On the other hand, al-Sindi, al-ʿAdawī, and others are well aware of this, which is why they declared the report’s various chains to be extremely weak. The individual under discussion, as noted earlier, merely echoed their claim without noticing what the two were actually driving at.

I later corrected myself and said: Indeed, he did notice it and deliberately followed them, for when he discussed the isnād of Qatādah’s mursal report he wrote (p. 23):

“The truth is that the chain up to Qatādah is exceptionally sound and pristine, and it is correct that a mursal report—when reinforced by a weak chain—becomes sound and admissible as evidence; this is an undeniable fact. Yet those who rely on this principle have overlooked the fact that the mursal reports of Qatādah are weak and can never serve as proof.”

He then filled more than a page with quotations from certain authorities stating that Qatādah’s mursal reports are worthless, likening them to the wind.

So I say—and Allah’s help is sought against the upstarts of our age—

The question of refusing to rely on Qatādah’s mursal reports is not in dispute. The real issue is: do they gain strength when supported by a weak musnad chain or not? This is the crux of the matter. Following al-Bayhaqī and others, we maintain that they are indeed reinforced, and this is exactly what the critic himself affirmed when he wrote, “and it is correct …,” etc. Yet, owing to his inexperience, he did not remain consistent; he contradicted himself with the words, “Yet those who rely ….” He therefore responded—without courtesy and with glaring ignorance—to al-Bayhaqī’s grading of the mursal of Khālid ibn Dirik, which I had cited in the Book (p. 59). This novice wrote (p. 25):

⦗91⦘