they do not so much as lift their heads for it in the slightest; indeed, al-Ḥākim’s declaration of authenticity (1) is no proof that a report is even sound—he actually authenticates material that is, beyond any doubt to those versed in hadith, sheer fabrication. Someone unfamiliar with the discipline would fail to notice this, but such a person is no measure of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and the hadith scholars attach no weight to him whatsoever.

Even al-Ḥākim himself authenticates the ḥadīths of certain transmitters (2), yet in his book al-Madkhal he states that they are not to be relied upon and he openly brands some of them as liars. His only basis for grading those reports sound is the outward form of the isnād and the fact that its narrators are, on the surface, trustworthy; hence his formula, “its chain is sound.”

But it is well known that a sound isnād is merely one of the conditions for an authentic ḥadīth; by itself it does not establish authenticity (3). A report is judged authentic only when several factors concur: a sound chain, the absence of any hidden defect, freedom from aberration or repugnance, and that its transmitter has not contradicted or deviated from the reliable narrators.

In the present ḥadīth, its defect and aberrance are now manifest.

They say: As for Abū Muḥammad Ibn Ḥazm’s grading it authentic—nothing could be more in keeping with his literalism (4) and his failure to pay heed to the hidden defects and contextual indicators (5) that preclude its establishment