(1) Reported by Ahmad, Musnad 2/223, no. 7076; Ibn al-Jarud, al-Muntaqa, no. 19; al-Daraqutni, Sunan 1/147; al-Tahawi, Sharh Maani al-Athar 1/147; al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra 1/132; and others. Al-Bukhari and al-Hazimi declared it sahih (al-Iʿtibar, p. 42). Ibn ʿAbd al-Hadi states: “Its isnad is strong, but the transmission from ʿAmr is disputed” (Tanqih al-Tahqiq 1/458). (2) This wording is cited in Ibn Qudama’s al-Mughni 1/245. (3) Related by Ahmad, Musnad 5/194, no. 21689; al-Tahawi, Sharh Maani al-Athar 1/73; al-Tabarani, al-Muʿjam al-Kabir 5/no. 5222; al-Bazzar, Musnad 9/no. 3762; and others. It is a gharib hadith: Ibn Ishaq alone narrates it from al-Zuhri, and none of al-Zuhri’s other pupils transmit it, so it is erroneous. The sound attribution is to the Musnad of Busrah bint Safwan. This is one of several mistakes Ibn Ishaq made despite asserting direct hearing; Imam Ahmad alluded to this, saying: “He says, ‘He told me,’ yet he errs.” Similar cases exist. The report was rejected by ʿAli ibn al-Madini and criticised by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hadi; see Maʿrifa waʾl-Tarikh 2/28 and Tanqih al-Tahqiq 1/458. Note: Manuscript Z reads dhakrahu ("he mentioned it") instead of farjahu ("his private part"); the latter is confirmed by manuscripts H and Matn.