Someone of comparable standing contradicted him in the chain: al-Bukhari relates in al-Adab al-Mufrad, no. 1022, “ ‘Abd Allah ibn Salih narrated to us; al-Layth told me the same report,” but he names Abu al-Najib in place of Abu al-Bukhtari. Al-Tabarani transmits it likewise, as quoted in Majmaʿ al-Zawaʾid 5/154. Ibn Salih’s wording is reinforced by the fact that Ibn Wahb transmitted it in the same form; in his al-Jamiʿ (no. 99) he says: “ ‘Amr ibn al-Harith informed me …,” and Ahmad reports it through Ibn Wahb as well (3/14). Although Harun—who is a trustworthy narrator cited by Muslim—gives the alternate version, he is matched by another transmitter of equal reliability: al-Nasaʾi also states (2/288), “Ahmad ibn ʿAmr ibn al-Sarh informed us; Ibn Wahb informed us,” but he names Abu al-Bukhtari. If the latter reading is sound, the hadith becomes mudtarib (internally inconsistent). Should we favor Abu al-Bukhtari, the chain is munqatiʿ (broken), for Abu al-Bukhtari—Saʿid ibn Nufayruz—never heard from Abu Saʿid, as affirmed by Abu Dawud and Abu Hatim. If we prefer Abu al-Najib, he is majhul al-hal (of unknown status): only Ibn Hibban judged him reliable, and no one other than Bakr ibn Suwadah transmits from him. I incline to this identification, because Ahmad’s version explicitly states: “Bakr ibn Suwadah related that Abu al-Najib, the freedman of ʿAbd Allah ibn Saʿd, told him that Abu Saʿid al-Khudri told him …,” confirming that he heard directly from Abu Saʿid. Thus the narrator must be Abu al-Najib, and this, in my view, is the defect that weakens the report. It therefore cannot be set against the sound narration—especially since Ahmad’s version omits the closing words: “He asked, ‘What should I wear, then?’ He replied, ‘A ring made of iron ….’”