Then I examined the isnad as it appears in al-Bukhari’s Tarikh and found a number of points that require clarification. First. Al-Bukhari (2/2/362) records: “Yahya b. Musa said: ʿAbd al-Razzaq narrated to us; ʿAmr(2) b. Habib (!) al-Sanʿani narrated to us from ʿAmr b. Dinar, from ʿAta b. Abi Rabah, who said: ‘A man of Hudhayl told me: I saw ʿAbd Allah b. ʿUmar … when a woman came along walking like a man….’” This wording is close to Ahmad’s version, but it does not contain the explicit statement found in Taʿjil that ʿAta heard the report from Ibn ʿUmar. Second. The phrase “ʿAmr(2) b. Habib” appears in the printed text, and two observations must be made: 1. The element “Habib” is probably a scribal error for “Hushab,” for that is how the name occurs in the Musnad and the Hilya, as noted above, yet the learned editor offered no remark. 2. Over the name “ʿAmr” the editor placed a superscript 2 and commented: “In the original it is written ‘ʿAmru’; the correct form is ‘ʿAmr’; his biography is entered under the heading ʿAmr –H.” I reply: that is indeed how the biographers treated him—such as Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Hibban, and later works like the Tahdhib—but several matters draw attention: (a) They note that he narrated from Ismaʿil b. Umayya and that ʿAbd al-Razzaq narrated from him, yet they make no mention of his reporting from ʿAmr b. Dinar. Al-Dhahabi says in al-Mizan: “A shaykh from whom ʿAbd al-Razzaq narrates; his condition is unknown,” a judgment already voiced by Ibn al-Qattan. (b) Al-Bukhari did not list this transmitter in either al-Tarikh al-Kabir or al-Tarikh al-Saghir;