and "Muslim" except to give readers the impression that he reviewed its wording and compared it with the ḥadīths of "Riyāḍ," when he did nothing of the sort (like a cat puffing itself up to appear as a lion)! Thirdly: As for the owner of (the Islamic Office), he also reprinted "Riyāḍ" in this year (1412), which is the same year in which the edition mentioned before was published, and I do not know which of them envied the other and published his edition in competition! The point is that the aforementioned owner commented on the ḥadīth by saying: "Shaykh Nāṣir remained silent about this ḥadīth, and in the narrations of Muslim 1/454: 'So consider, O son of Adam,' and in the narrations of Muslim there is an additional meaning: he catches up to him and throws him into the fire of Hell." I said: And there are several observations: the first: the silence he attributed to me—and he repeated it many times!—contains a malicious insinuation that I believe is only from him, not from the "group of scholars" he claimed in the introduction of his new edition that it was from their verification. Would scholars engage in such insinuations that serve no purpose except vindictiveness, and without justification! Because he wants to make readers feel that I was deficient in my previous verification of the book: "Riyāḍ," which he did not intend to fully verify in all aspects, but rather as was feasible, especially since there was no commitment to compare its ḥadīths with their originals, nor would the aforementioned owner be satisfied with that, and if he did, he would go bankrupt, because composing the book anew is easier than that verification. And the oppressor will face consequences, and this is confirmed by the following: the second: he noticed that the addition is not in Muslim, but he did not attribute it to a source, nor did he indicate its weakness, even though he claimed in the introduction of his new edition that it was from the "verification of a group of scholars"!