and disagrees with him on the name of Muḥammad's father, just as he shares with him the narration of the ḥadīth from ʿAṭāʾ ibn Yasār with it. However, he also disagrees with him in its text, as he added a sentence at the end, and in its isnād, making it from the Musnad of Umm Salamah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhā). I have documented it in "al-Ḍaʿīfah" (5318). Al-Mundhirī said in "al-Targhīb" (4/193/4): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī, and its men are trustworthy." A similar statement by al-Haythamī (10/333): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī, and its men are the men of 'al-Ṣaḥīḥ', except for Muḥammad ibn ʿAbbās (!) and he is trustworthy." It appeared as: "... ibn ʿAbbās," which is an error, likely from the copyist, and the correct version is: "... ibn Abī ʿAyyāsh" as mentioned earlier in the isnād of the ḥadīth and in his biography. Similarly, his name was altered in the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah mentioned earlier to: (Muḥammad ibn Mūsá ibn Abī ʿAyyāsh)! I have pointed this out there. Furthermore, the authentication by al-Haythamī, following al-Mundhirī, of this Muḥammad is due to their leniency, following Ibn Ḥibbān in his authentication! It is no surprise then that the three ignorant individuals adopted this in their commentary on "al-Targhīb" (4/288), and consequently, as is their habit, they said: "Ḥasan, said al-Haythamī..." The correct thing to say is: ḥasan li-ghayrih; because it has a corroborating narration from ʿĀʾishah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhā); narrated by Saʿīd ibn Abī Hilāl that he heard ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Qurāẓī say: I read to ʿĀʾishah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhā) the words of Allāh: "And you have certainly come to Us individually as..