there is weakness, contrary to what the critic implies by quoting the ḥāfiẓ saying: "truthful but errs"! It is most likely that he does not know that this means he rarely makes mistakes, as explicitly stated in the "Introduction to al-Fatḥ" (p. 384), and al-Dhahabī pointed to this by saying in "al-Mīzān": "The man is a ḥadīth scholar and memorizer, one of the men of the six [books], and he is prolific, making mistakes like others." Therefore, he said in his book "al-Kāshif": "Truthful, an imām." So is it permissible to reject the ḥadīth of such an imām, O Abū ʿAbd Allāh?! Fear Allāh! And do not follow desires, lest they lead you astray from the path of Allāh. Moreover, the seeker of truth should not stop at a word from the ḥāfiẓ or others and base authentication and correction or criticism and weakening on it! Rather, he should derive from the statements of the imāms a summary he is assured of and base his judgments on it, otherwise; his judgments will be inconsistent, and this is what we see in many of the emerging students today, where they strengthen a narrator's ḥadīth at times, and weaken it at others, not out of a change in ijtihād, or applying a principle like (irregularity and contradiction) and the like; but rather from the notion: "the end justifies the means"! One of them may lean towards weakening a ḥadīth; so he brings whatever he can find of statements to support its weakness, or the opposite if his inclination is towards the authenticity of the ḥadīth! In light of what I mentioned; we ask this critic: what is your principle regarding the ḥadīth of Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar? Is it to rely on it, or to weaken it? If you say the former; then why did you weaken this ḥadīth of his?! And if you say the latter, what is your argument against the reliance of the two shaykhs on his ḥadīth; let alone