regard it as fabricated—meaning a forgery—such as al-Hakim and al-Hafiz al-Subki; hence we are not encroaching on al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi in this matter, but rather see the judgment of the two aforementioned huffaz as closer to the truth.”

I say: the deception and sleight of hand in these words are obvious. Al-Hakim, as already noted, actually declared the hadith authentic in his al-Mustadrak, and al-Subki merely copied him, as al-Hafiz Ibn ʿAbd al-Hadi explained when refuting him in al-Sarim al-Munki ⦗32⦘:

“I am truly astonished at him: how could he imitate al-Hakim in grading this hadith sound when it is neither authentic nor established? In fact it has an isnad that is exceedingly weak, and some of the imams have ruled it fabricated. Moreover, the chain from al-Hakim back to ʿAbd al-Rahman ibn Zayd is not even sound; rather, it was concocted upon ʿAbd al-Rahman, as we shall show. And even if the chain to ʿAbd al-Rahman were sound, the report would still be weak and unacceptable, because ʿAbd al-Rahman himself lies within it. Al-Hakim made a grave mistake here and fell into a flagrant contradiction—something for which he is well known in various places—for in his book al-Duʿafāʾ, after mentioning ʿAbd al-Rahman, he said, ‘Among them…,’ exactly what I have already cited ⦗107⦘. Reflect, then, on the enormous error and blatant inconsistency that befell al-Hakim at this point.

Yet this unfortunate objector seized upon the very point where al-Hakim erred and contradicted himself, imitated him in it, and built his case upon it, saying: ‘We have relied on al-Hakim in declaring it authentic,’ even though a little earlier he had claimed that its soundness had become clear to him. So look—may Allah have mercy on you—at this manifest abandonment and glaring mistake! How did this objector come to