١. They maintain that the Book of God is the Speech of God the Almighty, which was revealed to His Prophet, and that this is an incontestable fact about which there is no room for doubt. A single narration, however, does not have the certainty of being in conformity with the reality or to be an authentic pronouncement of the in- fallible Prophet or the Imams, for there is a possibility, however small, of an error in the narrators communication about it. In this situation, reason does not permit aban- doning the incontestable proof for evidence in which there is a possibility of error.
The response [to this is as follows]. Although the origin of the Book of God is incontrovertible, it is not certain that its actual injunction is in accordance with its general sense. This is because it is necessary to act in accordance with the general sense, since it constitutes the apparent sense of the text. To be sure, the practice of rational persons has been to accept the apparent sense of the speech as evidence, and the lawgiver has not prohibited this practice. It is evident that the practice of the ra- tional persons regarding the evidentiary nature of the apparent sense applies only when there is no context to suggest the contrary, regardless of whether that context is attached or unattached. When the context points to something other than the ap- parent sense, then one ought to discard the latter and act in accordance with the.con- textual sense. Consequently, it is inevitable that one should particularize the general injunctions of the Quran by means of a single narration, following the establishment of the absolute proof of its evidentiary status. In other words, the subject of the single narration, related on ti:te authority of the infallible Imams, should be followed [as coming from the lawgiver]. The argument can be rephrased by saying that the chain of transmission of the Quran, even when the Quran itself is incontestable, is based on a conjectural proof. According to rational judgment, there is no problem in disre- garding one conjectural proof in favor of another whose evidentiary status has been established by means of an incontrovertible proof.
٢. They [some scholars] maintain that sound traditions from the infallible Imams affirm that traditions should be correlated with the Quran, and they maintain that those of them which disagree with the Quran should be discarded and rejected out- right, for they cannot be something the Imams had said. Moreover, a tradition deal- ing with a particular matter reported on the authority of the Imams, which runs con- trary to the general sense of the Quran because of the evidence it includes, should be rejected and its validity be denied.
The response [to this is as follows]. The conventional factual evidence for the explanation of the purport of the Quran is not ordinarily regarded as something that is in contradiction to its intent. Moreover, a specific verification in a single narration is evidence of the elaboration of the intended meaning of the Quranic statement that expresses the intent in general terms. However, the inconsistency between the two forms of evidence comes into effect when one of them contradicts the other in such a way that, when both originate from the same speaker or from someone who acts on his behalf, then the people who follow an accepted practice will withhold judgment concerning the intent of these statements. Thus, in this sense a specific single narra- tion does not contradict the general sense of the Quran; rather, it functions as an expounder of its implications.