al-Haythamī himself did—yet they still rush headlong, ruined by their blind taqlīd, to proclaim, “It contains a narrator who is unknown?!”

The reason is that al-Haythamī’s wording makes it explicit that the individuals who are unknown are several, whereas their wording gives no such clarity. That phrase may be used whenever there is one—or more—unknown narrator in the isnād; in truth, then, this is one of their ploys to mislead the readers. We seek Allah’s protection from such failure.

They went on, in continuation of what preceded, to say: “The chain also contains ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd, who—according to the view preferred by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar—is classed as weak, and that description is among the lightest grades of weakness.” I reply: the position preferred by other ḥuffāẓ is that his weakness is far more serious. Abu Nuʿaym said of him, “He transmits from his father fabricated reports,” and al-Ḥākim himself said the same, as has already been cited. Both men are known for their leniency in declaring narrators reliable; therefore, when they criticise someone, it is only after it has become clear to them that the man is truly flawed. For that reason they all agreed on declaring him weak, as Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly stated. Indeed, ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī, Ibn Saʿd and others considered him severely weak, and al-Ṭaḥāwī said, “His narrations, according to the experts in hadith, occupy the very limit of weakness.” He has thus been notorious for extreme weakness since early times.

What, then, has led the objectors to ignore these unanimous verdicts that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān is exceedingly weak—if not an outright fabricator—and to cling instead to Ibn Ḥajar’s mere remark that he is “weak”? I mention this while allowing for the possibility that the word “very” may have slipped from Ibn Ḥajar’s pen—or that of a copyist—after his statement “weak.” In any case,