Muhammad Zuhrī al-Najjār to edit the book. Al-Najjār is described as one of al-Azhar’s scholars, and he has undertaken other editorial work, such as editing al-Umm by al-Shāfiī. This edition became the standard edition upon which all subsequent editions of the tafsīr relied. The General Presidency for Ifta, Da‘wah, and Guidance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia even used it as the basis for its own printing. This was because they thought well of the foundation and its editor. I have identified a number of observations that expose the defects of this edition, some of which I shall mention here:

The First Observation:

This edition relied entirely upon the Salafi edition without mentioning this in its introduction. Consequently, the observations previously made concerning the Salafi edition apply equally to this one. Indeed, al-Najjār’s edition compounded the problem by adding further flaws that were even graver and more dangerous. Had the Salafi edition simply been reproduced in facsimile rather than entrusted to al-Najjār for editing, the matter would have been less serious.

The Second Observation:

Alteration of the placement of Quranic verses within the tafsīr:

It was the shaykh’s customary practice—may Allah have mercy upon him—to begin by citing in full the verses he intended to explain, after which he would proceed to explain them in sections. Sometimes, when the verses related stories of the prophets, he would cite the verses and then say, “to the end of the story.” On a few occasions, he neglected to cite the verses in full and began explaining them directly. This is how the tafsīr generally proceeds. Al-Najjār, however, placed the verses at the top of the page, drew a line between them and the commentary, and then removed the verses from within the commentary. This sometimes disrupted the flow of the text, compelling him to delete or add certain words or make similar changes.

The Third Observation:

Additions to the text:

One of the strangest things al-Najjār did was to add material to the tafsīr. In some places, the shaykh—may Allah have mercy upon him—inadvertently omitted the explanation of certain verses, whereupon al-Najjār supplied an explanation of his own.

In other places, the manuscript upon which the Salafi edition relied was incomplete because the copyist had skipped over certain verses, so al-Najjār provided his own explanation of them. Such instances are extremely numerous, amounting in some places to entire pages, in others to several lines, and elsewhere to individual words. The following are examples:

1. The explanation of verse (207) of Surah al-Baqarah was omitted from manuscript (ب). It is the statement of Allah, majestic and exalted: “And among the people is one who sells himself, seeking Allah’s pleasure; and Allah is Most Kind to His servants.” Because it was absent from the manuscript, it was also absent from the Salafi edition. Al-Najjār then supplied his own explanation of the verse. He began by explaining the meanings of its individual words and consulted several references, including al-Qāmūs, al-Sihāh, and the tafsīr of Ibn Kathīr. He did not indicate that these were his own words rather than those of the shaykh—may Allah have mercy upon him. This occupied two and a half pages of his edition, from the middle of page (252) of the first volume to the end of p. (254). Anyone who reads the passage will recognize that it is not the shaykh’s work, for the shaykh does not quote from sources; rather, he explains according to the understanding Allah grants him, as he stated at the beginning of the book.

2. Another of al-Najjār’s lengthy additions was his explanation of verses (105–107) of Surah al-An‘ām. The shaykh passed over them without explaining them, so al-Najjār supplied his own explanation on pages numbered (450, 451, 452) of