pay attention to any of these individuals, nor to others like Imām al-Baghawī, who also deemed it good in "Sharḥ al-Sunnah" (14/237). There are many others if one were to trace them, nor to their principle of strengthening a ḥadīth by its multiple chains, as he did similarly with the ḥadīth before it, as you will see under number (11). The one alluded to began to weaken this ḥadīth from the two chains I mentioned there, saying about the first chain (518/23): "There is an unknown [narrator], Saʿd ibn al-Akhram." He ignored the following facts: that it was said he was a Companion, that Ibn Ḥibbān and al-ʿAjlī considered him trustworthy, that its narrators—al-Tirmidhī and al-Baghawī—deemed it good, and that al-Ḥākim and others previously mentioned authenticated it! He criticized the other chain by saying: "It contains Layth ibn Abī Sulaym, and he is weak." It is as if he discovered with this weakening something that was hidden from me! Even though I pointed out there his weakness by saying: "Its chain is ḥasan in supporting evidence." However, I indicated by this that his weakness is not severe, and therefore I deemed his ḥadīth good as supporting evidence. He did not respond to that at all, and this is not the method of scholars who..