a scribal slip; the name is more likely Ibn Sabit.* He is counted among those who narrate from Saʿd, yet Ibn Maʿin said, “He never heard from him.” This version, however, claims that he did hear from him, but the chain to Ibn Sabit is unsound. Allah knows best. The report does have corroborating chains (shawahid): 1. From Ibn ʿAbbas: al-Hakim recorded it through ʿUbayd Allah ibn al-Akhna s–via Ibn Abi Mulaykah–from him, and remarked that the isnad is “shadh” (anomalous). Al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani also transmitted it; Majmaʿ (7/170) observes, “The men in al-Bazzar’s chain are the narrators of the Sahih.” I add: the same is true for al-Hakim’s chain except for al-ʿAbbas ibn Muhammad al-Duri, who is a reliable hafiz. Al-Hakim declared it anomalous only because every trustworthy transmitter who reports it from Ibn Abi Mulaykah places it in the Musnad of Saʿd ibn Abi Waqqas, whereas ʿUbayd Allah ibn al-Akhna s assigns it to the Musnad of Ibn ʿAbbas. Although ʿUbayd Allah is a narrator used by al-Bukhari and Muslim, his memory is weak; al-Taqrib says: “Truthful, but Ibn Hibban said he makes mistakes.” 2. Al-Hakim also cites a supporting chain through ʿIsl ibn Sufyan and comments: “It is not unlikely that ʿIsl ibn Sufyan erred; the hadith ultimately belongs to the narration of Saʿd ibn Abi Waqqas.” *Read al-Saʾib, as in Tuhfat al-Ashraf 3/302/3900 and Sunan Ibn Majah 1354.