Third: His statement: “Indeed, some scholars rejected its authenticity altogether, as Ibn Jarīr related.” I say: this is a malicious distortion, motivated by his desire to exaggerate the significance of the denial of this hadith’s authenticity. For the actual wording of Ibn Jarīr, as al-Ḥāfiẓ related from him in the very place to which al-Kawtharī himself referred, is: “Some of them denied that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, had said it.” Al-Kawtharī interpreted the phrase “some of them” as meaning “some scholars.” Yet there is no evidence for this. The denier to whom Ibn Jarīr referred may not have been, in his view, among the scholars worthy of being counted in their ranks; rather, he may have been one of the followers of caprice and innovation, such as the Murji’ah and their like—as is al-Kawtharī’s own case in my view. Consider, then, how he distorted this quotation from Ibn Jarīr in order to magnify the standing of the denier. This confirms that his نقل reports from scholars cannot be trusted. How many similar instances of this he has, which there is no room to elaborate upon here.

Fourth: His statement: “Among its transmitters is Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Bukayr, and Abu Ḥātim did not regard him as a narrator whose reports may be relied upon …,” and so forth. I say: this is the most unjust part of this commentary: an attack upon a trustworthy narrator and upon his hadith without proof or evidence. The explanation follows.

First: In criticising Ibn Bukayr, he relied upon the statements of Abu Ḥātim and al-Nasāʾī, while knowing that this was unexplained criticism, which cannot be accepted in such a case—particularly when the majority deemed him trustworthy and the two Shaykhs relied on his reports. For this reason, al-Dhahabī said: “He is trustworthy, a scholar of hadith and knowledge; his reports are relied upon in the two Ṣaḥīḥs.” He then mentioned the statements of Abu Ḥātim and al-Nasāʾī concerning him, and said: “More than one scholar deemed him trustworthy.”

Second: Even if we assume that the criticism of those who criticised him takes precedence over the accreditation of those who declared him trustworthy, it does not necessarily follow that he was