I say: This is sound, and it is the position chosen by more than one scholar. Whoever speaks about the Qur’an on the basis of a chance notion or a fleeting thought, without adducing evidence from the established principles, is in error. By contrast, the one who derives its meaning by relating it to firm, agreed-upon fundamentals is praiseworthy.

Some scholars have asserted that exegesis is restricted to transmitted reports, citing the Almighty’s words: “If you disagree about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger” (Q 4:59). This view is unsound. The prohibition on interpreting the Qur’an must mean one of two things: either that one is required to confine oneself to narration and what has been heard, abandoning independent inference, or that something else is intended. It is untenable to claim that no one may speak about the Qur’an except with what he has literally heard, for the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—recited the Qur’an and differed in its interpretation in various ways, and not everything they said had been heard from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. If interpretation were as fully transmitted as the Revelation itself, why single it out in this manner? This is plain and beyond dispute, and it will be expanded upon under Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, God willing.

Thus the prohibition is to be understood in one of two ways. The first is that a person already holds an opinion and inclines toward it out of temperament or desire; he then interprets the Qur’an in accordance with that opinion in order to validate his objective. Were it not for that preconceived view, such a meaning would never have presented itself to him. This may occur knowingly—as when someone cites certain verses to endorse his innovation while fully aware that the verse does not intend that meaning, his aim being only to mislead his opponent—or it may occur out of ignorance: when a verse can bear more than one meaning, his understanding inclines to the sense that suits his aim, and he prefers that side on account of his own opinion and desire. In so doing he has interpreted by mere opinion—that is, his opinion drove him to that reading, and without it he would not have deemed that meaning preferable.

At other times a person may have a valid aim and seek proof for it from the Qur’an, adducing a verse while knowing that it was not revealed for that purpose—such as someone who calls for striving against the hardened heart and says, “Allah said: ‘Go to Pharaoh; indeed, he has transgressed’” (Q 20:24), pointing to his own heart and hinting that it is what is meant by “Pharaoh.” Certain preachers employ this device for laudable ends, to adorn their speech and motivate the listeners; yet it remains impermissible, for it is a linguistic analogy, and analogy of that sort is not allowed.