(1) A manuscript kept at the Zahiriya Library in Damascus. (2) I later discovered that the report has a corroborating chain. In al-Bazzar’s Zawaid (p. 122, manuscript copy) the isnad reads: “Ibrahim narrated to us; al-Mustamir al-’Uruqi narrated to us; Muhammad b. Muhabbib narrated to us; Ibrahim b. Tahman reported it…” Al-Bazzar adds: “Ibrahim alone relates it from Mansur, and we do not know it traced back to Ibn ’Umar with a chain better than this.” This constitutes a reasonable corroboration. Al-’Uruqi – spelled with a qaf – is rated saduq (reliable, though he reports uncommon material) in al-Taqrib, so the main responsibility for the hadith rests on Ibn Tahman. Al-Haythami judged the chain only by its outward form and wrote in Zawaid al-Bazzar: “I say: its isnad is sahih (sound).” His earlier wording, “and its transmitters are trustworthy,” is actually more accurate, for such a phrase does not in itself prove authenticity, as any specialist knows. The reliability of the narrators is only one of several conditions for a sahih hadith. A scholar usually resorts to the phrase “its transmitters are trustworthy” instead of declaring it sahih when he is aware of a hidden flaw in the chain or, at the very least, is uncertain whether the other conditions are met. Because many beginners in this noble science overlook this point, I have drawn attention to it here.