[sandyphoebetvmaa]

This issue was well known to the scholars. Ibn Kathir mentions it in his tafsir of the verse, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar gives an explanation for it in Fath al-Bari, saying that there are different possible interpretations of exactly what part of the sura was revealed when, and what exact part of the sura could have relevance to the story, making it possible to find a reconciliation of the different texts; he also states that another narration says that it was actually Sa'd ibn 'Ubada, not Ibn Mu'adh - Muslim himself gives three other narrations of the hadith and states explicitly that none of them mention Sa'd ibn Mu'adh. The person who has raised this issue sees it as a problem because he has a false impression of how the science of hadith works; this is generally the case with hadith deniers.