and among the peculiarities—or rather the subtleties—is that this ḥadīth I referred to, I had documented to criticize the oversight of the author in his commentary on his edition of "Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn" by saying (p. 220): "There is a consideration in its isnād"! This is what he said, he obscured it and did not clarify it, and I suspect that he aligns with the Ibāḍī in criticizing it for being disconnected! Because it is also in Muslim from the narration of ʿAlqamah from his father! I believe that in these two examples there is enough to convince any reasonable and fair-minded person that this author imitates the sect of those with desires in fabricating defects to criticize authentic ḥadīths, whether intentionally or unintentionally—Allāh is his reckoner. However, I say as advice to anyone who accepts advice: "Refrain; it is better for you." And now, there remains something, which is to provide evidence that he compromised scientific integrity. Let me limit myself to the fewest examples possible, as the discussion has extended far more than I intended and more than it deserves, and Allāh is the one sought for help: 1- He quoted from "al-Tahdhīb"—as mentioned earlier—the statement of ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq regarding (ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd): "He is not relied upon," but he did not quote it in full, which is the statement of the ḥāfiẓ: "Ibn al-Qaṭṭān refuted him and said: I did not see anyone mention him among the (weak narrators)." 2- He quoted (p. 15) from "al-Fatḥ" the statement of al-Qurṭubī regarding the reason for disliking prayer between the columns, that it is the prayer place of the jinn! Then he followed up on it and did not quote the correct reason mentioned by the ḥāfiẓ on the page opposite to al-Qurṭubī's statement, which is his saying: "The specific prohibition against praying between the columns as narrated by al-Ḥākim from the ḥadīth of Anas with a sound isnād." 3- He said (p. 18) explaining al-Ḥākim's leniency in authenticating the ḥadīth of Qurrah: