then his statement: "And in it is ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Qays" contradicts the earlier statement of the ḥāfiẓ that it is ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Maymūn. I do not know whether this arises from a difference in ijtihād regarding the identification of ʿAbd al-Wāḥid, who is not attributed in the sources I have reviewed, or if he was attributed in al-Bazzār's work. I have seen the ḥadīth in "al-Musnad" (6/256), "al-Ḥilyah" (1/5), and "al-Zuhd" by al-Bayhaqī (83/2) through various chains from ʿAbd al-Wāḥid, the client of ʿUrwah, from ʿUrwah. Then it became clear to me that the difference is due to differing ijtihād. This is because both ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Maymūn and ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Qays narrated from ʿUrwah. Each of the ḥāfiẓs leaned towards their own conclusion. However, the more likely opinion is that of ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar because those who narrated from ʿAbd al-Wāḥid did not mention narrators from Ibn Qays, but rather from Ibn Maymūn. In his biography, Ibn ʿAdī (305/1) mentioned this ḥadīth, as did al-Dhahabī in "al-Mīzān" and the ḥāfiẓ in "al-Lisān." Therefore, al-Haythamī's statement that it is Qays is rejected. If he were the one related to this ḥadīth, it would have been an acceptable witness. For he is in a better condition than Ibn Maymūn. The ḥāfiẓ said about him: "Truthful, but has errors and mursal narrations." As for the first, he is abandoned. Then I saw what supports what I have preferred. Abū Nuʿaym narrated it in "al-Arbaʿīn al-Ṣūfiyyah" (60/1) and Abū Saʿīd al-Nīsābūrī in "al-Arbaʿīn" (52/1-2) and said: "A strange ḥadīth... and the meaning of this ḥadīth has been authenticated from the ḥadīth of ʿAṭāʾ from Abū Hurayrah," and Ibn al-Najjār in "al-Dhayl" (10/183/2) from ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Maymūn from ʿUrwah, attributing it to Maymūn. In summary, regarding this ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah, it is acceptable as supporting evidence from the other chain if it is not ḥasan on its own