(1) In the Kh and T manuscripts the word “siyam” (fasting) appears; this edition follows manuscript Q, folio 1235. (2) Folio 5a. (3) The agreeing version is reported by Ibn Abi Shayba (2/455) and by Abd al-Razzaq in the Musannaf (2/298); I have not found anyone who transmitted the divergent version. Al-Hakim in the Mustadrak (1/589), Ahmad (2/489), Abu Dawud (2380), al-Tirmidhi (720), Ibn Majah (1676), Ibn al-Jarud (385), Ibn Hibban (8/285), Ibn Khuzayma (3/226), al-Darimi (2/24), al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (2/184), al-Nasa’i in the Kubra (24/219), al-Ismaʿili in Muʿjam Shuyukhihi (1/322), al-Shamukhi in his Ahadith (32), al-Bukhari in al-Tarikh al-Kabir (1/91) and Ibn Hajar in Taghliq al-Taʿliq (3/176) all relate, through Hisham ibn Hassan → Muhammad ibn Sirin → Abu Hurayra, the Prophetic report: “Whoever is overcome by vomiting while fasting is not required to make up the day, but whoever induces vomiting must make it up” (wording of Abu Dawud). Al-Bukhari comments in al-Tarikh al-Kabir: “It is not sound; it is actually narrated from Abd Allah ibn Saʿid → his father → Abu Hurayra as a marfuʿ report.” He notes a differing chain in which Yahya ibn Salih said: Muʿawiya reported from Yahya → ʿAmr ibn Hakam → Thawban, who heard Abu Hurayra say, “If one of you vomits, his fast is not broken, for the matter exits and does not enter.” In ʿIlal al-Tirmidhi (198) al-Bukhari concludes, “I do not consider it preserved.” Ibn ʿAdi likewise includes it in al-Kamil (4/334) through ʿAbbad ibn Kathir → Ayyub → Muhammad ibn Sirin → Abu Hurayra, marfuʿ; al-Maqdisi cites the same chain in Atraf al-Aghrab wa al-Fawaʾid (5327; 5/252). Ibn Hajar records in Talkhis al-Habir (2/189): “Al-Darimi said: the scholars of Basra claim that Hisham erred in this hadith; Abu Dawud said that some hadith critics do not see it as preserved; Ahmad rejected it, and elsewhere said, ‘It is nothing.’ Al-Khattabi explained that he meant: it is not preserved. Mahna transmitted from Ahmad that ʿIsa narrated it although it is absent from his book—he slipped in it ….” Thus two eminent authorities rule the hadith unsound, and Abu Dawud attributes the same verdict to a number of hadith critics. Nevertheless, Shaykh al-Albani declared it authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs in Irwaʾ al-Ghalil (4/51), a judgment listed by ʿIsam Musa Hadi in Majmaʿ al-Bahrayn fima Sahhahahu al-Albani ʿala Shart al-Shaykhayn (no. 155, p. 46). Malik recorded a mawquf report from Ibn ʿUmar with similar wording in the Muwattaʾ (673), which al-Shafiʿi cites in al-Umm (7/266). No Companion is known to have opposed Ibn ʿUmar, so, on the stronger view, his statement is binding evidence, further supported by the transmitted consensus. Ibn Qudama states in al-Mughni (3/23): “Al-Khattabi said: I am unaware of any disagreement among the scholars on this point.”