and in "al-Tafsīr" (2/292), Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim (1226), al-Ṭayālisī (300 and 314), al-Ḥumaydī (113), Aḥmad in "al-Musnad" (1/377, 389, 408, 409, 412, 433, 434, 437, 439, 463) and in "Faḍāʾil al-Ṣaḥābah" (69, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 192, 193, 671), al-Shāshī (720-726), Abū Yaʿlá (5149, 5180, 5308), al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" (773, 1393, 8347) and "al-Kabīr" (10106, 10107), and Ibn Saʿd in "al-Ṭabaqāt" (3/176) from several paths from Abū al-Aḥwaṣ on his authority. Second: Khālid ibn Rabīʿ: narrated by Aḥmad (1/395, 410), ʿAbd al-Razzāq in "Tafsīr" (1/174), Ibn Ḥibbān (6426), and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Kabīr" (10546) from two paths from him, both mawqūf and marfūʿ. They do not contradict each other; the mawqūf is considered marfūʿ because it is not said based on personal opinion. Khālid ibn Rabīʿ is unknown; no one narrated from him except one, and only Ibn Ḥibbān authenticated him. Third: Ibn Abī Mulaykah: narrated by Muslim (7/109) from the path of Abū ʿUmays on his authority. It is a strange narration; it appeared in "al-Ṣaḥīḥ" among the collection of narrations of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd—thus: from Ibn Abī Mulaykah from ʿAbd Allāh [thus neglected] he said: ... and mentioned the ḥadīth. The reason for my surprise at it is several matters: A- that al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī did not mention it in "Tuhfat al-Ashrāf" with this isnād!