suspended. I have no doubt about the authenticity of many of the suspended paths, and some of them were mentioned by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (9/139-140). However, I found him to be contrived in establishing a contradiction between them and the elevated paths on one hand, and excessive in claiming a disconnection between Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb al-Qurāẓī and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd on the other. As for the contrivance; I do not see any contradiction between the elevated and suspended [narrations] that would necessitate preferring one over the other. This is because the suspended here is in the ruling of the elevated, as it is not said based on mere opinion, as is apparent. This is the observation of al-Tirmidhī and those who agreed with him when they authenticated it, and they were aware of the suspended paths without a doubt, as was the case with the ḥāfiẓ Ibn Mandah, who based his work on the elevated paths and mentioned many suspended paths, yet did not undermine those with these for the reasons I mentioned. As for the excessiveness; he clung to proving the alleged disconnection by citing the earlier statement of al-Bukhārī: "I do not know if he memorized it or not!" and said: "He meant his statement: I heard ʿAbd Allāh." I say: if he meant that, then it is only a doubt about the hearing, not a negation of it. Even if he explicitly negated it, others have affirmed it, and by that, I mean al-Tirmidhī, for his authentication of the ḥadīth necessitates the correctness of its connected isnād, as is apparent. In fact, Abū Dāwūd explicitly stated his hearing from him, saying: "He heard from ʿAlī, Muʿāwiyah, and Ibn Masʿūd." It is known from the science of uṣūl that the one who affirms is given precedence over the one who negates, and this is something that is not hidden from him, if Allāh wills. But let us see how he rejected the affirmation through weak, convoluted methods: he quoted from al-Tirmidhī's statement following his aforementioned authentication: