In the realm of Qur’anic exegesis there is likewise a sizeable body of fabricated material. One example is the report transmitted by al-Thaʿlabi, al-Wahidi, and al-Zamakhshari on the merits of every single surah of the Qur’an; the scholars are unanimously agreed that it is forged.

The second of the two broad causes of disagreement—matters established by inference rather than transmission—contains the greater share of error, and it arises from two developments that appeared only after the commentaries of the Companions, their Followers, and those who followed them with excellence.

1. A group who first entertained certain notions and then sought to bend the Qur’an’s wording to fit them.
2. A group who interpreted the Qur’an on the sole basis of what the Arabic language might allow any native speaker to intend, with no regard for the One who spoke the Qur’an, the recipient of the revelation, or the audience addressed by it.

The first group itself divides into two types:
• Sometimes they strip the Qur’anic expression of the meaning it actually indicates and was intended to convey.
• At other times they impose upon it a meaning it neither indicates nor was intended to convey.

In both cases, the proposition they wish to deny or affirm may itself be false—so their error lies in both the evidence and the conclusion—or it may be true, in which case their error is confined to the evidence, not to the conclusion.

The point is that such people embrace an opinion first and then force the Qur’an’s words to serve it, with no precedent among the Companions, their righteous Followers, or the leading scholars of the Muslim community—neither for their opinion nor for their exegesis.

Some of them are eloquent and articulate, and they slip innovations into their discourse while most people remain unaware—such as the author of al-Kashshāf and the like. As Allah wills, their unsound commentaries spread among many who themselves do not subscribe to falsehood.