“…so it is not strong, for the mursal is weak….”

I reply: We have not overlooked—praise be to Allah—what you imagined, for we never relied on Qatādah’s mursal alone; rather, we cited it together with the supporting reports that reinforce it, exactly as we clarified in al-Jilbāb (pp. 58–59). It is you who missed your own “correct view,” only to undo it at the end of your discussion. You then overstepped all bounds with Imām al-Bayhaqī, and with al-Dhahabī, who had strengthened the mursal of Khālid ibn Dirik by appealing to the statements of the Companions—Ibn ʿAbbās, Ibn ʿUmar, Abū Hurayrah, and others, as already shown on pp. 34, 49–51, and 59 of al-Jilbāb. You paid no heed to any of that, displayed arrogance, and said—without the slightest embarrassment—“It is contradicted by the statements of other Companions as well; the view of Ibn Masʿūd, may Allah be pleased with him, has already been mentioned.”

This alleged contradiction proves that you are an intruder in this field, talking nonsense about what you do not understand. Who are the Companions whose words you claim oppose those cited by al-Bayhaqī? They exist only in your imagination; your objection is baseless.

As for the report from Ibn Masʿūd, it has already been answered in the Book (pp. 52–56). Besides, he is a lone voice against a group consensus. Even if his view were a valid counter-argument, a decisive factor would still be required—namely, the hadith acted upon by those who disagreed with him. That hadith tips the scale in their favor, nullifies your objection, and upholds the judgement of al-Bayhaqī and those who followed him—the majority of the Companions and the leading imams—as has been demonstrated more fully than you will find anywhere else.

Reinforcing a mursal through corroborating evidences is a well-established practice among the scholars, even when the mursal is of the type… ⦗92⦘