Question from a Christian about the scholars' differences in interpretation of the Holy Qur'aan
Question

                A question from a Christian in Canada: Why do the scholars differ concerning the interpretation of the Holy Qur'aan and claim that there is only one version of the Gospel in Canada and the interpretation of it is one and there are not two views? What is your opinion? May Allah reward you with good.
Praise be to Allah.Firstly: 
There is no 
    difference of opinion among the scholars with regard to the interpretation 
    of the entire Qur'aan. Rather they differed concerning the interpretation of 
    some of its verses. There is no doubt that with regard to most of the 
    verses, there is no difference of opinion as to their interpretation. Rather 
    the commentators, both early and later, and scholars are agreed on its 
    interpretation. This is something that is clear to everyone who reads the 
    Qur'aan and books of commentary. The majority of Muslims still read the 
    Qur'aan and listen to its verses, and most of them have no problem 
    understanding most of it; rather they know what it means and this is 
    sufficient to be guided by the Qur'aan. 
Shaykh 
    al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
With regard 
    to the saheeh reports which say that they differed concerning it and held 
    conflicting views, these are very few compared to the verses concerning 
    which they did not differ. End quote. 
Majmoo’ 
    al-Fataawa, 5/162 
Secondly: 
Most of the 
    differences that did occur came after the best (earliest) centuries. As for 
    the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, the differences among them concerning the 
    interpretation of the Qur'aan were very few. 
Shaykh 
    al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
Hence the 
    disagreements among the Sahaabah concerning the interpretation of the 
    Qur'aan were very few. Even though there were more disagreements among the 
    Taabi’een than among the Sahaabah, they are still few in comparison to what 
    came after them. The more virtuous the era, the more consensus, harmony, 
    knowledge and clarity about the Qur’aan there was. End quote. 
Majmoo’ 
    al-Fataawa, 13/332. 
Thirdly: 
As for the 
    few verses concerning the interpretation of which there was a difference of 
    opinion (among the Salaf), they may be divided into several categories: 

    (i)Those concerning which the 
    difference has to do with variations of meanings, not conflicting opinions. 
    So these are differences in wording, which do not affect anything and a 
    difference in wording is not really a difference in fact, because if there 
    is a difference the two opinions should contradict one another, and that is 
    not the case in this category of differences.
Shaykh 
    al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) said, commenting on 
    differences in varieties of meaning: 
That is of 
    two types:
The first 
    type is where each of the commentators expressed what the words mean in 
    wording different from that of his companions, which indicates that what is 
    meant is a different shade of meaning, not a different meaning altogether, 
    as they are referring to the same thing. This is like referring to a sayf 
    (sword) as saarim or muhannad (other Arabic words for sword). The same is 
    true of the beautiful names of Allah, the names of His Messenger (blessings 
    and peace of Allah be upon him) and the names of the Qur'aan. The names of 
    Allah all refer to the same One, and each of His names refer to the same 
    Essence and the attribute reflected in the name. The same may be said of the 
    names of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), such as 
    Muhammad, Ahmad, al-Maahi (the Eraser, by means of whom Allaah erases 
    (yamhu) kufr), al-Haashir (the Gatherer, at whose feet the people will 
    gather), and al-‘Aaqib (the successor, i.e., the one who succeeds the other 
    Prophets in bringing about good, or the Last Prophet); and of the names of 
    the Qur'aan, such as the Qur’aan, al-Furqaan (the Criterion), al-Huda 
    wa’l-Shifa (guidance and healing), al-Bayaan (clarity), al-Kitaab (Book) and 
    so on. 
Once this is 
    established, one of the early generation sometimes referred to a thing with 
    a word or phrase that referred to one of its attributes, and another would 
    refer to it by a different word or phrase that reflected another of its 
    attributes, like one who says: Ahmad [i.e., the Prophet (blessings and peace 
    of Allah be upon him)] is al-Haashir, al-Maahi, al-‘Aaqib; and al-Quddoos 
    (the Most Holy) is al-Ghafoor (The Oft Forgiving), al-Raheem (the Most 
    Merciful). In other words, what is referred to is one and the same, but the 
    attributes are not the same. It is known that this is not a contradiction as 
    some people think. 
Another 
    example of that is their interpretation of the phrase al-siraat al-mustaqeem 
    (the straight path).  
Some of them 
    said that it means the Qur'aan, i.e., following it. 
Some of them 
    said that it means Islam. 
These two 
    opinions are in harmony, because the religion of Islam is following the 
    Qur'aan, but each one highlights a different shade of meaning that is not 
    reflected in the other. 
The word 
    siraat (path) may also indicate another meaning, as reflected in the view of 
    those who say that it is al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah (i.e., adhering to the 
    Sunnah and the main body of the Muslims); and those who say that it is 
    obedience to Allah and His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon 
    him), and other examples, all of which indicate the same thing, but each 
    looks at it from a different angle. 
The second 
    type is where the Qur'aan uses a general word and each commentator mentions 
    some specific type by way of example, in order to explain to the listeners 
    the general meaning. 
That is like 
    when a non-Arab asks what is meant by the word khubz (bread), and someone 
    shows him a loaf of bread (ragheef) and says, “This”, although the word does 
    not refer to this specific type or this particular loaf. 
Another 
    example is what is narrated concerning the verse in which Allah says 
    (interpretation of the meaning): “Then We gave the Book (the Qur’aan) as 
    inheritance to such of Our slaves whom We chose (the followers of Muhammad
    صلى الله عليه وسلم). Then of them are 
    some who wrong their ownselves, and of them are some who follow a middle 
    course, and of them are some who are, by Allaah’s Leave, foremost in good 
    deeds” [Faatir 35:32]. It is well known that the phrase “those who wrong 
    their own selves” includes one who neglects the obligation of Islam and one 
    who transgresses the sacred limits, and the phrase “those who follow a 
    middle course” includes the one who fulfils the obligations of Islam and 
    refrains from haraam things, and the phrase “those who are foremost in good 
    deeds” includes the one who goes ahead and draws close to Allah by means of 
    naafil good deeds in addition to obligatory duties. 
Moreover 
    each of the commentators may mention different types of acts of worship 
    (sc.) when commenting on this verse: 
One may say 
    that the one who is foremost in doing good deeds is the one who prays at the 
    beginning of the time for the prayer, the one who follows a middle course is 
    the one who prays within the period for that prayer, and the one who wrongs 
    himself is the one who delays praying ‘Asr until the sun has turned yellow 
    [i.e., close to sunset]. 
Another 
    commentator may say that the one who is foremost in doing good deeds and the 
    one who follows a middle course and the one who wrongs himself are the ones 
    who are mentioned at the end of Soorat al-Baqarah, where it describes the 
    doer of good as the one who gives charity, the one who wrongs himself as 
    someone who consumes riba, and the one who follows a middle path as being 
    the one who is honest his dealings. 
Each 
    interpretation refers to some qualities that come under the meaning 
    mentioned in the verse so as to tell the listener that this is included in 
    the meaning of the verse and to point to another shade of meaning. 
    Explaining by giving examples is much easier than speaking in general terms, 
    and the sound mind will understand that the example given refers to 
    something more general, just as the one who is shown a loaf of bread and is 
    told that this is called bread (khubz) understands that this word 
    refers to bread in general and not just this particular loaf. End quote. 
Majmoo’ 
    al-Fataawa, 13/332-338 
He also said 
    (may Allah have mercy on him): 
It should be 
    noted that the differences that arose among the commentators are of two 
    types: 
The first 
    type is those in which there is no contradiction, rather each view may be 
    correct and it is no more than a variation in the shades of meaning or 
    describing the same meaning from different perspectives. In most cases the 
    differences that are proven to be from the commentators among the early 
    generations, the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, are of this type. When Allah 
    mentions something in the Qur'aan, such as the verse in which He says 
    (interpretation of the meaning): “Guide us to the Straight Way (al-siraat 
    al-mustaqeem)” [al-Faatihah 1:6], each of the commentators explained the 
    straight path with a phrase which is indicative of some of its meaning or 
    attributes, and all of that is true. So some of them said that the straight 
    path means the Book of Allah or following the Book of Allah. Another said 
    that the straight path means Islam, or the religion of Islam. Another said 
    that the straight path means the Sunnah and the main body of the Muslims 
    (al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah). Another said that the straight path means the way 
    of complete servitude to Allah (‘uboodiyyah) or the way of hope and fear, 
    love of Allah, or obeying commands and heeding prohibitions, following the 
    Qur'aan and Sunnah, striving to obey Allah and other words and phrases. 
It is known 
    that what is referred to is one and that there are variations in attributes 
    and wording.  
And there is 
    another type, in which the commentator explained the meaning by giving an 
    example without wanting to limit the meaning to the example he gave, such as 
    when a foreigner says what does “bread” mean? And he is shown a piece of 
    bread. End quote. 
Majmoo’ 
    al-Fataawa, 13/381-384 
The second 
    type is verses in which the differences concerning the interpretation are 
    opposite or contradictory. This is very rare and applies to only a few 
    verses; these differences are well known and limited. 
Shaykh 
    al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
Differences 
    concerning tafseer among the salaf are very rare; their differences 
    concerning rulings are more common than their differences concerning 
    tafseer. Most of the saheeh reports which speak of their differences have to 
    do with variations on shades of meaning, not contradictory opinions. End 
    quote. 
Majmoo’ 
    al-Fataawa, 13/178 
There are 
    many reasons for these differences and they have been studied by specialised 
    scholars. The reader may consult Asbaab Ikhtilaaf al-Mufassireen by 
    Prof. Dr. Muhammad al-Shaayi’ and Ikhtilaaf al-Mufassireen Asbaabuhu wa 
    Athaaruhu by Prof. Dr. Sa’ood al-Funaysaan. 
Fourthly: 
This second 
    type should not be a reason for doubting the validity of the Qur'aan for a 
    number of reasons: 

    1-It does not occur concerning 
    any the verses that have to do with beliefs or the aims of Sharee’ah; rather 
    it only occurs concerning the verses on rulings, such as the difference of 
    opinion among the scholars on meaning of the verse (interpretation of the 
    meaning): “And divorced women shall wait (as regards their marriage) for 
    three menstrual periods” [al-Baqarah 2:228]: does al-qar’ (translated 
    here as menstrual period) refer to purity or menses? Or it may occur in the 
    commentary on some Qur’aanic contexts that have to do with stories or 
    exhortation and the like, such as their difference of opinion on the meaning 
    of the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “Then [the babe ‘Eesa 
    (Jesus) or Jibreel (Gabriel)] cried unto her from below her, saying: “Grieve 
    not: your Lord has provided a water stream under you” [Maryam 19:24]. -- 
    is the one who called out Jibreel or ‘Eesa (peace be upon them both)? This 
    difference of opinion -- as you can see -- does not have to do with the 
    essence of belief or sharee’ah; rather it is a fiqhi matter in which Allah 
    willed that some differences should occur out of mercy towards this ummah 
    and also as a test; or it is a difference that does not affect the general 
    meaning of the verse.

    2-These differences -- although 
    they are very rare -- mostly occurred among the later generations. If we go 
    back to the tafseer of the early generations, the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, we 
    would not find most of these differences that are found in later books of 
    tafseer.

    3-Finally, there is wisdom in the 
    fact that the meaning of some verses is not quite clear, so that people will 
    strive hard and there will be discussion of these verses and knowledge in 
    books and people's minds.
Fifthly 
With regard 
    to the claim that there is no contradiction in the Gospel or in the 
    commentaries on the Gospel, this is very strange and weird. The Christians 
    themselves make no such claim, because it is contrary to reality, as the 
    copies, variations and translations of the Gospel differ a great deal and 
    contradict one another. The Christians also have a lot of different branches 
    and religious differences, and the differences in interpretation of the 
    Gospel have to do with the foundations of their beliefs and the meaning of 
    the Trinity, Divine Oneness and the three Persons (of the Trinity). This is 
    a contradiction that led to the emergence of many branches which differ 
    concerning the essence of faith and religion. But in the case of Islam and 
    the Qur'aan, among the scholars of Islam of Ahl al-Sunnah (the Sunnis), who 
    formed the majority of Muslims, from the time of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een 
    until the present day, there are no differences concerning the basic 
    foundations of the faith and its major teachings. 
Shaykh 
    al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
The 
    Christians' commentaries on their holy books contain distortions of the book 
    of Allah and misinterpretation of the names of Allah and His Signs; it would 
    take too long to describe them but you can never cease to be amazed by them. 
    End quote. 
Al-Jawaab 
    al-Saheeh, 3/93 
He also 
    said: 
The 
    Christians affirm that this phrase in the Gospel is taken from the Messiah 
    but they differ as to the meaning of these words. Many of them say that the 
    Father is existence and the Son is the Word and the Holy Spirit is life. 
    Some of them say: Rather the Father is existence, the Son is the Word and 
    the Holy Spirit is Power. And some of them say that the three Persons (of 
    the Trinity) are: Generous, Wise and Able. So they say that the Father is 
    generous, the Son is wise and the Holy Spirit is able. They claimed that all 
    divine attributes are included in these three. I have seen all of that in 
    the books of the Christians. And there are some who explain the Word as 
    meaning knowledge, and some who say that it is self-sufficient, living and 
    wise. They are all agreed that what is incarnated in Jesus is the 
    incarnation of the word, and he is the one whom they call the Son, not the 
    Father. Those who deny the incarnation, such as the Arians, say that Christ 
    (peace be upon him) was a servant who was sent, like all the Messengers 
    (blessings and peace of Allah be upon them). Although they agreed with them 
    on using the terminology Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they did not interpret 
    it as their opponents did as referring to incarnation. Similarly, the 
    Nestorians also agreed with them on this terminology, but they differed with 
    them concerning the incarnation in which the Jacobites and Melkites 
    believe. 
And thus 
    they agreed on the wording but differed on the meaning. It is known that 
    they believed in this wording as part of their religion, because  they 
    believe it is mentioned in their religion. But then they differed after that 
    concerning the interpretation of the Book as they and all the followers of 
    different religions differed concerning the interpretation of some words 
    that they believed were transmitted from the Prophets (peace be upon them). 
    End quote. 
Al-Jawaab al-Saheeh (3/189-192) 
And Allah knows best.