However, their verdict deserves reconsideration, for al-Ṭabarānī actually records the report in al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr through the route of Khālid—identified as either Ibn al-Ḥārith al-Baṣrī or Ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Wāsiṭī—who narrates from Yazīd ibn Abī Ziyād, from Mujāhid, from Ibn ʿAbbās.

This Yazīd, the Hāshimī mawla, is only cited by Muslim as a corroborating narrator; the Imam does not rely on him independently, and he is in fact weak. Al-Ḥāfiẓ remarks: “Weak—when he grew old his memory declined and he had to be prompted.”

One indication of his weakness in this ḥadīth is his inconsistency: on one occasion he transmitted it as “from Mujāhid, from Ibn ʿAbbās,” and on another as “from Mujāhid, from Ibn ʿUmar.” The latter version is found in Aḥmad, no. 1154.

On this second version he is followed by Mūsā ibn Abī ʿĀʾisha; Abū ʿAwāna related it—in his Ṣaḥīḥ, as cited in Fatḥ al-Bārī. This is a strong corroboration showing that the report has an authentic basis from Ibn ʿUmar, making it a robust supporting witness for the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās quoted earlier.

The next question is whether the additional phrase at the end—“so increase during them …”—also appears in the narration of Ibn Abī ʿĀʾisha. If it is present, the addition is sound; if it is absent, the wording is weak because Yazīd ibn Abī Ziyād alone reports it. The apparent sense of al-Ḥāfiẓ’s words in the first passage of Fatḥ al-Bārī is that, after citing the chain through Abū ʿAwāna, he says two pages later at the conclusion of his commentary: “In the narration from Ibn ʿUmar there is, at its end, the addition: ‘so increase during them the tahlīl and the taḥmīd.’” This seems to refer to that same transmission he had earlier attributed to Abū ʿAwāna. Al-Ḥāfiẓ further notes that the same addition occurs in some routes of the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, but he grades it weak. Allah knows best.