harms me. Does this not mean that your concern is to follow the faults of others and forget yourself, heedless of the wisdom that says: "One of you sees the speck in his brother's eye, but does not see the log in his own eye"?! 3- He said: "You accused me of lying about a matter, even though the known lie does not pertain to such matters. If every mistake in a matter made one a liar, then no one would be safe, not even you; for the basis of these matters is knowledge." So I say: Yes, no one claims universality, not even you, but why the deception, evasion, and obfuscation? Why did you say: "about a matter" and left it indefinite without clarifying it, and went on to write about what has no relation to the matter! You said in your article: "It includes ʿAṭiyyah ibn Qays al-Ḥimṣī; for he is not known for precision and accuracy, and no one but Ibn Ḥibbān authenticated him." Here I told you: "And this is a lie, for Imām Muslim authenticated him..." etc. In this statement, I did not oppose the sharīʿah or language, but I followed the most eloquent speaker of the ḍād, in his saying (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) to someone whose mistake is much lesser than yours, because he relied on a general text from the Quran, which had not reached him its specification from the sunnah: "Abū al-Sanābil lied" (1). So where is your mistake compared to his, when you did not rely on even a scholar's opinion that you are obliged to follow?! Rather, you opposed all the scholars and followed a different path from theirs! And Allāh is the one whose help is sought. 4- And perhaps in conclusion, he took another issue with me, saying: "4- Then you said: 'and beyond that of deceptions and sins (not mistakes)...'" I say: Why this generalization, O Shaykh, why not mention something specific to me." This is his statement, and in response to it, I say: As for the generalization, you know its reason, but you ignore it, for my response to you in