The first is the annotator of al-Muṣannaf, who, in documenting the report, writes:
“It was narrated by the Four, apart from al-Tirmidhī, and by al-Bayhaqī.”

I say: He paid no attention to the anomalous wording found in al-Muṣannaf itself, and then misled the reader into thinking that the same irregular wording appears in the works he cited—precisely the version on which Ibn al-Qayyim relied—so he inserted the ḥadith under the section on the sitting between the two prostrations, as mentioned earlier.

The second is the annotator of Zād al-Maʿād. He too overlooked Ibn al-Qayyim’s procedure just noted and fell in line with him when he cited the ḥadith, linking it to the sitting between the two prostrations. He attributed it to some of the sources named by the first annotator and then added, “It was declared authentic by Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Ḥibbān.”

His flagrant oversight is further exposed by the fact that when Ibn al-Qayyim returned to the subject of finger-movement during the tashahhud (1/242), the annotator did not cite the ḥadith at all—as though the earlier citation were enough. Had he been granted success he would have done the reverse: he would have placed the documentation in the second passage, not the first, and alerted readers to Ibn al-Qayyim’s mistake. But haste and scant verification prevailed—except insofar as blind imitation was easy!

He then said: “Al-Bayhaqī remarked: It is possible that what is meant by ‘moving’ is merely pointing with the finger, not repeatedly moving it, so that it accords with the narration of Ibn al-Zubayr that the Prophet ﷺ used to point with his finger when supplicating and would not move it. Abū Dāwūd transmitted it with a sound isnād, and it was mentioned by al-Nawawī.”

I respond: Rather, the isnād is not sound, and the proposed explanation contradicts the plain wording of the ḥadith. Even if it were authentic, one could reconcile the texts by saying that the Prophet sometimes moved the finger and sometimes did not, or by holding that the report affirming movement takes precedence over the one that negates it.