Microsoft Word Al Jalalain Eng with introduction docx

The Interpretation of the Holy Qur’an (
Tafs
ī
r) according to Personal Opinion (Ra'y)
Some of the partisans of 
Tafs
ī
r bil-Ma'th
ū
r (and today their ranks are swollen by the literalist 
Fundamentalists) hold that any 
Tafs
ī
r of the Qur’an based on personal opinion (ra'y), and not handed down 
by tradition is forbidden. In this context, Ibn Kathir (who in this respect echoes the views of his teacher, Ibn 
Taymiyyah), in the introduction to his 
Tafs
ī
r al-Qur'
ā
n al-'A
ẓī
m, quotes this the following 
ḥ
ad
ī
th:
Whoever speaks of the Qur’an according to his own opinion or according to that of which he [or 
she] has no knowledge, then let him assume his place in the Fire.
[3]
Other Islamic scholars, however, and amongst them Sunni scholars like Fakhr al-Din al-R
ā
z
ī
and al-
Ghaz
ā
l
ī
, argue that this 
hadith must be understood in the wider context of the Qur’an’s own injunctions 
about its own interpretation as well the injunctions of other 
ḥ
ad
ī
th. The Holy Qur’an says:
He it is Who hath revealed unto thee [Muhammad] the Scripture wherein are verses which are clear 
prescripts — they are the substance of the Book — and others [which are] allegorical. But those in 
whose hearts is deviation follow that which is allegorical seeking [to cause] dissension and seeking 
its interpretation. And none know its interpretation except God and those firmly grounded in 
knowledge [who]
[4]
say: “We believe therein. It is all from our Lord”. And none remember except 
those [people] of kernels. (
Ā
l 'Imr
ā
n, 3:7)
And: 
Will they not then meditate upon the Qur’an? If it had been from other than God they would have 
found therein much discrepancy. / And if any tidings, whether of safety or fear, come unto them, 
they proclaim it about, whereas had they referred it to the Messenger and such of them as are in 
authority, those among them who can interpret it among them would have known it. And were it 
not for the bounty of God upon you and His Mercy, you would have surely followed Satan, save a 
few [of you]. (Al-Nis
ā
', 4: 82-83)
Thus there are, according to scholars, two types of verses in the Qur’an: (1) clear, legislative verses 
(called ‘
al-a
ḥ
k
ā
m’ by some scholars; see H
ū
d 11:1) that are not ‘open’ to interpretation, and (2) allegorical 
verses (called ‘
al-akhb
ā
r’ by some scholars; see Al-Zumar 39:23) that are ‘open’ to interpretation.
Following the first verses quoted above, Ghaz
ā
l
ī
maintains that the allegorical verses 
can licitly be 
interpreted by individual readers based on their own opinions and understanding, but 
only upon the 
following specific, strict conditions: (A) that the interpreter be completely familiar with all interpretations of 
the Holy Qur’an attributed to the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and his Companions, and that the individual 

---

iv
interpretation (
ra’y) not contradict these; (B) that the individual interpretations (ra’y) not be used to 
contradict any legislative verse (and presumably 
a fortiori anything that contradicts orthodox doctrine or 
‘aq
ī
dah); and (C) that the interpreter have mastered the Arabic language and not contradict the literal 
meaning of any verse itself with his or her individual interpretation (
ra'y). Ghaz
ā
l
ī
says: 
It is false that hearing [from an authority] is a stipulation for Qur’anic interpretation. It is lawful for 
everyone to elicit meaning from the Qur’an commensurate with his understanding and the limit of 
the intelligence.
[5]
One who, without being prudent at outward exegesis, hastens to elicit deep meanings by mere 
understanding of the Arabic language makes many mistakes and is included in the group of those 
who explain the Qur’an by personal opinion (
ra'y). Then transmission [from an authority] and 
hearing [from him] are necessary for outward exegesis first, so that the exegete may, by them, be 
safe in places where mistakes are likely to be made. After this, understanding will be wide and the 
eliciting of deep meanings will be possible.
[6]
In this and similar [questions] only knowledge which has been transmitted and heard (
al-naql wal-
sam
ā
‘) is of any use. The Qur’an, from its beginning to its end, is not lacking in [rhetorical figures 
of] this kind, and, because it was revealed in the language of the Arabs, it includes such figures of 
their speech such as conciseness (
ī
j
ā
z), prolixity (ta
ṭ
w
ī
l), ellipsis (i
ḍ
m
ā
r), omission (
ḥ
adhf), 
substitution (
ibd
ā
l), and preposition and postposition (taqd
ī
m wa ta'kh
ī
r), all of which served to 
dumbfound the Arabs and render them unable to imitate it. Anyone who is satisfied with an 
understanding of the outward aspect alone of the Arabic language, and who then hastens to explain 
the Qur’an without having recourse to that knowledge which has been transmitted and heard (
al-
naql wal-sam
ā
‘) in these matters, is to be counted among those who explains the Qur’an by their 
personal opinions (
ra'y). For example, a person may understand the term umma in its most widely 
known meaning, and in his nature and opinion he may incline towards that meaning. However, if he 
then encounters the term in another place, he may still incline in his opinion towards that widely-
known meaning which he has previously heard, and he will neglect to pursue what has been 
transmitted with respect to that term’s many other meanings. It is possible that this is what is 
prohibited [in the 
hadith that: Whoever speaks of the Qur’an according to his own opinion or 
according to that of which he [or she] has no knowledge, then let him assume his place in the Fire] 
and not the understanding of the secret meanings [of the Qur’an].
[7]
As evidence for the permissibility of individual interpretation, Al-Ghaz
ā
l
ī
points to the saying of the 
Caliph ‘Al
ī
explaining how he had an understanding of the Qur’an in addition to that which was related by 
the Prophet (p.b.u.h.): 
The Messenger of God (may God’s blessings and peace be upon him) did not hide from me anything 
which he concealed from people, except that God (Great and Mighty is He) bestows upon a man 
understanding of His Book.
[8]
‘Understanding’ of the Qur’an is thus undeniable and perfectly legitimate, whereas
ra'y (personal 
opinion) is then reprehensible only when it is a deliberate wilful disobedience to the (aforementioned) rules 
of 
Tafs
ī
r.
Other scholars, Ibn ‘Arabi for instance, set ‘the bar’ even lower: they maintain that because God’s 
knowledge in infinite and He foresaw all possible meanings of His text, all interpretations that are (A) literally 
true according to the Arabic language and (B) do not contradict the 
Shari‘ah (in accordance with the 
Qur’anic verse — 3:7 — as quoted earlier) are legitimate. Reprehensible 
ra’y is then only what contradicts 
the literal Arabic text and the 
Shari‘ah: 
Every sense (
wajh) which is supported (i
ḥ
tim
ā
l) by any verse in God’s Speech (kal
ā
m)—whether it is 
the Qur’an, the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospel or the Scripture—in the view of anyone who knows 
that language (
lis
ā
n) is intended (maq
ṣū
d) by God in the case of that interpreter (muta’awwil). For 
His knowledge encompasses all senses…. 
We say concerning the senses of a verse that all are intended by God. No one forces anything upon 
God. On the contrary, it is an affair verified by God…. Hence when someone understands a sense 
from the verse, that sense is intended by God in this verse in the case of the person who finds it.

---

v
This situation is not found outside God’s Speech. Even though the words might support a sense, it 
may be that it was not intended by the speaker; for we know that he is incapable of encompassing 
all the senses of the words…. 
Hence, everyone who comments (
tafs
ī
r) on the Qur’an and does not go outside of what the words 
support is a true commentator. However, “He who comments according to his opinion (
ra’y) 
becomes an unbeliever”—so it has been recorded in the 
hadith of Tirmidh
ī
. But the commentary will 
not be “according to his own opinion” until the speakers of that language do not recognize that 
sense in that word.
[9]
* * * 
This possibility of this kind of interpretation perhaps explains why the Qur’an calls for people (and 
not merely qualified classical scholars) to reflect upon it for wisdom’s sake (and not for any social or 
legislative reason) in verses such as: 
Do they not reflect upon the Word, or has there come unto them anything that did come to their 
fathers of old. (Al-Mu’min
ū
n, 23:68) 
[Here is] a Book which We have sent down unto thee, full of blessing, that they may reflect upon its 
verses, and that those of cores may remember. (
Ṣā
d, 38: 29) 
Do they not meditate upon the Qur’an or do hearts have their locks upon them? (Mu
ḥ
ammad, 
47:24) 
Equally, this also perhaps explains why the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: 
Every verse [in the Qur’an] has an outer aspect and inner aspect and each [of these two aspects] 
has a limit and a place of ascent.
[10]
For why would the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) provide us with these invaluable keys to interpretation if he 
had meant for all interpretation apart from his own to be absolutely forbidden? 
Finally, we note that God promised the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) the following in the Holy Qur’an: 
Stir not thy tongue herewith to hasten it. / Lo! upon Us [resteth] the putting together thereof and 
the reading thereof. / And when We read it, follow thou the reading; / Then lo! upon Us [resteth] 
the explanation thereof. (Al-Qiyamah, 75:16-19)
Now Al-
Ṭ
abar
ī
quotes Ibn 'Abb
ā
s saying that ‘the putting together thereof’ of the Qur’an occurred in 
the breast of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.). This meaning is affirmed in other 
Tafsirs including those of Fakhr al-D
ī
n 
Al-R
ā
z
ī
and Ibn Kath
ī
r. However, whereas Al-
Ṭ
abar
ī
quotes a 
hadith relating the Divine Promise as regards 
‘the explanation thereof’ of the Qur’an (after its ‘reading’) as being made to the Prophet himself, Fakhr Al-
D
ī
n Al-R
ā
z
ī
for one, does not limit the Divine Promise exclusively to the Prophet’s (p.b.u.h.) (inspired) 
explanation and ‘commentary’, especially since this commentary is not extant for the whole Qur’an and since 
what is extant often requires correct understanding and elaboration. In other words, some authoritative and 
orthodox commentators take the Divine Promise in the Qur’an to explain the Qur’an to be 
an ongoing 
process (within of course certain parameters, such as the Prophet’s own commentary where it exists, the 
limits of the Arabic language, the legislative verses, the 
‘aq
ī
dah and so on, as mentioned earlier). Wa All
ā
hu 
A'lam: And God knows best. 
* * * 
There are, moreover, many interpretations of verses of the Qur’an going back to the Prophet himself 
(p.b.u.h.) that indicate not only symbolical resonances
[11]
in the sacred verses of the Holy Qur’an, but also 
distinct levels of both micro-macrocosmic
[12]
mirror-play and anagogical meanings in these verses (as 
perhaps maybe indicated in the 
ḥ
ad
ī
th quoted above). For example, the Holy Qur’an says: 

---

vi
He sendeth down water from the sky, so that valleys are in flood with it, each according to its 
capacity, and the flood beareth [on its surface] swelling foam—from that which they smelt into the 
fire in order to make ornaments and tools riseth a foam like unto it—thus Allah coineth [the 
similitude of] the Truth and falsehood. Then, as for the foam, it passeth away as scum upon the 
banks, while as for that which profiteth mankind, it remaineth in the earth. Thus Allah coineth the 
similitudes. (Al-Ra'd, 13:17) 
Al-
Ṭ
abar
ī
reports
[13]
that according to Ibn 'Abb
ā
s (the Prophet’s—p.b.u.h.— cousin and student) the 
valleys are a simile for people’s hearts (
qul
ū
b), the scum which passeth away is a simile for doubt (shakk), 
and 
that which is of use to mankind and remaineth in the earth is a simile for certainty (yaq
ī
n). This clearly 
establishes a parallel between the earth or the world and human beings (and the worlds within them) and 
between the sky and heaven. It also establishes (via the symbol of water) a parallel between the life of the 
body and that of the heart and the soul. It thus implies micro-macrocosmic mirror-play and anagogical levels 
of meaning in the Qur’an in general. In other words, it implies that the 
akhbar (or at least the similitudes or 
amth
ā
l within the akhb
ā
r) of the Holy Qur’an can be understood in a ‘inner’ sense in addition and parallel to 
their literal outward meanings. 
Wa All
ā
hu A'lam: And God knows best. 
* * * 
One last point must be mentioned here on this subject: many mystics (such as Ibn 'Arab
ī
and 
Ruzbih
ā
n Baql
ī
) who wrote Commentaries on the Qur’an or on parts of it — and even a few ‘inspired 
philosophers’, like Ibn S
ī
n
ā
— claimed that their Commentaries, or parts of them, were not based on 
‘individual opinion’ at all, but rather on ‘spiritual intuition’ or even ‘mystical inspiration’. Thus, they argued 
that there was nothing individualistic or subjective about what they wrote because it did not come through 
ordinary, rational thought. In other words, they claimed the censure against rational or subjective 
speculation did not apply to them, since they wrote only what they ‘received’ passively from the uncreated 
Intellect, ultimately through Divine inspiration. In this they claimed to be like the mysterious figure (known 
as 
al-Khi
ḍ
r in the Commentaries) in the S
ū
rat al-Kahf, who was not a prophet as such and yet whom God 
had given him mercy from [that which is] with Us and taught him knowledge from Our Presence (18:65) 
such that he told Moses (p.b.u.h.), with reference to certain acts that he been inspired to commit: 
I will 
announce to thee the interpretation of that which that couldst not bear with patience …. I did it not upon my 
own command. Such is the interpretation of that wherewith thou couldst not bear (18:78-82). This they 
claimed was precisely what was meant by the Caliph 'Al
ī
’s (k.w.) saying that (as quoted earlier
[14]
): ‘God 
(Great and Mighty is He) bestows upon a man understanding of His Book’. Now evidently, claiming this state 
is a major claim for anyone to make, but the Commentators who made them (or some of them at least) 
were precisely not just ‘anyone’, and what cannot be denied is that the Holy Qur’an itself seems to allow for 
the possibility of exactly such a claim. 
Wa All
ā
hu A'lam: And God knows best. 
* * *