Why did the scholars rely on the hadith "The prayer of a menstruating woman is not accepted without a khimar," despite its not being authentically narrated in the Two Sahihs and despite some scholars weakening its narrator, Abu al-Khattab al-Basri? And does this align with their rejection of other explicit hadiths in Sunan al-Tirmidhi because they contradict their views, with the consequent change in the meaning of khimar in other hadiths, which leads to questioning religious rulings and the method by which scholars authenticate some hadiths while invalidating others?

It must be known that the Mujtahid jurists do not speak about Allah without knowledge, nor should it be thought that they accept one Hadith and reject another out of caprice. The condition of the hijab for a woman's prayer is evidenced by the authentic Sunnah and Ijma' (consensus), such as Aisha's Hadith: "Allah does not accept the prayer of a menstruating woman except with a khimar." A khimar is what a woman covers her head with, and there is a consensus on the obligation for a woman to cover her head in prayer. If she prays with her head uncovered, her prayer is invalid. As for covering the face with a khimar, it is derived from the verse: ﴿And let them cast their head-coverings over their bosoms﴾, but there is a consensus that covering the face is not obligatory in prayer.