Those critics just cited declared explicitly that Sharik was the sole transmitter of that wording. Yet the claim of singularity is open to question, for Kathir ibn Khunays—spelled with a dotted letter and in the diminutive form—also narrated it from Anas, as Saʿid ibn Yahya ibn Saʿid al-Umawi reported through his chain in Kitab al-Maghazi. End of Ibn Hajar’s words.

I say: This supporting narration does not dispel the error of the statement in question unless one assumes that the event occurred on the very first night, which is what the context suggests. His subsequent phrase, “until they came to him on another night,” does not specify the interval between the two visits; therefore, it can be taken that the second visit came after revelation had begun, and it was then that the Isrāʾ and Miʿrāj took place. Al-Hafiz affirms this interpretation in Fath, 13/480, and by it he refutes whoever alleged that Sharik had opposed the consensus—consult it.

Al-Hafiz then went on at length, listing the occasions on which Sharik differed from other narrators—ten, or even more—and he addressed them one by one, either by disproving the claim that Sharik stood alone or by offering a plausible interpretation.

In truth, some of these points allow no satisfactory answer, even on al-Hafiz’s own reckoning; for example, his statement:

“Fourth: his contradiction concerning the location of the Lote Tree of the Utmost Boundary, asserting that it is above the heaven …”