Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—said in his books. Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah judged this hadith authentic in some of his rebuttals of his opponents, and Imam Ahmad and others cited it as evidence for the permissibility of visiting the Prophet’s grave, peace and blessings be upon him. This is not the place to discuss that.

As for hadith 954, he advanced a two-horned falsehood, as the expression goes in some languages. On p. 515, he claimed that its narrator, Ibn Aqil, was “weak; all of them declared him weak except Ibn Abd al-Barr ... See al-Tahdhib!”

Yet, when the reader consults al-Tahdhib, he finds that the imams Ahmad, Ibn Rahuyah, and al-Humaydi cited him as evidence. Are these not imams in his view, or is the matter as the saying goes: “Love of a thing blinds and deafens”?!

He also turned a blind eye to the statement of al-Hafiz al-Ijli in his al-Thiqat (277/880, Tartib edition):

“A Successor, trustworthy, and acceptable in hadith.”

And to Ibn al-Qattan’s statement, after mentioning the disagreement concerning him:

“His hadith is good.”

He did not accept this verdict, although it is correct, whereas he relied on it—incorrectly—to declare weak the hadith of al-Irbad! No one had preceded him in this.

He likewise ignored al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi’s statement in al-Mughni:

“His hadith is good. Ahmad and Ishaq cited him as evidence.”

And the statement of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Taqrib:

“Truthful.”

In conclusion, there is a vast scope for discussing what this man did to al-Nawawi’s Riyad, and the authentic hadiths it contains whose authenticity he undermined, as well as the hadiths of al-Sahihah; so let us confine ourselves to what has preceded of