and Aḥmad (2/3 and 95), Abū Yaʿlá (3/1365 and 1364), al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Kabīr" (13440), and al-Baghawī in "Sharḥ al-Sunnah" (7/129/1916) through chains that complement each other, all from Ibn al-Sāʾib. al-Tirmidhī said: "This is a ḥadīth ḥasan, and Ḥammād ibn Zayd narrated from ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib from Ibn ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmayr from Ibn ʿUmar something similar, but he did not mention (from his father)." I say: al-Nasāʾī (2/36) and al-Ṭabarānī (13447) connected it through two chains from Ḥammād without mentioning the father. Perhaps this is correct, as Ḥammād ibn Zayd narrated from ʿAṭāʾ before his memory changed, and Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah followed him in another text with Imām Aḥmad (2/11), and he also heard from him before his memory changed. Perhaps for this reason, al-Bukhārī said: "He did not hear anything from his father, nor does he mention him." This does not contradict the fact that ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated it in "al-Muṣannaf" (5/29/8877) from Maʿmar and al-Thawrī from ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib... and said: (from his father), as it is possible that the isnād was narrated by Maʿmar, who heard from him after his memory changed, unlike al-Thawrī. Thus, ʿAbd al-Razzāq or the narrator of his book might have attributed his narration to Maʿmar! And Allāh knows best. It is due to the oversight of the one commenting on it that he criticized the text mentioned with Aḥmad due to Ibn al-Sāʾib's memory change! It is from the narration of Ibn ʿUyaynah as mentioned before, and even if it was hidden from him that he heard from him before his memory changed, how could it also be hidden that al-Thawrī narrated from him before his memory changed, and his narration is right before his eyes in the book. Then I saw this narration of al-Thawrī with Ibn Ḥibbān (1000) through the route of Maḥmūd ibn Ghaylān: ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us: Sufyān informed us with a narration similar to Maʿmar's. It appears that ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUbayd would sometimes mention his father in the isnād. And Allāh knows best