وَحَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ يَزِيدَ بْنَ هَارُونَ، وَذَكَرَ زِيَادَ بْنَ مَيْمُونٍ، فَقَالَ: حَلَفْتُ أَلَّا أَرْوِيَ عَنْهُ شَيْئًا وَلَا عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَحْدُوجٍ. وَقَالَ: لَقِيتُ زِيَادَ بْنَ مَيْمُونٍ فَسَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ حَدِيثٍ، فَحَدَّثَنِي بِهِ عَنْ بَكْرٍ الْمُزَنِيِّ، ثُمَّ عُدْتُ إِلَيْهِ فَحَدَّثَنِي بِهِ عَنْ مُوَرِّقٍ، ثُمَّ عُدْتُ إِلَيْهِ فَحَدَّثَنِي بِهِ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ. وَكَانَ يَنْسُبُهُمَا إِلَى الْكَذِبِ. قَالَ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ: سَمِعْتُ عَبْدَ الصَّمَدِ، وَذَكَرْتُ عِنْدَهُ زِيَادَ بْنَ مَيْمُونٍ، فَنَسَبَهُ إِلَى الْكَذِبِ.
Translation: Al-Ḥasan al-Ḥulwānī said: “I heard Yazīd b. Hārūn mention Ziyād b. Maymūn and say, ‘I have sworn not to transmit anything from him or from Khālid b. Maḥdūj.’” Yazīd continued: “I met Ziyād b. Maymūn and asked him about a report. He narrated it to me from Bakr al-Muzanī. I returned to him, and he narrated that same report from Muwarriq. I returned again, and he narrated it from al-Ḥasan.” Yazīd attributed lying to the two men. Al-Ḥulwānī added: “I heard ʿAbd al-Ṣamad; when I mentioned Ziyād b. Maymūn to him, he accused him of lying.”
In the third attribution, «al-Ḥasan» means **al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī**, not al-Ḥasan b. ʿUmārah from the preceding report. Al-Nawawī also reports a weakness judgment by **al-Nasāʾī** concerning Khālid b. Maḥdūj and cites al-Bukhārī’s *Tārīkh* concerning Ziyād b. Maymūn: «تَرَكُوهُ» (“they abandoned him”). These are named critical evaluations, not an automatic inference of fabrication from a mere difference between chains.
Repeatedly changing the source for one report merits investigation, while genuinely hearing the same report from more than one teacher remains possible.