of hadiths narrated by ʿAbd Allāh from his shaykhs, as is well known to scholars of this noble discipline—unlike the slaves of indexes!

The doctor who annotated The Book of Supplication shared in this ignorance. Commenting (2/926) on the aforementioned hadith of Yaḥyā ibn Salamah, he said: “In al-Majmaʿ (10/166), it says: ‘Reported by ʿAbd Allāh [sic], and its chain contains Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyā ibn Salamah ibn Kuhayl, who is abandoned.’” His insertion of “[sic]” strongly indicates his objection to its attribution to ʿAbd Allāh. He reinforced this on the facing page, where he attributed it to Aḥmad (5/123), exactly as al-Haddām did. Perhaps the latter stole this attribution from him, for he wrote later than he did; among those familiar with him, he is well known for plagiarism—especially from my books!

Second: Al-Haythamī’s identifying a defect in ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad’s narration solely on the basis of Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyā ibn Salamah—as reported by the doctor mentioned above, who endorsed it—is a clear shortcoming or oversight. For his father, Yaḥyā ibn Salamah, is likewise abandoned, just as his son is, as was previously explained on p. 1233. The significance of this oversight becomes apparent when one recalls that Ismāʿīl was corroborated through two routes, as mentioned above in al-Ṭabarānī’s narration.

Third: Since al-Ṭabarānī’s two routes have been mentioned, they must now be set out, in order to draw attention to another error made by the doctor referred to above. Al-Ṭabarānī narrates it through Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Ḥārithī and Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Ḥimmanī, both of whom said: “Yaḥyā ibn Salamah narrated to us…” The doctor declared it defective on account of Yaḥyā ibn Salamah and said: “Yaḥyā al-Ḥimmanī has been criticized!” He overlooked the corroboration of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Ḥārithī—or perhaps he did not know him and therefore remained silent.