al-bārī" (11/169), and indeed the real surprise is that this person named Ḥassān dares to challenge these eminent scholars and those who followed their path, contradicting them by weakening what they authenticated. This was noted by some esteemed brothers who condemned his attack on "al-Riyāḍ," among them our brother Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh Āl Shākir in an excellent article in the magazine "al-Bayān," issue (56), which I urge readers to review. May Allāh reward him, he said: "Why this disdain for the earlier scholars who had expertise in authentication and weakening, and who held a respected position, whose words and judgments carry weight? Why does our friend disregard them and suffice with his teacher's agreement with him in his weakening or judgment, to the extent that this phrase has been repeated and has become noticeably frequent, becoming distasteful. And if the honorable investigator is precise and honest in his wording to the point of saying: 'Shaykh Shuʿayb agreed with me in preference!' then why is he not precise and honest in his investigation of the book, tampering with it in this manner, betraying the trust, and lacking accuracy? The clever final remark is made by its author, who says on (p. 507): 'In my eagerness to complete the benefit for both the general public and specialists, I mention here in this chapter the weak ḥadīths in the book "Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn," which, according to me, number more than a hundred. I have followed each ḥadīth with evidence of its weakness, along with a brief citation.' It is true that the general public, like myself (truly, not out of humility, and at least in the field of the investigator), benefits from this, but what need do the specialists—of course, the scholars of ḥadīth and investigators among them—have for this chapter? Poor them, how much they have missed out on