Al-Nawawi quoted Tirmidhi’s remark in al-Majmuʿ (3:460) in abridged form and then objected: “Tirmidhi said, ‘It is a hasan hadith.’ That is not correct, for Abu ʿUbayda neither heard from his father nor even lived long enough to meet him, by unanimous agreement; thus the report is munqatiʿ (broken).” Ibn Hajar raised the same defect in al-Talkhis (3:506): “It is broken, because Abu ʿUbayda did not hear from his father. Shuʿba related from ʿAmr ibn Murra: I asked Abu ʿUbayda, ‘Do you recall anything from ʿAbd Allah?’ He replied, ‘No.’ Muslim and others transmitted this.” Moreover, even were the hadith sound it would still fail to prove what they claim. Al-Shawkani (2:242), after presenting the debate on whether sending salat upon the Prophet ﷺ is obligatory and listing the proofs of both sides, writes: “Limiting that salat to the final tashahhud is supported by no evidence—neither sound nor weak. All the proofs cited by those who deem it obligatory apply equally to both tashahhuds. Their sole basis for restricting it to the last sitting is this hadith of Ibn Masʿud, and all it establishes is the desirability of brevity; that requirement is met simply by making the first sitting shorter than its counterpart—the final tashahhud. It certainly does not entail omitting practices for which other evidence establishes legitimacy. Undoubtedly, a worshipper who, in either tashahhud, recites one of the two shortest formulae of salat upon the Prophet ﷺ would still be hastening greatly in view of how long the last sitting already becomes with the prescribed seeking of refuge from the four evils and the various recommended supplications.” As for their assertion that no authentic report states the Prophet ﷺ actually did so in the first tashahhud, it can be countered that no authentic report states he did so in the final tashahhud either. Does that absence invalidate its legitimacy? Certainly not.