The second route is through Abū Ṣāliḥ, from him, that he saw a man…—the report without the additional wording.

Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in al-Ṣaghīr, saying: “We were told by Muḥammad ibn al-Madīnī—Fustuqah—al-Baghdādī; we were told by Sarīj ibn Yūnus; we were told by Abū Ḥafṣ al-Abbār from Muḥammad ibn Ḥajādah, from him.” He then remarked: “No one relates it from Muḥammad ibn Ḥajādah except Abū Ḥafṣ al-Abbār.”

I say: He is reliable, a ḥāfiẓ; his name is ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. The rest of the men in the chain are trustworthy, and all are narrators found in the two Ṣaḥīḥs except for this Fustuqah—his nickname; his full name is Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn al-Faḍl Abū al-ʿAbbās—and he too is reliable, having died in 289 AH, as stated in Tārīkh Baghdād. Thus the isnād is sound.

Al-Shawkānī took issue with the ḥadīth, saying: “Its chain contains Ibrāhīm ibn al-Muhājir, who has been declared both reliable and weak.” What escaped him is that Ibrāhīm is supported by Ashʿath ibn Abī al-Shaʿthāʾ, who is trustworthy.

Although on the face of it the report is Companion-level (mawqūf), in meaning it is considered traced back to the Prophet by the majority. Al-Munḏirī states in his Abridgement of Sunan Abū Dāwūd: “Some have said that it is mawqūf, while Abū ʿUmar al-Namrī held that it is musnad in their view, declaring: They do not differ regarding this report and the statement of Abū Hurayrah—‘Whoever fails to respond, meaning the summons, has disobeyed Allah and His Messenger’—that both are connected and traced back to the Prophet.” The ḥāfiẓ said: