A group of trustworthy narrators also corroborated Wakīʿ, but they related it as: from al-Aʿmash, from Abū Ṣāliḥ, from Abū Hurayrah … thus narrating it through the standard chain.

Al-Ṭaḥāwī transmitted it in Mushkil al-Āthār (2/430), Ibn Ḥibbān in his Ṣaḥīḥ (4/116/2551), through ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus, and al-Bazzār in his Musnad (1/346/720), through Muḥāḍir ibn al-Muwwariʿ. Both narrated it from al-Aʿmash.

Jarīr ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd differed from them, saying: from al-Aʿmash, from Abū Ṣāliḥ—he said, “I think”—from Jābir …

Ziyād ibn ʿUbayd Allāh also corroborated him in narrating it from al-Aʿmash, but he did not say, “He said: ‘I think.’”

Al-Bazzār transmitted both reports (nos. 721 and 722).

Ziyād ibn ʿAbd Allāh was al-Bakkāʾī al-ʿĀmirī, one of Muslim’s narrators, while Jarīr ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd was one of the narrators of both Ṣaḥīḥs. Both have received slight criticism concerning their retention.

I say: What appears from all that has preceded is that al-Aʿmash hesitated in its chain of transmission between Abū Hurayrah and Jābir. This does no harm, if Allah Most High wills, since each of them was an eminent Companion. And Allah knows best.

(Note on errors):

First: Al-Dārānī, the commentator on Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān (2/378), overlooked the fact that this variation revolves around al-Aʿmash. In documenting the hadith of Abū Hurayrah, he said:

“It is corroborated by the hadith of Jābir recorded by al-Bazzār …”

He thus treated the report requiring corroboration as a corroborating witness. This indicates inexperience in this discipline!