I say: This is part of his concealment in transmission, for he knows that Abu Bakr ibn ‘Amr did not hear it from Abu Mas‘ud, since he نقل it from al-Zayla‘i’s Nasb al-Rayah (1/223), which reports from al-Bayhaqi that it is interrupted. Al-Bayhaqi himself transmitted it in his Sunan (1/361), as did al-Baghandi in the Musnad of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (no. 62), through another chain from Abu Bakr, from him. Al-Bayhaqi said: “Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn Hazm did not hear it from Abu Mas‘ud al-Ansari; rather, it is a report that reached him.” This is the first point.

Secondly, he knows that the hadith occurs in the two Sahihs and elsewhere through another chain from Abu Mas‘ud, in abbreviated form, containing no specification of the prayers, let alone the number of rak‘ahs. Abu Dawud transmitted it with the prayers specified, but without mention of the rak‘ahs. All of this means that the mention of the rak‘ahs is rejected, since it is an addition transmitted through a weak chain to the authentic narration. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar alluded to this fact when, after Abu Bakr’s hadith, he said: “I say: Its basis is in the two Sahihs, without specification of the times.” The same is found in Nasb al-Rayah. It is documented in Sahih Abi Dawud (418) and al-Irwa’ (1/269).

Thirdly, he also knows that the hadith has been narrated from a group of Companions numbering seven, whose reports do not mention the number of rak‘ahs. Among them are ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah, and Abu Hurayrah. These reports are documented in al-Irwa’ (249) and Sahih Abi Dawud (417, 419, and 420), and all of them are cited in Nasb al-Rayah. So what can one say of a man who disregards all these narrations, some of which are authentic and good in themselves,