and yet, the commentator on "Musnad Abī Yaʿlá" could only follow up on me by saying, after mentioning that this ʿImrān is reliable in ḥadīth: "Shaykh Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī accused him in 'al-Ṣaḥīḥah' of omitting al-Ḥasan from the isnād and changing Ziyād ibn Rabāḥ to ʿAbd Allāh ibn Rabāḥ, and I do not think he was correct in this accusation"! Thus he said—may Allāh rectify him—for it is not permissible to criticize based on conjecture without evidence, because conjecture avails nothing against the truth, and it is the most false of speech as the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said. This is firstly. Secondly: does he not know that among the types of ḥadīth sciences is the anomalous ḥadīth, which is what a reliable narrator reports in contradiction to someone more reliable or more numerous, and the one in contradiction here is lesser in number and memory, for he is reliable in ḥadīth by the commentator's own admission. If this is not anomalous to him, then it means one of two things: either he does not know the anomalous ḥadīth, or he contradicts the principles of the ḥadīth scholars, and both are bitter. 5- There is a small booklet titled "Exerting Effort in Verifying the Two Ḥadīths of the Market and Asceticism" by Abū ʿAbd Allāh ʿĀdil ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Saʿīdān, with an introduction by the virtuous Shaykh Muqbil ibn Hādī al-Yamānī, in (63) very small pages, in which he concluded with the weakening of the two ḥadīths mentioned. As for the ḥadīth of the market, the response to it will come, Allāh willing, in the seventh volume of this "series" under number (3139). As for the ḥadīth of asceticism, it is forthcoming in this volume under number (944), and what can be mentioned here is that the man is not fair with me, nor with some of the narrators of the ḥadīth, and here is the explanation: 1- As for the first, whoever compares my takhrīj there and my discussion on the narrators with all..