the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) on the day of al-Ḥudaybiyah, with the number (4187). It was connected by al-Ḥāfiẓ (7/456), and he mentioned that it appeared in some copies: "And he said to me," thus, in this regard, it is considered connected, and for this reason, al-Ḥāfiẓ authenticated it. Unfortunately, your misleading of the readers has not ended with what has been mentioned previously. You followed the ḥadīths you cited, claiming that al-Bukhārī did not use them as evidence, as you said: "Not one of his four ḥadīths was used by al-Bukhārī as evidence in his 'Ṣaḥīḥ'. He only mentioned them as supporting evidence, commentary, and in testimonies, and such is known to those familiar with 'Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī' that it is not according to his criteria." So I say—with Allāh's help—if he had stopped at his statement: "and in testimonies," we would have said: this is his opinion, although it is false as previously explained. But for him to continue his speech and attribute this to those familiar with 'Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī' is even more false and misleading to the readers, making it difficult for the general public to uncover it except by referring to what I have previously quoted from the ḥuffāẓ, especially al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, who is not only one of those familiar with 'Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī' but the most knowledgeable of them about it. I have seen his explicit statement contrary to what was attributed to him, so what can I say? May Allāh deal with him as he deserves. Thirdly—after he filled a column and a half of the newspaper, and you knew what was in it, he brought forth another calamity (a handful on a heap), by extracting from the narration of al-Bayhaqī and Ibn Ḥajar in "al-Taghliq" the supporting evidence of Bishr ibn Bakr for Hishām ibn ʿAmmār, and he did not attribute it to Ibn ʿAsākir—who is centuries older than Ibn Ḥajar as is known—deceitfully and misleadingly, one of those deceptions that prompted me to mention something of it to him! He said following the mentioned supporting evidence: "And this, even if we concede that it is a strong support for the ḥadīth of Hishām, does not contain an explicit text on (musical instruments); because it was narrated by al-Bayhaqī and Ibn Ḥajar within the narration of Hishām ibn ʿAmmār
مبايعةِ النبيِّ ﷺ يومَ الحديبية برقم (٤١٨٧) ، وصله الحافظُ (٧/٤٥٦) ، وذكرَ أنّه وقعَ في بعضِ النسخِ: "وقال لي" فهو بهذا الاعتبارِ موصولٌ، فكأنّه لذلك صححه الحافظُ. لم ينتهِ -مع الأسف- تلبيسُك على القرّاء بما تقدّمَ، فقد أَتبعتَ الأحاديثَ الّتي ذكرتها، وزعمتَ أنَّ البخاريَّ لم يحتجّ بها - إِذ قلتَ:"ليس في أَحاديثه الأَربعةِ حديثٌ واحدٌ احتجَّ به البخاريُّ في "صحيحه"، وإِنّما ذكرها متابعةً وتعليقًا وفي الشواهدِ، ومثل هذا معروف عند عارفي "صحيح البخاريّ" أنّه ليسَ على شرطِه". فأَقولُ -والله المسُتعانُ-: لو أنَّه وقفَ عندَ قولِه: "وفي الشواهدِ"، لقلنا: هذا رأيه، إِلاّ أنّه باطلٌ كما سبقَ بيانُه، وأَمّا أَن يتابعَ كلامَه فينسبَ ذلك إِلى عارفي "صحيح البخاريّ"، فهو أَبطلُ وأَبطلُ، وتلبيسٌ على القرّاءِ يصعبُ على عامتِهم اكتشافُه إلاّ بالرجوعِ إِلى ما نقلتُه آنفًا عن الحفّاظِ، وبخاصةٍ منهم الحافظَ ابن حجرٍ الََّذي هو ليس فقط من "عارفي "صحيح البخاري""، بل هو أَعرفُهم به، وقد رأيت تصريحَه بخلافِ ما نسبَ إِليه هذا، فماذا أَقولُ؟ عاملَه اللهُ بما يستحقُّ. ثالثًا - بعدَ أَن سوّدَ من الجريدةِ عمودًا ونصفًا، وعرفتَ ما فيه، جاء بباقعةٍ أُخرى (ضِغثًا على إِبّالة) ، فأَخرجَ من روايةِ البيهقيِّ وابن حجر في "التغليق" متابعةَ بشر بن بكر لهشام بن عمّار، ولم يعزُها لابن عساكر -وهو أَقدمُ بقرونٍ من ابن حجر كما هو معلوم- تدليسًا وتلبيسًا من تلك التلبيساتِ الّتي حضَّني على أَن أَذكرَ له شيئًا منها! فقال عقب المتابعة المذكورة:"وهذه على أنّا سلّمنا أنّها متابعةٌ قويّةٌ لحديث هشام، ليس فيها نصٌّ صريحٌ على (المعازفِ) ؛ لأنّها رويت عند البيهقيّ وابن حجر ضمنَ روايةِ هشام بن عمّارٍ