by anyone, as far as I know. Nevertheless, Ibn Hibban included him in al-Thiqat (9/201). Moreover, he differed from the two routes mentioned in the previously cited version of al-Nasa’i.

In conclusion, I say: This discrepancy in the chains of transmission of the hadith from Abu Umamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf is among the strangest discrepancies I have encountered. Hardly does a researcher come across a narration from a trustworthy narrator and say to himself, “This is the version to be preferred,” before he encounters another narration that prevents him from giving preference. This is very clear, praise be to Allah, in this hadith documentation more than in any other. Since this was clear to al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, he did not definitively prefer one version over another. For when he documented the hadith in al-Talkhis (4/50–51), in a brief manner that did not include the foregoing details, he said afterward—having endorsed al-Daraqutni’s and al-Bayhaqi’s ruling that it was transmitted as a mursal report: “If all the routes have been accurately preserved, then Abu Umamah must have received it from a group of the Companions and transmitted it once as a mursal report.”

I say: That all the routes have been accurately preserved is very unlikely, as is evident from this investigation I have undertaken. In Abu Umamah’s narration from Sa‘id ibn Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubadah, there is Ibn Ishaq’s ambiguous use of ‘an in transmission, and the routes from him, from his father, are weak. Thus, the only narration from him that may be considered preserved is his narration from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri, because of the numerous routes through him containing it. Yet the routes from him that transmit it as a mursal report are more numerous. Al-Bayhaqi therefore definitively held that this was the preserved version, and al-Hafiz agreed with him.

The next strongest version, in my view, is Ibn Shihab’s narration from him, from one of the Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. It seems to have been for this reason that Ibn al-Jarud authenticated and selected it, as mentioned above. That “one” would be Sahl ibn Sa‘d, as in Abu Hazim’s narration from him. Accordingly, Abu Hazim constitutes strong corroboration for Abu Umamah in his chain of transmission, just as Zayd ibn Abi Unaysah’s corroboration of Fulayh carries weight with me. It has struck me that al-Hafiz, may Allah have mercy on him, was not aware of this corroborating report; otherwise, he would have challenged, on its basis,