Investigating another chain of narration for the story: Ibn al-Mundhir said: “Ishaq ibn Ibrahim narrated to us, from ‘Abd al-Razzaq, from Qays ibn Rabi‘, from Abu Husayn.”

The Shaykh : Then the questioner said: Another route: Ibn al-Mundhir said: “Ishaq ibn Ibrahim narrated to us, from ‘Abd al-Razzaq, from Qays ibn Rabi‘, from Abu Husayn, from Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, who said: ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said: “Do not exaggerate in the bridal gifts of women.” A woman said: “That is not for you, O ‘Umar.” ‘Umar said: “Indeed, a woman argued with ‘Umar and she out-argued him.” Is this story authentic?
Answer: In the first route, we knew that it contains Mujalid ibn Sa‘id. This route contains two or three defects:
The first defect: Ishaq ibn Ibrahim, the narrator of this story from ‘Abd al-Razzaq, is Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Dabari. He was criticized regarding his memory first, and then regarding the validity of his hearing from ‘Abd al-Razzaq, the author of al-Musannaf, second; because he heard from him when he was very young. I think—and I am not certain—that he was about five years old. So there is this criticism of Ishaq ibn Ibrahim, the narrator of this concise story from ‘Abd al-Razzaq.
But the stronger and clearer defect, and if the defect is stronger, then naturally the hadith becomes weak and does not become stronger; it is in Qays ibn Rabi‘. Qays ibn Rabi‘ is known for having a poor memory and being weak in hadith. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) even permitted himself, being the Imam, the memorizer, and the critic, to declare every hadith that Qays ibn al-Rabi‘ narrated exclusively as a denounced hadith. He would say about a hadith narrated by Qays ibn al-Rabi‘: “It is a denounced hadith.” A famous example of this, well-known to you all and recorded in many books of morals and moving stories, is their saying: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . This is a denounced hadith containing Qays ibn al-Rabi‘; meaning: it is not an authentic hadith. So Qays ibn al-Rabi‘ is the prominent defect in this other route, this other route.
Then I said: There is a third defect, but I am not certain of it; from Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, who said: “‘Umar said.” Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami is a trustworthy man from the great scholars of the Tabi‘un and their trustworthy narrators. But I am in doubt now whether he heard from ‘Umar? As for his hearing from ‘Ali, it is famous that he narrated from ‘Ali, and he has many authentic hadiths from him. But whether he met ‘Umar and heard from him, I do not know. His biography should be reviewed to clarify the truth. However, I note here his wording: “He said: ‘Umar said.” This is a form of suspension and a form of omission. “He said: ‘Umar said” means it indicates to the student of this science that there is a break between Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman and ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab.
In summary: The second route is also a weak and denounced route. The matter becomes more denounced by what we explained earlier, namely that the authentic hadith does not contain this story.