the jurist and memorizer al-Luʾluʾī. The student mentioned that it was not him, but rather al-Madāʾinī the blind, who is not well-known. I confirmed that it was al-Madāʾinī by referencing him from more than one source, and I refuted his assertion that he was unknown, as many memorizer scholars have narrated from him. It seems he is unaware that someone like him is used as evidence by scholars, as al-Dhahabī established in "al-Mīzān," and this was cited by al-Laknawī in "al-Rafʿ wa-al-Takmīl." Therefore, al-Ḍiyāʾ al-Maqdisī included him in "al-Mukhtārah," and al-ʿIrāqī and al-Haythamī deemed his isnād sound, as you will see there. Thus, it was incumbent upon that student to be diligent, to research, and not to rely solely on his personal opinion. It appears he lacks knowledge in this field; otherwise, it would have sufficed him that al-Tirmidhī deemed it good from the first path, and he would have considered the other path as corroboration, because it is not severely weak at the very least! 3- A third example, of a young Egyptian who called himself Fayṣal ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm, mentioned that he was twenty-two years old! He sent me a letter a few years ago without a date or signature, praising me greatly, mentioning that he had reviewed my works (!) and devoted himself to them, making them his ultimate goal, and that he wished to study under me. Nevertheless, he included with his letter a message criticizing five ḥadīths from this volume, weakening them with astonishing boldness and profound ignorance. Any sensible person can imagine this from his mentioned age. When did he learn? And when did he become capable of critiquing someone he wishes to be a student of? Here, dear reader, is a single example of his critique, from which you can confirm what I described him as, and measure the other examples against it: he criticized my strengthening of the following ḥadīth: 619- "Three things are not refused: cushions..." the ḥadīth. His argument was that its narrator from Ibn ʿUmar, Muslim ibn Jundub, was not authenticated by anyone except al-ʿAjlī and Ibn Ḥibbān, and he claims they are lenient! This is something that would make even the bereaved laugh, because what he mentioned about leniency is from my books, writings, comments, and responses
اللؤلؤي الفقيه الحافظ، فذكر ذلك الطالب أنه ليس به، وأنه المدائني الضرير، وأنه غير معروف، فتأكدت من كونه المدائني، بإخراجي من غير مصدر واحد عنه، وخطأتُ جزمَه بأنه مجهول، لرواية جماعة من الحفاظ عنه. وكأنه لا يعلم أن مثله يحتج به العلماء كما قرره الذهبي في "الميزان"، ونقله عنه اللكنوي في "الرفع والتكميل"، ولذلك أخرجه الضياء المقدسي في "المختارة"، وجوّد إسناده العراقي والهيثمي، كما سترى هناك. فكان على ذلك الطالب أن يتحرى، وأن يبحث، ولا يقف عند رأيه الشخصي، فإنه يبدو أنه لا معرفة له بهذا العلم، وإلا كان يكفيه تحسين الترمذي إياه من الطريق الأولى، ويعتبر الطريق الآخر شاهدًا له، لأنه ليس شديد الضعف على الأقل! ٣- مثال ثالث، لشاب مصري سمى نفسه فيصل عبد الحليم ذكر أنه في الثانية والعشرين من عمرِه! كان أرسل إلي خطابًا منذ بضع سنين بغير تاريخ وتوقيع، يثني علي كثيرًا، ويذكر أنه اطلع على مؤلفاتي (!) وأنه عكف عليها، وجعلها غايته..، وأنه يود أن يتتلمذ علي.. ومع ذلك فقد قرن مع خطابه رسالة ينتقد فيها خمسة أحاديث من هذا المجلد ويضعفها بجرأة عجيبة، وجهل بالغ، يكفي العاقل أن يتصور ذلك من عمره المذكور، فمتى تعلّم؟ ومتى تمكّن أن يصير نقّادًا لمن يتمنى أن يكون له تلميذًا.. وإليك أيها القارىء الكريم مثالًا واحدًا من نقده، تتأكد منه ما وصفتُه به، وتقيس عليه باقي الأمثلة: لقد أنكر عليّ تقويتي للحديث الآتي: ٦١٩- (ثلاثٌ لا تردُّ: الوسائدُ..) الحديث. وحجته في ذلك أن راويه عن ابن عمر مسلم بن جندب؛ لم يوثقه أحد سوى العجلي وابن حبان، ويقول: إنهما متساهلان! وهذا مما يضحك الثكلى، لأن ما ذكره من التساهل فمن كتبي ومؤلفاتي وتعليقاتي وردودي