apply themselves diligently to studying this discipline until they excel in it, and publish beneficial hadith and fiqh research that they know the Ummah needs, so that people may see the fruit of their learning and acknowledge it.

Do these people not realize that, when they undertake to refute one whom they allege to be “the hadith scholar of the age,” this compels us to respond to them, expose their defects and their ignorance of this discipline, and show that they have set themselves up as mature scholars before mastering even the rudiments?!

Another point: you have cited al-Mizzi’s statement that this Abu Khalid was corroborated in his narration from al-Muhasir ibn Habib. How, then, could you mention this in order to establish the alleged inconsistency, yet disregard it whenever doing so suits you?! Is this not the practice of the people of whims and desires, who apply double standards and play both sides?! I therefore admonish you not to be among the ignorant.

Moreover, al-Muhasir himself was corroborated by Muhammad ibn Wasiʿ, from Salim, from ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿUmar, from ʿUmar, in a report ascribed to the Prophet.

It was recorded by a number of imams, including al-Bukhari in al-Kuna (50/430), al-Darimi, al-Tirmidhi, al-Hakim, and others, through Azhar ibn Sinan from him.

This is a chain suitable for corroboration, for Muhammad ibn Wasiʿ was trustworthy, devout, and possessed of many virtues. Muslim relied on him as an authority, as noted in al-Taqrib.

As for Azhar ibn Sinan, although a number of scholars deemed him weak, and al-Hafiz said of him, “Weak,” he was not accused of dishonesty. Rather, Ibn ʿAdi said in al-Kamil (1/420)—after citing several of his hadiths, of which this is one:

“His hadiths are acceptable and not extremely objectionable, and I hope that there is no harm in him.”