It is merely an unsupported supposition on his part. For I say: Is it not possible that he was the son of a Companion? Indeed, that is perhaps more likely. That is the point at which the chain of transmission from Yaḥyā ibn al-Jazzār differs.

As for the variation in the text of the hadith transmitted from him, it is extensive. But I shall confine myself here to what must be clarified. Broadly speaking, the versions differ in length: the longest is Abū Muʿāwiyah’s version recorded by Aḥmad and al-Baghawī; Abū Dāwūd abridged part of it; and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Bishr’s version in Ibn Mājah is similar in length. Both versions state that Zaynab, the wife of Ibn Masʿūd, used to go to a Jewish man for him to treat her with healing incantations. To me, it is utterly objectionable that such a distinguished female Companion as Zaynab should go to a Jew seeking his healing incantations! By Allah, that would indeed be one of the gravest enormities. So praise be to Allah that the chain of transmission attributing this to her is not authentic.

Equally objectionable is what appears at the end of Ibn Bishr’s version: Ibn Masʿūd said to Zaynab: “Had you done as the Messenger of Allah did, it would have been better for you and more likely to bring about your cure: sprinkle water into your eyes and say, ‘Remove the affliction, Lord of mankind...’”—and so on, through the well-known supplication.

The mention of sprinkling water was uniquely transmitted by ʿAbd Allāh ibn Bishr, rather than Abū Muʿāwiyah, who is more reliable than him and has a stronger memory—especially since Ibn Bishr’s status is disputed. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb: “Ibn Maʿīn and Ibn Ḥibbān differed concerning him, while Abū Zurʿah said: ‘There is no harm in him.’ Al-Bazzār related that he was weak specifically in his narrations from al-Zuhrī.”

I say: A narrator of this kind can have his hadith deemed only fair when he does not contradict others; but when he does contradict them, then not—