just as the people of whims and innovation do. So take heed, O people of insight!

First: On p. 5 he alleges that I denied the reported additional rakʿahs merely out of blind imitation of al-Mubārakfūrī. The lie refutes itself and needs no labored rebuttal, for every reader—whether sympathetic or hostile, loving or hating—knows full well that I do not imitate anyone in my scholarly method. Indeed, that independence is precisely what has provoked some people—regrettably including certain scholars—to rise against me out of envy and spite.

Second: On p. 15 he attributes to me the claim that I weakened Yazīd ibn Khuṣayfah, the transmitter of the tradition that ʿUmar prayed twenty rakʿahs. On that basis he filled several pages of his treatise trying—so he says—to prove from the statements of the imams that the man is trustworthy, while he knows that I do not differ with them on this point. In the book in question, when listing the aspects that render the number reported from Ibn ʿUmar weak, I wrote:

“The first is that, although Ibn Khuṣayfah is reliable, Imām Aḥmad said of him in one report: ‘He is munkar al-ḥadīth (his narrations are objectionable)…’”

I then went on to affirm his reliability in the rest of that discussion, so there is no need to reproduce it here. Whoever wishes may return to it and verify the Shaykh’s calumny against me.

Third: On p. 22 he also claims that I relied on the narration of ʿĪsā ibn Jāriyah from Jābir—parallel to ʿĀʾishah’s ḥadīth—regarding the number of rakʿahs in Tarāwīḥ. The text of my book exposes this falsehood, for I stated verbatim:

“Its chain is ḥasan by virtue of what precedes it.”

I even tried to excuse the Shaykh by supposing he did not understand the qualifier “by virtue of what precedes it,” but I balked at declaring that for fear of falling into the very fault he committed!