"like one who wears two garments of falsehood"! The other reason: if he had transmitted it from me, he should have conveyed it as it is with me, for I had clearly stated there, saying: "with a good isnād" as you saw! He deliberately concealed that from his readers because he does not want to implant in their minds and hearts that it is a good mursal! Because that contradicts the line he has drawn for himself, which is to weaken the ḥadīth! Here, I must pause with him at this mursal and what he did with it in attempting to dismiss its citation by claiming disorder in its isnād, for he knows, or perhaps he knows, that a mursal ḥadīth, if it comes with another isnād, even if weak, it is strengthened by their combination according to Imām al-Shāfiʿī, Ibn Taymiyyah, and others (1). So, to avoid the objection that this mursal is strengthened by the musnad of Zāfir ibn Sulaymān, he prepared a retreat for himself, gathering from here and there several suspended narrations, in some of which Rabīʿ ibn Ḥirāsh is mentioned instead of Mujāhid - and this is the preserved version - and in some: Rabīʿ ibn Ḥirāsh from al-Rabīʿ ibn Khuthaym, (and it appeared in more than one place as: Khītham!) not surpassing Ibrāhīm, among other narrations that have neither a hump nor a bridle. Then he concluded by saying (p. 50): "Through these paths, it becomes clear that this mursal has obvious disorder, and this undermines the validity of this path"! Thus he said, may Allāh guide him. This alone is enough to indicate that the man is not qualified to research in this science; let alone to respond to someone who surpasses him in it! This is because a ḥadīth considered disordered by the scholars is one that has come in different forms