mentioned above.
- He denied that the word “musical instruments” occurs in the narration of al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Hajar, although it does occur there, as well as elsewhere!
For completeness, I shall also summarize my response to him in some of the following addenda:
-
In Addendum (8), he plagiarized my documentation of Hadith 266—I cited the conclusive proof—and concealed the identity of its narrator, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishaq al-Qurashi. He omitted the attribution “al-Qurashi” from the chain because he was trustworthy, in order to mislead readers into thinking that he was ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishaq al-Wasiti, whose weakness is unanimously agreed upon. He also concealed from them the fact that eight hadith masters—including al-Dhahabi and al-‘Asqalani—supported the hadith’s authenticity!
-
He declared weak three hadiths, considered authentic by a number of hadith masters, concerning the straightening of the rows, as will be detailed in Addendum (13). This has already been mentioned.
-
As you will see there, he attributed to me, along with others, blind adherence to al-Manawi in our statement concerning one of those three hadiths—which al-Hakim declared authentic—“al-Dhahabi concurred with him.” In this, he is lying. There you will see a facsimile demonstrating the concurrence, reproduced from al-Hakim’s al-Mustadrak and al-Dhahabi’s Talkhis.
-
Further examples of his evasion: through obstinacy and false argumentation, he disputed the statements of the hadith masters who declared trustworthy the narrator whom he himself had pronounced weak on grounds of being unknown. Of Ibn Hibban, he said, “He is lenient”; of al-Nasa’i, “He sometimes declares unknown narrators trustworthy”; and regarding Imam al-Daraqutni’s declaration of his trustworthiness, he said, “It is open to question”!
-
There, he concealed al-Dhahabi’s and al-‘Asqalani’s declarations that he was trustworthy. Had he mentioned them, we would not consider it unlikely of him that