conversation went onJ until the Imam said: "٠ Qatada, if you explain the Quran on
. the basis of your own opinion, then, indeed, you are doomed and have caused others to be doomed. And if you explain it on the basis of the opinions of the transmitters of tradition (al-rijal), then, too, you are doomed and have caused others to be doomed. ٠
Qatada, woe unto you! The Quran is known to those to whom it has been addressed."

The response [to this is as follows]. Surely, the purport of these and other such traditions is to convey the fact that the understanding of the Quran as it should be understood, and the knowledge of its apparent and hidden meanings, and of its abro‌ gating and abrogated verses, are limited to those to whom it was addressed. The first tradition is explicit in conveying this purport, for the Imams question deals with the precise knowledge about the Book of God, about the distinction between the abro‌ gating and the abrogated verses. Accordingly, the Imams rebuke to Abu l:lanifa was for claiming this kind of precise knowledge. As for the second tradition, it includes the term tafslr (to interpret, make an exegesis), which means "uncovering the veil," and as such, does not refer to the literal sense of the text because that is not some‌ thing hidden and that needs to be unveiled. This interpretation of the tradition is construed from other explicit traditions that speak about the comprehension of the Book not being limited only to the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them). In addi‌ tion, the statement of the Imam al- adiq
has not bequeathed on you even a word," conveys this sense, because it means that God has favored the legatees of His Prophet with the bequest of the Book. Signifi‌ cantly, this is the meaning of Gods saying that "then We gave the Book as inherit‌ ance to those whom We elected our bondmen" (Q. ٣٥:٣٢). Those are the ones di‌ vinely chosen to understand the Quran as it really is, and others besides them have no share in it. This is indeed the meaning of [what the Imam said] in the first of the two traditions. Otherwise, is it reasonable to maintain that Abu l:lanifa did not know anything about the Book of God, even Gods saying that "say, He is God, the One" (Q. ١١١:١), and about other verses like this, which are clear in their meaning? The traditions that indicate the abovementioned [principle of] election are numerous, and some of them have already been cited.

٢. The prohibition to interpret the Quran according to ones personal judgment (ray). According to this argument, abiding by the apparent meaning of the text is a form of interpreting (tafslr) the Quran on the basis of ones personal opinion. This has been forbidden, as is attested by the uninterruptedly transmitted traditions by the Sunnis and Shiites.
The response [to this is as follows]. The term tafslr, as mentioned earlier, means "uncovering the veil." As such, tafslr does not connote an explanation of the literal meaning of the text, for, being unconcealed, the literal meaning is not in need of being uncovered. And, even if we concede that explaining the literal meaning involves tafsir, it is certainly not tafslr on the basis of ones personal opinion; hence, it is not the type of tafslr prohibited by the uninterruptedly transmitted traditions. Rather, it is tafslr in the sense in which the term is ordinarily understood. Thus, for instance, if someone were to expound on one of the orations of Nahj al-Balagha [The Peak of Eloquence] in terms of how the words are commonly understood, as well as in ac‌ cm;dance with both the connected and separate contexts, then such an endeavor would