while restricting himself to only a handful of their routes. Some later critics declared the ḥadith weak on account of certain transmitters found in those particular chains, but—given the multitude of supporting routes already mentioned—such criticism carries no real weight. They also objected that the report conflicts with the rigorously authentic traditions concerning the door of Abu Bakr, and went so far as to claim that it was fabricated by the Rāfiḍa to counter the sound ḥadith about Abu Bakr. End of their statement.

They erred grievously, for they ended up discounting authentic reports on the mere assumption of a contradiction, whereas it is perfectly possible to reconcile the two narratives.

He (Ibn al-Jawzī) then offered a reconciliation, which may be summed up as follows: ‘ʿAlī’s door faced the mosque and his house had no other entrance; therefore he was not ordered to close it. When the other doors were shut at the Prophet’s ﷺ command, their owners cut small side-openings (khawkha) to gain easier access to the mosque; later they were ordered to seal even those.’ Al-Ḥāfiẓ regarded this reconciliation as sound.

I say: This explanation is plainly open to objection. If ʿAlī had no other door, then leaving it open would confer no special virtue upon him—how else was he to enter and exit? The Prophet’s ﷺ permission would, in that case, have been granted purely out of necessity, and ʿAlī would be in the same position as anyone whose house shared that circumstance. Yet the earlier reports clearly present this incident as a unique merit of ʿAlī, so much so that Ibn ʿUmar wished he had been granted the same privilege, as related above. The interpretation that comes closer to the mark is the one advanced by Ibn Kathīr, may Allah have mercy on him, who, after citing several chains for this ḥadith, said: