Personal Interpretation: The Perspectives of Ṭabāṭabāʾi and Dhahabī

One of the issues that has always been a point of contention among interpreters and scholars of Quranic sciences is the concept of interpretation based on opinion. The considerable effort of interpreters from both factions to uncover the correct meaning of interpretation based on opinion is due to the fact that the collection of narrations presented in the narrative communities and interpretive texts of both factions on this topic have a threatening tone and have deemed the result of such interpretation, even if correct, as reprehensible and condemnable. Two contemporary prominent Quranic scholars who have presented specific views regarding the concept of interpretation based on opinion are Dhahabi in his book al-Tafsīr wa al-Mufassirūn and Ṫabāṭabai in Tafsir al-Mizan. The approach of the present article, with a descriptive-analytical method, has examined their viewpoints. The result of this study indicates that Dhahabi has categorized interpretation based on opinion into two types: praiseworthy and blameworthy, considering only the interpretation with an Ashʿari tinge as praiseworthy and others, such as the Shia interpretation, with certain examples, as blameworthy. However, categorizing some interpretations as praiseworthy or blameworthy is far from a scientific judgment due to prejudgment and a lack of proper understanding of interpretive foundations, and essentially, praiseworthy interpretation should be specifically excluded from the subject of interpretation based on opinion. Tabatabai, after examining the totality of narrations on this topic, considers interpretation based on opinion to pertain to the method of interpretation and not the essence of interpretation itself. Referring to one of the cases of interpretation based on opinion, namely independence of opinion and not referring to other verses of the Quran, he believes that if interpretation is carried out with an erroneous method and approach, even if it leads to a correct result, it is still reprehensible and condemnable and lacks scientific value and credibility.