I say: Al-Nasa’i (954) and al-Hakim also transmitted Sufyan’s version attributed to the Companion, through the chain of ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, from him, from Abu Hashim. Yusuf ibn Asbat, however, narrated it from Sufyan with its latter portion attributed to the Prophet. Ibn al-Sunni transmitted it (no. 30), but Ibn Asbat is weak.

Hushaym also narrated it from Abu Hashim, but there is disagreement over whether it was attributed to the Companion or to the Prophet. Abu al-Nu‘man narrated it from him as a report attributed to the Companion, with its first portion, in a similar form. Al-Darimi transmitted it (2/454). Nu‘aym ibn Hammad differed from him and narrated it from him as attributed to the Prophet. Al-Hakim transmitted it (2/368) and said: “Its chain of transmission is authentic”!!

All of them were contradicted by Qays ibn al-Rabi‘, who said: from Abu Hashim al-Rummani, from Abu Mijlaz al-Sudusi, from Qays ibn Abi Hazim al-Bajali, from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri, with the final passage attributed to the Prophet. Al-Khatib transmitted it in al-Tarikh (The History) (8/25), though some typographical errors occurred in its chain of transmission.

I say: Qays ibn al-Rabi‘ had poor retention, and he contradicted them in naming “Qays ibn Abi Hazim” in place of their “Qays ibn ‘Abbad.” In conclusion, the hadith is authentic, for although the stronger position in terms of its chain of transmission is that it is attributed to the Companion, it is evident that something of this nature cannot be stated on the basis of personal opinion; therefore, it carries the ruling of a report attributed to the Prophet. And Allah knows best.