from a number of transmitters, yet he refrained from using any of them as authoritative proof.

As for al-Tirmidhī’s authenticating Sufyān ibn Ḥusayn, he only judged sound for him a report other than the present one, as has been noted, nor did he pronounce this particular ḥadīth sound except (1) in the version he narrates from someone other than al-Zuhrī. His transmission from al-Zuhrī, however, is almost unanimously rated weak, as we have just cited (2) the verdicts of the leading critics.

Moreover, al-Tirmidhī sometimes authenticates traditions in which no other scholar follows him; indeed, he may declare sound what others weaken or even repudiate outright. Thus he graded as sound the ḥadīth of Kathīr ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn ʿAwf (3), whereas Aḥmad deemed his ḥadīths extremely weak and said to his son ʿAbd Allāh, “Do not narrate from him.” He also remarked, “His ḥadīth is munkar; he is nothing.” Yaḥyā (ibn Maʿīn) said, “His ḥadīth is worthless and should not be written down.” Al-Nasāʾī and al-Dāraqutnī declared, “He is abandoned in ḥadīth.” Al-Shāfiʿī said, “He is a pillar among the pillars (4) of falsehood.” Ibn Ḥibbān observed, “He reported from his father, from his grandfather, a fabricated collection …”