41 – He would have cupping applied to the very top of his head … for a certain complaint.

Reported by Abū Dāwūd and Ibn Mājah on the authority of Abū Kabshah.
Authentic chain: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ (4926).
Later ruled weak: al-Silsilah al-Ḍaʿīfah (1867).

42 – “He disliked being asked (unnecessarily) … while such-and-such pleased him.”

Reported by al-Ṭabarānī on the authority of Abū Razīn.

Al-Albānī—may Allah have mercy on him—wrote in the margin of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ (p. 894), commenting on al-Munāwī’s grading of the narration as sound in al-Fayḍ (a view already adopted by al-Haythamī in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid 1/160):

“I accepted their judgement only because, while preparing this book, I could not examine the isnād in al-Ṭabarānī. Later, during the third proof-reading of this booklet, I located the hadith in the version of Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim’s Kitāb al-Sunnah and established that its chain is weak, as I demonstrated in my takhrīj of that work (no. 640). If al-Ṭabarānī’s chain is identical—as is most likely—the narration belongs to the other collection; until we are certain, we shall leave it here while alerting the reader to what I have found.”

He continued: “The Muʿjam al-Kabīr of al-Ṭabarānī has since been printed, and the hadith appears there (19/208, no. 472) with exactly the same chain cited by Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim: Muʾammal ibn Ismāʿīl → Ḥammād ibn Salamah → Yaʿlā ibn ʿAṭāʾ → Waqīʿ ibn ʿAdas → his uncle Abū Razīn. The chain is weak: Waqīʿ is unknown and Muʾammal has a poor memory. Because al-Ṭabarānī’s isnād is the very same weak chain I criticised in Ẓilāl, the narration properly belongs in Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ, not Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ.”

Initially classed ḥasan: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ (5007).
Later ruled weak: Ẓilāl al-Jannah (640).