And if you would like still more illustrations of his conduct—cases we know of yet have not previously mentioned—here are a few that come readily to hand.
8 – He declares sound the ḥadith, “The minimum period of menstruation is three [days] and the maximum is ten,” in order to bolster his school and to rebut Ibn al-Qayyim’s verdict in al-Manār that none of it is authentic, indeed that it is wholly baseless. In his marginal note on that work (p. 122) he follows ʿAlī al-Qārī and others, claiming that the report possesses multiple chains. They were, however, ignorant of— or deliberately ignored—the fact that those chains are extremely weak and cannot reinforce one another, as I have detailed in Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍaʿīfa, no. 1114.
9 – He opposes the unanimous judgment of the hadith scholars who have declared certain reports weak—among them the ḥadith, “No ablution is required of one who falls asleep while sitting.” He does so out of partisan loyalty to his school, merely parroting Shaykh ʿAlī al-Qārī in Fatḥ Bāb al-ʿInāya (1/67). I have spelled out the weakness of this report and refuted them both in the source just cited (4384), showing that its chains are exceedingly feeble, unfit to lend each other support, in addition to contradicting the general statement of the Prophet ﷺ: “Whoever falls asleep must perform ablution.”
Thirdly: he writes (p. 11), following his remark “I am a Hanafi,” that I “vilify the Hanafi shaykhs.” I reply: this blanket assertion is a lie, for it suggests that my censure encompasses every Hanafi shaykh, early and late, the fair-minded and the fanatical alike. That is not the case. My words concern the very shaykhs of this bigoted partisan himself—and even then, not all of them, but obviously only those who shared his sectarian bias against the Imams of hadith such as al-Bukhārī and Muslim and maligned them. The exact wording of my statement in that regard is (p. 36): “The extent of this man’s partisanship…"