they diligently study this knowledge until they excel in it, and that they disseminate what benefits the ummah from ḥadīth and fiqh research, which they know people need, so that people may see the fruits of their knowledge and bear witness to it! Do they not know that if they respond to those they claim to be the "scholar of the era," this prompts us to respond to them, exposing their flaws and ignorance of this knowledge, and that they have ripened before they have matured?! And another point: you have quoted from al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī that Abū Khālid was followed in his narration from al-Muhāsir ibn Ḥabīb, so how could you mention that to prove the alleged inconsistency and ignore it when it suits you?! Is this not the practice of the people of whims who measure with two scales and play both sides? I advise you not to be among the ignorant! Moreover, al-Muhāsir was followed by Muḥammad ibn Wāsiʿ from Sālim from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar from ʿUmar in a marfūʿ manner. It was recorded by a group of imams, such as al-Bukhārī in "al-Kuná" (50/430), al-Dārimī, al-Tirmidhī, al-Ḥākim, and others through the route of Azhar ibn Sinān from him. This isnād is used as supporting evidence; because Muḥammad ibn Wāsiʿ is a trustworthy, devout person with many virtues, and Muslim relied on him as mentioned in "al-Taqrīb." And Azhar ibn Sinān—although a group weakened him and al-Ḥāfiẓ said about him: "weak"—was not accused, rather Ibn ʿAdī said in "al-Kāmil" (1/420)—after listing his ḥadīths, this being one of them: "His ḥadīths are acceptable, not extremely objectionable, and I hope there is no harm in him."