to have transmitted anything of the sort in his company. This is one of the grounds on which the critical scholars judged Ibn Khuthaym’s report from Anas to be weak. The second ground is that his transmission is internally inconsistent, both in its chain of narration and in its wording. 1. Inconsistency in the isnad: • At one time he relates it through Abu Bakr ibn Hafs from Anas, as noted above. • At another he relates it through Ismail ibn Ubayd ibn Rifaʿah, from his father, from Muʿawiyah. Al-Shafiʿi recorded this version (1/93–94), and al-Bayhaqi transmitted it from him (2/49–50) through Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-Aslami and Yahya ibn Sulaym, both reporting from Ibn Khuthaym, from Ismail. • Yet elsewhere he says: “from Ismail ibn Ubayd ibn Rifaʿah, from his father, from his grandfather, from Muʿawiyah.” Al-Daraqutni (no. 117) produced this via Ismail ibn ʿAyyash from Ibn Khuthaym. Because of these variants, the scholars differed over which version deserves preference. Al-Bayhaqi in al-Maʿrifah favoured the first, owing to the stature of its transmitter, Ibn Jurayj, and remarked in his Sunan: “It is possible that Ibn Khuthaym heard it from both men; Allah knows best.” Al-Shafiʿi inclined toward the second version, on the ground that two narrators agreed upon it. Both of those narrators, however, are subject to criticism: al-Aslami’s status is openly defective, while Yahya ibn Sulaym, al-Bayhaqi says, “commits many errors and has poor retention.” Ibn al-Turkumani therefore concluded, “The isnad containing Ibn Jurayj is clearly more dependable, for he surpasses the other two in rank and accuracy without doubt.” As for the third version, it is unique to Ibn ʿAyyash, who is weak in narrations concerning the people of the Hijaz; this report is one such instance. 2. Inconsistency in the matn: at one point he says, “He prayed and began with: Bismillah al-Rahman