if you understand this; it is easy to discern the error of the imam from several aspects: first, he erred in [his assessment of] the reliable Abū al-Aḥwaṣ in his isnād—from Abū Isḥāq from Mujāhid from Ibn ʿUmar—by relying on an unknown narration from Nufayʿ the blind, without providing its isnād for us to examine whether it can truly oppose the isnād of this reliable narrator, or if it is similar to the isnād of that previous dissenter: ʿAmmār ibn Ruzayq. second, even if we assume that the isnād he did not provide is authentic to Nufayʿ, and it revolves around Abū Isḥāq; it is not sufficient to oppose the narration of Abū al-Aḥwaṣ due to the corroboration of Sufyān and Isrāʾīl with him. third, suppose that the narration of Nufayʿ is stronger than the narration of the three; there are still the other two paths from Ibn ʿUmar, and the corroborating evidence from Ibn Masʿūd, all of which counter the aforementioned preference. fourth, even if we hypothetically concede this preference; it does not necessitate weakening the ḥadīth for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of the first aspect, all of which are present in this ḥadīth as previously explained, especially concerning the two rakʿahs of Fajr; the ḥāfiẓ mentioned in "al-Fatḥ" (3/47) that this ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar has supporting evidence from the ḥadīths of ʿĀʾishah, Ibn Masʿūd (the past), Anas, Jābir, and Abū Hurayrah; he attributed them to their sources from the books of sunnah, and the most authentic of them is the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah; for it is in "Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim," and "Abū ʿAwānah," and it is also included in "Ṣaḥīḥ Abū Dāwūd" under number (1150). there is another criticism of the ḥadīth similar to the previous one in its peculiarity, sharing with it the oversight of the correct path, and it adds to it by critiquing the weak path previously mentioned from the narration of Layth ibn Abī Sulaym, as Ibn Naṣr said after it: