which is contrary to reality, for when al-Zaylaʿī attributed it to al-Bayhaqī, he did not engage in deception as al-Ghumārī did! Rather, he followed it with his statement (1/223): "al-Bayhaqī said: 'Ayyūb ibn ʿUtbah is not strong.'" The other—and more dangerous—aspect is that this route does not mention the four units [of prayer], as al-Bayhaqī indicated in "al-Maʿrifah" by saying (1/173) after the ḥadīth: "I did not see the mention of the number except in the ḥadīth of Sulaymān ibn Bilāl from Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd (meaning: his ḥadīth from Abū Bakr mentioned earlier, which he criticized for being disconnected) and there is disagreement about it. The ḥadīth of Maʿmar from al-Zuhrī from ʿUrwah from ʿĀʾishah indicates that it was prescribed in Mecca as two units, and when he went to Medina, it was prescribed as four, which is more authentic." I say: This is undoubtedly true due to the ḥadīth of the chapter and others mentioned earlier, but al-Ghumārī does not give weight to what is authentically established from the ḥadīth. Rather, he weakens it based on opinion merely because it contradicts his desires, like this ḥadīth of Maʿmar, for he weakened it despite it being in "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī," as will be explained, and Allāh is the one whose help is sought. Supporting what al-Bayhaqī indicated is that the ḥadīth was also narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (17/260/718), where he presented it in full through the route of Ayyūb ibn ʿUtbah, and it does not include the four units. There is a third instance of deception by al-Ghumārī in his statement following his previous section: "It was narrated by al-Bāghandī in 'Musnad ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz,' and he explicitly mentioned the name of Bashīr ibn Abī Masʿūd in his narration. And Bashīr was described by the ḥāfiẓ as a noble Successor... thus, the ḥadīth is authentic through both routes."