—people …” [the rest of the hadith].

I say: In this narration, then, you can see the falsity of the man’s assertion that al-Bayhaqi reported Bishr’s narration as part of Hisham’s narration. The reality is precisely the reverse: the context belongs to the narration of Abd al-Rahman ibn Ibrahim—namely, Duhaym—and Hisham’s narration occurs within it. Yet this point is of little consequence. What matters is that it explicitly states that Duhaym’s narration mentions musical instruments. There is no need to point out that Duhaym’s narration is from Bishr. This, then, is the great lie! Allah is the One whose help is sought.

The second point is that all of this is likewise established in Ibn Hajar’s transmission in Taghliq al-Ta'liq, in the very place to which he referred, by volume and page: 5/19. Ibn Hajar transmitted it through another route from al-Isma'ili, from his teacher al-Hasan ibn Sufyan, from his teachers Hisham ibn Ammar and Bishr ibn Bakr, as al-Bayhaqi had previously done. However, the hadith master remarked after it:

“The wording is that of al-Hasan ibn Sufyan’s narration from Hisham ibn Ammar; Duhaym’s wording is the same.”

Thus, there is no difference between Hisham’s narration and Bishr’s: both contain the wording “musical instruments.” The denier’s claim is therefore invalidated.

Someone who has not followed the man’s misleading tactics may say: “Perhaps he simply did not notice what you have demonstrated, though it is very clear.”

I say: That may be possible in the case of others like him who are beginners in this field, but not in his case.

If it is asked, “Why?” I say: Because of the many misleading tactics for which we have called him to account, and his deliberate disregard of the texts that run counter to his whims. What has preceded is sufficient for every fair-minded seeker of truth; and there is much more to come, as you will see in some of the other corrections.