It was recorded by al-Bayhaqī in "Shuʿab al-Īmān" (7/70/9512). Abū Maʿshar's name is Najīḥ ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān; his status is like that of those mentioned. Thus, there are three chains in which the addition appears; it is preserved, if Allāh wills, and perhaps for this reason, the ḥāfiẓ remained silent about it, and al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mundhirī preceded him in this. However, there was an error pointed out by Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Nājī in "ʿAjālat al-Imlāʾ" (p. 202/2), which is that he first mentioned it with the wording of the two shaykhs without attribution, then he narrated it with the wording of al-Nasāʾī, and said afterward (4/45/1): "It was narrated by al-Bukhārī, Muslim, al-Tirmidhī, and al-Nasāʾī"! This gave the impression that the second wording is with all of them, which is not the case as you know. Therefore, al-Nājī said: "It would have been appropriate for the author, after narrating the first wording, to attribute it to al-Bukhārī, Muslim, al-Tirmidhī, and al-Nasāʾī, then say: 'And in a narration by him;' not the other way around." The three commentators on "al-Targhīb" overlooked this clarification, as is their habit, and did not comment on this error at all; may Allāh guide them and make them aware of themselves! Similarly, the commentator on the book "al-Ikhwān," named (Muṣṭafá ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā), did the same; he attributed it to more than ten sources—among them, of course, the two shaykhs—thus perpetuating al-Mundhirī's own error! He added another error: he attributed it to Ibn Ḥibbān in his "Ṣaḥīḥ": "Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān" (285); so he said! But it is not in it, neither with this number nor otherwise, and it is not according to his criteria; because it is in "the two Ṣaḥīḥs"; except for the ḥadīth of the chapter, but it is not in it, nor in its original "Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān," rather he narrated therein the ḥadīth of the two shaykhs (1/473-474/237 and 238 - al-Iḥsān / al-Muʾassasah). The commentator also confused it, but with another confusion opposite to that