In Arabic, al-ashīl is derived from the word al-ashl, which means the basis or foundation of something[13] Al-ashīl itself refers to something that possesses a firm origin and a strong foundation, whether material or immaterial [14]. Al-ashīl constitutes a fundamental principle in understanding the Qur’an, as it is grounded in authoritative sources such as the Qur’an itself, the hadith, consensus (ijmāʿ), and analogical reasoning (qiyās) [15]. This definition indicates that al-ashīl in Qur’anic exegesis is not confined solely to tafsir bi al-maʾthūr, but also encompasses tafsir bi al-raʾyi[16]. The principal characteristics of al-ashīl include adherence to the textual evidence, relevance to the historical context, and a sound understanding of the rules of the Arabic language [15]. These principles must be upheld by anyone engaged in interpreting the Qur’an so that the resulting interpretation is more comprehensive and in accordance with Allah’s intentions.

By contrast, al-dakhīl refers to Qur’anic interpretations that lack valid argumentative foundations and reliable religious evidence. Interpretations characterized by this element are devoid of sound and scholarly bases, whether derived from the Qur’an, the hadith, the statements of the companions, the tabi’in, or from sound reasoning and the essential prerequisites of ijtihad [17]. Citing Husna, and referring to the view of ʿAbd al-Wahhab al-Najjar, al-dakhīl in tafsir denotes matters permeated with falsehood. Such falsehoods are attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, the companions, or the tabi’in, or arise from exegetical reports transmitted from the companions or the tabi’in that do not meet the criteria for reliable transmission, or that originate from reprehensible opinions [18]. In short, al-dakhīl represents the antithesis of the elements that constitute al-ashīl.

There are two forms of al-dakhīl. First, al-dakhīl al-manqūl, which includes fabricated hadith, isrā’īliyyāt reports that contradict the Qur’an and authentic hadiths, false attributions to the companions, false attributions to the tabi’in, as well as mursal hadith. Second, al-dakhīl al-ʿaqlī, which encompasses improper linguistic usage in the interpretation of the Qur’an and raʾy, that is, reasoning-based interpretations that are erroneous or blameworthy, whether intentionally or unintentionally[19]. Accordingly, isrā’īliyyāt constitute a part of al-dakhīl but do not exhaust its entirety. Al-dakhīl has a broader scope than isrā’īliyyāt, as outlined above. Thus, the relationship between isrā’īliyyāt and al-dakhīl is one of generality and specificity (ʿumūm wa khushush muthlaq): every isrā’īliyyāt falls under al-dakhīl, but not every instance of al-dakhīl qualifies as isrā’īliyyāt[20].

As for the Qur’anic stories that contain abundant wisdom, they are often presented concisely while conveying profound and far-reaching meanings. This stylistic approach aims to facilitate understanding of the Qur’an, preserve its purity, and prevent readers from becoming preoccupied with excessive narrative details that might divert them from the primary objective, namely the extraction of moral and spiritual lessons. For this reason, the Qur’an deliberately leaves many details of these stories unspecified. However, many exegetes were driven to investigate and determine matters that the Qur’an intentionally left ambiguous, thereby departing from its intended purpose. As a consequence, they fell into the incorporation of elements of al-dakhīl[21]. It is likely that this tendency constitutes one of the main factors that prompted the use of israiliyyāt reports in Qur’anic exegesis.

Explaining the Qur’an necessarily entails elucidating both its wording and its meanings. A profound understanding of the principles of interpretation (qawā’id al-tafsīr) is highly recommended in order to preserve the validity of interpretation[22]. When interpreting the Qur’an, an individual should position himself as a translator of God’s intent and as a witness on His behalf concerning what He intends through His revelation. Such a perspective engenders a sense of caution against speaking in the name of God without a sound foundation of knowledge [23]. Therefore, it is essential for scholars of the Qur’an to understand this conceptual framework, so that they are able to distinguish and classify the elements of al-ashīl and al-dakhīl, and to avoid conflating the two in the process of interpretation.

This work was authored by the scholar ʿAlaʾuddin Abu al-Hasan ʿAli ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn ʿUmar ibn Khalil al-Shihi al-Baghdadi al-Shafiʿi. He was born in Baghdad in 678 AH and passed away in the city of Halab (Aleppo) in 741 AH. He was a Sufi scholar and is more widely known by the name al-Khazin. This appellation derives from his occupation as a custodian of the library at Khānaqāh al-Sāmīsāṭiyyah in Damascus[24]. Owing to this position, his exegetical work also became well known as Tafsir al-Khazin. The original title of the work, however, is Lubāb al-Taʾwīl fī Maʿānī al-Tanzīl.

This tafsir consists of four volumes and represents an abridgment of Maʿālim al-Tanzīl by al-Baghawi. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Baghawi himself composed his tafsir as a summary of al-Kashf wa al-Bayān ʿan Tafsīr al-Qurʾān by al-Thaʿlabi[25]. Consequently, Tafsir al-Khazin may be regarded as a “summary of a summary.” Al-Khazin frequently attributes portions of his interpretations to al-Thaʿlabi; thus, the principal references underlying this tafsir are the works of al-Baghawi and al-Thaʿlabi.

In compiling this tafsir, al-Khazin does not provide additional commentary or personal reflections of his own, apart from selecting and transmitting existing reports. He deliberately avoids lengthy explanations that he considers unnecessary. He also omits the chains of transmission (asānīd), arguing that doing so allows the intended meaning and objective to be conveyed more efficiently. Nevertheless, in the case of certain hadiths and selected reports cited to elucidate specific verses, the sources and the names of their authors are still mentioned, though without detailed isnād documentation. Reports drawn from Shahīh al-Bukhārī are indicated by the symbol خ, those from ShahīhMuslim by م, and reports agreed upon by both collections by ق. As for narrations taken from the Sunan works of Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nasaʾi, the names of the respective authors are mentioned without any special symbols [26].

The introduction (muqaddimah) of this tafsir is devoted to discussions on ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān and Uṣūl al-Tafsīr. It also addresses the virtues of Qur’anic exegesis and the prohibition against interpreting the Qur’an solely on the basis of personal opinion (raʾy). The interpretation of each passage begins with an explanation of the merits of the surah and the virtues of those who recite it[27]. This is followed by a linguistic analysis of the verses, which is at times reinforced through citations of classical Arabic poetry.

Like its primary sources, this tafsir is replete with narratives and reports containing invalid elements of isrā’īliyyāt, particularly in accounts of the prophets, earlier communities, as well as stories concerning tribulations and eschatological events [28]. However, al-Khazin does not offer commentary on, nor does he critique, these narrations, even when they contain elements that conflict with the dignity and infallibility of the prophets. According to al-Dhahabi, there was no compelling methodological reason that led al-Khazin to incorporate isrā’īliyyāt into his tafsir; rather, this practice stemmed from his fondness for narrative accounts and his interest in isrā’īliyyāt, even when they involved falsehoods [29]. Although this tafsir is relatively accessible in its style of expression and clear in meaning, its fame for being heavily laden with narratives and its reputation for containing isrā’īliyyāt have significantly undermined its reception [30]. Consequently, these factors have discouraged many scholars from referring to it or relying upon it as an authoritative exegetical source.

﴿وَرَاوَدَتْهُ الَّتِيْ هُوَ فِيْ بَيْتِهَا عَنْ نَّفْسِهٖ وَغَلَّقَتِ الْاَبْوَابَ وَقَالَتْ هَيْتَ لَكَ ۗقَالَ مَعَاذَ اللّٰهِ اِنَّهٗ رَبِّيْٓ اَحْسَنَ مَثْوَايَۗ اِنَّهٗ لَا يُفْلِحُ الظّٰلِمُوْنَ. وَلَقَدْ هَمَّتْ بِهٖۙ وَهَمَّ بِهَا ۚ لَوْلَآ اَنْ رَّاٰ بُرْهَانَ رَبِّهٖۗ كَذٰلِكَ لِنَصْرِفَ عَنْهُ السُّوْۤءَ وَالْفَحْشَاۤءَۗ اِنَّهٗ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا الْمُخْلَصِيْنَ﴾

Al-Ashil constitutes the primary principle employed by exegetes in interpreting the Qur’an, and this principle must be grounded in authoritative sources. In his interpretation of verses 23–24 of surah Yusuf, al-Khazin applies this principle, albeit to a lesser extent than the isrā’īliyyāt reports, which fall under the category of al-dakhīl. In his discussion of the phrase hayta laka, al-Khazin explains its meaning while citing the views of linguistic authorities regarding the expression [26]. He clarifies that hayta laka conveys the sense of “come closer” or “come to me”.

Al-Khazin explains that the pronoun hu in the phrase innahu rabbī refers to al-ʿAziz, also identified as Qitfir, who had treated him kindly in that household[26]. Another opinion maintains that the pronoun hu refers to God, who had bestowed favor upon him and delivered him from the calamity of the well when Yusuf was cast into it by his brothers.

After presenting several reports that accuse the Prophet Yusuf of having harbored a desire for the wife of al-ʿAziz, al-Khazin proceeds to clarify the meaning of the term al-hamm. He distinguishes between two types of al-hamm: first, hamm thābit, which is accompanied by firm resolve and willing intent, such as the intention of the wife of al-ʿAziz, for which one is held accountable; and second, hamm ʿāridh, which consists merely of a passing inner thought or a spontaneous mental impulse without determination, as in the case of Yusuf. Al-Khazin then cites a hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah in which the Rasulullah (peace be upon him) reported that God said: “When My servant intends to commit an evil deed, do not record it against him until he commits it. If he commits it, record one evil deed. But if he refrains from it, record one good deed. If he intends to do a good deed but does not carry it out, record one good deed; and if he carries it out, record ten good deeds.” Based on this hadith, al-Khazin argues that the intention attributed to the Prophet Yusuf was not a sinful intention accompanied by desire and determination to act[26]. Rather, it was merely a fleeting, human impulse that is subject to divine pardon. The Prophet Yusuf is therefore free from all false acts and prohibited intentions. This represents the position of the muhaqqiqun and the mutakallimun.

Regarding the divine statement, “wa laqad hammat bihi wa hamma bihā lawlā an raʾā burhāna rabbih” (QS. Yusuf: 24), al-Khazin explains the concept of taqdīm wa taʾkhīr embedded in the verse. He notes that the apodosis of the conditional clause “lawlā an raʾā burhāna rabbih” (had he not seen the sign of his Lord) is omitted, or not stated explicitly. Consequently, the implied meaning is: “Had he not seen the sign of his Lord, he would indeed have committed the act.” Al-Khazin further cites the view of Abu Hatim, who transmits from ʿUbaydah, stating that Yusuf had no intention whatsoever to commit the act, and that the structure of the verse reflects a reversed order. That is, the intended meaning is: “Indeed, the woman had intended him, and had Yusufnot seen the sign of his Lord, he too would have intended her.”[26]

Al-Khazin also cites other verses from surah Yusuf that demonstrate Yusuf’s truthfulness and integrity. These verses consist of statements made by various parties involved, which function as testimonies to the purity of the Prophet Yusuf. They include Yusuf’s own statements in verses 26 and 32; the statements of the wife of al-ʿAziz in verses 32 and 51; the statements of al-ʿAzīz in verses 28–29; the testimony of the child witness in verses 26–27 [26]; and the divine affirmation that confirms the truthfulness of the Prophet Yusuf in verse 24.

Based on the foregoing exegetical discussion, it can be observed that al-Khazin consistently upholds the principle of al-ashīl in his tafsir. He conducts concise linguistic analyses of terms such as hayta laka and al-hamm; explains the concept of taqdīm wa taʾkhīr found in verse 23; and cites the statements of the companions who held similar views. He also refers to hadith when elucidating the notion of al-hamm in relation to the Prophet Yusuf, thereby reinforcing the doctrine of prophetic infallibility. Moreover, he draws upon multiple verses within surah Yusuf that serve as contemporaneous testimonies to Yusuf’s innocence.  Accordingly, the elements of al-ashīl present in verses 23–24 of surah Yusuf consist of the Divine Word (kalām Allāh), the hadith, the statements of the companions, sound linguistic analysis in accordance with established rules, and valid reasoned interpretation.

The following section presents a summarized account of the interpretation recorded by al-Khazin. The elements of al-dakhīl found in this tafsir largely derive from isrā’īliyyāt narrations. Verses 23-24 of surah Yusuf, in particular, constitute a segment of the narrative that has been extensively infiltrated by isrā’īliyyāt reports. The discussion below elucidates the various forms of al-dakhīl embedded in al-Khazin’s interpretation of these verses.

Al-Dakhil in verse 23:

The wording of verse 23 of surah Yusuf is as follows:

﴿وَرَاوَدَتْهُ الَّتِيْ هُوَ فِيْ بَيْتِهَا عَنْ نَّفْسِهٖ وَغَلَّقَتِ الْاَبْوَابَ وَقَالَتْ هَيْتَ لَكَ ۗقَالَ مَعَاذَ اللّٰهِ اِنَّهٗ رَبِّيْٓ اَحْسَنَ مَثْوَايَۗ اِنَّهٗ لَا يُفْلِحُ الظّٰلِمُوْنَ﴾

Al-Khazin explains this verse by stating that the woman who resided in the house was the wife of al-ʿAziz in Egypt. It was she who attempted to entice Yusuf into committing an immoral act. When inviting Yusuf to engage in fornication, she reportedly locked seven doors tightly. This, according to the narration, was done because such reprehensible acts are typically carried out in secrecy.

In his interpretation of the number of doors that were locked during the incident, al-Khazin states that there were seven doors. This view is transmitted from Tafsir al-Baghawi, which likewise does not provide a chain of transmission for the report [31]. Al-Tha’labi dan Al-Qurthubi also mention that the number was seven in their respective tafsirs, likewise without citing any isnād [32],[33]. By contrast, Tafsir al-Thabari, one of the most prominent classical exegetical works, does not specify the number of doors in its interpretation of this verse [34]. When referring to contemporary tafsir literature, the discussion of the doors tends to focus more generally on the existence of multiple doors within the residences of elite households [35],[36]. Accordingly, interpretations that specify the number of doors in this verse do not rest upon clearly established reports and therefore cannot be substantiated with certainty.

Al-Dakhil in verse 24:

The wording of verse 23 of surah Yusuf is as follows:

﴿وَلَقَدْ هَمَّتْ بِهٖۙ وَهَمَّ بِهَا ۚ لَوْلَآ اَنْ رَّاٰ بُرْهَانَ رَبِّهٖۗ كَذٰلِكَ لِنَصْرِفَ عَنْهُ السُّوْۤءَ وَالْفَحْشَاۤءَۗ اِنَّهٗ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا الْمُخْلَصِيْنَ ﴾

In his interpretation of verse 24 “wa laqad hammat bihi wa hamma biha”, Al-Khazin cites several scholarly opinions, among them that of al-Baghawi, who in turn transmits a report attributed to Ibnu ʿAbbas stating that Yusuf loosened his waistband and sat before the woman in a manner likened to that of a betrayer. Mujahid is reported to have said that Yusuf had removed his trousers and began to attend to his clothing. This view is held by the majority of exegetes, including Sa’id bin Jubayr, al-Hasan al-Bashri, and others [26]. Al-Dhahhak further adds that satan seized Yusuf by the neck with one hand and the woman by the neck with the other, bringing the two of them together.

Al-Khazin also cites the opinions of al-Suddi and Ibnu Ishaq, who relate that when the wife of al-ʿAziz attempted to seduce Yusuf, she began to praise him and to arouse desire through flattering words. A dialogue is then said to have taken place between the two of them. The wife of al-ʿAziz said, “O Yusuf, how beautiful your hair is.” Yusuf replied, “That is the first part of my body that will fall away.” She then said, “How beautiful your eyes are.” Yusuf responded, “Those are what will flow down my cheeks in the grave.” She further said, “How handsome your face is.” Yusuf replied, “That is what will be consumed by the earth.”[26].

Another opinion relates that the wife of al-ʿAziz said, “A silk bed has been spread out; rise and fulfill my desire.” Yusuf replied, “If that were so, then my share in paradise would be lost.” Al-Khazin explains that the wife of al-ʿAziz persistently attempted to entice Yusuf by appealing to worldly pleasures. Yusuf, for his part, was a young man who experienced natural sexual impulses, as is typical of youth, while the woman was exceedingly beautiful and alluring [26]. As a result, Yusuf is said to have momentarily inclined toward her due to the intensity of her desire for him. However, God swiftly protected His servant Yusuf through the burhān mentioned in this verse.

After presenting these various opinions, al-Khazin proceeds to affirm the purification of the Prophet Yusuf from reprehensible acts and to reiterate the doctrine of prophetic infallibility. With regard to such sensitive matters, ultimate knowledge belongs to God alone. The isrā’īliyyāt reports cited above are clearly false, as such details could not be known except through divine revelation or authentic and sound transmission [35]. No one, therefore, can legitimately claim the truth of these additional narratives without valid evidence.

Another instance of al-dakhīl can be identified in the interpretation of the phrase “burhāna rabbih” (the sign of his Lord). Al-Khazin records several opinions explaining the nature of the burhān granted by God at the moment when Yusuf was being tempted.

There are also several reports transmitted without any mention of their narrators. Al-Khazin introduces such accounts using the expression qīla and then elaborates upon their content. One such report states:

"وقيل إنه رأى مِعصما بلا عضُد عليه مكتوب (وَإِنَّ عَلَيْكُمْ لَحافِظِينَ. كِراماً كاتِبِينَ. يَعْلَمُونَ ما تَفْعَلُونَ) فولّى هاربا ثم رجع فعاد المِعصم وعليه مكتوب (وَلا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنى إِنَّهُ كانَ فاحِشَةً وَساءَ سَبِيلًا) فولّى هاربا ثم عاد فرأى ذلك الكفَّ وعليه مكتوب (وَاتَّقُوا يَوْماً تُرْجَعُونَ فِيهِ إِلَى اللَّهِ) الآية ثم عاد فقال الله تعالى لجبريل عليه السلام: أدرك عبدي يوسف قبل أن يصيب الخطيئة. فانحطّ جبريل عاضّا على إصْبَعِهِ يقول يا يوسف أتعمل عملَ السفهاء وأنت مكتوب عند الله من الأنبياء؟. وقيل إنه مسه بجناحه فخرجت شهوته من أنامله."

One report states that Yusuf saw a forearm without an upper arm, upon which was written the verse: “Indeed, over you are guardians, noble scribes, who know whatever you do.” Yusuf then turned away and fled, but when he returned, the writing on the forearm appeared again, now stating: “And do not approach adultery; indeed, it is an abomination and an evil path.” Yusuf turned away and fled once more, and when he returned again, he saw the inscription: “And fear the day when you will be returned to God.” Thereupon, Yusuf turned away yet again. God, the Exalted, is then reported to have said to Gabriel: “Hasten to My servant Yusuf before he slips into sin.” Gabriel descended, biting his finger, and said: “O Yusuf, will you commit the act of the foolish, while you are recorded with God as one of the prophets?” Another report adds that Gabriel touched Yusuf with his wing, whereupon Yusuf’s sexual desire departed from the tips of his fingers.”[26].

In this section, al-Khazin does not explicitly state his own position regarding the transmitted reports. These reports tend to imply a disparaging view of the Prophet Yusuf. Proponents of such views appear to have an inadequate understanding of the meaning of Allah’s statement in the verse: “…Thus did We avert from him evil and indecency. Indeed, he was among Our chosen servants (al-mukhlas}īn)” (QS. Yusuf: 24). This is because it is illogical to assert that Allah had already averted evil from the Prophet Yusuf while simultaneously claiming that he nearly committed an indecent act by succumbing to satan’s temptation and only desisted after receiving a warning[37]. Warnings are generally directed at those who engage in sinful conduct, and such a characterization is incompatible with the designation of Yusuf as one of Allah’s chosen servants.

These reports portray a series of extraordinary and unverifiable occurrences, presented without clear attribution or reliable transmission. As such, they exemplify narrations whose authenticity cannot be established through sound methodological criteria and thus fall within the category of al-dakhīl.

A number of reports transmitted by narrators who have been judged as munkar or even fabricators should neither be trusted nor employed in Qur’anic interpretation. The presence of isrā’īliyyāt narrations in Tafsir al-Khazin indicates that not all reports found in classical tafsīr bi al-maʾthūr possess an adequate level of authenticity [38]. Thus, fabricated reports, particularly those originating from the Ahlu al-Kitab who are known to conceal the truth, cannot be relied upon. The Qur’an itself has explicitly pointed out the deviations that they frequently commit [39]. When such reports pertain to the infallibility of a Prophet, they give rise to serious theological problems that have the potential to undermine the doctrinal foundations of the Muslim community.

In verse 24, God declares that He had averted Yusuf from evil and indecency, and thereafter affirms that Yusuf was among His chosen servants. It is therefore wholly inappropriate for such fabricated reports to be treated as complementary elements of the narrative of a Prophet of God. Scenes depicting the loosening of a waistband, the removal of garments, or sitting between a woman’s thighs, if such acts had truly occurred, would be incompatible with the subsequent divine commendation expressed in the verse. The Word of God must take precedence over the acceptance of Israelite legends. Moreover, the wife of al-ʿAziz herself confessed that it was she who attempted to seduce Yusuf by adorning herself and employing alluring speech; yet her efforts failed, and she ultimately testified that Yusuf was among the righteous. In addition to this, there was testimony from a member of al-ʿAziz’s household, who proposed examining Yusuf’s shirt as evidence: if it was torn from the front, then the wife of al-ʿAziz would be truthful and Yusuf would have been the one who pursued her; but if it was torn from the back, then Yusuf would be truthful and it was she who attempted to seduce him. Accordingly, Yusuf’s innocence with respect to the accusation of the wife of al-ʿAziz is established beyond doubt [40].

In several instances, al-Khazin offers his own evaluation of such dha’if reports. For example, in his interpretation of the verse concerning al-hamm, al-Khazin presents critical remarks and rebuttals against narrations that clearly contradict the doctrine of the Prophet Yusuf’s infallibility. He cites hadiths and Qur’anic verses that refute these allegations against a Prophet of God. However, when such reports are presented to lay readers, they are often accepted uncritically as factual accounts. This is precisely the reason why a number of scholars have rejected the transmission of isrā’īliyyāt. If such reports are accepted at face value, they risk distorting the understanding of the sanctity of Prophet Yusuf and of the other Prophets of God[41]. Rather than drawing moral lessons and mawʿidhah, readers may instead become absorbed and impressed by these narratives as if they were merely engaging with fictional tales [11].

Upon closer examination, it becomes evident that in his use of isrā’īliyyāt narrations, al-Khazin frequently omits the chains of transmission. At times, he also fails to indicate their weakness or to state explicitly their lack of authenticity [42]. Moreover, no critical assessment is offered even when such reports clearly conflict with the principles of Islamic law. In fact, the critical evaluation of ḥadīth is necessary to determine their authenticity [43]. Nevertheless, in his interpretation of the verse concerning al-hamm, al-Khazin does provide criticism and responses to isrā’īliyyāt narrations, while clarifying the intended meaning of the verse. By contrast, the reports he employs in interpreting the phrase “burhān rabbih” are not accompanied by any critical evaluation or rebuttal. The same applies to his assertion regarding the number of doors in the house, for which no clear chain of transmission is provided.

From the various reports mentioned, four categories of signs (burhān) claimed to have come to the Prophet Yusuf can be identified: the appearance of his father (the Prophet Ya’qub), the manifestation of written Qur’anic verses, supernatural phenomena, and the presence of an idol that was covered with cloth. However, these reports are difficult to accept both rationally and historically. The alleged appearance of the Prophet Ya’qub, depicted as directly speaking to the Prophet Yusuf, is implausible within the temporal context of the narrative. Likewise, the claim that the Prophet Yusuf saw written Qur’anic verses is highly problematic, since the Qur’an had not yet been revealed at that time and was not revealed to the Prophet Yusuf. The implausibility and irrationality of these reports are further reinforced by narratives describing the appearance of a disembodied hand or wrist inscribed with Qur’anic verses. From both theological and historical perspectives, such accounts clearly contradict the fundamental principles of prophethood and the established chronology of revelation. Therefore, reports of this nature should be classified as isrā’īliyyāt that are unacceptable and unfit to serve as a basis for interpreting the verses of the Qur’an.

Prophetic infallibility or ‘ismah is regarded as one of the greatest divine favors, manifested in Allah’s protection of His prophets and messengers. Allah continually safeguards His envoys from sin, disobedience, immorality, and all prohibited acts. This quality is inherent in the prophets and messengers, distinguishing them from ordinary human beings [44]. Indeed, they are absolutely protected from committing major sins. This is because obedience to Allah must be complete and indivisible, whereas disobedience cannot remain partial. Once it affects an action, it inevitably extends to other aspects as well [45]. As is well known from the story of Prophet Yusuf, he later became a prominent and respected leader. Given such a position, it would be inconceivable for him to have fallen into a major sin of that nature.

The story of Prophet Yusuf has long served as a source of lessons and moral reflection for generations across time. The values embedded in this narrative continue to be explored and transformed by scholars for practical implementation in daily life. In this context, prophetic values (including those related to science and technology) need to be integrated into contemporary life in order to generate sustainable benefits and maintain harmony within social relations [46]. On this basis, Allah has protected the prophets and messengers from sin and wrongdoing, ensuring that they remain enduring moral and spiritual exemplars for humanity.

In a broader context, inadequately qualified preachers often employ isrā’īliyyāt narratives as a means of conveying religious messages. Some of these reports are indeed appealing to audiences and may contain elements of wisdom, moral lessons, and admonition, which are important aspects of da‘wah[47]. Nevertheless, the substance of religious preaching must be grounded in established and reliable truth, not merely in narratives designed to attract attention. When the audience consists of laypeople, they are likely to accept such stories uncritically, assuming that they originate from the Prophet Muhammad [48]. Consequently, the transmission of religious teachings should not be based on sources of uncertain provenance, let alone on reports that contradict the fundamental principles of Islamic teachings.

From the perspective of al-Khazin’s reliance on al-Baghawi, a strong dominance of al-Baghawi’s influence is evident in al-Khazin’s exegetical outcomes. In his tafsir, al-Baghawi does make use of isrā’īliyyāt reports; however, their inclusion is highly selective and consistently accompanied by the transmission chains. By contrast, al-Khazin frequently employs isrā’īliyyāt without providing complete chains of transmission, and in many cases he neither indicates the weakness of such reports nor explicitly affirms their lack of authenticity[42]. Moreover, al-Khazin often refrains from offering critical evaluation, even when the transmitted reports clearly conflict with the principles of Islamic law. This demonstrates a fundamental methodological difference between al-Khazin and al-Baghawi in their respective approaches to incorporating isrā’īliyyāt into Qur’anic exegesis.

The exegetical methods of classical commentators differ significantly from those of contemporary exegetes [49]. Classical mufassirs primarily employed a narration-based approach, which led them to discuss narrative verses through lengthy explanations drawn from various transmitted reports. Stories in the Qur’an that are not presented in detailed form thus become a fertile ground and a potential entry point for the infiltration of al-dakhīl. As for matters whose understanding relies on transmitted reports (naql), the essential requirement is the authenticity of the chain of transmission (sahih al-isnād) [21]. Therefore, referring to interpretations that are grounded in sources whose authenticity can be reliably verified is an imperative. Any information that contains inconsistencies should not be accepted uncritically, but rather approached with careful scrutiny. Accordingly, critical analysis of such sources constitutes an essential step in safeguarding religious understanding from potential distortion and misinterpretation.

Based on the doctrine of prophetic infallibility, it can be concluded that anomalous narrations concerning the stories of the prophets are inconsistent with this principle, as they often contain elements of falsehood and unfounded accusations that are unworthy of being attributed to the messengers of God. In the author’s view, the use of spurious reports in Qur’anic interpretation, even when accompanied by critical remarks, still carries the potential to generate negative implications for the understanding of prophetic narratives. Such narrations may compromise the sanctity of the Divine Word and the honor of the prophets, particularly when they are cited selectively without due consideration of the authenticity of their chains of transmission.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that scholarly works (together with their particular structure and systematics) deserve to be respected and considered in their original form. Intellectual property rights are acknowledged and legally protected. Therefore, preserving texts in their original state, while subjecting them to rigorous scholarly research and verification, represents a more balanced and equitable approach to engaging with this intellectual heritage [50]. Ultimately, al-Khazin made a significant effort to contribute to the elucidation of the Divine Word. His endeavor deserves appreciation and should be situated proportionally within the broader intellectual tradition of Qur’anic exegesis.