(1) Manuscript H reads “waqt” (time). (2) This is the sentence to which the author alludes with the phrase “and to it he points…”. If he intended thereby to liken hadith transmission to courtroom testimony in every respect, al-Hazimi’s objection would indeed carry weight. The more plausible reading, however, is that he was referring only to the requirement of uninterrupted linkage, not to a full equivalence between transmission and testimony; on that understanding the objection falls away. See al-Nukat by the author, 1:240. (3) Al-Hakim, Maʿrifat ʿUlum al-Hadith, p. 62. (4) That is Abu Bakr Muhammad b. ʿAbd Allah b. Muhammad Ibn al-Arabi al-Ishbili, the Maliki jurist and judge (d. 543 AH); Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubalaʾ, 20:197. (5) The title of his commentary is al-Sarih min Sharh al-Sahih; Ibn Rushayd names it in Malʾ al-ʿAybah, p. 115, and Ibn al-Arabi himself alludes to his commentary on al-Bukhari in ʿAridat al-Ahwadhi, 2:172. (6) Al-Manawi states in al-Yawaqit wa al-Durar, 1:285: “Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi al-Maliki explicitly said in his commentary on al-Bukhari that this is al-Bukhari’s condition, namely: ‘Al-Bukhari’s view is that a hadith is not deemed sahih until two narrators transmit it from two narrators’; this is invalid.” (7) The words “bi-l-niyyat” (by intentions) are omitted in manuscript T. (8) Related by al-Bukhari (no. 1) and Muslim (no. 1907). (9) The word “qala” (he said) is absent from manuscripts J and K. (10) Manuscript B reads “yaʿrifuhu” (they know him).