the second issue is the concealment by omitting from the isnād the attribution of (al-Qurashī) which is established in my extraction; thus paving the way for weakening the ḥadīth by al-Wāsiṭī! the third issue is his ignoring—along with those previously mentioned—the established attribution of (al-Qurashī) in "al-Musnad" and "al-Mustadrak". However, the possibility I mentioned earlier arises here, which is relying on others' attributions for extraction and not directly referring to "al-Mustadrak". This is more likely concerning (Ḥassān) due to the evidence mentioned in the (first) issue, and whether it is this or that, both are bitter choices. There are other people who followed suit, among them Dr. Muḥammad Saʿīd al-Bukhārī, who was bold in his error—like Shuʿayb and his associates—as he commented on the ḥadīth in "Kitāb al-Duʿāʾ" by al-Ṭabarānī, weakening it by al-Wāsiṭī! This is because after he conveyed its grading as ḥasan by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, and its authentication by al-Ḥākim and al-Dhahabī, he followed up by saying (2/1283): "I said: Perhaps they confused ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq al-Wāsiṭī with ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq al-Qurashī, who is trustworthy and does not narrate from Sayyār Abū al-Ḥakam." How astonishing is this doctor and his follow-up on them, how does he attribute error to them when their isnād states that it is (al-Qurashī)? By Allāh, the continuation of these individuals in this weakening, error, and obstinacy is one of the great offenses! It would have sufficed as a deterrent for these individuals from persisting in their continuation to remember—along with their knowledge of the scholars' consensus on the weakening of al-Wāsiṭī—another fact, which is the agreement of all who extracted or transmitted the ḥadīth, accepting its authenticity and goodness, among them those who weakened al-Wāsiṭī, and they are: 1- al-Tirmidhī 2- al-Ḥākim 3- al-Mundhirī 4- al-Nawawī 5- Ibn Taymiyyah 6- al-Dhahabī 7- al-ʿIrāqī 8- al-ʿAsqalānī