(1) Not found in the other manuscripts. (2) In manuscripts H, M, and R it reads “Aḥmad ibn Aḥmad.” In the autograph it appears simply as “Aḥmad.” The correct name is Ḥamad, as noted above. (3) In the other manuscripts: “anta” (“you”). (4) This report is recorded by: – Ibn Kathīr in his Tafsīr, Sūrah al-Anbiyā’, 5:345. – al-Dārimī in al-Radd ‘alā Bishr al-Marīsī, p. 95. – Abū Nu‘aym in al-Ḥilyah, vol. 1, p. 19. – al-Haythami in Majma‘ al-Zawā’id, vol. 8, pp. 201–202, who comments: “It was narrated by al-Bazzār and includes ʿĀṣim ibn ʿUmar ibn Ḥafs; Ibn Ḥibbān declared him reliable, yet said he ‘errs and contradicts,’ and the majority of scholars considered him weak.” I would add: the ʿĀṣim mentioned by al-Haythami in connection with al-Bazzār’s transmission is not the same person as the ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdala found in our author’s isnād. The former is ʿĀṣim ibn ʿUmar ibn Ḥafs al-ʿUmari; Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal weakened him, al-Bukhārī labeled his ḥadīth munkar (rejected), Ibn Ḥibbān ruled it unfit for evidence, and al-Nasā’ī and al-Tirmidhī classified him matrūk (abandoned). See: Mīzān al-I‘tidāl, vol. 2, p. 355; Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 5, pp. 51–52. As for ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdala, he was Abū Bakr al-Muqriʾ, son of Abū al-Najūd, a mawla of the Kufans. Described as ṣidqūq (highly truthful) but prone to lapses, he was authoritative in qirā’ah (recitation); his ḥadīth appears in both Ṣaḥīḥayn via the sixth transmitter. He died in 128 AH. See al-Taqrīb, vol. 1, p. 383. Al-Dhahabī includes him in al-‘Ulūw, noting: “This is a ḥasan isnād (good chain), narrated by a group from Isḥāq.” Al-‘Ulūw, p. 21.