"and in its chain is Abū al-Khaṭṭāb Ḥarb ibn Maymūn, whom they declared weak and trustworthy. Among those who declared him weak (!) is the master of the ḥadīth scholars, al-Bukhārī. Thus, a ḥadīth about which al-Tirmidhī says: 'It is ḥasan gharīb, and we do not know it except through this ḥasan gharīb path (!),' and al-Tirmidhī is known for his leniency and indulgence in critiquing narrators and narrations. And in it also is one whom al-Bukhārī declared weak, and it suffices you that he is a critical authority in this field, so how can this ḥadīth be used as evidence ... ?! O Allāh, teach us knowledge that is not accompanied by ignorance!" I said: So this statement, with its weakness, awkwardness, and poor expression, even to the point of describing al-Tirmidhī as lenient! And he said: "they declared him weak," when he means "he declared him weak," indicates the speaker's lack of knowledge in this noble science and his limited exposure to the statements of the imams of al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl, let alone his complete inability to reconcile their statements regarding a single narrator. So, for someone in this condition, it is obvious that he would say what no one before him has said, not even his imitator and main reference in discussing ḥadīths, the virtuous Shaykh: al-Sahswānī. For he spoke about the ḥadīth in a manner known to its people, even if he did not clarify its rank, although its apparent meaning is closer to supporting al-Tirmidhī's grading of it as ḥasan than to rejecting it. Then this indicated person came and summarized his words in a manner very far from reality, leading him to declare that its chain is not authentic, and that its narrator, Abū al-Khaṭṭāb, is disputed, "declared weak and trustworthy, and among those who declared him weak is al-Bukhārī." All of this is due to his lack of knowledge and understanding, and thus he did not express himself well, for (Abū al-Khaṭṭāb) is agreed upon as trustworthy, and no one declared him weak except al-Bukhārī, despite the scholars' hesitation regarding his weakening of him, whether he meant this Abū al-Khaṭṭāb or Ḥarb ibn Maymūn the younger, as previously explained. And if he meant the former, it is an unexplained criticism, as previously mentioned, and therefore it was not relied upon by those who came after him among the critics like al-Dhahabī, al-ʿAsqalānī, and al-Khazrajī, and before them al-Mundhirī who agreed with al-Tirmidhī on the grading of ḥasan. All of these know that al-Bukhārī is truly the master of the ḥadīth scholars, but they also know that the truth is not known by men, and that none of them is infallible