Tafsir of the Quran by Quran

The first and most authoritative method of Quranic interpretation is the interpretation of the Quran by the Quran itself. Ibn Taymiyyah, following the scholarly consensus of classical exegetes, places this method at the apex of his methodological hierarchy for compelling reasons: if Allah is the speaker of the Quran, then other verses of the Quran provide the most reliable access to what Allah intends by any given passage. The Quran is its own primary commentary.

This method works in several ways. First, a general statement in one part of the Quran may be qualified or specified by a more particular statement elsewhere. The verse 'Those who have believed and have not mixed their faith with wrongdoing (zulm) — those will have security, and they are rightly guided' (6:82) apparently alarmed the Companions, who feared that any act of wrongdoing would invalidate their faith. The Prophet, peace be upon him, explained that 'zulm' here refers to shirk (associating partners with Allah), not any sin — a meaning confirmed by the Quranic verse: 'Indeed, association with Allah is great injustice (zulm)' (31:13). The Quran thus explains itself.

Second, an ambiguous term in one verse may be clarified by its usage elsewhere in the Quran. Quranic vocabulary is internally consistent, and studying all occurrences of a key term across the text provides crucial interpretive information. The classic tools of Quranic lexicography — the works of scholars like al-Raghib al-Asfahani and Ibn al-Athir — map the semantic range of Quranic vocabulary through comprehensive cross-referencing of the text.

Third, apparent contradictions between verses are resolved by identifying the relationship of abrogating and abrogated verses, or by recognizing that different verses address different aspects of the same topic without genuine conflict. The science of nasikh wal-mansukh (abrogation) is closely tied to this interpretive method.

Ibn Taymiyyah provides numerous examples drawn from the classical tafsir tradition to illustrate how this method works in practice. He also discusses its limitations: not every Quranic question is answered by another Quranic verse, which is why the Sunnah and Companion statements are needed as additional sources. But the primacy of intra-Quranic interpretation is not merely methodological preference; it is a consequence of the theological affirmation that the Quran is a coherent, self-consistent revelation from a single divine speaker whose speech is internally harmonious.

The chapter also addresses the hermeneutical question of how to identify when two verses appear to contradict each other. Ibn Taymiyyah outlines the classical procedure: first seek reconciliation by understanding both verses in their context; if that fails, apply the rules of abrogation; if the abrogating verse cannot be determined, apply other tools of usul al-tafsir. The assumption of contradiction is always the last resort, not the first hypothesis, reflecting the scholar's confidence in the divine text's coherence.