knowledge at all, but rather from whim and from the pagan maxim, “The end justifies the means”?

Similarly, al-Tuwayjirī (p. 182)—followed by his shadow Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl (3/329) and others—invokes the ḥadith of Ibn ʿAmr:

(Weak) “We buried a man with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. When we returned, he came upon a woman whom we did not think he recognized, and he said, ‘O Fāṭimah …’” The report continues: “Had you gone with them to al-Kudā, you would never see Paradise until your grandfather sees it.”

He cites this, like the previous report, as evidence that women covered themselves during the Prophet’s time ﷺ. Yet that point is not in dispute—even if the text explicitly required covering the face, for such covering is prescribed; what it does not prove is that it is obligatory. That would only matter were the narration sound, but it is not. How could it be, when its transmitter al-Nasāʾī declared Rabīʿah ibn Sīf “weak”? Al-Tuwayjirī and his follower suppressed this judgement and were taken in by those who authenticated the report out of leniency or error, as I have shown in Daʿīf Abī Dāwūd (560).

The second objection:

It was raised by al-ʿAnbarī—mentioned earlier—in his booklet; he likewise criticized the narration (pp. 32–33) because the reporters differ over its exact wording.

That is what he said, but what he actually means is the reason for which the ḥadith was related and its answer—matters already clarified in my first reply to the first objection—for they have nothing to do with the text of the ḥadith itself, which is⦗108⦘