whereas this was contrary to the facts. For when al-Zayla‘i attributed it to al-Bayhaqi—having quoted it from him—he did not conceal the matter as al-Ghumari did; rather, he followed it with the statement (1/223): “Al-Bayhaqi said: ‘Ayyub ibn ‘Utbah is not a strong narrator.’”

The second aspect—and it is more serious—is that this chain does not contain the four-rak‘ah formulation. Al-Bayhaqi indicated this in al-Ma‘rifah (1/173), saying after the hadith: “I have found no mention of the number except in the hadith of Sulayman ibn Bilal from Yahya ibn Sa‘id”—that is, his aforementioned hadith from Abu Bakr, which he had deemed interrupted—“and they have differed concerning it. The hadith of Ma‘mar from al-Zuhri, from ‘Urwah, from ‘A’ishah indicates that the prayer was prescribed in Mecca as two rak‘ahs at a time; then, when he left for Medina, it was prescribed as four, and this is sounder.”

I say: There is no doubt about this, in light of the hadith under discussion and the others cited above. Yet al-Ghumari attaches no weight to an authentic hadith; indeed, he even declares it weak on the basis of mere opinion when it conflicts with his own inclination, as with this hadith of Ma‘mar, which he declared weak despite its being in Sahih al-Bukhari, as will be explained. Allah is the One whose help is sought.

What al-Bayhaqi indicated is further supported by the fact that al-Tabarani included the hadith in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir (17/260/718), presenting it there in full through the route of Ayyub ibn ‘Utbah; it contains no four-rak‘ah formulation.

Al-Ghumari committed a third act of concealment in his statement following the preceding passage: “Al-Baghandi also narrated it in Musnad ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, and in his narration explicitly named Bashir ibn Abi Mas‘ud. Al-Hafiz said of Bashir: ‘A distinguished Successor...’ Thus, the hadith is authentic when the two chains are taken together.”