for all this, Ibn Ḥajar did not pay attention to... Ibn Khuzaymah and al-Ḥākim's strengthening of it! I say: However, he did pay attention to al-Ḥākim's authentication of the ḥadīth of Anas, and he explicitly stated the authenticity of its isnād as I mentioned earlier, so why do you mention what is in your favor and conceal what is against you? Whose behavior is this?! 4- He attributed (pp. 16, 26) to Ibn Qudāmah that he said: "The evidence of the prohibitors was not authenticated by the permitters." This is attributing to Ibn Qudāmah what he did not say; because he is referring to his statement which he quoted (p. 15) from him, and its text is: "There is no evidence for prohibition according to them." This is in one context, and what he attributed is in another context, because one of the primary reasons for the disagreement among the scholars is that the ḥadīth may not have reached them—as Ibn Taymiyyah said—so it is possible that the reason was the non-arrival of the ḥadīth to them, or it reached them and they interpreted it, or it was not authenticated by them. All of this is possible, so it is not permissible to interpret Ibn Qudāmah's words as affirming arrival with denial of authenticity, as is very apparent. Ibn Qudāmah said: "There is no evidence," which is more general than whether it reached or did not reach, and he did not say: "It was not authenticated" as was claimed, and he said: "Evidence for prohibition" and did not say: evidence of the prohibitors, to focus on the ḥadīth! So was this attribution due to ignorance of the mentioned difference, or due to willful neglect? Either way is bitter! There are other matters in which he wrongfully attacked me, which are not appropriate to clarify now, and Allāh is the one sought for help. However, I must finally point out an important matter related to the position of the (previous critic) regarding the third ḥadīth and others, which fulfills the description mentioned in it. The ḥadīth was among the ḥadīths of "Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn" which the (critic) retained in his edition of "Riyāḍ," number (839), agreeing with al-Nawawī on its authentication, so how is this when he weakened it in "His Discussion with the Albanians"? As is known from the response to him in this correction
"لهذا كلِّه لم يلتفت ابنُ حجرٍ إِلى.. تقويةِ ابن خزيمةَ والحاكمِ له"! فأَقولُ: ولكنّه التفتَ إِلى تصحيحِ الحاكم لحديثِ أنس، وصرّحَ بصحةِ إِسنادِه كما ذكرتُ آنفًا، فَلِمَ تذكر ما لك، وتكتمُ ما عليك؟ وصنيعُ مَنْ هذا؟! ٤- نسبَ (ص ١٦، ٢٦) إِلى ابن قدامةَ أنّه قالَ: "لم يصحَّ عند المجوِّزين دليلُ المانعين". وفي هذا تقويلٌ لابنِ قدامةَ ما لم يقل؛ لأنّه يشيرُ بذلك إِلى عبارته الّتي نقلها (ص ١٥) عنه، ونصّها: "لا دليلَ على المنعِ عندَهم"، فهذا في وادٍ، وما تقوّله في وادٍ آخر، لأنّ من أَول أَسبابِ اختلافِ الأَئمةِ أنْ لا يكونَ الحديثُ قد بلغَه -كما قال ابن تيميّة- فمن الممكنِ أَن يكونَ السببُ عدمَ وصولِ الحديث إِليهم، أو وصلَهم وتأوّلوه، أو لم يصحَّ عندهم، كلُّ هذا ممكنٌ، فلا يجوزُ حملُ كلامِ ابن قدامةَ على إِثباتِ الوصولِ مع نفي الصحةِ كما هو ظاهرٌ جدًّا، فابن قدامةَ قال: "لا دليلَ"، فهو أعمُّ من كونِه وصل أَو لم يصل، ولم يقل: "لم يصحَّ" كما زعمَ، وقال: "دليل على المنع" ولم يقل: دليل المانعين، لينصبَّ على الحديث! فهل كانَ هذا التقويلُ عن غفلةٍ عن الفرقِ المذكورِ، أم عن تغافلٍ؟ أحلاهما مرُّ! وهناك أمورٌ أُخرى تعرّضَ لي فيها بباطلٍ، لا مناسبةَ لبيانِها الآن، والله المُستعان. ولكن لا بدَّ لي أَخيرًا من التنبيهِ على أمرٍ هامٍّ يتعلّقُ بموقفِ (المُضعّفِ) سابقًا من الحديثِ الثالثِ وغيرِه، ممّا يحققُ الوصفَ المذكورَ فيه. لقد كانَ الحديثُ من أَحاديث "رياض الصالحين" الّتي أَبقاها (المضعّفُ) في طبعتِه لـ "الرياض" رقم (٨٣٩) ، مقرًّا للنوويِّ على تصحيحه إِيّاه، فكيفَ هذا وقد ضعفَه في "مناقشتهِ الأَلبانيّين"؟ كما عرفَ من الرَّدِّ عليه في هذا الاستدراك.