but it is not authentic. The mention of Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd in its chain is a mistake; it is actually Sulaymān ibn Arqam.’
Abū Zurʿah al-Dimashqī said the same—that this is the correct wording—and he was followed by Ṣāliḥ Jazrah and Abū al-Ḥasan al-Harawī.
Al-Nasāʾī remarked, ‘This is closer to the truth,’ meaning that the narrator is Sulaymān ibn Arqam.
Ibn Ḥazm stated, ‘The epistle of ʿAmr ibn Ḥazm is broken in transmission; it cannot serve as proof. Moreover, Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd is unanimously abandoned.’
Ibn Ḥibbān said, ‘Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Yamāmī is weak, while Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī is reliable; both narrate from al-Zuhrī. The one who transmitted the hadith on obligatory alms is the Khawlānī. Therefore, anyone who deemed the report weak only did so because he thought the narrator was the Yamāmī.’
Ibn Ḥajar commented, ‘Were it not for what has already been mentioned—that al-Ḥakam ibn Mūsā erred when he said “Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd,” for it is in fact Sulaymān ibn Arqam—there would have been some validity to Ibn Ḥibbān’s words. The hadith was declared authentic by al-Ḥākim, Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Bayhaqī, and it is related from Aḥmad that he said, “I hope it is sound.”’
A number of leading imams have judged the hadith authentic on the strength of that document, not on the basis of its isnād but because of its widespread acceptance.
Al-Shāfiʿī said, ‘They did not accept this hadith until it was firmly established that it is a letter from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said, ‘This letter is famous among the biographers; its contents are well-known to the scholars to such an extent that its fame makes an isnād unnecessary. Its transmission is virtually mutawātir, for people have unanimously acknowledged it as accurate and sound.’
Al-ʿUqaylī said, ‘This is a well-established, preserved hadith, except that in our view it is a written document, not something heard from those above al-Zuhrī.’
Yaʿqūb ibn Sufyān declared, ‘I know of no transmitted document more authentic than this one.’