“And its chain contains Abu al-Khattab Harb ibn Maymun, who has been declared weak and deemed trustworthy. Among those who declared him weak (!) was the shaykh of the hadith scholars, al-Bukhari. So how can a hadith which al-Tirmidhi describes as good and singular, saying, ‘We know it only through this route’—such a good and singular hadith (!)—be cited as proof, when al-Tirmidhi is known for his leniency and laxity in evaluating narrators and reports? It also contains one whom al-Bukhari declared weak, and al-Bukhari is more than sufficient as a critical authority in this field. So how can this hadith be used as evidence …?! O Allah, teach us knowledge untainted by ignorance!”

I say: Despite its awkwardness, its foreignness of expression, and its feeble style—to the point that it describes al-Tirmidhi as lenient!—this statement indicates that its author has no knowledge of this noble discipline and little acquaintance with the views of the imams of narrator criticism and accreditation, let alone any ability whatsoever to reconcile their statements concerning a single narrator. Anyone in such a state will inevitably say what no one before him has said—not even the scholar whom he imitates and relies upon in discussing hadiths, namely the virtuous Shaykh al-Sahsawani.

For al-Sahsawani discussed the hadith in a manner familiar to the specialists, even though he did not explicitly state its rank. The apparent sense of his words is closer to supporting al-Tirmidhi’s grading of it as good than to rejecting it. But this person in question summarized his words in a way utterly remote from the facts, leading him to state outright that its chain is inauthentic and that its narrator, Abu al-Khattab, is disputed over: “he has been declared weak and deemed trustworthy, and among those who declared him weak was al-Bukhari.” All of this stems from his ignorance and lack of knowledge; hence, he was unable even to express himself properly. Abu al-Khattab is unanimously regarded as trustworthy, and no one besides al-Bukhari declared him weak. Even regarding al-Bukhari’s declaring him weak, the scholars were uncertain whether he meant this Abu al-Khattab or the younger Harb ibn Maymun, as has already been explained. If he meant the former, then it is unexplained adverse criticism, as mentioned above. This is why the later critics, such as al-Dhahabi, al-Asqalani, and al-Khazraji, did not rely upon it, nor did al-Mundhiri before them, who concurred with al-Tirmidhi’s grading it as good. All of them knew that al-Bukhari was indeed the shaykh of the hadith scholars, but they also knew that truth is not determined by men and that none of them is infallible,