ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Khawlah bint al-Yamān, who said:

“I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, I menstruate, and I have only one garment, which is stained with blood.’ He said: ‘Wash it and pray in it.’ I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, its trace remains.’ He said: ‘It does no harm.’”

He also said: “Ibrāhīm al-Ḥarbī said: ‘Others are more trustworthy than al-Wāziʿ ibn Nāfiʿ, and he heard from Khawlah bint al-Yamān—or Yasār—only in these two hadiths.’”

Ibn Mandah also transmitted it in al-Maʿrifah (2/321/2), and Ibn Sayyid al-Nās in Sharḥ al-Tirmidhī (1/48/2), through the route of ʿUthmān ibn Abī Shaybah: ʿAlī ibn Thābit al-Jazarī narrated it to us with this chain. The former, however, said only “Khawlah,” without identifying her lineage, whereas the latter said, “Khawlah bint Ḥakīm.” In his work, it is transmitted through al-Ṭabarānī from Ibn Abī Shaybah. Al-Haythamī likewise mentioned it in al-Majmaʿ (1/282), reporting it from al-Ṭabarānī’s al-Kabīr, and said: “Its chain contains al-Wāziʿ ibn Nāfiʿ, who is weak.”

I say: Rather, he is abandoned and severely weak. Al-Dhahabī included him in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ and said: “Aḥmad and Yaḥyā said: ‘He is not trustworthy.’” For this reason, Ibn al-Turkumānī criticized al-Bayhaqī for omitting such narrator criticism and restricting himself to Ibrāhīm al-Ḥarbī’s statement, whose apparent wording misleadingly suggests that he is trustworthy, though others are more trustworthy than him—even though he is not trustworthy. Perhaps the designation “bint al-Yamān” in al-Bayhaqī’s narration, and “bint Ḥakīm” in the narration of al-Ṭabarānī and others, came from this al-Wāziʿ. Among the strange things is Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s statement in al-Istīʿāb, in the biographical entry on Khawlah bint Yasār, after mentioning her preceding hadith: