The other was ʿAbd Allah ibn Nasr, who said: Wakiʿ narrated it to us.

Ibn ʿAdi recorded it in al-Kamil (fol. 223/1): “ʿUmar ibn Sinan al-Manbiji narrated to us; ʿAbd Allah ibn Nasr narrated to us”—with the same report. He said:

“This is not reliably preserved from Wakiʿ, from al-Aʿmash. Rather, it is Malik ibn Suʿayr who narrates it from al-Aʿmash.”

He means that it is not reliably preserved from Wakiʿ, from al-Aʿmash, in this connected form; rather, Malik ibn Suʿayr narrates it from al-Aʿmash with a connected chain.

Yet its coming through the two preceding routes from Wakiʿ with a connected chain strengthens this narration of Ibn Nasr. Accordingly, Malik ibn Suʿayr corroborated him in transmitting it with a connected chain, and his narration lends greater weight to the connected narration from Wakiʿ over the mursal narration from him. And Allah knows best.

It was also recorded by Ibn al-Aʿrabi in his Muʿjam (247/2), Abu ʿArubah al-Harrani in his Hadith (fol. 98/1), Ibn al-Hamami in A Selected Section from His Heard Narrations (fol. 35/1), al-Ramahurmuzi in al-Amthal (fol. 21/1), al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak, al-Qudaʿi in Musnad al-Shihab (fol. 96/1), and Ibn ʿAsakir in The History of Damascus (2/97/1), through the route of Abu al-Khattab Ziyad ibn Yahya al-Hassani: Malik ibn Suʿayr narrated to us; al-Aʿmash narrated to us, from Abu Salih, from Abu Hurayrah—with the same report.

Ibn al-Hamami said: “Malik ibn Suʿayr alone narrated it from al-Aʿmash in a well-transmitted form attributed to the Prophet, whereas Wakiʿ narrated it from al-Aʿmash, from Abu Salih, as a report attributed to a Companion.”

This is what he said, but he in fact meant a mursal report, as has preceded in Ibn Saʿd’s narration. Moreover, for a report such as this to be attributed merely to a Companion is inconceivable, as is apparent.