So what escaped his notice is that her very inability constituted the excuse—ponder this well.

He also says: “Al-Dāraquṭnī relates from Ibn ʿUmar that the Prophet ﷺ told him regarding the make-up of Ramadan, ‘If he wishes he may spread the days out, and if he wishes he may fast them consecutively.’”

I reply: Had this report been sound it would have settled the dispute once and for all, but it is not sound. Al-Dāraquṭnī (p. 244) records it only through the chain of Sufyān ibn Bishr, and he then remarks, “No one has narrated it with a connected chain except Sufyān ibn Bishr.”

I further say: Sufyān ibn Bishr is classed among the unknown transmitters, for I have found no entry for him in any of the biographical works at my disposal. That is likely why al-Bayhaqī explicitly graded the isnād weak in his Sunan 4 / 258, and why al-Ḥāfiẓ (Ibn Ḥajar) hinted at its weakness in al-Talkhīṣ 6 / 434, where—after citing the hadith from al-Dāraquṭnī—he wrote: “He said: It was also narrated by ʿAṭāʾ from ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmayr in mursal form.” He then added, “Its chain is weak as well.”

As for al-Shawkānī’s statement, “Ibn al-Jawzī declared the hadith authentic and said, ‘We do not know of anyone who criticized Sufyān ibn Bishr,’” I reply: such a remark is hardly enough to authenticate the hadith. The same could be said of any unknown narrator, and in response one might say with equal force, “We do not know of anyone who pronounced Sufyān ibn Bishr reliable.” That formulation is actually closer to the principles of hadith criticism, for a report can only be judged authentic when the reliability of all its transmitters is positively established by the testimony of the leading authorities. To deem a report weak, however, it suffices that this reliability has not been confirmed—or is simply unknown—concerning even one of its narrators, as every student of the Sunnah is aware. Besides, how can the hadith be considered sound when one of the foremost hadith critics, Imām al-Bayhaqī, has already graded it weak?!