Second: We have already demonstrated that the report transmitted by Mālik—from the unquestionably reliable Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf—on the authority of al-Sāʾib, which sets the number at eleven rakʿahs, is the sound version. Anyone who differs with Mālik is therefore mistaken, and the same applies to anyone who differs with Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf—namely Ibn Khuṣayfa and Ibn Abī Dhiyāb; their transmissions are shādhdh (anomalous). In hadith methodology it is an accepted rule that an anomalous report is munkar (unacceptable) and must be rejected, for it is an error, and error can never lend corroborative strength. Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ says in the Introduction (p. 86):

When a narrator stands alone in reporting something, we scrutinize it. If his solitary report contradicts what has been narrated by someone superior to him in preservation and precision, then his report is anomalous and rejected. If there is no contradiction—he has merely related something no one else has transmitted—then, provided he is upright, a memorizor, and trusted for his accuracy and exactness, his solitary report is accepted.

There is no doubt that the narration under discussion falls into the first category, because its transmitter contradicts someone who surpasses him in memory and precision; therefore it is rejected. It is clear that scholars dismiss an anomalous report precisely because the contradiction exposes its error. Once a narration has been proven erroneous, it is inconceivable that it could strengthen another report of similar purport. Thus it stands established that the shādhdh and the munkar carry no weight and cannot be cited for support; their presence and absence are effectively the same. ⦗66⦘