and before me is an example that almost aligns with what I mentioned about the practices of the people of fairness and their dealings in matters where a scholar's opinion sometimes differs in some issues of knowledge. Here is the esteemed Shaykh Bakr Abū Zayd—may Allāh benefit through him—researching in his concise work "Narrations of the Supplication for Completing the Qurʾān" the narration of a report in its isnād (Ṣāliḥ ibn Bashīr al-Murrī), whose condition is well-known among the people of ḥadīth. He said—may Allāh preserve him—at the end of his research: "... he is abandoned in ḥadīth despite his righteousness and asceticism, and the abandoned is not considered in the chapter of supporting evidence, nor in follow-ups. This agrees with what was determined by the scholar al-Albānī in "al-Ḍaʿīfah" (1/214 and 309), contrary to what he determined in his commentary on "Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ" (1/36) (number: 98), as he considered it, so it should be corrected. This does not trouble the people of knowledge, similar to the case of multiple narrations from a single imam in jurisprudential matters, in the rank of a single ḥadīth, and likewise in the status of the narrator. The two ḥāfiẓs, al-Dhahabī and Ibn Ḥajar, have much to be known from the comparison between "al-Kāshif" and "al-Mughnī"; both by al-Dhahabī, and between "al-Taqrīb" and "al-Talkhīṣ" and "al-Fatḥ"; all three by Ibn Ḥajar, and the excuses in this are detailed. Refer to "Rafʿ al-Malām" by Ibn Taymiyyah. However, this aligns with the desires of the innovators, who address their grief over the emergence of the people of the sunnah, and they have notable incidents of harm throughout history, but they end in their defeat, and Allāh is the promised [one]