to reconcile it with the ḥadīth of seeking permission and its like, by claiming it is abrogated, while he knows from the science of uṣūl that abrogation does not occur in reports, only in rulings! For it is inconceivable that the truthful and trustworthy would report about a person that he is in the Fire and then abrogate that by saying: he is in Paradise! As is clearly known among the scholars. Among his excesses in this matter is that he completely ignored mentioning the ḥadīth of Muslim from Anas, which corresponds to the ḥadīth of the chapter, without the slightest reference to it. Rather, he went to extremes and declared it weak, relying on the words of some regarding the narration of Ḥammād ibn Salamah! He knows that he is among the imams and trustworthy of the Muslims, and that his narration from Thābit is authentic. Indeed, Ibn al-Madīnī, Aḥmad, and others said: The most reliable of Thābit's companions is Ḥammād, then Sulaymān, then Ḥammād ibn Zayd, and they are authentic. This weakening mentioned, I read long ago in a treatise of his on the ḥadīth of revival—printed in India—and I cannot access it now to quote his words and follow up on its flaws, so let whoever wishes to verify it review it. One of the effects of his weakening it is that I noticed he also omitted mentioning it in any of his comprehensive books that include everything, like "al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr," "its addition," and "al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr"! Therefore, it is absent from "Kanz al-ʿUmmāl," and Allāh is the one whose help is sought, and there is no power nor strength except with Allāh. Consider the difference between him and al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Bayhaqī, who prioritized faith and belief over emotion and desire. For when he mentioned the ḥadīth: "I was born from a legitimate marriage, not fornication," he said afterward: "And his parents were polytheists, as evidenced by what we were informed..." Then he narrated this ḥadīth of Anas and the previous ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah regarding the visit to his mother's grave (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam).