with objectivity and fairness, with his takhrīj and his discussion on the ḥadīth and the narrators, he will find that he did not exert any effort in the verification he claimed in the title of the treatise. The most he did was to oppose my reliance on some narrators and paths and my citing them, even equating paths that include a liar with some that are free from such. Look at the summary he presented for the ḥadīth from four paths: in the first, there is a liar, and likewise in the third. As for the second, it is free from severe weakness because it is narrated by Zāfir ibn Sulaymān from Muḥammad ibn ʿUyainah, both of whom are truthful, though their memory is weak, as I quoted from al-Ḥāfiẓ there. They are suitable for citation, as is known in "al-Muṣṭalaḥ." As for the fourth, it is mursal, and its narrators are trustworthy, which is why I considered its isnād to be good there. So what did the respected researcher do?! First: He stated when he produced the first path, which contains the liar, that he quoted that from me, but he misled the readers by not mentioning that I clarified that it contains a liar! This leads them to think that I at least cited it! This is deceit that a sincere researcher should avoid. Second: Also, when he mentioned (p. 48) his statement: "And the ḥadīth has a mursal witness with the wording..." he made them think it was from his own research and effort! In reality, it is something he benefited from me, as I said there: "And I found for it a mursal witness with a good isnād with the wording..." He did this for two reasons: one of them is to claim what he has not been given, as is mentioned in the authentic ḥadīth: