that he is a beginner in this field, or that he previously adopted the weakening of the ḥadīth, then clung to what he thought would lead to its weakness. I say: He attributed three defects to it: The first: the statement of Abū Ḥātim mentioned earlier in the previous ḥadīth regarding (al-Muhāṣir): "There is no harm in it!" So the one referred to said: "He is among those whose ḥadīth is written and considered according to Abū Ḥātim, as in the 'Introduction to al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl'..." I say: Yes, this is his view, so what of it?! Why didn't you explain to your readers what you understand from it?! Did you not know that this does not mean what you intended by weakening it, but rather that it is not in the first rank for being used as evidence?! For he said: 1- "If it is said about someone: He is trustworthy, or precise, or reliable; then he is among those whose ḥadīth is used as evidence." 2- "And if it is said about him: He is truthful, or his status is truthfulness, or there is no harm in him; then he is among those whose ḥadīth is written and considered, and this is the second rank." This is explicit that one who is in the second rank is used as evidence, but his status is not the same as one who is in the first rank. This is the rank of one whose ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ, and the second is the rank of one whose ḥadīth is ḥasan. Therefore, al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar deemed the isnād of his previous ḥadīth as ḥasan. All of this is said assuming that there is no one who authenticated this al-Muhāṣir, and you have known who authenticated him. The second and third defects: He said after quoting from "ʿIlal al-Dāraquṭnī" that he called him Muhāṣir: "In any case, he was confused in the ḥadīth both in isnād and text. And the narrator from him is