It was recorded by Ibn Abī Shaybah. Its isnād is authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, and ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥārith is the Anṣārī Abū al-Walīd al-Baṣrī, the relative and son-in-law of Ibn Sīrīn. I said: These are numerous strong reports that support the ḥadīth of the chapter, and even though they are mawqūf, they are considered marfūʿ, because it is unlikely that a group of them would agree on such a matter without a directive. If something similar came without being marfūʿ, it would still be a proof, so how about when it has come marfūʿ from two angles: one being the ḥadīth of the chapter, and the other its corroboration mentioned from Abū ʿĀʾishah. As for al-Bayhaqī's criticism of it due to its contradiction with those who narrated it from Ibn Masʿūd as mawqūf, it could have been considered, were it not for the first path, which al-Bayhaqī missed and did not mention. For this reason, he said following the previously mentioned report of Kurdūs and others: "This is an opinion from the perspective of ʿAbd Allāh (may Allāh be pleased with him), and the musnad ḥadīth along with the practice of the Muslims is more appropriate." Ibn al-Turkumanī responded to him by saying: "I said: This is not established by opinion. Abū ʿUmar said in 'al-Tamhīd': Such a thing cannot be an opinion, and it can only be by directive, because there is no difference between seven, less, or more from the perspective of opinion and analogy. Ibn Rushd said in 'al-Qawāʿid': It is known that the actions of the Companions in this matter are by directive, as analogy does not apply to it. Ibn Masʿūd was agreed upon by a group of Companions and Followers. As for the Companions, we have already mentioned them, and as for the Followers, Ibn Abī Shaybah mentioned them in his 'Muṣannaf'." I said: Are these not among the Muslims?! The truth is that there is flexibility in the number of takbīrs