alone, and similar claims.

The Quran commentaries of Ibn ʿAtiyya and others like him follow the Sunnah and the way of the community more closely, and are freer of religious innovation, than al-Zamakhsharī’s commentary. Had he faithfully presented the statements of the early generations preserved in commentaries transmitting their interpretations, that would have been better and more fitting. He frequently quotes the commentary of Muhammad ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī, which is among the most distinguished and highly esteemed commentaries. Yet he then leaves out what Ibn Jarīr transmitted from the early generations, not reporting it at all, and instead presents what he claims is the view of “the discerning scholars.” By these he means a group of speculative theologians who established their principles through methods of the same kind as those by which the Muʿtazilah established theirs, although they are closer to the Sunnah than the Muʿtazilah. Nevertheless, everyone must be given their due, and it must be recognized that this is a form of interpretation driven by doctrinal affiliation.

For if the Companions, the Successors, and the leading scholars hold a view concerning the interpretation of a verse, and others then interpret it differently because of a doctrine they have adopted—a doctrine not held by the Companions or those who followed them in righteousness—then they share with the Muʿtazilah and other adherents of innovation in this practice.

In short, whoever departs from the views and interpretations of the Companions and the Successors in favour of something contrary to them is mistaken in doing so; indeed, he is an innovator in that respect, even if he is exercising independent scholarly judgment and his error is forgiven. The aim here is to explain the means of acquiring knowledge, the evidence on which it rests, and the ways of arriving at what is correct.