“Truthful, but became confused before his death.” The fourth is Abu Umayyah, namely Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Muslim al-Khuzaʿi al-Tarsusi. He is “truthful, but prone to error,” as stated in al-Taqrib.

The second chain is likewise beset by defects. First: ʿUmar, the freedman of Ghifarah, whose father’s name was ʿAbd Allah. Al-Hafiz said: “Weak; he frequently narrates mursal reports.” Second: ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿUmar—the elder al-ʿUmari—who is notoriously weak. Third: Khalid ibn Makhlad al-Qatwani. Al-Hafiz said: “Truthful, inclined to Shiʿism, and has solitary narrations.”

As for the third chain, all its narrators are trustworthy and are narrators of Muslim, apart from Ishaq ibn Ismaʿil—al-Taliqani—who is trustworthy. Thus, it is an authentic chain, but it is mursal.

It also has a fourth route, which al-Tabarani narrated in al-Kabir (1/196/1) through Musa ibn ʿUbaydah, from ʿUbadah ibn ʿUmayr ibn ʿUbadah ibn ʿAwf, who said: Abu Ayyub said to me: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to me: ... He then cited it with the wording: “... which Allah and His Messenger love? You reconcile people when they come to hate one another and fall into discord.” The remainder is similar.

Its chain is also weak: I have not found a biographical entry for ʿUbadah ibn ʿUmayr, and Musa ibn ʿUbaydah is weak. Nevertheless, in my view the hadith rises, through the combined strength of these routes, to at least the grade of good—especially since they include that authentic mursal report. And Allah knows best.