Appearance
Sūrah Āl ʿImrān, verse 7
هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الأَلْبَابِ
Huwa alladhī anzala ʿalayka al-kitāba minhu āyātun muḥkamātun hunna ummu al-kitāb wa ukharu mutashābihāt. Fa-ammā alladhīna fī qulūbihim zayghun fa-yattabiʿūna mā tashābaha minhu ibtighā’a al-fitnah wa ibtighā’a ta’wīlih. Wa mā yaʿlamu ta’wīlahu illā Allāh. Wa ar-rāsikhūna fī al-ʿilm yaqūlūna āmannā bih, kullun min ʿindi rabbinā; wa mā yadhdhakkaru illā ulū al-albāb.
It is He who has sent down to you the Book, of which there are definitive verses, which are the mother of the Book, and others are metaphorical. As for those in whose hearts is deviance, they pursue what is metaphorical in it, seeking to cause sedition and to interpret it . Yet no one knows its interpretation except Allah. And those firmly grounded in knowledge say, “We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.” And none takes admonition except those who possess intellect.
Context and significance
Verse 3:7 of Sūrat Āl ʿImrān establishes a fundamental principle for engaging with the Qur’an. It divides revelation into muḥkamāt—clear and decisive verses that form the foundation of belief, law, and practice—and mutashābihāt—ambiguous verses whose meanings are not immediately apparent. The verse further links these categories to the concept of taʾwīl (ultimate interpretation or reality) and the role of those “firmly grounded in knowledge” (al-rāsikhūn fī al-ʿilm).
The passage raises several key questions that shape the entire discipline of Qur’anic hermeneutics: Why does the Qur’an contain both decisive and ambiguous verses? What is the purpose of ambiguity within divine revelation? What exactly is meant by taʾwīl—is it interpretation, ultimate reality, or both? And who has access to this knowledge: Allah alone, or also the learned who are firmly rooted in knowledge?
The significance of the verse lies in its framing of how Muslims are to approach revelation itself. The muḥkamāt anchor the community with clarity, while the mutashābihāt gesture toward deeper truths that challenge human comprehension. Together, they remind believers that the Qur’an is both a guide for practical life and a text that discloses layered meanings, requiring humility, reflection, and submission before divine wisdom.
Verse 3:7 functions as a key to the Qur’an’s hermeneutical structure. It ensures that interpretation is always tethered to the decisive verses while also opening the horizon to transcendent realities hinted at in the ambiguous ones, affirming that ultimate knowledge rests with Allah (s.w.t.).
What the exegetes say
At a glance
Abul Aʿlā MawdūdīHolds that ambiguous verses describe unseen realities in human language; seekers should rely on the clear verses and not probe the ambiguous ones' precise meaning.
Ibn KathīrReads the ambiguous verses as a test exploited by the deviant, citing Christians on ʿĪsā; reports both readings on whether the firmly grounded share knowledge of taʾwīl.
Al-QurṭubīRecords many definitions of muḥkam and mutashābih and favours pausing after Allah, so the ultimate interpretation belongs to God alone; condemns anthropomorphist misuse.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-RāzīWeighs both readings of who knows the taʾwīl and reconciles them: some ambiguous verses are known only to God, others can be clarified by scholarly reflection.
ʿAllāmah ṬabāṭabāʾīHolds every ambiguous verse must be referred back to the decisive ones; defines taʾwīl as the reality behind every verse, known fully only to God.
A one-line summary of each reading. Click a name to read it in full.
Abul Aʿlā Mawdūdī
In his commentary on verse 3:7, Mawdūdī explains the crucial distinction between muhkamāt and mutashābihāt—the clear (or decisive) and the ambiguous (or allegorical) verses of the Qur’an. The muhkam verses are those that are precise, decisive, and free from ambiguity. They form the foundation of the Book, laying out its central purpose: to call humanity to Islam, teach moral values, warn against falsehood, refute wrong beliefs and practices, and establish the principles of right living. These verses present the fundamentals of faith, duties, commandments, and prohibitions in plain language. A sincere seeker of truth, Mawdūdī stresses, should focus primarily on these verses, as they alone provide the clear guidance necessary for faith and conduct.
By contrast, the mutashābih verses are those that allow for multiple possible meanings. Their purpose is not to provide detailed knowledge but to give limited insight into realities beyond human perception—such as the mysteries of the universe, its origin and end, or the unseen world. Since human language is confined to terms drawn from sensory experience, the Qur’an necessarily describes supernatural realities using expressions drawn from human life, which naturally opens the door to ambiguity. These verses are intended to awaken awareness of realities otherwise beyond comprehension, not to provide precise definitions.
For this reason, Mawdūdī explains, delving into the precise meaning of the ambiguous verses leads only to doubt, dispute, and mischief. Those who sincerely seek truth are content with the general understanding such verses provide, and they focus instead on the clear guidance of the muhkamāt. By contrast, those inclined toward idle speculation or mischief waste their energy in arbitrary interpretations of the mutashābihāt.
To the question of how one can believe in ambiguous verses without knowing their exact meaning, Mawdūdī answers that faith in the Qur’an as a whole rests on the clarity and certainty of the muhkamāt. Once a person is convinced, through the decisive verses, that the Qur’an is indeed the word of Allah, he accepts the ambiguous verses as well, without becoming lost in fruitless speculation. A believer, he concludes, should trust the whole Book, take benefit from what can be comprehended, and leave the rest to Allah, turning his attention to matters of practical guidance and moral action.
Source: The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 2, trans. Ch. Muhammad Akbar, ed. A. A. Kamal (Lahore: Islamic Publications), commentary on Q. 3:7.
Ibn Kathīr
Ibn Kathīr explains that Allah divided the Qur’an into muḥkamāt (clear, decisive) and mutashābihāt (ambiguous). The muḥkamāt form the foundation of the Book, plain and explicit in matters of belief and practice, including laws, obligations, prohibitions, and rulings. They are straightforward, resistant to distortion, and provide the standard by which other verses are understood. By contrast, the mutashābihāt are verses not entirely clear to everyone, carrying more than one possible meaning—allegories, parables, symbolic expressions, abrogated rulings, and references to the unseen.
Those with deviation in their hearts exploit the mutashābihāt to spread confusion, twisting them to support false ideas while neglecting the muḥkamāt that establish clarity. Ibn Kathīr cites the Christians, who exaggerated about ʿĪsā (a.s.) by focusing on verses calling him Allah’s “Word” and “Spirit,” while ignoring decisive verses affirming his servanthood (43:59, 3:59). Thus, the mutashābihāt serve as a test distinguishing truth-seekers from those pursuing falsehood.
Regarding interpretation (taʾwīl), Ibn Kathīr affirms that the ultimate meaning of the mutashābihāt—especially matters of the unseen—belongs to Allah alone. Scholars debated whether to pause at “none knows its interpretation except Allah” (restricting knowledge to Him), or to continue with “and those firmly grounded in knowledge,” granting scholars partial insight. Both views are supported by early authorities. Reports from Ibn ʿAbbās suggest that he considered himself among the firmly grounded, aided by the Prophet’s prayer for his understanding of the Qur’an.
The scholars who are “firmly grounded in knowledge” respond with humility: “We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.” They neither reject the ambiguous verses nor force interpretations but accept the Qur’an in its entirety, knowing it contains no contradiction (4:82). For Ibn Kathīr, the difference between the misguided and the rightly guided lies in their approach: the former chase ambiguity to mislead, while the latter, marked by sincerity and sound intellect, seek guidance by interpreting the unclear in light of the clear and praying for steadfastness.
Source: Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged). Translated by Ṣafī al-Raḥmān. Vol. 2 (Chapter 3, Verse 7) Riyadh: Maktaba Dār-us-Salām, 2003.
Al-Qurṭubī
Al-Qurtubī begins his commentary on verse 3:7 by citing reports from ʿĀʾishah (r.a.), who related that the Prophet warned against those who pursue the ambiguous verses, seeking to cause discord and misinterpret them. Qurtubī stresses that the muḥkam verses form the firm foundation of the Qur’an—they are clear, decisive, and serve as the reference point for creed, law, and practice—while the mutashābih verses are a test, through which God distinguishes between sincerity and deviation in the hearts of people.
Qurtubī records the wide range of scholarly definitions of muḥkam and mutashābih. Some said muḥkam refers to verses whose meanings are clear and not subject to multiple interpretations, while mutashābih are those open to more than one meaning. Others defined muḥkam as that which is not abrogated, while mutashābih includes abrogated verses or those awaiting clarification. Ibn ʿAbbās described the muḥkam as verses establishing obligations and limits, while the mutashābih include allegorical expressions that some might exploit. Qurtubī argues that the coexistence of clarity and ambiguity is itself deliberate, serving divine wisdom and trial.
He also examines the famous grammatical and recitational debate regarding the phrase: “And none knows its interpretation except Allah…” Some recited with a pause after “Allah,” indicating that only God knows the true interpretation of the mutashābih, while the scholars respond with humility, saying “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” Others recited without pause, implying that both God and the rāsikhūn fī al-ʿilm share in knowing the interpretation. Qurtubī presents both views but favors the first, which highlights human limitation and submission before divine knowledge. He stresses that, even if scholars explain aspects of the mutashābih, the ultimate reality of such verses belongs to God alone.
The commentary then turns to the dangers of misuse. Qurtubī condemns groups who exploit mutashābih verses for sectarian or heretical purposes, such as anthropomorphists who misinterpret verses on God’s attributes. He insists that the correct approach is to refer all mutashābih to the muḥkam, interpreting them within the broader Qur’anic framework rather than isolating them to advance deviant doctrines. The rāsikhūn fī al-ʿilm are praised for their faith and submission; they do not seek to force explanations where certainty is beyond human grasp, but instead say: “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.”
Source: Al-Qurṭubī, Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qur’ān (Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī), vol. 5, under Chapter 3, Verse 7, Pub. by Al-Risalah Foundation, Beirut.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī
Al-Rāzī explains that the Qur’an contains two categories of verses: muḥkamāt (clear and decisive) and mutashābihāt (ambiguous and open to interpretation). The muḥkamāt are firm in meaning, establishing core tenets of belief and law, immune to contradiction, and serving as the foundation (umm al-kitāb). The mutashābihāt, by contrast, resemble other things and leave the human mind uncertain about their true reality—such as descriptions of the afterlife, divine attributes, or unseen matters that surpass human comprehension.
For al-Rāzī, this distinction is not only linguistic but epistemological: muḥkamāt anchor faith and guide interpretation, while mutashābihāt require caution, humility, and restraint. Those with deviance in their hearts pursue ambiguities to spread confusion and justify false doctrines. The proper approach is submission to divine wisdom and reliance on the muḥkamāt.
A central debate he highlights concerns who knows the interpretation (taʾwīl) of the mutashābihāt. The verse may be read as: “None knows its interpretation except Allah,” limiting knowledge to Him alone; or as “None knows it except Allah and those firmly grounded in knowledge,” granting scholars some share.
Al-Rāzī weighs both positions. On the first, ultimate realities—the unseen of the Hereafter, the essence of divine attributes, the decrees of God—are known only to Allah, underscoring human limitation. On the second, supported by reports from Ibn ʿAbbās, the “firmly grounded” possess partial insight. Through language, reason, and scholarly training, they can interpret verses in harmony with the muḥkamāt, though not fully penetrate the divine mysteries.
Al-Rāzī reconciles the views by distinguishing two kinds of mutashābih: those whose meaning is known only to God, and those whose ambiguity can be lifted through reflection. Thus, while God alone comprehends the unseen, scholars may strive to uncover what lies within human reach.
For him, verse 3:7 captures the Qur’an’s dual nature: clear yet mysterious, decisive yet testing. The muḥkamāt provide certainty, the mutashābihāt invite humility and effort, and together they elevate the believer in knowledge and submission to God.
Source: al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr aw Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, vol. 4 (Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth), commentary on Q. 3:7.
ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī
In his tafsīr of verse 3:7, ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī explains the Qur’an’s division into muḥkamāt (decisive) and mutashābihāt (ambiguous) verses as one of the most important features of the divine discourse. The decisive verses are described as umm al-kitāb—“the mother of the Book”—because they are firm, unambiguous, and form the foundation of the Qur’an. They present essential beliefs and laws—God’s oneness, prophecy, resurrection, ethical and legal obligations—in a manner that resists misinterpretation. The ambiguous verses, on the other hand, are those whose meanings are not immediately apparent, leaving the reader uncertain between several possibilities. These include descriptions of divine attributes, eschatological events, or abrogated rulings.
ʿAllāmah stresses that this division does not mean some verses lack meaning. Rather, it is part of the Qur’an’s structure of guidance: the decisive verses serve as fixed principles, while the ambiguous verses point to deeper realities that require interpretation. Crucially, the ambiguous must always be referred back to the decisive in order to fix their true connotation. This principle of “return” is what preserves coherence and guards against misinterpretation. The decisive verses are the touchstone against which all interpretations are measured, much like a root from which branches draw their stability.
ʿAllāmah illustrates this hermeneutical principle with examples. When the Qur’an says, “The Beneficent sat firmly on the Throne” (20:5), if taken literally, it could suggest spatiality and physical form. But when referred back to the decisive verse “Nothing is like Him” (42:11), it becomes clear that “sitting” signifies dominion and sovereignty, not bodily occupation of space. Similarly, “Looking toward their Lord” (75:23) might, on its own, suggest physical vision of God. Yet decisive verses such as “Visions comprehend Him not” (6:103) anchor its meaning: it refers not to sensory sight but to a vision of the heart, a presential awareness of God free from material limitation. In this way, the ambiguous is clarified and harmonized with the Qur’an’s established truths.
For Ṭabāṭabāʾī, this process of returning the ambiguous to the decisive is not optional; it is the safeguard that ensures the Qur’an remains internally consistent and free of contradiction. Without it, one could impose literalist or speculative readings on verses that speak of God’s “hand” or “face,” falling into anthropomorphism or distortion. But by measuring these verses against the clear principles of divine transcendence expressed in the muḥkamāt, their true intent is preserved. Even abrogated verses retain meaning once contextualized by decisive abrogating rulings, demonstrating that nothing in the Qur’an is meaningless or contradictory.
The verse further warns of those “in whose hearts is perversity,” who seize upon the ambiguous verses to sow doubt or pursue their own desires. They attempt taʾwīl—forcing hidden interpretations—without grounding them in the decisive principles. By contrast, those “firmly rooted in knowledge” do not attempt to impose arbitrary explanations. Instead, they submit to both decisive and ambiguous verses alike, affirming, “We believe in it; it is all from our Lord.” For them, the ambiguous verses are subjects of belief, reflection, and humility, not independent sources of legislation or doctrine.
ʿAllāmah also clarifies the meaning of taʾwīl. It is not simply exegesis or interpretation, nor is it confined to ambiguous verses alone. Rather, taʾwīl refers to the ultimate reality to which every verse points—the external truth behind the words. For example, the realities of the Resurrection, or the inner purposes of divine acts as shown in the story of Moses and al-Khiḍr (18:65–82), are the taʾwīl of those verses. In this sense, every verse has its taʾwīl, whether decisive or ambiguous, and only God knows it fully, though He may disclose aspects of it to His chosen messengers and proofs.
Thus, Ṭabāṭabāʾī highlights the Qur’an’s unique methodology: it speaks in a way that is accessible for action and law, while also gesturing toward higher metaphysical truths. The decisive verses ground the religion in clarity and protect from misguidance, while the ambiguous verses open a horizon for wonder and contemplation, reminding believers that knowledge ultimately rests with God. Together, they form a coherent whole: firm in foundation, limitless in depth, and eternally guiding both intellect and soul.
Source: Tafsir al-Mizan, Eng. Vol. 5 under Chapter 3, Verse 7 (WOFIS, Iran)
Read ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s full commentary in Tafsir al-Mizan: 3:7–9 on almizan.org ↗
Our reflection
This is our own reflection on the readings above. It is one way of reading the comparison, offered to encourage further thought rather than as the final word.
The exegetical discussions of verse 3:7—dividing the Qur’an into muḥkamāt and mutashābihāt—reveal both the richness and the complexity of Qur’anic hermeneutics. Across the commentators, there is agreement that the decisive verses are the foundation of the Book: unambiguous, firm, and the standard for belief, law, and practice. Likewise, the ambiguous verses are acknowledged as a deliberate part of the Qur’an’s structure, functioning either as a trial that exposes sincerity and perversity, as some exegetes maintain, or—as ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī argues—because of the presence of taʾwīl: profound spiritual realities that cannot be conveyed through decisive verses alone, but require varied expressions, symbols, and parables to draw human minds closer to their truths. Yet the commentators diverge significantly on the meaning of taʾwīl, the scope of knowledge granted to the “firmly grounded in knowledge” (al-rāsikhūn fī al-ʿilm), and the proper balance between submission and interpretation.
For Mawdūdī, taʾwīl is not explored in metaphysical depth but functions practically: the ambiguous verses gesture to unseen realities but are not meant to yield detailed knowledge. Their value lies in awakening awareness, not in supplying doctrinal precision. In this framework, taʾwīl is effectively deferred to God, and the believer is counseled to focus on the decisive verses that provide actionable guidance, leaving speculation aside. Ibn Kathīr, while also stressing the primacy of the muḥkamāt, treats taʾwīl as the ultimate meaning known fully only to Allah, particularly regarding unseen realities. Yet he leaves room for scholars like Ibn ʿAbbās to be granted partial insight, thereby allowing a limited human participation in interpretation. Al-Qurṭubī, drawing on transmitted reports, emphasizes submission: while he acknowledges both readings—whether knowledge of taʾwīl belongs to Allah alone or includes the rāsikhūn—he leans toward restricting true taʾwīl to God. For him, the ambiguous verses test human humility, and the role of the scholars is not to resolve the ambiguity but to refer it back to the decisive verses, affirming faith in the whole.
Al-Rāzī offers a more nuanced distinction. He argues that there are two types of mutashābih. One is absolutely unknowable, such as the unseen realities of the Hereafter or the essence of God’s attributes; its taʾwīl belongs to Allah alone. The other consists of verses whose ambiguity can be lifted through linguistic, rational, or contextual analysis; here, the rāsikhūn may have a share in understanding. In this way, taʾwīl is partly divine and partly accessible, depending on the level of ambiguity. Al-Rāzī thus makes taʾwīl a spectrum: at times inaccessible, at times interpretable, always bounded by the muḥkam.
ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī, however, redefines the very category of taʾwīl. For him, it is not simply “interpretation” in the exegetical sense, nor is it restricted to ambiguous verses alone. Rather, taʾwīl refers to the ultimate reality to which all verses point—the external truths that underlie the Qur’anic discourse. In this sense, every verse, decisive or ambiguous, has a taʾwīl. The muḥkamāt serve as the foundation, providing the clear principles of faith and law, while the mutashābihāt gesture to higher realities that must always be referred back to the decisive. His examples show this hermeneutical method: verses that speak of God “sitting on the Throne” or of “looking toward their Lord” cannot be read literally but must be returned to the clear principle that “nothing is like Him” (42:11) or that “visions do not comprehend Him” (6:103). By this return, coherence is preserved and anthropomorphism avoided.
Thus, Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s definition of taʾwīl introduces a decisive shift. It is not merely hidden meaning or scholarly inference but the very ontological reality to which revelation points—realities of Resurrection, divine wisdom, or God’s acts as in the story of Moses and al-Khiḍr (18:65–82). The decisive verses protect interpretation from deviation, while the ambiguous verses open the horizon of contemplation, reminding believers that knowledge is layered and that its ultimate depth rests with God alone.
The comparison, then, highlights a spectrum of approaches: Mawdūdī and Ibn Kathīr treat taʾwīl in largely practical or deferential terms; al-Qurṭubī underscores humility and submission before divine mystery; al-Rāzī introduces a graded distinction between knowable and unknowable ambiguity; and Ṭabāṭabāʾī expands taʾwīl into a metaphysical principle encompassing the whole Qur’an. Of these, Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s interpretation offers the most coherent safeguard against distortion, for it provides a systematic method: decisive verses anchor doctrine, ambiguous verses gesture to transcendent truths, and taʾwīl represents the ultimate reality known fully only to God, though partially disclosed through revelation and reflection. In this way, the verse 3:7 is not merely a warning against deviance but a guide to the Qur’an’s entire hermeneutical architecture, balancing certainty with mystery, law with metaphysics, and human inquiry with divine transcendence.
What is your reflection?
How do you read this comparison? Do you see it differently, or have other ideas to add? We would like to hear from you.
Email your reflectionor write to info@tafsircompare.com