Know the Tendencies of Classical Commentaries | 30 Keys to Unlock the Quran's Meaning | Shabir Ally

In episode 23 of 30 Keys to Unlock the Quran's Meaning, Dr. Shabir Ally highlights the significance of discerning between the Quranic text and its accompanying commentary, which often become intertwined in the minds of Muslims. Classical commentaries tended to rely heavily on transmitted narratives, prioritizing Hadith-based explanations and interpretations. However, this approach led to a decline in the use of reason and the uncritical acceptance of transmitted knowledge. The commentary tradition often reproduced previous works, sometimes perpetuating errors without critical evaluation. Despite variations among commentators, such as Muqatil ibn Sulayman, al-Tabari, ibn Kathir, al-Zamakhshari, and al-Razi, the tendencies of relying on transmitted reports and neglecting reason persisted. While classical commentaries are valuable, readers are encouraged to approach them critically, recognizing these tendencies to better understand the Quran. The text also discusses ongoing translation projects of classical commentaries to make them accessible to English speakers, emphasizing the importance of engaging with these works while remaining aware of their limitations.
If you enjoy this video, please support our work financially by:
Visiting our website www.QuranSpeaks.com OR
Sending an etransfer to [e-mail] OR
Subscribing monthly at Patreon.com/QuranSpeaks
► DONATE: www.quranspeaks.com/
► SUBSCRIBE: czcams.com/users/subscription_...
Facebook: / letthequranspeak
Instagram: / quranspeaks.tv
Twitter: / quran_speaks

[@kagurasogo4580]

Mashallah, this is such simple explanation for an average person who wants to understand the meaning and difference between the quran and it's translation. ❤
Dr. Shabir, kindly also make a video on some of the most misquoted verses of the quran. I think it's very important to give proper knowledge for those verses in these current times.

[@idrisaleemdar]

JazakAllah another best episode

[@nishan_nb]

Again a great video Dr. Shabir Ally! Thank you for sharing. I appreciate the fact that you have a mind of your own. I must admit, I only care about God's truth and I want to be as close to the source of God's words as I possibly can. I have respect for teachers and great, often well educated, thinkers. But the message of God's truth must be pure. People sometimes forget that the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the only one, that received the authority to speak on His behalf. And other prophets that came before him.

[@shadeen3604]

Great thanks DR

[@GraceRose-us6jb]

Thank you!

[@Dante3X]

🎯💯

[@SKumar-vn6uy]

நாம் தமிழர் தேர்தலில் வாக்கு முறையை நம்பகமற்ற EVM ல் இருந்து வாக்கு சீட்டுக்கு மாற வேண்டியதின் அவசியத்தை பரப்புரையில் கூற வேண்டும். ஆனால் அவர்கள் ஏன் வலியுறுத்தி பேசுவதில்லை என்று புரியவில்லை. நாம் தமிழருக்கு கிடைக்கும் அனைத்து வாக்குகளும் வாக்கு எண்ணிக்கையின் போது நாம் தமிழரின் வாக்கு கணக்கில் நிச்சயமாக இருக்குமா என்று தெரியவில்லை.

[@Al-fathima-Zagreb-noorNo-fe5pi]

Jolie Cosy house!
Studio

[@farukchoudhury934]

These classical commentators were a bunch of idiots. At the same time, they were arrogant or controlled by tyrannical rulers, the worst type of hypocrites. What we have got from them is rubbish. We should apply our intellect.

[@HH-pv9ex]

Dear Dr Shabir
Way too many presumptuous propositions here:
1) It is simply "untrue" that the classical commentaries did not have "opinions". The commentaries have opinions where there isn't a confirmed explanation as obtained from an authenticated narration and report from an eyewitness companion. Otherwise we would have had the end all be all single commentary. In fact Al-Zamakhshari acknowledged that there are several opinions in the commentaries in his personal poetry praising his own commentary "Al-Kashaf".
إنّ التفاسير في الدنيا بلا عددٍ
وليس فيها لعمري مثلُ (كشافي)
إن كنت تبغي الهدى فالزم قراءته
فالجهل كالداء والكشاف كالشافي
2) It is quite a tall order to come after 1400+ years and claim that the logic of the commentators is "a failed logic" 😅.....In fact if history teaches us anything, it is that the Mutazilites' approach that eventually met its demise academically. Except perhaps for the commentary entitled "al-kashaf" by Al-Zamakhshari which you're quite fond of as it seems. As you know, the author of this book Al-Zamakhshari was an accomplished master of the Arabic language and this is where his writings excel, but not necessarily his opinions on some Aayat in the Quran which are heavily influenced by his philosophic inclinations, which are based on helenistic philosophies.
3) Yes, the companions gave their opinions on matters, but which of them dismissed the stories in the Quran or of the prophets as being symbolic or metaphoric simply implying that the prophets were "good people" as you had mentioned in a previous episode ?? Which of the said or implied that the flood of Noah was a localized event ?? Which of them denied the events of Thul-Qarnayn as being irrational and symbolic?? One has to vividly keep the "creed" of the Mutazilites in mind as one sifts through their writings ✍️. For instance the Mutazilites believed that committers of great sins (armed theft, adultery, etc.) are "disbelivers" committed indefinitely to hell fire 🔥 😳, which is the opposite of the belief of Sunnah as the prophet said
يقولُ اللَّهُ أخرجوا منَ النَّارِ من قال لا إلهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ وَكانَ في قلبِه منَ الخيرِ ما يزنُ شعيرةً أخرجوا منَ النَّارِ من قال لا إلهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ وفي قلبِه منَ الخيرِ ما يزنُ برَّةً أخرجوا منَ النَّارِ من قال لا إلهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ وفي قلبِه منَ الخيرِ ما يزنُ دودةً أخرجوا منَ النَّارِ من قال لا إلهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ وفي قلبِه منَ الخيرِ ما يزنُ ذرَّةً
الراوي : أنس بن مالك | المحدث : ابن خزيمة | المصدر : التوحيد لابن خزيمة | الصفحة أو الرقم : 700/2 | خلاصة حكم المحدث : [أشار في المقدمة أنه صح وثبت بالإسناد الثابت الصحيح] | التخريج : أخرجه أحمد (13929)، وعبد بن حميد في ((المسند)) (1170)، وابن خزيمة في ((التوحيد)) (2/700) واللفظ له
The narration clearly indicates that monotheists who committed crimes will eventually leave the fire by the grace of God, as long as they have a grain's worth of goodness in their heart ❤️.

[@charlesmuhmanson3928]

More evidence that Quran is not clear as it claims.

[@rhonda8822]

Why on earth is it called the clear Quran when it is not??

[@idrisaleemdar]

The only book that is not altered on the face of the earth, and you pegans will never be able to hide the sun with two fingers.

[@charlesmuhmanson3928]

@@idrisaleemdar That lie has been debunked with the "Hole in the Narrative" interview with Dr. Yasir Qadi. You can't patch it again.
It is well preserved, but not perfectly preserved. Allah could not protect it like he promised.