(2/ 107): “Ibn Hazm said: Ibn ‘Umar explicitly stated.” The correct reading is “‘Umar explicitly stated,” as found in the manuscripts, the author’s source, and the two Sahīh collections. See our edition (2/ 124).

(2/ 230): “He therefore does not acknowledge the invalidity of this analogy.” The word “not” is absent from the manuscripts, although it appears in the earlier editions, and it reverses the meaning. See our edition (2/ 271).

(2/ 243): “The one who confesses and acknowledges my sins,” following the al-Risāla edition and the editions preceding it. The manuscripts read “his sins,” while the wording of the hadith in its sources is “his sin.” See our edition (2/ 288).

(3/ 48): “O people of al-Jabājib!” All the manuscripts read “O people of al-Akhāshib!” as does the Indian edition. Perhaps al-Fiqī was the first to alter it in his edition (2/ 135), adopting the wording from Ibn Hishām’s biography of the Prophet. The al-Risāla edition (3/ 43) followed him, and then so did our editor’s edition!

(3/ 79): “In al-Nasā’ī’s account, the degree is explained as a hundred years.” There is an omission here. The passage, as found in the manuscripts, reads: “In al-Tirmidhī’s account, the degree is explained as a hundred years, and in al-Nasā’ī’s account, as five hundred years.” See our edition (3/ 101).

(3/ 185): “Until seven of those accompanying the polytheists were killed.” The word “banner” was omitted after “those accompanying” in the al-Risāla edition and was consequently omitted from his edition as well. It is present in all the manuscripts, as well as in the hadith sources cited by the editor. See our edition (3/ 237).