Explanation of the author's statement: "From Abu Hurayrah: 'Whoever goes to a diviner or a fortune-teller and believes what he says has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).'"

The Shaykh : Yes, he says with a good chain Or is this "or" for doubt or for variation?
The student: For variation.

The Shaykh : It is possible that it is for variation, and it is possible that it is for doubt. We look: if we see the first hadith, it is not in the wording of "diviner," and if we see the second, it is in the wording of "fortune-teller," and if we see the third, we say it combines them, so is the "or" for what? It is for variation.
He said: The discussion on this has already been mentioned So if someone asks: Why did the author bring this hadith when the first and second are sufficient for it? We say: The abundance of evidence strengthens the meaning. Have you seen if a man informs you of a news and you trust him, then another comes and informs you of it, does not its trustworthiness increase in strength? And so if the third and fourth and fifth come. For this reason, the Lawgiver distinguished between a person coming with one witness or with two witnesses. Yes, he said: "And Abu Ya'la has it with a good chain from Ibn Mas'ud, similar to it, as a mawquf report". The apparent practice of the author is that the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: His apparent practice is that it is what? It is mawquf, because he said "from Abu Hurayrah" and did not say "from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)." So his apparent practice is that it is mawquf. But when he said in the one following it "similar to it, as a mawquf report," it became more likely to us that the hadith before it is marfu'.