3 – He faulted me for correcting the commentator on al-Tahāwiyya when he attributed the report to “the Ṣaḥīḥ.” I demonstrated that the narration is found in neither of the two Ṣaḥīḥs—al-Bukhārī and Muslim—and the prejudiced partisan could not establish the contrary.

4 – He rejected my critique of the chain for the ḥadīth, “Whoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine….” I proved to him that my assessment was methodologically sound and had already been advanced by several leading authorities, that I had reserved judgment on the text, and that I later came to deem it authentic—whereas his own teacher al-Kawtharī had ruled it anomalous. He would have done better to censure his teacher!

5 – I challenged his tendency—merely echoing al-Kawtharī—to declare sound the ḥadīth about the sun’s being returned for ʿAlī (may Allah be pleased with him), and his statement: “In that case the report must be interpreted figuratively, even as we say it is authentic, because it contradicts established scientific facts.” I pointed out that such philosophizing throws open the door to rejecting authentic ḥadīths on the basis of similar doubts.

6 – I likewise reproached him for then citing Ibn Taymiyyah as having flatly judged the ḥadīth fabricated, exposing his ignorance of this discipline; otherwise, he would not have vacillated between two contradictory rulings. I also revealed the reason behind his citation.

7 – I showed that his hostility toward me was prompted by an error I had once made while sourcing a ḥadīth—an error I myself had already acknowledged in an addendum printed at the end of the book two years before his criticism. From his own words I proved that such a slip does not require stripping the author of reliability, as he is attempting to do.

8 – On the strength of that same bias—if he is truly sincere—I obliged him to withdraw confidence as well from the commentator on al-Tahāwiyya regarding certain