and similar to that, indicating his ignorance of the sunnah, is his statement (p. 240): "The predecessors say: the report is not like witnessing." This is a marfūʿ ḥadīth narrated by a group of imams, including Aḥmad from Ibn ʿAbbās, marfūʿ, and it includes a story. It is documented in "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr" (5250). An example of his ignorance of what the Salafī methodology necessitates is that he included (p. 74) among the esteemed tafsīrs "Tafsīr al-Kashshāf" and "Tafsīr al-Fakhr al-Rāzī." Have you ever seen or heard an Atharī say such a thing? It is no wonder, then, that he deviates from the sunnah, influenced by them, and interprets the verse on usury metaphorically! As for his spelling mistakes, indicating that he is (semi-illiterate), they are almost countless. He repeatedly says: "taʿālā maʿī"! And he said (p. 131): "Then taʿālā to His saying," and mentioned a verse. In (p. 129): "It is impossible for this issue to escape these two great imams"! And (p. 130): "Add to that that the two imams are not doctors"! He repeatedly uses the nominative case for the accusative. In conclusion, I say: