ibn Abi Hilal, from Jahm ibn Abi al-Jahm, that Abu al-Zinad informed them that Kharijah ibn Zayd ibn Thabit informed him, from Zayd ibn Thabit, who mentioned it. I say: This is a good chain of transmission for corroborative routes and supporting reports. Its narrators are trustworthy transmitters found in the two Sahihs, apart from Jahm ibn Abi al-Jahm, who is also called Ibn al-Jahm, the freedman of al-Harith ibn Hatib al-Qurashi al-Jumahi. Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him (1/1/521), citing two narrators from him, and Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al-Thiqat (4/113), citing one of those two. Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal should also be added, making him a third.

Musa ibn Uqbah also followed him in reporting it from Abu al-Zinad. Al-Nasa’i (no. 4007), Ibn Jarir al-Tabari in his Exegesis (4/139), and al-Tabarani as well (4870) recorded it through Muhammad ibn Amr, from him, with the same chain. I say: This is a good chain of transmission.

In one version recorded by al-Nasa’i, it is: from Muhammad ibn Amr, from Abu al-Zinad ... with the same report; Musa ibn Uqbah was not mentioned between them. Al-Nasa’i said: “Abu al-Zinad inserted Majalid ibn Awf between himself and Kharijah.” He then cited it through Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishaq, from Abu al-Zinad, from Majalid ibn Awf, who said: “I heard Kharijah ibn Zayd,” with a similar report. Abu Dawud (4272) also recorded it by this route. I say: This chain of transmission is likewise good, were it not for the fact that no one besides Ibn Hibban (7/296) declared this Majalid trustworthy; Ibn Hibban named him “Awf ibn Majalid,” reversing the name. However, al-Hafiz said in al-Taqrib: