—not even enough to be regarded as a mere suspicion about its authenticity, let alone a proof of its weakness—once that contention is weighed against the principles and fundamentals of hadith criticism and the testimony of the scholars who have affirmed its soundness. Here are the particulars:
The Shaykh has ventured—contrary to what we have observed from him in some of his other writings—to assert categorically that al-Tirmidhi erred in grading the report sound (ḥasan). He showed no regard whatsoever for the authentication of the hadith by Imām Ibn al-ʿArabī and others whom we shall soon mention, and he based his view on four considerations that may be summarized as follows:
-
Abū Ḥātim’s preference for the version narrated by al-Darāwardī with the wording “laysa bi-sunnah” (it is not a sunnah) over the other version, “qāla: naʿam, sunnah” (he said, “Yes, it is a sunnah”). We shall refer to the latter as “the affirmative version.”
-
Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī’s verdict that the second version is weak.
-
The fact that some transmitters did not state it with certainty.
-
The variation in its wording as transmitted from Saʿīd ibn Abī Maryam: some reported from him that the breaking of the fast was solely on account of travel, while others that it