(1) In manuscript T the reading is wa li-annahu ("and because of it/him"). (2) Manuscript H has tasawwuruhu ("its conception"), which is a scribal corruption. (3) In the margin of manuscript A, in the author’s own hand, appears: thumma balagha kadhalika ("then it likewise reached"). (4) In manuscript T the corresponding space is left blank. (5) Among those who held this view are Wakiʿ ibn al-Jarrah, Abu ʿAsim al-Nabil, ʿAbd al-Rahman ibn Sallam al-Jumahi, and Muhammad ibn Salam; see al-Muhaddith al-Fasil by al-Ramahurmuzi, pp. 420–421, and al-Kifaya by al-Khatib, pp. 271–272. (6) Al-Hakim (Maʿrifat ʿUlum al-Hadith, p. 259) and al-Khatib (al-Kifaya, p. 306) transmit from Mutarrif ibn ʿAbd Allah: “I accompanied Malik for seventeen years and never saw him read the Muwattaʾ to anyone. I heard him flatly reject the claim that only audition (*samaʿ*) suffices, saying: ‘Why should this method be unacceptable for hadith when it suffices for the Quran—and the Quran is greater? Why are you not content to receive it by presentation (*ʿard*) when the transmitter himself received it by presentation? And why not allow yourself to present it just as he did?’” (7) A similar stance is reported from Ibrahim ibn Saʿd: al-Khatib, al-Kifaya, p. 266, citing Nuh ibn Yazid al-Muʿallim, relates: “We were with Ibrahim ibn Saʿd one day when the hadith students discussed audition. Ibrahim became angry and said: ‘Stop your excesses, people of Iraq! Presentation (*ʿard*) is the same as audition; Ibn Shihab used to have knowledge presented to him and he would approve it.’” (8) Others who took this position include Ibn Abi Dhiʾb, Shuʿbah, and al-Qattan; see al-Kifaya by al-Khatib, pp. 267, 276. (9) The word jamʿ (“collection”) is absent from manuscript H. (10) Manuscript K reads akhar (“another”).