My purpose at this juncture is not to rebut Ibn Ḥazm—​for the chain of transmission is in fact continuous and I shall answer him in due course—​but rather to expose the ignorance of the man who quoted him. I therefore say:

First: His statement, “Al-Bukhārī’s suspended narrations are to be accepted …,” involves both error and deception.

• The error: in the science of ḥadith terminology—​a discipline he dismisses outright unless it happens to serve his own opinion or whim—​acceptance is not unconditional. It applies only when the suspension is phrased with a decisive form such as “narrated,” “from,” or “said,” as is the case in this ḥadith. The details will appear in their proper place in this treatise, God willing, on pp. 39/40 and 82/85 of chapter three.

• The deception: he uses the passive voice, saying “are to be accepted,” i.e., by others, yet he does not say “we accept them,” for he may well refuse to do so—​as he has done here. Indeed, he frequently disregards reports that al-Bukhārī transmits with a continuous isnād, even when Muslim and the rest of the Six, or even sixty of the leading imams, concur, as several earlier examples have shown.

Second: He is unaware that Hishām ibn ʿAmmār was one of al-Bukhārī’s own teachers. Therefore al-Bukhārī’s wording “Hishām ibn ʿAmmār said …” is not a suspension but a connected chain, for in al-Bukhārī’s usage there is no difference between “Hishām said” and “Hishām narrated to me.” This will be clarified in the aforementioned third chapter, together with a forceful statement from Ibn Ḥazm himself.

Third: True to form, he failed to notice Ibn Ḥazm’s mistake when the latter asserted, “There is no link between al-Bukhārī and Ṣadaqa,” whereas the alleged break is actually between al-Bukhārī and Hishām, for—