Al-Bayhaqi recorded it in Shuʿab al-Īmān (7/70/9512).

Abu Maʿshar’s name was Nujayḥ ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān; his status is the same as that of those previously mentioned.

Thus, there are three routes containing this addition, so it is reliably preserved, Allah willing. Perhaps this is why al-Ḥāfiẓ remained silent about it. Before him, al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mundhirī had done likewise, but he fell into an error pointed out by Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Nājī in ʿUjālat al-Imlāʾ (fol. 202/2). He first cited it in the wording of al-Bukhārī and Muslim without attribution, then presented it in al-Nasāʾī’s wording and followed it with the statement (4/45/1):

“Reported by al-Bukhārī, Muslim, al-Tirmidhī, and al-Nasāʾī!”

This gives the misleading impression that the latter wording is found with all of them, whereas this is not so, as you have learned. Al-Nājī therefore said:

“The author ought, after citing the first wording, to have attributed it to al-Bukhārī, Muslim, al-Tirmidhī, and al-Nasāʾī, and then said: ‘In another version’; not the reverse.”

The three annotators of al-Targhīb also overlooked this observation, as is their habit, and made no comment whatsoever on this error. May Allah guide them and grant them self-knowledge.

The annotator of the book al-Ikhwān, named Muṣṭafā ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā, did likewise. He attributed it to more than ten sources—including, of course, the two Shaykhs—thus giving the same mistaken impression as al-Mundhirī himself. He added another error by attributing it to Ibn Ḥibbān in his Ṣaḥīḥ, Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān (285)—so he claimed. Yet it is not found there, neither under that number nor under any other. Indeed, the report found in the two Ṣaḥīḥs does not meet the selection’s criterion, since it is in both of them—except, possibly, the hadith cited under the chapter heading. But that is found neither in it nor in its source, Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān. Rather, Ibn Ḥibbān recorded there only the hadith of the two Shaykhs (1/473–474/237 and 238—al-Iḥsān, al-Muʾassasah edition). The annotator of it also confused the matter, but in another way, the opposite of what