nevertheless, he did not refute Abū Dāwūd's explicit statement about al-Qurazī hearing from Ibn Masʿūd and the others with him. Rather, he strongly hinted at weakening the opposing view; for when he mentioned at the beginning of his biography a group of Companions from whom he narrated, including these three, he followed that by saying: "It is said that all of them are mursal." This is the statement of al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī in his "Tahdhīb," and therefore I saw al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAlāʾī in "Jāmiʿ al-Taḥṣīl" (p. 329) commenting on Abū Dāwūd's explicit statement of hearing by saying: "And this is the correct view..." Then he supported it with this ḥadīth, indicating its authenticity and invalidating the claim of those who might say its isnād is disconnected! It comes to mind that the opponent felt that what he clung to was insufficient to prove the disconnection, so he resorted to something ingenious that those ḥadīth scholars did not notice! That is, using what they mentioned about the birth date of (Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb al-Qurazī), which is the year (40) according to most reports, and what they mentioned about the death of Ibn Masʿūd, which is the year (33) according to most accounts; and based on this he said (p. 99): "Whichever is correct, he was certainly born after the death of Ibn Masʿūd!" I say: establish the foundation before you engrave; for the statements made about his birth date are unsubstantiated claims without any basis, so relying on them is a flawed consideration in such a context, and I am amazed by it! He refuted Qutaybah's statement: "It reached me..." mentioned earlier because it was from an unknown source, thus it is irregular and unacceptable. He refuted it because it establishes the connection of the ḥadīth’s isnād which he rejected, and now he clings to the history which has no isnād because it supports the disconnection he claimed!! And he used it to criticize the narration of the trustworthy