this, and I had included this ḥadīth in my treatise "Qiyām Ramaḍān" (36) and summarized its isnād, clearly stating its authenticity from Ḥudhayfah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu), and referred for details to this section of this series. Then, years later, I received a letter dated (13/7/1413 AH) - while this volume was in print - from one of our brothers, who loves for the sake of Allāh and unseen, engaged in this noble science as it appeared to me from his writing. In it, he critiqued three ḥadīths I had authenticated in some of my works, including this ḥadīth. I seized the opportunity to clarify that he did not hit the mark in his critique of it from all its paths, acknowledging that he was courteous in his writing, gentle in his critique. Moreover, he stated at the end of his letter that he did so to benefit from me and some of our brothers, so may Allāh reward him for his humility and good opinion of his brothers. The brother - may Allāh reward him - traced the paths of the ḥadīth from many sources that he could access and pointed out their defects. I had previously mentioned some of them, and therefore I will not prolong the discussion except on some fundamental points where he was not successful in addressing them correctly. Unfortunately, the result was the weakening of an authentic ḥadīth. So I say: the first point: he weakened the path of al-Bayhaqī with Maḥmūd ibn Ādam al-Marwazī by saying: "No one authenticated him except Ibn Ḥibbān, and what was mentioned that al-Bukhārī narrated from him was refuted by the ḥāfiẓ in 'Hady al-Sārī' (p. 239)." The response to this is twofold: first, rejecting the uniqueness of Ibn Ḥibbān in authenticating a narrator does not mean that the rejection is acceptable, contrary to what our brother and others among the beginners think. This is only the case if he authenticated someone unknown to others, or if only one or two narrated from him. In this case, one refrains from accepting his authentication, otherwise, he is in..