Critique of the Evidentiality of Tradition for Understanding the Qur an

The relation between the Qur’an and tradition (sunna) is among the most important discourses in Qur’an sciences. While considering the theory of sufficiency of the Qur’an as invalid, some believe that the Qur’an is not short of stating its intention and does not need others, including the tradition. In contrast, some others have considered tradition an evidence for understanding the Qur’an. They have considered the way of showing and stating the details and the referents, and the applicability and comparison and ta’wīls by the infallibles, which is the status set by Allah for them, as interpretation. The critics of this theory have asked that if the Qur’an was supposed to need others for stating its intention, the ambiguous verses (mutishābihāt) were prior, but the Exalted Allah has maintained the way to understand the ambiguous verses to be referring to the unequivocal verses (muḥkamāt) and not the tradition. Similarly, according to an indisputable tradition, the Qur’an governs tradition and the criteria for its soundness; then, how is it in need of tradition which is governed by it? The provider of this theory does not content himself with the Qur’an and is not ignorant of the status of tradition in the collection of Islamic teachings; because the Qur’an has explicitly called the words of the Prophet (S.A.W.) as Revelation, i.e., authority. However, this belief is not only not a reason for the Qur’an’s need for tradition, but it is the other way round. This analytical-descriptive research aims at showing the violability of the theories presented in educational texts on the interpretation of the Qur’an and tried to prove that what is not stated in the Qur’an has been pre-planned and tradition, along the Qur’an, provides what the Qur’an has assigned it to and tradition supports legitimacy only when the Qur’an’s intentions are clear.