Moreover, his statement, “Its chain includes ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Qays,” conflicts with the earlier statement of al-Ḥāfiẓ that he was ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Maymūn. I do not know whether this resulted from differing scholarly judgments in determining which ʿAbd al-Wāḥid was intended—since, in the sources I have consulted, he is not identified further—or whether al-Bazzār named him as such. For I have found the hadith in al-Musnad (6/256), al-Ḥilyah (1/5), and al-Bayhaqī’s al-Zuhd (83/2), through several routes from ʿAbd al-Wāḥid, the freedman of ʿUrwah, from ʿUrwah, with the same chain.

It then became clear to me that the disagreement arose from differing scholarly judgments. This is because both ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Maymūn and ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Qays narrated from ʿUrwah, and each of the two hadith masters inclined toward one of these identifications. Yet the stronger view is that adopted by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, because those who narrated it from ʿAbd al-Wāḥid are not listed among the transmitters from Ibn Qays, but rather among those from Ibn Maymūn. Ibn ʿAdī mentioned this hadith in his biographical notice on him (1/305), as did al-Dhahabī in al-Mīzān and al-Ḥāfiẓ in al-Lisān. Thus, al-Haythamī’s assertion that he was Qays is untenable. Had he been the narrator of this hadith, it would have constituted an unobjectionable corroborating report, for his standing is better than that of Ibn Maymūn. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said of him: “Truthful, though he had errors and narrated mursal reports.” As for the former, he is abandoned.

I then found evidence supporting what I had judged more likely. Abū Nuʿaym transmitted it in al-Arbaʿīn al-Ṣūfiyyah (fol. 60/1), and Abū Saʿīd al-Naysābūrī in al-Arbaʿīn (fols. 52/1–2), where he said: “A singular hadith … yet the meaning of this hadith has been authentically established in the hadith of ʿAṭāʾ from Abū Hurayrah.” Ibn al-Najjār also transmitted it in al-Dhayl (10/183/2), from ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Maymūn, from ʿUrwah, with the same chain, thus identifying him as Ibn Maymūn.

In sum, this hadith of ʿĀʾishah is acceptable as corroborating evidence through the other route, if it is not good in itself.