in "al-Lisān": "Aḥmad mentioned that ʿAbd al-Razzāq became blind and was prompted, so the hearing of those who heard from him after he became blind is of no value. Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ said: I have found in what al-Dabarī narrated from ʿAbd al-Razzāq ḥadīths that I found very objectionable, so I attributed their issue to al-Dabarī, because his hearing from them was very delayed." I say: in sum, the ḥadīth is weak due to its being mursal, its disconnection between the one who sent it and the narrator from him, and the weakness of the chain to it, layers of darkness one above another, and despite all this, this doomed person in his wonder and arrogance says about it: its isnād is authentic!! Add to that the general defect encompassing his five ḥadīths, which is their contradiction to authentic ḥadīths! As for his fifth ḥadīth, it is also from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī as previously indicated, and the response to it was mentioned in his third ḥadīth with sufficient detail, and that it is objectionable like all his ḥadīths! Moreover, from the misguidance of this deluded person is that after he presented these weak ḥadīths and based on them that the three prayers were made obligatory as four units each, he proceeded to weaken what is authentic from the ḥadīths opposing them, which are three. The first: the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah previously mentioned: the prayer was made obligatory as two units... the ḥadīth. It is among what was narrated by the two Shaykhs and others from the authors of the authentic collections, to the extent that Ibn Rushd said in "al-Bidāyah" (3/395 - with the takhrīj of al-Hidāyah): "It is a firmly established ḥadīth by consensus." And its compiler, Shaykh Aḥmad al-Ghumārī, the brother of this ʿAbd Allāh, acknowledged it, compiled it, and did not comment on it