Editorial Methodology

The general method we followed in preparing this critical edition is the one we have repeatedly explained in the introductions to books we have previously published. We have also published a booklet through the Sulaymān al-Rājihī Charitable Foundation detailing this method for those who wish to consult it.

For this particular book, the nineteen manuscripts described above formed the basis for establishing the text. As that description showed, the only complete manuscripts available to us were the Rabat manuscript (B) and the Yemeni manuscript (N). For each part, therefore, we relied on the manuscripts available to us; for most parts, we used eight or more. At the beginning of each volume, we have listed the sigla of the manuscripts used to establish its text.

It scarcely needs repeating that these manuscripts differ in quality and accuracy. We therefore gave preference to readings found in the more accurate manuscripts or supported by a greater number of witnesses, rather than to readings unique to one or two manuscripts—unless other evidence showed the latter to be correct. We explained these choices in the footnotes.

We did not record every manuscript variant, but only those that served a useful purpose or provided examples of misreadings or textual corruption in the manuscripts. Likewise, for the earlier editions—the Indian, al-Maymaniyya, al-Fiqī, and al-Risāla editions—we noted errors, omissions, and interpolated additions absent from the manuscripts. We did not list these exhaustively, but highlighted the important instances, especially in the section where the al-Risāla edition claimed to have relied