“Weak.” Al-Hafiz explained the reason for this in al-Taqrib (The Abridgment), saying: “They criticized him because he narrated from his father without having heard from him.” However, in al-Tahdhib (The Refinement), he mentioned an important point: “Abu Dawud recorded several hadiths from Muhammad ibn ʿAwf, from him, from his father. Yet they maintain—though the original reads, ‘they transmit them’—that Muhammad ibn ʿAwf had seen them in Ismaʿil’s original manuscript.”

I say: If this is established, then Ibn ʿAwf’s transmission from him is strong, since it is supported by its conformity with what Ibn ʿAwf found in Ismaʿil’s original manuscript. It is thus a recognized wijadah (transmission based on finding a written source), as is well known to the experts.

In sum, the hadith is good in light of this corroborating report. Allah knows best.

Tamam recorded it in al-Fawaʾid (Benefits) (5/2), and Ibn ʿAsakir, citing him, in al-Tarikh (History) (4/280/2), from ʿAmmar ibn Matar: Malik ibn Anas related to us, from ʿUmarah ibn ʿAbd Allah ibn Sayyad, from Nafiʿ ibn Jubayr ibn Mutʿim, from his father, in a report traced back to the Prophet ﷺ, concerning Allah’s saying: “By the witness and what is witnessed”: “The witness is Friday, and the witnessed is the Day of ʿArafah.”

However, al-Dhahabi said of ʿAmmar ibn Matar: “He is utterly unreliable. Some declared him trustworthy, while others described him as possessing strong retention.” Thus, he cannot be used as corroborating evidence because of his severe weakness. What has preceded is sufficient without him.

1503 — “The best words that I and the prophets have spoken on the eve of ʿArafah are: There is no deity worthy of worship but Allah alone, without partner. To Him belong all dominion and praise, and He has power over all things.”