they relied on my attribution to al-Ḥākim by part and page without directly consulting his book, and if they had done so, they would have seen (al-Qurashī)! Thus, it is certainly proven that their claim that the narrator of the ḥadīth is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Wāsiṭī, the weak one, is false, and consequently, the claim that the ḥadīth is weak is also proven false. This is not contradicted by what they mentioned about the narration of this weak narrator from (Sayyār), and from him (Abū Muʿāwiyah) as I mentioned there, for two reasons: the first is that it is established among scholars that "mentioning something does not negate what is not mentioned"; and due to their neglect of this scientific fact, they asserted the negation! The second is that there is no impediment for two narrators with the same name to share a teacher or more, and likewise, a teacher or more narrates from both of them. Among the well-known examples of this is (ʿAbd al-Karīm ibn Mālik al-Jazarī al-Ḥarrānī), who is trustworthy, and (ʿAbd al-Karīm ibn Abī al-Mukhāriq al-Baṣrī), who is weak, and they both shared in narrating from some of the teachers, such as: Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, Ṭāwūs, ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, and others among the prominent figures, and narrating from each of them were Isrāʾīl ibn Yūnus, the two Sufyāns, and others among the trustworthy, and for this reason, al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb/biography of ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Baṣrī": "He shared with al-Jazarī in some of the teachers, so perhaps he was confused with him by those who lack understanding"! So if (ʿAbd al-Karīm) appears like this without attribution in a chain of those shared chains, and in another narration (ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jazarī) appears attributed, it is obviously not permissible to claim that he is al-Baṣrī! This is exactly the state of those obstinate ones, and therefore, they have been affected by some of the splashes of the aforementioned words of al-Ḥāfiẓ