and in response, I say: This ḥadīth is a suitable example of a weak ḥadīth that is strengthened by multiple chains and other factors; here is the explanation: Firstly, many of its chains are not severely weak; their weakness lies in the poor memory of some of their narrators, as is the case with the first chain in ḥadīth number (1). Therefore, a group of ḥadīth scholars have graded it as ḥasan, as I mentioned earlier, including al-Mundhirī and Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd—both of whom are from the Shāfiʿī school—and Imām Aḥmad accepted it. An example is the chain of Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh from Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd in the third ḥadīth from Ibn ʿUmar. Ismāʿīl is trustworthy but was considered weak in narrations outside of the Shāmīs, and al-Ḥākim said about him: "Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh, despite his eminence, when he narrates alone, his ḥadīth is not accepted due to his poor memory." I say: his ḥadīth is accepted as evidence here because he has been corroborated, as you can see. Another example is the chain of Suwayd ibn Saʿīd in ḥadīth (9), as he is a trustworthy narrator from the teachers of Muslim, but he had become confused. These three chains strengthen the ḥadīth because they lack severe weakness, and the other chains, even if they do not add strength, do not harm it, as is evident. Secondly, al-Dāraquṭnī, as mentioned earlier, considered the mursal ḥadīth of Sulaymān ibn Mūsá from the Prophet ﷺ to be correct. He is a tābiʿī with ḥasan ḥadīth, and the chain to him is authentic, making it a strong mursal ḥadīth, which is used as evidence unconditionally by many jurists, and by the ḥadīth scholars—including Imām al-Shāfiʿī—when it is connected through another chain. How much more so when it has come through multiple chains, as mentioned earlier? Thirdly, some of its narrators from the Companions have acted upon it, such as Ibn ʿUmar (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu), for