will the state of the others be, those who are good at nothing but blind imitation and empty noise? Some have even surpassed them: they halted at a report about which they had no knowledge and declared it sound. Such is Ṣāliḥ ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bulayhī in the booklet he entitled “Yā Fatāh al-Islām” (pp. 201, 252)—a claim no scholar ever voiced before, one that even a novice in this discipline would never dare to utter.

As for the author of “al-Ḥijāb,” our brother Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, who is still new to the field, he had no choice but to acknowledge the weakness of its chain (pp. 28, 46). True, he concealed its second defect—the weakness of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣāliḥ, as mentioned earlier—yet he stated it plainly in his other book “Aḥkām al-Nisāʾ” (p. 19).

What really draws attention is the remark of the esteemed Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn, after he cited the ḥadith with full certainty:

“The Companion’s interpretation is authoritative; indeed, some scholars say it has the status of a report traced back to the Prophet ﷺ.”

I reply: Indeed—but first set up the throne, then engrave the ornament! It was incumbent upon you, venerable shaykh, before making that assertion, to address the two defects in the ḥadith and to establish its authenticity according to the principles of ḥadith science, as is required in contentious issues of this sort—especially when you are responding to someone who had already declared your ḥadith weak. If you yourself concede its weakness, why did you cite it as evidence? And if you deem it sound, why did you not answer his critique and produce proof of its authenticity? Is this not inconsistent… ⦗54⦘