I do not imagine that any fair-minded, rational person would dispute this.

Why then does the Shaykh refuse to be content with Abū Dāwūd’s silence—which, as we have shown, indicates that the ḥadīth was acceptable to him—but instead exerts himself, although he himself believes such exertion is impermissible for him, to declare the report weak, as his remark “If it were authentic …” makes plain, doing so without the least scholarly proof or evidence, not even by following another imam?

Second: I am convinced that, in keeping with the critical approach we have come to know from the Shaykh in al-Taʿqub al-Ḥathīth, it would have been more fitting for him to pronounce this ḥadīth sound rather than weak. All the narrators in its chain, as recorded by Abū Dāwūd (no. 2413) and Aḥmad (6/398), are trustworthy and cited as authorities in the two Ṣaḥīḥs, with the sole exception of Kulayb ibn Dhuhl. Ibn Ḥibbān (2/253) nevertheless declared him reliable, and Ibn Ḥajar, in his entry on the man in al-Taqrīb, said he is “maqbūl” (acceptable). As for ʿUbayd ibn Jabr, Ibn Ḥajar inclined to the view that he was a Companion; Yaʿqūb ibn Sufyān listed him among the reliable narrators, and al-ʿAjlī (no. …)