Ḥanẓalah ibn Abī Sufyān differed from him [in this narration]:

2923 — Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān informed us, saying: al-Sīnānī informed us, on the authority of Ḥanẓalah ibn Abī Sufyān, on the authority of Ṭāwus, who said:—

============================================
Ibn Ṭāwus also corroborated Ibrāhīm ibn Maysarah in stopping it at Ibn ʿAbbās, and ʿAbd al-Razzāq transmitted it via his route in *al-Muṣannaf* (9789).

It has also been transmitted as raised (marfūʿ):
al-Tirmidhī (960) transmitted it via Jarīr ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, Ibn Ḥibbān (3836) via Fuḍayl ibn ʿIyāḍ, and al-Ḥākim 1/459 via the two Sufyāns (separating them)—all four of them from ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib, from Ṭāwus, with it, raised. The narration of the two Sufyāns from ʿAṭāʾ was before his [memory] became confused, whereas Jarīr ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd's narration from him was after his confusion, and ʿAṭāʾ is fair in hadith. Al-Tirmidhī said: This hadith has been transmitted from Ibn Ṭāwus and others, from Ṭāwus, from Ibn ʿAbbās, as stopped (mawqūf), and we do not know it as raised except from the hadith of ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar said in *al-Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr* 1/129–130: There is disagreement over its raising and stopping, and al-Nasāʾī, al-Bayhaqī, Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, al-Mundhirī, and al-Nawawī favored the stopped version, and [al-Nawawī] added: The raised narration is weak. But there is room for consideration in stating this absolutely, for ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib is truthful, and when the hadith is transmitted from him as raised on one occasion and stopped on another, the ruling according to these scholars is for the raised version—and al-Nawawī is among those who rely on this and do so frequently, and no attention is paid to declaring the hadith defective on this basis when the one raising it is trustworthy. Thus, according to his method, the raised version is sound… And the rest of his words may be consulted.

And Ḥanẓalah ibn Abī Sufyān differed, transmitting it from Ṭāwus, from Ibn ʿUmar, as will come in the following hadith.

(1) This is how it appears in the manuscript copies and in *Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf* (5694). The one known by this name, Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān, among al-Nasāʾī's shaykhs, is the one nicknamed Luwayn, but al-Sīnānī (who is al-Faḍl ibn Mūsā) is not mentioned among Luwayn's shaykhs in *Tahdhīb al-Kamāl*, nor is Luwayn mentioned among those who narrated from al-Sīnānī. Perhaps it is a corruption of Maḥmūd ibn Sulaymān—who is al-Balkhī—for he narrates from al-Sīnānī, as in their biographies in *Tahdhīb al-Kamāl*, where al-Nasāʾī's narration (S) is recorded for both of them in the two biographies. And God knows best.

(2) It was corrupted in (R), (M), (H), and the printed edition to: al-Shaybānī. What is confirmed is from (K), and in the margin of (M) it states that the correct form is al-Sīnānī, with an unpointed kasrah sīn—he is al-Faḍl ibn Mūsā—and [the other reading] is an error.