3 – As for the ḥadith related by Anas:
Al-Bazzār recorded it, and its transmitters are those found in the two Ṣaḥīḥ collections. It was also transmitted by al-Ṭabarānī in his al-Awsat, as cited in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid (5/38), and by Ibn Abī Khaythamah in his al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said, “Its chain is sound,” as noted in Nayl al-Awṭār (1/55).

Hence, this ḥadith stands firmly established through these authentic chains from the three Companions—Abū Hurayrah, Abū Saʿīd, and Anas—leaving no room for rejection or doubt. It likewise confirms the veracity of Abū Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) in transmitting it from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. This refutes the claims of certain contemporary extremist Shīʿites and those who follow their deviant path, who have maligned Abū Hurayrah for narrating it and accused him of fabricating against the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Far be it from him to do so. Rigorous scholarly investigation shows his complete innocence, and that the real target of censure is the one who attacks him—for they have slandered a Companion and rejected a ḥadith of the Messenger ﷺ merely because it does not fit their diseased notions.

Moreover, as you have seen, a number of Companions narrated this report from Abū Hurayrah. I wonder: are these critics aware that Abū Hurayrah was not alone in transmitting the ḥadith—even though his solitary narration would be authoritative—or are they ignorant of this fact? If they do know, why do they keep invoking his name as though none of the noble Companions corroborated him? And if they are ignorant, why did they not consult the specialists and scholars of Prophetic tradition?