did he conceal the authentication of al-Dhahabī?! And he knows who al-Dhahabī is in terms of memorization and knowledge of men, and the science of al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl? The other aspect: his previous statement: "And what was mentioned that al-Bukhārī included him, the ḥāfiẓ refuted..." etc., is questionable because the ḥāfiẓ did not address Ibn ʿAdī's statement at all in "Hady al-Sārī," so it is not permissible to say that he refuted it. Rather, the brother said what he said due to his assumption of a contradiction between them, but there is no contradiction, because what is affirmed is not negated. What Ibn ʿAdī affirmed applies to al-Bukhārī's teachers outside of "al-Ṣaḥīḥ," and what the ḥāfiẓ negated pertains only to "al-Ṣaḥīḥ." Thus, there is no contradiction or refutation. This is the last point related to the first issue, and its summary is that the authentication of Ibn Ḥibbān for the narrator of the translation's ḥadīth is a valid authentication with no reason to reject it, and that his ḥadīth is authentic as the critical ḥāfiẓ, al-Dhahabī, stated. The second point: the brother was not precise in his critique of the ḥadīth and some of its narrators. From the first point, it is known that he did not mention al-Dhahabī's authentication of the ḥadīth, and I now say: nor did he mention the ḥāfiẓ's statement about its narrator (al-Marwazī) being "truthful"! Contrary to that, he adopted the ḥāfiẓ's statement regarding his follower Muḥammad ibn al-Faraj, who is al-Qurashī al-Hāshimī, their client, which is the least that was said about him. Otherwise, he was authenticated by al-Ḥaḍramī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Sarrāj, and Ibn Ḥibbān, and Muslim relied on him, which is why al-Dhahabī said in "al-Kāshif": "Trustworthy." It is very clear that his ignoring of these scholars' statements, al-Dhahabī's authentication of al-Marwazī's ḥadīth, and his lack of knowledge of him being an authority according to al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Khalīlī and others, is merely a prelude from him