The scan is being used to create the impression that Ikrimah was accused of lying upon Ibn Abbas. The important issue, however, is not merely the existence of this wording, but whether the chain of transmission behind it is sound. The refutation depends on exposing the weakness of that chain.

One Fazlouk, I do not know his condition, is he a denier or an apostate infidel, the publisher of a narration whose chain of transmission he cut out and only included its end, on the authority of Ibn Omar that he said to Nafi’ do not lie to me as Ikrimah lied to Ibn Abbas, of course he cut out its chain of transmission because upon looking into it we find in it Yahya al-Bakka’ whose hadith is abandoned, and of course it is funny that you wound a just person with a wounded person, and this is what Ibn Hibban, may God have mercy on him, said.

This matters because the report is being used to attack Ikrimah, while the chain itself contains a narrator whose hadith is abandoned or severely weak. So the opponent is trying to wound Ikrimah through a narrator who himself is wounded. That is a broken method in hadith criticism.

The key issue is that the narration is not presented as a clean, authentic report. The chain includes Yahya al-Bakka’, who is described as weak. The scan therefore exposes why cutting off the chain is misleading: once the isnad is shown, the accusation collapses because the report depends on a weak narrator.

The scan also shows that the discussion is not merely about quoting the accusation, but about evaluating its transmission. So anyone who quotes only the end of the report while hiding the chain is not presenting the evidence honestly.

The scan is important because it directly reverses the accusation. Instead of accepting a weak report claiming that Ikrimah lied upon Ibn Abbas, this passage presents Ibn Abbas as affirming Ikrimah’s reliability in transmitting from him.

The highlighted discussion also explains that this is a response to those who accused Ikrimah of lying. It clarifies that the charge against Ikrimah is not accepted merely because some polemical wording exists in a weak report.

The importance of this scan is that Ibn Hajar does not treat every criticism against Ikrimah as automatically valid. Rather, he discusses the reports, the objections, and the responses. This is significant because Ikrimah is a narrator used by major hadith authorities, including al-Bukhari.

The scan supports the point that attacking Ikrimah requires actual proof, not a severed quotation from a weak chain. A report transmitted through a weak or abandoned narrator cannot be used to destroy the standing of a narrator accepted by major hadith scholars.

This response, by the way, I found it with brother Hussein al-Bashoush after a period of time after I saw this suspicion which I had not responded to at the time.

When the chain is restored, it contains Yahya al-Bakka’, whose hadith is abandoned/weak.

Therefore, the attempt to use this report against Ikrimah is methodologically invalid.

You cannot wound a just narrator through a wounded narrator.