I say: the response to this criticism can be understood from what has preceded, and in summary, it is an accusation of error against a reliable narrator without evidence. We also say something else here, which is that accepting this criticism would necessitate attributing tadlīs to Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth, and this is something no one has claimed as far as I know, and what leads to falsehood is itself false. Those mentioned were followed in their narration by: Salm ibn Junādah from Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth, as recorded by al-Tirmidhī and Ibn Ḥibbān (1369), so the ḥadīth is his; it is authoritative, and it is not permissible to reject it without evidence.

- (As for indeed your Lord loves praise). It was recorded by al-Bukhārī in "al-Adab al-Mufrad" (859, 861, and 868) and "al-Tārīkh" (1/445/425 1), al-Nasāʾī in "al-Sunan al-Kubrā" (4/416/7745), al-Ḥākim (3/614), Aḥmad (3/435), al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (1/258/082-825), and al-Ṭaḥāwī in "Sharḥ al-Maʿānī" (2/372) through various chains from al-Ḥasan from al-Aswad ibn Sarīʿ, who said: I was a poet, so I said: O Messenger of Allāh! I praised my Lord, and he said: ... and he mentioned it, and he did not ask me for more than that. Al-Ḥākim said: "The isnād is authentic." Al-Dhahabī agreed with him. I say: it is so considering al-Bukhārī's narration in his two books; for al-Ḥasan explicitly stated hearing from al-Aswad through two chains from him, and if not for that, it would have been criticized for ʿanʿanah, because al-Ḥasan is known for tadlīs, and those who asserted that al-Ḥasan did not hear from al-Aswad did not mention any evidence except for a report with an isnād that is not known: that al-Aswad was not seen after the killing of ʿUthmān, except for a statement by some of them that al-Aswad died on the day of the Battle of the Camel in the year thirty-six; and al-Ḥasan only arrived..