objectionable.”

I say: This is a good chain of transmission and a strong corroborating report for what preceded.

However, it appears that the hadith has a basis in Qatādah’s narration from al-Ḥasan. For al-ʿUqaylī said, after what I quoted from him concerning Khalīl ibn ʿUmar:

“Sarrār ibn Mujashshir said: From Saʿīd ibn Abī ʿArūbah, from Qatādah, from al-Ḥasan and Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr, from the Prophet, similar to it.”

If this has been reliably preserved, it supports the soundness of Shādh’s and Khalīl’s narrations from ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm, from Qatādah, through Saʿīd and al-Ḥasan. However, he did not provide his chain of transmission to Sarrār, so that we might examine it.

He then cited the aforementioned narration of Ibn al-Mubārak, from Saʿīd, from Qatādah, from Ibn al-Musayyib, with the same wording, and said: “This is more preferable.” He then said:

“Hishām al-Dustuwāʾī narrated from Qatādah, from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr, as a report attributed to the Companion, with similar wording. This is more preferable.”

I say: Shuʿbah likewise narrated it from Qatādah as a report attributed to the Companion. Al-Nasāʾī recorded it.

In my view, Sarrār’s narration from Qatādah, attributed to the Prophet, is more preferable, because Qatādah heard from Saʿīd at an early time, as was previously stated from al-Nasāʾī, and because ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm corroborated him. And Allah knows best.

Concerning the hadith, al-Mundhirī said (3/78):

“Al-Nasāʾī and al-Bazzār reported it through two chains of transmission; the narrators of one of them are narrators of the authentic collections, and al-Ḥākim said: