and which the reliable transmitters have not reported. A narration of that sort is set aside whenever someone of superior retention considers it anomalous (shādh), as is established in the science of ḥadith. This report is of that very type, for it hinges on al-Saʾib ibn Yazid, as you have seen. Two of his pupils, Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf and Ibn Khuṣayfah, conveyed it from him, yet they disagreed over the number: the first said eleven, while the second said twenty. The preferred view is that of the first, because he is the more dependable. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar describes him as “thiqah thabt” (utterly trustworthy and firmly grounded), whereas concerning the second he merely says “thiqah” (trustworthy). Such a difference in grading is a deciding factor when two reports conflict, as anyone versed in this noble discipline knows well.

Second: Ibn Khuṣayfah himself was inconsistent about the number. Ismāʿīl ibn Umayyah relates that Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf—the nephew of al-Saʾib ibn Yazid—told him (Ismāʿīl says he narrated exactly what Mālik transmits from Ibn Yūsuf). Ismāʿīl then asked, “Was it twenty-one?” He—meaning Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf—replied, “He heard that from al-Saʾib ibn Yazid.” After that I (Ismāʿīl) questioned Yazīd ibn Khuṣayfah, who answered, “I supposed al-Saʾib had said twenty-one.” I add: the chain of this report is sound. ⦗58⦘