"the series," see for example (1128 and 1296) from the third volume. this... Shaykh al-Ghumārī did not notice in his book "al-Ḥāwī," which he named "al-Madāwī li-ʿIlal al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr wa-Sharḥay al-Manāwī," the confusion that occurred with al-Manāwī between the three names! Rather, he critiqued him for what he said in the narration of al-Bazzār with the wording: "Indeed, for the emigrants" for his statement about the teacher of al-Bazzār: "unknown," and he followed it with the previous narration of al-Ḥākim, saying: "If al-Bazzār narrated it through a different route (meaning: Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān); then it is a good witness for him!" I said: This—unfortunately—gives the researcher the impression that Shaykh al-Ghumārī is more concerned with criticizing individuals and tracking their mistakes as if it were his ultimate goal, rather than critiquing the ḥadīth, tracing its paths, and distinguishing its authentic from its weak, which is the ultimate goal for scholars; as is not hidden! He became preoccupied with the means rather than the end. Do you not see that he attached his statement: "it is a good witness" to whether the route of al-Bazzār was different from the route of (Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān), and this clearly indicates that he did not refer back to "al-Bazzār," let alone "Ibn Ḥibbān"!! Then how can it be a good witness when he does not know the identity of the witness, for perhaps he could be a liar or abandoned, unfit for testimony?! Then let's assume it is sound—as is the reality—; he should have completed the treatment and remedy by clarifying the ḥadīth's freedom from defect and its suitability for evidence—as we have presented—; or if it was defective according to him from those above the followers, so that the benefit from the critique is complete. And Allāh is the one whose help is sought. As for al-Haythamī; he said in "al-Majmaʿ" (5/254-255): "Al-Bazzār narrated it from his teacher Ḥamzah ibn Mālik; and I did not know him, and the rest of the men are trustworthy"!