to every discerning reader, and he excused himself with an excuse worse than the fault, saying in "the introduction" (p. 6): "They stipulated that we do not mention their names.. "! And it is easy for the reader to know the truth about these (scholars) by referring to their annotations, for he will find no knowledge or verification except what was in the first edition, or what they quote from my books like "Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd" and others. Rather, he will see what indicates ignorance and lack of knowledge! Here is an example of that, found in the footnote (p. 643) commenting on the statement of Imām al-Nawawī (may Allāh have mercy on him) at the end of ḥadīth (1891): "And in a narration by al-Bukhārī and Muslim." "I said: It was narrated only by Muslim, so attributing it to al-Bukhārī is an error!" But I say: Rather, this speaker is the one who is mistaken, for the ḥadīth is in "al-Bukhārī" (no. 3245 - Fatḥ 6/318). Then I say: Who is the speaker: "I said..."? The answer: unknown, by the publisher's own admission whose words I quoted earlier. So we ask him—having inserted himself into the "group of scholars" by participating with them in annotation and correction, sometimes stating his name, if he is not the one meant by the phrase "group of scholars"—we ask him or we ask the "group of scholars"—it is all the same!—what is the value of the unknown's statement in the science of ḥadīth terminology? And this is if his statement is not wrong in itself, so how about when it is the very error as you have seen?! And of this kind is their or his (!) comment on ḥadīth (1356):