Affectation of Knowledge that Leads to Hatred and Enmity!!

We have been afflicted in this age with many pretenders to knowledge who think they have something!! When one of them reads a little and searches through “encyclopedias,” he becomes impressed with himself, and Shayṭān tempts him through it! So he begins to show off to the people with his scribbles on certain matters that in the scientific scale amount to nothing but air!!

Such a one puffs himself up and swells, inventing grand titles as though he has made some great discovery that no one before him has ever reached!!!

Then you see him tracking others for years; if he comes across something, he flexes his muscles in response! He begins attacking people, thinking that what he has arrived at is the truth!!

So to Allāh we complain of the pretenders of this age!!

One of these pretenders wrote an article entitled: “The Crime of Transmissions against Fundamentals, or: The Importance of Returning to the Fundamentals and the Danger of Relying upon Transmissions.”

And under this grand title he said:

“It is mentioned in the book Miṣbāḥ al-Arīb fī Taqrīb ar-Ruwāt alladhīna laysū fī Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb 3/172, entry no. (24525) as follows:

Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd as-Salām ibn Saʿīd at-Tanūkhī (majhūl — so said ad-Dāraqutnī) (Lisān 6/322).” End.

So the negligent one who leans toward ease and comfort comes along, imitating the author of this book; he weakens this narrator and transmits ad-Dāraqutnī’s statement about him: “Majhūl.” He then attributes this — trusting in this intermediary — to Ibn Ḥajar’s Lisān al-Mīzān!!

But had he looked himself into Ibn Ḥajar’s book, he would have been wringing his hands in regret at what he relied upon from this contemporary’s citation!!

For in Lisān al-Mīzān of Ibn Ḥajar (7/304, print of Abī Ghuddah = 5/259, Indian print) it states:

“(Z) Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd as-Salām ibn Saʿīd at-Tanūkhī, from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar ibn ʿImrān al-Madīnī, from his father, from Mālik, from Abī az-Zinād, from al-Aʿraj, from Abī Hurayrah (may Allāh be pleased with him), marfūʿ: The most common trees in Paradise are ʿAjwah and Umm Jurdhān.

It was narrated by ad-Dāraqutnī in al-Gharāʾib, from Abī Ṭālib al-Ḥāfiẓ, from Yaḥyā ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh the Qurʾān-reciter of Qayrawān, from him. He said: It does not stand, and its narrators are majhūlūn.

Then it became clear to me that Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd as-Salām is a trustworthy, well-known man, and he is Ibn Sahnūn. For the name of Sahnūn is ʿAbd as-Salām ibn Saʿīd, and ‘Sahnūn’ is his laqab, as has been mentioned earlier in his entry [3353]. And his son Muḥammad is among the great scholars of the Maghrib.” End of Ibn Ḥajar’s words.

I say: Ad-Dāraqutnī (may Allāh have mercy on him) did not say that about him specifically, as the author of this book falsely suggested!! Rather, he said concerning a ḥadīth in which this narrator was one of the transmitters: “It does not stand, and its narrators are majhūlūn.” So Ibn Ḥajar included this narrator in his book because at first he did not recognize him, and he supported his inclusion by what he quoted from ad-Dāraqutnī. But the ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh have mercy on him) quickly corrected himself and returned to declaring the man trustworthy after it became clear to him that he is Muḥammad ibn Sahnūn ibn ʿAbd as-Salām at-Tanūkhī, the well-known scholar and Imām. And his state, in effect, was saying that ad-Dāraqutnī did not intend him by that general judgment.

And the astonishing thing is how the author of al-Miṣbāḥ dealt with the source of this entry!! Why did he not raise his head to what was written at the end of it? Thus he committed a grave injustice against the two Imāms, ad-Dāraqutnī and Ibn Ḥājar, what an injustice indeed!! End.

On returning to fundamentals vs. parroting transmissions

I said:

The title is grand and important, and indeed one must return to the fundamentals as much as possible, and not rely upon what many contemporaries transmit merely for the sake of verification, since into this science have entered those who are unskilled at it…

But to magnify this pretender because of what the author of Miṣbāḥ al-Arīb did is misplaced!!

For he only relied on the understanding of al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar of ad-Dāraqutnī’s words, otherwise what he cited in al-Lisān… and let us put aside Ibn Ḥajar’s own correction of himself at the end of the passage.

The important point here is that the author of the book transmitted the declaration of this narrator being majhūl from ad-Dāraqutnī, relying on the fact that al-Ḥāfiẓ included him in his book. And it was not obligatory upon him to include Ibn Ḥajar’s self-correction that he came to know him as Ibn Sahnūn, since the matter is connected to the words of ad-Dāraqutnī (may Allāh have mercy on him) regarding his being majhūl.

Yes, it would have been better if he had mentioned Ibn Ḥājar’s correction in this entry, but he is not to be censured for not doing so.

And likewise did the authors of Mawsūʿat Aqwāl Abī al-Ḥasan ad-Dāraqutnī fī Rijāl al-Ḥadīth wa-ʿIlalih (2/597) [Dr. Muḥammad Mahdī al-Muslimī – Ashraf Manṣūr ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān – ʿIṣām ʿAbd al-Hādī Maḥmūd – Aḥmad ʿAbd ar-Razzāq ʿĪd – Ayman Ibrāhīm az-Zāmlī – Maḥmūd Muḥammad Khalīl]. They mentioned (3210):

“Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd as-Salām ibn Saʿīd at-Tanūkhī. Ibn Ḥajar said: from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿImrān al-Madīnī, from his father, from Mālik, from Abī az-Zinād, from al-Aʿraj, from Abī Hurayrah (may Allāh be pleased with him), marfūʿ: The most common plants of Paradise are al-ʿAjwah and Umm Wadān. Narrated by ad-Dāraqutnī in al-Gharāʾib from Abī Ṭālib al-Ḥāfiẓ, from Yaḥyā ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh the reciter of Qayrawān, from him, and he said: It does not stand, and its narrators are majhūlūn. Lisān al-Mīzān (7741).”

They mentioned “Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd as-Salām ibn Saʿīd at-Tanūkhī” but did not mention al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥājar’s statement that he is Ibn Sahnūn.

So the matter is light… especially for one who traces the narrations of this Ibn Khushaysh!

Supplementary notes on the isnād and narrators

And I have come to know — by the grace of Allāh — some of the men of his isnād regarding whom al-Ḥāfiẓ ad-Dāraqutnī declared jahālah. So do we need to inflate the matter the way this pretender has!!!

Ibn Ḥājar said in al-Lisān (7/304) (7089) – (Z):

“Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd as-Salām ibn Saʿīd at-Tanūkhī, from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar ibn ʿImrān al-Madīnī, from his father, from Mālik, from Abī az-Zinād, from al-Aʿraj, from Abī Hurayrah (may Allāh be pleased with him), marfūʿ: The most common plants in Paradise are al-ʿAjwah and Umm Jurdhān.

Narrated by ad-Dāraqutnī in al-Gharāʾib, from Abī Ṭālib al-Ḥāfiẓ, from Yaḥyā ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh the reciter of Qayrawān, from him, and he said: It does not stand, and its narrators are majhūlūn.

Then it became clear to me that Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd as-Salām is a trustworthy, well-known man, and he is Ibn Sahnūn. For the name of Sahnūn is ʿAbd as-Salām ibn Saʿīd, and Sahnūn is his laqab, as mentioned earlier in his entry, and his son Muḥammad is among the great scholars of the Maghrib.”

I said: Ibn Ḥājar (may Allāh have mercy on him) was correct — he is Ibn Sahnūn: Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd as-Salām at-Tanūkhī, the faqīh of the Maghrib, Abū ʿAbdillāh, son of the faqīh of the Maghrib ʿAbd as-Salām Sahnūn ibn Saʿīd at-Tanūkhī al-Qayrawānī, the Shaykh of the Mālikiyyah (d. 265 AH).

And in Ibn Ḥājar’s book there is an addition in the isnād which this pretender did not notice!

For in it: “from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar ibn ʿImrān al-Madīnī”! But the correct version is: “from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿImrān al-Madīnī,” for in it there is an addition of “ibn ʿUmar,” which is an error.

And his father “ʿImrān” was mentioned by ar-Rashīd al-ʿAṭṭār in his book ar-Ruwāt ʿan Mālik, where he said (p. 319) (1316):

“ʿImrān ibn Anas al-Madanī. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said: ʿImrān ibn Anas mentioned that he asked Mālik about this ḥadīth of Umm Salamah, and he said: It is not from my ḥadīth. So I said to his companions: Shuʿbah narrated it from him and transmitted it from him, yet he says it is not from my ḥadīth!! They said to me: If he does not act upon the ḥadīth, he says regarding it: It is not from my ḥadīth.

Then Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said: This Ibn Anas is a Madanī, of the same age as Mālik ibn Anas, and his kunya was Abū Anas. And he is not ʿImrān ibn Abī Anas, Abū Shuʿayb al-Madanī. And ʿImrān ibn Abī Anas is more reliable than Ibn Anas — so be aware of that.”

And ad-Dāraqutnī narrated in al-Gharāʾib, from Abī Ṭālib al-Ḥāfiẓ, from Yaḥyā ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh al-Qārīʾ al-Qayrawānī, from Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd as-Salām ibn Saʿīd at-Tanūkhī, from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿImrān al-Madīnī, from his father, from Mālik, from Abī az-Zinād, from al-Aʿraj, from Abī Hurayrah (may Allāh be pleased with him), marfūʿ: The most common plants of Paradise are al-ʿAjwah. End.

I said:

Al-Bukhārī said in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (6/423):

“ʿImrān ibn Anas Abū Anas al-Makkī. Ibn Sallām said: Yaḥyá ibn Wāḍiḥ informed me: ʿImrān heard from ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Mulaykah, from ʿĀʾishah (may Allah be pleased with her) from the Prophet ﷺ: ‘The gravest fornication is transgressing against the honor of a Muslim.’”

And al-Tirmiḏī extracted a ḥadīth for him in his Jāmiʿ (2/330), then weakened it, and said:

“I heard Muḥammad [meaning al-Bukhārī] say: ‘ʿImrān ibn Anas al-Makkī: munkar al-ḥadīth.’”

Then he said:

“And ʿImrān ibn Abī Anas al-Miṣrī is earlier and more reliable than ʿImrān ibn Anas al-Makkī.”

Ibn Ḥibbān said in al-Thiqāt (7/240):

“ʿImrān ibn Anas Abū Anas al-Makkī: narrates from Ibn Abī Mulaykah, and ʿAṭāʾ. Narrated from him: Yaḥyá ibn Wāḍiḥ Abū Tumaylah, and Muʿāwiyah ibn Hishām. Whoever said: ʿImrān ibn Abī Anas, then he has erred. He makes mistakes.”

And al-Ḏhahabī mentioned him in his Tārīkh (4/168), in the generation of those who died between the year (151–160 AH).

As for his son ʿAbdullāh, I did not know who he was; he is of unknown status.

And it is possible that he is: “ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿImrān al-ʿĀbidī al-Makhzūmī al-Makkī,” who died in the year (245 AH).

Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned him in al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl (5/130) and said:

“ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿImrān al-Maʿābidī al-Makkī Abū al-Qāsim. Narrated from ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Abī Ḥāzim, and Fuḍayl ibn ʿIyāḍ, and Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah, and ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿUmari, and Yūsuf ibn al-Fayḍ, and ʿĪsá ibn Yūnus. My father heard from him in Makkah and narrated from him. My father was asked about him? He said: Ṣadūq.”

And Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt (8/363) and said:

“He makes mistakes and contradicts.”

As for Yaḥyá ibn Khushaysh, he is not majhūl, he is known, and I do not think al-Dāraqutnī was ignorant of him.

Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī gave him a biography in his Tārīkh (16/327) and said:

“Yaḥyá ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh ibn Yaḥyá Abū Zakariyyā al-Ifrīqī. He came to Baghdād and narrated there from: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Bishr ibn Yazīd, and Dāwūd ibn Yaḥyá, and Yaḥyá ibn ʿAwn ibn Yūsuf al-Ifrīqī.

Narrated from him: Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn Ḥafṣ al-Nufaylī, and others.

In his ḥadīth are oddities and rejected reports.”

And he transmitted from Ibn Yūnus al-Miṣrī, who said:

“Yaḥyá ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh ibn Yaḥyá, a client of the people of Ifrīqiyah, kunya Abū Zakariyyā. He traveled to ʿIrāq, and his death was in Baghdād after the year 280 AH.”

And he is the calamity of this ḥadīth! He narrates fabrications and odd reports that are not known from Mālik except through him! And all of them are lies upon Mālik, and that is why those who authored books on the narrators from Mālik mention them, in order to clarify their status!

And Abū Saʿīd al-Naqqāsh accused him of fabrication. (Tanzīh al-Sharīʿah al-Marfuʿah ʿan al-Akhbār al-Shanīʿah al-Mawḍūʿah 1/128).

Al-Ḏhahabī said in al-Mīzān (4/408):

“I think he is from the Maghrib, a man of odd reports. Narrated from the people of al-Qayrawān. Narrated from him Abū Ṭālib Aḥmad ibn Naṣr al-Ḥāfiẓ.

From his calamities: Abū Ṭālib narrated from him: ‘Aḥmad ibn Naṣr narrated to us, Abū Zurʿah Sulaymān ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qayrawānī narrated to us, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ashras narrated to us, Mālik narrated to us, from Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad, from his father, from Jābir, who said: the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: “Whoever eats food while another looks at him but he does not feed him, he will be afflicted with a disease called al-nafs.”

Mālik said: “It is a disease with no cure.”

This is a lie upon Mālik.

And Abū Ṭālib said: Yaḥyá narrated to us, Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyá al-Qayrawānī narrated to us, ʿAnbasah ibn Khārijah narrated to us, Mālik narrated to us, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar – marfūʿ: “The Qadariyyah are cursed upon the tongue of seventy-two prophets, the first of them Nūḥ.”” End quote.

Sibṭ Ibn al-ʿAjamī said in al-Kashf al-Ḥathīth (p. 281):

“The wording of al-Ḏhahabī indicates clearly that the fabricator is Ibn Khushaysh, and Allāh knows best.”

And Ibn Ḥajar said in al-Lisān (8/474), after mentioning al-Ḏhahabī’s words:

“And al-Dāraqutnī weakened him, and weakened his shaykh and the shaykh of his shaykh, so he listed the first ḥadīth in al-Gharāʾib, from Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ismāʿīl al-Aylī, from Yaḥyá ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh, with it. And he said: ‘This is false upon Mālik, and upon Jaʿfar. And those below Mālik are weak.’

And Abū Ṭālib ibn Naṣr followed al-Aylī in this.

Al-Khaṭīb extracted it in Gharāʾib Mālik from his route and said: ‘Very strange.’”

I said:

There has already preceded for Yaḥyá a ḥadīth in the biography of Dāwūd ibn Yaḥyá, and another in the biography of Saʿīd ibn Maʿn, in which Ibn Khushaysh was alone in narrating it, and ad-Dāraquṭnī mentioned that it is fabricated. And he has also been mentioned earlier in the biography of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ashras and others, and in the biography of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Bishr ibn Yazīd.

And adh-Dhahabī mentioned in al-Mīzān (2/460):

“ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUthmān al-Maʿāfirī, from Mālik.

Al-Khaṭīb said: Unknown.

I say: His report is fabricated.

Yaḥyá ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh narrated: ‘Dāwūd ibn Yaḥyá narrated to us, ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUthmān al-Maʿāfirī narrated to us, Mālik narrated to us, from Abū az-Zinād, from al-Aʿraj, from Abū Hurayrah who said: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: “If the one who commits the deed of the people of Lūṭ were to purify himself in seven seas, he would not meet Allāh except as impure.”’

So this is fabricated upon Mālik, as you see.”

And Ibn Ḥajar said in al-Lisān (4/524) after mentioning the words of adh-Dhahabī:

“And I think this is the brother of Ḥātim ibn ʿUthmān, whose biography I added in the letter Ḥāʾ, or that he is the same person, by the indication of Dāwūd ibn Yaḥyá narrating from him, and only an error occurred in his name. And Allāh knows best.

And Ibn Yūnus said in his Tārīkh: Dāwūd ibn Yaḥyá narrated from him fabricated reports, and I think the affliction lies with Dāwūd.”

I said: And it has already preceded in the biography of Dāwūd that he was a fabricator.

And adh-Dhahabī mentioned in al-Mīzān (2/159):

“Saʿīd ibn Maʿn ibn ʿĪsā al-Ashjaʿī al-Madanī. Perhaps his kunya was Abū al-Qāsim.

He is hardly known, and some accused him.

He narrated from Mālik ibn Anas, but the chain to him is obscure.

ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥātim al-Qawmusī said: Yaḥyá ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh al-Umawī narrated to us, Yaḥyá ibn ʿAwn as-Sukkarī narrated to us, my father narrated to us, Saʿīd ibn Maʿn narrated to us, Mālik narrated to us, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar (may Allāh be pleased with them both), who said: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: ‘When Allāh created Paradise, He surrounded it with basil, and He surrounded the basil with henna, and indeed the one who applies henna, the angels of the heaven pray upon him.’

It was also narrated by al-Ḥasan ibn Yūsuf al-Faḥḥām, from Ibn Khushaysh. Perhaps he was the one who fabricated it.” End quote.

Ibn Ḥajar said in al-Lisān (4/75), commenting on adh-Dhahabī’s statement:

“The pronoun in his statement ‘perhaps he fabricated it’ returns to Ibn Khushaysh, not to al-Ḥasan ibn Yūsuf.

And al-Khaṭīb narrated in ar-Ruwāt ʿan Mālik this ḥadīth through al-Qawmusī, and he said: ad-Dāraquṭnī narrated it from Aḥmad ibn Isḥāq al-Anbārī from al-Faḥḥām.

I said: I checked Gharāʾib Mālik of ad-Dāraquṭnī and found that he narrated the ḥadīth from al-Ḥasan ibn Rashīq, from ʿAlī ibn Yaʿqūb ibn Suwayd al-Warrāq, and from Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq al-Yāmūrī from al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Faḥḥām, both of them from Yaḥyá ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh.

He said: And Abū Ṭālib Aḥmad ibn Naṣr al-Ḥāfiẓ narrated it from Ibn Khushaysh – and I did not hear it from him – from Yaḥyá ibn ʿAwn, from his father, from Saʿīd ibn Maʿn al-Madanī with it, and he added in the text: ‘And the elder in his household is like the Prophet among his nation.’

And he said: It is false, and those below Mālik are weak.

I said: And it will come under the kunyas: Abū al-Qāsim al-Maghribī, from Mālik, and he mentioned this ḥadīth in his biography. So perhaps that is his kunya. And I think this Saʿīd is the son of Maʿn ibn ʿĪsā al-Ashjaʿī al-Madanī, and his father is a well-known trustworthy narrator, one of those who narrated the Muwaṭṭaʾ from Mālik.

Abū Ḥātim said about him: He was the most reliable of the companions of Mālik.

I said: And the biography of Saʿīd ibn ʿĪsā ibn Maʿn al-Ashjaʿī has already preceded not long ago.”

And adh-Dhahabī mentioned in al-Mīzān (2/550):

“ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Bishr al-Azdī, from his father Bishr ibn Yazīd, from Mālik, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar (may Allāh be pleased with them both), marfūʿ: ‘Do good to everyone; if you do not reach its people, then you are its people.’

And from him [narrated] Yaḥyá ibn Muḥammad.

The chain is obscure, and the report is fabricated.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī declared its narrators weak and unknown.” End quote.

Ibn Ḥājar said in al-Lisān (5/90):

“Ad-Dāraquṭnī, after citing it in al-Gharāʾib through the route of Yaḥyá ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh from him, said: its isnād is weak and its men are unknown.

And by it he raised it: ‘Whoever walks in the need of his Muslim brother, it is as if he has served Allāh his whole lifetime.’ He said: false, and those below Mālik are unknown.

And al-Khaṭīb also narrated the first ḥadīth through his route and said: it is not ṣaḥīḥ from Mālik.”

Ibn Ḥājar also mentioned in al-Lisān (1/690):

“Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyá ibn Mihrān al-Qayrawānī. From ʿAnbasah ibn Khārijah. And from him, Yaḥyá ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī weakened him in Gharāʾib Mālik.”

And he also mentioned in al-Lisān (6/238):

“ʿAnbasah ibn Khārijah al-Ghāfiqī, kunya Abū Khārijah.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī narrated in al-Gharāʾib through two routes from Yaḥyá ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh, from Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyá ibn Mihrān ad-Dārimī – and in one of them he added: and Sulaymān ibn ʿImrān – they both said: Abū Khārijah ʿAnbasah ibn Khārijah al-Ghāfiqī informed us: Mālik narrated to us, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, raised: ‘The Qadariyyah and the Murjiʾah were cursed upon the tongue of seventy-two prophets, the first of them being Nūḥ and the last of them Muḥammad.’

And he said: this is a Maghribī isnād, and its men are unknown, and it is not ṣaḥīḥ.

And al-Khaṭīb narrated it through the route of Abū Ṭālib Aḥmad ibn Naṣr, from Yaḥyá ibn Muḥammad ibn Khushaysh, from Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyá ibn Mihrān al-Qayrawānī, with it.

I said: and Yaḥyá is destroyed.

And al-Khaṭīb said: munkar with this isnād.

And I read in the book Riyāḍat an-Nufūs of Abū Bakr ʿAbdullāh ibn Muḥammad al-Mālikī: that this ʿAnbasah heard from Mālik and al-Layth, and that he died in the year 210, and he was eighty-six years old.

And Abū al-ʿArab said: he was trustworthy, reliable, and he had hearing from Mālik and ath-Thawrī.

And Abū Saʿīd Ibn Yūnus mentioned him, saying: ʿAnbasah ibn Khārijah al-Ghāfiqī al-Ifriqī, kunya Abū Khārijah, narrates from Mālik ibn Anas, and Ibn ʿUyaynah, and he was a well-known man from the people of the Maghrib, and he used to speak about events and apocalyptic matters.

Then he transmitted with his isnād, from Muḥammad ibn Saḥnūn, who said: I asked some of the children of Ibn Khārijah about his death, and he said: he died in Rabīʿ al-Ākhir, the year 210.”

I said: so this one was declared unknown by ad-Dāraquṭnī, while Ibn Ḥājar recognized him – just like that pseudo-scholar objected.

And the author of the book Miṣbāḥ al-Arīb fī Taqrīb ar-Ruwāt alladhīna laysū fī Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb (2/456) mentioned:

“ʿAnbasah ibn Khārijah al-Ghāfiqī (majhūl, as said by ad-Dāraquṭnī) (Lisān 5/370).”

So that pseudo-scholar failed to object also to his citing ad-Dāraquṭnī’s declaring him unknown, and to his failure to transmit Ibn Ḥājar’s words that he was known!

And Allāh’s help is sought.

And our last supplication is that all praise is due to Allāh, the Lord of the worlds.