Ahmad also narrated it [in his Musnad] (vol. 1/ no. 429) and Ibn Ab? Shaibah (vol. 2/ no. 31), they both said: ‘Muhammad Ibn Al-Fadl told us that khusaif told him that Ab? ‘Ubaidah told him from his father [i.e. ‘Abdull?h Ibn Mas’?d] to have said the had?th using Ath-Thawr?’s same wording.

To conclude, five of the reliable trustworthy narrators related the narration in different wordings to that of Muhammad Ibn Salamah though the later is a trustworthy narrator. This difference is traced back to Khusaif Ibn Abdir Rahm?n whom Ahmad considered to be a weak narrator saying that ‘his narrations are not to be taken into consideration and he is not firm in relating ahad?th; his chains of narration are shaky’. This indicates that he traces the ah?d?th back to the prophet ( - صلى الله عليه وسلم -) while they are actucelly Mawq?f [traced back to the prophet’s ( - صلى الله عليه وسلم -) Sah?bah].

Ab? Hatim described him as being a righteous narrator who mixes narrations together and who lacks a good memory.

Other ‘Ulamah considered him a trustworthy narrator; such as: Ibn Ma’?n and Ab? Zur’ah. Accordingly, tracing back the had?th to the prophet ( - صلى الله عليه وسلم -) [ instead of the Sah?bah] is due to his weak memory.

To conclude, the soundest of all opinions regarding the had?th is that it is Mawq?f and the rest of the chain of narration is disconnected for Ab? ‘Ubaidah did not hear the had?th from his father, so the had?th is a weak Mawq?f one.

Al-Baihq? said: ‘This had?th is not strong and the ‘Ulamah differed concerning as to whether it is Marf?’or Mawq?f and also differed regarding the wording of the had?th itself [i.e. the Matn]. As-Shawk?n? reported in “Nay Al-’Awt?r” that - Al-Baihq? stated that the Matn of the had?th is not strong.

Second: Al-Mug?rah’s Ibn Shu’bah narration:

Al-Baihaq? [in his Sunnan] (vol. 2 / p. 355) narrated the had?th from ‘Imr?n Ibn Ab? Lail? from Ibn Ab? Lail? to have said: Ash-