"Ayyūb ibn Sulaymān al-Qurashī, the imam of the mosque of Salmiyyah, a village in Ḥimṣ, narrates from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, and al-Ḥasan ibn Isḥāq al-Tustarī narrated from him." I said: Ṭalḥah ibn ʿUbayd Allāh, the grandfather of this Qurashī Taymī, is the one mentioned in this ḥadīth and from his generation, and al-Haythamī did not recognize him. And Allāh knows best. As for the rest of the narrations mentioned by al-Suyūṭī, I have not yet been able to review them, but his attribution of Anas's narration to al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Kabīr" I fear might be a mistake on his part or the copyist's, for I did not find it there nor in "al-Majmaʿ." On the contrary, he did not attribute the ḥadīth of Ṭalḥah to him, meaning al-Ṭabarānī, while it is there as I have seen, and he attributed it to Abū Nuʿaym, meaning in the book "al-Ḥilyah," and it is not there. So perhaps the original is the opposite of all this, that is: ".. al-Ṭabarānī, Ibn ʿAsākir, and al-Ḍiyāʾ from Ṭalḥah. And Abū Nuʿaym and Ibn ʿAsākir from Anas." And Allāh knows best. In summary, the ḥadīth of the chapter is ḥasan at the very least, and it may reach the level of ṣaḥīḥ if we find the ḥadīth of Anas. See correction number (1), and ḥadīth (2171). (Note): Then it occurred to me that the lack of attribution of Ṭalḥah's ḥadīth to al-Ṭabarānī might be from al-Suyūṭī himself, because I saw that al-Munāwī included it in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Azhar," as it is supposed not to repeat what is in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr" except for a benefit. It appears that when he saw the ḥadīth in "Jāmiʿ al-Suyūṭī" not attributed to al-Ṭabarānī, he included it only attributed to him. And Allāh knows best. Then al-Munāwī mentioned after the ḥadīth the words of al-Haythamī that I previously quoted and critiqued, he mentioned it accepting it without attributing it to him!