and this chain is sound, as al-Hafiz al-Iraqi remarks (1/175). Al-Tahawi and Ahmad (1/305) also narrate it by way of Sharik—from Mukhawwal—from Muslim al-Batin—from Saʿid with the same wording. Sharik’s memory is poor, and he likewise reports it from Abu Ishaq like the majority; al-Tirmidhi and others record this version as well. Second: the report of Ubayy ibn Kaʿb. It is transmitted by Abu Dawud (1/224–225), al-Nasaʾi (1/248, 251), Ibn Nasr (p. 126), al-Darqutni (p. 175), al-Hakim (2/257), and Ahmad (5/123) through several routes that go back to Saʿid ibn ʿAbd al-Rahman ibn Abza—from his father—from him. This isnad is sound, as both al-Hakim and al-Iraqi affirm (1/311). A discrepancy in the chain that al-Nasaʾi mentions does not harm its authenticity: the report alternates between being ascribed directly to ʿAbd al-Rahman ibn Abza—as related by Ahmad (3/406–407) and others—or being his narration from Ubayy, as in the present version. The latter represents an additional detail supplied by a reliable transmitter and must therefore be accepted. Third: the report of ʿImran ibn Husayn. Al-Nasaʾi (1/252) records it through Shababa—from Shuʿba—from Qatadah—from Zurara ibn Awfa—from him. The chain is sound; its transmitters are those relied upon by the two Shaykhs. Al-Nasaʾi nevertheless critiqued it, saying, “I do not know anyone who corroborated Shababa in this hadith; Yahya ibn Saʿid disagreed with him.” He then cited the version of Yahya—from Shuʿba—from Qatadah with the wording: “I already knew that some of you were disputing with me about it,” which has already been mentioned under (Recitation).