Ḥizām. second: al-Suyūṭī, for when he included it in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr" and "al-Kabīr," he attributed it only to al-Ṭabarānī. This is a gross oversight as it implies that it is not in "the two Ṣaḥīḥs," otherwise he would have attributed it to them! This led some commentators to weaken the ḥadīth, among them al-Munāwī, as will be mentioned. Al-Suyūṭī also made another mistake, which al-Munāwī followed, by including the ḥadīth without its second part, giving the impression that it is like that in al-Ṭabarānī! However, it is with both parts as you see. third: al-Munāwī, for he said in his commentary "Fayḍ al-Qadīr": "The author (al-Suyūṭī) indicated its authenticity, but it is not as he said, for al-Haythamī said..." He mentioned his previous statement. This is one of the most egregious errors I have seen from al-Munāwī, and it arises from his lack of memorization or his failure to recall that the ḥadīth is in "the two Ṣaḥīḥs" through a different route than Abū Ṣāliḥ. In this case, it is not permissible to weaken the ḥadīth, especially since it has been authenticated by those who authenticated it, as is well known to the experts in this field. Knowing this, Abū Ṣāliḥ was followed by ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr in al-Bukhārī and others, and by Mūsá ibn Ṭalḥah ibn ʿUbayd Allāh in Muslim and others. They are both included in "Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl" with many supporting narrations from Abū Hurayrah and others, so refer to it (3/316-319) if you wish. It is strange that the follow-up of ʿUrwah was also reported by al-Ṭabarānī (3092), and al-Haythamī included it in "al-Majmaʿ" (3/98) despite it being in al-Bukhārī, claiming that al-Ṭabarānī's narration contains an addition not found in al-Bukhārī, which is: "And whoever seeks chastity, Allāh will grant him chastity, and whoever seeks self-sufficiency, Allāh will grant him self-sufficiency." It is also in al-Bukhārī, as the esteemed brother Ḥamdī al-Salafī pointed out in his commentary