but Muhammad ibn Sābiq differed from him concerning it.”

I say: He then cited his chain to al-ʿAṭṭār, from Isrāʾīl, from Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from al-Ḥakam, from Ibrāhīm, from ʿAlqamah, from ʿAbdullah, attributing it to the Prophet.

I say: I have found no one who mentioned this Isḥāq ibn Ziyād al-ʿAṭṭār other than al-Khaṭīb in this very place. Given his disagreement with Muḥammad ibn Sābiq in its chain of transmission, it is unlikely that his report could be preferred over the latter’s.

It may, however, be said that, if his narration has been preserved, then Isrāʾīl had two chains of transmission for this hadith from Ibrāhīm: one preserved by Muḥammad ibn Sābiq and the other by Isḥāq ibn Ziyād.

I have found a corroborating narration for his report from Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān: Ismāʿīl ibn Abān narrated to us from Ṣabāḥ ibn Yaḥyā, from Ibn Abī Laylā, from al-Ḥakam, from Ibrāhīm, through the same chain.

Al-Ḥākim included it (1/13) as corroborating evidence and said:

“Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylā, although he was known for poor retention, was one of the jurists and judges of Islam.”

The hadith also has another chain from Ibn Masʿūd which indicates that it has been preserved and is not rejected. It is narrated by Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh, from al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAmr al-Faqīmī, from Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Yazīd, from his father, from ʿAbdullah, attributing it to the Prophet through the same wording.

Al-Bukhārī transmitted it in al-Adab (312), as did Ibn Ḥibbān in his Ṣaḥīḥ (48), al-Ḥākim (1/12), and Aḥmad (2/416).

Al-Ḥākim said: “It meets the criteria of both of them.”

I say: Rather, it is authentic, though not according to the criteria of both of them, for Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Yazīd was not narrated from by either of them, and Muslim did not narrate from Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh.