from Shaybān and al-Thawrī, from ʿĀṣim, in an abridged form, omitting Ibn ʿAbbās’s account that precedes his words, “The Messenger of Allah said: …”

Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī also related it in his Tafsīr (25/54) through Sufyān, and Ibn Ḥibbān (1758)—the other version is also his—through Shaybān ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān … in explanation of the verse concerning the Hour.

Ibn Kathīr attributed it in his Tafsīr (3/132) to a third route from Shaybān alone, similar to al-Ṭabarānī’s narration, except that it reads: “Abū Aḥmad, the freedman of the Anṣār.” I believe that the name Aḥmad is a corruption of ʿAfrāʾ, and that the name ʿAqīl in the Musnad is likewise corrupt. And Allah knows best.

After tracing these sources, I say:

This is a good chain of transmission. Its narrators are trustworthy and are among Muslim’s transmitters, except for ʿĀṣim—namely, Ibn Bahdalah—concerning whom there is slight criticism. This does not reduce his hadith below the rank of good, as has been mentioned repeatedly above. For this reason, the two Shaykhs only included his narrations alongside those of other transmitters. Accordingly, after citing it as narrated by Aḥmad and al-Ṭabarānī (7/104), al-Haythamī said:

“It contains ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah, whom Aḥmad and others declared trustworthy, though he had poor retention. The rest of its narrators are narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ collections.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ said:

“Truthful, though prone to errors; an authority in Quranic recitation. His hadith in the two Ṣaḥīḥ collections occurs only alongside that of others.”

Abū Razīn was Masʿūd ibn Mālik al-Asadī al-Kūfī.

Abū Yaḥyā was Miṣdaʿ al-Aʿraj al-Muʿarqab, the freedman of Muʿādh ibn ʿAfrāʾ al-Anṣārī. Muslim declared him trustworthy by including his reports in his Ṣaḥīḥ, as mentioned above; Ibn Ḥibbān and Ibn Shāhīn also declared him trustworthy