The second chain is authentic, were it not for Maʿmar’s—or someone else’s—uncertainty between Ibn Abī Mulaykah and another person. If it is from Ibn Abī Mulaykah—whose name was ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿUbayd Allah—it is authentic; but if it is from someone else, then that person is unknown.

Al-Suyūṭī attributed the hadith in al-Jāmiʿ to al-Bayhaqī in Shuʿab al-Īmān, from ʿĀʾishah as a marfūʿ report, in an abridged form: “The most detested of all creatures to him was lying.” Al-Manāwī took him to task, saying: “The compiler indicated that it is good. The implication of the compiler’s procedure is that al-Bayhaqī recorded it and made no comment upon it. But this is false, for he recorded it through the hadith of Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm al-Dabarī, from ʿAbd al-Razzāq, from Maʿmar, from Ayyūb, from Ibn Abī Mulaykah, from ʿĀʾishah; and through Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr, from Ayyūb, from Ibrāhīm ibn Maysarah, from ʿĀʾishah. He then followed it with the following statement: Al-Bukhārī said: ‘It is mursal’—meaning, between Ibrāhīm ibn Maysarah and ʿĀʾishah—and the hadith of Ibn Abī Mulaykah is not authentic. Al-Bukhārī said: ‘How remarkable are Maʿmar’s hadiths from narrators other than al-Zuhrī! Hardly any authentic hadith is found among them.’” End quote.

Thus, he indicated that it contains weakness or a break in its chain. Therefore, the compiler’s excerpting this from his words and omitting it was poor handling. It is unlikely that Isḥāq al-Dabarī met ʿAbd al-Razzāq, as Ibn ʿAdī indicated; and al-Dhahabī included him among the weak narrators.” This concludes al-Manāwī’s words.

I say: However, Aḥmad corroborated him, as has preceded. He was also corroborated by Yaḥyā ibn Mūsā, who said: ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us in the same manner as al-Dabarī’s narration from Ibn Abī Mulaykah, from her, without any uncertainty. Al-Tirmidhī recorded it (1/357) and said: “A good hadith.” That is what he said! Yaḥyā ibn Mūsā—al-Balkhī—was trustworthy and one of al-Bukhārī’s shaykhs, as were those above him in the chain.