(1) This report is *hasan li-ghayrihi* (acceptable because of corroborating evidence). Ibn Jarīr related it in his *Tafsīr* (23/137, al-Fikr edition) through two chains: [p. 82] The first: from Misʿar ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm, from Mūsā ibn Abī Kathīr, from Ibn ʿAbbās ... with similar wording. There is a break in this chain: Mūsā ibn Abī Kathīr did not hear from Ibn ʿAbbās. See *al-Taqrīb* (p. 553), where he is placed in the sixth generation, comprising those whose meeting with any Companion has not been established, as stated in the introduction. The second: from Saʿīd ibn Abī ʿArūba, from Abū al-Mutawakkil, from Ayyūb ibn Safwān, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Hārith ibn Nawfal, reporting that Ibn ʿAbbās ... He then quoted the report in full. The chain contains Saʿīd, who practiced *tadlīs* and later suffered memory deterioration. Abū al-Mutawakkil is al-Mutawakkil. His biography appears in *al-Jarh wa al-Taʿdīl* (8/372), which records neither criticism nor accreditation of him. He is also profiled in *Taʿjīl al-Manfaʿa* (p. 391), where he was judged to be eminent and the same judgment was attributed to Abū Hātim. This, however, is not found in Abū Hātim’s book; perhaps the author’s gaze slipped to the following entry in *al-Jarh wa al-Taʿdīl*. Allah knows best. Ayyūb also has an entry in *al-Jarh wa al-Taʿdīl* (2/250), which records neither criticism nor accreditation of him. Al-Hākim related it in *al-Mustadrak* (t/53) through Saʿīd ibn Abī ʿArūba, from Ayyūb ibn Safwān, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Hārith, reporting that Ibn ʿAbbās ... He then quoted it in full. I say: The chain contains Saʿīd and Ayyūb but does not mention al-Mutawakkil. This resulted from Saʿīd’s confusion, for his memory had deteriorated. Taken together, these two chains raise the report to the grade of *hasan li-ghayrihi*. This judgment is further strengthened by the following corroborating reports: 1) ʿAbd al-Razzāq related in *al-Musannaf* (3/79), from Maʿmar, from ʿAtāʾ al-Khurasānī, who said that Ibn ʿAbbās stated: “I continued to have some uncertainty concerning the Duhā prayer until I read: ‘We subjected the mountains to glorify Us with him in the evening and at sunrise.’” I say: This chain is *hasan* as far as ʿAtāʾ, but ʿAtāʾ’s reports from the Companions are *mursal* and disconnected. See *Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb* (7/212). 2) Al-Tabarānī related in *al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr* (24/406) and *al-Awsat* (6/63–64, *Majmaʿ al-Bahrayn*), through Abū Bakr al-Hudhalī, from ʿAtāʾ ibn Abī Rabāh, from Ibn ʿAbbās, who said: “I used to pass over this verse without knowing what it meant—‘the evening and sunrise’—until Umm Hāniʾ bint Abī Tālib told me that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, entered upon her and called for water for ablution in a basin, in which I can still see, as it were, traces of dough. He performed ablution, stood and offered the Duhā prayer, and then said, ‘O Umm Hāniʾ! This is the Ishrāq prayer.’” I say: Abū Bakr al-Hudhalī was a transmitter of historical reports whose hadiths were abandoned, as stated in *al-Taqrīb* (p. 625). Its attribution to the Prophet is objectionable; the correct version is *mawqūf*, stopping at Ibn ʿAbbās. 3) Al-Suyūtī cited a number of other corroborating reports in *al-Durr al-Manthūr* (7/150–151). See also Ibn Abī Shayba’s *al-Musannaf* (2/407–408).