As for this narration, Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī said: “It is more plausible than the first narration,” as al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Sakhāwī cited from him in al-Qawl al-Badīʿ (p. 81).

I say: Perhaps the basis for this preference is that Aḥmad regarded Abū Usāmah as superior in retention. He said of him: “He was thoroughly reliable and precise—how exceptionally precise he was! He scarcely made an error.”

Although Aḥmad lavished praise upon Wakīʿ and his retention, preferring him over many of the hadith masters of his time, he nevertheless said of him: “He erred in five hundred hadiths.”

Though this is insignificant in view of the vast number of his hadiths, which ran into many thousands, it indicates—when contrasted with his statement concerning Abū Usāmah, “He scarcely made an error”—that, in Aḥmad’s view, Abū Usāmah was stronger in retention than Wakīʿ. Thus, when they differ, the stronger position belongs to him.

I say: Perhaps this was why Abū Zurʿah preferred Abū Usāmah’s narration. Yet I consider Wakīʿ’s narration more plausible, for I found that Muḥammad ibn Rabīʿah al-Kilābī corroborated him, narrating from Abū al-Ṣabbāḥ al-Numayrī, who said: Saʿīd ibn ʿUmayr narrated to me from his father, to the same effect.

Abū al-Qāsim al-Iṣfahānī narrated it in al-Targhīb (2/683–384/1646).

That said, whether this narration or its converse is the stronger, the difference is immaterial, for both ʿUmayr Abū Saʿīd and Abū Burdah ibn Niyār were Companions, all of whom are upright, as is well known. What remains to be examined is Saʿīd ibn ʿUmayr himself and Saʿīd ibn Saʿīd, who narrated from him; both have been declared trustworthy.

As for Saʿīd ibn ʿUmayr, Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt (4/287 and 288) and said: