and ‘Abd Allāh ibn Mas‘ūd. Nothing agreeing with Abū Hurayra’s hadith has been transmitted from any of them except Ibn ‘Umar (1), whose reports differ on this point (2).

Seventh: It has corroborating reports in the hadiths of Ibn ‘Umar and Anas, as discussed above, whereas Abū Hurayra’s hadith has no corroborating report (3). Even if the two were equally strong, the hadith of Wā’il ibn Hujr would take precedence because of its corroborating reports. How much more so, then, when Wā’il’s hadith is stronger, as explained above? (4).

Eighth: Most scholars follow it. The other view is only recorded from al-Awzā‘ī and Mālik. As for Ibn Abī Dāwūd’s statement that it is the position of the hadith scholars, he meant only some of them; otherwise, Ahmad, Ishāq and al-Shāfi‘ī hold the opposite view. Allah knows best.

Ninth: This hadith contains an account of an incident preceding the description of the Prophet’s action (5), may Allah bless him and grant him peace. This account is therefore more likely to have been accurately preserved, for the inclusion of an incident in a hadith indicates that it was accurately retained.

Tenth: All the actions described in it are firmly established through authentic reports from other narrators. They are thus well-known, authentically reported actions, and this action is one of them, so it warrants the same assessment. The opposing report is not equal to it in strength; it must therefore be given precedence (6). Allah knows best.