Accordingly, the Shaykh’s last prop has also collapsed, and he has come away empty-handed.

The two replies that follow will shed further light on what we have only outlined here.

Answer to the third issue:

3 – The reply to the third issue—that some narrators did not state the affirmative report with certainty—is this: it is impermissible to rely on their uncertainty to declare defective the other chains that affirm the report decisively. On the contrary, the decisive chains impeach the uncertain one, for several reasons.

First: When a narrator is non-committal, it means he has no knowledge of the matter and did not retain it; whereas a categorical narrator’s wording shows that he knew and preserved it. How can the report of one who failed to preserve be preferred over that of one who did preserve?

Is this not contrary to the rule unanimously accepted by the scholars—that the one who has memorized is proof against the one who has not, and the one who knows is proof against the one who does not? It also contradicts their established maxim which states: