it is from the narrator about him; because a group of weak and unknown narrators have transmitted from him." I said: And this ḥadīth has been narrated from him by four trustworthy individuals: ʿAffān ibn Muslim, Yaḥyá ibn Ādam, Ḥasan ibn Mūsá, and ʿAbd al-Ṣamad - who is the son of ʿAbd al-Wārith. Therefore, this ḥadīth from Thābit is authentic; except that he himself mentioned that it is disconnected. It is astonishing regarding this novice; that in "Musnad ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd" there are more than fifty ḥadīths narrated by Ḥammād ibn Salamah from Thābit from Anas alone, not to mention others, and here are their numbers: (1200, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1206, 1208, 1214, 1256, 1261, 1290, 1291, 1294, 1295, 1297 - 1299, 1305-1328, 1331-1333, 1335, 1336, 1338, 1341, 1358, 1382, 1384, 1385). So I say: In all these ḥadīths, I did not see him criticize any of them with Ḥammād ibn Salamah; rather, he explicitly declared some of them authentic, and many of them are in "Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim." So what made him criticize this ḥadīth with him and not the others? I fear that he found the text strange - which is not his right - so he examined its chain; and found nothing to hold onto except accusing Ḥammād of confusion, due to not distinguishing between change and confusion as mentioned earlier! Had he given the research its due initially, he would have found the defect explicitly mentioned in the narration of Aḥmad - to whom he attributed it - which is the disconnection, and that would have sufficed him from accusing this imam of what is not in him! Then he would have found supporting evidence for the ḥadīth that would strengthen it secondly; but this is the case with many novices who have not practiced thorough investigation and examination. Allāh is the one whose help is sought. And Ḥammād ibn Salamah has another chain, which is as follows: