the Shaykh of Islam, the leading ḥadīth scholar of his age, the one whose authority is cited by every compiler of the authentic collections. True, he does have a few minor slips, and there are others more accomplished in ḥadīth than he, yet [al-ʿAbbās] accuses him of lying and prefers over him al-Wāqidī—whom the critics unanimously abandoned. By such a claim he has, without doubt, shattered the consensus.

Al-ʿUqaylī said (1): I heard ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak al-Ṣanʿānī say:

“Zayd ibn al-Mubārak once kept constant company with ʿAbd al-Razzaq and narrated copiously from him; then he tore up his notebooks and attached himself to Muḥammad ibn Thawr. When he was asked about that, he replied:

‘We were sitting with ʿAbd al-Razzaq when he narrated to us the lengthy ḥadīth (2) of Maʿmar, from al-Zuhri, from Mālik ibn Aws ibn al-Ḥadathān… When he reached ʿUmar’s words to ʿAlī and al-ʿAbbās—“So you came seeking your inheritance from your nephew, and this man came seeking his wife’s inheritance”—ʿAbd al-Razzaq said: ‘Look at the simpleton! He says, “You come seeking your inheritance from your nephew, and this one seeks his wife’s inheritance from her father,” yet he does not say, “the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.”’

Zayd ibn al-Mubārak said, ‘After that I never returned to him, nor did I narrate from him.’”

I say: This is a grave matter, and he failed to understand the words of the Commander of the Believers ʿUmar. O man, had you but remained silent it would have been better for you, for ʿUmar was merely clarifying the issue of public ownership and kinship. Otherwise, ʿUmar—may Allah be pleased with him—is better versed in the Prophet’s rights and in venerating and exalting him than any pedantic extremist. Indeed, the proper thing to say of you is: “Look at this fool—may Allah pardon him—how he speaks about ʿUmar in this way yet does not say, ‘The Commander of the Believers, al-Farūq, said…’” In any case, we seek Allah’s forgiveness for ourselves and for ʿAbd