قَالَ: وَسَمِعْتُ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ الْحُلْوَانِيَّ يَقُولُ: رَأَيْتُ فِي كِتَابِ عَفَّانَ حَدِيثَ هِشَامٍ أَبِي الْمِقْدَامِ، حَدِيثَ عُمَرَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، قَالَ هِشَامٌ: حَدَّثَنِي رَجُلٌ يُقَالُ لَهُ يَحْيَى بْنُ فُلَانٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ. قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِعَفَّانَ: إِنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ هِشَامٌ سَمِعَهُ مِنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ. فَقَالَ: إِنَّمَا ابْتُلِيَ مِنْ قِبَلِ هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ، كَانَ يَقُولُ: حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدٍ، ثُمَّ ادَّعَى بَعْدُ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَهُ مِنْ مُحَمَّدٍ.
Translation: He said: “I also heard al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-Ḥulwānī say, ‘I saw in ʿAffān’s book the hadith of Hishām Abū al-Miqdām concerning ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. Hishām had said: “A man called Yaḥyā ibn so-and-so narrated to me from Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb.” I said to ʿAffān, “They say Hishām heard it from Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb himself.” He replied, “This was precisely the report on account of which he was called into question: he used to say, ‘Yaḥyā narrated to me from Muḥammad,’ but later he claimed that he himself had heard it from Muḥammad.”’”
The discrepancy concerns an intermediary disappearing from the chain. A transmitter can genuinely receive through direct and indirect routes, but ʿAffān cites the change in Hishām’s own claim as adverse evidence in this particular report. The criticism rests on context, not a mechanical rule against all dual routes.