(65) p. 19 3^rd paragraph "… or any combinations of purifying agents …" i.e. with water and stones together. And it is not authentic that the Prophet, sallallaahu ’alaihi wa sallaam, combined the two, rather he, sallallaahu ’alaihi wa sallaam, sufficed with one of the two and his is the best guidance and as Shaikh al-Albaanee says, "So i fear that the saying that the two may be joined is from Ghuluww (going to excesses) in the Deen."

And as for the hadeeth of the people of Qubaa’s joining between the two and the sending down of the aayah in that regard, then it’s isnaad is weak as an-Nawawee, Ibn Hajr and others say. Rather what is correct from that is that they used water alone [Aboo Daawood and others from Aboo Hurairah].

(66) p. 20 "… the hadeeth by al-Haakim ibn Sufyaan or ..." The wording of this hadeeth is not authentic, as it contains great contradiction, being reported in about ten different ways.

(66) p. 21 3^rd line, "It is related through a number of weak chains that the Prophet, sallallaahu ’alaihi wa sallaam, used to say, "Praise be to Allaah ... harm." The first of the two hadeeth [... who made the filth] is from Aboo Dharr and Anas, and isnaad is weak. (Al-Irwaa,53). And the second hadeeth [...who let me enjoy it] is from Ibn ’Umar and is again weak (Ad-Da’eefah, 4187). The hadeeth of Aboo Dharr contains unknown narrators in its isnaad, and idtiraab (contradiction) and contradictions in its text.

(69) p. 22 3^rd paragraph, "Said ’Ataa ibn Yasaar ..." [Related by Maalik] ’Ataa is a Taabi’ee, so the hadeeth is Mursal, Da’eef.

The hadeeth is reported in connected form from Jaabir, from the Prophet, sallallaahu ’alaihi wa sallaam, with more complete wording, without the mention of the beard, (reported by Aboo Daawood and others, as-Saheehah, 493)

(70) p. 22 3^rd section, "Aboo Qataadah related ... "... and honour it." It is not saheeh from Aboo Qataadah, due to its isnaad being broken (munqati’) and its text being mudtarab. It is reported by an-Nasaa‘ee in his Sunan and its inqitaa is due to its being narrated by ’Umar ibn ’Alee ibn Muqaddam who is known for committing a severe form of tadlees ... ... and see Tamaamul-Minnah (pp. 70-73).

(74) p 23 Final paragraph, "There are some narrations that state that dying is disliked." Shaikh al-Albaanee says, "I do not find anyone who has preceded the author in this claim, and i do not know any basis for it. And perhaps he means that, that is reported from the companions. And what ash-Shawkaanee reports from them in An-Nayl (1/103) is their differing regarding what is better, not that it is something disliked. And even if it were reported from any of them, then it would not be a proof for two reasons,

1. The Companions did not agree upon that, rather some of them dyed such as Aboo Bakr and ’Umar, radiyallaahu ’anhumaa, reported in Saheeh Muslim and others, and others left it, and its being left does not show that it is disliked, only that it is permissible to leave it.
2. It contradicts the authentic saying and practice of the Prophet, sallallaahu ’alaihi wa sallaam.

(83) p. 23 last paragraph, "… and a group of them used a black dye." Even if that is established, them it is not a proof, since it contradicts the saying and action of the Prophet, sallallaahu ’alaihi wa sallaam. And what is reported from the chief companions such as Aboo Bakr and ’Umar, radiyallaahu ’anhumaa, that they dyed with henna and ‘kattaan’, should be acted upon, since it is in agreement with the sunnah, and not that which contradicts this, especially since there is doubt about its being established from some of them, as Ibn al-Qayyim said. And therefore an-Nawawee clearly states that it is forbidden in Al-Majmoo’ (1/294), using the hadeeth of Jaabir as proof.

(84) p. 23 "Ibn Hajr mentinoed in Fathul Baaree that az-Zuhree said ..."

Even if it is established from az-Zuhree, then it is not a proof since it would be his saying only (Maqtoo’) and he is a taabi’ee.