Al-Tabarani also transmitted it in al-Kabir through the same route, but—according to Majmaʿ al-zawaʾid—he named the Companion as ʿAbd Allah b. Yazid. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar seems not to have had these two reports in mind when he wrote in Fath al-bari (2/197): “I have not found any marfuʿ hadith that explicitly states what is to be recited in Maghrib from the short surahs of the mufassal except a report in Ibn Majah from Ibn ʿUmar mentioning Surat al-Kafirun and Surat al-Ikhlas, and a similar report in Ibn Hibban from Jabir b. Samurah.” As for the hadith of Ibn ʿUmar, its chain looks sound on the face of it, yet it is defective; al-Daraqutni remarked, “One of its transmitters erred in it.” The hadith of Jabir b. Samurah contains Saʿid b. Simak, who has been abandoned by the critics. Al-Bayhaqi (2/391) recorded the same report through his channel as well. Ibn Majah (1/275) relates: “Ahmad b. Budayl narrated to us; Hafs b. Ghiyath narrated to us; ʿUbayd Allah from Nafiʿ from Ibn ʿUmar who said: ‘The Prophet ﷺ used to recite in Maghrib: Qul ya ayyuha’l-kafirun and Qul huwa Allahu ahad.’” Al-Tabarani in al-Kabir likewise records it: “Muhammad b. Qada al-Jawhari told us; Ahmad b. Budayl al-Yami told us,” with the same matn (the correct reading of the name is Qada, as stated by Ibn Makula in al-Ikmal). It is puzzling that Ibn Hajar could say, “Its chain appears sound,” for he himself writes about this very Ahmad b. Budayl in al-Taqrib: “Trustworthy, but prone to mistakes.” How, then, can a chain be judged sound when it rests on such a narrator? Further detail is given in Tahdhib al-kamal.