among the critics throughout the ages and years up to this day, such as al-Bukhārī, Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Ibn Taymiyyah, and so on. 2- He weakened its narrator, ʿAṭiyyah ibn Qays, whom no one weakened—not even Ibn Ḥazm!—and he cast doubt on the authentication of him by Muslim, Ibn Ḥibbān, and rejected Ibn Ḥajar's authentication of him, despite the authentication by those who deemed his ḥadīth authentic! 3- His claim that Muslim included a ḥadīth for him as supporting evidence, which contradicts the statement of those who documented him. 4- His statement: Ibn Ḥajar's judgments have no value... etc. 5- His claim that Ibn Saʿd's statement about the narrator: "He was well-known" is not an authentication! 6- His weakening of three authentic ḥadīths regarding the prohibition of praying between pillars and breaking the row, with a detailed response to follow in correction number (13). 7- His distortion of my words; he replaces the term "proof" with "disconnection," attributing to me what I did not say, and what I attributed to him—rightfully—he does not deny!! 8- He reported the disagreement on al-Bukhārī's phrase: "he said to me" whether it is a suspended statement like his saying: "he said" without adding (to me) and there is no disagreement! What is more surprising is that he said on his own: that the more likely is either!! 9- His claim that al-Bukhārī did not use Ḥishām ibn ʿAmmār as evidence! Contrary to all the ḥāfiẓs who documented him, and contrary to the explicit statement of the ḥāfiẓ. 10- His claim that what al-Bukhārī attributed to him from the ḥadīth is considered by him as a follow-up! 11- He attributed to the experts of "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī"—among them Ibn Ḥajar—his claim