known among scholars for his strictness in criticism. Thus, his view should not be cited as proof when it stands alone, even if unopposed—so how much less when it contradicts others?!

As for Ibn al-Wazīr, the remarks of his cited by al-Kawtharī indicate that he did not impugn the addition on account of its chain of transmission, but rather on account of its meaning. In such a case, one should not definitively declare the meaning to be unsound, since it may admit of a sound interpretation that removes the defect he alleged. How can one definitively declare unsound the meaning of a hadith which leading imams and scholars from various generations received with acceptance and explicitly affirmed to be authentic? This is virtually impossible!

Two matters support what I have mentioned:

First: In another of his books, Ibn al-Wazīr authenticated this hadith of Muʿāwiyah, namely his valuable book, al-Rawḍ al-Bāsim (The Smiling Garden) in Defense of the Sunnah of Abu al-Qāsim. Therein, he devoted a special chapter to the Companions whom the Shiites had impugned and whose hadiths they had rejected; Muʿāwiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, was among them. He then listed the hadiths transmitted by him in the books of the Sunnah, together with corroborating reports narrated from a number of other Companions whom the Shiites had not impugned—and this hadith was among them!