Accordingly, al-Ḥāfiẓ did not approve of this procedure of Aḥmad’s, on the grounds that the report does not name him as ʿAbd Allāh. Yet he corrected himself, saying:

“However, al-Ṭabarānī recorded it through Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from al-Jurayrī, and named him ʿAbd Allāh.”

I say: Al-Haythamī cited al-Ṭabarānī’s wording in al-Majmaʿ (9/88–89), stating:

“From ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥawālah, who said: ‘I came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him …’”

The hadith is like Aḥmad’s narration through Ismāʿīl. He then said:

“Both Aḥmad and al-Ṭabarānī recorded it, and the narrators of both are narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ.”

I say: Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim likewise named him ʿAbd Allāh in his narration (1294), through Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from al-Jurayrī, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Shaqīq, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥawālah, who said:

“I came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, while he was beside a leafy tree …”

The hadith then continues in full, just as in Aḥmad’s narration from Ismāʿīl—namely, Ibn ʿUlayyah. This establishes the correctness of what the Imam did: the narrator of this hadith in its complete form was ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥawālah, the well-known Companion. It is therefore strange that al-Ḥāfiẓ said:

“He is better known than Zāʾidah, the narrator of this report. Perhaps one of its transmitters named him ʿAbd Allāh, supposing that he was the well-known Ibn Ḥawālah; thus he called him ʿAbd Allāh. The correct name is Zāʾidah or Muzāyidah—there being uncertainty between the two.”

I say: Rather, the correct view is that he was ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥawālah, for two reasons:

First: Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUlayyah and Ḥammād ibn Salamah agree in naming him so, both narrating from al-Jurayrī.

Second: The one who named him Zāʾidah hesitated over his name, between Zāʾidah and Muzāyidah, as mentioned above.