They think that's one in the same thing or you shouldn't be doing it.

Actually the Quran complains if you don't do that. The fear of question you say?

As long as me, yes.

So like in your Tafseer you mentioned the meanings without the context, you know, what it means generally and then you bring it in

what it means in I still like in Sharia. Right. So you know some say that it has to be from the classical tafasir we can't just do a tafzir

from our own understanding or just take the meaning from the book and then use

uh... no just a question of usirun got it from? So they get it from the

So they say they get it from the Ahadith and... No they don't.

So I mean the question is just... Is there a ruling or a rule or...

The people who say, you can only say what the classical Mufasurun have said.

When the classical Mufasur, who we consider a classical Mufasur, when he was writing writing it whose permission did he get?

Do you understand? Because then you that same logic would have worked at that time. Hey you can't say that nobody said it

You'll find for example al-Kur to be saying things that nobody said before him. Obviously if somebody

already said it before him there's no reason for him to write anything. You understand?

When by the time Yawand Razi writes his commentary or Kishaf writes his commentary or even more contemporary

Yibin al-Ashur Rahim al-Olausi Rahmahmah mah mahm.

Write their commentary.

They're saying brilliant things that have not been said before.

But if the idea is you can only say what has been said before,

then the Sahaba should never speak because the prophet already spoke and therefore the Taabian

you should never speak because the Sahab already spoke right this logic doesn't work

It's not it's not an accurate depiction of what happened in Islamic history. The issue is there are principles, and the principle is not copy someone else.

...