Dua 1
اَللّٰهُمَّ اِنِّيْ عَبْدُكَ، وَابْنُ عَبْدِكَ ، وَابْنُ اَمَتِكَ نَاصِيَتِيْ بِيَدِكَ مَاضٍ فِيَّ حُكْمُكَ عَدْلٌ فِيَّ قَضَاؤُكَ اَسْاَلُكَ بِكُلِّ اسْمٍ هُوَ لَكَ سَمَّيْتَ بِهٖ نَفْسَكَ اَوْ اَنْزَلْتَهٗ فِيْ كِتَابِكَ اَوْ عَلَّمْتَهٗ اَحَدًا مِّنْ خَلْقِكَ اَوِ اسْتَاْثَرْتَ بِهٖ فِيْ عِلْمِ الْغَيْبِ عِنْدَكَ اَنْ تَجْعَلَ الْقُرْآنَ رَبِيْعَ قَلْبِيْ وَنُوْرَ صَدْرِيْ وَجَلَاءَ حُزْنِيْ وَذَهَابَ هَمِّيْ
O Allah! I am Your servant, the son of Your servant, the son of Your maidservant. My forelock is in Your hand; Your command over me is ever in force; Your decree concerning me is just. I ask You by every special name that is Yours, with which You have named Yourself, or which You revealed in Your Book, or taught to any of Your creation, or kept (as special) to Yourself in the knowledge of the unseen with You, (I ask You) to make the Quran the spring of my heart, the light of my chest, the remedy for my grief and the cure for my worries.
Sahih, Musnad Ahmad (1/452), al-Mu'jam al-Kabir (10/210), the wording is his, Sahih Ibn Hibban, no. (972), and al-Albani graded it Sahih in as-Sahihah no. (199).
Two objections are raised against this narration: first, that “Abu Salamah al-Juhani” is unknown; second, that the hearing of Abd ar-Rahman bin Abdullah bin Mas'ud from his father is not established. As for the first objection, the reply is that Abu Salamah means “Abu Salamah Musa bin Abdullah al-Juhani”, who is trustworthy and among the narrators of Sahih Muslim. The proof is that in this chain his teacher is al-Qasim bin Abd ar-Rahman, and some chains of al-Qasim bin Abd ar-Rahman mention “Musa bin Abdullah al-Juhani” explicitly, which is clear proof that he is the one narrating from al-Qasim. For further details see: [as-Sahihah (1/384)]. Imam Ibn Ma'in (RH) also expressed the view that “Abu Salamah al-Juhani” is “Musa al-Juhani” himself, [Tarikh Ibn Ma'in, narration of ad-Duri (3/442)]
The commentators of Musnad Ahmad say that some imams mentioned “Abu Salamah al-Juhani” and “Musa al-Juhani” separately, so these are two different people. The reply is that whoever mentioned the two separately did not know that “Musa al-Juhani” also had the kunyah “Abu Salamah”, whereas Imam al-Maqdisi and Imam al-Mizzi gave the kunyah of Musa al-Juhani as “Abu Salamah” [al-Kamal of al-Maqdisi: 9/63, Tahdhib al-Kamal of al-Mizzi 29/96]
As for Imam al-Mizzi mentioning “Musa al-Juhani” and “Abu Salamah al-Juhani” separately among the students of al-Qasim bin Abd ar-Rahman, he clearly did so following some earlier authors; but since he himself gave the information that the kunyah of Musa al-Juhani is Abu Salamah, in view of the evidence given nothing should prevent taking the two as one person.
As for the second objection, the reply is that those who affirmed Abd ar-Rahman's hearing from Abdullah bin Mas'ud far outnumber those who denied it; those who affirm it also have solid evidence; and moreover, the statement of the one who affirms takes precedence over the one who denies.
Caution:- Looking at the scholars' discussion of this hadith, all of it concerns the two points above, but some have come up with the point that in this chain “Abd ar-Rahman bin Mas'ud” is a mudallis and narrated with 'an. Yet no one before Ibn Hajar (RH) called him a mudallis, and Ibn Hajar (RH) himself, apart from at-Tabaqat, wherever he mentioned Abd ar-Rahman or discussed his chain, nowhere referred to his tadlis. Most importantly, the basis of this statement of Ibn Hajar (RH) is the claim that Abd ar-Rahman heard some hadiths from his father and narrated others directly from him after hearing them from someone else. And that claim is wrong from the start.
In fact, the scholars hold three positions on Abd ar-Rahman's hearing from his father. First: denying the hearing absolutely. Second: affirming the hearing absolutely, and this is the stronger view. Third: affirming the hearing where Abd ar-Rahman states clearly that he heard, and otherwise denying it. It is only from this third position that the accusation of tadlis arises, but this position is entirely wrong, because its proof is not that Abd ar-Rahman heard a narration of his father through an intermediary and then dropped the intermediary and narrated directly from his father; rather its only proof is the guess that he was very young when his father died, so how could he have heard many hadiths from him? The reply is that if he could hear even one hadith, then it became possible for him to hear all the hadiths, so without some specific proof his hearing cannot be denied in other hadiths merely by looking at his age. In short, the position on which calling Abd ar-Rahman a mudallis is built is not only against the majority of the imams but also wrong. These few points in defence of this hadith have been given very briefly; in sha' Allah we will discuss it in more detail on another occasion.