from the narrator reporting from him, since a number of weak and unknown narrators transmitted from him.”

I say: This hadith was transmitted from him by four trustworthy narrators: ʿAffān ibn Muslim, Yaḥyā ibn Ādam, Ḥasan ibn Mūsā, and ʿAbd al-Ṣamad ibn ʿAbd al-Wārith. Accordingly, this hadith of his from Thābit is authentic, were it not for the fact that he himself—may Allah have mercy on him—stated that it is interrupted.

What is remarkable about this novice is that this Musnad of ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd contains more than fifty hadiths transmitted by Ḥammād ibn Salamah from Thābit, from Anas alone, quite apart from others. 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).

I say: In all these hadiths, I have not seen him declare even one of them defective on account of Ḥammād ibn Salamah. Rather, he explicitly affirmed the authenticity of some of them, and many of them are found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. So what led him to declare this hadith of ours defective on his account, but not the others? What I most fear is that he found its text objectionable because of its unfamiliarity—though he had no right to do so—and then examined its chain, finding nothing to seize upon except his accusation that Ḥammād had become confused, because he failed to distinguish between a change in condition and confusion, as mentioned above. Had he first given the investigation its due, he would have found the hidden defect explicitly stated in Aḥmad’s version—which he himself cited—namely, the interruption in the chain. That would have spared him from accusing this imam of something of which he was innocent. Then, secondly, he would have found supporting reports that strengthen the hadith. But this is the way of many novices who have not acquired experience in critical verification and investigation. Allah is the One whose help is sought.

Ḥammād ibn Salamah has another chain of transmission, as follows: