first: Is the disagreement you imagined a "respected disagreement" or is it a disagreement that is disregarded? Because the dissenter is not among the respected scholars!! That is why you did not dare to name him! Perhaps he is from the Khawārij or the Shīʿah who criticize the Companions of the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), especially the narrator of this ḥadīth, Abū Hurayrah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu). second: It is possible that the disputant you referred to is yourself, and in that case, your disagreement is even more disregarded, as clear as the sun in the midday sky! Then he said: "The ḥadīth has a sound chain of transmission; however, its text raises suspicion, as it suggests that Mūsá dislikes death and does not love meeting Allāh..." and so on with his nonsense! I say: With such inverted understanding, this man rejects the ḥadīths of the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam)!! And he does not stop there, but also rejects all the scholars who understood it and explained it correctly, and refuted those like him from the people of whims who misunderstand the ḥadīths and then reject them. In reality, they are rejecting their own ignorance, while the ḥadīths are free from it, and all praise is due to Allāh. Here is the example; the ḥadīth is explicit in contradiction to what was attributed to Mūsá (ʿalayhi al-salām), which is his saying: "Now, it is near." The man turned a blind eye to it and clung to the slap mentioned at the beginning, without considering the end of the story. He is like someone who rejects the saying of Allāh: (So woe to those who pray) claiming it contradicts the verses commanding prayer, without looking at what follows: (those who are heedless of their prayers) from one perspective. From another perspective; the man based his rejection of the ḥadīth on his claim that Mūsá (ʿalayhi al-salām) was aware of the Angel of Death when he slapped him! This is complete ignorance and disregard for the words of the scholars, which he cited (p. 28):