Jābir.” The correct reading is: “Ishāq ibn Bishr al-Bukhārī: ‘Īsā ibn Mūsā Ghunjār narrated to us, from ‘Umar ibn Subh.”

• The Indian edition (1/93) reads: “Al-Tabarānī mentioned a hadith narrated by ‘Alī.” Its margin notes that another copy reads “al-Tabarī.” This is correct and also appears in mb, but here the Maymaniyya edition followed the Indian edition against this manuscript.

• The Indian edition (1/93) reads: “‘Ubayd ibn ‘Abd al-Sulamī.” “‘Ubayd” is a corruption of “‘Utbah,” as in mb; however, his father’s name in mb is “‘Abd Allāh.” Here the Maymaniyya edition followed it, printing “‘Utbah ibn ‘Abd Allāh.”

• The Indian edition (1/95) reads: “Muthbit, from ‘Utbah ibn ‘Abd al-Sulamī.” The first name is corrupt; the correct reading is “Munīb,” while the rest of the text is sound. In mb (f. 67), it reads: “Munīb ibn ‘Uyaynah ibn ‘Abd al-Sulamī.” It thus gets the first word right but corrupts the next two. Here the Maymaniyya edition (1/94) followed mb, gaining one correct reading and losing two! The Muhammad ‘Abd al-Latīf edition (1/92) changed “‘Abd” to “‘Abd Allāh.”

• The Indian edition (1/58) reads: “If the standing and sitting excepted were the standing after bowing and the sitting between the two prostrations.” The same reading appears in mb and other manuscripts. Here the editor of the Maymaniyya edition (1/56) changed only al-mustathnā (“excepted,” singular) to al-mustathnayayni (“excepted,” dual accusative), because standing and sitting are two distinct things. Yet he spoiled the wording while attempting to correct it! A proper correction would have required “al-mustathnayāni humā …” (the dual nominative adjective followed by the dual pronoun), since al-mustathnā is an adjective modifying the preceding words, not the predicate of kāna (“was”). The separating pronoun must then also be made dual.