According to the author, what earlier scholars did was to compile the principles of tafsir from various sources, such as tafsir books or other references. Recent scholars have misunderstood the intentions of their predecessors, wrongly assuming that they sought to establish rigid rules for tafsir. However, the author rejects this, arguing that earlier scholars clearly stated that their purpose in writing about qawa’id al-tafsir was not to set binding rules but rather to explain their individual interpretative methodologies.
When did this notion of standardization first emerge? The idea of establishing standardized principles of tafsir began to take shape around the 6th century AH, and by the 14th century AH, a more formal definition of qawa’id al-tafsir had been agreed upon. The author also notes that the idea of standardization only became prominent in the 14th and 15th centuries AH.
Kafiji played a significant role in advancing the effort to standardize tafsir principles. He viewed the principles as a set of tools that were restrictive in nature. According to the author, there is an anomaly regarding the emergence of this standardization movement: the enthusiasm for it seemed to fade after Kafiji and Thayyar completed their works, only to be revived in more recent times.
How does Ibn Taymiyyah’s introduction to qawa’id al-tafsir fit into this context? It is worth noting that the first works on qawa’id al-tafsir appeared in the 6th century AH, long before Ibn Taymiyyah. Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah never explicitly labeled his book as one containing “binding principles of tafsir.” This notion was only promoted by later generations after his book was critically examined and titled Usul al-Tafsir (Principles of Exegesis).
Another intriguing aspect is that Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings were not particularly popular, even in Kafiji’s time, when there was concern over the lack of standardized rules for tafsir. Yet, it is evident that Ibn Taymiyyah had already addressed this topic.
A significant downside of this standardization effort is the potential polarization it creates among readers. Following the principles laid out by a particular scholar could lead one to view their interpretation as valid, while dismissing others as incorrect. Despite the disclaimers made by the scholars that these principles are relative, readers are still likely to be drawn towards creating a binary classification of right and wrong when it comes to tafsir.
The key finding of this research is that contemporary works have taken a new step in the history of tafsir principles by advocating for the establishment of comprehensive inductive principles. Over time, as these various principles continued to proliferate, scholars felt the need to consolidate and systematize them.