al-Awzā‘ī and others narrated it in the same way, as will be seen, Allah willing. The likelier explanation is that the inconsistency in this narration originated with Khālid himself, and that in most versions he mentioned only Ibn ‘Ā’ish. This is why Abū Qilābah, narrating from him, mentioned only a name resembling Ibn ‘Ā’ish.

In short, whichever of the two versions is correctly preserved, the hadith is authentic, since their conflict requires either accepting one of them as authentic or reconciling the two. In either case, the hadith is reliably preserved. Rejecting both, however, is warranted only when the conflict involves two contradictory texts.

Likewise, Abū Qilābah’s wording, “from Ibn ‘Abbās,” is either correctly preserved or the result of a misreading. In either case, it does not undermine the text of the hadith; rather, it supports and substantiates it, whether correctly preserved or misread.

The narration of Yahyā ibn Abī Kathīr, from Zayd ibn Sallām, from Ibn ‘Ā’ish, does not contradict Khālid ibn al-Lajlāj’s narration from him. Rather, it agrees with and strengthens it. For Khālid’s narration indicates that he did not always give its chain of transmission in full: sometimes he transmitted it with a gap in the chain, and sometimes he mentioned the Companion. Thus, this narration includes what they related and gives both the chain and the text in full.

As for what Ibn Khuzaymah mentioned