Zohak Ibn Muzahim (in Tabrani), also a Tábaee and of impeached authority, narrates it from Ibn Abbás, but he never heard any tradition from him, nor had he even seen him (vide Mzàn-ul-Etedal, by Zahabi, and Ansáb, by Sam-áni). His narration must be hence considered as apocryphal.
The ascription of Ibn Omar's (died 73 A.H.) story, not strictly to the point, is untrustworthy.
Abu Hurera's narration is also admitted as apocryphal; vide Dur-rul-mansoor, by Soyutí.
All these traditions are noted by Soyutí in his Dur-rul-mansoor.
The tradition by Nasáee (died 303 A.H.) from Anas (died 90 A.H.) regarding the affair of a slave is equally contradicted by the tradition from Ayesha, the widow of the Prophet, narrated by the traditionist Nasáee in the same place of his collection of traditions. This is the story of the honey. Vide para. 16, ubi supra. Ayesha's tradition is more trustworthy than that of Anas. Hammád bin Salma, a narrator in the ascription of Anas, has been impeached owing to the confusion of his memory in the later days of his life (vide Tekreeb). Sabit, another link in the same chain, was a story-teller by profession (vide Zahabi's Tabakát,) and cannot be depended upon. And Nasáee himself has rejected the tradition ascribed to Anas, and is reported to have said that Ayesha's tradition has good ascription, while there is nothing valid in that regarding Maria; vide Kamálain's Annotations on Jelálain in loco.
[369] The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 310.
[370] Ibid, Vol. III, page 228, and footnote at pp. 229 and 230.
[371] The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, page 228. The italics are mine.
[372] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 229. The tradition quoted by Sir W. Muir in this page is apocryphal and technically Mursal.
[373] Ibid, p. 230.