Moreover, he linked the report by explicitly naming ʿUthmān in the chain—an additional detail on his part that is accepted even were the one who omits it his equal and peer; all the more so now that you know his standing. What is more, Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ also differed with him and narrated it with a continuous chain just as Thawr ibn Yazīd did, as al-Ḥāfiẓ recorded in al-Iṣābah.

For that reason al-Turkumānī said in al-Jawhar al-Naqī:
“ I say: the ḥadith is not strong—so judged ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq in his Aḥkām—and what seems to have led him to that conclusion is the variation in its isnād. Abu Dāwūd transmitted it in the form cited by al-Bayhaqī, whereas Ibn Mājah recorded it through Thawr ibn Yazīd, from Ziyād ibn Abī Sūdah, from his brother ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sūdah, from Maymūnah.”

Accordingly, the author of al-Kamāl said:
“Ziyād narrated directly from Maymūnah and also from his brother on her authority, and the latter is the correct version.”

He therefore wrote in the Zawāʾid:
“Abu Dāwūd recorded part of it, and the isnād of Ibn Mājah’s route is sound and its narrators trustworthy; it is stronger than the route of Abu Dāwūd, for between Ziyād ibn Abī Sūdah and Maymūnah stands ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sūdah, as Ibn Mājah explicitly states in his transmission—something Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn noted in al-Marāsīl but which Abu Dāwūd omitted.”

After writing the above, I consulted al-Majmūʿ by al-Nawawī and found that he too inclined to grade the ḥadith sound, for he says (8/278) in summary:
“Ahmad transmitted it in his Musnad with this wording; Ibn Mājah also narrated it with a chain that is unobjectionable, and Abu Dāwūd recorded it in abridged form with a ḥasan isnād.”