I said: this is part of his concealment, for he knows that Abū Bakr ibn ʿAmr did not hear it from Abū Masʿūd because he transferred it from the book "Naṣb al-Rāyah" by al-Zaylaʿī (1/223), and he quoted from al-Bayhaqī that it is disconnected. This was also produced in his "Sunan" (1/361) as well as by al-Bāghandī in "Musnad ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz" (no. 62) through another route from Abū Bakr. Al-Bayhaqī said: "Abū Bakr ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr ibn Ḥazm did not hear it from Abū Masʿūd al-Anṣārī; rather, it is a report that reached him." This is firstly. Secondly: he knows that the ḥadīth is in "al-Ṣaḥīḥayn" and others through another route from Abū Masʿūd in a shortened form that does not include the specification of prayers, let alone the rakʿahs. Abū Dāwūd produced it with the specification of prayers but not the rakʿahs. All of this indicates that the mention of rakʿahs is objectionable because it is an addition with a weak chain to the authentic narration. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar pointed to this fact by saying after the ḥadīth of Abū Bakr: "I said: its origin is in 'al-Ṣaḥīḥayn' without specifying 'the times'." And likewise in "Naṣb al-Rāyah." It is also produced in "Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd" (418) and "al-Irwāʾ" (1/269). Thirdly: he also knows that the ḥadīth has come from a group of Companions reaching seven individuals, none of whom mentioned the number of rakʿahs, among them ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās, Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh, and Abū Hurayrah. These are produced in "al-Irwāʾ" (249), and "Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd" (417, 419, and 420), and they are all produced in "Naṣb al-Rāyah." So what can one say about a man who ignores all these narrations, some of which are authentic and good in themselves,