In short, anyone who departs from the interpretive method and commentary of the Companions and the Followers and opts for something that contradicts them has fallen into error—indeed, he has introduced an innovation—even though, as an independent jurist, he may be forgiven for that mistake.
It is self-evident that whoever disagrees with them always puts forward some pretext, whether rational or scriptural, but that discussion lies elsewhere.
Our purpose here is simply to point out the roots of disagreement in exegesis: foremost among them are the baseless innovations that drove their proponents to wrench words from their proper contexts and to interpret the speech of Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in ways never intended.
By contrast, there are those who err in the proof, not in the point they wish to make—many Sufis, preachers, jurists, and others. They attach to the Qur’an meanings that are true in themselves, yet the Qur’an does not actually indicate them.
The soundest method, therefore, is to explain the Qur’an by the Qur’an. If that proves elusive, then one turns to the Sunnah. Should an explanation be absent from both Qur’an and Sunnah, we look next to the statements of the Companions.
As for the Israelite reports (isrāʾīliyyāt), they fall into three categories:
- Those whose authenticity we know because what we possess confirms them; these are accepted.
- Those whose falsity we know because the sources we possess contradict them; these are rejected.
- Those about which no evidence exists either way; concerning these we neither affirm nor deny. They may be quoted, as noted earlier, but the vast majority of them offer no benefit related to matters of religion.