that was mentioned. 12- He denied the existence of the term (musical instruments) in the narration of al-Bayhaqī and Ibn Ḥajar, even though it is present in them, and in others as well! For the sake of completeness, I will also summarize my response to him in some of the following observations, so I say: 13- In observation (8), he plagiarized my referencing of ḥadīth (266) and I provided conclusive evidence, yet he concealed the true identity of its narrator (ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq al-Qurashī), omitting the attribution (al-Qurashī) from the isnād; because he is trustworthy, to mislead the readers into thinking he is (ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq al-Wāsiṭī) who is unanimously considered weak! He also concealed from them the strengthening of the ḥadīth by eight of the ḥadīth scholars; among them al-Dhahabī and al-ʿAsqalānī!! 14- He weakened three authentic ḥadīths according to a group of ḥadīth scholars regarding the alignment of the rows, as will be detailed in observation (13), and this has been previously mentioned. 15- He attributed to me—as you will see there—along with others, the imitation of al-Munāwī in our statement about one of those three ḥadīths authenticated by al-Ḥākim: "and al-Dhahabī agreed with him," which is a fabrication, and you will see there the image of the agreement reproduced from "al-Mustadrak of al-Ḥākim" and "the Summary of al-Dhahabī." 16- Other examples of his evasion, through obstinacy and disputation with falsehood, from the statements of the ḥadīth scholars who authenticated the narrator whom he weakened due to ignorance, saying about Ibn Ḥibbān: lenient, and about al-Nasāʾī: that he sometimes authenticates the unknown! As for Imām al-Dāraqutnī, he said about his authentication: "subject to scrutiny"!! 17- He concealed there the authentication of al-Dhahabī and al-ʿAsqalānī! And if he mentioned it, we would not be surprised if he..