preceded him in this were Mujāhid, the esteemed successor (d. 104), the master of the interpreters Ibn Jarīr (d. 310), al-Baghawī (d. 516), al-Qurṭubī (d. 671), al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538), and others whom I previously mentioned. how can he say (p. 431): "Ibn Taymiyyah did not mention the distinction referred to in his book (al-Nubuwwāt)"! It is not necessary for the author to mention everything he knows on the subject in a single book, for Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned it in various places in his fatāwá. If he had reviewed "Majmūʿ al-Fatāwá," he would have found it in (10/290 and 18/7). from this, you learn the invalidity of his statement following that: "This error in distinguishing between the Messenger and the Prophet seems to have entered people through a fabricated ḥadīth narrated by Ibn Mardawayh from Abū Dharr, which is a very long ḥadīth that Abū Dharr could not possibly have memorized due to its length..." I say: the basis for the mentioned distinction is not this long ḥadīth, which he claimed Abū Dharr could not memorize, as I explained in this unique verification in its field, as I believe, and by Allāh, this claim is an innovation in the science of criticism and validation, unprecedented—praise be to Allāh—by anyone before! otherwise, he would be obliged to reject many long, authentic, and established ḥadīths in the Ṣaḥīḥayn and elsewhere, such as the ḥadīth of the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah, the ḥadīth of the Dajjāl and the Beast, and the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah: "I was to you like Abū Zarʿ was to Umm Zarʿ," among others. and perhaps he will not commit to that, if Allāh wills, and his imitation of Ibn al-Jawzī in judging the ḥadīth as fabricated is rejected, because imitation is not knowledge, as is not hidden from someone like him. Then why did he prefer to imitate him over those who refuted his judgment of it as fabricated? Like al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAsqalānī, the researcher al-Ālūsī, and others among those