Muslim, al-Dārimī, Ibn Mājah, and Aḥmad (2/16, 52, 101–102), as well as al-Khaṭīb (4/162), all transmitted the report through several routes from him.

This particular pathway from Nāfiʿ escaped al-Nasāʾī, for he—together with Muslim, al-Ṭaḥāwī, and Aḥmad (2/53–54)—recorded it through Mūsā ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Juhanī, from Nāfiʿ. Al-Nasāʾī then remarked, “I do not know of anyone who has narrated this ḥadith from Nāfiʿ on the authority of Ibn ʿUmar except Mūsā al-Juhanī; Ibn Jurayj and others have reported it differently.” He subsequently produced it by way of his own chain: from Nāfiʿ, from Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Maʿbad, from Maymūnah, traced back to the Prophet. This version will be cited later.

We contend that Nāfiʿ actually possesses two distinct isnāds for this narration, both of which are sound:

The first: from Ibn ʿUmar, exactly as reported by Mūsā al-Juhanī. He is corroborated by ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿUmar—the reliable, firmly established transmitter—in the first report, and also by his brother ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar in the Musnad of al-Ṭayālisī (p. 251, no. 1826) and in Aḥmad (2/68).

The second: the version of Ibn Jurayj from him; it will be discussed below.

2 – Via ʿAbd al-Malik, from ʿAṭāʾ, from Ibn ʿUmar, with the same wording—the additional phrase being attributable to him.

Aḥmad recorded it (2/29, 155).

This isnād is ṣaḥīḥ according to the criteria of Muslim. Moreover, ʿAṭāʾ has two other chains for this report; one of them is through Jābir