—by means of corroborating chains and reports transmitted from the early generations—, a fact that shows plainly that they are interlopers in this discipline. And even if one or two of them possess some acquaintance with it, they have still wronged the Sunnah and veered from the truth out of deference to forefathers and schools of law.

This will become evident in several ways:

First: Although, in this very book, I traced the ḥadith back through reports of ʿĀʾishah, Asmāʾ bint ʿUmays, and Qatādah—pointing out the flaw in the first two chains and that the third report is mursal—most of them concealed this fact and led their readers to think that I cited only the report of ʿĀʾishah and that I never identified any weakness in its chain. The book itself disproves that claim, and the details will appear shortly. Among those guilty of this are Shaykh al-Tuwijrī, Ibn ʿUthaymīn, al-Shinqīṭī in Adwāʾ (6/597), and others. Had they been fair, they would have stated the precise point of disagreement between us and would not have misled people, thereby causing others to shoulder the burden of their misinformation—such as the author of “Ḥijābuk, Ukhtī al-Muslimah,” who writes (p. 33): “Those who permit women to uncover their faces relied only on the ḥadith of Abū Dāwūd….” In this she merely echoes al-Tuwijrī’s denial (p. 236). Her very definition of a mursal report shows that she understands absolutely nothing of hadith terminology.

Second: They have no right to quote only the verdicts of the narrators’ critics while suppressing the opinions of those who disagree with them—especially when they are attempting to refute their opponents. ⦗80⦘