And al-Tirmidhi has a similar report from Ibn 'Umar, without the middle part, and it is also weak.

The Shaykh :"And al-Tirmidhi has a similar report from Ibn 'Umar, without the middle part, and it is also weak. And from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

There is no Salat after Al-Fajr (begins) except two prostrations.

لا صلاة بعد الفجر إلا سجدتين

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 419Da'if (Darussalam)

The five [books] reported it except al-Nasa'i. And in a narration by 'Abd al-Razzaq:

There is no Salat (voluntary prayer) after the break of dawn ecept the two (Sunnah) Rak'a of Fajr.

لا صلاة بعد طلوع الفجر إلا ركعتي الفجر

Bulugh al-Maram 2:28

. And al-Daraqutni has something similar from Ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As" This is also a point to be taken against the author, that this is not in its proper place. Where is its proper place? After mentioning the times of prohibition. This is not its place. But in any case, as I told you, a person may forget or be negligent. So let us return to the hadith: The meaning of "two prostrations" here is the two rak'ahs, which are the two rak'ahs of Fajr. We have previously spoken about this kind of expression, and that first, it is a negation of existence; if that is not possible, then it is a negation of validity; if that is not possible, then it is a negation of perfection. So let us look at this hadith: meaning after the appearance of Fajr. It contradicts the previous hadiths which are explicit that the prohibition is related to the act of praying, not to the appearance of Fajr. And at that point, we must take one of two paths: either we say that this is anomalous and reject it, or we say that this is anomalous and reject it, because it is known that a weak hadith cannot oppose an authentic one. Or it can be said: the negation of prayer here is not the negation of prayer there. There, the negation is of prohibition, and here the negation is of prescription, meaning that it is not prescribed for a person to pray after the appearance of Fajr except the two rak'ahs of Fajr. Which is more appropriate: to take the first meaning and say it is anomalous and reject the hadith, or to interpret it to a meaning that aligns with the second hadith? The second is more appropriate, because whenever reconciliation is possible, it is obligatory. So we say: the meaning of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him and his family): is: there is no prescribed prayer, not that the meaning is there is no prayer. Yes, "no prayer" means the prohibition. For example, if you prayed the rawatib of Fajr and sat waiting for the Fajr prayer, is it better to stand up and pray, or is it better not to pray? Based on this hadith: it is better not to pray. And indeed, it is better not to pray, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to shorten the two rak'ahs. So if he shortens something that is prescribed, how can we bring in something that is not prescribed? And so we say: between the adhan of Fajr and the Fajr prayer, prayer is not prescribed except for what? Except for the two rak'ahs of Fajr. But if a person does that, we do not blame him. We do not blame him, because the time of prohibition only enters when? After the prayer.