Accordingly, it was reported by Abū Dāwūd (2/106), al-Dārimī (2/250), Ibn Mājah (2/16), and al-Dāraquṭnī (297), through Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylā, from al-Qāsim ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from his father, from Ibn Masʿūd, with this wording. Ibn Abī Laylā had poor retention, but he was corroborated by ʿUmar ibn Qays al-Māṣir, who was trustworthy. Al-Dāraquṭnī reported it from him through an authentic chain. However, a group differed from both of them, reporting it from al-Qāsim, from Ibn Masʿūd, without the words “from his father.” Al-Dāraquṭnī reported this through Abū al-ʿUmays—who was ʿUtbah ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd—and al-Ṭayālisī (no. 399) and Aḥmad (1/466) reported it through al-Masʿūdī; Aḥmad also reported it through Maʿn, who was Ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd. All three reported it from al-Qāsim with this wording. Thus, according to this version, it is interrupted. Al-Tirmidhī (1/240) said that it is mursal. Yet it may be said that the one who reported it with a connected chain was trustworthy, and this is an addition that must be acknowledged. And Allah knows best.

A second route: al-Nasāʾī (2/230), al-Dāraquṭnī, and Aḥmad reported it through Abū ʿUbaydah ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, from his father. This too is interrupted.

A third route: al-Tirmidhī and Aḥmad reported it through Ibn ʿAjlān, from ʿAwn ibn ʿAbd Allāh, from Ibn Masʿūd. Al-Tirmidhī said: “It is a mursal hadith; ʿAwn ibn ʿAbd Allāh did not meet Ibn Masʿūd.”

A fourth route, which is connected: Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasāʾī, and al-Dāraquṭnī reported it through ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Qays ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ashʿath, from his father, from his grandfather, from Ibn Masʿūd. This is a good chain, were it not for the fact that this ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Qays is unknown in status, as stated in al-Taqrīb. As for the claim of those who say that it is interrupted, it has no basis. Al-Ḥākim also reported it through this route (2/45) and said: