al-Muʿtamir ibn Sulaymān, from his father, from al-Aʿmash, from Shaqīq ibn Salamah, from ʿAmr ibn Shuraḥbīl, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, as a report attributed to the Prophet. This chain of transmission is authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhārī and Muslim. Shaqīq ibn Salamah is Abū Wāʾil.

Wakīʿ also narrated it from al-Aʿmash, from Abū Wāʾil, who said: “ʿAmr ibn Shuraḥbīl said…” Thus, he related it as a report attributed to a Successor. Al-Bayhaqī recorded it. The judgment is in favor of the one who attributes it to the Prophet and relates it with a connected chain.

Al-Fayḍ ibn Wathīq al-Thaqafī said: “ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Thaqafī informed us; ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Bunānī informed us, from ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah, from Abū Wāʾil, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, as a report attributed to the Prophet,” containing its latter half. Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in al-Awsaṭ (no. 755) and said: “No one narrated it from ʿĀṣim except ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Bunānī of Basra, and al-Fayḍ ibn Wathīq al-Thaqafī alone narrated it from him.”

I say: His standing is reasonably acceptable, Allah Most High willing, as al-Dhahabī stated. However, I could find no biographical entry for his teacher, ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Bunānī.

Note: Al-Mundhirī cited this hadith in al-Targhīb (3/203) only through al-Ṭabarānī’s narration, thereby giving the impression that none of the compilers of the Sunan collections recorded it. Al-Haythamī followed him in this—as was his habit—and thus cited it in al-Majmaʿ (7/297), criticizing its chain on account of al-Fayḍ. Had he remembered that al-Nasāʾī recorded it, he would not have cited it, for doing so was contrary to the criterion he had set for that work. Al-Mundhirī made another error as well: he cited al-Ṭabarānī’s version despite its weak chain of transmission and abbreviated text, while omitting al-Nasāʾī’s version, whose chain is authentic and whose text is complete. The one protected from error is he whom Allah Most High protects.