In addition to the many corruptions and slips that I have catalogued in a separate memorandum, I shall cite here a few examples that actually alter the meaning:

• On p. 25: “ath-thiqāt” (the trustworthy) appears, whereas the correct reading is “an-nufāt” (the deniers); the two expressions are far from identical.

• On p. 27: “naqḍ al-īmān” (the demolition of faith) is printed, but the correct phrase is “naqṣ al-īmān” (the deficiency of faith).

• On p. 33: “qāla ahl aṣ-ṣalāḥ” (the people of righteousness said) occurs, while it should be “qāla ahl aḍ-ḍalāl” (the people of misguidance said).
In the same line, “aḥaqq” (more deserving) is printed, whereas the correct word is “aḥmaq” (foolish).

• On p. 54: “For indeed Allah does not forgive the sins of the sincere …” is printed, but it should read: “For indeed Allah forgives the sincere …”.

• On p. 144: “because it is created” is printed, whereas the correct wording is “not that it is created”.

• On p. 227: “ath-thalāthah minhum man yaqūl” (the three of them, some say) appears, while it should be “ath-thalāthah man yaqūl” (of the three, one says).

• On p. 240: “hādhā ʿinda fatwāh” (this, with respect to his legal opinion) is printed, but the correct form is “hādhā ʿanhu fatwāh” (this is his legal opinion related from him).

• On p. 243: “li-kathrati muṭālaʿatih” (because of his abundant reading) is printed, whereas it should be “kathīr al-muṭālaʿah” (a man given to much reading).

• On p. 259: “wa-aḍallu al-bashar min …” (and the most misguided of humankind is …) is found, but the correct text is “wa-aṣlu ash-sharr min …” (and the root of evil is …).

As for the additions to, omissions from, and alterations of certain words—whether by deletion, substitution, or distortion—when compared with the two manuscript copies, they are numerous. This abundance might suggest that the book was printed from other manuscripts that never reached me; I rule this out, however, for one single reason: the publisher’s tampering appears precisely in those places where the meaning is difficult to grasp, such as the alteration we pointed out when the book ended with the phrase:

“…and the Muʿtazilah, and that (wa-dhālika),”

after which he altered it to “…and the Muʿtazilah, and the like (wa-naḥwu dhālik).”

The same applies to what is found on p. 67, in the sixteenth argument, where he began: “If they were to clarify the correctness of what they had mentioned, that would not constitute a warrant …,” whereas the two manuscript copies read: “If they do not clarify the correctness of what they have mentioned, that would not constitute a warrant …”.

Likewise, on p. 139 he deleted the phrase “or by implication (aw bi-dalālah),” which appears in