In contemporary Qur’anic studies, comparative analysis of Islamophobic Orientalist perspectives, such as those of Robert Spencer, alongside Islamic exegetical traditions holds particular significance-especially regarding verses that articulate the Qur’an’s dual function in guiding or misleading human beings. In his Critical Qur’an, Spencer adopts an extra-religious approach to verse 82 of Surah al-Isra, interpreting the juxtaposition of the Qur’an’s “healing and mercy” with its “loss for the wrongdoers” as evidence of contradiction and distortion within Qur’anic concepts. The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative examination of Spencer’s interpretation of verse 82 with the views of Allama Tabataba’i in al-Mizan and al-Zamakhshari in al-Kashshaf, thereby elucidating the Qur’an’s dual function in light of the Islamic exegetical tradition and assessing the methodological validity of Spencer’s approach. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and library-based research tools, data were collected from primary sources including The Critical Qur’an, al-Mizan, and al-Kashshaf, and subsequently subjected to comparative analysis and critique. The findings reveal that Spencer, through a textually selective and ideologically driven reading, portrays the verse as lacking coherence and constructs alleged contradictions. By contrast, Islamic exegesis, grounded in theological, philosophical, and rhetorical principles, delineates a systematic harmony between “healing,” “mercy,” and “loss,” framing the Qur’an’s dual effect as contingent upon the stance of its audience. This comparison underscores the methodological weaknesses of Spencer’s approach and highlights the influence of extra-religious presuppositions on his analysis.