and I say: As for this Khalid, I have not found anyone who assigns him this kunya (teknonym) or any other (*). Should he in fact be the same person, he is unknown. Ibn Maʿin said, “I do not know him.” Ibn ʿAdi added, “If Yahya [ibn Maʿin] does not know him, then he cannot be well-known and remains obscure.” Al-Haythami’s sole grounds for declaring him reliable is Ibn Hibban’s endorsement, yet Ibn Hibban is famous for his laxity in such matters and therefore cannot be depended upon. For that reason al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, in Taqrib al-Tahdhib, graded him “maqbul” (acceptable)—that is, unknown, as he explains in the introduction. Ibn Hajar is more firmly grounded in hadith and better versed in its sciences than his teacher al-Haythami. As for the remaining proofs cited by those who restrict the salat, which Ibn al-Qayyim reported, they concern only the Shafiʿis. The Shafiʿis distinguish between the first and final tashahhud regarding salat upon the Prophet ﷺ in both ruling and quantity: they hold it obligatory in the final tashahhud but not in the first, and they say it is not prescribed to complete the formula in the first; rather, they deem it disliked to go beyond “Allahumma, send blessings upon Muhammad….” In contrast, during the final tashahhud additions are not disliked but recommended. Because of this, their opponents compelled them to treat the two tashahhuds identically in ruling, amount, and manner—a strong argument from which there is no escape, since the evidence is the same for both. How, then, can one justify differentiating between them? Accordingly, we maintain that the complete salat upon the Prophet ﷺ must be recited in every tashahhud so that one fulfills the command in full. Allah alone grants success. Later I came across a hadith that explicitly declares he ﷺ sent salat upon his Prophet in both tashahhuds, recorded by Abu ʿAwana. (*) In fact, he is Abu al-Jawzaʾ, as found in Musnad Abi Yaʿla (no. 4373); the name may have been misread by al-Haythami. See pp. 177–78.