4 - al-Ḥakam from Ḥuṣayn from Zayd ibn Wahb from Ḥudhayfah. and it seems to me—and Allāh knows best—that this difference is one of diversity, not contradiction, and that all of these are authentically established from Zayd ibn Wahb. This is because all of its narrators are trustworthy and reliable, without any fault or blemish, and because this Zayd is among the senior tābiʿīn who lived during the time of the Prophet. It is mentioned that he traveled to the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) but the Prophet passed away while he was on the way. Moreover, he is a distinguished and trustworthy figure, to the extent that al-Aʿmash, the narrator of the first account from him, said: "If Zayd ibn Wahb narrates to you from someone, it is as if you heard it directly from the one he narrates about." He met a group of the senior Companions and narrated from them, such as ʿUmar (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu). It is not unlikely for someone like him to have heard the ḥadīth from the three Companions mentioned in those accounts: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥasnah, Thābit ibn Wadāʿah, sometimes directly from him, and sometimes through al-Barāʾ, Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān. It is common for a reliable narrator to initially narrate through an intermediary from his teacher, and then later have the opportunity to connect with his teacher and hear directly from him what he had previously heard through an intermediary. This is a well-known matter among those engaged in this noble science. In my view, affirming the authenticity of these accounts is preferable to favoring one over another, due to the absence of a decisive preference in the case of assumed contradiction, similar to al-Bukhārī’s statement after the ḥadīth: "Thābit’s ḥadīth is more authentic, yet there is scrutiny in the same ḥadīth, as Ibn ʿUmar said about the Prophet ﷺ: I do not eat it nor do I prohibit it." I say: This ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar is authentic and agreed upon by the two Shaykhs, and it is narrated by Muslim