Qur'on oyatlarini shaxsiy fikr asosida tafsir qilishning potentsial xavfi va buzg'unchiligini ochib berish uchun, qadimgi davrdan hozirgi kungacha turli harakatlar, mazhablar va falsafiy maktablardan to'plangan quyidagi noto'g'ri tafsir namunalari keltirilgan. Hijriy IV asr (milodiy X asr)dan boshlab, ba'zi sufiylar Alloh Musoga ﷺ bergan buyruqda "Fir'avn" so'zini yurak ma'nosida tushunganlar.

In order to clarify the potential danger and corruption inherent in tafseer by unsubstantiated opinion, the following examples of deviant tafseers have been collected from various movements, sects, and philosophical schools from the distant past to the present. From the tenth century CE (4th century AH), some Soofees have interpreted “Pharaoh” to mean the heart in Allaah’s command to Prophet Moosaa:

bu yurak har bir odamni ezadi, uni haddan oshishga undaydi. Boshqalar Allohning Muso Payg'ambarga bergan amrini quyidagicha talqin qilishdi:

as it is the heart which oppresses every man, causing him to transgress. Others interpreted Allaah’s command to Prophet Moosaa:

buyruq sifatida moddiy dunyoni chetga surib qo‘yib, faqat Allohga tayanish.

as a command to throw aside the material world and only depend on Allaah.

Bu ruhiy tafsirlar Sufiylik harakatining moddiydan ko'ra ma'naviyatga haddan tashqari urg'u berganini ko'rsatadi.

These spiritualistic tafseers are indicative of the Soofee movement’s overemphasis of the spiritual over the material.

ʻAbbosiylar davridagi Mu‘tazilʼiy (ratsionalist) tafsirlarda vahiy inson mantiqiga ko‘ra talqin qilindi. Shu sababli quyidagi oyatdagi “qalb” so‘zi yangi ma’noga ega qilib berildi:

In the Mu‘tazilee (Rationalist) tafseers of the ‘Abbaasid era, revelation was interpreted according to human logic. Hence, the word “heart” in the following verse was given a new meaning:

Ibrohim alayhissalomning "yuragim" deb atagan do‘sti bor edi, shuning uchun oyatning haqiqiy ma’nosi: "Ha, lekin men Sendan do‘stim tinchlanishi uchun so‘rayapman", degan ma’noda, deb da’vo qilingan.93 Ushbu talqin Ibrohim qalbida sezgan shubhani izohlash uchun zarur deb hisoblangan, chunki Ratsionalistlarning fikricha, bu nubuvvat bilan mos kelmaydi.

It was claimed that Ibraaheem had a friend whom he referred to as his “heart” and, thus, the true meaning of the verse was, “Yes, but I am asking You in order that my friend may be at ease.” 93 This interpretation was considered necessary to explain away the doubt which Ibraaheem felt in his heart, as it seemed inconsistent with prophethood, according to the Rationalists.

Abbosiylar davrining oxiri shia tafsirlari, Payg‘ambar avlodlariga bo‘lgan haddan tashqari ishtiyoqlarining ta’siri ostida, quyidagi oyatni talqin qildilar:

The Shee‘ah tafseers of the late ‘Abbaasid era, under the influence of their inordinate obsession with the Prophet’s descendants, interpreted the verse:

...'Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet ﷺ, va Fotima, the daughter of the Prophet ﷺ; va keyingi oyatda:

as a reference to ‘Alee, the Prophet’s son-in-law, and Faatimah, the Prophet’s daughter; and in a following verse:

Ular Payg'ambarning nevaralari, al-Hasan va al-Husayn haqidagi bir ma'lumotni topdilar.96

they found a reference to the Prophet’s grandsons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn.96

Hindistonda XIX asrning oxirida paydo bo‘lgan Qodiyoniy firqasi, quyidagi oyatda:

The Qaadiyanee sect, which appeared in India during the latter part of the nineteenth century, claimed that in the verse,

Xotam so'zi "muhr" emas, balki "uzuk" degani, deb da'vo qilinadi. Shunday qilib, go'yo uzuk barmoqni ziynatlagani kabi, Muhammad (r) ham payg'ambarlikning ziynati edi, deyiladi. Demak, oyatning ma'nosi shuki, Muhammad ﷺ payg'ambarlarning eng afzali edi, lekin oxirgisi emas edi.98 Ular, agar "xotam" so'zi "muhr" ma'nosida olinganda ham, bu konvertga qo'yilgan muhrga o'xshaydi, u ichidagi narsani yopadi, lekin uni cheklamaydi, deb ham ta'kidlaydilar. Bu talqinlar ularning asoschisi G'ulom Ahmadning payg'ambarlik da'vosini asoslash uchun qilingan. Ular, shuningdek, Iso payg'ambar haqidagi quyidagi oyatni ham buzib talqin qildilar.

khaatam does not mean seal, as most translate it, but ring. Thus, they claimed that just as the ring beautifies the finger, the Prophet Muhammad (r) was the beautification of prophethood. Therefore, the meaning of the verse is that Prophet Muhammad (r) was the most superior of the prophets but not the last.98 They also assert that even if the word khaatam were taken to mean “seal,” it would be like the seal placed on an envelope sealing its contents, but not limiting them. These interpretations were made to validate the claim of their founder, Ghulam Ahmad, to prophethood. They also distorted the following verse in reference to Prophet ‘Eesaa:

Ular "raised him up" iborasi ma'no jihatidan majoziy ko'tarilish ma'nosini anglatadi, deb da'vo qilishdi, xuddi quyidagi oyatda ishlatilgandek:

They claimed that “raised him up” meant a figurative raising, as used in the verse:

Bu talqin ularning "Iso alayhissalom tabiiy o'lim bilan yerda vafot etgan, uylanib farzandli bo'lgan va Kashmirda dafn etilgan, G'ulom Ahmad esa qaytishi bashorat qilingan va'da qilingan Masih ekan" degan aqidalarini isbotlash uchun zarur edi.101

This interpretation was necessary in order for them to prove their doctrine that ‘Eesaa died a natural death on earth after marrying and having children and being buried in Kashmir, and that Ghulam Ahmad was the promised messiah whose return was prophesied.101

Ҳатто яқинда Америкада Илёс Муҳаммад — Илёс мазҳабининг асосчиси ва пайғамбарлик даъвогари (вафоти 1975) — қуйидаги оятни шарҳлади:

Even more recently in America, Elijah Muhammad, founder of the Elijah sect and claimant to Prophethood (d. 1975), interpreted the verse,

as proof that the inhabitants of the fire will all be white people. This interpretation was used to support the Elijah doctrine that Allaah, God, was a black man, that all black people were gods and that all white people were devils.103 Although the word zurq literally means blue, it was used to refer to the clouding of the cornea due to certain eye diseases which gives the eye a bluish-grey tinge. Hence, a more accurate translation would have been “bleary-eyed.”

as proof that the inhabitants of the fire will all be white people. This interpretation was used to support the Elijah doctrine that Allaah, God, was a black man, that all black people were gods and that all white people were devils.103 Although the word zurq literally means blue, it was used to refer to the clouding of the cornea due to certain eye diseases which gives the eye a bluish-grey tinge. Hence, a more accurate translation would have been “bleary-eyed.”

Iliyoga ko'ra, oq tanli odam qora tanli odamga o'xshaganligi sababli, Qur'onda u "insonlar" deb atalgan, ya'ni bir xil turdagi odam!104 Shuning uchun quyidagi oyatda:

According to Elijah, since the white man resembles the black man, he was referred to as “mankind” in the Qur’aan, that is, a kind of man!104 Therefore, in the verse:

“Biz” so‘zini Ilyos (Elijah) qora tanli erkaklar/xudolar, go‘yo oq irqni (insoniyatni) yaratgan zotlar, deb izohladi.107

“We” was interpreted by Elijah to refer to the black men/gods who supposedly created the white race (mankind).107

Ushbu tafsirlarning bir nechta misollari shuni aniq ko‘rsatadiki, to‘g‘ri tafsir usulini e’tiborsiz qoldirish natijasida izchillik va chalg‘itish paydo bo‘ladi. Qur’on har bir mazhabning sapyor va bid’atli da’volarining ovoziga aylanadi. Qur’on shafqatsizlarcha buzib talqin qilinadi, chunki bu mazhablarning asoschilari amal qiladigan mantiqiy chegaralar ham, izchil qoidalar ham yo‘q; shu sababli bitta oyat ularning nazarida ko‘plab ma’nolarga ega bo‘lishi mumkin. Qaysi talqin ularning g‘oyalarini targ‘ib qilsa, o‘sha to‘g‘ri hisoblanadi. Ular uchun Qur’on endi hidoyat kitobi emas, balki faqat ularning mazhabiga oid yashirin sirlarni o‘z ichiga olgan kitob bo‘lib qoladi, uni esa faqat ularning rahbarlari va maxsus tayyorlangan kishilargina ochishi mumkin.

These few examples of tafseers based solely on sectarian opinions clearly show the incoherence and deception that result from the disregard for the correct method of tafseer. The Qur’aan becomes a voice for each sect’s deviant and heretical claims. The Qur’aan is manipulated mercilessly, as there are no logical boundaries nor coherent rules by which the founders of these sects abide; hence, the same verse may have a multiplicity of meanings for them. Whatever interpretation promotes their ideas become correct. For them, the Qur’aan is no longer a book of guidance, but a book containing the hidden secrets of their sect, which only their leaders and the specially initiated can unlock.