al-Mubārak narrated it.

I say: This is an authentic chain of transmission, like the preceding one.

ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm also corroborated him in reporting it from Qatādah.

Al-Ḥākim recorded it (2/190) through Shādh ibn Fayyāḍ: ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm narrated to us likewise. He said:

“Its chain of transmission is authentic.”

Al-Dhahabī agreed with him.

Khalīl ibn ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm differed from Shādh, saying: My father narrated to me from Qatādah, from al-Ḥasan, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr, attributing it to the Prophet. Thus, he mentioned al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī in place of Ibn al-Musayyib.

Al-Nasāʾī and al-ʿUqaylī recorded it in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ (p. 121). The latter said:

“Khalīl differs in some of his hadiths.”

I say: He is no less than Shādh ibn Fayyāḍ in trustworthiness and retention, though there is some slight criticism of the precision of both. Perhaps the discrepancy originated with ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm himself, for al-Taqrīb states:

“Truthful, though weak in his narrations from Qatādah.”

In my view, Shādh’s narration from him is preferable, since it agrees with Ibn Abī ʿArūbah’s narration from Qatādah, and because of another corroborating report that I found in Ibn ʿAdī’s al-Kāmil. He recorded it (folio 289/2) through Muḥammad ibn Bilāl: ʿImrān narrated to us from Qatādah, from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib, likewise. He said:

“Muḥammad ibn Bilāl narrates odd reports from ʿImrān al-Qaṭṭān, and he has unusual reports from others as well; and I hope that he is not…”