It also escaped his notice that it did not meet the criterion for inclusion in his Zawa’id collection, since it is found in Ibn Majah, as mentioned above. He was likewise remiss in failing to attribute it to Ahmad. Al-Busiri similarly erred in his Zawa’id when he said: “Its chain of transmission includes Ibn Lahi‘ah, who is weak.” He failed to notice that Ibn Majah narrated it through Abdullah ibn Wahb from Ibn Lahi‘ah, and Ibn Wahb’s narrations from him are authentic, as has been pointed out repeatedly above. Qutaybah ibn Sa‘id also corroborated him in narrating from Ibn Lahi‘ah, and his narrations from him are likewise authentic, as I had quoted from al-Dhahabi.

After narrating it through several routes from Simak ibn Harb, from Ikrimah, from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Jarir said: “In our view, this report has an authentic chain of transmission. Yet, according to the methodology of others, it would have to be regarded as unsound and inauthentic because of certain defects...” He then mentioned them. They carry no weight except for the last of them: that some trustworthy narrators contradicted Simak and narrated it from Ikrimah, from Abu Hurayrah. This does not impugn the narrations through Ikrimah via the routes cited at the beginning of the documentation, since it is possible that he narrated it from both Ibn Abbas and Abu Hurayrah. Thus, the hadith is authentic from both of them, though it is more authentic on the authority of Abu Hurayrah, since the two Shaykhs agreed upon it, as noted above.

The scholars have differed as to whether the command mentioned in the hadith denotes obligation or recommendation. Many scholars, such as Abu Ja‘far al-Tahawi, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and others, discussed it at length. Imam Ahmad and others held it to be obligatory, whereas the majority held it to be recommended. Al-Tabari initially inclined to the latter view, and went on at length