Through this same route it was also cited by al-Maḥāmlī in his book Ṣalāt al-ʿĪdayn (2/142/2).

I say: The chain of transmission is sound were it not for the fact that it is mursal; however, it possesses a connected supporting report that reinforces it. Al-Bayhaqī (3/279) recorded it through ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar, from Nāfiʿ, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar:

“Whenever the Messenger of Allah ﷺ went out for the two ʿĪds he was accompanied by al-Faḍl ibn ʿAbbās, ʿAbd Allāh and al-ʿAbbās, ʿAlī, Jaʿfar, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, Usāmah ibn Zayd, Zayd ibn Ḥārithah, and Ayman the son of Umm Ayman—may Allah be pleased with them all. He would raise his voice with the tahlīl (the formula lā ilāha illā Allāh) and the takbīr (Allāhu akbar), take the cobblers’ street until he reached the prayer-ground, and when he had finished he would return by the same street until he entered his house.”

I say: All of its narrators are trustworthy and belong to the narrators of Muslim, except that ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar—namely al-ʿUmari al-Mukabbir—about whom al-Dhahabī said: “Truthful, though his memory is somewhat deficient.”

Someone like him is acceptable for corroboration, for his weakness stems not from any moral flaw but from imperfect retention; it is therefore slight. Consequently he supplies a strong supporting witness for al-Zuhrī’s mursal report, and on that basis the ḥadīth is authentic in accordance with the principles of this noble science.

The ḥadīth has another route from Ibn ʿUmar, related through al-Zuhrī: “Sālim ibn ʿAbd Allāh informed me that ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar informed him of it,” identical to the mursal wording. Yet its chain up to al-Zuhrī is extremely weak, as I have shown in Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl (643); such a chain is unfit for corroboration, hence I have refrained from reproducing it here.

It has, however, been established authentically through Nāfiʿ from Ibn ʿUmar as a mوقوف (Companion-level) report with the same wording. There is no contradiction between that and the marfūʿ version, because the two follow different transmission routes, as is obvious. Accordingly, in my view the ḥadīth is authentic both as marfūʿ and as mوقوف.

The wording of the mوقوف report is:

“He would raise his voice with the takbīr on the Day of Fiṭr when he set out for the prayer-ground, continuing until the imām emerged, whereupon he would make takbīr together with the imām.”