(2/185, Literary Press edition).

I say: ʿAbd Allah ibn Ṣāliḥ is weak on account of his retention, so his contradiction is not to be taken into consideration. He was also contradicted by ʿAbd Allah ibn Wahb, who narrated from Muʿāwiyah, saying, “ʿAmrah” in place of “al-Qāsim.” Ibn Ḥibbān transmitted it in his Ṣaḥīḥ (2136), and Abū Nuʿaym in al-Ḥilyah (8/331), through two routes from him with this chain. Abū Nuʿaym said: “Layth ibn Saʿd narrated something similar from Muʿāwiyah.”

I say: In his narration, “al-Qāsim” appears in place of “ʿAmrah,” as mentioned above. Perhaps what Abū Nuʿaym referred to was a narration from Layth that had reached him. He then said: “There is disagreement concerning Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd: Yaḥyā ibn Ayyūb narrated it from Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, from Ḥumayd ibn Qays, from Mujāhid, from ʿĀʾishah. Ibn Jurayj narrated it from Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, from Mujāhid, from ʿĀʾishah, may Allah Most High be pleased with her, omitting Ḥumayd.”

I say: In my view, the soundest reports are those of Layth and Ibn Wahb, for both were trustworthy and precise preservers. Yet I cannot determine which of their two narrations is sounder—unless it is established that Layth narrated it on one occasion in accordance with Ibn Wahb’s narration, from ʿAmrah, as Abū Nuʿaym mentioned. In that case, this narration would be sounder, since they concurred upon it. In any event, this variation does not impair the authenticity of the hadith, because both al-Qāsim and ʿAmrah are trustworthy; it is merely a transition from one trustworthy narrator to another. Thus, this discrepancy does not harm the authenticity of the hadith. And Allah knows best.

672 — “The child born of fornication is the worst of the three.”

Abū Dāwūd transmitted it (3963), as did al-Ṭaḥāwī in al-Mushkil (1/391), al-Ḥākim (2/214), al-Bayhaqī (10/57, 59), and Aḥmad (2/311).