(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd stated (p. 155): The following points should be noted: First: These pages are extracted from the Shaykh’s discussion—may Allah have mercy on him—in Minhāj al-Sunnah, 5/83–125. Second: There are nearly twenty minor differences between the two texts, most of which do not affect the meaning. The most important are: 1. At 19/205: “Sin is, in reality, an indication weightier than another.” The word al-ithm (“sin”) is a textual corruption; the correct reading is wa-lā thamma (“nor is there”), as in Minhāj al-Sunnah, 5/85. 2. At 19/212: “Because they based their position on the two aforementioned views concerning the view of the Qadariyya … and the view of the Jahmiyya.” The correct reading is: “The two aforementioned views: the view of the Qadariyya … and the view of the Jahmiyya,” as in Minhāj al-Sunnah, 5/212. 3. At 19/227: “And he did not know that praying with tayammum (dry ablution) was permissible, like Abū Dharr, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb, and ‘Ammār when he entered a state of major ritual impurity.” The correct reading is: “Like Abū Dharr, and ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb and ‘Ammār when they both entered a state of major ritual impurity,” as in Minhāj al-Sunnah, 5/125. Third: Whoever extracted this discussion from Minhāj al-Sunnah omitted certain passages from the Shaykh’s text. Some omissions were indicated by expressions such as “He goes on to say,” while others were not indicated. The details are as follows: 1. At 19/212: “Unbelief and grave disobedience are classifications established by revelation, not judgments that reason can establish independently. He goes on to say: Accordingly, if error concerning rational questions said to constitute the foundations of religion amounts to unbelief …” I say: The omitted discussion here extends from 5/92 to 5/95. 2. At 19/213: “The fundamental premise shared by both groups is that an agent possessing power and choice gives preference to one of two equivalent alternatives without a determining factor”—and so on to the end of what he quoted, may Allah have mercy on him. He then said: “This makes clear the third position concerning this fundamental issue …” I say: The omitted discussion here extends from 5/96 to 5/98. 3. At 19/215: “Whoever has received no warner will not enter the Fire. And He said: ‘That is because your Lord would not destroy towns unjustly while their inhabitants were unaware’—that is, this is for that reason.” I say: Three pages separate “will not enter the Fire” from his quotation of the verse: 5/100–103. 4. At 19/216: “It also indicates that this is an injustice from which He, glorified be He, is exalted. Furthermore, Allah Most High has stated in several places that He does not burden any soul beyond its capacity.” I say: Seven pages separate “an injustice from which Allah, glorified be He, is exalted” from “Furthermore …”: 5/103–110. Fourth: It appears to me that some passages quoted from the Shaykh contain omissions (1), as follows: 1. At 19/215–216: “It is thus established that He does not punish someone who is unaware unless a warner has come to him. It also indicates that this is an injustice from which He, glorified be He, is exalted.” After “a warner,” the following words have been omitted: “How much more, then, must this apply to a child who lacks reason?” They appear in Minhāj al-Sunnah, 5/103. This omission may have been deliberate. 2. At 19/220: “No one says that Jews and Christians, after embracing Islam, emigrating, and joining the ranks of the Muslim emigrants who strive in Allah’s cause, are described as People of the Book—that is, as belonging to them—when they have believed in the Messenger.” After “People of the Book,” the following passage has been omitted: “Just as one does not say of the Companions who were formerly polytheists, ‘Among the polytheists are those who believe in Allah and His Messenger,’ since after believing they were no longer called polytheists. This indicates that these are people belonging to the People of the Book—that is, counted among them …” This appears in Minhāj al-Sunnah, 5/115. It seems to me that this omission resulted from the copyist’s eye skipping from the first occurrence of “People of the Book” to the second. Allah knows best. 3. At 19/221: “Some said that it concerns the believers among the People of the Book. This is equivalent to the first view; if he intends it generally, it is equivalent to the second.” After “People of the Book,” the following words have been omitted: “Among the Jews and Christians. If by this he means someone outwardly counted among the People of the Book, this is equivalent to the first view …” This appears in Minhāj al-Sunnah, 5/117. This omission is like the preceding one. Fifth: At 19/220, the text reads: “As Allah Most High said concerning someone killed by mistake: ‘And if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty,’ through to His words, ‘hostile to you, while he was a believer, then a believing slave must be freed’ …” The editor of Minhāj al-Sunnah, 5/115, pointed out that this reading occurs in two manuscript copies but not the others, and that it is erroneous because it contradicts the order of the noble verse. End of quotation. The correct reading is: “But if he belonged to a people hostile to you, while he was a believer, then a believing slave must be freed.”