the author’s name and titles on the edition’s inner cover (including: “… the fountainhead of the religious sciences, the source of the spirit of truth and certainty, the shaykh … known as Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawzī”!), these reproduce exactly what appears in the Indian edition. The index of subjects and useful observations is likewise copied verbatim from it.

Collating this edition against the Indian edition and the Dār al-Kutub manuscript (mb) showed that its editor had consulted the manuscript, correcting typographical errors in the Indian edition and amending other passages to agree with that manuscript. Yet he proceeded without sound guidance, sometimes getting things right and sometimes wrong. At times he considered a phrase contrary to grammatical rules, even though the Indian edition and the Egyptian manuscript agreed on it, and attempted to correct it—with varying success. Here is evidence for what we have stated:

• The Indian edition (1/57) reads: “Some practices are reported from Ibn Mas‘ūd, the evidence opposing which is neither comparable to nor anywhere near that for raising the hands.” The word yurwā (“are reported”) is a corruption; the correct reading is turika (“were abandoned”), as printed in the Maymaniyya edition, 1/56, from mb (f. 46).

• The Indian edition (1/93) reads: “Ismā‘īl ibn Muhammad: Muhammad ibn ‘Adī ibn Kāmil narrated to us.” The correct name is “Ismā‘īl ibn Nujayd,” as in mb (f. 65). This is indeed correct, but the editor of the Maymaniyya edition did not follow the manuscript here.

• The Indian edition (1/93) reads: “Then al-Hākim narrated from Ishāq ibn Bishr al-Mahāmilī: ‘Īsā ibn Mūsā ibn ‘Anjān narrated to us, from ‘Umar ibn Subayh.”

Here mb reads: “Then he narrated through Ishāq ibn Busr al-Muhāribī: ‘Īsā ibn Mūsā narrated to us, from Jābir, from ‘Umar ibn Subh.” The editor of the Maymaniyya edition retained the Indian edition’s text except for “Mūsā ibn ‘Anjān,” which he corrected to agree with mb: “Mūsā, from