its isnād as previously explained, and based on the agreement between me and the Education Office—as stated in the introduction to "Ḍaʿīf Abī Dāwūd" (pp. 8-9) and elsewhere—I said under the ḥadīth: "Weak." That is: its isnād is weak, but the author added from himself, transgressing: "[Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr]." He further transgressed by commenting in a way that does not deviate from the summary I mentioned earlier, but in a cunning manner that leads the reader to understand that I am contradictory, just as that ignorant, spiteful Saggāf does, claiming "contradictions" with his accumulated ignorance, so the old author followed his pattern! with the aforementioned comment. It would have been his duty—had he feared Allāh and been just—to clarify that there is no contradiction between the weakening; it is with regard to the isnād of Abū Dāwūd, and the strengthening; it is with regard to the combination of the two paths as is explicit in my takhrīj on the section mentioned earlier. He did not stop at this transgression; rather, he brought a third calamity! He misled the readers about a contradiction in the name of the Companion of the ḥadīth; as it appeared in the aforementioned comment "Ibn ʿUmar" as a typographical or scribal error, he said: "And it was mentioned in 'Ṣaḥīḥ (sic) al-Jāmiʿ' that it is from Ibn ʿAmr!" Thus it appeared in his comment: "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ"! which is also a scribal or typographical error, as if Allāh intended to disgrace him, so he fell into what he accused others of; fulfilling the wisdom that says: "Whoever digs a pit for his brother; falls into it!" So take heed, O people of insight! And Allāh is the one whose help is sought, and there is no power nor strength..