and it was not apparent to him that it is not a condition of "his additions" because it is with Ibn Mājah as previously mentioned, just as he fell short by not attributing it to Aḥmad. Likewise, al-Būṣīrī erred in "his additions" where he said: "In its chain is Ibn Lahīʿah, and he is weak." He did not realize that it is with Ibn Mājah from the narration of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb from Ibn Lahīʿah, and the ḥadīth of Ibn Wahb from him is authentic as previously noted several times, and he was followed by Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd from him, and his ḥadīth from him is also authentic, as I had quoted from al-Dhahabī. Ibn Jarīr said after narrating it through various chains from Simāk ibn Ḥarb from ʿIkrimah from Ibn ʿAbbās: "And this is a report with us whose chain is authentic, and it may be considered by others as weak and not authentic due to certain reasons..." Then he mentioned them. They are of no value except for the last one, which is that some reliable narrators contradicted Simāk and narrated it from ʿIkrimah from Abū Hurayrah, and this does not undermine the narration of those chains referred to at the beginning of the extraction from ʿIkrimah, as it is possible that he narrated it from both Ibn ʿAbbās and Abū Hurayrah, so the ḥadīth is authentic from both of them, and it is more authentic from Abū Hurayrah due to the agreement of the two Shaykhs on it as previously mentioned. Furthermore, scholars have differed regarding the matter mentioned in the ḥadīth, whether it is obligatory or recommended. Many scholars, like Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭaḥāwī, Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, and others, have extensively discussed it. Imām Aḥmad and others considered it obligatory, while the majority held it to be recommended, and al-Ṭabarī leaned towards this view at the beginning of his discussion, and he elaborated extensively