Some of them may argue, saying, “But the example is different.” We say beforehand: There is no difference except with respect to your denial, which is invalid and carries no weight, as has already been established.

To make this clear to the esteemed readers, I say: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq al-Qurashī and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq al-Wāsiṭī both narrated from Sayyār Abū al-Ḥakam, and Abū Muʿāwiyah al-Ḍarīr narrated from each of them. Thus, in some sources that record this hadith, the name “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq” appears without attribution, whereas in others it appears as “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq al-Qurashī,” with the attribution included. How, then, could they claim that he was al-Wāsiṭī when he is not identified as such in the chain, and deny that he was al-Qurashī when he is identified as such in it? It has therefore become plainly evident that the example corresponds exactly to the case it illustrates.

As for the one who declares authenticated hadiths weak, Ḥassān ʿAbd al-Mannān, whom I mentioned earlier, he joined those already mentioned in error and obstinacy, whether independently or by imitation—I do not know, and the better of the two is still bitter. For he borrowed his documentation of this hadith from my own documentation of it in the earlier editions. Thus, he said on p. 552 of his al-Ḍaʿīfah:

“Al-Tirmidhī (3558), Aḥmad (1/153), and al-Ḥākim (1/538) recorded it through ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq, from Sayyār. I say: There is unanimous agreement that this ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq is weak, and his narrations are rejected. [Shaykh Shuʿayb agreed with me in declaring him weak.]”

Let the readers carefully consider this documentation. Despite its brevity, they will find in it several flaws:

First: the theft of the documentation, as I just indicated. The proof is that he imitated me in attributing it to Aḥmad earlier, by volume and page; whereas the correct attribution is to ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad, as noted above.