about him were: Aḥmad, Yaḥyā, al-Bukhārī, and Ibn Ḥibbān—who actually narrated some ḥadiths from him. I therefore do not know whether he later retracted his judgment concerning him or simply overlooked the matter.

Our teacher Abū’l-Ḥajjāj al-Ḥāfiẓ said: “It is possible that Abū Ḥātim did not realize that the transmitter was ʿĀṣim al-ʿUmari, for in the chain that reached him the name appeared without a nisba.”

What further proves the falsity of this ḥadith is that, had it truly been transmitted by ʿAmr ibn Dīnār from Ibn ʿUmar, it would have been known to ʿAmr’s pupils (1)—figures such as Qatāda, Ayyūb, Shuʿba, the two Sufyāns, the two Ḥammāds, Mālik ibn Anas, Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad, Qays ibn Saʿd, Hushaym, Waraqāʾ, Dāwūd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-ʿAṭṭār, and others of his disciples. How could none of these eminent students know the report, while it is found only with ʿĀṣim ibn ʿUmar in spite of his weakness?

Moreover, the narrations of ʿAmr ibn Dīnār were carefully preserved and collected; the leading scholars were quick to hear them from him, memorize them, and compile them. ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī said, “He possessed about four hundred ḥadiths” (2).

In addition, had this been an authentic report from Ibn ʿUmar it would have been well known, for horse racing has always existed in Medina, and its people repeatedly sought legal rulings from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib on the matter until he issued his opinion regarding the introduction of an outsider’s horse into the race. If this ḥadith from Ibn ʿUmar were sound, it would have been a well-known sunnah handed down among them generation after generation (3); they would not have needed Saʿīd’s fatwa, nor would he have said