as for al-Haythamī, he said in "al-Majmaʿ" (4/141): "al-Bazzār narrated it, and in it is Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Farrāʾ, whom I do not know, and the rest of its men are the men of (al-Ṣaḥīḥ)!" Shaykh al-Aʿẓamī affirmed this in his commentary on "Kashf al-Astār"! The three commentators on "al-Targhīb" (2/553) followed him, and they weakened the ḥadīth! They all overlooked al-Bayhaqī's narration which explicitly states that it is (Maḥbūb ibn Mūsá), who is known among the teachers of Abū Dāwūd, and al-Dhahabī declared him trustworthy in "al-Kāshif". al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "Truthful." I said: Therefore, when al-Ḥāfiẓ reported in "Mukhtaṣar Zawāʾid Mukhtaṣar al-Bazzār" the previous statement of his teacher al-Haythamī regarding (Abū Ṣāliḥ): "I do not know him"; he followed it by saying (1/529): "I said: He is Maḥbūb ibn Mūsá; trustworthy and righteous." Then I say: Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Ḥibbān accused (Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit) of tadlīs, and al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "Trustworthy, a great jurist, and he frequently used irsāl and tadlīs." I said: al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī did not address his description of tadlīs in any of his books where he translated for him, such as "Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ", "Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ", "Tārīkh al-Islām", "al-Kāshif", and others. When he mentioned him in "al-Mīzān", he described him by saying: "Among the trustworthy followers, Ibn Maʿīn and a group declared him trustworthy, and all who compiled the authentic collections relied on him without hesitation." Then he excused his inclusion by saying: "If it were not for al-Dūlābī and others mentioning him, I would not have mentioned him."