Talk:Tafsir

message: 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)
thread_title:  The translations in this article are horrible 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Need for editing and succinctness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Riwaya 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Scientific approach' and 'philosophical approach' are incredibly biased, and incorrect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Propaganda by "Qur'an Only" sect!! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jewish Usage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tafsir during the age of tabiun