3- his statement: "There is not enough space to mention it!" I say: This is another mistake, because it is inconceivable that there exists even a single reason—let alone multiple reasons—that would prove that al-Bukhārī would say about something he did not hear from someone: "So-and-so told me," because that is outright lying. Secondly, you said about Hishām ibn ʿAmmār: "Al-Bukhārī did not rely on him in his Ṣaḥīḥ." I say: This is misleading to the readers and a distortion of scholarly facts. Everyone who has written a biography of him, like the ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī and others, has marked him with the letter (خ) to indicate that he is relied upon by al-Bukhārī. They did not mention that he narrated from him only as a follow-up, but rather explicitly stated what they symbolized, as the most knowledgeable about him, namely the ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, who mentioned in the "Introduction to al-Fatḥ" (pp. 448-449) three ḥadīths of Hishām: the first and second of which are connected, and the third is this muʿallaq ḥadīth of musical instruments. Then he said after that: "And this is all that he has in his book that I have determined he relied upon." The second connected ḥadīth is in the virtues of Abū Bakr (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu), and its number is (3661). You contradicted the statement of the ḥāfiẓ that it is among what he relied upon by claiming that he was followed up by al-Bukhārī with number (4640). This is a severe misrepresentation, as there is a clear difference between a trustworthy person being followed up by another—which happens very frequently—and al-Bukhārī presenting the ḥadīth of someone with weakness, then following it with another isnād that strengthens it. In such cases, it is said: al-Bukhārī narrated for him as a follow-up. However, when the ḥadīth is in two separate places in al-Bukhārī from his two shaykhs, and you claim that one of them was not relied upon by al-Bukhārī because he narrated for him as a follow-up in the other place, this is extremely misleading and contradicts the scholars as mentioned earlier. We seek refuge in Allāh from failure. It is beneficial to note another ḥadīth of Hishām that is muʿallaq in al-Bukhārī, in
٣- قوله: "لا يتسعُ المقامُ لذكرِها"!فأَقولُ: وهذه خطيئةٌ أُخرى؛ لأنّه لا يُتصورُ أنّه يوجدُ سببٌ واحدٌ -بَلْهَ أَسباب- تثبتُ أنَّ البخاريَّ يقول فيما لم يسمعْه من فلان: "قال لي فلان"؛ لأنّه الكذبُ بعينِه. ثانيًا - قلتَ في هشام بن عمّار: "لم يحتجَّ به البخاريُّ في صحيحه".قلتُ: هذا تلبيسٌ على القرّاءِ، وقلبٌ للحقائقِ العلميّةِ، فالرَّجلُ كلُّ من ترجمَ له كالحافظِ المزيِّ وغيرِه رمزوا له بحرف (خ) إِشارةً إِلى أنّه محتجٌّ به عند البخاريِّ، ولم يذكروا أنّه لم يروِ عنه احتجاجًا، وإِنَّما متابعةً، بل صرّح بما رمزوا أَعرفُ الناسِ به، أَلا وهو الحافظُ ابن حجر العسقلانيّ، فقد ذكرَ في "مقدمةِ الفتح" (ص ٤٤٨-٤٤٩) ثلاثةَ أَحاديث لهشمام: الأوّل والثاني منها موصولان، والثالث حديث المعازفِ هذا المعلّق، ثمَّ قال عقبَ ذلك:"وهذا جميعُ ما له في كتابِه ممّا تبيَّن لي أنّه احتجَّ به". والحديثُ الثاني الموصولُ هو في مناقبِ أَبي بكر ﵁، ورقمه (٣٦٦١) ، فخالفتَ قولَ الحافظِ أنّه ممّا احتجَّ به؛ بادعائك أنّه توبعَ عند البخاري برقم (٤٦٤٠) ، ففيه تلبيسٌ شديدٌ، إِذ إِنَّ هناك فرقًا بيّنًا بين أَن يتابَعَ الثقة من غيرِه -وهذا يقعُ كثيرًا جدًّا- وبين أَن يسوقَ البخاريُّ حديثَ مَنْ فيه ضعفٌ، ثمَّ يتبعُه بإسنادٍ آخرَ فيه متابعٌ تقويةً له، ففي مثل هذا ونحوه يقال: روى له البخاريُّ متابعةً، أمّا والحديثُ في موضعين متباعدين في البخاريِّ عن شيخين له فتدّعي أَنَّ أَحدَهما لم يحتجَّ به البخاريُّ؛ لأنّه روى له متابعًا في الموضعِ الآخرِ، فهذا في غايةِ التلبيسِ مع ما في ذلك من المخالفةِ للحفاظِ كما تقدّمَ، نعوذُ باللهِ من الخذلان. ومن الفائدةِ أَن أَستدرك عليك حديثًا آخرَ لهشامٍ معلقًا عند البخاريّ، في