I say: the defect in the chain is Ibn Abī al-Sarī, and he is under accusation.
A supporting line is related by Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd from Nāfiʿ with the same wording.
Al-Dāraqutnī and Ibn ʿAdī recorded it in al-Kāmil (11/1) through Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh from Yaḥyā with this chain. Ibn ʿAdī commented: “No one reports it from Yaḥyā except Ibn ʿAyyāsh.”
I add: Ibn ʿAyyāsh is weak when he narrates from the scholars of the Hijaz, and this report is one of those cases.
The second route: from Muḥammad ibn al-Faḍl, from Zayd, from Mujāhid, from Ibn ʿUmar as a marfūʿ report. Al-Dāraqutnī transmitted it and said: “Muḥammad ibn al-Faḍl is Ibn ʿAṭiyya; he is abandoned in hadith.” He—and likewise al-Dūlābī in al-Kunā (2/137)—also recorded it through other chains as a mawqūf report on Ibn ʿUmar.
- As for the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbās, it too reaches us through several routes:
The first: via Abū Kāmil al-Jaḥḍarī. Ghunder Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar narrated to us, from Ibn Jurayj, from ʿAṭāʾ, from him, as a marfūʿ report. It was cited by Ibn ʿAdī (218/1–2), Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Falākī in al-Fawāʾid (91/1), and al-Dāraqutnī (36), who said:
“Abū Kāmil has uniquely transmitted it from Ghunder, and that is an error. He was followed by al-Rabīʿ ibn Badr—who is abandoned—in reporting it from Ibn Jurayj. The correct version is: from Ibn Jurayj, from Sulaymān ibn Mūsā, from the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—sent as a mursal report.”
Ibn al-Jawzī challenged this in al-Taḥqīq (1/29/1), saying:
“We reply: we know of no one who criticized Abū Kāmil. Treating the report as marfūʿ is an addition, and an addition from a trustworthy narrator is acceptable—especially when another transmitter corroborates him. Even if the corroborating narration is not relied upon in isolation, it is still taken into consideration. The custom of the hadith scholars, when they encounter both a mawqūf and a marfūʿ version of a report, is to prefer the mawqūf as a precaution; yet this is not the view…"