I heard Qutaybah say: It reached me that Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb al-Qurāẓī was born during the lifetime of the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam). I said: And even though al-Tirmidhī did not authenticate this—how could he, when he mentioned it as a report from an unknown source—it is anomalous and unacceptable, as al-Judayʿ himself said; yet he says regarding al-Tirmidhī's statement: "Perhaps this statement is his basis for authenticating the ḥadīth, and that is why he mentioned it, and Abū Dāwūd agreed with al-Tirmidhī in transmitting it from Qutaybah, but in Abū Dāwūd's narration: I heard Qutaybah say: 'It reached me that he saw the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam).' " I said: Abū Dāwūd relied on this statement and said regarding Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb: He heard from ʿAlī, Muʿāwiyah, and Ibn Masʿūd. So I say: As for his statement: "Perhaps ... " etc., it is said to him: Place "perhaps" by that star, and likewise his statement: "Abū Dāwūd relied on this statement ... " is similar or worse; because it is merely a claim without evidence, and its path is to be cast aside, especially as it is in the context of rejecting an established fact, which is the explicit statement of a trustworthy narrator about hearing, and even an accusation against two of the nation's preservers that they authenticate ḥadīths based on a disconnected report whose weakness is not hidden from a beginner in this science. And by Allāh, I am amazed at the audacity of this researcher in making such a destructive claim that has not been preceded, and not only that, but he does not give weight to some statements that support the connection from some of the preservers among the imams of al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl who are informed of the statements of the previous preservers among the critics, like al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAsqalānī who refuted the report that was mentioned from Qutaybah by saying: "It has no reality."