Talk:Tafsir

wrong author

thematic commentary is by Muhammad Al Ghazzali (modern author) NOT the Abu Hamid Al Ghazali... i changed article accordingly...

The translations in this article are horrible

They do not make sense in any interpretation of the English language. Someone who can read Arabic needs to translate them, and not Babelfish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.35.58 (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Need for editing and succinctness

The sections on the principles of Tafsir, the Approaches of Tafsir and Prohibited Tafsir need a lot of work to make them flow comprehensibly.

I wonder whether it might be an idea to create a separate article A List of Tafsirs, where they cound be listed according to date and categorized, according to the principles which their authors used. The long lists of Tafsir in this article, whilst informative, make it bulky.Energyworm (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is very mixed up, unorganized and is not well structured compared to a systematic science of tafsir. lists have to be seperated while only a very brief view is conserved.--KutluBoga (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Major edit by --KutluBoga (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The article was very complicated, repetative, full with very unnecessary info. So I've made some major changes in the article. Here are the things I've done:

1. Added new section Etymology for the sources of the word tafsir itself.
2. added history section for tafsir, who, when made tafsir throughout history.
3. The section previously named "sources of tafsir - usul al tafsir" was not correctly named. usul al tafsir includes methodology, as clearly cited. The methods were stated in only 1 sentence, so I broadened these methods, and classifying them accordingly. Also I reorganized the sources of tafsir for a much more clear view. I copied the Prohibited tafsir section here because of its relation. Most material kept, but some parts (such as the huge quotation from Ghazali) added only as citation and references.
4. The section "approaches to tafsir" was only 1 paragraph repeated 3 times. So I deleted the other 2. This section was lacking many major approaches, so I renamed it under Schools for better understanding and less mix up.
5. I cut the whole sections of Major commentators, major tafsirs and tafsirs in other languages into another page "list of tafsir", because 2 of them, languages and commentators were not directly related to tafsir, and I shortened the section major tafsirs under the section schools as examples of tafsirs.

I hope this new organization is enough. Now there are some to-do things;

1. Internal links are not full
2. I may have missed some citations from the older version, so citations must be added
3. Like I said, I've added major tafsirs unders schools, as examples of tafsirs. The older version and list of tafsirs page has some brief info about these books. A summarised, short, brief info about these books and writers must be added as explanations next to the books.
4. I left the Shia and some other parts short, somebody who knows better about these subjects must expand them.

Refs

Some of the refs used are obscure:

• Al-Zehebi, Al-Tafsir vel Mufassirun
• Şatibi, El-muvafakat
• Muhsin Demirci, Tefsir Usulü, 120

for example William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Riwaya

There is a section headed "Riwaya" but it is by no means clear what this is William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

'Scientific approach' and 'philosophical approach' are incredibly biased, and incorrect

I'm not an expert on this subject, but I just want to note that the 'philosophic approach' section is:

- horribly biased : it explicitly states the opinions that verses were "explained away", that philosophy "was admittedly only a set of conjectures", and that "Muslim philosophers felt no remorse in treating its views ... as the absolute truth with which the exegesis of the Qur'an had to conform. The fact that it mentions no sources is almost trivial given the fact that it clearly constitutes a judgement rather than a description.

- plainfully wrong to cite Fi Zilal al-Quran by Sayyid Qutb (a 20th century islamist) as an example of an approach informed by Greek philosophy. Even if Qutb would have somehow been engaged with Greek philosophy, this citation would be seriouly misleading considering that Greek philosophy was a major intellectual force in Medieval Islam, the adherents of which did indeed engage in tafsir.

In fact, the 'scientific approach' section is just as bad. These sections need to be either completely rewritten, or deleted. 83.101.57.84 (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda by "Qur'an Only" sect!!

The Whah Quran section is extremely misleading, cites non working URLs (of wordpress blogs!) as reference! There was no "Quran Only" sect during the Companions era. It's a modern sect, like the KJV-Only Bible followers. Mando Salama (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Usage

The word "tafsir" was also used by Yemenite Jews for Saadia Gaon's translation of the Torah into Arabic. Should this be noted? ShemtovKML (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Tafsir during the age of tabiun

You said that during the age of tabiun the scholors started using wide range of sources for interepted the Quran and whole of the Quran is interepted. I have a question that you said whole of the Quran is interepted so what is meaning of this statement here can you please elaborate tafsir from companions to tabiun. SAIFI Suhail (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)