Moreover, the mursal report of Mujāhid is weak, as has already been shown, and the narration of al-ʿArzamī cannot be cited in its support, for he is extremely weak and his version clashes with the sound hadith and its corroborating chains.

It appears that al-Shawkānī was misled by al-Bayhaqī’s remark made after the witnesses just mentioned, together with the mursal reports of Mujāhid and al-Ḥasan; al-Bayhaqī then produced a third supporting chain from al-Shaʿbī conveying the tenor of the authentic hadith. Al-Bayhaqī commented:

“All of these hadiths are mursal, yet they come through different routes, so each strengthens the other; they are further supported by the narration of Abū Burdah from Abū Mūsā and by statements of certain Companions.”

What he meant was the common core confirmed by those reports alongside the sound narration of Abū Burdah from Abū Mūsā, not the isolated additions borne solely by weak or abandoned transmitters—so take heed.

From the error of declaring that rejected addition authentic another legal misstep followed: al-Shawkānī inserted maize into the list of the four staple categories upon which zakat is obligatory in his al-Durar al-Bahiyyah. His commentator in al-Rawḍah al-Nadiyyah 2/195 adopted the same view, adducing the hadith of Abū Mūsā together with the mursal reports just discussed, and then quoting al-Bayhaqī’s words without grasping the intent I have clarified.

Perhaps he realized the matter later on, for when he revisited the hadith of Abū Mūsā and referred to the other narrations he added (1/200):

“In some of them maize is mentioned, but by a route that cannot serve as evidence.”

That statement is correct; he should therefore have gone back to the body of his commentary and removed the word “maize” so that it would accord with the sound conclusion he had reached.

It is also likely that al-Shawkānī finally embraced the correct view, for he does not mention it in his book al-Sayl