and al-Nawawī said in "Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab" (5/282) after he presented the ḥadīth: "it is musnad, not mursal; because it was narrated from a Companion, and the Companions (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhum) are all such that ignorance of their identities does not harm, and it was narrated by Ibn Mājah (raḥimahu Allāh) from Anas (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu)." I said: You know that the narration from Anas is not preserved, and the correct version is that it is from the narration of Kathīr ibn Zayd from al-Muṭṭalib, as mentioned by Ibn Abī Ḥātim in "al-ʿIlal" (1/348-349) from Abū Zurʿah, and I have quoted it earlier. It is from Anas according to Ibn Mājah (1561), and "al-Kāmil" by Ibn ʿAdī (6/2089); and he said after it and at the end of the biography of (Kathīr): "I did not see any harm in his ḥadīth, and I hope there is no harm in it." I said: And if you understand the previous investigation; it becomes clear to you that two men erred in this ḥadīth: the first is al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī; by criticizing it as mursal, he said in "Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ" (1/154): "This is mursal"! The reason for his mistake is that he mentioned the ḥadīth briefly without the statement of Kathīr ibn Zayd: "al-Muṭṭalib said: the one who informed me of this said...."! It appears that he mentioned it from memory, so this is his excuse, but what is the excuse of the commentator on it when he said: "Its isnād is ḥasan; but it is mursal as the author said; for al-Muṭṭalib is Ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muṭṭalib.. a Tābiʿī, and he erred who thought he was al-Muṭṭalib ibn Abī Wadaʿah the Companion.."?! So I say: Yes, he erred who thought what you mentioned, but how is it that you see the speck in the eye of