the scholars after him refuted his weakening of the ḥadīth for these reasons, such as the researcher Ibn al-Qayyim in "Tahdhīb al-Sunan" (5/270-272) and the ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar in "al-Fatḥ" and others. I have elaborated on this in a section I have in response to Ibn Ḥazm's aforementioned treatise. May Allāh facilitate its writing and publication. And Ibn Ḥazm, despite his knowledge, virtue, and intellect, is not well-versed in the knowledge of ḥadīth, their paths, and narrators. Evidence of this is his weakening of this ḥadīth. And his statement about Imām al-Tirmidhī, the author of the "Sunan": "unknown," which led the scholar Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, a student of Ibn Taymiyyah, to say in his biography in "Mukhtaṣar Ṭabaqāt ʿUlamāʾ al-Ḥadīth" (p. 401): "He often errs in discussing the authentication and weakening of ḥadīth, and in the conditions of the narrators." I said: Therefore, his statements about ḥadīth should not be accepted unless verified for their authenticity and lack of irregularity. This is similar to his unique views in fiqh and his theological views that oppose the salaf, as Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī said after describing him as "intelligent and well-read": "But it became clear to me that he is a staunch Jahmī, affirming only a few meanings of Allāh's beautiful names, such as the Creator and the Truth. The rest of the names, according to him, do not indicate any meaning at all, like the Merciful, the All-Knowing, and the All-Powerful, and the like. Rather, knowledge to him is power, and power is knowledge, and they are the essence itself, and knowledge does not indicate anything beyond the pure essence at all. This is the essence of sophistry and obstinacy." Ibn Ḥazm had engaged in logic and philosophy and delved deeply into it, which led to these false meanings being established in his mind for this reason."