and this narration; Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī said: "It is more likely than the first narration," as reported by al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Sakhāwī in "al-Qawl al-Badīʿ" (p. 81). I said: Perhaps the reason for this preference is Aḥmad's favoring of Abū Usāmah in terms of memorization; for he said about him: "He was reliable, how reliable he was! He hardly ever made a mistake." And although he praised Wakīʿ and his memorization highly, and preferred him over many of the memorizers of his time; he also said about him: "He made mistakes in five hundred ḥadīths." And although this is not considered significant given the vast number of his ḥadīths reaching thousands upon thousands; it indicates—when compared to his statement about Abū Usāmah: "He hardly ever made a mistake"—that the latter is more reliable in memorization according to him than Wakīʿ, so if they differ, he would have the advantage. I said: Perhaps this is the reason for Abū Zurʿah's preference for the narration of Abū Usāmah; however, I see that the more likely narration is that of Wakīʿ, because I have seen that he was followed by Muḥammad ibn Rabīʿah al-Kilābī from Abū al-Ṣabbāḥ al-Namīrī who said: Saʿīd ibn ʿUmayr narrated to me from his father with it. It was recorded by Abū al-Qāsim al-Aṣbahānī in "al-Targhīb" (2/683–384/1646). Moreover, I say: Whether this or its opposite is more likely; it is a difference that does not harm, because both ʿUmayr Abū Saʿīd and Abū Burdah ibn Niyār are Companions, and all of them are just as is known, and the only remaining consideration is with (Saʿīd ibn ʿUmayr) himself, and the narrator from him (Saʿīd ibn Saʿīd), and both are trustworthy. As for Saʿīd ibn ʿUmayr; Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (4/287 and 288), and said