—“Abū Dāwūd refrained from commenting on it only because its weakness is obvious.”

If al-Nawawī’s reasoning holds, we may say the very same about this ḥadīth: Abū Dāwūd kept silent about it because its weakness was manifest. He recorded it in his Sunan, and Ibn al-Sunnī included it in ʿAmal al-Yawm wa-l-Laylah; both of them transmit it through the chain of Muḥammad ibn Thābit al-ʿAbdī: “A man from the people of Syria narrated to me from Shahr ibn Ḥawshab, from Abū Umāmah—or from one of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ.” Ibn al-Sunnī’s version, however, omits the phrase “and with regard to the rest …” and so on.

Al-Nawawī states in al-Majmūʿ: “It is a weak ḥadīth, for the unnamed man is unknown, Muḥammad ibn Thābit al-ʿAbdī is unanimously judged weak, and Shahr’s reliability is disputed.” Ibn Ḥajar, in Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr, likewise concludes: “It is a weak ḥadīth.”

Al-Nawawī then adds, “Yet a weak ḥadīth may be acted upon in matters of virtuous deeds by consensus of the scholars, and this falls under that heading.”

I reply: This weak report contradicts the general wording of the authentic ḥadīth, “So say as he says.” Therefore, even for those who allow recourse to weak ḥadīths, acting on this one is impermissible. It is remarkable that some Shāfiʿīs cling to it despite its weakness and set aside the broad directive of the sound ḥadīth.

As for his claim of a consensus that weak ḥadīths may be employed in the sphere of virtuous deeds