The authentic wording of Ibn ʿAbbās just cited should leave no room for anyone to be misled by the statement of the author of Kashshāf al-Qināʿ (1/243)—after attributing the report to both Ibn ʿAbbās and ʿĀʾishah—who says:
“Al-Bayhaqī narrated it, and its chain is weak.”
Al-Iskandarānī (3/431) repeats the same judgment, yet the chain preserved by al-Bayhaqī is not the one reported by Ibn Abī Shaybah. His use of the singular phrase “its chain” even suggests that al-Bayhaqī transmitted the report from both of them through a single isnād, which is contrary to fact. Al-Bayhaqī (2/225) records it first through the route of Saʿīd b. Jubayr from Ibn ʿAbbās, then through the route of ʿIkrimah from him—two distinct chains—and finally through the route of ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ from ʿĀʾishah, which is a third chain. Let the discerning reader consider how much distortion and injustice this Alexandrian brother—and others who venture into matters they do not master—have done to this noble science.

We have taken our readers somewhat away from the main discussion, and we ask their pardon, though there may be benefits here they will not find elsewhere. Let us return to the point at issue: scrutinizing the condition laid down by those blind imitators, in opposition to the jurist-mujtahid of the school, the eminent scholar al-Sarakhsi. (1)