Al-Nawawi said in his Commentary on al-Muhadhdhab (5/282), after citing the hadith:

“It has a continuous chain to the Prophet, not a mursal chain, because he narrated it from a Companion; and the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them all—are not harmed by the anonymity of their individual identities. Ibn Majah—may Allah have mercy on him—also narrated it from Anas—may Allah be pleased with him.”

I say: You have already learned that the narration from Anas is not preserved, and that the correct version is Kathir ibn Zayd’s narration from al-Muttalib. This is how Ibn Abi Hatim reported it in al-ʿIlal (1/348–349) from Abu Zurʿah, and I cited it above. The version from Anas is found in Ibn Majah (1561) and Ibn ʿAdi’s al-Kamil (6/2089). After it, and at the end of Kathir’s biographical entry, he said:

“I have not found anything objectionable in his hadiths, and I hope that there is no objection to him.”

I say: Once you have understood the foregoing investigation, it becomes clear to you that two men erred regarding this hadith:

The first was al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, who judged it defective on the grounds that it was mursal. He said in Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubalaʾ (1/154):

“This is mursal!”

The reason for his error was that he cited the hadith in abbreviated form, omitting Kathir ibn Zayd’s statement: “Al-Muttalib said: ‘The one who informed me of this said …’”

Apparently, he cited it from memory, and this is his excuse. But what excuse does the annotator have when he said:

“Its chain is good, but it is mursal, as the author stated; for al-Muttalib is Ibn ʿAbd Allah ibn al-Muttalib … a Successor. Whoever thought that he was al-Muttalib ibn Abi Wadaʿah, the Companion, has erred …”?!

I say: Yes, whoever supposed what you mentioned has indeed erred; but why do you see the speck in the eye