from the other, and its content is not of a kind in which identical lies would ordinarily arise independently, it is known not to be a lie—especially when the narrators are not people given to lying. As for error, its likelihood diminishes with multiple routes of transmission. For this reason, Abū Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, would seek someone to corroborate a lone narrator, fearing that he might have made a mistake. Likewise, concerning the two women, Allah Most High says:

“so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.”

This would hold even if both routes went back to the same Companion. How much stronger, then, when one narrator relates it from one Companion and the other from another, and the wording of one contains something additional to the wording of the other? All this, and similar considerations, shows that the hadith has a known basis.

If it is objected: Granted that it is authentic, it is nevertheless abrogated, for the former report abrogates it. This is supported by what al-Athram narrated—which Ahmad cited as evidence in his narration—and what Ibrāhīm ibn al-Hārith narrated from ‘Abd Allāh ibn Abī Mulaykah:

“One day, ‘Ā’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, was returning from the graveyards, and I said to her, ‘Mother of the Believers, had the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, not forbidden visiting graves?’ She replied, ‘Yes, he had forbidden visiting graves, but then he commanded that they be visited.’”

The reply is that this can be answered in several ways. First, it has already been explained that the permission did not extend to women, so they are not included in the abrogating ruling.