was on account of the day of doubt.
Response to the first point:
- Once this has been made clear, we say in reply to the first point:
First: To take Abū Ḥātim’s statement, “The report of al-Darāwardī is sounder than the report of Ibn Mujbar,” as evidence that the version cited by al-Tirmidhī is weak and outweighed by the version that denies the ruling, is—regrettably—proof of a profound ignorance of the hadith critics’ methods of preference and a misunderstanding of their purpose. Abū Ḥātim’s comparison is confined to two reports, neither of which is the one recorded by al-Tirmidhī. His judgment is also accurate, for al-Darāwardī is reliable, despite a slight deficiency in his memory, as will be explained, whereas his counterpart Ibn Mujbar is, by unanimous agreement, weak. Abū Ḥātim himself said of him, “He is not strong,” and his colleague Abū Zurʿah remarked, “His hadith is feeble.”⦗1⦘