al-Bukhārī titled it with his saying: "Chapter on what is permissible of suspicion." I said: The ḥadīth corresponds to the meaning of His saying, the Exalted: "Indeed, some suspicion is sin" (Sūrah al-Ḥujurāt, 12); meaning: not all suspicion is sinful. For this reason, Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said in "Majmūʿ al-Fatāwá" (15/331): "This ḥadīth implies the permissibility of some suspicion, as al-Bukhārī argued; but with the knowledge that a Muslim's faith should deter him from committing immorality, one should assume good rather than evil about him." Some have found al-Bukhārī's title for the ḥadīth problematic, saying: "The ḥadīth does not match the title, because the title affirms suspicion, while the ḥadīth negates it." This was mentioned by al-Ḥāfiẓ in "al-Fatḥ" (10/485), and then he refuted it by saying: "The answer is that the negation in the ḥadīth is of negative suspicion, not the negation of suspicion itself, so there is no contradiction between it and the title." The essence of the title is that what occurred in the ḥadīth is not the forbidden suspicion, because it is in the context of warning against someone whose condition is like that of the two men, and the prohibition is only against evil suspicion of a peaceful Muslim in his religion and honor. Ibn ʿUmar said: "We used to think badly of a man if he was absent from the last evening prayer." Its meaning is: he would not be absent except for a bad reason, either in his body or in his religion." I said: The narration of Ibn ʿUmar was recorded by al-Bazzār (1/228/462 and 463) with two isnāds from Nāfiʿ from him, and the second isnād from him is authentic