“Ayyub ibn Sulayman al-Qurashi, the imam of the mosque of Salmiyyah, a village in Homs, narrated from Hammad ibn Salamah; al-Hasan ibn Ishaq al-Tustari narrated from him.”

I say: Talhah ibn ‘Ubayd Allah, this man’s ancestor, was a Qurashi of the Taym clan. Thus, he is the one found in this hadith and was of Hammad’s generation, though al-Haythami did not know him. And Allah knows best.

As for the remaining versions mentioned by al-Suyuti, I have not yet been able to locate them. However, I fear that his attribution of the narration of Anas to al-Tabarani in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir is an error on his part or that of a copyist, for I did not find it there or in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id. Conversely, he did not attribute the hadith of Talhah to al-Tabarani—though it is found there, as you have seen—but attributed it to Abu Nu‘aym, meaning in Hilyat al-Awliya’, where it is not found. Perhaps the original reading reverses all of this; that is: “... al-Tabarani, Ibn ‘Asakir, and al-Diya’ from Talhah; and Abu Nu‘aym and Ibn ‘Asakir from Anas.” And Allah knows best.

In summary, the hadith in question is good at the very least, and it may rise to the rank of authentic if we locate the hadith of Anas. See Addendum no. 1 and hadith 2171.

Note: It later occurred to me that it was al-Suyuti himself who omitted the attribution of the hadith of Talhah to al-Tabarani. This is because I saw that al-Munawi included it in al-Jami‘ al-Azhar, which is presumed not to repeat what is found in al-Jami‘ al-Kabir except for some benefit. It therefore appears that, when he saw the hadith in al-Suyuti’s Jami‘ without an attribution to al-Tabarani, he included it himself, attributing it to al-Tabarani alone. And Allah knows best.

Moreover, after the hadith, al-Munawi cited al-Haythami’s remarks that I quoted and critiqued above, accepting them without attributing them to him!