Qays ibn Sa‘d—who is not among al-Bukhari’s narrators—was not declared reliable by Muslim; rather, Muslim mentioned him only in corroborative reports!” This, then, is what independent reasoning and critical investigation should be, O editor of al-Ribat!

Even more astonishing is his sophistry regarding al-Hafiz’s declaration that he was reliable. He said:

“Ibn Hajar’s rulings have no value if they are not founded upon clear evidence…”

That is, when they come from someone other than this scholar! As for his own ruling that the man is unknown, it has value—what value indeed—even if it rests on no evidence whatsoever! We seek Allah’s refuge from a time in which the Ruwaybidah—the insignificant, ignorant man—speaks!

The rest of his answers and rebuttals are likewise: bones without flesh. To discuss them at length would take too long, while space and time are too limited and precious to pursue them all. I shall therefore conclude with his position regarding Ibn Sa‘d’s statement concerning ‘Atiyyah: “He was well known.” He said:

“This is not a declaration of reliability; it is merely the opposite of ‘unknown,’ and has no bearing on the unknown status which I attributed to him.”

We say to him: Where is the evidence? He demands evidence for the declaration of reliability from the Commander of the Faithful in hadith; do we not then have the right to demand evidence for what he says, when he himself is unknown in this field?

Yet I consider the statement, “He was well known,” to be unrestricted, and an unrestricted expression is understood in its fullest sense, as the scholars state. Thus, it is as he says: the opposite of “unknown.” But he failed to realize that this is proof against him. For just as the term “unknown,” by virtue of its unrestricted and comprehensive wording, includes one whose identity is unknown and one whose status is unknown, so too does its opposite, “well known,” include one whose identity is known and one whose status is known. Thus, what he claimed and said is invalidated.