the corrections1- Page 702, under ḥadīth (2796): Then I reconsidered and said: First: The ḥadīth of Ṭalḥah from the narration of Sulaymān ibn Ayyūb was also reported by al-Ḍiyāʾ in "al-Mukhtārah" (3/43/848). Second: The ḥadīth of Anas was reported by Ibn ʿAsākir (8/548) from the route of Abū Nuʿaym at al-Ṭabarānī with its weak chain from someone who heard Anas ibn Mālik: meaning Ṭalḥah on the day of Uḥud. I say: Perhaps al-Suyūṭī's attribution of this ḥadīth of Anas to al-Ṭabarānī is merely his acceptance of Ibn ʿAsākir's narration of it from him, and this is something he and others do frequently, and Allāh knows best. Third: The ḥadīth of al-Zuhrī was also reported by Ibn ʿAsākir (549) from the route of al-Walīd ibn Muslim: Ḥaddathanī al-Layth from (the original: ibn) ʿAqīl from Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī with it. I said: And this is a sound mursal chain, so it is a strong corroboration for what has preceded. There is another route for the ḥadīth about Ṭalḥah, reported by Aḥmad in "Faḍāʾil al-Ṣaḥābah" (2/745/1294): Thana Hishām said: I am Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, the client of the family of Ṭalḥah, from Mūsá ibn Ṭalḥah: that Ṭalḥah's hand was struck on the day of Uḥud ... and this appears as a mursal form. He was followed by Abān ibn Sufyān: Na Hishām with it, except that he said: from his father ... so he connected it. It was reported by Ibn ʿAsākir (8/247-548) from the route of al-Dāraqutnī, and he said: "al-Dāraqutnī said: Hishām was unique in narrating it, and it is an old ḥadīth of his." Then it was narrated by Ibn ʿAsākir from the route of the ḥāfiẓ ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sulaymān ibn al-Ashʿath from