others of similar purport from ʿUmar and from additional Companions. In reality, however, there is no contradiction between those narrations and the report of Ibn Sīdān, just as there is no clash between the ḥadiths that corroborate the first practice and those that corroborate the second. The Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—had received both instructions from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and they, exactly as he ﷺ did, would sometimes follow one course and at other times the other. I detailed this in my pamphlet al-Ajwibah al-Nāfiʿah, wherein I documented the marfūʿ traditions and the mawqūf reports on both matters; it has been published, so whoever wishes may consult it.

There remains the point that the author declared categorically that the report of Ibn Sīdān is weak, bolstering his claim with Ibn Ḥajar’s remark: “A senior Successor whose reliability is unknown.” I already refuted this in the aforementioned pamphlet, summarising that four trustworthy narrators transmit from him, that Ibn Ḥibbān lists him among the reliable transmitters (al-Thiqāt 5/31), and I now add that al-ʿAjlī likewise includes him (al-Thiqāt 258/820). I stated there: “His ḥadith is ḥasan according to the methodology of certain scholars such as Ibn Rajab and others.” Indeed, this is also al-Ḥāfiẓ’s own approach, as has been shown on pages 204–207. Allah knows best.

Regarding his statement on the number required for the Friday prayer to be valid: “It is valid with two or more, because the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Two or more constitute a congregation.’” I reply: it is not permissible to cite this as evidence, for it is not authentically traced back to him ﷺ, as I clarified in Irwāʾ 489 and Mishkāt 1081. Reliance should rather be placed on what the author later cited from al-Shawkānī. Refer to al-Sayl al-Jarrār 1/297–298, for it contains an important discussion that you may not find elsewhere.