and in al-Tafsīr (2/292), Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim (1226), al-Ṭayālisī (300 and 314), al-Ḥumaydī (113), Aḥmad in al-Musnad (1/377, 389, 408, 409, 412, 433, 434, 437, 439, and 463) and Faḍāʾil al-Ṣaḥābah (69, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 192, 193, and 671), al-Shāshī (720–726), Abū Yaʿlā (5149, 5180, and 5308), al-Ṭabarānī in al-Awsaṭ (773, 1393, and 8347) and al-Kabīr (10106 and 10107), and Ibn Saʿd in al-Ṭabaqāt (3/176), through several routes from Abū al-Aḥwaṣ, from him, with this wording.

The second: Khālid ibn Rabiʿī:

Aḥmad (1/395 and 410), ʿAbd al-Razzāq in his Tafsīr (1/174), Ibn Ḥibbān (6426), and al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr (10546) narrated it through two routes from him, both as a report attributed to the Companion and as one attributed to the Prophet.

There is no contradiction between the two, for the report attributed to the Companion has the ruling of one attributed to the Prophet, since this is not something that can be said on the basis of personal opinion.

Khālid ibn Rabiʿī is unknown: no more than one person narrated from him, and no one declared him reliable except Ibn Ḥibbān.

The third: Ibn Abī Mulaykah:

Muslim (7/109) narrated it through Abū ʿUmays, from him, with this wording.

This is an unusual report, appearing in the Ṣaḥīḥ amid a group of reports from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, as follows: “From Ibn Abī Mulaykah, from ʿAbd Allāh”—thus left unqualified—“who said ...” Then he mentioned the hadith.

There are several reasons why I find it unusual:

a—Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī did not mention it in Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf with this chain of transmission!