the manuscripts, or on account of some defect in the meaning, I insert it into the main body of the text, enclose it in square brackets, and note in the footnote: “The words within the square brackets are an addition from …,” specifying the manuscript or source in which that addition occurs.
If, however, the addition is my own, I append to the same formula one of the following remarks: “The reading I have adopted is most likely the correct one,” or “The passage seems to read properly with it,” or “What I have supplied appears to fit the context.”
4 – When wording is missing from one of the two copies, or from both of them together, I likewise place it in square brackets in the text and write in the footnote: “The words within the square brackets are absent from ….”
5 – I have not recorded the minor variants among the copies that do not affect the meaning—such as the different devotional phrases subḥānahu wa-taʿālā (glorified and exalted is He), ʿazza wa-jall (mighty and majestic is He), jalla dhikruhu (exalted is His remembrance), and the like—nor have I noted the customary scribal practices found in handwritten manuscripts. These include omitting the medial hamzah that falls in the middle of a word, writing masāʾil (questions) as masāil or qaraʾtu (I read) as qaraitu; writing the hamzah on a “chair” when it properly belongs on an alif, as in yusʾalu (he is asked) and masʾalah (issue); leaving off the final hamzah, as in al-ʿulamāʾ (scholars) written al-ʿulamā and al-khulafāʾ (caliphs) written al-khulafā; and omitting the separating alif, as in jaʿalū (they made) written jaʿalū and nafū (they negated) written nafū. I have not registered any of these spelling variants as textual differences.
6 – I have verified every quotation and assertion cited by the Shaykh in this book by tracing each one back to the printed or manuscript sources I was able to consult. This was done by collating the wording in our base text with that found in the cited source and recording any points of divergence in the footnotes.
If the verification is taken from a critical edition whose editor consulted more than one manuscript, and one of those manuscripts agrees with the text I am documenting while another diverges, I do not mention the divergence, for the agreement is sufficient proof and it is quite possible that the concordant manuscript is the very one that reached the Shaykh.