Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, through two chains from her. One of them is suitable for use as corroborating evidence and for strengthening the report: Layth narrated it from Mujahid, from her, who said—and he related the report—that the old woman was one of Aisha’s maternal aunts. Al-Bayhaqi also transmitted it in al-Ba'th (The Resurrection) (1) (2/67/2), as did Abu al-Shaykh in al-Akhlaq (Character) (no. 184). However, the mention of Aisha was omitted—whether by the narrator, the printer, or the copyist—thus rendering it mursal.

As for the other chain, al-Tabarani narrated it in al-Mu'jam al-Awsat (The Middle Dictionary), stating (2/39/5675): Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah narrated to us; Ahmad ibn Tariq al-Washi narrated to us; Musaddah ibn al-Yasa narrated to us; Sa'id ibn Abi Arubah narrated to us from Qatadah, from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, from Aisha, with the same report. He said: “No one narrated it from Qatadah except Sa'id ibn Abi Arubah.”

I say: These men are trustworthy, but the scrutiny concerns those below them, foremost among whom is Musaddah ibn al-Yasa. Al-Haythami declared the report defective on his account, saying in al-Majma' (The Compendium) (10/419): “Al-Tabarani narrated it in al-Awsat, and it contains Musaddah ibn al-Yasa, who is weak!” This is what he said. Yet there is evident laxity in this, for such a declaration of weakness is made only by the later hadith masters—who rely in narrator criticism and accreditation upon the statements of the earlier hadith masters—when one of those earlier authorities had previously declared the narrator weak, even if that statement is outweighed by the statements of the other early authorities.

I say: There is no harm if a later scholar cites it on the basis of an opinion he holds, whether right or wrong. But if he confines himself to it when it has no precedent among the earlier hadith masters, then there can be no doubt that, in