known among scholars for his strictness in criticism, so he should not be used as evidence when he is alone without contradiction, let alone when he contradicts! As for Ibn al-Wazīr, the statement quoted by al-Kawtharī suggests that he did not criticize the addition from the perspective of its isnād, but rather from its meaning. In such cases, one should not definitively assert the corruption of the meaning, as it is possible to interpret it in a sound manner that negates the claimed corruption. How can one definitively assert the corruption of the meaning of a ḥadīth that has been accepted by the leading imams and scholars from various ranks and declared authentic? This is almost impossible! What supports what I have mentioned are two matters: The first: that Ibn al-Wazīr, in another of his books, authenticated this ḥadīth of Muʿāwiyah. This is in his valuable book "al-Rawḍ al-bāsim fī al-dhabb ʿan sunnat Abī al-Qāsim," where he dedicated a special chapter to the Companions criticized by the Shīʿah and whose ḥadīths they rejected, including Muʿāwiyah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu). He listed the ḥadīths attributed to him in the books of sunnah, along with supporting evidence from other Companions not criticized by the Shīʿah, and this ḥadīth was among them!