promote a report that is neither sound nor firmly established—in fact, it is outright fabricated—then proceed to authenticate it, build his argument upon it, and imitate al-Ḥākim in doing so even though al-Ḥākim’s error and contradiction are plain, all while the very critic in question knows the weakness of the narrator, the verdicts passed against him, and is fully aware of the famous discussion about him?

I say: Such, may Allah have mercy on him, was al-Subkī’s stance regarding this ḥadīth and his blind following of al-Ḥākim in declaring it authentic. And although we have already shown that this is a mistake in and of itself, it also clashes with the view of the very authority they cited earlier, who openly stated that the ḥadīth is weak—neither sound nor outright fabricated. Thus he, together with those who copied and championed him, opposed al-Ḥākim and al-Subkī just as they opposed the eminent scholars already mentioned who judged the report forged or invalid. Their overreach, therefore, is not confined to al-Dhahabī alone; it extends to everyone who agreed with him and everyone who disagreed with him alike. Let the discerning person reflect on what unchecked desire does to its possessor! They sought to exonerate themselves from encroaching upon al-Dhahabī, yet ended up saying something far graver—an affront to all the scholars we have named.

Among their manifest sophistries, well known to people of learning, is their statement in the course of their earlier remarks—after they had referred to the isnād transmitted by al-Ṭabarānī that we have already discussed:

“Al-Dhahabī never came across this chain; had he seen it, he would not have said what he said.”

I say: This claim is false. Al-Dhahabī ruled the ḥadīth fabricated and baseless on the strength of al-Ḥākim’s route, which contains ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd and another unnamed narrator, as we clarified at the beginning of this note. The isnād of al-Ṭabarānī, in addition