except for the Lord ﷿, and in that case, there is no metaphor. However, there is no argument for anyone after the authenticity of the report from the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam). The verse criticizes many of the misguided sects who abandoned the Book of Allāh and the sunnah of His Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) for the words of their scholars and leaders. The truth is more deserving of being followed, so whenever it becomes apparent, it is obligatory for the Muslim to follow it, even if the ijtihād of his imitator was mistaken." (Note): I have come across two conflicting positions from commentators on this ḥadīth, both of whom overlooked the error in attributing the weakening of al-Dāraqutnī to (Ghuṭayf ibn Aʿyan), resulting in something astonishing: One of them—brother Abū al-Ashbāl al-Zuhayrī—based on the alleged weakening, presented us with something new, which is that (Ghuṭayf) is unknown in status! Because Asad ibn ʿAmr and al-Qāsim ibn Mālik narrated from him! And they only narrated from (Rūḥ)! Accordingly, he said: "Ibn Ḥibbān deemed him trustworthy and al-Dāraqutnī weakened him, so at the very least, it should be said about him: 'There is no harm in him,' for example!" This is a strange composition, clearly false, and there is no need to prolong the response to it! As for the other; he is called (Ḥassān ʿAbd al-Manān); he said in his commentary on "Ighāthah al-Lahfān" (2/375): "And this isnād is weak, Ghuṭayf ibn Aʿyan is weak, and there is unknown status in it"! His statement: "weak" refers to the weakening by al-Dāraqutnī, which has no basis as previously mentioned, and his combining the description of weakness with the description of unknown status is a combination of contradictions, as I explained in my response to him number (152)! There is no need to repeat it. *