Beneath it was written: “Compiled by the peerless, consummate scholar, our master Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Maqdisī—may Allah pardon him. Amen.”

Beside the title, on the left margin, an ownership note reads: “In the possession of the poor servant ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥanbalī—may he be forgiven.”

Both this heading and what follows it are in a hand different from that of the manuscript proper, so they were most likely penned by a later reader or owner. Either he found the copy without a title, or its title leaf had been lost, and he tried to supply a title for the book together with the author’s name—yet he got both of them wrong! The title has already been discussed in a separate section, and the author’s identity is perfectly clear.

The manuscript is lacking its conclusion; it ends where the text says: “On the second day, after the Friday prayer, the judges and the leading dignitaries of the state gathered in the Citadel for the shaykh’s session. The shaykh wished to speak, but he was not allowed to debate or utter a word” (p. 305 of our edition).

All the same, it is a sound copy for the most part, though not entirely free of mistakes. Between folios 8 and 60, however, the Treatise al-Ḥamawiyyah by Shaykh al-Islām (may Allah have mercy on him) has been inserted. The author had originally cited its introduction and part of its discussions, but here the treatise appears in full.

It is evident to me that this copy of al-Ḥamawiyyah is neither part of the book nor the work of its scribe. It is a patch-work text that was slipped into the volume—either by the binder or by someone who later arranged its leaves. The proof is plain: a different handwriting, a different page size, and a different line count. There can therefore be no doubt that this text of al-Ḥamawiyyah is wholly foreign to the book, an outright interpolation.

As for the person who claimed that its complete inclusion represents the author’s first draft and that he later saw in