To sum up the discussion of this ḥadīth: the Shaykh and those who imitate him—because their academic horizon is so narrow—have opposed Imam Aḥmad, the leading Ḥanbalīs who follow him, and others, both in ḥadīth criticism and in fiqh.

First, they declared the narration sound, whereas with Aḥmad and other authorities it is weak, its defect being the unknown status of the transmitter. Ibn al-Qaṭṭān failed to notice this in his Naẓar (66 / 1), even though it is his custom to censure a report for that very flaw, indeed even for anonymity of condition, as he did with the ḥadīth of Umm Ṣibyah, “My hand and the hand of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ clashed while we were performing wuḍūʾ from a single vessel” (f. 20 / 2). That narration is actually authentic and is included in Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd (71).

Secondly, they applied the ruling to all women, whereas it concerns only his ﷺ wives. This is the position preferred by al-Ḥāfiẓ in al-Talkhīṣ (3 / 148), who said, “With this interpretation al-Mundhirī reconciled the texts in his marginal notes, and our teacher deemed it preferable.”

As for scholars outside the Ḥanbalī school, al-Qurṭubī remarked in his Tafsīr (12 / 228): “This ḥadīth is not sound according to the experts in transmission, because its narrator Nabhān is someone whose reports are not accepted.”

So what can be done with a Shaykh who cherry-picks whatever statement he fancies, even after its error and its clash with the scholars’ principles have become manifest? ⦗1⦘