I say: A report from someone like him is good, but it is not fit to oppose the report attributed to the Prophet, since all of its transmitters are trustworthy and free of criticism. Either it may be said that Abu Sakhr erred in narrating it as attributed to the Companion, whereas the correct version is the one attributed to the Prophet; or it may be said that Abu Hurayrah would at times attribute it to the Prophet and at other times stop at himself, and each narrator preserved what reached him. Attribution to the Prophet does not conflict with attribution to the Companion, especially since the latter carries the ruling of a report attributed to the Prophet.

However, I found another curious hidden defect in it. Al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali said in Sharh ‘Ilal al-Tirmidhi, at the end of al-Sunan (1/206):

“A fundamental principle: Owing to their extensive experience with hadith, and their knowledge of the narrators and the reports of each one of them, the expert critics among the hadith masters possess a special insight by which they recognize that a given hadith resembles the reports of so-and-so and does not resemble those of another. On this basis, they identify hidden defects in hadiths. This is something that cannot be expressed in a concise formula; rather, those qualified in this field refer to the mere understanding and knowledge with which they have been distinguished above the rest of the scholars, as has previously been mentioned in more than one place. Examples of this include...”

He then cited many examples, some accepted and others not. Among them was this hadith, though he erred in attributing it to Muslim. He said (1/207–208):

“Among them is that Muslim included in his Sahih (!) through al-Qawariri, from Abu Bakr al-Hanafi, from ‘Asim ibn Muhammad al-‘Umari: Sa‘id al-Maqburi narrated to us from his father, from Abu Hurayrah”—then he cited the hadith and said: “Al-Hafiz Abu al-Fadl ibn ‘Ammar al-Harawi, the martyr, said:

‘This is a rejected hadith. Rather, ‘Asim ibn Muhammad narrated it from ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘id al-Maqburi, from his father; and ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘id was extremely weak. Yahya al-Qattan said: “I have never seen anyone weaker than him.” Mu‘adh ibn Mu‘adh also narrated it from ‘Asim ibn Muhammad, from ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘id, from his father, from Abu Hurayrah; and it resembles the reports of ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘id.’” End quote.

I say: Mu‘adh ibn Mu‘adh—namely, al-‘Anbari—and Abu Bakr al-Hanafi, whose name was ‘Abd al-Kabir ibn ‘Abd al-Majid, were both trustworthy narrators whose reports are relied upon in the two Sahihs. Thus, I see no basis for rejecting the hadith of the one on account of the narration of the other, without clear evidence, apart from the claim that his hadith resembles the hadiths of ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘id—