Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ al-Miṣrī stated, “Yaḥyā ibn Ṣāliḥ related to us thirteen hadiths from Mālik, and we found no corroborating source for them from anyone else.” (1)

Among those who declared him reliable are Ibn ʿAdī and Ibn Ḥibbān, while certain leading scholars censured him for holding an innovation, not for any lack of accuracy.

Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said, “A man from among the hadith scholars told me that Yaḥyā ibn Ṣāliḥ had remarked, ‘If the People of Hadith would drop ten reports—meaning those that concern the Vision [of Allah]—’ whereupon Aḥmad commented, ‘It is as though he has inclined toward the view of Jahm.’” (2)

I say: The Muʿtazila claim, “Had the hadith transmitters discarded a thousand reports on the divine attributes, the Names, the Vision, and the Descent, they would have been right.”

The Qadariyya say, “If they abandoned seventy hadiths that affirm predestination.”

The Rāfiḍa say, “If the majority would leave aside a thousand of the reports they deem authentic, they would be correct.”

Many of the rationalists reject hadiths that the ḥāfiẓ, jurisconsult, and independent scholar Abū Hurayra received directly from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, claiming that he was not a jurist (3). Yet they bring us reports that are baseless or lack any chain of narration at all, and put them forward as evidence.

We say: each group will stand before Allah — Exalted is He.

Glory be to Allah! The hadiths affirming the believers’ vision of Allah in the Hereafter are mutawātir, and the Qur’an supports them; where, then, is fairness?

Abū Jaʿfar al-ʿUqaylī said, “Yaḥyā al-Wuḥāẓī, a Ḥimṣī, was a Jahmī.” (4)