ever. At best, those reports are among the material narrated by al-Qatīʿī. It is evident to any scholar that some of what al-Qatīʿī narrated in it consists of egregious fabrications. This Rāfidī’s citations are of the same kind as those of the author of al-ʿUmda and al-Tarāʾif. I do not know whether he copied it from him (1), or from someone (2) who in turn copied from him. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of transmission would be ashamed to attribute a report like this to Ahmad’s Musnad and the two Sahīhs. Copies of the two Sahīhs and the Musnad abound throughout the world, yet this report is found in none of them. Indeed, this report is not narrated in any recognized book of scholarship at all. Only indiscriminate collectors would narrate the likes of this—such as al-Thaʿlabī and his ilk, who transmit the worthless and the valuable alike without distinction.

The second point:

This report is a fabricated lie by consensus of those knowledgeable in hadith, and they are the authorities to whom one must refer in this matter. This (3) is not found in any of the hadith collections to which recourse is made (4).

The third point:

This verse occurs in Surah al-Shūrā, which is Meccan by consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah. Indeed, all the Hā Mīm surahs are Meccan, as are the Tā Sīn surahs. It is well known that ʿAlī married Fātima only in Medina, after the Battle of Badr; al-Hasan was born in the third year after the Hijra, and al-Husayn in the fourth. Thus, this verse had been revealed several years before al-Hasan and al-Husayn even existed. How, then, could the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—have interpreted the verse as requiring love for relatives who were unknown and had not [yet] (5) been created?!