"Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ agreed with me on its weakening"! and he did not say—in any of those ḥadīths that I had previously weakened by his shaykh (1), but rather he benefited from me (like this student) in weakening them as he knows well—: Shaykh al-Albānī agreed with me, but rather I agreed with Shaykh al-Albānī on its weakening!! Especially in the case of the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās number (30) with him; for he deviated from his usual path, and said after it (p. 520): "Shaykh Shuʿayb said: ḥasan li-ghayrih"! He said this about his shaykh, knowing that I had definitively declared it weak in the commentary on "al-Riyāḍ" (no. 588), and that it contains an objectionable addition as I explained in "Aḥkām al-Janāʾiz" (p. 197), so why did he not say: I agreed with Shaykh al-Albānī on its weakening? The answer is with the intelligent readers! And they can assist themselves by reflecting on his statement regarding the ḥadīth of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī and Abū Hurayrah on the virtue of the tahleel; in it: "Whoever says it in his illness and then dies; the fire will not taste him," he said (p. 531): "Shaykh al-Albānī sees in his 'Ṣaḥīḥah' (1390) that it is considered marfūʿ, and I do not see it. Shaykh Shuʿayb agreed with me on the weakening of the marfūʿ"! So reflect on his statement: "and I do not see it" and the answer will become clear to you, which is what is referred to in some countries: "Oppose to be known."