al-Darawardi and ʿAbd Allah ibn Jaʿfar, transmitting from Zayd ibn Aslam who in turn narrates from Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir, reported the same, as did Ibn Mujbar from Ibn al-Munkadir. The unanimity of all these narrators, set against the lone report of al-ʿAllāf, is the clearest proof of the weakness and irregularity of his version.

As for the Shaykh’s attempt to seek support for Ibn Abī Maryam through the corroboration of Khalid ibn Nazzar, it is of no consequence to anyone acquainted with the science, for Khalid himself is weak in his retention—the hadith master’s verdict is: “truthful, but prone to error.” Worse still, his transmitter al-Miqdām ibn Dāwud is exceedingly feeble; al-Nasaʾī stated, “He is not reliable.” Can a scholar who understands the principles of hadith criticism and possesses a shred of fairness rely on such a corroboration when this is the condition of both the narrator and his transmitter, in addition to its blatant contradiction of what the firmly established authorities have reported?

From all this it is evident that the variation ascribed to Ibn Abī Maryam has no effect on the authenticity of the ḥadith, and that the breaking of the fast occurred in Ramadan on account of