being authentic— for he did not say that, and he included it in another place in "al-Musnad" (5/256), and this falsehood is known to everyone engaged in this noble science, for Imām Aḥmad is not accustomed to authenticating in his "Musnad." It occurred to me that he did not express himself well, intending to say: "al-Tirmidhī said: 'Its isnād is ṣaḥīḥ,'" but al-Tirmidhī did not say that either; rather, he said: "ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ," and the difference between the two expressions is not hidden from the people of knowledge. This man has many errors and other lies, especially against our Salafī brothers, which cannot be mentioned or alluded to in this introduction; they are purely ḥadīth-related, and perhaps we will have the opportunity to address them at another time, if Allāh wills. In summary, I have extended my discussion on Shaykh al-Ṣābūnī in particular among the contemporary opponents, because he serves as an example for the majority of them who do not excel in this science, not even in simple transmission, and he surpasses them in the abundance of his delusions and lies, so people like him are not given weight in this noble science. This does not prevent me from acknowledging that there are some later scholars who have a clear merit in this science, from whose verifications and annotations we benefit greatly, such as Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir and others of the virtuous. And Allāh is the source of success. In conclusion, I must thank everyone who helped me in preparing this volume, presenting it to the press, correcting its proofs, and compiling its indexes, especially my daughter Anīsah, Umm ʿAbd Allāh, may Allāh reward her with goodness, and bless her, her husband, and their offspring, for she greatly assisted me in correcting the proofs and writing the index cards, thus saving me much time and great effort