the first: Ashʿath ibn Isḥāq ibn Saʿd al-Ashʿarī al-Qummī. the second: Ashʿath ibn Sawār al-Kindī. the third: Ashʿath ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jābir al-Ḥadānī. the fourth: Ashʿath ibn ʿAbd al-Malik al-Ḥamrānī. And all of these are reliable except for the second, who is weak, but there is no harm in using him for corroboration, as indicated by what al-Barqānī narrated from al-Dāraquṭnī. He said: "I said to al-Dāraquṭnī: Ashʿath from al-Ḥasan? He said: There are three who narrate together from al-Ḥasan: al-Ḥamrānī, who is Ibn ʿAbd al-Malik Abū Hānī, is reliable. And Ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jābir al-Ḥadānī is considered reliable, and Ibn Sawār is considered reliable, though he is the weakest of them." I said: And he missed the first, who is also reliable as stated by Ibn Maʿīn and others. In summary, this is a witness that is acceptable, so the ḥadīth is ḥasan in my view, and Allāh knows best. Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī have adopted acting upon it, as mentioned in "Subul al-Salām" (3/78-79).