in his major commentary is taken from these two authorities—Ibnu Masʿūd and Ibnu ʿAbbās. At times, however, he also relays from them what they themselves reported of the sayings of the People of the Book, which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ permitted when he said: “Convey from me, even if it is only one verse; relate what you hear from the Children of Israel without blame; yet whoever deliberately lies about me, let him take his seat in the Fire.” Al-Bukhārī recorded this ḥadīth from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr.

Because of that license, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr, having come upon two saddlebags of the People of the Book’s writings on the day of Yarmūk, would narrate from them, understanding the ḥadīth to allow it. Still, these Israelite reports are cited for corroboration, not for doctrine, for they fall into three categories:

1. Those whose authenticity we know because something in our own sources attests to them—such reports are accepted.
2. Those whose falsity we know because something in our sources contradicts them—such reports are rejected.
3. Those about which no ruling can be made, as they are neither confirmed nor contradicted by our sources—we neither affirm nor deny them, though relating them is permissible, as stated earlier.

Most of this material yields no religious benefit, which is why the scholars of the People of the Book differ over it so widely. The Qur’anic exegetes likewise disagree about such matters—naming the Companions of the Cave, the colour of their dog, their exact number; from what tree Moses’s staff was cut; the names of the birds Allah revived for Abraham; specifying the piece of the cow with which the slain man was struck; and the kind of tree from which—