“Its isnād is ḥasan” is anything but ḥasan. One evidence of the weakness of the additional word “non-Arab (aʿjamiyyah)” is that none of the other chains contain it. The author has cited those chains in the Asl: some are authentic, and the rest are sound enough for corroboration.

I have documented the ḥadith in Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd (no. 862), al-Īmān by Ibn Abī Shaybah (no. 84), and Takhrīj al-Sunnah by Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim (no. 489).

This ḥadith is unquestionably sound; only an ignorant person or a partisan driven by his whims would doubt it. Whenever such people encounter a text from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that conflicts with their misguidance, they try to escape it—first by forced interpretation, even outright nullification; and if that fails, they attack its authenticity. That is what they have done with this ḥadith, despite its reliable isnād and the unanimous verdict of the ḥadith masters. Among them are Imam Muslim, who placed it in his Ṣaḥīḥ, Abū ʿAwānah in his Mustakhraj, and al-Bayhaqī in al-Asmāʾ, who, after citing it (p. 422), said: “This narration is sound; Muslim has recorded it.”

Yet we still find al-Kawtharī—ruined by his blind partisanship—trying to cast doubt on its soundness by alleging inconsistency. In his marginalia on al-Bayhaqī’s al-Asmāʾ (pp. 441–442) he writes:

“ʿAṭāʾ ibn Yasār alone—so he claims, may he get what he deserves—transmitted the companions’ report from Muʿāwiyah ibn al-Ḥakam. One of his versions, cited by al-Dhahabī in Kitāb al-ʿUluw, shows that the Prophet’s ﷺ exchange with the slave-girl took place only by gesture, and that the narrator later put into words what he had inferred from those gestures. The very wording of ʿAṭāʾ that demonstrates this is: ‘The owner of the slave-girl himself told me… [the ḥadith]: The Prophet ﷺ stretched out his hand toward her, asking by gesture, “Who is in the heaven?” She replied, “Allah.” He asked, “Then who am I?” She said, “The Messenger of Allah.” He said, “Set her free, for she is a Muslim.” This proves that the phrase “Where is Allah?” was not the Prophet’s own wording.’ Thus narrating only the meaning, not the precise words, is what has caused the confusion you see in the report.”

Such are his words—may Allah requite him with justice. Recall what we have already established about the ḥadith’s authenticity, and know that ʿAṭāʾ’s narration from the owner of the slave-girl is not sound in its chain, for it comes through Saʿīd ibn Zayd. Although truthful, his memory was weak; many scholars therefore graded him unreliable, and Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd deemed him extremely weak. Al-Ḥāfiẓ hints at this in al-Taqrīb, saying: “Truthful, but he makes mistakes.”

Moreover, the mention of the Prophet’s hand and the interrogative gesture is unique to this version; none of the meticulous narrators—nor even those below them—report it. Such a solitary addition is, beyond doubt, classed by ḥadith scholars as munkar (denounced).

So reflect—may Allah protect me and you from caprice—on how this man, al-Kawtharī, relied on this aberrant narration. Not only that, he used it to dismiss the firmly established report whose soundness is unanimously upheld by the ḥadith experts, treating the aberrant version as proof of weakness and confusion in the authentic one. What, then, should a believer say about