3 - as for the ḥadīth of Anas: it was narrated by al-Bazzār, and its narrators are those of the authentic collections. It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" as mentioned in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (5/38), and by Ibn Abī Khaythamah in "Tārīkh al-Kabīr." al-Ḥāfiẓ said: its isnād is authentic, as mentioned in "Nayl al-Awṭār" (1/55). As for what follows, the ḥadīth has been established with these authentic isnāds from these three Companions: Abū Hurayrah, Abū Saʿīd, and Anas, in a manner that leaves no room for rejection or doubt. It has been established that Abū Hurayrah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) was truthful in narrating it from the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), contrary to some of the extremist Shīʿah among the contemporaries and those who followed them from the deviant ones, who criticized him (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) for narrating it and accused him of lying about the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), far be it from him. This is the scholarly investigation that proves he is innocent of all that, and that the one who criticized him is the one deserving of criticism, because they accused a Companion of falsehood and rejected the ḥadīth of the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) merely because it did not conform to their diseased minds! A group of Companions narrated it from him, as you know, and I wonder whether these critics were aware that Abū Hurayrah was not the only one who narrated the ḥadīth, which is evidence even if he were alone, or were they ignorant of that? If it is the former, then why do they use Abū Hurayrah's narration as an excuse and mislead people into thinking that none of the noble Companions corroborated him?! And if it is the latter, then why did they not ask the specialists and those knowledgeable in the noble ḥadīth?