sources of doubt we believe appear in arguments from evidence to what we are trying to prove or disprove from it [a key list], and then construct a chart [or inference network] showing how we believe all of these pieces fit together. As I have mentioned, we can describe this process as one of trying to "connect the dots".

Suppose we have a mass of evidence in our analysis and an inference network based on this evidence that has survived a critical analysis designed to uncover any disconnects or non sequiturs in the arguments we have constructed. The next step is to assign probabilities that will indicate the strength with which the probanda, sources of doubt, or probabilistic variables are linked together. These probabilities come in the form of the likelihoods I described in Figure 5. All the arrows in the two diagrams in Figure 2 indicate these probabilistic linkages expressed in terms of likelihoods. Let us suppose that we all agree that the inference network we have constructed captures the complex arguments or elements of the process we are studying. But where do these linkage probabilities come from? In some very rare instances we might have a statistical basis for estimating these probabilities from relative frequencies. But in most instances many or most of these probabilities will rest on epistemic judgments we make. In the two examples I will provide,all of the probabilities rest on subjective judgments. Here is where the necessity for telling alternative stories arises.

Though we agree about the structure of our inference network we may find ourselves in substantial disagreement about the likelihoods linking elements of our argument together. Suppose we are interested in determining the overall force or weight of the evidence we are considering. How do our differences in these likelihood ingredients affect the force of the evidence we are considering? We might say that our different beliefs about these probabilistic ingredients allow us to tell different "stories" about the force of the evidence we are considering. The "actors" in our stories consist of the items of evidence we have. The "plots" of our stories are provided by the likelihoods we have assessed. When your likelihoods are different from mine we are essentially telling possibly different stories based on the same evidence, or involving the same actors. We are of course interested in the extent to which our stories end in telling us about the force of the evidence we have. How your story ends may be quite different from the ending of my story, but not necessarily. The metaphor of telling stories from evidence is certainly appropriate. It describes a process that is repeated every day involving the different stories told from the same evidence by opposing attorneys in trials at law. They use the same actors to tell different stories.

How do we tell how our different stories about the force of evidence will end? This is where mathematics comes to our assistance. It involves the process of what is termedsensitivity analysis . We have equations stemming from Bayes' rule that tell us how to combine your likelihoods and my likelihoods in calculations of the force of all the evidence we are considering. In short, these equations supply endings to your story and my story about the aggregate force of the evidence. Here comes Carnap's comparison and numerical concepts again in a science of evidence. Our stories are told numerically but they can easily be translated into words. Then we can compare our stories to observe the extent to which our differing likelihood ingredients have affected determinations of the force of the evidence.

But there is an important characteristic of the equations we use to combine these likelihood ingredients; they are allnon-linear . What this means is that these equations can produce many "surprises" that would never result from linear equations in which "the whole is always equal to the sum of its parts". What will happen is that, on some occasions, the fact that our assessed likelihoods are quite different makes little difference in the ending of our two stories; we are telling two stories that have the same or nearly the same ending. But on other occasions even exquisitely small differences in our likelihood ingredients will produce drastic differences in our stories about the force of our evidence.

Jay Kadane and I used the process of sensitivity analysis just described in our probabilistic analysis of parts of the evidence in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti. We used this process to tell different stories on behalf of the prosecution and of the defence in this case[157]. As I mentioned above, we used the same evidence in telling these stories on behalf of the parties involved in this trail. Here are two examples of the kinds of stories we told and how we told them.

The first involved what Wigmore termedconcomitant evidence, that involved what Sacco was doing at the time of the crime. Two of the witnesses I have already mentioned, Lewis Pelser and Lewis Wade. They were the prosecution's "star" witnesses. Recall that Pelser said he saw Sacco at the scene of the crime when it occurred, and Wade said he saw someone who looked like Sacco at the scene of the crime when it occurred. But there were five defence witnesses, four of whom were just across then street from where the payroll guard Berardeiil was shot. They all said the neither Sacco nor Vanzetti was at this scene when the shooting occurred. A fifth defence witness testified that Sacco was not at the scene about 15 minutes before the crime occurred.

The Wigmorean argument structure for the evidence just described is simple enough so that were able to write out the exact equations necessary for combining the likelihoods in this argument structure. Using these equations we told ten different stories, five on behalf of the prosecution and five on behalf the defence[158]. In the process of telling these ten stories we varied the value of likelihoods such as those that concern the credibility of the witnesses, and other matters such as those concerning the probability of someone looking like Sacco being at the scene, given that Sacco was not there. The ten stories we told all have different endings as far as the weight of this evidence favouring either the hypothesis that Sacco did shoot the payroll guard or the hypothesis that Sacco did not shoot the payroll guard. As I noted above, these stories often have surprising endings. For example, by varying Pelser's credibility by apparently just a small amount we can effectively destroy the contribution of his testimony to the weight of the combination of evidence being considered. Some of the stories we told illustrated how Bayes' rule captures the possible redundance of Pelser's and Wade's testimonies.

We also considered much more complex aggregates of the evidence in this case[159]. One combination of evidence concerned Bullet III I mentioned earlier and the Colt automatic alleged to be the one Sacco had in his possession when he was arrested. The argument structure here is sufficiently complex that it prevents us from writing out equations for the force of evidence. The inference network we constructed for this ballistics evidence requires 42 assessments of likelihoods. But thanks to the truly outstanding works of several probabiliists, we now have computer-based systems that "know" what the necessary equations should be for any appropriate argument structure [a DAG] we can construct, whether it is a Wigmore evidence chart or a process model such as the ones I illustrated in Figure 2[160]. The stories we told on behalf of the prosecution and defence were designed to capture important conditional dependencies among probanda or propositions appearing on our inference network. For example, evidence that Bullet III was fired through Sacco's Colt points toward Sacco's guilt, but not very strongly. Someone else may have fired this weapon during the crime. But this evidence means more when we take into account other evidence that Sacco fired a weapon at the scene of the crime when it was committed. The credibility of all of this evidence is so important.

We were pleased to note that the stories we told from numbers in the Sacco and Vanzetti case were included in a work by John Allen Paulos, a mathematician whose books enjoy a very wide following. In a recent book on what he terms the hidden mathematical logic behind stories[161], he describes the usefulness of the stories we told from numbers in the Sacco and Vanzetti case and argues that the Wigmorean analysis underlying these stories would have been useful in other complex cases such as the trial of O. J. Simpson.

I make one final point about telling stories from numbers based on inference networks constructed from evidence. I have said nothing so far about the role ofexperiments in a science of evidence. The process of sensitivity analysis is a form of experimentation in which we vary the probabilistic ingredients of equations based on a given inference network. We do so in order to see how the equations will behave [i.e what different stories they will tell] in response to these changes in their ingredients. But do all of the stories told based on an inference network make sense? Sensitivity analysis is also a process for testing the inference network itself. As I have mentioned, inference networks we construct are products of our imaginative and critical reasoning. How do we test to see if the network we have constructed makes sense in allowing us to draw conclusions of interest to us? Sensitivity analysis allows one kind of test: Does our network allow us to tell stories that make sense when we vary the ingredients of these stories in more or less systematic ways? This form of experimentation is one I have used for years in testing the inferential consequences of arguments I have constructed from a wide variety of forms and combinations of evidence[162]. A science of evidence does allow experimental tests of our views about how we believe evidence to be related to matters we are trying to prove or disprove.

4.4. Discovery in the Science of Evidence

The third OED definition of science, that I mentioned in my opening remarks in Section 4.0, is restrictive in the sense that it makes necessary for a science to have "reliable methods for the discovery of new truths in its own domain". I have two responses here, the first concerns how we extend our knowledgeabout evidence and its properties and uses; this involves how we learn more about evidence itself. The second concerns how a science of evidence can provide methods for enhancing discovery-related activities in any discipline or context in which this science may be applied. So in this sense we have both basic and applied interests to consider as far as concerns discovery in the science of evidence.

4.4.1 Discoveries about Evidence

In Section 3.0 I considered how the concepts ofevidence and ofscience have emerged and changed over the ages. At no point did I argue that these two concepts are now fixed for all time. Thus, a science of evidence is in the process of emergence in which we hope to learn more about evidence as we continue to study it. For example, I have offered a categorization of recurrent forms and combinations of evidence that I advertised as being "substance-blind" only in the sense that it tells us what kinds of evidence we have. But I never advertised that my classification could not be improved or that other useful classifications could never be made. You might, for example, think of a type of evidence that I have left out of the rows in Figure 1. If so, please tell me about it.

What we wish to avoid are problems the philosopher Imre Lakatos identified in connection with what he calledresearch programs [163]. He called research programsprogressive to the extent that they continue to have heuristic power in generating new facts about the phenomena of interest. If they fail to do this, and just continue to account for already observed facts, Lakatos called themregressive research programs. Given the richness of the contexts in which evidence is used and studied, we run little risk of a science of evidence becoming regressive any time soon, provided that we share our experiences and thoughts about evidence with each other. Phil Dawid's emphasis in his proposal to the Leverhulme Foundation emphasized anintegrated science of evidence. I have always interpreted an integrated science of evidence to involve the necessity of identifying and exploiting our varied experiences and thoughts about evidence. I will give just two examples of how such sharing has benefited me in my work on evidence. I return to the integrated nature of a science of evidence in Section 5.0.

I have always marvelled that there are so many important evidential and inferential subtleties or complexities that often lie just below the surface of even the "simplest" of evidence-based reasoning tasks [if there are any such things as "simple" inferential tasks]. I spent many years of my work on evidence trying to identify and understand these subtleties so that they could be exploited in the conclusions we must draw from evidence. These subtleties involve any or all of the evidence credentials I have mentioned: relevance, credibility and inferential force or weight. Many years ago I recognised that nearly every law case I read revealed some new subtlety I should examine. Many of those I have studied were first revealed to me in law cases, some that took place centuries ago.

But I have often observed subtleties revealed in the works of others interested in the study of various kinds of evidence. As an example, I now refer to the work of C. A. J. Coady, a philosopher interested in the study of testimony[164]. As expected, Coady carefully examines the epistemological foundations for testimonial evidence. But one chapter of his work was especially interesting to me, his Chapter 10 entitled;Astonishing Reports . This chapter concerns testimonial evidence of events either contrary to the laws of nature, or testimony about unusual events that would conform to these laws. The study of testimony about miracles has occupied the attention of probabilists and others for centuries[165]. And it is still a still a topic of research today[166]. I hope to give further study to these topics in future. In my probabilistic studies there are very interesting terms appearling that concern the rareness or improbability of the events reported in testimony. Since the 1600s it has been expected that the rareness of the event reported, in addition to the credibility of the source reporting the event, are factors that determine the force of testimonial evidence about this event. But the relationship between these ingredients was never made clear in any studies I could find. I am just vain enough to conclude that my analysis of this rareness-credibility problem makes the nature of this relationship clear. It turns out that I was "murdered" for doing so[167].

4.4.2 Evidence Science and the Discovery of New Evidence

I understand that the discovery of new evidence depends on the nature of the investigations that take place in the substantive area of concern. The evidence we generate or discover in any context depends upon the questions we ask. People in different contexts will naturally ask different questions. Thus, a historian, a sociologist, an accident investigator, and a physician will ask different questions and will generate the different kinds of evidence of interest to them. The path to expertise in any area depends in no small part on knowing what kinds of questions to ask and how answers to them might be obtained. It is also true that persons having different standpoints will ask different questions in the same context. Suppose a police officer, a news reporter, and an attorney all arrive at the scene involving an injured or a dead person. The police officer will ask whether a crime has been committed. The reporter wil ask whether there is a story here. And the attorney will ask whether there is a civil complaint or a criminal charge that can be levied in a legal action of some sort.

But it is also true in so many situations involving discovery or investigative efforts that we have hypotheses in search of evidence at the same time we have potential evidence in search of hypotheses. It turns out that we can generate new evidence in both of these situations. I have already noted that from hypotheses we generate new evidence and new lines of reasoning. But new evidence can be generated by several other ways as I now illustrate.

Part 10: Distancing Oneself from any Form of Prejudgment

Going forth to study the verses of the Qur`an with preconceived notions is one of the greatest of dilemmas in the exegesis of the Qur`an. The person who, with prefabricated beliefs looks at the Qur`an and feels that his goal is to search for proofs to back up his own predetermined thoughts through the Qur`an will never become aware of the true objectives of the Qur`an and will not be able to reach his outcome.

The commentator of the Qur`an must look towards this Book with complete objectivity and with no sort of preconceived notions so that he may be able to arrive at the true objectives of the Qur`an.

Any sort of preconceived ideasact as a major veil between the commentator and the (true) objectives of the Qur`an and will lead the commentator to having the Qur`an submit to his beliefs rather than he submitting to the Qur`an. Instead of being a student of the Qur`an, he would try to become the teacher of the Qur`an (imposing his beliefs on the text of the Qur`an)!

The narrators of hadith from within the Muslim world are in complete agreement that the Noble Prophet (‘s) has stated that:

مَنْ فَسَّرَ الْقَُرَآنَ بِرَأْيِهِ فَلْيَتَبَوَّء ْمَقْعَدَهُ مِنَ النَّارِ

“Whosoever interprets the Qur`an according to his own opinion must take for himself a place in the hell fire.”

The meaning of ‘interpreting the Qur`an according to one’s own opinion’ can be nothing other than that which we have just mentioned.

The interpretation of one verse of the Qur`an with the assistance of another verse, like when anallegorical verses of the Qur`an is interpreted by using one of the decisive verses of the Qur`an, is not in the least problematic. Such a form of interpretation is not considered as commentary of the Qur`an according to one’s own opinion. Rather, this is elucidating upon the Qur`an through employing the Qur`an itself which is something which we have already spoken about in one of our previous discussions.

What is not permissible is that without relying upon other verses of the Qur`an and the definitive ahadith, due to a person’s previously formed opinions and ideas, he goes forth to explain the verses of the Qur`an with his own goals in mind! It goes without saying that if a person did not have such preconceived notions (to implant into the Qur`an) then he would never think about interpreting the Qur`an in such a fashion.

In the course of history, we see groups of people, referred to as theBatiniyyah [those who claimed to be researching into the inward content of the verses of the Qur`an] and others who claimed to be ’Urafa ` (mystics), and as of recent, other misguided groups - even within our own era - who have played around with the verses of the Qur`an who have sought to explain The Book according to their own wishes. Not only are these people themselves misguided, rather, they are also the source of misguiding others!

At this point, we bring forth the following simple example and leave the detailed examples and illustrations for another time.

There are a series of verses (19-22) inSuratul Rahman (55) which read:

مَــرَجَ الْبَحْرَينِ يَلْتَقِيَانِ٭ بَـيْـنَهُمَا بَــرْزَخٌ لاَّ يَـبْغِيَانِ٭ فَبِأَيِّ آلاَءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ٭ يَخْرُجُ مِنْهُمَا الْلُؤْلُؤُ وَالْمَرْجَانِ

“He has made the two seas to flow freely (so that) they meet together. Between them is a barrier that they cannot pass. Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny? There comes forth from them pearls, and coral.”

In these verses, the following topics are covered:

1. There are two bodies of water which meet together.

2. Between these two bodies of water, there is a barrier present which does not permit the waters to mix with one another.

3. From these two bodies of water, there are jewels such as pearls and coral, which are extracted.

What is the meaning of these two seas or bodies of water from which pearls and coral are extracted? What is the meaning of the two different types of water which meet together somewhere in this, world; however, as we are told, the water of one sea never mixes with the water of the other sea?

Is the difference in the two types of water a natural one - such as one being sweet and delicious tasting water, while the other one is salty and bitter; or is one body of water clear, transparent (clean) water while the other is dark, murky and dirty?

Where do these two bodies of water exist in the world today and where can they be found? At present, our discussion is not the actual location of these bodies of water. However, whenMuhy ad-Din al-Arabi (d. 1240 ad), who was absorbed in the teachings of mysticism (’Irfan) and philosophy, went forth to comment on these verses, he did so with a mind so engrossed in philosophy and mysticism that he wrote:

“The meaning of the ‘bitter body of water’ are the corporeal and physical issues (related to the human being) whereas the meaning of the ‘sweet and pleasant body of water’ is the human spirit; both of these meet in the existence of the human being, and the barrier and separator between them is the ‘animal soul’, which although does not reach to the level of the human spirit in terms of purity and refinement, is higher and better than the physical body in terms of darkness and murkiness. At the same time neither of the two dimensions transcend their boundary: neither does the spirit bestow immateriality to the body, nor does the body make the spirit descend and place it among the material entities.”1

This example should give us a good understanding of what ‘exegesis of the Qur`an according to one’s own personal opinion’ is and how such a preconceived notion and belief (in a particular science or discipline) can have an effect on the actual commentary of the Qur`an which a person wishes to express.

Note

1. Tafsir ofIbne ‘Arabi, vol. 2 pg. 280. This is just one example of exegesis of the Qur`an according to one’s own personal opinion and the book of Tafsir ofIbne ‘Arabi, just as his workFususul Hikm is full of such examples of Tafsir of the Qur`an according to his own personal whims and opinions which is both - from the viewpoint of the intellect and also the Islamic jurisprudence - not permissible.

Part 11: Awareness of the Philosophical and Scientific Theories

Having an awareness of the philosophical and scientific theories is a valuable source for the mind which would permit the intellect to expand and would lead to valuable interpretations of the Qur`an. By this we mean that although one must keep away from any form of explanation of the Qur`an according to one’s own personal opinion and must not seek to interpret the Qur`an in order to justify and validate one’s preconceived beliefs and thoughts.

However, at the same time, possessing an awareness of the thoughts and theories of the great philosophers of Islam in regards to monotheism (Tawhid), the characteristics and actions of Allah (awj ) and other issues in relation to the beginning of creation and resurrection, in addition to having knowledge and understanding of the physical properties and makeup of the world and of mankind, will all lead one to having a better insight. In the end, this awareness and knowledge would actually allow a person to gain more benefit from the Qur`an.

Today, humanity has made great progress in attaining knowledge of the Earth, universe, and animal kingdom. Humankind has arrived at new horizons of understanding in regards to the sciences of psychology and sociology. Although it is correct to assert that not all of the knowledge that has been gained up until today is completely correct, however having a better understanding of the scientific breakthroughs and discoveries can lead a person’s philosophical and scientific awareness to become stronger. This acts as a source of blossoming of the mind of the commentator of the Qur`an, and grants him a special ability through which he would be able to make use of the Qur`an in the most complete way.

We narrate the following example in this regard to better understand this point.

The six verses mentioned in the beginning ofSuratul Hadid (57) are themost clear proofs and words which we have in our possession to better understand this point. In this example of ours, we shall refer to and quote only two verses along with their translation:

هُوَ الأَوَّلُ وَالآخِـرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِـنُ وَهُـوَ بِكُلِّ شَــيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ٭ هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْـتَوَى عَلى الْعَرْشِ يَعْلَمُ مَا يَلِجُ فِي الأَرْضِ وَمَا يَخْرُجُ مِنْهَا وَمَا يَنْزِلُ مِنَ السَّمَآءِ وَمَا يَعْرُجُ فِـيهَا وَهُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْنَ مَا كُنْـتُمْ وَاللٌّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ

“He is the First and the Last and the Apparent and the Hidden and He has knowledge of all things. He it is Who created the Heavens and the Earth in six days; then settled on the Throne. He knows that which goes deep down into the Earth and that which comes forth out of it, and that which comes down from the sky and that which goes up into it, and He is with you wherever you are. And Allah sees what you do.” 1

The philosophical and theological points mentioned in these two verses of the Qur`an (and indeed in the other four verses which follow) are so great that Imam ’Ali b. Husayn as-Sajjad (‘a) has stated the following in regards to these verses:

نُزِلَتْ لِلْمُتَعَمِّقِينَ فِي آخِرِ الزَّمَانِ

“(These verses and indeed this chapter of the Qur`an) were revealed for those people who would come at the end of time who would go forth in deep thinking and pondering.”

There is not a single person who could objectively state that with mere knowledge of the Arabic language, he would be able to elucidate upon these verses of the Qur`an. When we (for example) go forth to translate these verses into Farsi, we would still remain in a state of ambiguity and uncertainty in regards to the actual purport of these verses.

However, the knowledge which we have gained through what the researchers of Islam have stated in regards to the encompassing nature of an entity and the science of the beginning of creation, act as a tool which permits the blossoming of the mind, which in turn leads us to having a better understanding of the substance of these verses of the Qur`an.

Is it possible for a person who has never studied anything and never seen a teacher to reach to the depths of the sentence whichreads:

وَهُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْـنَمَا كُنْـتُمْ

“And He is with you wherever you may be.”

Can anyone who does not possess deeply grounded knowledge in the teachings of the Divine understand the reality of the part of the verse that reads:

هُوَ الأَوَّلُ وَالآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالبَّاطِـنُ

“He (Allah) is the First and the Last, the Apparent and the Hidden…”

We must repeat this point that: Our purpose in stating this issue is not that we go forth and interpret the Qur`an through the use of Greek or Islamic philosophy or through employing the new sciences and that we compare the Qur`an with these fallible theories. If this was the case, then surely this would be nothing other than commentary of the Qur`an through our own opinion which is, as we know and as was previously mentioned, prohibited both through employing the logical understanding and the Islamic legislations!

Rather, our aim here is that this form of awareness and knowledge (of other sciences and theories) would actually give our intellect the power and strength to better understand the verses of the Qur`an with a much more careful precision and in which we would be in a better position to appreciate the aims and goals intended by this Heavenly Book.

Today, the discussions of the psychologists and sociologists in regards to mankind and the studies of the scholars of the natural sciences in regards to the Earth and Universe have opened up new horizons in understanding the Qur`an and have given people in this day and age, the power to look at the Qur`an in a new light.

At this point, the greatness contained in the words of the eighth Imam, ’Ali b. Musa al-Rida (‘a) are made manifest. Once, a person asked the Imam (‘a) the following question:

مَا بَالُ الْقُرَآنِ لاَ يَزْدَادُ عِنْدَ النَّشْرِ وَالدَّرْسِ إِلاَّ غَضَاضَةً؟

“Why does the publication and study of the Qur’an, increase its freshness and newness?”

The Imam (‘a) replied:

لأَنَّ اللٌّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَ تَعَالَـى لَمْ يَجْعَلْهُ لِزَمَانٍ دُوْنَ زَمَانٍ، وَ لاَ لِنَاسٍ دُوْنَ نَاسٍ، فَهُوَ فِي كُلِّ زَمَانٍ جَدِيدٌ، وَ عِنْدَ كُلِّ قَوْمٍ غَضٌّ إِلـى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ

“This is because Allah, the Blessed and the High, did not make it (the Qur`an) for a particular time period nor for a specific group of people.Therefore it is new for every time and fresh for every nation until the Day of Resurrection.” 2

Perhaps it is due to this very reason thatIbne Abbas has said:

أَلقُرْآنُ يُفَسِّرُهُ الزَّمَانَ

“Time interprets the Qur’an.”

The meaning of time is the different thoughts and sciences that appear in the human society, which bestow a new vision to the exegete of the Qur’an, as a result of which he derives such information from the Qur’an that the minds of his predecessors never contained.

Notes

1.Suratul Hadid (57), Verses 3 & 4

2.Tafsirul Burhan, vol. 1, pg. 28

Part 12: Understanding of the Early History of Islam

The meaning of the ‘early history of Islam’ are those events which took place after the official appointment of the Prophet Muhammad (‘s) - specifically that which occurred after the migration to Madinah as a [significant] portion of the verses of the Qur`an were revealed after this event. Thus, amongst all of these events, having knowledge of the history of the battles and expeditions which were carried out is very effective in offering commentary on some of the verses of the Qur`an.

There are numerous verses in regards to events such as the Battles of Badr, Uhud,Ahzab ; the event of BaniMustalaq ; the peace treaty ofHudaybiyyah ; the victory over the city of Makkah (Fathul Makkah), the tribe of BaniNadhir and the Jewish nation. Thus, having a comprehensive knowledge of the history of these events which have been discussed in the Qur`an in their own particular way also acts as a clear source for understanding the verses of the Qur`an which are related to the battles, expeditions and other events and this issue is one of those which is clear and understandable for all commentators of the Qur`an.

In this regard, one must refer to the authentic and true historical accounts, which have been written by the impartial and nonaligned historians. Through employing a systematic and methodical process, the correct historical accounts must be separated from the unauthentic reports.

Of course, within the books of history and biography, there are unfounded reports and narrations which are not in line with our Islamic beliefs, nor are they congruent with the verses of the Qur`an.Thus for the researcher who possesses awareness of the principles of history, he would be able to differentiate between the truth and falsehood (in these historical reports).

In this regard, we can recommend the following books: as-Sirah ofIbne Hisham,Murujul Dhahab of al-Masudi ,Imtiaul Asma of al-Maqrizi and al-Kamil byIbne Athir . However, it must be understood that wecan not accept the entire content of these books. Rather as can be seen, some of them contain issues which have absolutely no foundation and go against both the intellect and the narrated proofs!

For example: In al-Kamil byIbne Athir , when he relates the incident of Zaid and his wife, Zainab, he mentions something which no one other than an open and aware enemy [of Islam and the Prophet (‘s)] would claim to have occurred.1

In addition, in regards to the attack of the army [from Yemen on theKabah ] and their destruction through the small birds which were sent to destroy them (by Allah (awj )), things are mentioned which go directly against the verses of the Qur`an!2

The work, as-Sirah ofIbne Hisham, is the best book which has been written in regards to the life of the Noble Prophet of Islam (‘s). In actuality, this book is a summary of the work, as-Sirah ofIbne Ishaq , which is unfortunately no longer available. If however, the Muslim scholars are able to find a copy of this book in any of the libraries of the world and after making minor corrections and some additional research (on the sources referred to in the book) are then able to have this work printed, then it would not be inconceivable that this book would open up a new horizon on the life of the Prophet (‘s) for us which theSirah ofIbne Hisham has not been able to accomplish! It should be kept in mind thatIbne Ishaq was a Shi’a, while the one who summarized his work, meaningIbne Hisham, was a Sunni, and thus, in various issues, there was a difference of opinion between them.

Notes

1. al-Kamil byIbne Athir , vol. 2, pg. 121

2. Ibid., vol. 1, pg. 263

Part 13: Familiarity with the Stories and the History of the Lives of Previous Prophets

A great portion of the verses of the Qur`an are in relation to the history of the previous prophets and we are given a brief insight into the lives of some of these great men and the ways of their struggles with the oppressors and tyrants of their time.

Having knowledge of the history of the life of previous nations such as ’Ad and Thamud, or having knowledge of the satanic powers of the oppressors such as those inBabil [present day Iraq] and the Pharaohs of Egypt, make the verses which speak of the struggles of the various prophets such as Hud (‘a), Salih (‘a), Ibrahim (‘a) and Musa (‘a) clear to us.

Information on the lives of the prophets of the Children of Israel (BaniIsra’il ), especially of prophetsDawud (‘a) and Sulayman (‘a) help us understand many of the verses of the Qur`an. In referring to the verses of the Qur`an in regards to these two individuals, the truthfulness in our words (in regards to these two prophets) would be made clear to everyone.

Of course in this section, we must not give up our prudence and caution (in conducting research) and must recognize the correct and authentic reports from the incorrect and unauthentic ones, especially when it comes to the prophets sent to the Children of Israel and the forged traditions known as “Isra’ili ” narrations, which are large in number and can never be relied upon.

Part 14: Knowledge of the Historical Environment in which the Qur`an was Revealed

The Qur`an was revealed in an environment in which the people were accustomed to a particular style of life and thus, the verses of the Qur`an which were sent down were suitable to and alluded to the lifestyle, traditions and customs of those people. In addition, the verses also went forth to comment on these people and their (negative) characteristics!

Thus, it is necessary for the commentator of the Qur`an to be aware of the lifestyle of the ’Arabs before Islam and even those contemporary to the revelation of the Qur`an so that they are able to clearly understand the verses of the Qur`an in relation to a particular theme.

For example, the Qur`an speaks about various issues and topics such as Azlam1 (animals which have been slaughtered as a sacrifice to the various false gods and idols), and the various idols such asWadda ,Suwaf ,Yaghuth ,Yafuqa and Nasra2 . In addition, the Qur`an also speaks about issues such as the morals and ethical traits of the ’Arabs and their repulsive acts such as the killing of their female infants3 . The verses of the Qur`an also speak about the relationship which the Arabs had with the orphans of the society and tens of other topics in relation to the life of the Arabs before Islam and during the time of the Prophet (‘s). Thus, the ability to completely review and explain the verses of the Qur`an in regards to these issues can only be performed by the person who has a full understanding of the complete way of life of this group of people since the Qur`an was revealed in the environment and surroundings of these people.

Sometimes, the Qur`an presents the truths to us in the form of a parable [such as the parable of the falsehood being equated with seeing a mirage in the desert].However the only person who is able to understand the reality of the parable (of a mirage) is one who has an understanding of life in the desert or lives in a dry and arid land with little to no agriculture.

For example, when Allah (awj ) mentions the parable of the truth and falsehood as being like a mirage, which one sees and He (awj ) says:

وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَعْمَالُهُمْ كَسَرَابٍ بِقِيعَةٍ يَّحْسَبُهُ الظَّمْأَنُ مَـــاءً

“And (as for) those who disbelieve, their deeds are like a mirage in the desert, which the thirsty man deems to be water.” 4

The person who lives in the desert or who has knowledge of the life of such people would be able to better understand the actuality of this parable whereas the person who lives near the banks of a river or in a very grassy, lush area would not, in the beginning stages, be able to fully understand the actuality of this similitude.

Notes

1.Suratul Maidah (5), Verses 3 and 90

2. SuratNuh (71), Verse 23

3.Suratul Takwir (81), Verse 8

4.Suratul Nur (24), Verse 39

Part 15: Knowing the Verses of the Qur`an which are “Makki ” and “Madani ”

In regards to the time of their revelation, the verses of the Qur`an are divided into two categories - they are either verses which were revealed before the migration (to Madinah), or those which were revealed after the migration (to Madinah). The first group of verses are known as ‘Makki ’ while the second group are referred to as ‘Madani.’1

TheMakki verses have their own particular style to them and theMadani verses also have their own style.

The verses which are referred to as ‘Makki ’ were revealed at a time in which the Muslims lived the life of a small “unknown” group who did not have the power to stand up and struggle against those who opposed them. The condition of their lives did not permit them to go forth to elucidate upon the practical laws of Islam such as Salat, Sawm, Zakat,Khums and Jihad. Therefore, a majority of the verses of theMakki period were in regards to the polytheists and a majority of these verses of the Qur`an were in regards to elucidating on the beliefs and lofty theological issues of the faith of Islam.

However, the conditions which existed in Madinah were of another form and after seeing that the environment was friendly to them, the Muslims emerged as a powerful force. Consequently, the explanation of the practical laws of Islam was entirely possible. It is for this reason that the verses in relation to the practical laws of Islam such as those of Salat, Sawm, Zakat,Khums and Jihad were revealed in the city of Madinah.

Being aware of these two types of verses will definitely help a person reach the goal of the verses of the Qur`an.

The scholar who is not able to correctly differentiate which verse isMakki and which isMadani , may say, in regards to the verse which reads:

قُلْ لاَّ أَسْئَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْراً إِلاَّ الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُربَــى

“…Say (O’ Muhammad): I ask you (Muslims) no reward for my work except love for my close family members.” 2

that it was not revealed in regards to the family of the Prophet (‘s) since the Surah which this verse comes from is aMakki chapter and was revealed in the city of Makkah. Thus, for the Prophet (‘s) to ask for such a thing (love for his close family members) at that time period (when he had no family members) is nothing but him merely expressing an eloquent statement full of pleasantries (with no way to actually implement it).

However, if we look at the books written in regards to the recognition of theMakki verses from theMadani verses, it would be clear to such a commentator that simply because a chapter of the Qur`an is known to be aMakki chapter does not mean that all of the verses of that Surah were revealed in Makkah! It is possible thatMakki verses may be found in chapters of the Qur`an which are known asMadani and vice versa.

More than this, the commentators of the Qur`an who have consideredSuratul Shura (which is where the verse quoted above has been taken from) to be revealed in Makkah have mentioned that specifically this verse (under discussion) and a few other verses of this Surah are Madani.3

What has been mentioned up until this point are fourteen fundamental pillars of a correct method of commentary of the Qur`an, some of which have a particular priority associated with them. Even though we are able to group some of them with others in the discussion, such as the eleventh and twelfth points which were ‘knowledge of the history of Islam’ and ‘knowledge of the previous prophets sent and their stories’, which could technically be covered under the heading of ‘knowledge of the history of revelation of the verses of the Qur`an’, however in order to make this discussion clear and unambiguous, we decided to review each of these separately.

Notes

1. The common and well-known terminologies which are used in the commentary of the verses of the Qur`an are ‘Makki ’ and ‘Madani ’, just as has been stated. However, these verses are known with other words and terminologies which those who are specialists in the field of Tafsir are well acquainted with.

2.Suratul Shura ` (42), Verse 23

3. We are able to discern which surahs were revealed in Makkah and which were revealed in Madinah by keeping the following two points in mind:

1. The traditions (ahadith) which mention to us the place of revelation of a specific surah.

2. Pondering over the contents of the verses of the surah as this action usually acts as a chain of events and tells us if the surah was revealed in Makkah or Madinah.

Seeing as how the cities of Makkah and Madinah were two completely different environments, we understand that each was governed by its own ways of thought, and thus the religion of Islam was put face to face with issues and difficulties which were specific to that particular area. Thus, after we are acquainted with the way of thinking and the particular issues of an area (Makkah or Madinah), and have studied the contents of a surah, we are then able to understand where the surah or the verses of the surah were revealed.

For instance, the environment of Makkah was polluted with polytheism and idol worship. The Jews and Christians had not permeated into this city and thus, those who had true faith (iman ) were very small in number. The issue of jihad was not brought up in this environment and in during this time, the Prophet (‘s) had frequent dealings and relations with the idol worshippers. The point of difference of the Prophet (‘s) with the polytheists (of Makkah) was concerning tawhid (the Oneness of Allah (awj )) and the concept of being brought back to life on the Day of Judgment after the physical death in this world.

It is for this reason that the verses whose axis rotates around the discussion of issues such as the origin (of life), Resurrection Day, reproaching polytheism and speaking about the outcome of the previous generations which were inflicted with the anger and punishment of Allah (awj ) due to not following His commandments and their appointed Messengers were most often revealed in Makkah.

However the environment in Madinah was an atmosphere of faith, virtue and piety. It was a center where theAhlul Kitab - especially the Jews - had influenced and permeated into. It was an atmosphere of young men, heroes, champions and brave individuals who readily accepted the teachings of Islam. In addition, it was also an environment where the Muslims had little need to discuss the foundational beliefs (Usul ad-Din) of the religion, and thus it was time for them to become acquainted with a series of other issues including their practical responsibilities, ethical and societal guidelines and the performance of devotional acts such as salat, sawm (fasting), zakat and other issues. It is because of this fact that the verses in relation to theTawrat andInjil and the beliefs of theAhlul Kitab (Jews and Christians) and the explanation of the altercations, battles and wars of the Muslims with theAhlul Kitab and the polytheists were revealed in Madinah.

Also, the verses which speak of the principles of etiquette and the commandments of the religion including the obligatory (wajib ) and recommended (mustahab) acts were all revealed in Madinah - meaning after the migration (hijrah ) of the Prophet (‘s) from Makkah to Madinah.

Given that the mood in Madinah was one of interaction between the Prophet (‘s) and the Ansar (the local people of Madinah who welcomed the Prophet (‘s) and his followers to their city) and other groups that slowly accepted the teachings of Islam, this limited time frame did not permit the Prophet (‘s) to discuss issues such as condemning the idols and idol worshippers (while in Madinah - as they had already been covered while in Makkah).

Conversely, the atmosphere in Makkah was not conducive to discussing ethical issues, since the people of Makkah still held doubts concerning the principles of Islam (origin of life and Day of Resurrection), did not attest to the prophetic mission of the Prophet of Islam (‘s) and had not yet developed faith in his universal message. [Taken from, The Islamic Moral System: A Commentary of Surat al-Hujurat byAyatullah Ja’far Suhani translated by SaleemBhimji ]