rather, it is shared among them, so they search for it, and whoever possesses it, they follow him. This is what they did here; they disregarded the weakening of al-Bukhārī and relied on the statements of those who deemed him trustworthy, as previously mentioned. I add here and say: al-Dhahabī said in "Dīwān al-ḍuʿafāʾ" (manuscript): "Ḥarb ibn Maymūn Abū al-Khaṭṭāb is trustworthy, but Sulaimān ibn Ḥarb accused him of lying." And he said in "al-Mughnī" (1/153 - printed in Aleppo): "Trustworthy, those who criticized him were mistaken, and he is truthful." Thus, you see he did not consider those who accused him of lying, let alone those who criticized him. This man has a long story that holds a lesson for those who reflect, but there is no room to discuss it here, except to briefly allude to it. He was a man who lived for about a quarter of a century as a leader among our Salafī brothers in Aleppo. A few years ago, he began to show some severity towards them and imposed his opinion. Whoever submitted to him, he drew close, and whoever disagreed with him, he distanced and refused to cooperate with, even if they were his old companion from the beginning of the call there. He did this, despite having no notable knowledge or verification except what he learned from others, until he presented them with an opinion unfamiliar to them: that the wives of the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) are infallible from adultery. Even though everyone agreed with him that they died as chaste and noble women, he was not satisfied unless they said with him that they are infallible with legal infallibility. When they demanded proof from him and the most knowledgeable and understanding among them debated him, his response was to sever ties and boycott them. He threatened them with fire if they continued to oppose him and tried to distance them from the group after declaring his unwillingness to cooperate with them, thereby bringing harm to himself and his call, as it became clear to the group there that his actions were not in line with the methodology. Despite my advice to him, he did not respond, and his consequence was that they removed him from
وإنماهو مشاع بينهم، فلذا فهم يبحثون عنه، فمع من كان اتبعوه، وهذا ما صنعوه هنا، فأعرضوا على تضعيف البخاري، واعتمدوا قول الذين وثقوه كما سبق. وأزيد هنافأقول: قال الذهبي في " ديوان الضعفاء " (مخطوط) : " حرب بن ميمون أبوالخطاب، ثقة، رماه بالكذب سليمان بن حرب ". وقال في " المغني " (١ / ١٥٣ -طبع حلب) : " ثقة، غلط من تكلم فيه، وهو صدوق ". فأنت تراه لم يعتد بمنرماه بالكذب فضلا عمن تكلم فيه. ولهذا الرجل قصة طويلة فيها عبرة لمن يعتبر، لا مجال للتحدث عنها بهذا المكان، وإنما لابد من الإشارة إليها بأوجز ما يمكنمن الكلام. فهو رجل عاش نحو ربع قرن من الزمان رئيسا على إخواننا السلفيين فيحلب، ومنذ بضع سنين بدأ يظهر شيئا من الشدة عليهم، وفرض الرأي، فمن استسلمله قربه إليه، ومن خالفه في رأيه أبعده عنه، وامتنع من التعاون معه، ولوكان صاحبه القديم منذ بدء الدعوة هناك. يفعل هذا، وهو ممن لا علم عنده يذكرولا تحقيق إلا ما كان استفاده من غيره، إلى أن خرج عليهم برأي لا عهد لهم به، وهو أن نساء النبي ﷺ معصومات من الزنا، وإن كان الجميعمتفقين معه على أنهن متن وهن عفيفات شريفات، فكان لا يقنع إلا بأن يقولوا معهإنهن معصومات العصمة الشرعية. فلما طالبوه بالحجة، وناقشه فيها أبرز من فيهمفقها وفهما، كان جزاؤه منه أن قاطعه وهجره، وبالنار إن استمر على مخالفتهأوعده، وحاول أن يبعده عن الجماعة، بعد أن أعلن عدم استعداده أن يتعاون معه، فجلب بذلك ضررا على نفسه ودعوته، حيث تبين للجماعة هناك بأن عمله ليس علىالمنهج. وعلى الرغم من نصحي إياه، فلم يستجب، فكانت عاقبته أن أزالوه من