Learn Islam

in your language
KALEMAH

KALEMAH ISLAMIC CENTER is a community center for all. Kalemah

was founded in 2007 and is managed by a Board of Emirati
Nationals, an Executive Committee and a staff of over a dozen full-
time employees. We operate based on charitable donations from
philanthropic individuals, organizations and governmental bodies.

We are a non profit organization officially registered under the

Islamic Affairs and Charitable Activities Department (IACAD)
Government of Dubai.

Our Mission: To propagate the

pristine, unadulterated teachings of
Islam to Muslims and non-Muslims
in Dubai in the most effective and
appropriate way.

Our Vision: The souls of a nation,

connected to their Creator.
2
 Muqaddimah fi Uṣūl al-Tafsīr
By Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H)

All praise is due to Allāh. We seek His

assistance and His forgiveness. We seek
refuge in Allāh from the evil of ourselves
and the evil of our actions. Whomsoever
Allāh guides none can misguide him, and
whomsoever Allāh misguides none can
guide him.

I bear witness that none has the right to

be worshipped but Allāh alone, without
partner. I bear witness that Muḥammad
is His slave and Messenger. May the
peace and blessings of Allāh be upon
him.

To Proceed:

I have been asked by a number of

brothers to author an introduction to the
exegesis of the Qur’ān, comprising of
comprehensive principles which will
assist one in understanding its meanings
as well as differentiating between the
truth and all kinds of falsehood
indicating in all of the above the criterion
to be used. For the books of Qur’ānic
exegesis contain both good and bad,
apparent falsehood and clear truth.

Knowledge is either a text which is

received from an infallible source, or a
saying backed by a clear proof. As for all
else, then it is either false and rejected,
or doubtful so its truthfulness or
falsehood cannot be ascertained.

3
4
The Muslim Nation greatly needs to
understand the Qur’ān which is the firm
rope of Allāh, the wise reminder and the
straight path. Evil desires will never
corrupt it. Wicked tongues will never
distort it. Continuously studying it will
never cause it to fade and its miracles
will never cease. The scholars will never
be able to reach its depths. Whoever
utters it has spoken the truth. Whoever
acts according to it will be rewarded.
Whoever rules by it has been just.
Whoever calls to it has been guided to
the straight path. And whosoever
arrogantly leaves it will be destroyed.
And whosoever seeks guidance
elsewhere will be misguided.

Allāh says: “And if there should come to

you guidance from Me – then whoever
follows My guidance will neither go
astray [in the world] nor suffer [in the
Hereafter]. And whoever turns away
from My remembrance – indeed, he will
have a depressed life, and We will gather
him on the Day of Resurrection blind. He
will say, “My Lord, why have you raised
me blind while I was [once] seeing?”
[Allāh] will say, “Thus did Our signs come
to you, and you forgot them; and thus
will you this Day be forgotten.” [Sūrah
Ṭā-Hā, 20:123-126]

And He says: “…there has come to you Our

Messenger making clear to you much of
what you used to conceal of the Scripture
and over-looking much. There has come to
you from Allāh a light and a clear Book [i.e.
the Qur’ān]. By which Allāh guides those
who pursue His pleasure to the ways of
peace and brings them out from darkness
into the light, by His permission, and guides
them to the straight path.” [Sūrah al-
Mā’idah, 5:15-16]

And He says: “Alif Lām Rā. [This is] a

Book which We have revaled to you, [O
Muḥammad], that you might bring
mankind out of darkness into the light by
permission of their Lord – to the path of
the Exalted in Might, the Praiseworthy.
Allāh, to whom belongs whatever is in
the heavens and whatever is on the
earth” [Sūrah Ibrāhīm, 14:1-2]

5
6
Allāh says: “And thus We have revealed
to you and inspiration of Our command
[i.e. the Qur’ān]. You did not know what
is the Book or [what is] faith, but We
made it a light by which We guide whom
We will of Our servants. And indeed, [O
Muḥammad], you guide to the straight
path. The path of Allāh, to whom belongs
whatever is in the heavens and whatever
is on the earth. Unquestionably, to Allāh
do [all] matters return” [Sūrah al-Shūrā,
42:52-53]

I have written this introduction and

made it brief, full of beneficial points by
the blessings of Allāh. Allāh alone guides
to the path of righteousness.

7
8
 Chapter

The Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬Explained the

Meanings of the Qur’ān to his
Companions

It is obligatory to know that the Prophet

(‫ )ﷺ‬explained to his companions the
meaning of the Qur’ān just as he taught
its words. The following statement of
Allāh includes both: “…that you may
make clear to the people what was sent
down to them” [Sūrah al-Naḥl, 16:44]

Abū ‘Abdul-Raḥmān al-Sulamī said: “It

has been related to us by those who
used to teach us to read the Qur’ān, the
likes of ‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Affān, ‘Abdullāh Ibn
Mas’ūd and other than them, that when
learning from the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬they
would not proceed past ten verses until
they had learnt what was contained in
them of knowledge and action. They
said: ‘So we learnt the Qur’ān,
knowledge and action all at once.’ This is
why it would take them some time to
memorise a single surah.”

Anas said: “If a man from amongst us

was able to memorise Baqarah and Āl-
‘Imrān he would gain respect in our
eyes.”

Ibn ‘Umar spent a number of years – it is

said eight years – in the memorisation of
Surah al-Baqarah. This is reported by
Mālik. All of this is as a result of the
saying of Allāh: “(This is) a blessed Book
which We have revealed to you, that
they might reflect ver its verses and that
those of understanding would be
reminded.” [Sūrah Ṣād, 38:29]

9
10
And His statements: “Then do they not
reflect upon the Qur’ān” [Sūrah
Muḥammad, 47:24]. And he said: “Then
have they not reflected over the word”
[Sūrah Mu’minūn, 23:68]. Therefore it is
not possible to contemplate over the
Qur’ān without first understanding its
meaning.

Allāh, the Most High also says: “Indeed,

We have sent it down as an Arabic
Qur’ān that you might understand”
[Sūrah Yūsuf, 12:2]. And understanding
the speech is dependent upon knowing
[its meaning].

It is well known that the purpose of

speech is not just to understand the
words being spoken, but the intended
meanings behind those words too. If this
is the case with normal speech, then the
Qur’ān is more befitting of this.

Likewise, it is also the custom of people

when they are studying in a certain field
such as medicine or mathematics that
they seek to understand it. This is more
so with the speech of Allāh which is their
source of protection, success, and
happiness, as well as the backbone of
their worldly and religious affairs.

For this reason, the companions rarely

differed regarding the exegesis of the
Qur’ān. This difference occurred more in
the time of their students (tābi’ūn) but
was still considerably less when
compared to later generations. In short,
the more noble a generation was, the
more profound their knowledge,
understanding and unity.

From among the tābi’ūn are those who

studies the whole of the Qur’ān from the
companions. As Mujāhid said: “I read the
whole Qur’ān to Ibn ‘Abbās stopping him
at the end of every verse, asking him
concerning it.” This is why al-Thawrī
would say: “If the exegesis of Mujāhid
comes to you then that is sufficient for
you.” For this reason, scholars such as al-
Shāfi’ī, Bukhārī,

11
12
and Imām Aḥmad would heavily rely
upon his narrations, compared to others.

The point here is that the tābi’ūn studied

the exegesis of the Qur’ān from the
companions just as they took from them
the Prophetic Sunnah. They would also
comment on the Qur’ān using their
deductions basing them on other
evidences just as they did with the
ḥadīths of the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬.

13
14
 Chapter

Differences of Opinion amongst the

Predecessors in the Exegesis of the
Qur’ān: A Difference of Variation

The predecessors differed little in the

exegesis of the Qur’ān, however they
differed considerably more in issues
related to rulings (aḥkām). Whenever
they do differ in the exegesis of the
Qur’ān it is more a difference of
variation than contradiction. This is of
two categories:

The first: The expression of one and the

same idea by using different words, such
as them referring to the same concept
by one mentioning a particular aspect
concerning it and the other mentioning
another aspect. These explanations are
like using equivalent names which lie
between synonyms and antonyms.

For example, it is said whilst mentioning

alternative names for ‘sword’: ‘ṣārim’
and ‘muhind’. Similar to this are names
of Allāh, the names of the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬
and the names of the Qur’ān. The names
of Allāh all refer to Him, the Most High.

Therefore, supplicating to Him using one

of His names is not contradictory to
supplicating to Him using another name.
Rather, it is as Allāh has mentioned:
“Say, “Call upon Allāh or call upon the
Most Merciful [al-Raḥmān]. Whichever
[name] you call – to him belong the best
names.” [Sūrah al-Isrā’, 17:110].

15
16
Each of His names refers to Allāh Himself
as well as the attribute which that name
possesses. For example, the All-Knowing
refers to Allāh and the attribute of
knowledge. The All-Powerful refers to
Allāh and the attribute of power. The
Most Merciful refers to Allāh and the
attribute of mercy.

Whosoever rejects that these names

point to attributes are from those who
claim to only accept the apparent. They
have made a claim similar to the
extreme Bāṭiniyyah Qarāmiṭah who
state: ‘It is not said that He is living or
not living.’ They negate both opposites.
This group does not reject words such as
pronouns; they only deny attributes
which these names possess. Whoever
agrees with their extreme views in this
respect has conformed to the way to the
Bāṭiniyyah, and this is not the place to
expand upon this topic.

The point being that every single name

of Allāh refers to Him and the attributes
that name possesses. By necessity, it
also refers to the attributes which other
names may possess.

Similar to this are the names of the

Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬such as: Muḥammad,
Aḥmad, al-Māḥiy [the one who
extinguishes], al-Ḥāshir [the one who
gathers] and al-‘Āqib [the last prophet].
Likewise, the names of the Qur’ān
include: al-Furqān [the criterion], al-
Hudā [the guide], al-Shifā [the cure], al-
Bayān [the clarification], and al-Kitāb
[the book].

17
18
If the intention of the questioner is to
pinpoint an object, it can be described
by using any name so long as it is
understood to refer to that particular
object. This description may be in the
form of a noun or an attribute. For
example, the one who asks concerning
the verse: “And whosoever turns away
from My remembrance” [Sūrah Ṭā-Hā,
20:124]. What is the remembrance? The
answer is: ‘It is the Qur’ān’ or ‘It is His
divinely revealed Books.’ The word
remembrance is a noun, and a noun is
either attached to the subject [the one
who remembers] or the object [what is
being remembered].

Therefore, the remembrance of Allāh in

relation to the second meaning is like
the statement: Subḥān Allāh [All glory be
to Allāh], Alḥamdulillāh [All praise is for
Allāh], Lā ilāha illallāh [none has the
right to be worshipped but Allāh] and
Allāhu Akbar [Allāh is the greatest]. In
relation to the first meaning [i.e. the
subject] it refers to the one who is
remembering His speech, and this is
what is being referred to in this verse.

This is further supported by the verse

which precedes this verse: “And if there
should come to you guideance from Me –
then whoever follows My guidance will
neither go astray [in the world] nor suffer
[in the Hereafter].” [Sūrah Ṭā-Hā,
20:123]. His guidance is that which He
has revealed. Allāh then states: “He will
say, “My Lord, why have you raised me
blind while I was [once] seeing?” [Allāh]
will say, “Thus did Our signs come to you,
and you disregarded them; and thus will
you this Day be forgotten.” [Sūrah Ṭā-Hā,
20:125-126].

The point being that what is intended by

the remembrance is His revealed speech
or the remembrance of that speech by
the servant. Therefore, whether it is
said: ‘My remembrance’ means ‘My
Book’ or ‘My speech’ or ‘My guidance’,
the intended meaning is one and the
same.

19
20
However, if the intention of the
questioner is to learn about the attribute
which that name also connotes, then an
added explanation must also be given.
For example, it is possible for one to ask
concerning the names of Allāh: al-
Quddūs [the pure], al-Salām [the
perfect], al-Mu’min [the Bestower of
Faith] even though one knows that these
names refer to Allāh but he wishes to
inquire about these specific attributes.

If that which has preceded is clear, one

realises that it is often the case that the
salaf would describe something using a
name which points to the object being
referred to; at the same time this name
may also contain an attribute not
present in its other names. Just as the
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬is described as: al-Ḥāshir, al-
Māḥiy, and al-‘Āqib, and Allāh is al-
Ghafūr and al-Raḥīm. All these names
refer to one and the same thing but each
also contains a unique attribute. It is
well-known that this is not a difference
of contradiction as some people
mistakenly think.

For example, what does the ‘straight

path’ refer to? Some scholars mention it
is to follow the Qur’ān due to the
statement of the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬, “The
Qur’ān is the firm rope of Allāh, the wise
reminder and the straight path.” Others
have stated that the straight path refers
to Islām due to the ḥadīth of the Prophet
(‫ )ﷺ‬narrated by al-Nawwās ibn Sam’ān:
“Allāh has set forth the parable of a
straight path; on either side of this path
there is a wall in which there are open
doors and upon these doors are curtains.
There is a man calling from the top of the
road and another from above the road.

21
22
He said: The straight path is Islām. The
walls are the boundaries of Allāh. The
open doors are the prohibitions. The
caller from the top of the road is the
Book of Allāh, and the caller from above
the road is the admonisher from Allāh
which ever believers hears in his heart.”

So both the explanations mentioned for

the ‘straight path’ are in reality the
same, as the religion of Islām is to follow
the Qur’ān. However each description
points to a particular aspect not present
in the other description. The word ‘path’
also signifies a third meaning. Similar to
this are all the other explanations given
for the ‘straight path’, that is al-Sunnah
wal Jamā’ah, or the path of worship, or
it is obedience to Allāh and his
Messenger (‫)ﷺ‬. All of these explanations
refer to one and the same thing;
however each one chooses to describe it
using a particular attribute.

The second category: To mention by

way of example and illustrating some
aspects of the general term being
referred to, in order to draw the
attention of the listener to the type of
thing that is being referred to and not to
completely define the boundaries of the
word. Thus, if a non-Arab asked about
the word khubz (bread) and was shown a
raghīf (a loaf of bread), this illustrates to
that person that similar things are
known as khubz, not that this particular
load alone can be described as such.

23
24
An example of this is the Qur’ānic verse:
“Then We caused to inherit the Book
those We have chosen of Our servants,
and among them is he who wrongs
himself, and among them is he who is
moderate, and among them is he who is
foremost in good deeds by the
permission of Allāh.” [Sūrah Fāṭir, 35:32].

Those who wrong themselves are those

who do not perform the obligatory
duties and embark upon that which has
been prohibited. The moderate are
those who fulfil their obligations are
refrain from the prohibitions. Those who
are foremost are the ones who not only
do that which is obligated upon them
but perform optional acts too. Thus, the
moderate will be the people on the right,
and the foremost will be the foremost;
those who are brought near [to Allāh].

Furthermore, each one of these three

can be described by the ways in which
they perform a certain act. It can be said
that the foremost are those who pray
their daily prayers at their proper time,
the moderate are those who pray within
the allotted duration, and those who
wrong themselves are those who delay
the prayer until the time is about to
pass.

Likewise it can be said that these three

types of people are also mentioned in
Sūrah al-Baqarah, the good-doer is
mentioned as being charitable, the
wrong-doer deals in usury and the just
busies himself in trade, so with regards
to wealth people are generous, just or
oppressive. Thus, the foremost are those
who are generous by not only fulfilling
the obligatory act but also giving extra.
The oppressive are those who deal in
usury or refuse to pay the Zakāh, and
the moderate are those who give Zakāh
but do not deal in usury.

25
26
Therefore, each saying mentions
something which is already present in
the verse; it is merely stressed in order
to draw attention to that particular
aspect of the verse by way of example.
For defining something by way of
illustration or example can be much
easier than defining something with an
absolute definition.

One’s intellect can easily relate to an

example of something, just as it
understands what bread is when it is
shown a loaf. From this category is also
the statement: The reason this verse was
revealed was due to such and such,
especially if it was due to a person. This is
the case with the background regarding
the revelation of certain verses.

For example, they state that the verse

concerning ẓihār was revealed
concerning the wife of Aws ibn al-Ṣāmit.
The verse of li’ān was revealed
concerning ‘Uwaymir al-‘Ajlānī or Hilāl
ibn Umayyah, and the verse of kalālah
was revealed in the case of Jābir ibn
‘Abdullāh. Similarly, the verse: “And
judge, [O Muḥammad], between them by
what Allāh has revealed” [Sūrah al-
Mā’idah, 5:49]; was revealed during the
incident of Banū Qurayẓah and Banū
Naḍīr. The verse: “And whoever turns his
back to them on such a day” [Sūrah al-
Anfāl, 8:16]; was revealed concerning
[the battle of] Badr. Likewise, the verse:
“…testimony [should be taken] among
you when death approaches one of you”
[Sūrah al-Mā’idah, 5:106]; was revealed
in the story of Tamīm al-Dārī and ‘Adiyy
ibn Badā’. Also, the statement of Abū
Ayyūb about the verse: “…and do not
throw [yourselves] with your [own]
hands into destruction” [Sūrah al-
Baqarah, 2:195]; ‘It was revealed
concerning us: the Anṣār.’

There are many such examples where it

is mentioned that a certain verse was
revealed concerning the polytheists of
Makkah or the Jews and Christians, or
concerning a group of believers.

27
28
The purpose of such statements is not to
insinuate that these verses only
pertained to these people and no one
else; this would not be said by a Muslim
or an intelligent person.

The only point of difference is

concerning a general term which is used
in a particular case; is it limited to that
case or not? None of the Muslim
scholars infer that the general terms
present in the Qur’ān and Sunnah only
pertain to those specific people about
whom those verses were revealed.
Rather, the most that can be said that
such said verses apply to all those who
are similar to that person for which the
verse was revealed, and the wording is
not generalised to the limits to which the
language allows.

Any verse which was revealed for a

particular reason, especially if the verse
is an order or a prohibition, not only
includes that particular person for whom
it was revealed but all those similar to
him. This is also the case if the verse is
praising or censuring someone.

Knowledge of the reasons for which a

verse was revealed assists one in
understand that verse, for knowledge of
the cause helps to bring about
knowledge of the result. For this reason,
the stronger of the two opinions
concerning a person who forgets the
oath he took is that one returns to the
reason which caused him to take the
oath in the first place. What caused it
and what factors led to it?

Their statement: ‘This verse was

revealed due to such and such’ can
sometimes mean that this was the
reason the verse was revealed. It can
also imply that the meaning is also
present in the verse even if it is not the
reason for its revelation, i.e. the meaning
of this verse is such and such.

29
30
The scholars have different regarding the
statement of a companion: ‘This verse
was revealed due to such and such.’
Does this statement count as being a
prophetic narration just as if the
companion was to narrate the incident
as it took place, or is it considered an
explanation which the companion gives
himself and not a [prophetic] narration?

Al-Bukhārī considered it to be a
narration whereas others did not. The
majority of books containing narrations
fall into the latter category such as
Musnad Aḥmad. If on the other hand,
the companion describes the incident as
a narration then all agree that it is a
narration.

If this is known and one states: ‘This

verse was revealed due to this,’ this does
not contradict a similar statement from
someone else, so long as the word can
include both meanings as we have
explained when discussing tafsīr by way
of example.

Likewise, if one mentions a reason for

which the verse was revealed and then
another mentions a different reason, it is
possible that both are speaking the truth
and that the verse was revealed after a
number of incidents took place, or the
verse was revealed twice, one each
occasion for a different reason.

These two different categories of tafsīr

which we have just mentioned –
variation in names and attributes or
different categories and types with
which they are described such as
illustrations – are the two most
predominant types of tafsīr found
among the predecessors which may be
thought of as differences in opinion.

31
32
Another type of difference which can be
found is where we have ambiguous
words. This can be done in two ways.
Firstly, it is ambiguous because it has a
number of meanings in the language
such as the word ‘qaswarah’ which can
refer to a shooter or a lion, and the word
‘’as’asa’ which can refer to both the
advent and departure of the night.

[The second way it can be ambiguous] is

because even though the word originally
only has one meaning, it denotes one of
two different types or one of two things
such as a pronominal subject which at
times can refer to a number of things,
like in the verse: “Then he approached
and descended. And was at a distance of
two bow lengths or nearer” [Sūrah al-
Najm, 53:8-9].

Other similar words include: al-fajr (the

day-break), al-shaf’ (the even), al-watr
(the odd) and layālin ‘ashar (the ten
nights). It is possible that these words
have the meanings the salaf gave to
them, or their meanings could be
otherwise.

The first is the case when a verse is

revealed twice, once for one reason and
then again due to another reason, or
because of an ambiguous word where
both meanings can be correctly applied.
This is the opinion of the majority of the
scholars of the Mālikī, Shāf’ī and Ḥanbalī
schools of thought as well as many
theologians. The other case is where one
word has only one meaning making it
general so long as there is nothing which
specifies its meaning. If both meanings
are permitted then this will fall into the
second category.

Another statement of theirs which is

commonly thought to be a difference of
opinion, is when they express an opinion
each using a different choice of words.
These words are similar in their
connotations but not synonymous.

33
34
There are very few words in the Arabic
language which are synonymous; this is
even rarer in the Qur’ān if not non-
existent. It is rare to express the exact
same meaning using two sets of words;
at best, the meanings will be
approximate. This is from the miracles of
the Qur’ān.

If one were to say regarding the verse:

“On the Day the heaven will sway with
the circular motion (mawr)” [Sūrah al-
Ṭūr, 52:9]; that ‘mawr’ is a movement it
would be a similar meaning but not
exact, as the word means a quick, silent
movement.

Likewise, to say ‘waḥy’ (revelation)

means to inform, or the verse ‘We have
revealed to you’ means ‘We sent down’,
or that the verse: “And We conveyed to
the Children of Israel” [Sūrah al-Isrā,
17:4]; means ‘We taught’.

In all these examples the substitute

words are similar in meaning but not
exact. Revelation is quick and secret and
not just a way of informing. Conveying is
much more specific that simply teaching
as it involves information and revelation.
It is common for the Arabs to attach a
verb to another verb by using the
preposition of the latter.

From here, we can see the mistake made

by those who substitute certain words
with others, as they do in the verse:
“[David] said, “He has certainly wronged
you in demanding you ewe [in addition]
to his ewes…” [Sūrah Ṣād, 38:24],
substituting ‘in addition to’ with ‘with his
ewes’. Likewise, in the verse: “Who are
my supporters for [the cause of] Allāh”
[Sūrah Āl-Imrān, 3:52]; ‘for the cause of’
has been substituted with ‘with Allāh’
and so on.

The correct opinion is that of the

grammarians of Baṣrah who state that it
is a case of implication. Thus, the
demand for the ewe implied taking and
adding it to his ewes.

35
36
Another example is the verse: “And
indeed, they were about to tempt you
away from that which We revealed to
you” [Sūrah al-Isrā, 17:73]; Tempt
implies the meaning they prevent and
divert you.

Also [included in this is the following]

verse: “And We aided [i.e. saved] him
from the people who denied Our signs”
[Sūrah al-Anbiyā, 21:77]; Aided also
implies the meaning we saved and
rescued.

Likewise, another example is the verse:

“…from which the servants of Allāh
drink” [Sūrah al-Insān, 76:6]; Drinking
implies the meaning of quenching one’s
thirst. Such examples are abundant.

Likewise, whosoever says that ‘rayb’

means ‘shakk’ has only given an
approximate meaning, for the word
‘rayb’ implies internal unrest and turmoil
as in the ḥadīth: “Leave that which is
doubtful for that which is not doubtful.”
As well as the ḥadīth in which the
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬passed by a deer with its
head between its legs and said: “None of
you disturb [yuriyb] it.” Therefore, just as
certainty implies inner peace and
tranquillity its opposite, doubt, implies
internal unrest and turmoil. On the other
hand, the word ‘shakk’ does not possess
the same implications.

Also in the statement of Allāh: “That

Book” which is normally stated as
meaning ‘This Book’ is another example
of an approximate meaning. Even
though what is being referred to in both
statements is the Qur’ān, to point to
something which is close by saying ‘this’
does not give the same implications and
meanings as that which is referred to as
being far and absent [which is implied by
saying ‘that’]. Similarly, the word ‘Book’
is used here instead of ‘Qur’ān’ implies it
is apparent and read. Such differences in
language are present in the Qur’ān.

37
38
If one were to say that the word in the
Qur’ān “an tubsala” means to be
imprisoned, and another says it is to be
bailed, this is not a contradictory
difference, for the one imprisoned may
or may not be bailed, so this is an
approximate explanation.

To gather these varying sayings and

opinions of the salaf is very beneficial.
By gathering all these opinions one will
have a clearer understanding of the
intended meaning, much more so that if
he were to just collect a saying or two.

Even with all the above, there exist

genuine differences of opinion among
the Salaf, such as their differences in
matters of jurisprudence. However,
essential knowledge which everyone
requires is known to all; the lay person
and the elite. Examples of this include
the number of daily prayers, the number
of units in each prayer and their timings.
Also known are the items on which zakat
is levied and their minimum amounts,
which is the month of Ramaḍān, how to
perform ṭawāf, the standing in ‘Arafāt,
stoning the pillars, where a person dons
on the iḥrām etc.

Furthermore, the difference of opinion

which existed amongst the companions
in issues such as the shares of the
grandfather and brothers [in
inheritance] and musharrakah, rarely
occur in the majority of inheritance
rulings. Rather, most people only need
to know about the shares of the
ascendants, descendants, siblings and
spouses. Indeed Allāh revealed three
detailed verses concerning inheritance.
In the first, He mentioned the
ascendants and descendants. In the
second, He mentioned the relatives who
have prescribed shares such as the
spouses and maternal brother.

39
40
He mentioned in the third the relatives
that have no prescribed shares and they
are the full or paternal brothers. Cases in
which the paternal grandfather and
brothers meet are rare. This is why the
first such reported instance in Islām took
place after the death of the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬.

This difference of opinion may occur due

to relevant evidences being hidden,
overlooked, not being known or being
misunderstood, or due to one favouring
an opposing opinion. The purpose here
is to briefly allude to this point and not
to expound upon it.

41
42
 Chapter

The Two Categories of Differences in

the Exegesis of the Qur’ān Relating to
the Source: Narrations and Deductions

Differences in the exegesis can be of two

types: The source of the first is
narrations and the other type is derived
from different means, for knowledge is
either a truthful narration, or a correct
deduction, and the narration either
originate from one who is infallible or
one who is not.

Here, we will discuss these narrations

irrespective of whether they stem from
an infallible authority or not; this is the
first category. At times, we are able to
distinguish between authentic and weak
narrations and at times we are unable to
do so. This latter part whose authenticity
we cannot ascertain, for the most is
unbeneficial and to delve into is
unnecessary.

As for that knowledge which is essential

to the Muslims, then Allāh has placed for
them sufficient signs showing them the
truth.

43
44
An example of that which is unbeneficial
and has no clear evidence is the
difference regarding the colour of the
dog belonging to the companions of the
cave. Similar to this is the difference
regarding which part of the cow was
used to strike the slain man. Also
included in this are the measurements of
the ark of Nūh, and the type of wood
used. Similar to this is the name of the
boy killed by Khiḍr etc.

All this can only be ascertained from the

narrations. That which is authentically
narrated from the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬in this
regard, such as the name of the
companion of Mūsā being Khiḍr is
accepted. As for other than this, such as
that which is taken from the People of
the Book, like the narration of Ka’b,
Wahb, Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq and others
who take from them, one cannot accept
or reject these narrations except with
clear proof.

It is reported in the Ṣaḥīḥ that the

Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬said: “If the People of the
Book narrate to you then do not attest to
their truthfulness nor reject them, rather
say we believe in Allāh and His
Messengers. Otherwise you may reject
something truthful or attest to
something false.”

Likewise, if narrations of the tābi’ūn –

irrespective of whether or not they are
taken from the People of the Book –
differ then some of their sayings do not
hold greater weight and authority than
others.

Rather, authentic narrations from the

companions in this regard are more
reliable than narrations from their
students, as it is a stronger possibility
that the companion heard his opinion
from the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬or from another of
the companions who in turn heard it
from the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬. Furthermore, the
companions’ narrations from the People
of the Book are less than that of the
tābi’ūn.

45
46
Therefore, when a companion
adamantly holds an opinion, it is not
thought that he has taken this opinion
from the People of the Book, especially
since they were forbidden from believing
them.

The point being, such differences [in

opinion] in which one cannot ascertain
what is authentic and what is weak is
just as unbeneficial as narrating a ḥadīth
in which one cannot ascertain its
authenticity.

As for the first category in which one is

able to establish the authenticity of a
narration, this is possible – and all praise
is for Allāh – in those matters which are
essential. Many narrations in tafsīr,
ḥadīth and expeditions concerning the
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬and other Prophets are false
as they contradict authentic narrations.
This is the case with narrations and what
is deduced by methods.

The point being, there are clear signs

showing the authenticity or weakness of
those narrations which are essential and
required by the Muslims.

It is also known that many narrations in

tafsīr are similar to narrations about
expeditions and history. This is why
Imām Aḥmad said: “Three things contain
no chain of narration: tafsīr, expeditions
and history.” This is because the majority
of narrations are marāsīl, such as that
which is mentioned by ‘Urwah Ibn
Zubayr, al-Sha’bī, al-Zuhrī, Mūsā ibn
‘Uqbah, ibn Isḥāq, and those who came
after them such as Yaḥyā ibn Sa’īd, Walīd
ibn Muslim, al-Wāqidī and others who
authored in history and expeditions.

47
48
Indeed, the most knowledgeable of
people concerning military expeditions
are the people of Madīnah, then Shām
and then Iraq.

The people of Madīnah are the most

knowledgable in this as the expeditions
took place among them.

The people of Shām are known for their

military and tactical skills, and due to this
they possess an understanding of these
matters which other don’t. For this
reason, people revere Abū Isḥāq’s book
on this topic, and consider al-Awzā’ī to
be more knowledgeable in this field than
other scholars.

As for tafsīr, then the most

knowledgeable of people in this field are
the people of Makkah. The reason for
this is that they are the students of Ibn
‘Abbās, like Mujāhid, ‘Aṭā’ Ibn Abī Rabāḥ
and ‘Ikrimah, and others such as Ṭāwūs,
Abū Sha’thā and Sa’īd ibn Jubayr.

Likewise it includes the people of Kūfah

who are the students of ‘Abdullāh Ibn
Mas’ūd. Some of these are distinguished
scholars.

From the scholars of Madīnah who

specialised in tafsīr is Zayd ibn Aslam.
Those who took tafsīr from him [i.e. his
students] include Imām Mālik, and his
own son ‘Abdul-Raḥmān. ‘Abdul-Raḥmān
was the teacher of ‘Abdullāh ibn Wahb.

Mursal ḥadīth which are reported by

many narrations to the extent that there
can be no change of intentional or
incidental collusion between the
narrations, are without doubt authentic.

49
50
A narration can be authentic and correct,
or false in which the narrator
intentionally lied or made a mistake. If
we can establish that it is free of lies and
mistakes then it is undoubtedly
authentic.

Therefore, if a ḥadīth has been narrated

from two or more chains and it is known
that the narrators did not conspire in its
differences, and that it is not possible to
agree on such a thing incidentally, the
narration is classed as authentic.

It is like a person who mentions an

incident which took place, explaining in
detail what was said and done, and then
another person who cannot have
conspired with the first mentions the
exact same story in detail. It is known
that on the whole the story is true. If
they had conspired to lie about the story
or had mistakenly done so, it would not
be conceivable that they would agree on
all the details, as without collusion such
a thing would be impossible. It is
possible that a person may compose a
verse of poetry and another happens to
also compose the same verse, or one
tells a particular lie which happens to be
the same lie another tells without having
colluded with the first. However, if a
person was to compose a lengthy poem
containing all types of rhythmical styles
and techniques, it is not possible that
someone else would compose the exact
same poem with the same words and
meanings, rather it is known that the
latter took from the former. Likewise, if
someone mentions a long narration
containing much detail and another
person narrates the same thing, then the
latter either colluded with the former, or
he copied him, or else the narration is
true.

51
52
Using this method it is possible to
determine the authenticity of narrations
which are reported through different
transmissions, even though each
individual narration is not sufficient on
its own due to a missing link present or
the weakness of a narrator.

However this method cannot be used in

pinpointing the accuracy of words and
details; the accuracy of such things must
be established via another method.

Thus, the battle of Badr has been

established by recurring narrations. It is
established that it took place before the
battle of Uḥud. Furthermore, it is also
established that Ḥamzah, ‘Alī and Abū
‘Ubaydah had a duel with ‘Utbah,
Shaybah and Walīd, that ‘Alī killed Walīd,
and Ḥamzah killed his opponent.
However there is a different [of opinion]
over who his opening was, was it Utbah
or Shaybah?

This is an essential principle to

remember, and is very beneficial in
determining the truthfulness of
narrations in ḥadīth, tafsīr, and military
expeditions, and what people said or did.

For this reason, if a prophetic ḥadīth has

been narrated with two different chains,
and it is known that one narrator did not
collaborate with the other, we can be
certain that the narration is true. This is
even more so if the narrators are those
who would not intentionally lie, rather
the most that is feared for them is that
they may make a mistake or forget. The
one who is familiar with companions
such as Ibn Mas’ūd, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Ibn
‘Umar, Jābir, Abū Sa’īd and Abū
Hurayrah would know that they would
never intentionally ascribe a lie to the
Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬, let alone those who are
greater in status than them.

53
54
This is similar to a person who knows
another well due to his extensive
experiences with him. He knows he
would not steal, ambush or give false
testimonies.

This can also be said about the tābi’ūn of

Madīnah, Makkah, Shām, Baṣrah.
Whoever is familiar with the likes of Abū
Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān, al-A’raj, Sulaymān ibn
Yasār, Zayd ibn Aslam and their
contemporaries will know that they
would not purposefully ascribe lies to
the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬.

Let alone those scholars who are greater

than them such as Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn,
al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad, Sa’īd ibn al-
Musayyib, ‘Alqamah, al-Aswad and
others.

Rather what is feared is that they may

have made errors, as mistakes and
forgetfulness often affect people.
However, certain scholars are known to
be far from this. This is known about the
likes of al-Sha’bī, al-Zuhrī, ‘Urwah
Qatādah and al-Thawrī, especially al-
Zuhrī and al-Thawrī in their times. It is
said: ‘Indeed, Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī rarely
erred even though he narrated many
ḥadīths and had an expansive memory.’

55
56
The point here is that if a ḥadīth has
been narrated from two different chains
without collaboration, then it cannot be
a mistake or a lie. A lengthy story cannot
be one big mistake; rather parts of it
may contains errors. Therefore, if a
person narrates a long and detailed
story, and another narrates exactly the
same story without collusion then both
stories cannot be a mistake, just as they
cannot be lies.

As such, the mistakes which occur can be

concerning certain details within the
story, like the ḥadīth in which the
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬bought a camel from Jābir.
Whoever contemplates the different
chains of the ḥadīth will realise that the
ḥadīth is authentic, even though the
narrations differ concerning the exact
price of the camel. This is also explained
by al-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥiḥ.

For the majority of what is in Bukhārī

and Muslim can be ascribed to the
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬with certainty, as it is of this
calibre, and the Ummah has accepted it
as such, and the whole Muslim nation
cannot unite upon error. For if a ḥadīth is
a lie but the Ummah accepts it as
truthful, they have in essence accepted a
lie. This is unity upon error and is
impossible. Without unity and consensus
it is possible that a narration contains a
mistake or lie, just as this is possible in
an analogy in which the truth may be in
the opposite of what we believed.
However, once unity is achieved upon a
matter, we affirm its wording and
meaning.

57
58
For this reason, the majority of scholars
from all the different schools of thought
agree that if a ḥadīth reported with a
single narrator in its chain of narration is
accepted or approved by action then it is
sufficient as evidence. This is mentioned
by the authors of Uṣūl al-Fiqh from all
the school of fiqh: the student of Abū
Ḥanīfah, Mālik, Shāfi’ī and Aḥmad. This
opinion is opposed by a minority of
latter time scholars who chose the
opinion of some theologians. However,
the majority of theologians agree with
the jurists, scholars of ḥadīth and
predecessors on this. This is the opinion
of the majority of Ash’arite scholars such
as Abū Isḥāq and Ibn Fawrak.

As for Ibn al-Bāqillānī, he is the one who

held the opposing opinion, and was
followed by Abul-Ma’ālī, Abū Ḥāmid, Ibn
‘Aqīl, Ibn al-Jawzī, Ibn al-Khaṭīb, al-Āmadī
and others.

The first opinion is also supported by

Shaykh Abū Ḥāmid, Abu al-Ṭayyib, Abū
Isḥāq and their likes from the Shāfi’ī
school. Qaḍī ‘Abdul-Wahhāb and his
likes from the Mālikī school. Shams ul-
Dīn al-Sarakhsī and others from the
Ḥanafī school.

59
60
Abū Ya’lā, Abul-Khaṭṭāb, and Abul-Ḥasan
from the Ḥanbalī school.

If consensus upon a narration is

sufficient in establishing it, then the
consensus which is applicable is that of
the scholars of ḥadīth. Just as consensus
in practical rulings is sought with the
scholars who specialise in orders,
prohibitions and recommendations, so is
the case with this.

The point being made is that a narration

possessing multiple transmissions in
which no collusion or agreement is
possible, is sufficient in establishing the
content narrated. This is more beneficial
when one is aware of the state of the
narrators.

In this regard, one may benefit from the

narrations of an unknown narrator or
one possessing bad memory, or a mursal
ḥadīth. For this reason the scholars
would write down such narrations and
say: ‘What can’t be used as evidence
itself may be used in order to support
another evidence’.

Imām Aḥmad would state: ‘I may write

the narrations of a man in order to
consider them.’ He then gave ‘Abdullāh
ibn Lahiy’ah, the Egyptian judge as an
example of such a man. He was a pious
man who narrated many ḥadīths, but
when his books were burnt, his later
narrations had mistakes in them, so he
was a narrator considered and used to
support others.

He is often compared to al-Lath ibn Sa’d;

Layth was a trustworthy authority and
imām.

61
62
Just as they use the ḥadīth of the one
with bad memory as supporting
evidence, they may also classify the
ḥadīth of a trustworthy and reliable
narrator as weak due to apparent and
clear errors for in some narrations. This
is known as the science of ‘ilal al-ḥadīth
(the hidden defects in ḥadīth), and is one
of the most noble and advanced sciences
in the field of ḥadīth. This is when one
who is usually trustworthy and reliable
makes an error in his narrators, and his
error has become known. As it is known
that the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬married Maymūnah
whilst he was not in a state of iḥrām, and
that he prayed two rak’ahs inside the
Ka’bah. The narrations of Ibn ‘Abbās
which state that he (‫ )ﷺ‬married whilst in
a state of of iḥrām and that he did not
pray inside the Ka’bah are mistaken.

Likewise, it is also known that the

Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬only preformed four
‘Umrahs, and that the statement of Ibn
‘Umar which claims he made ‘Umrah in
Rajab is also mistaken.

It is also well known that the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬

performed tamattu’ in a state of security
during his farewell Ḥajj. Thus, the
narration in which ‘Uthmān said to ‘Alī:
‘We were in a state of fear on that day’ is
also mistaken.

Another example of this is what is

reported in some narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-
Bukhārī: “The Hellfire will not be full until
Allāh creates another creation for it.”
This is also a narration which contains a
mistake.

People are of two extremes in this issue:

A group of scholastic theologians and

their likes who are unfamiliar with the
science of ḥadīth and its scholars, do not
differentiate between authentic and
weak narrations. This causes them to
doubt the authenticity of ḥadīths even
though they are classified as authentic
by the scholars of this science.

63
64
The other group claims to follow ḥadīths
wherever they find a wording narrated
by a trustworthy person, or a ḥadīth
which appears to be authentic,
considering it to be from among those
ḥadīths whose authenticity has been
established by the scholars. Even if they
contradict a well-known and authentic
ḥadīth, they will instead revert to facile
interpretations and insist it is an
evidence for a certain issue even though
the scholars of ḥadīth consider it to be
incorrect.

Just as there are signs by which one can

come to know and establish that a
ḥadīth is truthful, there are signs which
also point to a ḥadīth being a fabrication.
An example of this is what is narrated by
the fabricators and people of innovation
in certain matters of superiority (faḍā’il),
such as the ḥadīth concerning the day of
‘Āshūrā’ which states that whoever
prays two rak’ahs will receive the reward
of such and such prophets.

In the books of tafsīr many such

fabrications exist. An example of this is
the ḥadīth narrated by al-Tha’labī, al-
Wāḥidī and Al-Zamaksharī regarding the
superiority of the chapters of the Qur’ān.
These are fabricated by the agreement
of the scholars.

Al-Tha’labī himself was a good and pious

man, but he was like a wood gatherer at
night. He would copy whatever he found
in the books of tafsīr, whether authentic,
weak or fabricated.

65
66
Al-Wāḥidī was his companion and was
more knowledgeable than him in the
Arabic language, but more distant in
terms of following the pious
predecessors.

Al-Baghawī’s tafsīr is a summary of al-

Tha’labī’s. However, he preserved his
book from fabricated ḥadīths and
innovated opinions.

And the fabrications in the books of

tafsīr are many.

Examples include the many ḥadīths

mentioning that the basmalah is said
aloud, and the long ḥadīth of ‘Alī where
he gave his ring in charity whilst praying.
These are considered fabricated by the
agreement of the scholars.

This also includes what is narrated

regarding the verse: “…and for every
people is a guide” [Sūrah al-Ra’d, 13:7];
Some state that it refers to ‘Alī. “…and
[that] a conscious ear would be
conscious of it.” [Sūrah al-Ḥāqqah,
69:12]; It has also been said that this also
refers to ‘Alī.

67
68
 Chapter on The Second Category:
Differences in Tafsīr Relating to
Reasoning and Deductions

The second of the two categories in

which differences occur relates to
reasoning and deduction as opposed to
narrations. Most mistakes which occur in
tafsīr are as a result of two things which
appeared after the generation of the
companions, their students and those
who followed them in righteousness. For
this reason, you will not find any of these
two things in the exegesis and
commentaries of those noble scholars,
the likes of ‘Abdul-Razzāq, Wakī, ‘Abd
ibn Ḥumayd, ‘Abdul-Raḥmān ibn Ibrāhīm
Duḥaym, Imām Aḥmad, Isḥāq ibn
Rāḥawayh, Baqī ibn Makhlad, Abū Bakr
ibn al-Mundhir, Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah,
Sunayd, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Ḥātim Abū Sa’īd
al-Ashajj, Abū ‘Abdullāh ibn Mājah and
Ibn Mardawayh.

The first problem which arose was

people believing in certain ideologies
and then interpreting the Qur’ān to fit
those ideologies.

The second problem was a group of

people who interpreted the Qur’ān just
as an average Arabic speaker would,
without considered from whom these
words came, to whom it was revealed
and who they were addressing.

69
70
The first group concentrated on
meanings that suited them without pay
attention to the real implications and
contexts of the verses.

The second group concentrated on the

words and how they were used by the
Arabs and disregarded the context of the
verses. This group also mistakenly
interprets words of the Arabic language
thinking that their interpretations are
linguistically correct. The first group also
falls into this error, but more so [their
error is that] as they are incorrect in the
interpretations they give to the
meanings of the Qur’ān; the other group
is also guilty of this. The first group
prefers to concentrate on meanings and
the other group places emphasis on
words.

The first group is further divided into

two sub-groups; a group which strips the
words of the Qur’ān of their real and
intended meaning, and a group which
gives the words meanings which they do
not convey. In both instances, that which
they wish to affirm or negate may be
incorrect and therefore they have erred
in both the evidence and the ideology
they wish to support with it, or that
particular idea may be correct in which
case they have only erred in the way
they use the evidence.

Just as this method is present in the

exegesis of the Qur’ān, it is also present
in the exegesis of ḥadīth.

71
72
Those who err in both the evidence and
the ideology such as the sects of the
people of innovation oppose the truth
which the moderate Ummah holds onto;
they are those who do not agree upon
misguidance such as the predecessors of
this nation. They interpret the Qur’ān
and twist it to support their views. At
times they use verses as evidence even
though these verses do not support
them, and at times they twist and
change that which contradicts their
views, thus distorting these words from
their proper usages.

From these groups are the Khawārij,

Rawāfiḍ, Jaḥmiyyah, Mu’tazilah,
Qadariyyah, Murji’ah and others.

From amongst them the Mu’tazilah are

especially known for their rhetoric and
argumentation. They have authored
commentaries of the Qur’ān based upon
their beliefs and principles, such as the
tafsīr of ‘Abdul-Raḥmān ibn Kaysān al-
Aṣamm, the teacher of Ibrāhīm ibn
Ismā’īl ibn ‘Ulayyah who used to debate
with al-Shāfi’ī. Likewise there is the book
of Abū ‘Alī al-Jubbā’ī, Tafsīr al-Kabīr by
Qāḍī ‘Abdul-Jabbār ibn Aḥmad al-
Ḥamdānī, al-Jāmi’ li-‘Ilm al-Qur’ān by ‘Alī
ibn ‘Īsā al-Rummānī, and al-Kashāf by
Abul-Qāsim al-Zamaksharī. All of these
authors and others like them held the
beleifs of the Mu’tazilah.

The principles of the Mu’tazilah are five:

tawḥīd, justice, the station between two
stations, implementation of the
punishment and ordering the good and
forbidding the evil.

73
74
Their concept of tawḥīd is similar to that
of the Jaḥmiyyah, i.e. denying the
attributes of Allāh.

Their concept of tawḥīd is similar to that

of the Jaḥmiyyah, i.e. denying the
attributes of Allāh. They claim that Allāh
will not be seen, that the Qur’ān is
created, and that Allāh is not above His
creation. They further claim that He does
not possess knowledge, power, life,
hearing, sight, speech, will or any other
attribute.

Their concept of justice involves

believing that Allāh did not will creation
[i.e. that they should exist], create them
nor does He possess power over them.
They also believe that Allāh doesn’t
create the actions of His slaves, whether
good or bad. He only wants that which
He has ordered in his divine laws. All else
may take place without his permission.

Others who agreed with them on this

point are the Shī’ah of later times, the
likes of al-Mufīd, Abū Ja’far al-Ṭūsī and
others.

Abū Ja’far has a tafsīr in which he

employs the methods of the Mu’tazilah
whilst incorporating into that the
method of the Twelver Shī’ah’s. The
Mu’tazilah do not prescribe to their
doctrine and beliefs, nor do they reject
the Caliphates of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar,
‘Uthmān or ‘Alī.

From amongst the principles of the

Mu’tazilah and Khawārij is the
implementation of the punishment. They
believe that Allāh will not accept any
intercession for those who committed
major signs nor will they be removed
from the fire.

75
76
Without a doubt this belief of theirs has
been refuted by some of the Murji’ah,
Karrāmiyyah and Kallābiyyah and their
followers. They often did well in their
rebuttal but at times they also erred
until the two groups became complete
opposites as has been explained
elsewhere.

The point here being that this group of

people held certain beliefs and then
interpreted the words of the Qur’ān in
support of those beliefs. In this regard
they have no predecessors from the
companions, their students or those who
followed them from the great scholars of
the Muslims, neither in their beliefs nor
in their commentaries of the Qur’ān.

The faults of their interpretation of the

Qur’ān can be seen from many angles.

Two main ways are: possessing

knowledge of the futility of their views
and knowledge of their incorrect
interpretations of the Qur’ān, either by
refuting their position or defending the
positions they attack.

From amongst them are individuals who

are eloquent and charming, and able to
conceal their innovations so that most
people will not realise their deception.
This includes the author of al-Kashāf and
others. This particular author manages
to confuse many who would not expect
him to possess erroneous views.

77
78
I know of many commentators of the
Qur’ān and others who freely quote from
these people in their words; who even
though they do not agree with their views
or principles, do not realise the errors in
their writings.

Then, due to their extremist in this, groups

such as the Rāfiḍah Imāmiyyah, followed
by the philosophers and then the
Qarāmiṭah and others have gone to even
further extremes. The philosophers and
Qarāmiṭah have especially exacerbated
this issue by interpreting the Qur’ān in the
strangest of ways.

Examples of commentaries by the Rāfiḍah

are: “May the hands of Abū Lahab be
ruined, and ruined is he” [Sūrah al-Masad,
111:1]; [They claim that] ‘The two hands
are Abū Bakr and ‘Umar’. And “…if you
should associate [anything] with Allāh,
your work would surely become worthless”
[Sūrah al-Zumar, 39:65]; [They interpret
this to mean] ‘between Abū Bakr and
‘Umar vis a vis ‘Alī in terms of the
caliphate’. “Indeed, Allāh commands you
to slaughter a cow.” [Sūrah al-Baqarah,
2:67]; ‘The cow to be slaughtered is
referring to ‘Ā’ishah’ according to them.
“…then fight the leaders of disbelief”
[Sūrah al-Tawbah, 9:12]; ‘The leaders of
disbelief are Ṭalḥah and Zubayr’,
[according to the Rāfiḍah]. “He released
the two seas meeting [side by side]” [Sūrah
al-Raḥmān, 55:19]; [This verse is
interpreted as] ‘The two seas are ‘Alī and
Fāṭimah’. “…pearl and coral” [Sūrah al-
Raḥmān, 55:22]; ‘They are Ḥasan and
Ḥusayn’. “…and all things We have
enumerated in a clear register” [Sūrah Yā
Sīn, 36:12]; ‘The register is ‘Alī ibn Abū
Ṭālib’. “About what are they asking one
another? About the great news” [Sūrah al-
Naba’, 78:1-2]; ‘The great news is ‘Alī ibn
Abū Ṭālib’. “Your ally is none but Allāh and
[therefore] His Messenger and those who
have believed – those who establish prayer
and give zakāk, and they bow [in worship]”
[Sūrah al-Mā’idah, 5:55]; The verse is
addressing ‘Alī. They then mention a
ḥadīth which has been classed as
fabricated by the agreement of the
scholars, in which ‘Alī gave his ring in
charity whilst praying.

79
80
“Those are the ones upon whom are
blessings from their Lord and mercy.”
[Sūrah al-Baqarah, 2:157]; ‘This verse
was revealed concerning ‘Alī when
Ḥamzah was martyred’.

Similar to these above commentaries is

what other commentators mention. An
example is the commentary of the
following verses: “The patient, the true,
the obedient, those who spend [in the
way of Allāh], and those who seek
forgiveness before dawn.” [Sūrah Āl-
‘Imrān, 3:17]; They state that the patient
one is the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬. The truthful one
refers to Abū Bakr, ‘Umar is the obedient
one, the one who gives in charity is
‘Uthmān and ‘Alī is the seeker of
forgiveness.

And similar to this statement:

“Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allāh;
and those with him…”; i.e. Abū Bakr,
“…are forceful against the
disbelievers…”; Meaning ‘Umar,
“Merciful among themselves.”; This
refers to ‘Uthmān. “You see them
bowing and prostrating [in prayer]”
[Sūrah al-Fatḥ, 48:29]; This is ‘Alī.

Even stranger is the commentary of the

verse: “By the fig and the olive. And [by]
Mount Sinai. And [by] this secure city [i.e.
Makkah]” [Sūrah al-Tīn, 95:1-3]; They
comment that the fig is Abū Bakr, ‘Umar
is the olive, Mount Sinai is ‘Uthmān and
‘Alī is the secure city.

These types of distortion are brought

from words which in no way imply the
said meanings. These words do not
specifically refer to certain individuals.

Allāh’s statement, “…and those with him

are forceful against the disbelievers,
merciful among themselves. You see
them bowing and prostrating [in
prayer].” These are all descriptions for
those with the Prophet; this is what the
grammarians refer to as successive
predication.

81
82
All of these adjectives describe those
with him, and each description does not
connote a particular individual.

At times these distortions in exegesis

cause what is general to be confined to a
specific person, such as the verse, “Your
ally is none but Allāh and [therefore] His
Messenger and those who have
believed” referring specifically to ‘Alī.
Another example is that the verse, “And
the one who has brought the truth [i.e.
the Prophet (‫ ])ﷺ‬and [they who] believed
in it” [Sūrah al-Zumar, 39:33] Some
commentators state that this refers
specifically to Abū Bakr.

The following verse, “Not equal among

you are those who spent before the
conquest [of Makkah] and fought [and
those who did so after it]” [Sūrah al-
Ḥadīd, 57:10] Is also said to refer to Abū
Bakr specifically.

The tafsīr of the likes of Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah is

closer to the methodology of Ahlus
Sunnah and further from innovation
compared to the tafsīr of Zamaksharī.
However, if Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah had sufficed in
mentioning the views of the
predecessors found in their books it
would have been better. He often
quotes from the tafsīr of Muḥammad ibn
Jarīr al-Ṭabarī whose book is from the
greatest works of tafsīr, but he then
leaves quoting all of the sayings which
Ibn Jarīr brings from the salaf. Instead he
relies on opinions of people he
considered to be profound scholars who
in reality are from the people of kalām
possessing principles similar in nature to
those which the Mu’tazilah possess,
even though they are closer to the
Sunnah than the Mu’tazilah. It is
important that we give credit where it is
due, and to know that this tafsīr is
according to a particular madhab.

83
84
Indeed, if the companions, their
students and the scholars have an
opinion regarding the commentary of a
verse, and another group of people
interpreted the same verse in a different
way based upon their ideals and beliefs
which are contrary to the beliefs of the
companions and those who followed
them, this latter group is in agreement
with the Mu’tazilah and innovators in
this respect.

In short, whoever diverts away from the

methodology of the companions, their
students and their commentaries and
leans towards what opposes them is
wrong in this. Rather he is an innovator
in this respect, even though he may be
striving to attain the truth and so be
forgiven for his errors. The point here is
to highlight and clarify the methods of
verifying knowledge and the methods of
identifying the truth.

We know that the Qur’ān was recited by

the companions, their students and their
subsequent successors, and we know
that they were more knowledgeable of
the meanings and exegesis of the
Qur’ān, as well as more aware of the
truth brought by the Prophet (‫[ )ﷺ‬than
us]. Therefore, whoever contradicts their
statements and uses different
explanations is mistaken in both his
deduction and in his method.

Everyone who opposes their statements

possesses certain doubts, either
intellectual or textual, as has been
expounded upon elsewhere.

Here, we wish to highlight the causes of

difference in tafsīr. One of the greatest
causes is innovation and falsehood
where proponents of these go to the
extent of distorting the words of Allāh,
and interpreting the statements of Allāh
and His Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬incorrectly and
twisting their meanings.

85
86
In order to counteract this, one must be
aware of the opposing view which is the
truth. One must also know that their
views are opposed by the views of the
salaf, and that their commentaries are
innovations. Furthermore, one should
then study in detail the falsehood of
their views by using the clear markers of
truth laid down by Allāh.

This problem is also prevalent amongst

those who write about the exegesis of
ḥadīth just as it is prevalent amongst
those who author in the exegesis of the
Qur’ān.

Those who err in their deductions and

not their methods are like the Ṣūfīs,
preachers, jurists and others who
interpret the Qur’ān with correct ideas
but the words of the Qur’ān do not imply
such meanings. An example of this is
much of what Abu ‘Abdul-Raḥmān al-
Sulamī mentions in Ḥaqā’iq al-Tafsīr. If
the ideas they propagate are also wrong
then without doubt this will fall under
the first category; mistakes in deduction
and methods, since now the meaning
they intend is also false.

87
88
 Chapter

The best method of exegesis

If one were to ask: what is the best

method of tafsīr?

The response would be that the most

authentic of methods is to:

First explain the Qur’ān with the Qur’ān.

This is because what is mentioned briefly
in one place will be expounded upon in
another place, and what is summarised
in one place will be explained in detail
elsewhere.

If you are unable to do this then use the

Sunnah as it is an explanation of the
Qur’ān, and a clarifier for it. Imām Abū
‘Abdullāh Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi’ī
said, ‘Every ruling the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬issued
was derived from the Qur’ān’. Allāh
states: “Indeed, We have revealed to
you, [O Muḥammad], the Book in truth
so you may judge between the people by
that which Allāh has shown you. And do
not be for the deceitful an advocate”
[Sūrah al-Nisā’, 4:105]. He also says,
“And We revealed to you the message
[i.e. the Qur’ān] that you may make clear
to the people what was sent down to
them and that they might give thought.”
[Sūrah al-Naḥl, 16:44]. In yet another
verse, He states, “And We have not
revealed to you the book, [O
Muḥammad], except for you to make
clear to them that wherein they have
differed and as guidance and mercy for a
people who believe.” [Sūrah al-Naḥl,
16:64]. This is why the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬said,
“Indeed, I have been given the Book and
something similar to it” i.e. the Sunnah.

89
90
The Sunnah is also a form of revelation
similar to the Qur’ān although it is not
recited as the Qur’ān is recited. Imām al-
Shāfi’ī and others have quoted many
evidences in support of this, however
this is not the place to go into detail
about that.

The point here is that you seek to

understand the Qur’ān with the Qur’ān.
After this one goes to the Sunnah, as the
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬said to Mu’ādh ibn Jabal
when he sent him to Yemen, “With what
will you judge?” He replied, “With the
Book of Allāh.” He asked, “And if you do
not find [the ruling] in it?” He replied,
“Then the Sunnah of the Prophet (‫ ”)ﷺ‬He
then asked, “And if you do not find [the
ruling] in it?” He replied, “I will use my
own judgement.” The Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬struck
his chest and said, “All praise is to Allāh
who guided the emissary of the
Messenger of Allāh to what pleases the
Messenger of Allāh.”

This ḥadīth is found in the Masānīd and

Sunan with a chain of narration that is
Jayyid.

Thus, if you do not find the tafsīr in the

Qur’ān or Sunnah you return to the
statements of the companions, for they
are more knowledgeable regarding this
as they witnesses the revelation of the
Qur’ān and the circumstances which
surrounded its revelation. They also
possessed complete understanding
along with correct knowledge and
righteous actions. This is especially the
case with their leaders and scholars, like
the four rightly guided caliphs and their
righteous scholars such as ‘Abdullāh ibn
Mas’ūd.

91
92
Imām Abū Ja’far Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-
Ṭabarī said: Abū Kurayb narrated to us:
Jābir ibn Nūḥ informed us that al-A’mash
informed him, relating from Abū Ḍuḥā
from Masrūq that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd
said, “By the One besides whom there is
no other god, not a single verse has been
revealed except that I know about whom
it was revealed and where it was
revealed, and were I to know of anyone
more knowledgeable than me in this
regard and I was able to reach him then I
would travel to him.”

A’mash relates from Abū Wā’il that Ibn

Mas’ūd said, “When a man from
amongst us would learn ten verses he
would not proceed until he fully
understood their meaning and acted
upon them.”

Also from them [i.e. the scholars of the

companions] is the ink and ocean [of this
nation] ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās, the cousin
of the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬. He [i.e. Ibn ‘Abbās]
was also known as the interpreter of the
Qur’ān due to the blessings of the du’ā’
the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬made from him, “O
Allāh, give him understanding of the
religion and teach him the interpretation
[of the Qur’ān]”.

Ibn Jarīr stated: Muḥammad ibn Bashār

narrated to us that he was informed by
Wakī’ who was informed by Sufyān, from
the authority of A’mash from Muslim
who said: ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd said:
‘What a blessed interpreter of the
Qur’ān Ibn ‘Abbās is’.

He then quoted another chain of

narration from Yaḥyā ibn Dāwūd from
Isḥāq al-Azraq, on the authority of
Sufyān from A’mash from Muslim ibn
Ṣabīḥ Abū Ḍuḥā, who narrated from
Masrūq that ibn Mas’ūd said, ‘What a
blessed interpreter of the Qur’ān Ibn
‘Abbās is’.

93
94
[A third chain of narration is] then
mentioned from Bandār, who related
from Ja’far ibn ‘Awn from A’mash that
ibn Mas’ūd said the previous about Ibn
‘Abbās.

These are authentic chains of narration

which all declare that ibn Mas’ūd praised
Ibn ‘Abbās using the aforementioned
wording. Furthermore, ibn Mas’ūd died
in the year 33 AH, and Ibn ‘Abbās lived
on for another 36 years, so how much
more knowledge would he have
acquired during these years?

A’mash relates from Abū Wā’il that ‘Ali

appointed Ibn ‘Abbās leader of the Ḥajj
season. One day he gave a sermon in
which he recited Sūrah al-Baqarah – and
in a narration – Sūrah al-Nūr. He then
explained each verse in such a wau that
were the Romans, Persians and
Dalamites to have heard him they would
have embraced [Islām].

It is for this reason that the majority of

what Ismā’īl ibn ‘Abdul-Raḥmān al-Suddī
the Senior relates in his tafsīr is from
these two men: Ibn Mas’ūd and Ibn
‘Abbās.

At times, al-Suddī narrated from them

sayings of the People of the Book which
the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬allowed in his
statement, “Convey from me even if it is
a verse, and there is no harm in
narrating from the Children of Israel, but
whosoever intentionally ascribed lies to
me will take his place in the fire.”
Collected by al-Bukhārī from the ḥadīth
of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr.

95
96
This is why when ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar
came into possession of two loads of
books belonging to the People of the
Book on the day of Yarmūk, he would
narrate from them due to the
permissibility stated in the previous
ḥadīth.

However these Israelite traditions are

quoted as supporting evidences and not
primary sources. These traditions are of
three types: a type which is authentic as
its truthfulness is attested to by our own
sources, a type which is false as our own
sources reject it, and a third type which
does not fall into the previous two
categories, we can neither judge it to be
authentic or inauthentic. As such we
neither believe in it nor reject it. One is
allowed to quote from this third type,
even though most of what is contained
in it is of no immediate benefit.

The scholars of the People of the Book

differ considerably regarding this third
category, and as a result the scholars of
tafsīr quote from them and also differ in
this regard. Examples of this category
are the names of the companions of the
cave, the colour of their dog, and their
precise number. Likewise, they differ
regarding the type of wood the staff of
Mūsā was made from, the types of birds
which Allāh gave life to as a sign for
Ibrāhīm, which part of the cow was used
to strike the slain man, the type of tree
Allāh spoke from to Mūsā, and other
such matters which are not detailed in
the Qur’ān which possess no direct
benefit in worldly or religious affairs.
However, one may mention the
difference of opinion in these matters.

97
98
Allāh mentions, “They [i.e. people] will say
there were three, the fourth of them being
their dog; and they will say there were five,
the sixth of them being the dog – guessing
at the unseen; and they will say there were
seven, and the eighth of them was their
dog. Say, [O Muḥammad], “My Lord is
most knowing of their number. None
knows them except a few. So do not argue
about them except with an obvious
argument and do not inquire about them
among [the speculators] from anyone.””
[Sūrah al-Kahf, 18:22]. This verse
comprises good etiquette in this situation
along with teaching what is necessary.
Allāh mentions them [i.e. the companions
of the cave] in three opinions. He then
weakens the first two opinions and
remains silent about the third showing its
correctness. Were it to also be wrong He
would have refuted it as He did the first
two. Allāh then states that inquiring about
such issues possesses no benefit. As such
the befitting response to such an inquiry is
“My Lord is most knowing of their
number.” Only a few people know of their
exact number as Allāh has given them that
knowledge which is why He then says, “So
do not argue about them except with an
obvious argument” meaning do not exert
you energy in what is unbeneficial.
Furthermore, do not ask them concerning
such affairs as they only guess the
unknown.

This is the best way of mentioning

differences of opinion. One gathers all of
the relevant opinions, mentions the
correct opinion while refuting the
incorrect and then states the fruits and
benefits derived from the discussion. This
is to ensure that one does not prolong
discussion over insignificant matters which
possess no benefit and one does not
digress from what is more crucial and
important.

Therefore, the one who does not gather all

the different opinions on a particular issue
has presented an incomplete argument, as
the truth may lie in what he has neglected.
Similarly, the one who does not point out
the correct opinion has also performed an
incomplete task.

99
100
If one intentionally authenticates
something incorrect, he has ascribed lies
and falsehood, and if one does this out
of ignorance then he has erred.

Similarly, whoever discusses differences

in issues which hold little or no benefit,
or mentions varying opinions which even
though they possess different wordings
all dissolve into just one or two opinions
has wasted time and has incorrectly
exaggerated the matter. Such a person is
like one who wears two robes, both of
which are stolen. And Allāh guides to the
truth.

101
102
 Chapter

Exegesis of the Qur’ān with the

Statements of the Successors (Tābi’ūn)

If one is unable to find the explanation of

a verse in the Qur’ān or Sunnah, and
does not find any relevant commentaries
from the companions, then many of the
scholars used the statements of the
successors; such as Mujāhid ibn Jabr
who was a marvel in this science.
Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq said that he was
informed by Abān ibn Ṣālih that Mujāhid
said, ‘I recited the whole Qur’ān to Ibn
‘Abbās three times from beginning to
end, stopping him at each verse and
asking him about it.’

Al-Tirmidhī reports from al-Ḥusayn ibn

Mahdī al-Baṣrī that ‘Abdul-Razzāq
informed him from Ma’mar, who reports
from Qatādah that Mujāhid said, ‘There
is not a single verse in the Qur’ān except
I have heart something about it.’

Al-Tirmidhī also reports from Ibn Abī

‘Umar who narrated from Sufyān ibn
‘Uyaynah from A’mash that Mujāhid
said, ‘Had I recited the Qur’ān using the
recitation of Ibn Mas’ūd, I would not
have needed to ask Ibn ‘Abbās about
much of what I asked him.’

103
104
Ibn Jarīr stated: Abū Kurayb informed us
from Ṭalq ibn Ghanām, who related from
‘Uthmān al-Makkī from Ibn Abī
Mulaykah who said, ‘I saw Mujāhid
asking Ibn ‘Abbās about the exegesis of
the Qur’ān and he had with him his
tablets. Ibn ‘Abbās said to him “write”
until he went through all of tafsīr.’

This is why Sufyān al-Thawrī would say,

‘If you have the commentary of Mujāhid
then it is sufficient.’

Other such successors are Sa’īd ibn

Jubayr, ‘Ikrimah the freed slave of Ibn
‘Abbās, ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, Ḥasan al-
Baṣrī, Masrūq ibn al-Ajda’, Sa’īd ibn al-
Musayyib, Abul ‘Āliyah, Rabī ibn Anas,
Qatādah, Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Muzāḥim and
others from the successors, their
students and those who followed them.

Their statements are quoted and at

times there is a different in wording, but
those who are not grounded in
knowledge believe it to be difference of
opinion and quote it as such. This is not
the case, as some of them mention
something by using examples or similes
whilst others are explicit in what they
are referring to. Most of the time they
are in agreement so let that astute be
aware of this, and guidance is from
Allāh.

Shu’bah ibn Ḥajjāj and others have said

that the statements of the successors in
matter such as practical rulings are not
authoritative, so how can they be so in
issues of tafsīr?

105
106
This means that their opinions are not
authoritative over other [successors]
who hold contrary views; this is true.
However, if they all agree on a single
issue then without doubt it is sufficient
as evidence. Instead, when they differ,
one returns to the language of the
Qur’ān or Sunnah, or the general Arabic
language or statements of the
companions.

Exegesis of the Qur’ān based solely on

one’s reasoning is ḥarām.

Mu’ammal informed us from the

authority of Sufyān from ‘Abdul-A’lā,
who related from Sa’īd ibn Jubayr that
Ibn ‘Abbās said: The Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬said,
“Whoever speaks about the Qur’ān
without knowledge then let him take his
seat in the fire.”

Wakī informed us on the authority of

Sufyān from ‘Abdul-A’lā al-Tha’labī, who
related from Sa’īd ibn Jubayr that Ibn
‘Abbās said: The Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬said,
“Whoever speaks about the Qur’ān
without knowledge then let him take his
seat in the fire.”

Al-Tirmidhī reports from ‘Abd ibn

Ḥumayd from Ḥibbān ibn Hilāl, who was
informed by Suhayl the brother of Ḥazm
al-Qat’ī, who related from Abū ‘Imrān al-
Jūnī from Jundub that the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬
said, “Whosoever speaks about the
Qur’ān using his own intellect and
happens to be correct [in his reasoning]
is still wrong.”

Al-Tirmidhī declared this ḥadīth to be

gharīb and some scholars of ḥadīth have
spoken concerning Suhayl ibn Abū Ḥazm.

107
108
These are the reports from the scholars
who narrated from the companions of the
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬and other than them, all
stating the severity of commentating on
the Qur’ān without knowledge.

There are some reports that Mujāhid,

Qatādah and other than them would
commentate on the Qur’ān, however, one
does not believe that their commentaries
were not based on knowledge or that they
spoke of their own desires.

There are many narrations from them

which support the fact that they did not
use their own reasoning in the exegesis of
the Qur’ān. Whoever speaks about the
Qur’ān using his own reasoning has placed
a burden upon himself which he need not
bear, and he is treading a path he has not
been ordered to tread. Even if he were to
stumble upon the correct meaning he
would still have erred. The reason for his
error is because he did not approach this
matter through the correct channel. This is
similar to the one who judges between
people with ignorance thus ending up in
the Fire even if his ruling is correct at
times. He is still sinful but the sin is less
than the one who is incorrect in his ruling,
and Allāh knows best.

Similarly, Allāh refers to the slanderers as

liars, as He says, “And when they do not
produce the witnesses, then it is they, in
the sight of Allāh, who are the liars” [Sūrah
al-Nūr, 24:13]. Therefore the slanderer is a
liar, even if his slander is relating to an
accusation of adultery, for he is spreading
what he has no right to spread and
speaking about that which he does not
possess knowledge of, and Allāh knows
best.

It is for this reason that a number of the

salaf would excuse themselves from
interpreting verses they had no knowledge
of. This is reported by Shu’bah from
Sulaymān from ‘Abdullāh ibn Murrah, who
related from Abū Ma’mar that Abū Bakr al-
Ṣiddīq said, ‘Which earth will hold me and
which sky will shadow me if I speak about
the Book of Allāh without knowledge.’

109
110
It is also narrated from Abū ‘Ubayd al-
Qāsim ibn Sallām who narrated from
Muḥammad ibn Yazīd from al-‘Awwām
ibn Ḥawshab, who related from Ibrāhīm
al-Taymī that Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq was
asked concerning the verse, “And fruit
and grass” [Sūrah ‘Abasa, 80:31]; He
responded, ‘Which sky will shadow me
and which earth will hold me if I speak
about the Book of Allāh without
knowledge.’ The chain of narration is
disconnected.

Abū ‘Ubayd narrated that we were

informed by Yazīd, who related from
Ḥumayd from Anas, that ‘Umar ibn al-
Khaṭṭāb recited on the pulpit, “And fruit
and abbā (grass).” ‘He asked what is
abb? As for fruits then we know of them
but what is abb? He then said to himself,
‘Indeed, this is overburdening oneself O
‘Umar.’’

‘Abd ibn Ḥumayd reported that

Sulaymān ibn Ṣarb narrated from Ibn
Zayd, who related from Thābit from Anas
who said, ‘We were with ‘Umar ibn al-
Khaṭṭāb and in his robe were four
patches. He recited the verse, “And fruit
and abbā (grass).” He asked, what is
abb? He then said, ‘Indeed, this is
overburdening oneself, what’s the harm
in not knowing?’’

All of the above refers to the fact that

they (‫ر� � ﻋﻨﻤﺎ‬‫ن‬
‫ ) ي‬wanted to discover the
reality of the abb. Otherwise it is well
known to all that it is a type of herbage
which grows, as Allāh says,

“And caused to grow within it grain. And

grapes and herbage. And olive and palm
trees. And gardens of dense shrubbery.
And fruit and grass.” [Sūrah ‘Abasa,
80:27-31]

111
112
Ibn Jarīr narrated from Ya’qūb ibn
Ibrāhīm from Ibn ‘Ulayyah, who related
from Ayyūb from Ibn Abī Mulaykah who
stated, ‘Ibn ‘Abbās was asked concerning
some verses – were you to be asked
concerning them you would have
spoken, but he refused to answer.’ Its
chain of narration is authentic.

Abū ‘Ubayd narrated from Ismā’īl ibn

Ibrāhīm, who related from Ayyūb from
Ibn Abī Mulaykah who said, “A man
asked ‘Ibn ‘Abbās about the verse, “…a
Day, the extent of which is a thousand
years.” [Sūrah al-Sajdah, 32:5]. Ibn
‘Abbās asked him, ‘Then what about the
verse, “…a Day the extent of which is
fifty thousand years.” [Sūrah al-Ma’ārij,
70:4]. The man replied, ‘The reason I
asked you was so that you would inform
me.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘They are two days
which Allāh has mentioned in His Book,
and Allāh knows best what they are
[referring to].’ He disliked speaking
about the book of Allāh without
knowledge.”

Ibn Jarīr narrated from Ya’qūb ibn

Ibrāhīm from Ibn ‘Ulayyah, who related
from Mahdī ibn Maymūn from al-Walīd
ibn Muslim who said, ‘Ṭalq ibn Ḥabīb
came to Jundub ibn ‘Abdullāh and asked
him concerning a verse of the Qur’ān. He
replied, “I implore you never to come to
me if you are a Muslim.” And in a
narration he said, “…never to sit with
me.”’

Mālik narrated from Yaḥyā ibn Sa’īd that

if Sa’īd ibn al-Musayyib was ever asked
concerning a verse of the Qur’ān he
would say, ‘We do not say anything
concerning the [tafsīr of the] Qur’ān.’

113
114
Al-Layth reported from Yaḥyā ibn Sa’īd
that Sa’īd ibn al-Musayyib would not
speak except about that which he knew
when it came to the Qur’ān.

Shu’bah related from ‘Amr ibn Murrah

who said, “A man asked Sa’īd ibn al-
Musayyib about a verse of the Qur’ān
and he replied, ‘Do not ask me
concerning the Qur’ān. Rather ask the
one who claims that none of it is hidden
from him.’ He was referring to ‘Ikrimah.”

Ibn Shawdhab reports from Yazīd ibn

Abū Yazīd who said, ‘We would ask Sa’īd
ibn al-Musayyib about the lawful and
unlawful and he was the most
knowledgeable concerning these
matters. Then when we would ask him
about the tafsīr of a verse, and he would
remain silent as if he had not heard us.’

Ibn Jarīr narrated from Aḥmad ibn

‘Abdah al-Ḍabbī, who related from
Ḥammād ibn Zayd from ‘Ubaydullāh ibn
‘Umar who said, ‘I have met the jurists of
Madīnah and they considered it a grave
matter to speak about tafsīr. From them
was Sālim ibn ‘Abdullāh, al-Qāsim ibn
Muḥammad, Sa’īd ibn al-Musayyib and
Nāfi’’

Abū ‘Ubayd reported from ‘Abdullāh ibn

Ṣāliḥ, who related from al-Layth from
Hishām ibn ‘Urway who said, ‘I never
heard my father interpret a verse from
the Qur’ān.’

Ayyūb, Ibn ‘Awn and Hishām al-

Dastawā’ī all reported from Muḥammad
ibn Sīrīn that he said, ‘I asked ‘Ubaydah
al-Salmānī concerning a verse of the
Qur’ān. He replied, “Those who knew in
what circumstances the verses were
revealed have passed away. Rather fear
Allāh and remain firm and upright.”’

115
116
Abū ‘Ubayd reported from Mu’ādh from
Ibn ‘Awn, who related from ‘Ubaydullāh
ibn Muslim ibn Yasār from his father who
said, ‘Before you speak about Allāh,
pause and look at what precedes and
follows it [i.e. look at the context].’

Hushayhm narrated from Mughīrah from

Ibrāhīm who said, ‘Our peers used to try
to avoid [having to] explain verses and
would give [this science] much respect.’

Shu’bah narrated from ‘Abdullāh ibn Abū

al-Safar, that al-Sha’bī said, ‘I swear by
Allāh, there is not a single verse except
that I have asked concerning it, but it
[tafsīr] is to narrate from Allāh.’

Abū ‘Ubayd narrated from Hushayhm

who narrated from ‘Umar ibn Abū
Zā’idah, who related from Sha’bī from
Masrūq who said, ‘Beware of tafsīr, for
indeed it is reporting from Allāh.’

These and other authentic narrations

from the pious predecessors all state the
impermissibility of speaking about tafsīr
without knowledge. However, there is
no harm in speaking if one possesses the
relevant linguistic and religious
knowledge; then there is no harm in this.
It is for this reason that there are a
number of varying statements reported
from these scholars. This does not imply
contradiction, for they spoke about
matters they had knowledge of, and
remained silent on that which they had
no knowledge of.

This is what is obligatory upon everyone.

Just as one should remain quiet about
that which he is ignorant of, likewise he
should speak about that which he
possesses knowledge of when he is
asked concerning it, as Allāh said:

“…You must make it clear [i.e. explain it]

to the people and not conceal it” [Sūrah
Āl-‘Imrān, 3:187]

117
118
This is also due to what is reported in the
ḥadīth, “Whosoever is asked about a
matter but conceals it, will be given a
bridle of fire on the Day of Judgement”

Ibn Jarīr reported from Muḥammad Ibn

Bashār from Mu’ammal, who related
from Sufyān from Abū al-Zinād that Ibn
‘Abbās said, ‘Tafsīr is of four types; a
type which the Arabs know from their
language, a type which no-one is allowed
to be ignorant of, a type which is known
to the scholars and a type which is not
known except to Allāh.’ And Allāh knows
best.

119