…because of illness or any similar excuse. This is the view of Ahmad b. Hanbal and the Qadi Husayn from our Shafi‘i school, and it was also preferred by al-Khattabi, al-Mutawalli and al-Ruwayani; it is the strongest interpretation of the report. A number of leading scholars allow combining the prayers while resident, whenever a need arises, provided it is not made a habit. This is the position of Ibn Sirin and of Ashhab, a disciple of Malik. Al-Khattabi relates it from al-Qaffal, from Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi, and from several hadith scholars; Ibn al-Munadhir likewise adopted it. It is supported by the plain wording of Ibn ‘Abbas: “He (the Prophet) wished not to burden his community,” without limiting the concession to illness or any other specific excuse. (1) Al-Dhahabi repeatedly criticises, in his Mizan al-I‘tidal, al-Tirmidhi’s judgments of a hadith as sahih (sound) or hasan (fair). He shows that, when al-Tirmidhi stands alone, his grading is unreliable and that the present hadith is flawed. • In the entry on Kathir b. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Amr b. ‘Awf al-Muzani (3/407) he cites Ibn Ma‘in: “worthless,” al-Shafi‘i and Abu Dawud: “a pillar of falsehood,” while Ahmad struck out his narrations; al-Darqutni and others declared him “abandoned.” Abu Hatim said, “not solid,” and al-Nasa’i, “unreliable.” Mutarrif b. ‘Abd Allah al-Madani added: “I saw him; he was highly quarrelsome; none of our people took from him.” Yet al-Tirmidhi transmitted his report “Reconciliation is permissible among Muslims” and declared it sahih—hence scholars do not rely on al-Tirmidhi’s gradings. • On Yahya b. Yaman (4/416) al-Dhahabi remarks, after quoting the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet entered a grave at night and a lamp was lit for him: “Al-Tirmidhi judged it hasan even though three transmitters in the chain are weak; his grading therefore carries no weight, for on close examination most of his hasan reports are weak.” • On Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. Abi Yazid al-Hamdani al-Kufi (3/514) he quotes Ibn Ma‘in: “We heard from him, but he was not trustworthy,” and elsewhere, “he fabricated.” Ahmad said, “his narrations are worthless,” al-Nasa’i, “abandoned,” Abu Dawud, “weak,” and elsewhere, “a liar,” while Abu Hatim judged him “unsound.” Nevertheless al-Tirmidhi labelled hasan the marfu‘ report of Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri in which God says: “Whoever is preoccupied with reciting the Quran instead of supplicating Me and asking of Me, I shall grant him the best reward of the thankful.” Al-Dhahabi concludes: “Al-Tirmidhi was wrong to deem it hasan.” Ibn Rajab observes in Sharh al-‘Ilal (1/395): “Know that al-Tirmidhi, may Allah show him mercy, included in his book the sahih reports, the hasan reports—those below sahih that contain some weakness—and the gharib (single-chain) reports. Among the latter are some serious irregularities, especially in the Book of Virtues, but he usually points this out and does not remain silent. I know of no instance in which he transmits, with an isolated chain, a hadith from someone universally accused of fabrication; yet he may cite a report transmitted along several routes or one about whose isnad there is disagreement …”