al-Nawawī said in "Sharḥ Muslim": "The scholars said: The mention of the (previously married woman) was specified because she is the one who is usually approached, whereas the virgin is typically protected and more reserved, avoiding men to a greater extent, so there was no need to mention her. It is also a form of indication; because if the prohibition is regarding the previously married woman, whom people are generally more lenient in approaching, then it is even more applicable to the virgin." I said: This means it is a case of a fortiori reasoning; like the saying of Allāh in disciplining the child with his parents: "do not say to them 'uff'" (Sūrah al-Isrāʾ, 23); so it is even more impermissible for him to strike them with his hand! Secondly: Among the errors or leniencies of al-Suyūṭī is that he mentioned the ḥadīth in "al-Ziyādah ʿalá al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr" with the wording of Abū Yaʿlá mentioned: "in a house" and attributed it only to Muslim! This is how it appeared in "al-Fatḥ al-Kabīr" following its original; and likewise in "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr"; so it should be corrected. Thirdly: Some of those engaged in this noble science do not frankly disclose to their readers the defect in the isnād as a fulfillment of scholarly integrity. For example, the commentator on "al-Iḥsān / edition of Muʾassasat al-Risālah" says in his commentary on the ḥadīth in its first instance (12/400): "Its narrators are trustworthy, the narrators of the two Shaykhs; except for Abū al-Zubayr, who is among the narrators of Muslim." Then he attributed it to Muslim, and when it came to his commentary on it in another instance (12/403); he added there to his aforementioned statement: "and he is a mudallis, and he used the 'an'ana form!"