Ebüssuûd (d. 982/1574), who is famous for his fatwās (legal opinions), also has outstanding works in the field of exegesis. Among them is his commentary titled Maʿāqid al-ṭirāf fī awwal sūrat al-Fatḥ min al-Kashshāf. Ebüssuûd wrote the commentary as a review of Zamakhsharī’s (d. 538/1144) exegesis, al-Kashshāf, focusing on the “Chapter of Victory” (sūrat al-Fatḥ). This is more detailed than the relevant section in Ebüssuûd’s own exegesis, Irshād al-ʿaql al-salīm. The most salient characteristic of the commentary is that it contains rejections and criticism of Zamakhsharī’s opinions.Ebüssuûd was appointed as a military judge (kazasker) of Rumeli in 1537. He accompanied Suleyman the Magnificent on his expedition to the west (945/1538). He also participated in the campaigns of Moldovia, Buda and Estergom. He led the first Friday prayer in Buda after its conquest on 2 September 1541. According to sources, particularly Katip Çelebi (d. 1067/1657), he wrote the commentary during the campaign to Northern Hungary (950/1543).According to sources, a number of scholarly sessions took place between Suleyman and Ebüssuûd during the campaign to Northern Hungary. In these sessions, Ebüssuûd discussed al-Kashshāf with the sultan, and since they were on a campaign of conquest, they discussed the “Chapter of Victory” in particular. Along with the sessions, Ebüssuûd wrote his Maʿāqid explaining the controversy between the Muʿtazila and the Sunnis on the issue of “human actions” (afʿāl al-ʿibād).This study contains a close examination of Maʿāqid and a critical edition of the text. I accessed nine manuscripts of Ebüssuûd’s commentary. Among these, the copy in the Library of Budayriyya in Jerusalem is the author’s draft. Since it contains the record of ownership and the date of writing, I adopted it as my master copy and used ISAM’s principles for critical editions.Ebüssuûd belonged to the Ottoman tradition of exegesis and was closely interested in Zamakhsharī’s ideas. He tried to understand Zamakhsharī within his own context and evaluate consistencies among his ideas. He endeavored to explain Zamakhsharī’s interpretation and exegesis on the “Chapter of Victory” by taking into consideration principally the outputs of Arabic syntax and logic and more particularly the principles of theology (al-Kalām) and logic. While doing this, however, he never compromised or diverged from the Sunni perspective. Major subjects of Maʿāqid al-ṭirāf are the following:1. Past tense (khalq al-afʿāl) to distinguish the reality and metaphor: Both Zamakhsharī and Ebüssuûd understood the verb (fataḥnā) conjugated in the past tense in the first verse of the “Chapter of Victory” as “a verb professing prior to the victory that it would occur.” In other words, even if it was used in the past tense form, it implied future tense. However, Zamakhsharī’s interpretation of the verb as heralding the victory and his explanation of it as “yassarnā/we have helped you to become victorious” raised many issues.According to the Sunni perspective, fataḥnā is used in its literal meaning and it heralded in the victory at Mecca. In fact, the principal and first meaning of words is their external/literal meaning. They can be taken as metaphors only when there exists evidence or a necessity to do so. In addition, the attribution of the verb to God refers to the fact that God realizes the victory and he creates the actions, which contrasts with Zamakhsharī’s ideas.In Zamakhsharī’s opinion, the verb fataḥnā means “yassarnā/we have helped you to conquer,” which is consistent with the principles of the Muʿtazila school. To him, the verb fataḥnā is used in its metaphorical sense rather than its apparent meaning. Further, Zamakhsharī defines the concept of fatḥ/conquest as “to annex a city forcefully, peacefully or without any confrontation.” Taking this definition, the conquest becomes a human action that cannot be attributed to God. Since Zamakhsharī explained the verse in this manner, he interpreted the verb fataḥnā metaphorically as yassarnā/taysīr rather than its literal meaning.In fact, Zamakhshari took fataḥnā in its metaphorical sense (majāz al-mursal) (dhikr al-musabbab irādat al-sabab) to mean to facilitate/taysīr. The factor that led Zamakhsharī to this metaphorical interpretation was the issue of khalq al-afʿāl, because according to him, human beings create “by themselves the actions that are within their potential.” In Sunni thought, however, God creates all actions.2. Past tense (fiʿl al-māḍī) as semantics: In Quranic style, verbs conjugated in the past tense are sometimes used to suggest future tense. The goal of this is to convince the reader that the action will certainly happen. According to Ebüssuûd, the subject of the sentence should be God in order to have the verb fataḥnā imply God’s loftiness. If Zamakhsharī wants to argue that the verb fataḥnā conjugated in the past tense refers to God’s loftiness, he should show that the subject of the sentence is also God, because someone’s utterance of an action without doing so does not show God’s greatness.3. The problem of causality of the conquest (al-ʿilliyyah): The cause-result relations of the conquest of Mecca is also among the subjects of the commentary. What was the cause (al-ʿillah) of conquest? In other words, the question of how the conquest of Mecca became the cause of forgiveness was a central issue.4. Ebüssuûd’s Alternative System of Thought in respect to Zamakhsharī: According to Ebüssuûd, Zamakhsharī’s arguments are based on far-fetched interpretations and assumptions. If one explains the verse according to Sunni thought, s/he will understand the meaning clearly, because the subject of the verse is conquest/victory. Victory is a human act. But since God creates the action of conquest, associating the verb of conquer to a pronoun related to God is quite appropriate. Therefore, the phrase “innā fataḥnā” means “we did conquer.” In this respect, the conquest becom