وَحَدَّثَنَا مَحْمُودُ بْنُ غَيْلَانَ، قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِأَبِي دَاوُدَ الطَّيَالِسِيِّ: قَدْ أَكْثَرْتَ عَنْ عَبَّادِ بْنِ مَنْصُورٍ، فَمَا لَكَ لَمْ تَسْمَعْ مِنْهُ حَدِيثَ الْعَطَّارَةِ الَّذِي رَوَى لَنَا النَّضْرُ بْنُ شُمَيْلٍ؟ قَالَ لِيَ: اسْكُتْ، فَأَنَا لَقِيتُ زِيَادَ بْنَ مَيْمُونٍ وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ مَهْدِيٍّ، فَسَأَلْنَاهُ، فَقُلْنَا لَهُ: هَذِهِ الْأَحَادِيثُ الَّتِي تَرْوِيهَا عَنْ أَنَسٍ؟ فَقَالَ: أَرَأَيْتُمَا رَجُلًا يُذْنِبُ فَيَتُوبُ، أَلَيْسَ يَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ؟ قَالَ: قُلْنَا: نَعَمْ. قَالَ: مَا سَمِعْتُ مِنْ أَنَسٍ مِنْ ذَا قَلِيلًا وَلَا كَثِيرًا، إِنْ كَانَ لَا يَعْلَمُ النَّاسُ فَأَنْتُمَا لَا تَعْلَمَانِ أَنِّي لَمْ أَلْقَ أَنَسًا.
Translation: Maḥmūd b. Ghaylān said: “I asked Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī, ‘You have transmitted extensively from ʿAbbād b. Manṣūr. Why, then, did you not hear from him the report of al-ʿAṭṭārah which al-Naḍr b. Shumayl narrated to us?’ He said to me, ‘Be quiet! I, together with ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī, met Ziyād b. Maymūn. We questioned him: “What of these reports you narrate from Anas?” He replied, “Suppose a man sins and repents; does Allah not turn to him in forgiveness?” We said, “Yes.” He said, “I heard none of this from Anas—not a little and not a great deal. Even if the people do not know, do you two not know that I never met Anas?”’”
Al-Nawawī gives **two grammatical explanations** of «فَأَنْتُمَا لَا تَعْلَمَانِ»: (1) «lā» may be **additional (zāʾidah)**, yielding «أَفَأَنْتُمَا تَعْلَمَانِ»—“Do you two know?”; or (2) «lā» may retain its negative force, while the **interrogative hamzah is omitted**, yielding «أَفَأَنْتُمَا لَا تَعْلَمَانِ»—“Do you two not know?”, a confirmatory question (istifhām taqrīrī). The dual addresses Abū Dāwūd and Ibn Mahdī; neither analysis treats it simply as a factual announcement that both men were ignorant.
What directly undermines Ziyād’s claimed route from Anas is his explicit admission of **no hearing and no meeting**. That admission does not adjudicate unrelated independent routes.