this is how Muslim recorded it through the route of Muḥammad ibn Ḥātim, narrated to us by Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd from Ibn Jurayj with it. Imām Aḥmad disagreed, saying (3/317): Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd narrated to us with it, except he said "no" instead of "yes." Al-Bukhārī and al-Bayhaqī also recorded it from Musaddad, narrated to us by Yaḥyá with it. ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī followed him in al-Nasāʾī as in "al-Fatḥ" (9/455). So these three reliable ḥadīth preservers, Aḥmad, Musaddad, and ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī, disagreed with Muḥammad ibn Ḥātim, saying "no" instead of "yes," and there is no doubt that their narration is more reliable. This is what the ḥāfiẓ decisively stated, saying: "What is found in al-Bukhārī is the reliable version, and al-Ḥumaydī pointed out the difference between al-Bukhārī and Muslim on this term in his 'Collection,' followed by ʿIyāḍ, without mentioning a preference. The commentators on al-Bukhārī overlooked this entirely, as far as I have reviewed." I say: However, the ḥadīth has come through a route other than Yaḥyá from Ibn Jurayj, which is the route of ʿAmr ibn Dīnār from ʿAṭāʾ, meaning the wording of the ḥadīth of Muḥammad ibn Ḥātim as I have seen. Accordingly, there is an older disagreement over this term between ʿAmr ibn Dīnār on one side and Ibn Jurayj on the other, and both are reliable preservers. It is necessary to reconcile their narrations or prefer one, and the original inclination is towards the first. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar attempted this after his previous preference for the negating narration of al-Bukhārī over the affirming narration of Muslim, saying: "Then the intent of his saying 'no' is not to negate the ruling but rather that Jābir did not explicitly state that they continued until they arrived, so on this, the meaning of his saying in the narration of ʿAmr ibn Dīnār is: 'We took provisions of the sacrificial meat to Madīnah,' meaning for our journey to Madīnah, and it does not necessarily imply that it remained with them until they reached Madīnah. And Allāh knows best."