ʿĀʾishah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhā), from two paths from her, one of which is suitable for citation and strengthening, narrated by Layth from Mujāhid from her, she said: and he mentioned it, and in it: that the old woman was one of the maternal aunts of ʿĀʾishah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhā). It was also recorded by al-Bayhaqī in "al-Baʿth" (1) (2/67/2) and likewise by Abū al-Shaykh in "al-Akhlāq" (no. 184), but the mention of ʿĀʾishah was omitted by the narrator, the printer, or the copyist, making it mursal. As for the other path, it is narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ". He said (2/39/5675): Muḥammad ibn ʿUthmān ibn Abī Shaybah told us, saying: Aḥmad ibn Ṭāriq al-Wāshī told us, saying: Masʿadah ibn al-Yasaʿ told us, saying: Saʿīd ibn Abī ʿArūbah narrated from Qatādah from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib from ʿĀʾishah with it. And he said: "No one narrated it from Qatādah except Saʿīd ibn Abī ʿArūbah." I said: And these are trustworthy, but the consideration is for those below them, and they are: first, Masʿadah ibn al-Yasaʿ, and with him, al-Haythamī criticized it, saying in "al-Majmaʿ" (10/419): "al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in 'al-Awsaṭ', and in it is Masʿadah ibn al-Yasaʿ, and he is weak!" Thus he said! There is evident leniency in this, for this weakening is only stated by later preservers who rely on the statements of earlier preservers in criticism and validation, if they were preceded by one of these earlier preservers in weakening, even if his statement is outweighed by the statements of others among them. I say: It is fine for the later scholar to mention it for an opinion he saw, whether it was a mistake or correct, but to rely solely on it without precedent from the earlier preservers, there is no doubt that it is in..