with my categorical assertion that Muhammad, al-Bukhari’s teacher in this hadith, was Ibn Saʿid al-Ansari, claiming that there is no evidence for it! Yet there he is opposing it without any evidence—or even the semblance of evidence—merely by making an assertion which, had even a Bukhari of his time made it, would not have been accepted! Listen to how he says:

“It requires proof to state categorically that al-Bukhari’s words, ‘Muhammad said,’ mean Ibn Saʿid. Rather, in my view, it is a narration of”—that is what he said! He means that it was—“Ibn Humayd al-Razi. It is as though al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, said, ‘Muhammad said,’ for this reason. This point should be considered.”

I say: I considered it and found it to be a manifestly strained construction, resting on mere possibility and a preference without any basis for preferring it. This is precisely what he falsely attributed to me and then censured me for! Yet there is a great difference between him and me—not, I do not say, in terms of mastery and experience in this discipline, but in that I coupled my assertion with evidence. For I said there concerning Muhammad ibn Saʿid:

“He was one of al-Bukhari’s teachers in the Sahih.”

This is what they explicitly stated in the biographical notice on this Muhammad, whereas they stated nothing similar in the biographical notice on Muhammad ibn Humayd al-Razi. I therefore do not know how our friend overlooked all of this, accusing us of what he himself is guilty of, while we are free of it, by Allah’s grace.

Moreover, what does he mean by his statement: “It is as though al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, said, ‘Muhammad said,’ for this reason”? Does this not mean that al-Bukhari mentioned this Muhammad—namely Ibn Humayd, whom he considers weak—without identifying him only in order to obscure his status and conceal him? Is this not very much like a form of concealment in transmission known as tadlis al-shuyukh, in which a teacher’s identity is concealed? And can it properly be attributed