it is known that I am the one who spread this in the present era, and all praise is due to Allāh alone, first and last. This is something in which many modern critics err, due to their ignorance that it is not as unrestricted as this denier and other novices think, as I have pointed out many times on various occasions. Among these is that the lenient should not be the sole authority in authentication, and this is present here, as al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar authenticated him, as did al-Dhahabī. Moreover, he was among the virtuous followers, and he judged without receiving a salary. Ibn Mujāhid said: "He was among the eloquent people, and he was the teacher of ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and ʿUmar praised him and his eloquence in the Qurʾān." A group of virtuous followers narrated from him, such as Zayd ibn Aslam, Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd al-Anṣārī, Yaḥyá ibn Abī Kathīr, and others. It is no wonder that the imams we mentioned authenticated him. What can be said about someone who weakens the ḥadīth of this virtuous person and the authentication of the preservers? There is no doubt it is ignorance or feigned ignorance, and both are bitter. 4- Some researchers and commentators still follow me without knowledge, erring against this noble science, some with a deep-seated malice almost palpable, and others due to the contagion spreading to them, or perhaps with the intention of clarifying the truth—if Allāh wills. I will mention here one example, then leave the judgment to the readers and their opinion on what drives it: It will be mentioned under ḥadīth (759) that ʿImrān al-Qaṭṭān, whose memory is weak, contradicted two trustworthy narrators in the isnād of this ḥadīth, as they narrated it from Qatādah from al-Ḥasan from Ziyād ibn Rabāḥ from Abū Hurayrah. ʿImrān said: from Qatādah from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Rabāḥ from Abū Hurayrah. So he omitted al-Ḥasan between Qatādah and Ibn Rabāḥ, and replaced Ziyād with ʿAbd Allāh! I said: This is an obvious contradiction not hidden from beginners in this science,