the third - whose name is (Qays ibn Saʿd, and he is not among al-Bukhārī's men): Muslim did not authenticate him, but only mentioned him as supporting evidence!! This is how ijtihād and verification should be, O verifier of "Rabat"! As for his pretentiousness in his stance on the authentication by the ḥāfiẓ, it is even more astonishing, for he said: "The judgments of Ibn Ḥajar have no value unless they are based on clear evidence..." meaning, according to someone who is not knowledgeable! But as for him, his judgment of ignorance has value—and what value—even if it is not based on evidence! We seek refuge with Allāh from a time when the insignificant speak! And similar are the rest of his answers and responses (bones without meat)! The discussion on this is lengthy, and the scope and time are too limited and precious to pursue it, so I conclude with his stance regarding Ibn Saʿd's statement on (ʿAṭiyyah): "He was known," for he said: "This is not authentication, but rather the opposite of unknown, and it has no relation to the unknown state that I mentioned about him"! We say to him: Where is the evidence?! He demands evidence from the Commander of the Faithful in ḥadīth for authentication, so do we not have the right to demand evidence from him for what he says, while he himself is unknown in this science?! However, I see that his statement: "He was known" is absolute, and the absolute refers to perfection as the scholars say, so it is as he said: "the opposite of unknown," but it was hidden from him that it is an argument against him, because as this term "unknown" implies generality and inclusiveness, encompassing the unknown of identity and the unknown of state, so too its opposite "known" encompasses the known of identity and the known of state, thus what he claimed and said falls apart!