Second: its chain of transmission is not sound, even though the two authorities cited by the compiler declared it authentic, because it contains al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Qurashī, who counts among the unknown narrators—as anyone may confirm by reading his biographical entry in Taʿjīl al-Manfaʿa. Nevertheless, the ḥadith is authentic through its corroborating reports, but without the specification of rakʿahs; see al-Ṣaḥīḥah 1724.

His statement concerning its ruling: “On the authority of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would pray the forenoon (ḍuḥā) prayer so regularly that we thought he would never abandon it, and he would leave it off so long that we thought he did not pray it at all.” It was narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan (sound).

I comment: Its chain contains ʿAṭiyyah al-ʿAwfī, who is weak on account of his numerous errors and his practice of tadlīs; the report is cited in Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl, no. 460.

His words regarding the number of its rakʿahs: “On the authority of Umm Hānīʾ that the Prophet ﷺ prayed the subḥat al-ḍuḥā—the forenoon voluntary prayer—eight rakʿahs, giving the salām after every two.” Abū Dāwūd narrated it with a sound chain.

I remark: Imām al-Nawawī said the same in al-Majmūʿ 3/39 and added, “according to al-Bukhārī’s criterion,” and Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar followed him in al-Talkhīṣ. Yet this is one of their slips, for the isnād contains ʿIyāḍ ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Fihri, the Medinan who later settled in Egypt. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar himself says in al-Taqrīb, “There is some softness in him,” and marks him as a narrator used by Muslim but not by al-Bukhārī. Al-Dhahabī uses the same symbol in al-Kāshif and hints at his weakness, stating: “He was deemed reliable, but Abū Ḥātim said: He is not strong.” Al-Dhahabī repeats the same verdict in his work al-Ḍuʿafāʾ.