these final words are those of Hishām ibn ‘Urwa. This is explicitly stated in Sahīh Muslim (1), where he relates: Abū Kurayb narrated to us; Wakī‘ narrated to us; Hishām ibn ‘Urwa narrated to us, from his father, from ‘Ā’isha … She then related the hadith. At its end (2), concerning this matter, it reads: “Indeed, Allah enabled her to complete her Hajj and ‘umrah. Hishām said: ‘No pilgrimage offering, fasting or charity was involved.’”

Abū Muhammad said (3): “If Wakī‘ attributed these words to Hishām, Ibn Numayr and ‘Abda included them among ‘Ā’isha’s words, and both are trustworthy. Wakī‘ attributed them to Hishām because he heard Hishām say them, but Hishām’s saying them does not rule out ‘Ā’isha having said them. A person may narrate a hadith with its chain of transmission, then give a legal ruling based on it without mentioning its chain. There is therefore no contradiction in any of this. Only someone who is unfair or follows his own desires resorts to such an excuse. The correct position is that every trustworthy narrator is to be believed concerning what he transmits. Thus, when ‘Abda and Ibn Numayr attribute the statement to ‘Ā’isha, they are believed because of their uprightness; and when Wakī‘ attributes it to Hishām, he too is believed because of his uprightness. All of this is correct: ‘Ā’isha said it, and Hishām said it.”

I say: This approach befits his literalism and that of others like him, who lack the understanding of defects in hadith possessed by the leading critics—the physicians who diagnose those defects and devote themselves to their study. These critics pay no heed to those who disagree with them but lack their discernment and knowledge; rather, they are certain that such people are mistaken (4). They are like expert money changers who distinguish sound coins from defective ones and pay no heed to the mistakes of those who cannot make that distinction.