and in concluding the response to him, I must clarify that the man predominantly imitates others in his "Ḍaʿīfah" when it comes to his analysis; he does not go beyond the narrations that are readily available with their isnāds before him, then he proceeds to critique them one by one in his own peculiar way, which deviates from the scholars' principles and their consistent judgments as previously mentioned. If he were a diligent seeker of truth and qualified for critique, he would have examined the books of the sunnah himself and extracted from them the paths, isnāds, and texts that would assist him in his investigation, if he so desired! But he does not do so because he wants to rise on the shoulders of others, and because he knows that if he did, the result he aims for would differ, which is to surpass al-Albānī and his teacher Shuʿayb in his exaggeration over them in weakening the ḥadīths! This is evident from his own words in the introduction to his "Ḍaʿīfah." I say: if he had done that, it would have become clear to him the error in his previous corrections and weakenings; for he would find supporting evidence for the authentic ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah from its two paths, which would strengthen it further with the ḥadīth of Jābir, mentioned under the following ḥadīth number (80), and that it meets the criteria of Muslim, and from the ḥadīth of Abū Umāmah and Wāthilah, and he would find its analysis in "Jalāʾ al-Afhām" by Ibn al-Qayyim, and "al-Qawl al-Badīʿ" by al-Sakhāwī. And he said regarding the ḥadīth of Jābir: "It was narrated by al-Ṭayālisī ... and al-Ḍiyāʾ in 'al-Mukhtārah' ... and its men are the men of (the authentic) according to the criteria of Muslim." Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned something similar and agreed with it. Therefore, it is not surprising then that the ḥāfiẓ points to the strengthening of the ḥadīth in "Fatḥ..