and this difference does not harm; for ʿUrwah and ʿAmrah are both reliable and known for narrating from ʿĀʾishah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhā). The report of al-Ḥākim (1/144-145) is unusual—and from him al-Bayhaqī (1/31)—as he made it from the route of ʿUrwah from ʿAmrah from ʿĀʾishah in a raised report!! As for the ḥadīth of Muʿāwiyah: al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in "al-Awsaṭ" (7017) from the route of Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq from al-Zuhrī from Ayyūb ibn Bashīr who said: I heard Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān in a raised report; he mentioned it with the wording: "Pour..." Al-Haythamī attributed it in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (9/42) to al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" and "al-Kabīr," then he said: "And its isnād is ḥasan"! I say: there are two observations on it: the first: the narration of "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (19/No. 792) is abridged; it does not contain the ḥadīth of the chapter. The second: in its isnād is Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq—who is a mudallis—and he used the ambiguous form. Then it became clear to me that it is disturbed, and the correct version is the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah. Al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in "al-Awsaṭ" (5528) from the route of Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq from al-Zuhrī and Ayyūb ibn Bashīr al-Anṣārī from ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr from ʿĀʾishah from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam)