Commentary by its nature sits in the interstices between the past world of the canon and the present world that it imbues with meaning through this canon. The past, in other words, lies at a distance and yet regains familiarity through the institution of commentary; the present remains nonsensical until the past – that is, the canon – provides it with context and significance. The commentary, in this regards, plays a critical role in bringing the past into the present in a meaningful manner, classifying and changing both past and present often through a highly subversive reading of the text. One particularly subversive theme of commentary then emerges in the question of textual primacy. In one sense, a commentary utterly depends on a foundational text, the silent dominion of which determines the boundaries of a commentary and gives life to it by serving as its epistemic goal. In another sense however, the commentary itself is primary, as it controls the foundational text and recasts it, in both form and substance, all while claiming complete subservience to it. As part of an effort to explore this and other subversive themes that beset the larger project of commentary, generally, and the Muslim commentarial tradition, specifically, this paper examines the Asna 'l-matalib, a commentary work by the Egyptian legist Zakariyya al-Ansari (d. 926/1520) in substantive law. Through a close textual reading of the commentary, this paper will identify the means through which al-Ansari breaks from the foundational text (matn) of Ibn al-Muqri (d. 837/1434) and subtly recasts it to suit the intellectual needs of his later context. Though works of legal commentary self-consciously engage in “correcting” (tashih) and “reweighing” (tarjih) the earlier legal opinions found in the foundational text that they are commenting upon, it is on those areas where al-Ansari’s commentary attempts to smooth over the substantive differences between it and Ibn al-Muqri’s foundational text that this paper will focus. In other words, what devices does al-Ansari’s commentary use to recast its foundational text all while maintaining an implicit and explicit veneer of allegiance to it? Moreover, for what reasons and to what ends does it do so? Answers to such questions promise to shed much needed light on the role of commentary in pre-modern Muslim society and the subversive creativity that lies within it.