and imitated him in everything, as noted earlier—was that out of ignorance on their part, or simply following their whims? We seek refuge with Allah Most High.
As for his wording “…and Ṣadaqah ibn Khālid,” that is a mistake—most likely a slip of the pen. The correct wording is “…and Hishām ibn ʿAmmār,” as already shown in the reply to al-Ghazālī, pp. 28–29.
He also says in his treatise, p. 97:
“Al-Bukhārī did not cite it with a continuous chain; he merely said, ‘Hishām ibn ʿAmmār said…,’ after which it goes to Abū ʿĀmir or Abū Mālik—and no one knows who this Abū ʿĀmir is!”
The response to the claim of a break in the chain has already been given in detail on several occasions; see, for example, pp. 28 and 39–40. Yet, for the sake of completeness, I shall quote here some of what the masters and critics of hadith have written in refutation of Ibn Ḥazm’s objection, so that readers may better realize how far astray those have gone who deviate from the path of the believers by blindly copying him while pursuing their own desires. I say:
- The eminent scholar Ibn al-Qayyim said in Ighāthat al-Lahfān 1/259–260 and in Tahdhīb al-Sunan 5/271–272—combining and summarizing his words:
“No one has tried to impugn the authenticity of this hadith as Ibn Ḥazm did, championing his false view that musical instruments are permissible. He claimed that the chain is broken because al-Bukhārī did not connect it fully. This criticism is baseless for several reasons. First: al-Bukhārī actually met Hishām ibn ʿAmmār and heard from him; therefore, when he says…"