Likewise, compilers of historical works—such as Ibn Asākir in his “History of Damascus” and others—when giving the biography of one of the four caliphs or someone else (1), include everything they have transmitted on that subject. Thus, regarding Alī and Muāwiya, they cite reports about their merits that hadith scholars know to be fabrications. Alī, however, has established merits recorded in the two Sahih collections and elsewhere, whereas no merit pertaining specifically to Muāwiya is established by any sound hadith. Nevertheless, he took part alongside the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—in Hunayn, al-Tāif, and Tabūk; performed the Farewell Pilgrimage with him; and served as a scribe of revelation. He was therefore among those whom the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—entrusted with recording revelation, just as he entrusted others among the Companions.

If the opponent accepts everything that these authors and others like them related in their books, they also related many things that contradict his doctrinal position. But if he rejects all of it, his argument based merely on attributing the hadith [without the doctrinal position] to them (2) is invalid.

If he says, “I accept whatever agrees with my doctrinal position and reject whatever conflicts with it,” his disputant can say exactly the same to him; [both] (3) are invalid. It is impermissible to argue for the validity of a doctrinal position in this manner. For it may be said: If you learned that this hadith is sound independently of the doctrinal position, then state what proves (4) its soundness. But if you learned that it is sound only because it agrees with the doctrinal position, the doctrinal position cannot be used to authenticate the hadith; for the validity of the doctrinal position would then depend upon the soundness of the hadith, while the soundness of the hadith would depend upon the validity of the doctrinal position, resulting in an impossible circularity.