(1) “Ibn Saʿīd” is added in manuscript ʿ. (2) N and M read: “the most complete of all people in affirmation than al-Ashʿarī,” which is erroneous. (3) The entire passage between square brackets is absent from B, A, N, and M. (4) The passage marked (3–3) is absent from A and B. (5) The phrase “as he understood it from them” is added in N and M. (6) The following comment is written in the margin of manuscript ʿ: “I have seen al-Ashʿarī explicitly affirm this in *al-Ibāna*.” (7) “Abū Sulaymān al-Dimashqī and Abū Hātim al-Bustī”: this is how it appears in manuscript ʿ. Abū Hātim al-Bustī was Muhammad ibn Hibbān, the hadith scholar who died in 354 AH; he is not listed among al-Ashʿarī’s followers, nor is Abū Sulaymān al-Dimashqī. We previously mentioned the disagreement concerning Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Qalānisī—whether he preceded al-Ashʿarī or was his contemporary. The same applies to al-Muhāsibī: he was a contemporary of Ibn Kullāb, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal shunned him because of his association with Ibn Kullāb. Nevertheless, these men are described here as al-Ashʿarī’s followers. Perhaps the intended meaning is that they were followers of Ibn Kullāb; however, it should be noted that Ibn Hibbān was born approximately thirty years after Ibn Kullāb’s death. (8) The following comment is written in the margin: “I have seen the author of *al-Tabsira* report that Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybānī allowed all the hadiths concerning the divine attributes to stand according to their apparent meanings and did not interpret them figuratively. Likewise, Imam al-Baghawī states in *Sharh al-Sunna*: ‘We do not interpret figuratively any of the hadiths concerning the attributes; rather, we retain their apparent meanings.’ He strongly emphasized this, declaring it obligatory and permitting no alternative. He even stated that denying them constitutes *taʿtīl* (negation of the divine attributes), and that whoever denies them belongs to the *Muʿattila* (negationists). These include the hand, foot, finger, face, eye, descent, coming, *tahawwul* (transformation), and other such attributes. He said: ‘All these are attributes of Him, Most High, without modality.’ As for the Hanbalis, affirming the report-based attributes is the warp and weft of their doctrine. I have also seen in Abū Zayd’s *al-Risāla*—he was one of Mālik’s early and eminent followers and was even called ‘the Little Mālik’—the statement that He, Most High, is above the Throne in His Essence. This *Risāla* is exceedingly well known among the people of the Maghreb and in Egypt, Syria, and the Hijāz. It is said to have two hundred or more commentaries, and I possess one of them said to be by Ibn Zarūq.”