that were numerous and weak, yet he did not mention this report, for its falsehood is evident, unlike the others. Likewise, al-Tirmidhī did not mention it, although he collected hadiths concerning ‘Alī’s virtues, many (1) of which are weak. Neither did al-Nasā’ī or Abū ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr. Al-Nasā’ī also compiled a work on (2) ‘Alī’s distinctive merits.

The author said:

Abū Ja‘far al-Tahāwī (3) related from ‘Alī ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān, from Ahmad ibn Sālih al-Misrī, that he used to say (4):

“It is not (5) fitting for anyone who pursues knowledge to neglect memorizing Asmā’s hadith concerning the sun’s return, for it is one of the signs of prophethood (6).”

I say:

Ahmad ibn Sālih narrated it through the first chain of transmission. He did not collect its various chains and wordings, which indicate in numerous ways that it is false. The narrator in that chain was unknown to him; he was not known to him as a liar, so the report’s falsehood did not become apparent to him.

Al-Tahāwī does not habitually examine hadiths critically as the hadith scholars do. Thus, in his Sharh Ma‘ānī al-Āthār (Explanation of the Meanings of the Reports), he narrated conflicting hadiths. When he gives preference to some over others, he generally does so on the basis of analogical reasoning that he considers authoritative. Most of these hadiths are open to criticism with regard to (7) their chains of transmission and are not reliably established, yet he does not address this, for his knowledge of chains of transmission was not