Renowned later-day Mu?tazilite theologian and exegete, Mah?mud ibn ?Umar al-Zamakhshar? (d. 1144) introduced into the field of Qur’a?nic exegesis a hermeneutical tool that he termed takhy?l. Previously, the term had been used in two separate fields: those of logical poetics and poetic imagery. Thus, for the philosopher al-Fa?ra?b? (d. 950) takhy?l denoted “the evocation of images by means of figurative language,” while rhetorician ?Abd al-Qa?hir al-Jurja?n? (d. ca. 1080) used it to refer to untrue, fantasy-based explanations (such as etiologies and analogies) in the realm of make-believe. Al-Zamakhshar?, however, appeared to have coined a new, distinct usage of the term, which he situated within the field of rhetorical imagery. The fact that he did not fully elaborate his theory of takhyil resulted in it being met, variously, with confusion, suspicion and puzzlement. Nor has modern scholarship, hitherto, studied this in detail. My examination of a wide range of verses to which al-Zamakhshar? applied the notion of takhy?l, in his work of Qur’a?nic exegesis the Kashsha?f, suggests that the concept emerged from a combination of two factors: strong rationalist Mu?tazilite theological underpinnings, along with that school’s emphasis on the eloquence of the Qur’a?n as a prominent aspect of its divine inimitability (i?ja?z). I adduce that the Mu?tazilite advocacy for exercising the intellect to unlock subtle aspects of eloquence in the Qur’a?n led al-Zamakhshar? to posit takhy?l as a new rhetorical category. It also appears that he himself was still exploring the limits of Qur’a?nic interpretation and its intersection with general literary interpretation. In order to situate al-Zamakhshar?’s endeavor within the larger context of Qur’a?nic interpretation, it is appropriate to explore its reception and interpretation within Sunn? scholarship. There is, however, a paucity of surviving materials that directly engage al-Zamakhshar?’s exegetical use of takhy?l. I therefore turn to al-Bayd?a?w?’s (d. ca. 1290) exegesis (which is essentially a Sunn? redaction of the Kashshaf), along with some its super-commentaries, particularly al-Khafa?j?’s (d. 1659) and al-Qu?naw?’s (d. 1780/1). I also obtain useful insights from two other Sunn? exegeses: Al-A?lu?s?’s (d. 1853/4) Ru?h? al-Ma?a?n? and (to a limited extent) al-Ra?z?’s (d. 1210) Al-Tafs?r al-Kab?r. The aggregate of information gleaned from these Sunn? sources shows that al-Zamakhshar?’s takhy?l, although objectionable on various counts, nevertheless found some acceptance (albeit to varying degrees) within more ubiquitous frameworks of Qur’a?nic interpretation.