this is first. Secondly, because he saw in "Fatḥ al-Bārī" (10/54) this narration of Duḥaym prominently displayed in a concise form that does not include the story, and the phrase (musical instruments) — which cannot be hidden from anyone — was presented by the ḥāfiẓ to clarify what was omitted from Abū Dāwūd's concise narration. The man mentioned it in the second column of his article, arguing that it does not include mention of (musical instruments), taking it from "Fatḥ" while ignoring the ḥāfiẓ's statement following it: "Yes, al-Ismāʿīlī narrated the ḥadīth from this source from the narration of (Duḥaym) from Bishr ibn Bakr with this isnād, saying: 'They will deem lawful adultery, silk, wine, and musical instruments' in the ḥadīth." If it is said: How do you know that he saw it? I say: From my certain knowledge that he read the ḥāfiẓ's commentary on the ḥadīth and his refutation of Ibn Ḥazm's weakening of it, and from his refutation of Ibn Ḥajar in the third column defending his weakening of ʿAṭiyyah ibn Qays, he said: "Therefore, Ibn Ḥajar's statement in 'Fatḥ' (10/54): Abū Ḥātim strengthened it - is not accurate"! So you see that he quoted from the same page from which I previously quoted the ḥāfiẓ's statement in al-Ismāʿīlī's narration. After all this, has he left any room for anyone to think well of him?! And this is not all, look at the following: