pages! He drones on about the illegitimacy of the mentioned addition in responding to the salutation and not in initiating it, supporting this with two weak ḥadīths, one of which is objectionable and the other anomalous. I have detailed the discussion on them in the other book "al-Ḍaʿīfah" (5433). I have also explained his bias towards his opinion, his opposition to the scholars in preferring adjustment over explicit criticism, and his attempt to weaken the narration of criticism from Imām Aḥmad by saying: "I did not find this statement widely reported from Aḥmad!" even though the scholars accepted it, like al-Dhahabī, al-Haythamī, and others. Then he followed the two aforementioned ḥadīths with two authentic reports from Ibn ʿUmar and Ibn ʿAbbās (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhumā), which do not support his argument because they pertain to initiating the salutation and not responding to it. Thus, he does not differentiate between initiating it and responding to it, and for this reason, he uses them to justify the ḥadīth and rejects some of the reports from the predecessors regarding its suspension! Some of these have been documented in the aforementioned source, including from Ibn ʿUmar that when he was greeted and responded, he added. Sālim, the freedman of Ibn ʿUmar, said: "I came to him and said: Peace be upon you. He replied: Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allāh... Then I came to him another time and said: Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allāh and His blessings. He replied: Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allāh and His blessings, and the goodness of His prayers." It was narrated by al-Bukhārī in "al-Adab al-Mufrad," and the ḥāfiẓ remained silent about it in "al-Fatḥ." So if you wish, dear reader, to know that he does not differentiate between initiating the salutation and responding to it, and that he confuses them, listen to his statement: "And it is as if Ibn ʿUmar (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) used to adopt the addition beyond what is in the general..