Neno "vyanzo vya Tafsīr" halimaanishi taaluma ambazo wafasiri walizitegemea katika kufafanua Qur'ani kulingana na mtazamo waliokuwa nao, kama vile tawhīd, fiqhi, balāgha, historia n.k. Hizi si vyanzo vya tafsīr. Badala yake, ni mambo yaliyomuathiri mfasiri hadi kuegemea upande fulani katika tafsīr. Kinachokusudiwa kwa "vyanzo vya tafsīr" ni vyanzo vyenye mamlaka ambavyo wafasiri walinukuu. Walichokinukuu waliandika katika tafsīr zao, bila kujali mwelekeo wao katika tafsīr. Tukichunguza vyanzo vya tafsīr, tunakuta vimejikita katika vitatu tu:

The word “sources of Tafsīr” does not mean the disciplines the mufassirun used to rely on when explaining the Qur’ān according to the idea they carried such as tawheed, jurisprudence (fiqh), rhetorics (balaagha), history etc. These are not the sources of tafsīr. Rather, they are matters which had an effect on the mufassir which led him to lean towards a specific matter in tafsīr. What is intended by 'sources of tafsīr' are the authoritative sources that the mufassirun qouted. What they quoted they wrote down in their tafsīrs, irrespective of their orientation in tafsīr. If we study the sources of tafsīr we find that they are confined to three:

Kwanza: Tafsīr ambayo imepokelewa kutoka kwa Mtume wa Allah ﷺ, kama vile riwaya ambayo Mtume ﷺ alisema:

First: Tafsīr which has been transmitted from the Messenger of Allah  such as the narration that the Messenger  said:

Kwa mfano, kilichosimuliwa kutoka kwa 'Ali kwamba alisema:

For instance what has been narrated by 'Ali that he said:

Na kilichopokewa ni nini;

And what has been reported ;

Aina hii ya tafsīr haiwezi kutegemewa kama chanzo cha upokezi isipokuwa kile kilichopokelewa katika vitabu vya Sihah (vitabu vya hadīth kama Bukhari na Muslim), kwa sababu wasimulizi wa hadithi na watunga uongo waliongeza sana katika nyenzo hizi. Ndiyo maana aina hii ya chanzo inapaswa kuchunguzwa kwa makini kutokana na wingi mkubwa wa uongo dhidi ya Mtume wa Allah ﷺ. Uchunguzi wa Salaf (vizazi vya awali vya wanazuoni) kuhusu aina hii ya tafsīr ulifikia kiwango ambacho wengi wao waliikataa aina hii yote kabisa... Walishikilia kuwa hakuna tafsīr iliyopokelewa kutoka kwa Mtume wa Allah ﷺ. Imepokewa kuhusu Ahmad bin Hanbal kwamba alisema:

However this genre of tafsīr cannot be relied upon as a source of transmission save what has been reported in the books of Sihah (books of hadīth such as Bukhari and Muslim) because the storytellers and fabricators greatly added to the material. That is why this type of source material has to be investigated due to the great number of lies against the Messenger of Allah . The scrutiny of the Salaf (early generations of scholars) of this genre of tafsīr reached the point where many of them rejected the whole genre altogether...They held that no tafsīr had been transmitted from the Messenger of Allah . It has been reported about Ahmad bin Hanbal that he said:

Ndiyo maana tunawaona wafasiri, kwa kuwa hawakuwa na uhakika kamili na yale yaliyotajwa, hawakuishia kwenye mpaka wa kile kilichopokewa. Badala yake waliendelea na kile walichokifikia kwa Ijtihād yao wenyewe. Hawakuishia kwenye mpaka wa maandiko. Yale yaliyotajwa kuhusu Maswahaba katika tafsīr yaliongezwa kwenye Hadithi za Mtume ﷺ. Ilianza na tafsīr iliyopokewa, na vivyo hivyo na tafsīr ya Tabi'un. Aina hii ya tafsīr iliyopokewa ilikua kubwa, na ikaanza kujumuisha kile kilichopokewa kuhusu Mtume ﷺ, Maswahaba na Tabi'un. Kila moja lilitosha kuwa tafsīr. Karibu vitabu vyote vya tafsīr vilivyoandikwa katika zama za mwanzo vilikuwa vimefungwa kwenye mtindo huu wa tafsīr.

That is why we find the mufassirun due to their lack of trust for what is mentioned did not stop at the limit of what has been reported. Rather, they followed that with what they reached through their own Ijtihād. They did not stop at the limit of the text. What has been mentioned about the Sahabah in terms of tafsīr was added to the ahadīth about the Messenger of Allah . It began with the transmitted tafsīr and likewise with the tafsīr of the tabi'un. This genre of transmitted tafsīr became huge and it began to include what has been transmitted about the Messenger of Allah , the Sahabah and Tabi'un. Each one came to suffice as a tafsīr. Nearly all the books of tafsīr written in the early ages were restricted to this manner of tafsīr.

Pili: Kwa mpangilio, chanzo kimoja cha tafsīr ni maoni (ra'y) au kile kinachoitwa Ijtihād katika tafsīr. Hii ni kwa sababu mufassir anajua maneno ya Waarabu na desturi zao katika lugha ya kuzungumza. Anajua semi za Kiarabu na maana zake kwa kuifahamu mambo hayo hayo katika mashairi ya kijahiliya, nathari n.k. Pia anajifahamisha na kile anachoona kuwa sahihi kutokana na sababu ya kuteremka kwa aya. Kwa kutumia zana hizi, anazifafanua aya za Qur'ān kulingana na kile alichokifikia kupitia Ijtihād yake. Tafsīr kwa maoni haimaanishi kusema chochote mtu anachopenda kuhusu aya au kile ambacho matamanio yetu yanadai. Badala yake, maoni ambayo tafsīr hufanyika kwayo yanategemea fasihi ya kijahiliya kwa mashairi, nathari, desturi na usemi wa Waarabu. Wakati huo huo, inategemea matukio yaliyotokea katika siku za Mtume ﷺ na yale aliyokabiliana nayo ﷺ kwa upande wa uadui, migogoro, Hijra, vita na mateso. Na yale yaliyotokea katika kipindi hicho yaliyohitaji hukmu na kudai kuteremshwa kwa Qur'ān. Kwa hiyo, kinachokusudiwa kwa kufanya tafsīr kwa maoni ni kuelewa sentensi kwa kuelewa maana zake zinazoonyeshwa na taarifa ambazo mufassir anazo kwa lugha na matukio. Kuhusu yale yaliyosimuliwa kutoka kwa sayyidina 'Ali ibn Abi Talib kwamba alisema:

Second: One of the sources of tafsīr is the opinion (ra'y) or what is termed as Ijtihād in tafsīr. This is because the mufassir knows the speech of the Arabs and their mannerisms in the spoken language. He knows the Arabic expressions and their meanings by being acquainted with the same thing in jahili poetry, prose etc. And he familiarises himself with what he finds to be correct from the cause of revelation of a verse. Using these tools he explains the Qur’ānic verses in accordance with what he has reached through his Ijtihād. Tafsīr by opinion does not mean saying whatever one likes about the verse or whatever our own desires demand. Rather, the opinion according to which the tafsīr takes place depends on the jahili literature in terms of poetry, prose, the customs and speech of the Arabs. At the same time it relies on the events that took place in the days of the Messenger  and whatever the Prophet  faced in terms of hostility, conflicts, migration (hijra), wars and afflictions. And whatever happened during that period which required hukms and demanded the revelation of the Qur’ān. Therefore, what is meant by performing tafsīr by opinion is to understand the sentences by understanding its meanings which are indicated by the information the mufassir has at his disposal in terms of the language and events. As for what has been narrated about sayyidina 'Ali ibn Abi Talib that he said:

Hii haimaanishi kwamba Qur'ani iko wazi kwa mtazamo wowote unaotaka kuieleza kutoka nao. Badala yake, inachomaanishwa ni kwamba kila neno au sentensi moja katika tafsiri inaweza kuwa na mitazamo kadhaa, lakini mitazamo hiyo imewekewa mipaka ya maana ambazo neno au sentensi hiyo inaweza kubeba, na haivuki mpaka huo. Kwa hiyo, tafsiri kwa rai maana yake ni kuelewa sentensi ndani ya mipaka ya maana ambazo maneno yake yanaweza kubeba. Ndiyo sababu wanaiita tafsiri kwa Ijtihadi.

This does not mean that the Qur’ān is open to any viewpoint you wish to explain it from. Rather, what is meant is that any one expression or sentence is open to a number of viewpoints in tafsīr but the viewpoints are restricted to the meanings the expression or sentence is open to, which does not overstep that limit. Consequently, tafsīr by opinion means the understanding of a sentence within the limits of the meanings its expressions are open to. That is why they called it tafsīr by Ijtihād.

Wafasiri wengi kati ya Maswahaba walikuwa wakiifafanua Qur’ani kwa kutumia maoni yao wenyewe, na walitegemea hayo kwa kiwango cha kwanza wanapofanya tafsiri. Walikuwa wakitofautiana katika tafsiri hata katika ufafanuzi wa neno moja, jambo linaloonyesha kwamba walitegemea ufahamu wao binafsi, kama ilivyo kwa mengi yaliyopokelewa kutoka kwa Ibn 'Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, Mujahid na wengine. Kwa mfano, walikuwa wakilifafanua neno Tur katika kauli Yake:

The great majority of the mufassirun from the Sahabah used to explain the Qur’ān by opinion and rely on it in the first degree while performing tafsīr. They used to disagree in tafsīr even in the explanation of a single word which indicates that they used to rely on their own particular understanding like much of what has been reported about Ibn 'Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, Mujahid and others. For example they used to explain the word Tur in His  saying:

Mujahid alifafanua Tur kuwa ni jina la mlima, Ibn 'Abbas akalifafanua kuwa ni mlima wenyewe, na wengine wakasema kuwa Tur ni kile kinachotoka kwenye mlima, na kisichoenea si Tur. Tofauti hii katika tafsīr ni matokeo ya tofauti ya maoni na haihusiani na tofauti katika yale yaliyopokelewa. Ingawa neno hili ni la kilugha, vipi kuhusu pale maoni yanapohusu maana ya sentensi na si maana ya neno? Ndiyo sababu, mbali na kutofautiana katika maana za maneno, pia walitofautiana katika maana za aya. Kutokana na kusoma tafsīr za Maswahaba, hasa wafasiri maarufu, inadhihirika kwa ujumla kwamba walikuwa wakitegemea maoni (ya mtu binafsi) wanapofanya tafsīr. Kuhusu yale yaliyosimuliwa juu ya baadhi yao, kwamba walijiepusha kufanya tafsīr kwa maoni na walijizuia kufanya tafsīr kwa yale yaliyopokelewa (manqul), inachukuliwa kuwa yanarejelea maoni ya mtu ambaye hajapata zana za tafsīr, kama kuwa na elimu ya lugha ya Kiarabu, anayetaka kufafanua, na elimu ya matukio yanayohusiana na aya zilizoteremshwa. Haichukuliwi kumaanisha kwamba mtu anapaswa kujizuia kuelewa Qur’ān, kwa kuwa iliteremshwa ili watu waelewe, si ili wajizuie kwenye mipaka ya tafsīr iliyopokelewa pekee. Kwa hiyo, hatuwezi kusema kwamba Maswahaba waligawanyika katika makundi mawili: kundi moja likijizuia kusema lolote kuhusu Qur’ān kwa maoni, na kundi jingine likizungumza kuhusu Qur’ān kwa kufuata maoni yao. Badala yake, wote walikuwa wakizungumza kuhusu Qur’ān kwa maoni yao. Walikuwa wakiwa waangalifu dhidi ya mtu yeyote kusema lolote kuhusu Qur’ān kwa maoni yake bila kuwa na ujuzi wa uhakika wa neno linalofafanuliwa na sentensi inayofafanuliwa kutoka katika aya za Qur’ān. Msimamo huu pia ulikuwa ule wa Tabi'un. Hata hivyo, baada yao walikuja watu waliojifunza kauli hizi na kuzielewa kama onyo dhidi ya kuzungumzia Qur’ani kwa maoni ya mtu mwenyewe, kwa hiyo wakajiepusha kusema chochote kuhusu Qur’ani kwa maoni yao wenyewe. Pia walikuwepo watu waliofahamu tafsiri ya Maswahaba kwa njia ya maoni, wakaitetea tafsiri kwa maoni. Ndiyo sababu baadaye wanazuoni waligawanyika makundi mawili kuhusu tafsiri. Kundi moja lilijiepusha kusema chochote kwa maoni yao, likajizuia kwa yale yaliyopokelewa tu, na kundi jingine lilitoa maoni yao wenyewe. Kwa upande wa Maswahaba na Tabi‘un, hawakuwa makundi mawili. Badala yake, walikuwa wakizungumzia Qur’ani kwa yale waliyoyajua kwa upande wa riwaya na maoni, na walijiepusha na yale ambayo hawakuyajua, na waliwaonya watu dhidi ya kuzungumzia Qur’ani kwa maoni yao bila elimu.

with different explanations. Mujahid explained Tur as the name of a mountain, Ibn 'Abbas explained it as the mountain itself and some said that Tur is what emanates from the mountain and as for what does not spread, it is not Tur. This difference in tafsīr is a result of a difference of opinion and not attributable to the difference in what has been transmitted. Although the expression is linguistic so what about when the opinion concerns the meaning of the sentence and not the meaning of an expression, this is why in addition to their disagreement in the meanings of expressions they also disagreed with regards to the meanings of verses. It is apparent from studying the tafsīrs of the Sahabah especially the well known mufassirin that on a whole they would rely on (individual) opinion when making tafsīr. As for what has been narrated about some of them that they would refrain from making tafsīr by opinion and confined themselves to making tafsīr by what has been transmitted (manqul), it is taken to refer to the opinion of somebody who has not acquired the tools of tafsīr such as having knowledge of the Arabic expression, he wishes to clarify and knowledge of the events pertaining to which the verses were revealed. It is not taken to mean that one should refrain from understanding the Qur’ān since it has been revealed so that people may understand it and not so that they restrict themselves to the limit of the transmitted tafsīr. Therefore, we cannot say that the Sahabah were divided into two groups, one group refraining from saying anything about the Qur’ān by opinion and the other speaking about the Qur’ān according to their opinion. Rather, all of them used to speak about the Qur’ān with their opinion. They used to be wary of someone saying anything about the Qur’ān by his opinion without having sure knowledge of the expression being explained and the sentence being elucidated from the ayāt of the Qur’ān. Also, this was the position of the Tabi'un. However, after them there were people who came to know about these sayings and understood them as admonition for speaking about the Qur’ān with one’s own opinion, so they avoided saying anything about the Qur’ān from their own opinion. And there were also people who became acquainted with the the tafsīr of the Sahabah by opinion and they advocated tafsīr by opinion. That is why later scholars became divided into two groups regarding the tafsīr. One group would avoid saying anything with their own opinion and restrict themselves to what has been transmitted and a group that would give its own opinions. As for the Sahabah and the Tabi'un they were not two groups. Rather, they used to speak about the Qur’ān with what they knew in terms of the narrations and opinion and they refrained from that which they did not know and they warned people from speaking about the Qur’ān with their own opinions without having knowledge.

Walimuuliza ni kipande gani kile walichompiga nacho maiti? Walipokisoma:

They inquired as to what was that piece with which they struck the dead man? When they read:

Waliulizwa, ni mja mwema yupi ambaye Musa alikutana naye na kumwomba amfundishe? Kutokana na hapa ndipo hadithi ya Khidhr ilipoibuka. Kwa hiyo kila hadithi ilipowafikia, walikuwa wakiuliza kuhusu hiyo. Waliuliza kuhusu kijana ambaye yule mja mwema alimuua, na kuhusu mashua aliyoitoboa, na kuhusu kijiji ambacho hakikumkaribisha. Walichunguza kuhusu hadithi ya Musa na Shu'ayb, na ukubwa wa safina ya Nuhu, n.k. Kilichojibu maswali haya na kukidhi tamaa yao ya aina hii ya habari ni Tawrat na tafsiri zake na ufafanuzi wake. Na chochote cha hadithi za kubuni kilichoingizwa, ambacho kiliwafikia kutoka kwa Mayahudi, iwe kwa nia njema au mbaya, baadhi ya Wakristo waliosilimu waliingiza hadithi fulani na simulizi kutoka Biblia, lakini hilo lilikuwa dogo ikilinganishwa na yale Mayahudi waliyoyaingiza. Kwa namna hii, wingi wa hadithi na simulizi ulipanuka sana hadi ukazidi simulizi za tafsiri zilizopokelewa. Vitabu vingi vya tafsiri vilijaa kiasi kikubwa cha Israiliyyat, hadithi na simulizi nyingine. Waliongeza kiasi kikubwa zaidi na maarufu zaidi cha Israiliyyat ni Ka'b al-Ahbar, Wahb ibn Munabbih, 'Abd Allah ibn Salam na wengine wengi. Kutokana na shughuli hii, Israiliyyat hizi, hadithi na simulizi nyingine zikawa mojawapo ya vyanzo vya tafsiri kwa mufassirun.

They asked us, who is the righteous servant that Musa met and requested to teach him. From here the story of Khidr arose. So whenever a story would reach them they would ask about it. So they asked about the boy the righteous servant had killed and the boat he had scuttled and about the village that did not entertain him. They inquired about the story of Musa and Shu'ayb and the size of Noah's ark etc. What answered these questions and satiated their greed for this kind of information was the Torah and its commentaries and exposition. And whatever fables were inserted which were transmitted to them by the Jews whether through good or bad intention, some Christians who had embraced Islam inserted certain stories and reports from the Bible but that was little compared to what the Jews had interpolated. In this manner the volume of stories and reports expanded greatly until it exceeded the reports of the transmitted tafsīr. Many books of tafsīr came to be loaded with huge amounts of israilyyat, stories and other reports. The ones who inserted the greatest amount of israilyyat and the most famous were Ka'b al-Ahbar, Wahb ibn Munabbih, 'Abd Allah ibn Salam and many others. Due to this activity these israilyyyat, stories and other reports became one of the sources of tafsīr for the mufasssrun.