then in his aforementioned statement about Shuʿayb, there is a deceit or a malicious misrepresentation. I do not know if Shaykh Shuʿayb was aware of it or not. Because he agreed with me—and I do not say he imitated me, as is his habit in many of his rulings, as his distinguished student knows—he agreed with me that the ḥadīth is considered marfūʿ in his commentary on "Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān" (3/132), and his student is aware of this, so why did he conceal this agreement?! And it is correct; because we said there in "al-Ṣaḥīḥah": "And the fact that it is mawqūf does not harm it, because it is not said based on mere opinion, as is apparent, and it is supported by the fact that Abū Isḥāq was followed in raising it..." Then I provided its isnād and clarified that it is good, and Shuʿayb agreed with me on this as well. So I do not know whether Shaykh Shuʿayb retracted his commentary that included agreement on the two aforementioned matters, or if the commentator on "al-Riyāḍ" is not truthful in what he attributed to him?! And regardless of the matter, the question that imposes itself—as is said today—is: Any ignorant person, no matter how deeply rooted in ignorance, can oppose the scholar in his opinion, even if he were the scholar of his time, or of all times, by saying as the one mentioned said: "This is his opinion, and I do not see it!" similar to what some ignorant people say about the opinions of some Companions and mujtahids: "They were men, and we are men!" So I say to this pseudo-scholar: You have known our argument from "al-Ṣaḥīḥah" that the ḥadīth is considered marfūʿ, which is that: "It is not said based on mere opinion," so why did you not counter the argument with an argument, but instead resorted to rejecting it with mere claims that even the most ignorant of the ignorant can make; so you said: "And I do not see it"?! And is it..