and he did not use any unreliable work of exegesis. He included nothing in his book from the works of Muhammad ibn al-Sā’ib al-Kalbī, Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, or Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al-Wāqidī, because he regarded them as suspect authorities (1).

Alongside transmitted exegesis, he supported his commentary with evidence from language, grammar, and poetry. The best-known philological works he consulted were the work of ‘Alī ibn Hamza al-Kisā’ī, Ma‘ānī al-Quran (The Meanings of the Quran) by Yahyā ibn Ziyād al-Farrā’, the work of Abū al-Hasan al-Akhfash, and the work of Abū ‘Alī Qutrub, among others, whenever the discussion required it. These scholars were the authorities who treated the Quran’s meanings, and its meanings and grammatical analysis were taken from them. He would sometimes cite their views without naming them (2).

He also drew extensively from Abū ‘Ubayda’s Majāz al-Quran (The Figurative Language of the Quran), though he rarely referred to it explicitly and frequently criticized points on which he disagreed with its author.

He further incorporated many juristic opinions wherever he needed to explain a legal ruling.

He also consulted the Quranic readings and used them in interpretation; they were thus among the most important sources on which he drew.

[Previous Editions of the Commentary]

1 — The edition of al-Maymaniyya Press in Egypt. This was the first edition of the book, which had previously been considered lost. It was printed in 1321 AH, with al-Naysābūrī’s commentary in the margins, in thirty parts bound in nine volumes, based on the copy brought from Ha’il in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This was done