the action of Aḥmad was not approved by the ḥāfiẓ; on the grounds that the report does not name him as ʿAbd Allāh; however, he corrected himself by saying: "But al-Ṭabarānī narrated it through the chain of Ḥammād ibn Salamah from al-Jurayrī and named him ʿAbd Allāh." And I say: al-Haythamī cited the wording of al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Majmaʿ" (9/88-89), saying: "From ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥawālah who said: I came to the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam)... " the ḥadīth is similar to the narration of Aḥmad from the route of Ismāʿīl, then he said: "Narrated by Aḥmad and al-Ṭabarānī, and their narrators are the narrators of the authentic collections." I said: Likewise, Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim named him (1294) through the chain of Ḥammād ibn Salamah from al-Jurayrī from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Shaqīq from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥawālah who said: "I came to the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) while he was beside a tree... " the complete ḥadīth is similar to the narration of Aḥmad from Ismāʿīl—who is Ibn ʿUlayyah. Thus, it is confirmed that the action of the Imām was correct, and that the narrator of the ḥadīth in its entirety is ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥawālah, the well-known Companion. It is strange, then, that the ḥāfiẓ said: "He is more famous than Zāʾidah, the narrator of this report, so perhaps some of its narrators named him ʿAbd Allāh thinking he was the famous Ibn Ḥawālah, thus naming him ʿAbd Allāh, but the correct name is Zāʾidah or Mazīdah, with uncertainty." I say: Rather, the correct name is ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥawālah, for two reasons: the first is the agreement of Ismāʿīl Ibn ʿUlayyah and Ḥammād ibn Salamah on it: from al-Jurayrī. The second is that the one who named him Zāʾidah was uncertain between naming him Zāʾidah and Mazīdah as previously mentioned