then it was also recorded by Aḥmad (2/70 and 118), and ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd in "al-Muntaqā" (2/54/855), and al-Bayhaqī from three other routes from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, without Ḥammād's statement: "He did not hear..." I said: Its narrators are trustworthy according to the criteria of Muslim; however, it is disconnected due to Ḥammād's explicit statement that Thābit did not hear it from Ibn ʿUmar. And with this, al-Haythamī criticized it. Some beginners in this science have criticized it with a strange defect! The commentator on "al-Muntaqā" said: "This chain's narrators are trustworthy; but there is something unsettling; this is due to the confusion of Ḥammād ibn Salamah (!), so we could not distinguish whether Yaḥyá narrated from him before or after his confusion." I said: The response is from several aspects: Firstly, we do not know of anyone from the scholars who described him with confusion; rather, with change, and this does not harm. Therefore, Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ did not mention him among those who became confused in the last part of his book "Muqaddimah ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth"; nor did al-Kayyāl in his comprehensive book on this field: "al-Kawākib al-Nayyirāt", and Muslim used him as evidence in the foundations; among them his ḥadīth from Thābit from Anas mentioned earlier under number (2592). Secondly, Ibn ʿAdī said at the end of Thābit's biography in "al-Kāmil" (2/527): "The imams and trustworthy narrators wrote from him; and the most narrations from him are by Ḥammād ibn Salamah; and he is nothing but trustworthy and truthful; and his ḥadīths are sound and upright when narrated by a trustworthy person; and he has many ḥadīths; and he is among the trustworthy of the Muslims; and what appears in his ḥadīths of unfamiliarity is not from him; rather..