the established narrations from him. al-Būṣīrī's criticism of it due to Ibn Isḥāq's use of 'anʿanah was merely based on Ibn Mājah's narration, despite it being mursal, and al-Suyūṭī included it in "al-Ziyādah" from the narration of Ibn Mājah and al-Bayhaqī as mursal. The mursal nature was compensated by its coming connected through Nāfiʿ from Ibn ʿUmar as previously mentioned. And Allāh knows best. The ḥadīth has two abbreviated supporting narrations: one from the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar, found in the collections of the two Shaykhs and others. The other: from the ḥadīth of Anas. It was narrated by the authors of the Sunan and others, and authenticated by Ibn Ḥibbān (5027 and 5028 - al-Iḥsān) and Ibn al-Jārūd (568), and they are included in "Aḥādīth al-Buyūʿ", and neither of them includes the option of three [days], so reliance is on the mursal of Ibn Ḥibbān and the musnad of Ibn ʿUmar, thus it is authentic through them. Perhaps this is what the ḥāfiẓ considered in his silence on it, and even his use of it as evidence in "al-Fatḥ" (4/337) and in Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān's affirmation of the ḥadīth in "al-Rawḍah al-Nadiyyah" (2/121), which is the truth without doubt. Whoever weakened or criticized it did not thoroughly investigate its chains and wordings. The ḥadīth establishes the option of three days for one who is deceived, and there is a difference of opinion among scholars on this matter, with details to be reviewed in "al-Fatḥ" and other extensive works.

- "In every two rakʿahs, there is tashahhud and peace upon the messengers and upon those who follow them from the righteous servants of Allāh." It was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (23/367/869) through the route of Abū Hammām al-Khārakī: ʿAdī ibn Abī ʿAdī narrated to me from ʿAlī ibn Zayd from al-Ḥasan from his mother from Umm Salamah that the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said: and he mentioned it. I said: This is a ḥasan ḥadīth, its narrators are trustworthy despite the weakness in ʿAlī ibn Zayd, and it is..