the ḥadīths are narrated by ʿAbd Allāh from his teachers, as is well known among scholars of this noble discipline, unlike the compilers of indexes! He was joined in this ignorance by the doctor who annotated the book "al-Duʿāʾ," who said (2/926) in his commentary on the aforementioned ḥadīth of Yaḥyá ibn Salamah: "And it was said in 'al-Majmaʿ' (10/166): It was narrated by ʿAbd Allāh (sic) and in it is Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyá ibn Salamah ibn Kuhayl, who is abandoned." His statement "sic" strongly indicates his disapproval of attributing it to (ʿAbd Allāh), and he confirmed this on the opposite page, attributing it to Aḥmad (5/123) just as the destroyer did, and perhaps he plagiarized this attribution from him, as he is later in authorship than him, and he is well-known among those familiar with him for plagiarism, especially from my books! Secondly: al-Haythamī's criticism of the narration of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad with Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyá ibn Salamah alone, as transmitted by the aforementioned doctor and agreed upon by him, is a clear shortcoming or oversight, because his father, Yaḥyá ibn Salamah, is also abandoned like his son, as previously explained on (p. 1233), and the importance of this oversight becomes apparent if you remember that Ismāʿīl was corroborated by two other paths as previously mentioned in the narration of al-Ṭabarānī. Thirdly: On the occasion of the two paths of al-Ṭabarānī, it is now necessary to clarify them to draw attention to another mistake made by the aforementioned doctor, for it is with al-Ṭabarānī from the path of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Ḥārithī and Yaḥyá ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Ḥammānī who said: Yaḥyá ibn Salamah narrated to us... so the doctor criticized it with Yaḥyá ibn Salamah, and said: "And Yaḥyá al-Ḥammānī is criticized!" He overlooked the corroboration of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Ḥārithī, or perhaps he did not know him, so he remained silent