I say, to the extent that some ignorant and hostile youths have taken this as an opportunity to attribute to me what is only fitting for them and their likes among the deviators and the misguided. Because of this difference between these individuals and the virtuous shaykh, I was motivated to respond to him and explain my perspective on what he concluded. Perhaps he was convinced of the correctness of what I wrote, as he did not send me any further comments after that. His statements can be summarized in two points: First, his weakening of the narrator Yaḥyá ibn Ayyūb al-Ghāfiqī and his claim that the imams have weakened his ḥadīths. The second is his absolute weakening of Ibn Lahīʿah, as well as his weakening of al-Ḥārith ibn Abī Usāmah. I have clearly demonstrated his error in this regard, relying on the statements of the critical imams, and this can be summarized as follows: First, the principle of preferring criticism over commendation is not absolute; the correct approach is to prefer it when the reason for criticism is explained and is inherently impactful, which is not the case here. As for al-Ghāfiqī, he is trustworthy in himself, but his memory has slight weakness that does not lower his ḥadīths from the level of being used as evidence. This is the approach taken by the imams who included his ḥadīths, as he was relied upon by Muslim, and this ḥadīth was authenticated by previous imams such as al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Ḥākim, al-Mundhirī, and al-Dhahabī, which is consistent with the statement of the ḥāfiẓ about him: "Truthful, though he may err at times."