“Ibn ʿUmar was asked about the two rakʿahs before Maghrib, and he answered, ‘I never saw anyone in the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ performing them.’ ”

It was recorded by Abū Dāwūd (1/202); al-Bayhaqī (2/476–477) transmitted it from him, as did al-Dūlābī in al-Kunā (2/5). Abū Dāwūd said, “I heard Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn say, ‘His name is Shuʿayb,’ meaning that Shuʿbah erred with respect to the narrator’s name.”

I say: I know of no evidence for this allegation of error, except that Shuʿbah differed with Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Abī Ghunayyah, for the latter called him Shuʿayb, as can be gathered from al-Tahdhīb. If that is the reason, it is not persuasive, for Shuʿbah’s memory was stronger than that of Ibn Abī Ghunayyah, as anyone who studies their biographies will see. Consequently, when the two disagree, Shuʿbah’s position is the one to be followed.

Ibn Abī Ḥātim (4/389/2) related from Ibn Maʿīn that he said, “Abū Shuʿayb who narrated from Ṭāwūs from Ibn ʿUmar is a well-known Basran.” He did not report from him what Abū Dāwūd attributed to him, which suggests that Ibn Maʿīn was not certain of the claim. This is further supported by the fact that none of the leading scholars transmitted from him what Abū Dāwūd cited. Rather, al-Dūlābī said, “I heard ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal say: I heard my father say, ‘Abū Shuʿayb heard from Ṭāwūs, and Shuʿbah narrates from him.’ ”

I say: In my estimation he is of unknown status (mastūr), even though al-Ḥāfiẓ, in al-Taqrīb, declared, “There is no harm in him.” That appraisal, however, was actually voiced by Abū Zurʿa about Shuʿayb al-Sammān, as al-Ḥāfiẓ himself clarified in al-Tahdhīb, and he considered that man other than the transmitter presently under discussion—a view likewise indicated by Ibn Abī Ḥātim, who treated them as two distinct individuals. I have not found any reliable authority who explicitly declared our narrator trustworthy. Allah knows best.

In short, the heart is not at ease regarding the authenticity of this report from Ibn ʿUmar, and al-Ḥāfiẓ hinted at its weakness in Fatḥ al-Bārī (2/86). Even were it sound, the affirmative narration of Anas—which establishes the practice—takes precedence over this negation, as stated by al-Bayhaqī, followed by al-Ḥāfiẓ and others.