So what, then, will the readers say about this man’s attitude toward the statements of our Imams and his preference for an opinion grounded only in ignorance and whim? We ask Allah for safety.

I have also noticed two points of benefit while tracing the transmission of this ḥadith:

1. Al-Bukhārī, when relating Ibn Ṣāliḥ’s report from Muʿāwiyah b. Ṣāliḥ, says: “ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣāliḥ narrated to us,” meaning Abū Ṣāliḥ. Elsewhere—as noted earlier—he says: “Abū Ṣāliḥ told me.” This is decisive evidence that, for al-Bukhārī, there is no difference between the two expressions “narrated to us” (ḥaddathanā) and “told me” (qāla lī), and that his phrase “So-and-so told me” indicates a connected chain, not a broken one, contrary to what was alleged by someone ignorant of both scholarship and language, as has already been shown.

2. After citing the report transmitted through Ibrāhīm—in which the transmitter is unsure whether the Companion was Abū Mālik al-Ashʿarī or Abū ʿĀmir—al-Bukhārī comments: “This is only known from Abū Mālik.”

I say: This subtle remark shows that Mālik b. Abī Maryam was recognized by him, for he preferred the narration that firmly names the Companion as Abū Mālik al-Ashʿarī over the narration of his own teacher Hishām b. ʿAmmār, which he records in his Ṣaḥīḥ as mentioned earlier, and over the narration of Ibrāhīm just cited—both of which contain uncertainty about the Companion’s name. Had al-Bukhārī not regarded Mālik b. Abī Maryam as reliable, he would not have given his report precedence over those of Hishām and Ibrāhīm. Perhaps this is what Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) noticed when he said about this narration of Mālik: “Its chain is sound.” Allah knows best.