As for the wording, “Abū Ṣāliḥ, the scribe of al-Layth,” in place of “Saʿīd ibn Abī Maryam”: if this too is not an error, then it represents a shift from one shaykh to another, for both were among the shaykhs of Yaḥyā ibn ʿUthmān ibn Ṣāliḥ al-Miṣrī. He is truthful, as al-Dhahabī and al-ʿAsqalānī said. However, the first of them—Saʿīd ibn Abī Maryam—was trustworthy and meticulous, and one of the narrators relied upon by the two Shaykhs, unlike Abū Ṣāliḥ, who was among al-Bukhārī’s shaykhs and concerning whom there is well-known criticism.

In sum, al-Ṭabarānī’s chain of transmission is good in view of the corroborating reports mentioned above: ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith, Ibn Lahīʿah, and al-Ḥasan ibn Thawbān, from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb.

This investigation shows the shortcoming of al-Mundhirī’s statement in al-Targhīb (2/25):

“It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr and by al-Bayhaqī, and its chain includes Ibn Lahīʿah.”

Similar is al-Haythamī’s statement in al-Majmaʿ (3/110):

“It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr, and its chain includes Ibn Lahīʿah, concerning whom there is criticism.”

Both of them overlooked the corroboration of al-Ḥasan ibn Thawbān and ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith, which strengthens it. This had formerly led me—before the publication of al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr—to include the hadith in al-Ḍaʿīfah as no. 3021, following their lead. I had no alternative, so long as the source to which they had attributed it was beyond my reach, as I had explained in the introduction to my book Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb. But now that I have located it and learned that Ibn Lahīʿah was corroborated—contrary to what their statements implied—I have decided to include it in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb. This is especially so since the latter half of it was narrated by some trustworthy authorities, other than those already mentioned, from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb. It is documented in Takhrīj Aḥādīth Mushkilat al-Faqr, no. 118. *