Now that you know this, they differed over the narrator of this hadith from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and over the one who said to Ibn al-Zubayr, “Beware of committing sacrilege in …” Ibn Kunāsah said that it was ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar, whereas Hāshim said that it was ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr. The latter is more likely, for Hāshim had a stronger memory than Ibn Kunāsah, as you have seen from al-Ḥāfiẓ’s biographical notices on the two of them and al-Haythamī’s discussion of their respective reports. Three considerations support this:

First: Ibn Kunāsah was inconsistent in its chain of transmission. On one occasion, he narrated it from Isḥāq ibn Saʿīd, as mentioned above. On another, he said: “Isḥāq ibn ʿĪsā ibn ʿĀṣim narrated to us from his father,” and then related it like his previous narration.

Al-Ḥākim recorded it (2/388) through the route of al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Faḍl al-Bajalī, who said: “Muḥammad ibn Kunāsah narrated to us,” with this chain. He said:

“Its chain of transmission is authentic.”

Al-Dhahabī rebutted him, saying:

“I say: Abū Ḥātim said, ‘Ibn Kunāsah is not used as proof.’”

Al-Ḥusayn, who narrated from him, was an eminent imam, hadith scholar, exegete, and linguist. Al-Dhahabī included a biographical notice on him in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (“Biographies of the Noble Figures”) (13/414). Therefore, al-Ḥāfiẓ objected to al-Dhahabī’s including him in al-Mīzān, saying in Lisān al-Mīzān:

“It would have been more fitting not to mention him, given his eminence.”

See Lisān al-Mīzān (2/307–308).

Second: Bishr ibn al-Walīd al-Kindī corroborated Hāshim ibn al-Qāsim: “Isḥāq ibn Saʿīd narrated to us,” with the same chain.

Ibn ʿAsākir recorded it in Tārīkh Dimashq (“History of Damascus”) (9/2).