criticized it even with the slightest word! He said, "The correct view is that it is mawqūf!" He clung to a single mawqūf narration from Ismāʿīl al-Qāḍī, thereby opposing the principle that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted, especially since it is confirmed through two chains from Abū Hurayrah, and it was authenticated by the previously mentioned scholars, who did not consider this unprecedented criticism initiated by this aggressor. The other principle is that this mawqūf narration holds the status of marfūʿ because it is not said based on personal opinion, as is evident. And part of his complete transgression is his statement: "What further confirms this is that all the narrations from Abū Hurayrah that are marfūʿ, except what we mentioned, do not include the mention of prayer upon the Prophet!" So he said! He did not mention prayer upon the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), not even with the symbol (ṣ)! This was a practical affirmation from him to weaken the ḥadīth! My response to the alleged confirmation is what was previously mentioned from the first principle. Also, the narrations he refers to are those numbered (77, 78, and 79), and they are in "al-Ṣaḥīḥah" without the two chains that include the addition. It is from his ignorance that he preferred them over the others! Had he reversed his stance, he would have been correct and not deviated in weakening the ḥadīth from the consensus of the ḥadīth scholars. But the matter is as it is said: "Your love for something blinds and deafens," and "And whoever Allāh does not grant light, for him there is no light" (Sūrah al-Nūr, 40)