and he remained silent on it and did not follow it with anything, rather he followed it with many narrations containing various supplications against him. I had mentioned some of them in "al-Ḍaʿīfah," and he remained silent on all of them and explicitly stated the weakness of some, concluding with the mention of the previous ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah: that the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) cursed your father while you were in his loins. However, instead of declaring its authenticity, he hinted at its weakness by contradicting the previous narration of al-Bukhārī, saying after it: "I said: The origin of the story is with al-Bukhārī without this addition"! So I say: What is the value of this critique, while he knows that this addition has a sound chain of transmission, and that it is from a path other than that of al-Bukhārī?! And not only that, but it also has authentic supporting evidence as previously mentioned?! I sufficed with it instead of mentioning what might be suitable for citation! For he said at the end of his explanation of the ḥadīth: "The destruction of my nation will be at the hands of young men from Quraysh" in "al-Fatḥ" (13/11): "There have been ḥadīths reported about the cursing of al-Ḥakam, the father of Marwān, and his offspring. Al-Ṭabarānī and others have reported them; most of them have issues, and some are good, and perhaps the intent is to specify the mentioned young men with that"! More astonishing than all of this is the caution of al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī by saying in the biography of (al-Ḥakam) in "Tārīkh" (2/96): "There have been objectionable ḥadīths reported about cursing him, which are not permissible to use as evidence, and he does not have in general any specific companionship but rather a general one"! Thus he said! Even though—after just one page—he narrated the report of al-Shaʿbī from Ibn al-Zubayr, authenticating its chain as previously mentioned!! Such inconsistency or contradiction opens the door for people of desires to take from it what suits their inclinations! We ask Allāh for safety
وسكت عليه ولم يتعقبه بشيء، بل إنه أتبعه بروايات كثيرة فيها أدعية مختلفة عليه، كنت ذكرت بعضها في "الضعيفة"، وسكت عنها كلها وصرح بضعف بعضها، وختمها بذكر حديث عائشة المتقدم: أن رسول الله ﷺ لعن أباك وأنت في صلبه. ولكنه- بديل أن يصرح بصحته- ألمح إلى إعلاله بمخالفته رواية البخاري المتقدمة، فقال عقبها:"قلت: وأصل القصة عند البخاري بدون هذه الزيادة"! فأقول: ما قيمة هذا التعقب، وهو يعلم أن هذه الزيادة صحيحة السند، وأنهامن طريق غير طريق البخاري؟! وليس هذا فقط، بل ولها شواهد صحيحة أيضاً كما تقدم؟! اكتفيت بها عن ذكر ما قد يصلح للاستشهاد به! فقد قال في آخرشرحه لحديث: "هلكة أمتي على يدي غلمة من قريش " من "الفتح " (١٣/١١) : "وقد وردت أحاديث في لعن الحكم والد مروان وما ولد. أخرجها الطبراني وغيره؛ غالبها فيه مقال، وبعضها جيد، ولعل المراد تخصيص الغلمة المذكورين بذلك "! وأعجب من ذلك كلِّه تحفُّظُ الحافظ الذهبي بقوله في ترجمة (الحكم) من" تاريخه " (٢/ ٩٦) :"وقد وردت أحاديث منكرة في لعنه، لا يجوز الاحتجاج بها، وليس له في الجملة خصوص من الصحبة بل عمومها"! كذا قال! مع أنه- بعد صفحة واحدة- ساق رواية الشعبي عن ابن الزبير مصححاً إسناده كما تقدم!! ومثل هذا التلون أو التناقض مما يفسح المجال لأهل الأهواء أن يأخذوا منه ما يناسب أهواءهم! نسأل الله السلامة.