that al-Ḥākim himself regarded the hadith of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd as fabricated, and that anyone who narrates it after coming to know his condition is one of the two liars.

Upon careful examination, the statements of the hadith masters Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabī and Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī concur that this report is void, and a number of other critical scholars—such as the ḥāfiẓ Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, as will be shown—have followed them in that verdict. Therefore, it is impermissible for anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day to declare the hadith sound by blindly following al-Ḥākim in one of his two opinions, when in his other opinion he expressly advises the student of knowledge not to record any hadith from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and states that whoever does so is one of the two liars, as mentioned above.

Note: Having understood this, the claim made by some shaykhs that Shaykh Nāṣir’s judgement—namely, that the hadith is false and fabricated—is unsound because it merely rests on al-Dhahabī’s declaration of fabrication, is itself groundless. Al-Dhahabī’s view is shared by the eminent ḥuffāẓ we have already named. They then add: “Al-Dhahabī’s basis is that al-Ḥākim’s chain contains a man who has been accused.” I reply: This too is incorrect, for the person in question, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muslim al-Fihrī, was simply unknown to al-Dhahabī; he did not accuse him, as we have just quoted. I doubt this is hidden from those shaykhs; rather, they have ignored it for reasons of their own, so that they can go on to say: “But the hadith has another chain with al-Ṭabarānī in which that accused man is absent; at worst it includes someone who is unknown.” I respond: in fact it contains three unknown narrators. And if they are unaware of that, why did they turn away from imitating al-Haythamī, who said, “Its chain contains narrators I do not know,” just as