The first: Ashʿath ibn Isḥāq ibn Saʿd al-Ashʿarī al-Qummī.

The second: Ashʿath ibn Suwār al-Kindī.

The third: Ashʿath ibn ʿAbd Allah ibn Jābir al-Ḥaddānī.

The fourth: Ashʿath ibn ʿAbd al-Malik al-Ḥumrānī.

All of these are trustworthy except the second, who has some weakness; however, he is suitable for corroborative reports. This is indicated by what al-Barqānī related from al-Dāraquṭnī:

“I said to al-Dāraquṭnī: ‘Ashʿath from al-Ḥasan?’ He said: ‘There are three of them, all of whom narrate from al-Ḥasan: al-Ḥumrānī—namely, Ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, Abū Hānī—is trustworthy. The reports of Ibn ʿAbd Allah ibn Jābir al-Ḥaddānī may be used for corroboration; likewise those of Ibn Suwār, though he is the weakest of them.’”

I say: He omitted the first, who is also trustworthy, as Ibn Maʿīn and others stated.

In sum, this is an acceptable supporting report; thus, in my view, the hadith is good on account of it. And Allah knows best. Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī held that it should be acted upon, as stated in Subul al-Salām (3/78–79).