The science of tafsīr (Qur’ānic exegesis) in its capacity as a discipline from the prominent Sharī’ah disciplines is one of the most important of Sharī’ah sciences. Therefore, it is imperative that attention is given to it in every age and in every generation. The Ummah today is in need of Mufassirin because new things have come up which did not exist before. They must be understood if they come under comprehensive and general principles mentioned in the Qur’ān or if it is possible to apply detailed rulings on them. However, the style of the classical tafsīrs in its capacity as a collection of tafsīrs is one genre of writing in terms of form and presentation. It is like the style of the classical works which the sons of this generation do not have a desire or love to read these tafsīrs except by those accustomed to reading classical books. And they are very few indeed. Therefore, the style has to be such that it awakens desire and love in the Muslims first, let alone in anyone else for reading tafaseers as an intellectual book which is deep and enlightened. In addition to that, the path followed by mufasssirin in the age which followed the translation of the books of philosophy and being effected by them and in the age of decline which came after the Crusades led to the presence of tafsīrs for which much effort was expended in giving attention to things which did not constitute tafsīr and had no relationship to the verses of the Qur’ān. Not to mention the israliiyyat that accumulated until it became a third source of tafsīr for the mufassirin. It is imperative that the tafsīr of the Qur’ān should proceed according to the Sahabah's ways of tafsīr in terms of Ijtihād in understanding the Qur’ān seeking the aid of the tafsīrs of the Sahabah that have been transmitted. As for the tafsīr transmitted from the Messenger , even if authentic, it is considered part of the Hadith. It is not considered as tafsīr since it is a legislative text like the Qur’ān; where it is known that the tafsīrs are not considered as legislative text.

As for the style according to which the mufassir should proceed depends on his creativity. Since it is in one form or one genre of compilation each mufassir chooses according what he sees as a medium of rendering the tafsīr in terms of the arrangement, chapters and presentation. This is why it is not correct to clarify the style of writing the tafsīr. As for the methodology of tafsīr, this requires clarification. After study, research and thought we have found a method for tafsīr. We shall present it here so that tafsīr of the Qur’ān can take place according to this methodology (minhaj). It is a method necessitated by the reality of the Qur’ān. We call it a method i.e a matter that is decided and permanent, we do not call it a style (uslub). This is because it is like the method of Ijtihād which is understood from the reality of the texts and from the evidences the Qur’ān has guided to. Likewise, tafsīr is the same. It is a method in terms adhering to it and not in terms of it being a Sharī’ah rule because the method is not by way of ahkām. As for this method which we deem proper to proceed on in the tafsīr of the Noble Qur’ān it is summarised in the following:

Tafsīr of the Qur’ān is the clarification of the meanings of its vocabulary (placed) in their phrases (tarakib) and the meaning of the phrases themselves. To know the method of tafsīr we must present the reality of the Qur’ān first and study it comprehensively in a way the nature of its reality becomes apparent. Then we study whatever applies to this reality in terms its words and meanings and what is the subject matter that it has brought. With this knowledge of the reality and whatever applies to it and knowledge of the subject of discussion brought by the Qur’ān the method that should be followed in making tafsīr of the Qur’ān becomes clear. Thus, he is guided to the right path on whose methodology the tafsīr should proceed.

The reality of the Qur’ān is that it is in the Arabic speech, so its reality, in its capacity as Arabic speech, has to be understood. Thus, we must comprehend its vocabulary as being Arabic words, its phrases as being Arabic structures, and the nature of the right of disposal of the phrases in their capacity as phrases only, and in terms of its being Arabic disposal of Arabic vocabulary in Arabic phrases, or Arabic disposal of Arabic phrases in terms of the structure as a whole. In addition to this the Mufassir must comprehend the high manner of address and speech in the Qur’ān, in terms of the manner of the Arabs regarding the high manner of address and speech in their language. Once the reality of the Qur’ān, on this Arabic basis, has been comprehended in a detailed fashion, then it is possible to peform tafsīr, but not before this. As the whole of Qur’ān, in its words and phrases, proceeds according to the words and phrases of the Arabs and according to what is well-known in their language, and it does not overstep that by a hairbreadth. One cannot perform its tafsīr except with this comprehension and according to this reality. As long as this is not fulfilled the Qur’ān cannot be explained correctly at all. Therefore, tafsīr of the Qur’ān in its capacity as an Arabic speech and text depends on the comprehension of its Arabic reality in terms of the language:

This is in terms of the reality of the Qur’ān and whatever applies to the reality in terms of its expressions and meanings i.e, from the perspective of the language. In terms of the subject matter that the Qur’ān brought, it is a Message from Allah  for the humankind conveyed by the messenger  from Allah . It contains everything relating to the Message: in terms of beliefs, ahkām, glad tidings, admonitions and stories for the purpose of exhortation and remembrance and a description to the happenings on the day of judgement, al-Janna (Paradise), Hellfire in order to rebuke and incite desire (for Paradise). It contains rational issues to be comprehended and perceptible and non-perceptible issues founded on a rational basis for imān and action, and whatever else a universal message to mankind necessitates. One cannot be correctly acquainted with this subject except by the way of the Messenger  who actually brought it, particularly when Allah  has clarified that He  revealed it to the Messenger  so that he may explain it to the people. He  said:

The way of the Messenger  is his Sunnah, which is whatever has been correctly narrated about his  sayings, actions and consent. Consequently, it is necessary to be acquainted with the Sunnah of the Messenger  before starting the tafsīr and during the tafsīr of the Qur’ān since the subject matter of the Qur’ān cannot be understood without being acquainted with the Sunnah of the Messenger . Although this acquaintance should be one of awareness of the text of the Sunnah irrespective of one’s acquaintance with the sanad i.e, the acquaintance should be one of awareness of thinking about its thoughts in their capacity as concepts and not that of memorising its words. It does not harm the mufassir if he does not make an effort in the memorization of words or have knowledge of the sanad (chain) and transmitters so long as he trusts the authenticity of the hadīth from the reference (takhrij) of the hadīth. What is incumbent on him is to comprehend the meanings of the hadīth since tafsīr relates to the the meanings of the Sunnah and not to its words, sanad or transmitters. Therefore, he must have sufficient awareness of the Sunnah so that he can explain the Qur’ān. Coensequently, it becomes clear that one must first, before anything else, make a detailed study of the reality of the Qur’ān and study whatever applies to this reality in terms of the words and meanings, and then understand the subject of discussion. It should be noted that a general understanding is not suffiecint; rather a detailed understanding of the comprehensive (kulliyat) and branchial (juz'iyyat) issues is essential even if it is in a general manner. In order to visualise this detailed understanding we shall present a quick look at the method of this detailed understanding of the reality of the Qur’ān in terms of its vocabulary and phrases, and in terms of high manner in speech and address from the linguistic perspective and in terms of the language and their well-known way in their language.

As for the reality of the Qur’ān in terms of its vocabulary, we can see that it contains vocabulary on which the linguistic meaning applies literally (haqiqatan) and it also applies metaphorically (majazan). The lingusitic and methaphorical meaning may continue to be used together. The intended meaning is known by the qarina (indication) in each phrase construction. The lingusitic meaning may be intentially forgotten with the metaphorical meaning continuing, So it becomes what is intended and not the lingusitic meaning. We also notice vocabulary on which only the linguistic meaning applies. It is not used in the metaphorical sense due to the absence of any qarina (indication) which would divert us from the lingusitic meaning. And with in it there is vocabulary on which the lingusitic meaning and the new Sharī’ah meaning applies to the exclusion of the literal and metaphorical menaings. Vocabulary in the lingusitic and Sharī’ah sense is used in various verses. What determines any meaning which is intended is the structure of the ayah. Otherwise only the Sharī’ah meaning applies to it and it is not used in the linguistic sense. For example, the word qarya (town), it is used in the liguistic sense only. He  said:

It is used in its metaphorical sense. He  said:

The town is not questioned but rather those intended are the people of the town, this meaning is metaphorical. And He  said:

The people of the town are intended here. For example in His  saying:

The ghait is the place which is low, it is used metaphorically with respect to answering the call of nature because the one who answers the call of natutre goes to the low place so the use of the metaphorical meaning prevailed and the literal meaning was intentionally forgotten. For example in His  saying:

And His  saying:

Its intended meaining is lingusitic; no other meaning can be established for it. For example in His  saying

It is the linguistic meaning which is intended, which is the purification of the clothes from filth because purity (tuhr) linguistically is tahara (purification) which is opposite of filth. Purifying something with water means to wash it and tatahhara and athara is being free from filth. And His  saying:

The linguistic meaning here, which is the removal of impurity (najaasa) is not possible becaue the believer does not become impure (najas) so only the other meaning remains which is the removal of the minor impurity (hadath). So 'fattahharu' means: remove the minor impurity (hadath). And the 'mutahhirun' are the ones free from the minor impurity (hadath) because the removal of the greater and minor impurity is called tahara in the Sharī’ah. He  said:

“tuhur” here means the removal of impurity. And for example in His  saying:

What is intended here is the Sharī’ah meaning: And His  saying:

What is intended here is the lingusitic meaning which is the du’a (supplication). And for example in His  saying:

And His  saying:

All the ayāt in which salah is mentioned they have only been used in the Sharī’ah meaning.

This is with regards to the vocabulary. As for the phrases, the Arabic language (is composed of) words which indicate meanings, when we examine these words in terms of their presence in phrases whether in terms of their existence in phrases whether relating to its isolated meaning in the phrase or the meaning of the whole phrase, we will only find two perspectives. Firstly, they should be viewed from the angle of being general words and expressions which indicate general meanings, and this is the original connotation. Secondly, they should be viewed from the angle of being words and expressions which indicate meanings which serve general words and expressions; this is the appendant (secondary) connotation. Regarding the relation to the first category which is when the structure is composed of general words and expressions indicating general meanings, in the Arabic language in terms of the vocabulary there are words which are homonymous such as the word 'ayn (lit.eye), qadā’r, ruh etc And there are words which are synonymous such as ja' and ata (to come), asad and qaswara (lion), zann and za'm (contention) etc. And therein are words which have opposite meanings such as the word quru' for being in a menstrual state or a pure state, and 'azr for help and support, similarly the words lawm and tankeel etc. Understanding the intended meaning of the word requires the understanding of the structure and it is not possible to understand its meaning simply by referring to the dictionaries. Rather it is essential that the structure in which the word was mentioned is understood because it is the structure that determines the intended meaning. Just as we say this with respect to the vocabulary in the structure, we also say this this with respect to the structure itself. The structure, in its capacity as general words and expressions which indicate general meanings and this is its original meaning. As long as no qarina (indication) can be found indicating otherwise, the general meaning is what is intended. And examples of this are abundant in the Qur’ān; there is no need to give examples because it is the original connotation.

As for the second category, the fact that the structures are composed of words and expressions indicating meanings which serve general (mutlaqa) words and expressions, every peice of information stated in the sentence necesitates the clarification of what is intended in the sentence in relation to this piece of information. So the sentence is composed in a manner which leads to the intention, according to the informer and the one who is being informed of it, with the same report, in the same state in which it existed and in the same context in which the sentence cites and in the type of style in terms of clarity, ambiguity, brevity and vorbosity etc. So you would say at the beggining of a report: qaama zayd, if there is no concern about the one being informed rather the report. If the concern is about the one being informed you would say: zayd qam. And in response to a question or something on the level of a quention you would say: Indeed zayd did stand up (inna zaydan qam) and in respose to someone who refuses to believe: By God! Indeed zayd did stand up (wallahi inna zaydan qam). In notifying someone who expects Zayd to stand up: zayd has stood up (qad qama zayd) and other such issues which should be considered in Arabic texts. The Qur’ān has come fulfilling those two viewpoints. So the absolute words and expressions indicating absolute meanings and the words and expressions with restricted meanings have come serving absolute meanings in various rhetorical aspects. One of finest aspects evident in it is the existence of the words with serving meanings which is the appendant connotation, the ayaat and the parts of ayaat which repeat in the Qur’ān in a single Sura or in different Sura’s and similarly the stories and the sentences which repeat in the Qur’ān and the preference of the attribute (Mahmul) over the subject (Maudu’), and the different types of emphasis or a single type according to the course of the sentence, and negational enquiries etc , all of this implicate the highest type of appendant connotation. You will find an ayah or a part of an ayah or a sentence or story, it is seen in a certain sequence in some Sura’s and it is seen in another sequence in another Sura and it is seen in a third style in another Sura etc. You will not find one expression where the original sequence has been changed like the precedence of the predicate before the subject, or mentioning a certain part of some information in preference to another part of the same information that is usually used, we will find an eloquent witty point aimed at generating a meaning that serves the general meanings contained in the words and phrases of the Ayah.

Ahmed ibn Yahya said that Ibn Al-A’arabi read the following poetry to him:

The meaning is:

A narrow place I don’t want to sleep in.

As if it is because of the great fear, more intimate

A shaikh of his companions said: ‘It is not like that. You read to us “Wa-mawdhi’i dheeqin.” The shaikh said ‘Subhana Allah (praise be to Allah), you have accompanied us since such and such time and you don’t know that the zeer and the dheeq hold the same meaning.’ This is similar to what happens in the Qur’ān, where certain words were used in pereference to synoyomous words or words close in meaning, like the different readings (Qira’at) in the Quran.

And other ayat according to the Qira’at.

It is the habit of the Arabs to adhere to the words themselves when there is a purpose for expressing with them. It is said that when one of the transmitters read a poem saying:

Instead of saying Maalik he said the word (haalik, meaning dead). Somebody became angry and said the narration is Maalik and not haalik, for the commemorated person is Maalik and not a dead person. There came in the Qur’ān words that were adhered to, where the meaning cannot be delivered without them, this is like His  saying:

No word, be it synonymous or even close in meaning can give the meaning of the word ‘Deeza’ here. Nor even the word ‘qismatin Zaalima’ - oppressive division, or ‘qismatin Jaira’ –wrongful division or any other word which is of the same meaning. And Allah  saying:

The word (Hameer) has a meaning that cannot be delivered with a word other than it, that is why it uttering was observed in the syntax so as to preserve the meaning. That is in regards to preserving or not the expression with the same word. However, in regards to preserving or not the individual meaning by explaining it, the well known practise among the Arabs is that their greatest attention is to the meanings dissiminated in the speech. This is because the Arabs were only concerned with the meanings, and the words were only fashioned for their sake. However, if the purpose of the sentence is the individual meaning, the attention should then be directed to the meaning of the words together with the meaning of the sentence. If the purpose is the structural meaning, then it is enough to observe the individual meaning so as not to confuse the readers understanding of the structural meaning of the sentence. The Qur’ān followed this well known practise in all the verses. Therefore, ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab  when he was asked about His  saying

We have been forbidden from burdening ourselves unnecessarily and going deep, i.e. in the individual meaning in a sentence where the intent is the Syntax meaning. Except if the syntax meaning is dependent on the individual meaning then attention has to be given to the individual meaning. This is why we find ‘Umar himself asking the meaning of an individual word ‘takhawwuf” from the pulpit when he recited:

A man from Hudhayal said: At-takhawwuf amongst us means the decrease, and he read to him:

When the man of Hudhayal read the verse of poetry and explained the meaning of at-takhawwuf, ‘Umar  said:

Moreover, the Qur’ān when speaking adheres to expression with which it intends to adhere to quality literature whether as a narrative or instruction. Thus when it used the vocative from Allah  to the servant it came with the vocative particle necessary for the servant, written and not ommitted so that the servant feels his distance from Allah  such as in His  saying:

This is with regards to when Allah  calls His  servant. As for when the servant calls Allah  it came with the vocative which is free of the yaa, like His  saying:

All of these (ayaat) are free from the yaa which makes one feel remote, so that the servant feels that Allah  is close to Him and also because yaa denotes drwaing attention, thus the servant's attention needs to be drawn when he is called but that is not the case for Allah .

Furthermore, in observing the expressions which intend to take notice of the high manner, the Qur’ān followed tht by using the indirect instead of the explicit (direct) expression in the matters which are embarassing to be expressed explicitly. This is the like when the Qur’ān expressed about the sexual intercourse by metaphorising it with the the dress (garment) and touching (direct contacting),

He  metaphorised for the call of nature in his saying:

Similarly, the Quran brought the form of the attention which implies of the manner of attendance from the absence to the presence in relation to the servant (‘abd) if it is required by the circumstance, like in his  saying

Then it turned away from the absent to the direct speech, so he  says

Then it is adjusted from the direct speech to the absent like in his  saying

Then the admonition continued in the manner of indirect speech while the ayah’s were being revealed and he was the addressee, then he  turned to speak to him directly:

speech gives strength to the direct speech, or eases the meaning of the indirect speech at the same time. Don’t we see that in the thanking of Allah and his praise, the manners require indirectness, while during ibadah and expression of weakness (to him ) the direct address is more appropriate? The admonition is light on the admonished by the indirect speech while enquiring might be more appropriate to come from a direct speaker. And from here is what Allah  taught us in leaving the explicit reference of shar (evil) to Allah  although he is the creator of all things, as he says in the ayah:

He was satisfied by mentioning that without saying: 'and in Your Hand is the evil (shir)'

While the context of the speech implies that the evil is in your  hand. Because what is quoted regarding the action of Allah  being good or bad is from the insan’s (human) perspective, so giving power and honour is good with regards to insan, and taking away power and humiliation of a person is shar (evil) with regards to insan and Allah  ascribes this to himself that it is he who has done this, and he  says in the last part of the ayah:

And it also includes shar like it includes khair, and along with this he  said that through you is khair and he  kept it like that without any mention of shar and he  did not say that in your hand is shar, which teaches us that we use high manners. All of this, that is to express in phrases that aim at observing the high manner, is a matter which is well-known for the Arabs in their speech, as it came in their poetry and discourse. And in this manner the Qur’ān proceeds in its vocabulary and expressions (ibaraat) according to the vocabulary of the Arabs and their expressions and their style in the language and it does not move away from it by even by a hair’s breadth. At the same time it contains the highest eloquent speech that is more than they did. So its reality is that it is pure Arabic , there is nothing from the foreign languages in it , so it is incumbent on the one who wants to understand the Qur’ān that he does so from the aspect of the Arabic language, and there is no other path to understand it except from this aspect and this is why it is crucial that the Qur’ān’s tafsīr is performed based on its vocabulary and its expressions and based on the connotation of these words , expression, vocabulary and syntax in the Arabic language. So it’s tafsīr is performed based on what the Arabic language guides to and what the style of Arabs requires and it is not allowed to perform its tafsīr except by what is demanded by the Arabic language and nothing else and The way to know all of that is the reliable transmission (naql) through the narration reported by the relevant (person) who knows precisely what he narrates from the eloquent Arabs whose Arabic language is pure.

Thus, the tafsīr of vocabulary and phrases as words and expressions is restricted only to the Arabic language, it is prohibited that one performs tafsīr with anything other than it. This is what its reality necessitates from this perspective.

As for its reality in terms of Sharī’ah meanings like prayer (salah) and fasting and Sharī’ah rules such as the prohibition of usury, permissibility of trade and the thoughts which have a Sharī’ah reality such as angels and shayateen, it has been established that the Qur’ān in many of its verses is ambivalent (mujmal) and the Messenger  has come and elaborated on it. It has come general and the Messenger  has specified it. It came as absolute (mutlaq) and the Messenger  came and restricted it (muqayyad). In the Qur’ān Allah  has clarified that it is the Messenger  who will explain the Qur’ān. He  said:

So the Qur’ān from this perspective in order to be understood needs familiarity with what the Messenger  has exlained in terms of the meanings of the vocabulary and syntax of the Qur’ān, whether this explanation is a specification (takhsis), restriction (taqyid), elaboration (tafsil) or anything else. Therefore, to understand the Qur’ān it is imperative that one familiarises himself with the Sunnah related to the Qur’ān i.e, the Sunnah as a whole because it is an explanation of the Qur’ān, this is until one knows from the Sunnah the meanings, rules and thoughts in the Qur’ān. This is why the restriction in understanding the Qur’ān in terms of a complete understanding is not sufficient to restrict oneself only to the Arabic language rather with the knowledge of the Arabic language there must be knowledge of the Sunnah. Even though the Arabic language is the only source referred to in order to understand the indications of vocabulary and syntax in terms of its words and expressions, however to understand the whole Qur’ān one must make the Qur’ān and Sunnah as two indispensible matters. It is inevitable that they both are taken together to understand the Qur’ān and that these two things are available with whoever wishes to perform tafsīr of the Qur’ān and that they both are made the medium by which the Qur’ān is understood and explained. As for the stories mentioned in it about the Prophets and Messengers and the events it has narrated about the nations of ancient times, if a sound (Sahih) hadīth is narrated about it, it is taken otherwise one should confine onself to what has been reported in the Qur’ān in a group of ayāt. It is not correct that anything should be known except through these two ways because from the angle of vocabulary and syntax there is no path to the Torah and Bible to understand the vocabulary and syntax narrated by the stories. There is no relevance to the Torah and Bible in understanding these vocabulary and syntax, In terms of the meaning the one who explains it is the Messenger  through the explicit (text) of the Qur’ān and not the Torah or the Bible. Therefore, there is no path to the Torah and the Bible in understanding the meanings of the Qur’ān because Allah  has ordered us to refer to the Qur’ān and clarified to us that the Messenger  has explained the Qur’ān. He  did not order us to refer to the Torah and the Bible. It is not allowed for us to refer to the Torah and the Bible to understand the stories of the Qur’ān and the reports of ancient nations. Similarly, there is no path to sources other than the Torah and Bible like books of history and the like because the issue is not the explanation of a story until we can say that this is a more extensive source assuming that it is authentic, rather it is the explanation of specific texts which we believe are the words of the Lord of the worlds (rabbu al-'alamin). Therfore we must stop at the meanings of these texts in terms of the Arabic language in which the Qur’ān came and whatever this language dictates and also in terms of the Sharī’ah definition from the one who has the authority to give the definition, which is the Messenger  about whom Allah  said that the Qur’ān has been revealed to him  so that he may explain it to the people. Consequently, we must reject any tafsīr which comes from the Torah, Bible, historical works etc. It will be a fabriction aginst Allah  if we think that these are the meanings of Allah's  words while there is not the semblance (shubha) of a dalīl that they have any relationship to the meanings of the words of the Lord of the Worlds.

The ayah has come to demonstrate the power and ability of Allah  and not to prove scientific viewpoints. As for His  saying:

What is intended here is everything from the obligations and worships and whatever relates to that as evidenced by the text of the verse. It pertains to the subject of obligations which the Messengers conveyed to the people. And the text of the ayah is:

Allah  bringing a Messenger as a witness over his Ummah means he  is a witness over them regarding that which he conveyed to them. And the fact that he  revealed the Qur’ān to clarify everything means it is a guidance, mercy and glad tidings for the Muslims which definitely means that the thing is not a natural science, logic or geography or any other subject rather it is a thing that relates to the Message i.e, that the Book is an exposition of their ahkāms, worships and beliefs (aqa'id). A guidance by which people are guided and a mercy for them which saves them from misguidance and gives glad tidings for the Muslims of janna (Paradise) and the Good Pleasure of Allah . It has no relationship to anything other than the deen and its obligations. So the meaning of 'exposition (tibyan) of everything' is designated as all the issues of Islam. As for His  saying:

What is meant by 'Book' is the preserved tablet (al-lawh al-mahfuz) which is the knowledge of Allah . The word 'kitab' (book) is a homonym which is explained by the setting in which it came. So, when Allah  says:

It is the Qur’ān that is meant. And when He  says:

I.e, how to write. But when He  said

And He  says:

All of this mean the knowledge of Allah . And His  saying:

i.e, the preserved tablet (al-lawh al-mahfuz) which means His  knowledge. And His  saying:

i.e, the preserved tablet (al-lawh al-mahfuz) which is a metaphor for His  knowledge. And His  saying:

has come clearly as the knowledge of Allah  since the complete ayah says:

Similar to His  saying:

As evidenced in the second ayah which came in the same Sura (chapter) - Sura al- An'am - which is:

So the verse came:

All of this indicates in this verse the word 'kitab' does not mean Qur’ān. Rather, it means the “preserved tablet” (al-lawh al-mahfuz) which is a metaphor for the knowledge of Allah . Thus, there is no connotation in the ayah that the Qur’ān contains sciences and other such topics. The Qur’ān is devoid of any discussions about science because its vocabulary and construction (idioms) and also because the Messenger  did not explain it and so it has no relationship to it. This is the reality of the Qur’ān. It indicates explicitly and clearly that it consists of Arabic texts brought by the Messenger  from Allah  which are not explained except with the Arabic language and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah . As for its tafsīr based on a Sharī’ah evidence mentioned regarding the manner of performing tafsīr it is not real and it is baseless because the Qur’ān itself did not clarify to us the manner in which its verses should be explained. The Messenger  has not been authentically reported to have clarified a specific way of tafsīr and the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them) even though what they explained was the causes of revelation but that was by way of mawqūf hadīth and not by way of tafsīr. Even if it was by way of explanation and clarification they themselves differed on the ayaats. Each one spoke according to his view which indicates that an ijma' (consensus) on a specific manner of tafsīr did not take place. Among them there were those who used to take from then people of the Book certain israli'yyat which were narrated by the Tabi'un and some used to reject their use. However, all of them used to understand the Qur’ān according to what they had in terms of knowledge of the Arabic language and with what they understood from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah  in terms of the saying, action, consent, attribute of creation and moral character of the Messenger of Allah  and this is a well known fact about all of them. Whoever used to refrain from explaining certain words and verses their restraint was due to the authenticity of the meaning and not as a restriction to what the text has mentioned, one would not give an opinion except if he had reliable knowledge. But that is not called ijma' (consensus) because it does not reveal an evidence about the Messenger . The reason is that the clarification of the Messenger  constitutes a Sunnah and not tafsīr. However, since the Sahabah are the closest people to the correct opinion in the tafsīr of the Qur’ān due to their high rank in the Arabic language and their closeness to the one on whom the Qur’ān was revealed in what they used to agree on his  behaviour, in terms of making the Arabic language such as the jahili poetry, and the speeches of jahiliyya and others as the only tool for understanding the vocabulary and construction of the Qur’ān, and in terms of stopping at the limits of what has been mentioned about the Messenger , and in terms of opening their minds in understanding the Qur’ān according to those two tools, this is the best method to follow in understanding the Qur’ān.

Therefore, we view that the method of performing tafsīr of the Qur’ān is that the Arabic language and the Prophet's  Sunnah should be adopted as the only tool in understanding the Qur’ān and its tafsīr in terms of its vocabulary and construction, in terms of the Sharī’ah meanings, Sharī’ah rules, and the thoughts that have a legal reality. The method of explaining the Qur’ān is that we understand the texts to the extent as is indicated by the speech of the Arabs and their customary usages and whatever the expressions indicate in terms of Sharī’ah meanings mentioned in a Sharī’ah text of the Qur’ān or Sunnah which is not restricted to the understanding of the previous forebearers such as the 'Ulama, Tabi'un or even the Sahabah because all of these are Ijtihāds which may be mistaken or correct. Maybe the mind is guided to the understanding of an ayah whose reality becomes conspicuous to the mufassir during an extensive perusal of the Arabic language or it becomes apparent to him during the changing of things, progress of material forms (ashkal madaniyya), realities, events. By opening the mind to creativity, by understanding & not invention, the creativity in tafsīr takes place within the limits demanded by the word 'tafsīr' while at the same time protecting oneself from misguided invention of meanings which has absolutely no relationship to the text being explained. This conformity in understanding and giving the mind free reign by what his best understanding of the text, without restriction to the understanding of any human being except the person on whom the Qur’ān was revealed necessitates that all israiliyyat are rejected restricting oneself only to the stories mentioned in the Qur’ān and rejecting what they claim to be sciences contained in the Qur’ān and stopping at the limit of what the structures of the Qur’ān mean in terms of the ayaats which discuss the universe and whatever is intended by them in terms of clarifying the greatness of Allah . This is the method of performing tafsīr of the Qur’ān, the mufassir has to adhere to it and its burdens must be borne by whoever wishes to perform tafsīr of the Qur’ān.