the narrators used by al-Bukhārī and Muslim. However, al-Hākim then said: “It was narrated by ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Mahdī, from Sulaymān ibn Bilāl, from Zayd ibn Aslam, as a disconnected report.” Al-Hāfiz said in al-Talkhīs (p. 9):

“Al-Dāraqutnī mentioned its defect and then said: ‘The disconnected version is more authentic.’”

That is, the version transmitted through Sulaymān ibn Bilāl. What appears stronger to me is that this is the hadith of Zayd ibn Aslam, from ‘Atā’, from Abū Wāqid, since ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Dīnār and ‘Abd Allāh ibn Ja‘far al-Madanī agreed upon this chain. Although both were subject to criticism, as previously noted, each strengthens the other. Accordingly, the hadith is sound, as al-Tirmidhī stated, or perhaps of an even higher grade. Allah knows best.

I later found that al-Hākim also narrated it (4/239) through ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Uwaysī, who said: Sulaymān ibn Bilāl narrated to us, from Zayd ibn Aslam, from ‘Atā’ ibn Yasār, from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī. He said:

“Authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhārī and Muslim.”

Al-Dhahabī concurred.

I say: Muslim did not narrate anything from al-Uwaysī, so the hadith meets only al-Bukhārī’s criteria. Moreover, al-Uwaysī was trustworthy, and thus the chain of transmission is authentic. Given this, it appears that Zayd had three chains for this hadith:

1—From ‘Atā’ ibn Yasār, from Abū Wāqid al-Laythī.

2—From him, from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī.

3—From Ibn ‘Umar directly, without an intermediary.

Zayd was a trustworthy scholar, as al-Hāfiz stated, so it is not implausible that he possessed all these chains. Allah knows best.

I later found another route for the hadith from Ibn ‘Umar, mentioned by Ibn Abī Hātim in al-‘Ilal (2/17), through ‘Abd Allāh ibn Nāfi‘ al-Sā’igh, from ‘Āsim ibn ‘Umar al-‘Umarī, from