in the newspaper (al-Ribāṭ) by saying: "This ḥadīth is suspended," meaning: it is discontinuous, as he explained later. Let the reader consider how he denied what I did not attribute to him, which is the argument, and did not deny what I attributed to him, which is the discontinuity, misleading the readers into thinking that I said he claimed something he did not! So what do the readers call this action of his?! It is undoubtedly a type of deception, whether he likes it or not, unless he is simply incapable of expressing his intent! 2- He denied my statement about him: that he "added to Ibn Ḥazm that no one authenticated it except al-Bukhārī and Ibn Ḥibbān," saying in disapproval: "Where did I say that in my article, and where is what implies this?!" So I say: I did not claim that you said that, but rather I said: "he added..." and so on, as mentioned in the phrase. It is not permissible for you to attribute that statement to me, and it seems to me that you felt in your heart your mistake in what you attributed, which is why you dismissed it by saying: "But where is what implies this in that article?!!" The answer I understood from your implicit meaning and your style in your article, and the scholars say: "The implicit meaning is more expressive than the explicit statement." I am certain that you know that many of the scholars—other than al-Bukhārī and Ibn Ḥibbān—have authenticated the ḥadīth, yet you did not mention anyone other than them. From the totality of what you mentioned and what you did not mention, I said what I previously stated, especially since you are known for concealing what is against you from the statements of scholars, and some examples of this will come, if Allāh wills. Then I wonder, why did you concern yourself with what you thought was a mistake, that I attributed to you something you did not say—your assumption, if it were the assumption of believers, would harm me and not you—and did not concern yourself with what I certainly attributed to you, which is your opposition to the consensus of the scholars in their authentication of this ḥadīth, which you quoted from me in your response, and you did not address it at all, even though this certain attribution harms you and does not..
جريدةِ (الرباط) بقولِه: "فهذا الحديثِ معلقٌ" أَي: منقطع، كما شرحه هو بعد. فليتأمّل القارئ كيفَ نفى ما لم أَنسب إِليه، وهي الحجّة، ولم ينفِ ما نسبتُه إِليه وهو الانقطاعُ، موهمًا القرّاءَ أنّني قلتُ عليه ما لم يقل! فماذا يسمِّي القرّاءُ هذا الفعلَ منه؟! إِنّه -بلا شكّ- نوعٌ من التدليسِ، شاءَ أَم أَبى، إِلاّ أَن يكونَ عييًّا عاجزًا عن بيانِ مرادِه! ٢- نفى قولي فيه: إِنّه "زادَ على ابن حزمٍ أنَّه لا مصححَ له غيرُ البخاريِّ وابن حبّانَ" فقال مستنكرًا: "أَينَ قلتُ أَنا ذلك في مقالي، بل أَينَ ما يفهمُ منه هذا؟! ". فأَقولُ: لم أَقل عنك أنّك قلتَ ذلك، وإنّما قلتُ: " زاد.. " إلخ العبارةِ المذكورةِ، فلا يجوزُ لكَ أن تنسبَ إِليَّ القولَ بذلك، ويبدو لي أنّك شعرتَ في قرارةِ نفسِك بخطئكَ فيما نسبت، ولذلك أَضربتَ عنها بقولِك: " بل أَين ما يفهمُ منه هذا في ذلك المقال؟!! ". والجوابُ فهمتُه من لسانِ حالِك، وأُسلوبك في مقالِك، والعلماءُ يقولون:"لسانُ الحالِ أَنطقُ من لسانِ المقالِ"، فأَنا على يقينٍ أنّك تعلمُ أن كثيرًا من الأَئمةِ -غير البخاريِّ وابن حبّانَ- قد صححوا الحديثَ، ومع ذلك؛ فإِنّك لم تذكر غيرَهما، فمن مجموعِ ما ذكرتَ، وما لم تذكر قلتُ ما ذكرتُه آنفًا، ولا سيّما وأنتَ معروف بكتمانِ ما هو عليكَ من أقوالِ العلماءِ، وسيأتي بعضُ الأَمثلةِ على ذلك إِن شاءَ اللهُ تعالى. ثم ليتَ شعري، لماذا اهتممتَ بما ظننتَه خطأً أَنّي نسبتُ إِليك ما لم تقل، -وظنّكَ لو كانَ ظنَّ المؤمنين، يضرّني ولا يضرُّك- ولم تهتم بما نسبتُ إِليكَ يقينًا، وهو مخالفتُك لإِجماعِ الأَئمةِ فيِ تصحيحهم لهذا الحديثِ، وقد نقلتَه عنّي في ردّك، ولم تتعرّض للجوابِ عنه ألبتّة، مع أنَّ هذه النسبةَ اليقينيّةَ تضرُّك ولا