He raises an objection, for al-Bayhaqi does in fact transmit the report through Israil ibn Yunus, from Abu Ishaq, from Burayd ibn Abi Maryam, from al-Hasan – or al-Husayn – ibn Ali; he reproduces the wording found in al-Tirmidhi and adds the clause: “wa-la yaʿizzu man ʿadaayt” (and none can be exalted whom You oppose). The hesitation recorded for Israil concerns only whether the narrator was al-Hasan or al-Husayn. Al-Bayhaqi comments that the uncertainty seems to be about the name itself or about the attribution. I add: evidence for this hesitation is that Ahmad ibn Hanbal includes the hadith in the Musnad of al-Husayn ibn Ali (1/201) without expressing any doubt, transmitting it through Sharik, from Abu Ishaq, … with his chain. Although the correct view is that the report belongs to al-Hasan, not to his brother al-Husayn, this shows that the error originated with Abu Ishaq, who apparently grew unsure whether the narrator was al-Hasan or al-Husayn. The decisive proof that it is al-Hasan comes from the narration of Yunus ibn Abi Ishaq – and likewise that of Shubah – from Burayd ibn Abi Maryam, as noted earlier. Moreover, this additional phrase is also reported by al-Tabarani through Sharik and Zuhayr ibn Muʿawiyah, both from Abu Ishaq, and through Abu al-Ahwas, likewise from Abu Ishaq. I note further: the version of Yunus is exactly the one found in Ahmad’s Musnad, and Abu Dawud cites it from him in his Masail (no. 68). Al-Tabarani reproduces it in al-Kabir both through Yunus and through Shubah, each of them from Burayd ibn Abi Maryam, with this same addition. In short, the clause is sound and firmly established, beyond any doubt. This, however, escaped al-Nawawi, who stated explicitly in Rawdat al-Talibin (1/253, Islamic Office ed.) that the phrase was inserted by later scholars – just as they had allegedly inserted “fa-laka al-hamdu ʿala ma qadayt, astaghfiruka wa-atubu ilayk.”