and later scholars have gone even farther—among them the author of al-Tāj al-Jāmiʿ li’l-Uṣūl—so be on your guard.

2. As for al-Tirmidhī’s grading of narrations as ḥasan or ṣaḥīḥ, he shows considerable leniency. Al-Suyūṭī says in Tadrīb al-Rāwī(1):
   “Al-Dhahabī said: ‘The rank of Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī is lower than that of the Sunan of Abū Dāwūd and al-Nasāʾī, because he included the report of al-Maṣlūb, al-Kalbī, and the like.’ ”
   What he means is that these narrators are accused of fabrication. Among them is Kathīr ibn ʿAbd-Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn ʿAwf al-Muzanī, about whom al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Dāwūd said, “A pillar among the pillars of falsehood.” Yet al-Tirmidhī not only cited him but even declared his report sound. Al-Dhahabī said in his biography of this man in al-Mīzān:
   “As for al-Tirmidhī, he transmitted the ḥadith ‘Reconciliation is permissible between Muslims’ from him and judged it ṣaḥīḥ; for that reason the scholars do not rely on al-Tirmidhī’s authentication.”

For all these reasons, any serious researcher must examine every narration over which Abū Dāwūd remained silent, and every narration that al-Tirmidhī declared ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan, for each of them contains many weak narrators. This is exactly what I have done while tracing, assessing, and annotating this book—and this, in my view, is the most important task. I was able to discuss the reliability of most of the ḥadiths in their respective places in the book, albeit briefly, but a few escaped me due to natural constraints(2). I therefore resolved to make up for that here, so as to complete the benefit. I say, then:

1. Concerning ḥadith 201 (found in the section warning against mixing with people of blatant vice): “It was reported by Abū Dāwūd and al-Tirmidhī, who said: ‘A ḥasan ḥadith.’”