an original, preserved, authentic narration from Hishām, also from his father from ʿĀʾishah. He presented it through the route of al-Marwazī from Ibn ʿUyaynah from Hishām with it. Then al-Ḥāfiẓ said afterwards: "Both are preserved." He mentioned it to al-Ḥākim Abū ʿAbd Allāh upon his request. Al-Khalīlī said: "Al-Ḥākim approved and appreciated it." This is strong evidence that al-Marwazī is considered trustworthy by them and is used as evidence. Otherwise, they would have attributed it to error because he contradicted the routes with his narration from Ibn ʿUyaynah with his chain from ʿUrwah from ʿĀʾishah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhā). What further confirms this is that it has come through other routes from ʿUrwah from her in Muslim (8/60-61), al-Ṭaḥāwī in "al-Mushkil" (1/127), al-Bazzār (1/123/233), and al-Khaṭīb in "al-Tārīkh" (5/313). This is the first matter indicating that this al-Marwazī is a reliable authority. As for the other matter: I had mentioned at the conclusion of this verification that al-Dhahabī (raḥimahu Allāh) authenticated the isnād of the ḥadīth through this al-Marwazī. Our brother, whom I am responding to, is aware of this because he attributed the ḥadīth to al-Dhahabī in "al-Siyar" in the same volume and page previously indicated. I wonder what drives these young emerging scholars and researchers to disregard the judgments of the ḥadīth scholars that differ from theirs. Of course, I do not mean by this that they should blindly follow them, but rather that they should appreciate their efforts, knowledge, and expertise, so that at least they do not hastily issue judgments that contradict them. And this is a reminder, and * (reminders benefit the believers) *. Here, a question arises, as they say today: why did the esteemed brother conceal the authentication?