Second:

In support of this sweeping claim concerning its transmission, we would be satisfied if he provided either of two things: a chain of transmission that he cites and that scholars would accept as proof in disputed matters—even if the dispute concerned only a subsidiary matter—or a statement by one of the hadith scholars whose judgments of authenticity people rely upon.

If two jurists were to debate a subsidiary question, proof could not be established in the debate(1) except by means of a hadith known to have a chain sufficient to establish proof, or one authenticated by an authority to whom people defer in such matters. If its chain is unknown and the leading authorities on transmission have not recognized it as established(2), on what basis could its authenticity be known? This is especially so in foundational matters on which attacks against the early generations of the Muslim community and its majority are based, and by which one seeks to undermine the very foundations of the issue. How, then, can a hadith be accepted(3) in such a matter when its chain is unknown, the leading authorities on transmission do not recognize it as established(4), and no scholar is known to have authenticated it?

Third:

Hadith experts regard this hadith as a lie(5). Every scholar versed in hadith knows that it is a fabricated lie(6). For that reason, not one of them narrated it in the works consulted as authorities for transmitted reports, since even a person with the slightest knowledge of hadith knows that it is a lie.

It was, however, narrated by Ibn Jarīr and al-Baghawī through a chain containing Abd al-Ghaffār ibn al-Qāsim ibn Fahd, Abū Maryam al-Kūfī(7). Hadith critics unanimously agreed to reject him. Simāk ibn Harb declared him a liar, and so did Abū