and Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, as recorded by Ibn Majah (3945); Abdullah ibn Umar, in al-Musnad (2/111) and al-Bazzar (2/120/3342), through Nafi‘, and by al-Tabarani in al-Awsat (1/197/2/3608), through Salim—both from him; and Anas ibn Malik, as recorded likewise by al-Bazzar (3343), Abu Ya‘la (7/141/4107 and 151/4120), al-Tabarani (1/158/2/2962), and Ibn ‘Adi (2/276).

Points requiring notice: First: al-Nawawi cited the hadith in Riyad al-Salihin (1055) from Muslim’s version, but without the words, “For whoever seeks it ...,” and so forth; yet he included the rejected addition found in al-Hasan al-Basri’s narration in sources other than Muslim. I think he copied it from the Sunan of al-Bayhaqi, because he attributed it to Muslim as well!

Second: Hassan Abd al-Mannan did not notice what I have mentioned in his new edition of Riyad, which can no longer properly be attributed to its author, Imam al-Nawawi, because he distorted it so thoroughly that its features were effaced through omissions, rearrangement, and other alterations too numerous to mention. I have pointed out some of this on more than one occasion (1). The point here is that this man has claimed a degree of scholarly expertise in his critical editing of this book, whereas the reality shows that he is not as he claims. He is merely a copier, with no critical expertise; and this example is before you. Although he consulted the hadith in Muslim and placed its number there beside it (632), he did not point out the discrepancy between it and its text in Muslim, as though, in appending to the hadiths of his Riyad their reference numbers in al-Bukhari—