I say: Yet there are other routes from ʿAṭāʾ that invalidate this interpretation, quite apart from its being contrary to the apparent sense. Among them is the report recorded by Ibn Abī Shaybah: ʿAlī ibn Mushir informed us from ʿAbd al-Malik, from ʿAṭāʾ, with this wording: “We would arrive in Medina with the meat of the sacrificial animals.” Its chain of transmission is authentic according to Muslim’s criteria.

Abū al-Zubayr also corroborated it from Jābir, who said: “We ate the meat of the sacrificial animals with the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and took provisions until we reached Medina with them.” Aḥmad (3/386) recorded it through the route of Zuhayr, and al-Ṭaḥāwī (2/308) through two other routes; all three narrated it from Abū al-Zubayr, from Jābir. It meets Muslim’s criteria, despite Abū al-Zubayr’s use of the non-explicit ‘from’ transmission formula; however, it is strengthened by ʿAbd al-Malik’s narration—namely, ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Abī Sulaymān, who was trustworthy.

Further corroboration for their narration is provided by Shuʿbah’s report from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, recorded by al-Dārimī with the wording: “During the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, we would take the meat of the sacrificial animals as provisions from Mecca to Medina.” Its chain of transmission is authentic according to the criteria of both al-Bukhārī and Muslim.

I say: Thus, this wording from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, together with the corroboration of ʿAbd al-Malik and Abū al-Zubayr in its meaning—explicitly stating that they arrived in Medina with the sacrificial animals or sacrificial offerings that they had taken as provisions—plainly invalidates the meaning previously cited from al-Ḥāfiẓ as a means of reconciling al-Bukhārī’s negative narration with the other, affirmative narration from ʿAmr. It therefore becomes necessary to give one narration preference over the other. No perceptive researcher can doubt that ʿAmr’s narration is the stronger one, due to the corroborating reports we have mentioned and because it is affirmative. It is well known in legal theory that an affirmative report takes precedence over a negative one, especially since this hadith has corroborating reports from Companions other than Jābir. Perhaps, if I find the opportunity, I shall mention what I can of them.

This examination of the chains also makes clear that Ibn Jurayj’s narration is not preserved, as indicated by Imam