Tafsir bi al-ra’yi derives from the root word ra’a–yara–ru’yatan. Its plural form is ārā’, which refers to thought based on conviction (al-i‘tiqād), analogy (al-qiyās), or the result of independent reasoning (ijtihad) [10]. Generally, this type of interpretation is understood as a method of interpreting the Qur’an based on rational understanding and deep reflection on the meanings of its words after first grasping the intended meaning (al-madlūl) and the semantic connections within the structure of the words (al-dalālah) [11].

According to Manna al-Qattan, tafsir bi al-ra’yi refers a type of Qur’anic interpretation in which the exegete explains the meaning or purpose of a verse based on personal understanding and rational reflection. In this method, the conclusions drawn tend to rely on logical reasoning and rational reflection, without directly referring to transmitted reports or traditional sources.[4] Classical scholars such as al-Dhahabi and al-Zarqani also elaborated  on this concept, distinguishing between tafsir bi al-ra’yi al-mahmud and tafsir bi al-ra’yi al-madhmum. Building upon these theoretical foundations, this study adopts the conceptual framework of epistemological analysis as its primary theoretical bassis. Through this framework, the research examines how each scholar between Ibn Taymiyyah with his textual traditional epistemology and Ibn ‘Āshūr with his contextual rational epistemology defines the role of reason, revelation, and methodology in interpreting the Qur’an. This theoretical lens allows for a systematic comparison between their approaches, highlighting the underlying epistemic assumptions that shape their respective views on tafsir bi al-ra’yi and al-dakhil fi al-tafsir.

Muhammad Husain al-Dhahabi defines tafsir bi al-ra’yi as a form of interpretation carried out through reflection, ijtihad, and rational thinking by a mufassir who has mastered the Arabic language, its grammar, and the principle of jurisprudence. This approach also considers essential elements of Qur’anic exegesis, such as the context of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl), abrogating and abrogated verses (nāsikh wa mansūkh), and other methodological dimensions [10]. Building upon these classical definitions, this study adopts the epistemological framework of tafsir methodology as its main theoretical foundation. Within this framework, tafsir bi al-ra’yi is analyzed not merely as a rational approach, but as a methodological spectrum situated between textual traditionalism and rational contextualism. This theoretical model allows for a comparative analysis of Ibn Taymiyyah’s traditionalist orientation and Ibn ‘Āshūr rational contextual approach, focusing on how each scholar positions reason (‘aql) and revelation (naql) within their interpretive epistemology. Thus, the framework serves as a bridge linking the theoretical concepts of tafsir bi al-ra’yi and al-dakhil to the comparative analysis of the two exegetes.

Along with the advancement of time, tafsir bi al-ra’yi has shown a highly dynamic and adaptive character. However, scholars have long been divided into two main groups regarding the legitimacy of this interpretive method: some support it, while others reject it [12]. The early scholars (salaf) who rejected tafsir bi al-ra’yi argued that interpretation based solely on personal reasoning and legal inference (istinbāṭ) without reference to the essence of the sharī‘ah or reliance on established textual sources risks deviating from the true intended meaning of revelation [13]. In contrast, the majority of scholars permit the use of tafsir bi al-ra’yi, provided that it is conducted through a rigorous scientific approach that adheres to the prinsiples of shari’ah and sound exegetical methodology. In this study, the analysis proceeds through several systematic stages: first, by identifying the fundamental epistemological concepts underlying the interpretive approaches of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ‘Āshūr. Second, by comparing their methodological frameworks to highlight points of convergence and divergence. Third, by synthesizing these findings to contruct a balanced perspective on the role of reason in Qur'anic interpretation. And last, by drawing conclusion that elucidate how both scholars contribute to the broader discourse on the legitimacy and boundaries of tafsir bi al-ra’yi.

Linguistically, the term al-dakhil derives from the root letters dal-kha-lam, which means the entry of something, corruption, or something defective. According to Ibn Manzur’s explanation, al-dakhil describes a condition of deterioration in either the intellect or the body [14]. In the context of Islamic sciences, the term al-dakhil refers to foreign or external elements that enter a field of knowledge without originating from the authentic tradition of that discipline. The presence of such elements is considered deviant because it can compromise the purity and originality of the discipline in question. In the science of Qur’anic exegesis, al-dakhil refers to matters that lack legitimacy or a valid basis according to the rules of interpretation, whether in terms of transmission (sanad), language, or shar‘i principles. Therefore, these elements are regarded as a form of deviation (taḥrīf) from the true meaning of the Qur’an [15].

Etymologically, the root word dal-kha-lam also contains the meaning of deception or evil. Etymologically, the root word dal-kha-lam also contains the meaning of deception or evil [16]. According to Muhammad Raghib al-Asfahani, the word dakhala can be understood as a metaphor referring to a damaged or contaminated condition [17]. Meanwhile, Ibrahim Musthafa explained that linguistically, al-dakhil has several meanings, including: first, someone who associates himself with a group that is not his own [18]. Second, a guest, because he enters someone else's property. Third, a word absorbed from a foreign language or an unknown language. And fourth, a foreigner who comes with the intention of exploiting.

Before the arrival of Islam, foreign elements (al-dakhil) had actually already entered the tradition of interpretation, mainly through the influence of the People of the Book, especially the Jews. They began migrating to the Arabian Peninsula around 70 ADS, after being expelled from their homeland. Some of them then settled in a fertile area located between mountains and filled with date palms. This area became known as Yathrib, which was later renamed Medina. The presence of this Jewish community brought with it their religious knowledge, which then influenced some of the interpretation traditions through stories and accounts known as Israiliyyat [19].

Al-dakhil entered the interpretation of the Qur'an through two main channels. First, through interactions between the Prophet Muhammad SAW and his companions with the Jewish communities in Medina, such as the Banu Qaynuqa', Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayzah, which enabled the exchange of religious information. Second, through the conversion of Jewish figures such as Abdullah ibn Salam and Ka'b al-Ahbar, who became sources of information about stories in the Torah and the Gospel. It was from here that some of the Israiliyyat narratives began to enter into interpretation[20].

In the work Al-Dakhil fi Tafsir Al-Qur’an al-Karim by Abd Wahab Fayed, several main factors are mentioned that cause the emergence of foreign elements (al-dakhil) in the interpretation of the Qur'an. First, political and power factors, where interpretation is used to support the interests of certain rulers. Second, hatred towards Islam, which encourages some parties to insert false information into interpretations. Third, group or ethnic fanaticism that seeks to justify the views of its group through interpretation. Fourth, differences in madhhab (school of thought) sometimes trigger the emergence of interpretations that are laden with sectarian interests. Fifth, ignorance, which occurs when someone who interprets the Qur'an does not have an adequate scientific foundation[21]. The element of al-dakhil in interpretation can be classified into two forms, namely al-dakhil al-naqli (intrusion from unsound sources such as Israiliyyat) and al-dakhilal-aqli (intrusion originating from reasoning that is not in accordance with the principles of correct interpretation) [22].

In his work, Al-Najjar reveals that al-dakhil in interpretation refers to things that are full of lies associated with the Prophet Muhammad, his companions, the tabi'in, or interpretations that use accounts from companions or tabi'in that do not meet the criteria for acceptance of such accounts, or originate from reprehensible opinions (misunderstandings) [23]. According to Abdul Wahab Fayed, al-dakhil in interpretation is a method of interpretation that is not based on established foundations in Islam, is not in accordance with proper interpretation, and is unreasonable, resulting in an inconsistent understanding of the Qur'an[24].

The prevalence of falsification in the field of interpretation has led to the mixing of valid and invalid interpretations. This has also resulted in the blurring of some truths and raised doubts about these interpretations. The cause of this is the abundance of narrations left behind by the salaf and the authentic narrations from them. As a result, in the fourth century, theological debates arose among Muslims, giving rise to interpretations based on the theological schools of the mufassir. Consequently, the development of interpretation experienced significant progress [25]. Initially, interpretation relied solely on the accounts and fatwas of the companions and tabi'in (bi al-ma'tsur), then developed into interpretation that relied on reason, known as tafsir bi al-ra'yi. As it developed, various approaches to interpretation emerged, such as linguistic, fiqh, historical, Sufi, theological, and others [26].

In the context of al-dakhil in tafsir bi al-ra'yi, scholars note several factors that encourage the entry and development of dakhil bi al-ra'yi, one of which is the mufassir's subjective interpretation [27]. Subjectivity in understanding an interpreter can arise for several reasons, including: First, they do not meet the criteria as interpreters of the Qur'an. As a result, when an interpreter finds a verse that seems to contradict logic, they tend to jump to conclusions and translate the verse based only on its literal meaning, without considering the context or other possible meanings within it. Second, they interpret the Qur'an with the support of certain groups or factions so that the results of their interpretation of the Qur'an are in accordance with their wishes, contrary to the texts related to the creed and beliefs they adhere to [20].

The full name of Ibn Taymiyyah is Ahmad Taqiyuddin Abu al-‘Abbas Ibn Shaykh ‘Abd al-Halim ibn al-Imam Majduddin Abil Barakat ‘Abd al-Salam ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Qasim Muhammad ibn Khudr ibn ‘Ali ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani al-Hanbali [28]. He was born on Monday, the 10th of Rabi‘al-Awwal in the year 661 AH, which corresponds to January 22, 1263 CE, in the city of Harran, a region in the southeast of Greater Syria (now part of modern-day Turkey), specifically on the island of Ibn ‘Amr, located between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers [29].

Ibn Taymiyyah came from a highly educated and respected family in the field of knowledge. His father, Shaykh Shihabuddin Abu Ahmad, was a renowned scholar who served as a preacher (khatib) and judge in their hometown. His grandfather, Shaykh al-Islam Majduddin Abu al-Barakat, was a Hanbali scholar who mastered various disciplines such as fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), hadith, usul al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence), and nahw (Arabic grammar), and was also known as a hafiz (memorizer of hadith). In addition, his uncle, Fakhruddin, was an intellectual widely recognized as a prominent scholar and influential writer of his time [30].

Ibn Taymiyyah was an exceptionally intelligent scholar with a strong memory and sharp analytical skills in addressing various issues. These qualities enabled him to master and deeply understand the content of the Book of Allah. Unfortunately, he did not author a dedicated book of tafsir like other exegetes, but his ideas and thoughts on tafsir are scattered throughout his various writings [5]. Ibn Taymiyyah was highly consistent in applying tafsir bi al-ma’tsur (transmitted interpretation), and he firmly rejected any form of interpretation that relied on ra’yi (personal reasoning). He even stated that interpreting the Qur’an solely with reason is forbidden (haram). One of the arguments he used to support this view is based on a hadith of the Prophet, which states:

عن ابن عباس قال: قال رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وسلّم: من قال في القرآن بغير علم فليتبوأ مقعده من النار (رواه الترمذي)

Meaning: From Ibn ‘Abbas, that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever speaks about the Qur’an without knowledge has prepared his seat in the Hellfire.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi).In addition to this hadith, al-Tirmidhi also narrated from Jundub that the Messenger of Allah said:

عن جندب قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلّم: من قال في القرآن برأيه فأصاب فقد أخطأ (رواه الترمذي)

Meaning: From Jundub, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever speaks about or interprets the Qur’an based on his own opinion (ra’y), even if he is correct or hits the mark, has indeed committed an error.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi).

Ibn Taymiyyah’s firm stance was not only driven by the warning of the Prophet (peace be upon him), but also aimed at reducing disagreements and conflicts among people. This is because differences of opinion using the ma’tsur (transmitted) method are fewer compared to those using ra’y (personal reasoning), as the differences in ma’tsur are usually variations rather than contradictions. For example, in interpreting the Qur’an, some scholars interpret certain terms as referring to Islam, others as referring to acts of worship, and others as obedience to Allah and His Messenger. These are not differences in principle, as the essential principle is to follow the guidance of the Qur’an [5].

Thus, Ibn Taymiyyah did not regard reason or intellect as an absolute source for deriving legal rulings. According to him, the verses of the Qur’an will never contradict sound reason, and reason must submit to the Qur’an. This differs from the mutakallimīn (Islamic theologians), who tended to prioritize reason over the Qur’anic text [28]. Moreover, Ibn Taymiyyah did not adhere rigidly to a single opinion; instead, he believed that all views must be evaluated in light of the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the athar (narrations) of the salaf (pious predecessors) who followed the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) [5]. Regarding the four schools of thought (madhhab), Ibn Taymiyyah maintained that the views of scholars should be followed if they align with the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the athar, and disregarded if they do not. He considered the free use of reason in interpreting the Qur’an without a strong foundation in the Qur’an, hadith, or the sayings of the Companions to be misleading and a form of introducing foreign elements (dakhil) into the discipline of tafsir.

The full name of Ibn ‘Āshūr is Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir ibn ‘Āshūr. He was born in 1879 CE/1296 AH in the city of Tunis, the capital of Tunisia [31]. Since childhood, Ibn ‘Āshūr was raised in an environment rich in knowledge. In addition, he memorized the Qur’an at a young age and then continued his education at Jāmi‘ah Zaytūnah, the oldest center of Islamic learning in North Africa. There, he studied various Islamic disciplines, such as Qur’anic exegesis, jurisprudence, hadith, uṣūl al-fiqh, rhetoric (balāghah), and the Arabic language [32].

Ibn ‘Āshūr came from an educated family and demonstrated intelligence from an early age. From a young age, he studied the Qur’an and various scholarly works under the guidance of his grandfather and several scholars in Tunisia. He later continued his studies at the University of Ez-Zitouna, where he learned various disciplines. This broad knowledge shaped his comprehensive and multidisciplinary thinking [33]. After completing his studies, Ibn ‘Āshūr became a lecturer at the University of Ez-Zitouna and became known as a scholar who introduced reforms. In 1932, he was appointed as the Rector of the University of Ez-Zitouna, an honorable position that allowed him to introduce various innovations in the curriculum and the Islamic education system. He was known for being highly critical of the stagnation of ijtihad and emphasized the importance of using reason and maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah in understanding religion [34].

His major works include Maqashid as-Syari’ah al-Islamiyah (Ushul Fiqh) and Tafsir al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanwīr, a Qur'anic exegesis that he worked on for more than twenty years. In this exegesis, Ibn 'Āshūr demonstrates his expertise as a modern exegete by combining linguistic, rational, and maqāṣidī approaches. This exegesis is important evidence of his ability to bridge classical and modern methods of Qur'anic interpretation [19]. The uniqueness of Tafsir al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanwīr lies in the introduction written directly by Ibn 'Āshūr. In this section, he explains the reason behind writing the tafsir, which is to interpret the Qur'an as the greatest miracle of the Prophet Muhammad SAW with a linguistic approach and deep meaning. He wanted to compile a tafsir that not only quoted previous scholars, but also included original analysis covering the benefits of this world and the hereafter as a whole [8].

In his introduction to his interpretation, Ibn 'Āshūr emphasizes that the use of reason in interpreting the Qur'an (tafsir bi al-ra'yi) must remain based on naqli evidence, namely the Qur'an and Hadith. He stresses the importance of maintaining a balance between reason and text so that the interpretation does not deviate from Islamic teachings. According to him, a valid interpretation is one that combines rationality with the authority of the sacred text [8]. In addition, Ibn 'Āshūr had a unique approach to interpreting the Qur'an, seeking to introduce new perspectives that had not been discussed by previous exegetes. He wanted his interpretation to serve as a mediator between other interpretations. According to him, limiting interpretation to tafsir bi al-Ma'tsur actually ignores the infinite richness of meaning in the Qur'an [8]. One of the reasons for the decline of tafsir, according to Ibn 'Āshūr, is the excessive reliance on tafsir bi al-Ma'tsur and the attitude of scholars who only quote for fear of making mistakes. As a result, this method is considered the only way to interpret, even though weak narrations are used. In fact, interpretation using reason can be more accurate and broaden the meaning of the Qur'an [7].

Ibn 'Ashur developed tafsir bi al-ra'yi by integrating rationality and various disciplines such as linguistics, history, and philosophy. He interpreted the Qur'an with a scientific, logical, and contextual approach, emphasizing linguistic analysis, socio-historical context, and the maqāṣid of the Qur'an. This method makes his interpretation relevant and applicable in modern society [33]. In addition, Ibn ‘Āshūr firmly stated that in interpreting the Qur’an, an exegete must have a clear purpose and understand the boundaries that must not be crossed. He emphasized the importance for exegetes to remain focused on the meaning contained in the text of the Qur’an itself, without imposing meanings that are not in accordance with the original context [35].

Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ‘Āshūr, though coming from two major schools within the Islamic exegetical tradition, share a common stance in rejecting any form of interpretation that deviates from the authentic meaning of the Qur’an. Both agree that interpretations which disregard the fundamental principles of sharī‘ah or impose foreign meanings upon the Qur’an constitute unacceptable distortions [5]. However, the fundamental difference between them lies in the epistemology of interpretation, particularly regarding the authority of reason in understanding revelation. Ibn Taymiyyah emphasized the importance of strictly adhering to the textual sources (naṣṣ) and the methodology of the salaf, while limiting the role of reason to merely complementing the transmitted evidences (dalīl naqlī) [5].

According to Ibn Taymiyyah, the use of bi ra'yi in interpreting the Qur'an is one of the important ways to understand the words of Allah. Currently, interpretation using the bi ra'yi method is gaining more attention, although it still takes into account the aspect of revelation. This shows that there is a close relationship between revelation and reason. Although both have their respective roles, they cannot be separated, even though sometimes one of them is more dominant. Both go hand in hand, complementing each other, and creating harmony in understanding revelation rationally [36].

Meanwhile, Ibn ‘Āshūr formulated an interpretation model that provides ample room for intellectual ijtihad, as long as it remains within the limits of maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah and the basic values of Islam [23]. These differences cannot be separated from the historical background and social context of each figure. Ibn Taymiyah lived in a time of theological deviation caused by extreme philosophy and Sufism in the 7th century AH [5], while Ibn 'Āshūr wrote in the colonial and early modern context of the 20th century, which demanded a contextual and reformist approach to the Qur'an [8].

Ibn ‘Āshūr, despite adhering to the Maliki school of thought, was known as an objective scholar. In his work, he even supported schools of thought that differed from his own, demonstrating his objectivity. Ibn 'Ashur's contribution emphasizes that an interpreter can follow a particular school of thought as long as they understand the arguments and conduct further research, and choose the most correct view based on the arguments. This book is not only relevant to researchers of interpretation and the sciences of the Qur'an, but also provides a basis for assumptions and guidelines for interpretation that have the potential to become a foundation for contemporary scholars in writing their interpretive works. In addition, Ibn 'Āshūr discusses various topics, including language, fiqh, philosophy, and other fields, making his work a rich and important source in the world of Islamic scholarship [7].

This study synthesizes their methodological difference into a comparative model: Ibnu Taymiyyah represent the textual transmissional paradigm, prioritizing revelation and authentic reports (naql) as the main source of interpretation, while Ibn ‘Āshūr embodies the rational contextual paradigm, emphasizing reason (‘aql) and maqashid al-sharī‘ah as guiding principles in understanding divine intent. Through this synthesis, the study provides a clearer conceptual framework for readers to understand how these two paradigms reflect the epistemological tension between textual fidelity and contextual adaptability in Qur’anic interpretation. A critical analysis of both shows that the tension between scripturalism and rationalism in interpretation is not an absolute contradiction, but rather a reflection of intellectual responses born out of the demands of different eras. Therefore, understanding the positions of both historically and contextually is an important step in building a more moderate methodological framework for interpretation that is responsive to contemporary challenges.

The table 1 highlights the fundamental methodological and epistemological differences between Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ‘Āshūr in Qur’anic interpretation. Overall, Ibn Taymiyyah represents a conservative, text-centered approach that prioritizes transmitted reports and aims to preserve the purity of the early Islamic tradition. His method limits the use of independent reasoning and maintains a strong reliance on authoritative sources from the Prophet and the early generations. In contrast, Ibn ‘Āshūr reflects a more rational, contextual, and reform-oriented approach. He integrates reason, linguistic analysis, and historical context with traditional sources, allowing interpretation to address contemporary issues more effectively. While still grounded in Islamic principles, his methodology is more flexible and open to ijtihād. In summary, the table 1 shows that the two scholars stand at opposite ends of the hermeneutical spectrum: Ibn Taymiyyah focuses on safeguarding textual authenticity, whereas Ibn ‘Āshūr seeks to harmonize scriptural teachings with modern realities.

Although tafsir bi al-ra'yi is often a subject of debate, al-Dzahabi and al-Rāghib al-Aṣfahānī argue that this interpretation is still permissible as long as it is in accordance with the Qur'an, sunnah, and meets the methodological requirements of interpretation. A similar view is also expressed by Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Zarqānī. An exegete who applies the bi al-ra'yi approach must master various sciences that support exegesis, such as linguistics, usul al-fiqh, asbāb al-nuzūl, and so on. In the interpretation process, the first step is to seek the meaning of the verse from the Qur'an itself. If the meaning is not found, then the next reference is the words of the companions, because they understood the social context when the revelation was revealed and were direct witnesses to the process of revelation and the life of the Prophet Muhammad SAW [37].

Al-Zarqānī discusses the permissibility of tafsir bi al-ra'yi by outlining several methodological steps that must be followed by a mufassir. Initially, interpretation must take meaning from the Qur'an, hadith, or the words of the companions and tabi'in. If these sources do not provide clarity, ijtihad is permissible, following these steps: 1) Analyzing words (mufrad) in terms of sharf (word inflection) and isytiqāq (word roots). 2) Examining the structure of the sentence to understand the overall meaning, including i'rab (grammar) and balaghah (rhetorical beauty). 3) Prioritizing the literal meaning before considering figurative interpretations. 4) Consider asbāb al-nuzūl or the context in which the verse was revealed. 5) Align the interpretation with the context of the discourse (siyāq al-kalām). 6) Consider the verses before and after (sābiq and lāḥiq). 7) Ensuring that the interpretation is in accordance with the wording being interpreted. 8) Relating the meaning of the verse to other relevant sciences, including the history of the Arab nation at the time of the revelation. 9) Harmonizing it with the history of the life of the Prophet Muhammad SAW. And 10) Being able to explain the meaning of the verse comprehensively and derive legal rulings from it [38].

Throughout the history of exegesis, tafsir bi al-ra'yi has always been a subject of debate. On the one hand, this approach is considered a form of intellectual ijtihad that allows the teachings of the Qur'an to remain relevant and applicable in various contexts of time and place [39]. On the other hand, tafsir bi al-ra'yi has been sharply criticized because it is considered to have the potential to open up opportunities for interpretations that deviate from the meaning intended by the text [4]. This difference in opinion becomes even clearer when viewed from the perspective of two key figures: Ibn Taymiyah, who was cautious and tended to reject interpretations based on reason [5] and Ibn 'Ashur, who instead gave reason an important role in interpretation [8].

Therefore, it is important to classify the various forms of tafsir bi al-ra'yi appropriately, so as not to give rise to misunderstandings that all interpretations based on reason are negative or misleading. In this context, the discussion focuses on distinguishing between acceptable (mahmud) and reprehensible (madzmum) tafsir bi al-ra'yi, in an effort to fairly assess the role of reason in interpreting the Qur'an without neglecting the principles and methodological guidelines established by earlier scholars [10].

Interpretation by opinion in the praiseworthy category is interpreting verses of the Qur'an in accordance with the principles of Sharia by individuals who are skilled in Islamic sciences. This interpretation is not based on ignorance or lust, but follows the rules of correct Arabic and pays attention to style (uslub). Performing this praiseworthy tafsir bi al-ra'yi is permissible and even considered valid, as long as the interpreter fulfills the requirements of ijtihad, namely mastery of the supporting sciences. Such interpretation can be classified as tafsir al-mahmud or tafsir al-masyru' (interpretation that is justified by sharia) [40].

The interpretation based on personal opinion (tafsir bi al-ra'yi) that is considered reprehensible (madzmum) is interpreting verses of the Qur'an without sufficient knowledge. Usually, this interpretation is influenced by personal desires, individual interests, or deviant beliefs, and is done without understanding the rules of Arabic or the principles of Sharia. Often, this type of interpretation is based on a corrupt school of thought or misguided heretical views. Such interpretation is considered haram in a legal context, because it relies solely on reason or ijtihad without a valid and accountable basis, both scientifically and in terms of Sharia [41].

Ibn Taymiyyah made a greater contribution by emphasizing the importance of literal (zahir) understanding of the verses of the Qur'an and rejecting excessive, symbolic, or allegorical interpretations that are not supported by strong evidence. His approach was greatly influenced by the thinking of the salaf, who prioritized a strict textual approach based on authentic sources. When interpreting mutasyabihat verses, Ibn Taymiyyah maintained and used their literal meanings and avoided interpretations that strayed far from the original text [30].

In addition to the thoughts of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn 'Asyur also made a significant contribution to the field of interpretation with his in-depth and innovative approach. He is known as an exegete who emphasizes the importance of a contextual method, understanding the meaning and content of the Qur'an not only through the verses themselves, but also by considering the social realities and intellectual challenges of both the time of revelation and the era of interpretation. Ibn 'Asyur successfully integrated classical Islamic scholarship with a modern scientific outlook to ensure that the Qur’anic values remain relevant and applicable in addressing contemporary social, political, and intellectual issues. He also emphasized the importance of understanding asbāb al-nuzūl (the historical context of the revelation of verses) and the higher objectives of revelation, so that Islamic teachings can be implemented wisely and contextually in modern society [42].