(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd stated (pp. 47–50): Textual corruptions and omissions have occurred in the quotations from the early generations in this section. The following details those I have identified: 1 — P. 310: “Imam Ahmad said in his book, Refutation of the Jahmiyyah and the Heretics: ‘An explanation of the misguided Jahmiyyah’s denial that Allah is above the Throne. [We said to them: Why do you deny that Allah is above the Throne,] when He, exalted is He, has said: “The Most Merciful rose over the Throne”?’” I say: The bracketed words have been omitted. They appear in Refutation of the Heretics, p. 92, in ‘Aqā’id al-salaf, and in al-Dar’, 1/138. 2 — P. 313: “When the argument had prevailed against the Jahmī concerning his claim that Allah is with His creation[, he said: He is] in everything, without being in contact with anything or separate from it…” I say: The bracketed words have been omitted here, and likewise in al-Dar’, 1/147. They appear in ‘Aqā’id al-salaf, p. 97. The context requires them: in his preceding discussion, Ahmad—may Allah have mercy on him—refuted the claim that Allah is with His creation. When the argument prevailed against the Jahmī, he adopted another position: “Allah is in everything, without being in contact with anything or separate from it.” 3 — P. 314: This is quoted from ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Makkī’s Refutation of the Heretics and the Jahmiyyah. It has been compared with the same quotation in Dar’ al-ta‘ārud, 6/117 ff.: He said: “Allah has stated that He created the Throne before creating the heavens and the earth [in six days], then rose over His Throne…” I say: The bracketed words may be an interpolation, since they make no sense in this context; compare al-Dar’, 6/115. 4 — P. 315: “It is then said: Tell me how He rose over the Throne. Is it as one says, ‘So-and-so rose onto the couch,’ such that the couch would have contained so-and-so alone when he was upon it?” I say: In al-Dar’, 6/117, it reads: “The Jahmī said: Tell me how He rose…” This is the correct reading. 5 — P. 316: “He has told us that He ‘rose over the Throne,’ but has not told us how He rose over it [so believers must believe their Lord concerning His rising over the Throne, and they are forbidden to describe how He rose over it], because He has not told them how that occurred…” I say: The bracketed passage was omitted because the copyist’s eye skipped from the first occurrence of ‘how He rose over it’ to the second, leaving out the intervening words. See al-Dar’, 6/118. 6 — P. 317: “For if He were a thing falling within analogy and reason, He would be within a thing or outside it. Since, according to you, He is not a thing, it would be impossible for a thing to be within a thing or outside a thing.” I say: The correct wording, as found in the manuscript of Naqd al-ta’sīs, is: “For if He were a thing, then, by analogy and reason, He could not fail to be either within a thing or outside it…” 7 — P. 318: This is from Ibn Kullāb’s words, compared with the same passage in al-Dar’, 6/120: “They are asked: Is it not the case that what exists in a human being is not described as ‘neither in contact nor separate’?…” I say: The correct wording is: “They are asked: Is it not the case that what does not exist in a human being is not described as ‘in contact’ or ‘separate’?” This is the reading in al-Dar’, 6/120. It means that al-madmūm in a human being (“what does not exist in him”) is described as neither “in contact” nor “separate.” This is the basis of Ibn Kullāb’s argument, whereas the wording in al-Fatāwā concerns the description of “what exists.” Allah knows best.