In answer, I say: This hadith is a fitting example of a weak hadith that is strengthened by a multiplicity of chains and by other factors. The explanation follows:

First: Many of its chains are not severely weak; rather, their weakness is due to the poor retention of some of their narrators, as is the case with the first chain in hadith no. 1. For this reason, a number of hadith masters graded it good—as I mentioned there previously—including al-Mundhiri and Ibn Daqiq al-Id, both of whom were Shafi'is. Imam Ahmad also acted upon it.

The same applies to the chain of Isma'il ibn Ayyash from Yahya ibn Sa'id in the third hadith from Ibn Umar. Isma'il is trustworthy, though he was deemed weak when narrating from non-Syrians. Al-Hakim said of him:

“Despite his eminence, if Isma'il ibn Ayyash is alone in reporting a hadith, it is not accepted from him, because of his poor retention.”

I say: His report is therefore admissible evidence here, for he has been corroborated, as you can see.

Likewise, there is the chain of Suwayd ibn Sa'id in hadith no. 9. He was trustworthy and one of Muslim’s teachers, but his memory had deteriorated.

These three chains are among those by which the hadith is strengthened, since they are not severely weak. As for the other chains, even if they add no strength to them, they do not harm them, as is evident.

Second: As mentioned earlier, al-Daraqutni deemed sound the mursal report of Sulayman ibn Musa from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Sulayman was a Successor whose hadith is good, and the chain to him is authentic. It is therefore a strong mursal report, accepted as evidence without qualification by many jurists; and by hadith scholars—including Imam al-Shafi'i—when it is supported by a connected chain through another route. How then, when it has come in this manner through several chains, as mentioned above?

Third: Some of its narrators among the Companions held this view, such as Ibn Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—for