A study of the Flaws of Criteria Adopted for Assessment of Narratives Underlying the Occasion of Revelation

Traditionally, researchers have regarded documents and texts as two complementary methods in evaluating or criticizing narratives. However, considering the inherent problems associated with the narratives underlying the occasion of revelation (Sabab al-nuzūl), the most reliable and at the same time challenging way to obtain reliable narratives is to employ them as a way of obtaining a proper understanding of the Qur'anic verses. Consistency or inconsistency with the Qur'an, authenticity of a narrative, historical reports and discoursal requirements are the main criteria frequently used by Qur'anic scholars to confirm or reject narratives underlying the occasion of revelation, which have been inspired by the indicators proposed in the traditional Islamic narratives and sciences such as Fiqh al-Hadith, Ekhtelāf al-Hadith and principles of jurisprudence. This paper, while introducing these criteria, reviews their methodological flaws with respect to the structure and application and presents some suggestions on how to address them. The privative, passive and incoherent approach in applying these criteria and the incompatibility of these criteria and rules with the historical nature of the narratives underlying the occasion of revelation are the major structural problems in this area. Further studies on the occasion of revelation and designing affirmative, active and coherent methods for assessing narratives underlying the occasion of revelation can be a step forward in overcoming shortcomings in this area and exploiting its capacity on a large scale.