"al-Majmaʿ," as well as al-Mundhirī in "al-Targhīb," and then Shaykh al-Bannā in "al-Fatḥ al-Rabbānī," rather, ʿAmr ibn Ḥazm has nothing at all in "Musnad Aḥmad." Indeed, al-Mundhirī (4/190), and then al-Haythamī (3/61) mentioned something similar from the ḥadīth of ʿUmārah ibn Ḥazm as narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Kabīr," and it includes Ibn Lahīʿah, who is weak." I said: Through this investigation and referencing, two important truths became clear to me: the first is that the ḥadīth is authentic due to the corroboration of ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith for Ibn Lahīʿah. The second is that the printed "Musnad Aḥmad" has omissions, as evidenced by the attribution of this ḥadīth to it by al-Ḥāfiẓ and others, which leads me to suspect that there is another version with more content than the printed version, making its case similar to that of the printed "Musnad Abī Yaʿlá," which has another version more extensive than it, and it is the one relied upon by al-Ḥāfiẓ in "al-Maṭālib al-ʿĀliyah" contrary to his teacher al-Haythamī, who limited himself to the abridged version as he stated in the introduction. And Allāh knows best. (Second Notice): Al-Ḥāfiẓ mentioned the ḥadīth in the wording of al-Nasāʾī: (al-Quʿūd) in the biography of its narrator Naḍr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Sulamī from "al-Tahdhīb," then he said: "I read in the handwriting of al-Dhahabī: 'unknown.'" This is a comforting statement, as if al-Mizzī found that the man had only one narrator, he deemed him unknown, and this is not consistent!" So I say: This is noise without effect! Because it gives the impression that he has another narrator besides Abū Bakr ibn Abī Ḥazm, so he is not unknown, and this is not the case, as no one else was mentioned for him as will come, the most that can be said is that there was a difference about his name, with some saying about him: ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Naḍr, thus reversing it! Therefore, al-Ḥāfiẓ, when he abbreviated his biography from "al-Tahdhīb," could only say in "al-Taqrīb": "unknown"!