that Muḥammad, al-Bukhārī's teacher in this ḥadīth, is Ibn Saʿīd al-Anṣārī, claiming that there is no evidence for it! Yet he opposes it without any evidence or semblance of evidence, merely an assertion; if the Bukhārī of his time had said it, it would not have been accepted from him! So listen to how he says: "The certainty that al-Bukhārī's statement: 'Muḥammad said' means Ibn Saʿīd requires evidence. Rather, in my view, it is from the narration of (thus he said! meaning it is) Ibn Ḥumayd al-Rāzī, as if al-Bukhārī (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: 'Muḥammad said' for this reason, so consider this point." I say: I have considered it and found it to be an apparent contrivance, relying merely on possibility, and a preference without a basis, which he attributed to me by his claim and then denied it upon me! with a significant difference between him and me—not in terms of proficiency and expertise in this knowledge—but in that I coupled the claim with evidence, as I said there regarding Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd: "and he is among al-Bukhārī's teachers in (the Ṣaḥīḥ)." This is what they explicitly mentioned in the biography of this Muḥammad, and they did not mention the like in the biography of Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayd al-Rāzī, so I do not know how our friend ignored all of this, denying against us what he himself is involved in, while we are free from it by the grace of Allāh (may He be exalted). Then what is the meaning of his statement: "As if al-Bukhārī (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: 'Muḥammad said' for this reason..."? Does it not mean that al-Bukhārī did not attribute this Muḥammad—who is Ibn Ḥumayd, whom he considers weak—except to obscure his condition and conceal it?! Is this not akin to a type of concealment known as the concealment of teachers?! And is it correct to attribute