hadith and its critics, throughout the centuries and years down to our own day, such as al-Bukhari, Ibn al-Salah, Ibn Taymiyyah, and so on.
-
He declared its narrator, ‘Atiyyah ibn Qays, weak, although no one—not even Ibn Hazm—had declared him weak. He also cast doubt on Muslim’s and Ibn Hibban’s attestation of his reliability, and rejected Ibn Hajar’s attestation of him, despite the attestation of those who deemed his hadith authentic.
-
He claimed that Muslim transmitted a hadith from him as corroborative evidence, contrary to what those who wrote his biography have stated.
-
His statement that Ibn Hajar’s rulings are of no value, and so forth.
-
His claim that Ibn Sa‘d’s statement concerning the narrator, “He was well known,” does not constitute an attestation of reliability.
-
His declaring weak three authentic hadiths prohibiting prayer between columns and the breaking of the row. A detailed refutation of him will follow in Addendum no. 13.
-
His distortion of my words: he substitutes the term “proof” for “disconnection,” in order to attribute to me what I did not say, while what I have rightly attributed to him, he does not deny!
-
He alleged a difference of opinion over al-Bukhari’s phrase, “He said to me”: whether it is a suspended narration, like his phrase, “He said,” without the addition “to me”—when there is no disagreement! Worse still, he independently asserted that the more preponderant view is that they are equivalent!
-
He claimed that al-Bukhari did not rely on Hisham ibn ‘Ammar, contrary to all the hadith masters who wrote his biography and contrary to the hadith master’s explicit statement.
-
He claimed that the hadith which al-Bukhari narrates from him with a connected chain is merely a corroborating report!
-
He attributed to those knowledgeable about Sahih al-Bukhari—including Ibn Hajar—his claim