and the summary of the response, as I recall—for I did not keep a copy for myself, which is one of my shortcomings that I hope Allāh, the Exalted, will forgive me for—is as follows: As for the second matter, I did not rely on the statement of the one who criticized him for two reasons: one of them being that the criticism is vague and unexplained. The other reason is that it is opposed by the authentication of those who have authenticated him, among whom are some known for their strictness, such as Abū Ḥātim, who said—as I mentioned there—"sound in ḥadīth." The esteemed person referred to attributed it to Abū Dāwūd, which is one of his errors, for Abū Dāwūd actually said about him: "There is no harm in him," as stated in "al-Tahdhīb." This is his statement, and in meaning, it agrees with the statement of Abū Ḥātim. Similarly, Ibn Ḥibbān and Ibn Shāhīn included him in "al-Thiqāt." As for the third matter, it suffices to refute it with what the esteemed person himself quoted from al-Dhahabī and al-ʿAsqalānī that he is truthful. It does not harm him that he is a Rāfiḍī as long as he is not a propagator, because the criterion in narration is truthfulness and precision, as established in the science of terminology. Moreover, some have mentioned that he abandoned Rāfiḍism, and perhaps for this reason, al-Dhahabī limited his statement in "al-Kāshif" to saying about him: "truthful." He did not accuse him of Rāfiḍism. As for the fourth matter, it is one of the strangest things he boasted about! For at the same time he takes