or research and reflection; except for spontaneous thoughts! Like Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Duwaysh in what he called "Tanbīh al-Qārī li-Taqwiyat mā Ḍaʿʿafahu al-Albānī"; for most of the ḥadīths he strengthened are of this type that later became clear to me as being authentic, and I have noted this in some of my works. This shaykh came and followed that from my works, attributing the strengthening to himself—may Allāh pardon us and him by His grace and generosity—and he rarely adds any noteworthy benefit to that. Among them is this ḥadīth (p. 131) number (201); he quoted my words mentioned in "Ghayat al-Maram," which I referred to earlier. Then he commented on it by saying: "I say: but each sentence of this ḥadīth has been reported from another authentic route, and therefore it was deemed ḥasan in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb 1:457 number 1083." So he said! And he added nothing more, without examining the inconsistency mentioned in "al-Ghāyah" and whether it is possible to extract a route from it that can be authenticated and relied upon as I did here?! This is something he did not do, and he does so only very rarely. I had the opportunity to review the first hundred ḥadīths of his mentioned book, and I found about half of them to be of this type that derived their strength from some of my works without any effort or noteworthy benefit from him. It is useful to point out their numbers for reference: (1, 3, 4, 10, 21, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 40, 41, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95). It was obligatory for the shaykh—may Allāh have mercy on him—to seek an excuse for his brother; and to explain to his readers the reason for the differing judgments of the researcher on a single ḥadīth, which are numerous and not..