there is an authentic witness for these three from the ḥadīth of ʿAlī (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) reported in a ḥadīth narrated by Muslim (6/85) and others, and it is referenced in "Naqd Nuṣūṣ al-Kattānī" (p. 42). and among the confusions of the three commentators on "al-Targhīb" and their ignorance of the art of ḥadīth verification, not to mention the science of al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl, authentication and weakening: is their statement in the verification of the ḥadīth of the chapter (3/249): "It was narrated by Ibn Ḥibbān in his 'Ṣaḥīḥ', al-Bayhaqī in 'al-Shuʿab', and al-Nasāʾī (7/232) from the ḥadīth of ʿAlī"!! I say: there are several errors in this: firstly, they mixed the ḥadīth of ʿAlī with the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, so the readers do not know which of the three narrated the ḥadīth of ʿAlī, and who narrated the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās?! secondly, their limitation to al-Nasāʾī in attributing the ḥadīth of ʿAlī gives the impression that no one more deserving of attribution narrated it, which is not the case; for Muslim also narrated it, as I mentioned earlier. thirdly, it also gives the impression that the ḥadīth of ʿAlī contains the seven segments found in the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, whereas in reality, it contains only three as previously explained. fourthly, they turned a blind eye to the verification of al-Nasāʾī's narration from Ibn ʿAbbās, which al-Mundhirī mentioned in his verification of the ḥadīth by saying (3/198/5): "It was narrated by Ibn Ḥibbān in his 'Ṣaḥīḥ', al-Bayhaqī, and with al-Nasāʾī at the end repeated." fifthly, they did not note the first addition found with al-Bayhaqī, even though they attributed the ḥadīth to him with the part and number! How eager they are to regurgitate what al-Mundhirī says about verification, and to repeat it