therefore, when al-Ḥākim narrated it and said about Azhar: "a Basran ascetic," al-Dhahabī only commented by saying (1/538): "I said: Ibn ʿAdī said: I hope there is no harm in him." Al-Mundhirī said in "al-Targhīb" (3/5): "Its isnād is connected and good, its narrators are trustworthy and reliable, and there is a difference of opinion regarding Azhar ibn Sinān. Ibn ʿAdī said: I hope there is no harm in him." therefore, al-Ḍiyāʾ al-Maqdisī included it in "al-Aḥādīth al-Mukhtārah" (vol. 1, no. 176-178, in my edition), and it has other paths and follow-ups, some of which I mentioned there, and what has been presented suffices for the fair-minded. this; it seems to me from the critic's handling of this ḥadīth two matters: first, he adopts criticism unconditionally, even if it is not explained, contrary to what is known in the science of terminology. and the second: he does not adopt the principle of strengthening a weak ḥadīth by the abundance of paths that are not severely weak, as Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ established in "al-Muqaddimah," and which Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah praised in various places in his books and "Fatāwá"! the critic presented seven paths for this ḥadīth, most of which do not include anyone accused of lying, and yet, when he weakened all their individual elements, he did not benefit from their collective strength for the ḥadīth, especially the ḥadīth of al-Muhāsir ibn Ḥabīb, which is a proof on its own in this matter, so how about when it is joined by the ḥadīth of Azhar ibn Sinān and the like?! so, O Allāh, guide him!! And it is as if this man—like many others—finds it excessive for Allāh, the Exalted, to grant His servants this great reward for this declaration of faith, so when this settled in his mind, he began