that to the leader of the ḥadīth scholars, al-Bukhārī?! Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr said in "Ikhtiṣār ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth" (p. 59) in defining the mentioned concealment: "It is to present the name of the teacher or his kunyah in a manner contrary to what is well-known, to obscure his matter, and to make it difficult to ascertain his condition. This varies according to intentions; sometimes it is disliked, such as if he is younger in age,... and sometimes it is prohibited, such as if he is not trustworthy and he conceals him so that his condition is not known...."! Is it appropriate for a student of this knowledge to issue such a statement that affects Imām al-Bukhārī and accuses him of concealment and obscuring the matter of the narrator to the people?! Would it not have been better for him, if he did not have what outweighs what we have preferred, to think well of al-Bukhārī and to assume that his omission of attributing to his teacher Muḥammad was because he considered him trustworthy, not abandoned?! This would have been more appropriate for him. And Allāh is the guide. That is the summary of what I had written to him in my response sent to him, so what was his stance towards it? He wrote back to me another response dated (8/12/1403 AH), in which he said after the greetings and introduction, and his supplication for my well-being, and his description of me as "the distinguished muḥaddith"! He said: "Our esteemed teacher: Your response to my letter arrived in due time... and here I am adding to what you wrote a reply that is in the manner of 'perhaps a transmitter of fiqh to someone more knowledgeable than him,' and 'perhaps a transmitter of fiqh who is not a jurist,' from you we benefit, and from your knowledge we draw." So did he benefit anything? No, for he sent along with the response a study of his in eight..