Refutation of al-Khumayyis

Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rahmn al-Khumayyis is the author of:

Usl al-Dn `ind al-Imm Ab Hanfa; Manhaj al-Ash`ariyya fl-`Aq'id; Manhaj al-Mturdiyya fl-`Aq'id; Al-Tanbht al-Saniyya `al al-Hafawt f Kitb al-Mawhib al-Lduniyya; Al-Majm` al-Mufd f Naqd. al-Qubriyyati wa-Nusrati al-Tawhd.

One of the latest Saudi pseudo-Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jam`a popelets of misguided auto-da-fs against the real Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jam`a, al-Khumayyis began his career with a doctoral thesis at the University of Muh.ammad ibn Sa`d entitled Us.l al-Dn `ind al-Imm Ab H.anfa which he turned into a 650-page brick he published in the same town, at Riyadh's Dr al-S.umay`, to once more hurl at the Umma the Najd misrepresentation of the early Muslims, the Sacred Law, and the Religion as a whole, making them say the contrary of what they said. In predictable betrayal of the title, the book is only another self-absorbed, complacent manifesto of Wahhbism by a Wahhb promoted by Wahhbis for the consumption of Wahhbis. Among its aberrations:

- Al-Khumayyis claims that the seventeen Musnads of Imm Ab H.anfa, Allh be well-pleased with him, were compiled after his time and are therefore attributed to him unreliably. This is like the claim of the non-Muslims and their ignorant acolytes that the h.adth was compiled after the time of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace: what matters is not the time of the final compilation but the veracity of transmission and attribution, while it is established that setting pen to paper took place at the earliest stages of h.adth transmission from the Prophet himself, upon him blessings and peace, let alone from the Imms of later generations such as Sufyn al-Thawr, Ibn Jurayj, al-Awz`, or Ab H.anfa, Allh be well-pleased with them.

The attack against Ab H.anfa the Musnid is enshrined in two lines of the Tankl (1:214) originally written in refutation of Imm al-Kawthar's Ta'nb al-Khat.b by the L-Madhhab Wahhb `Abd al-Mu`allim then rehashed by Muh.ammad `Abd al-Razzq H.amza, Muh.ammad Nas.f, and al-Albn(1) in which al-Mu`allim's confused pen (and/or others) wrote of the Masnd of Imm Ab H.anfa: "Most of the compilers of those Masnd came late, a group of them are accused of lying, and whoever among them is not accused has in his chains to Ab H.anfa, for the most part, narrators of undependable  rank." Such a statement is itself a litotic exercise in vagueness and unreliability since it backs its assertions with nothing, and the assertions themselves are so vague as to be meaningless.

One should also beware of the pronouncements of Wahhbs against early H.anaf narrators from Ab H.anfa, since their business is to discredit such narrations on principle according to their lusts and not on a scientific basis. This fact becomes abundantly clear when critics are faced with the inevitable question: What compilers do you mean exactly? The Masnd of Ab H.anfa, as listed by the h.adth masters Ab al-Mu'ayyad Muh.ammad ibn al-Khwrizm (d. 655) in his Manqib Ab H.anfa, Muh.ammad ibn Ysuf al-S.lih. (d. 942) in `Uqud al-Jumn, and Ibn T.ln (d. 953) in al-Fihrist al-Awsat., are narrated with their chains by the following:

1. al-H.fiz. Ab Muh.ammad `Abd Allh ibn Muh.ammad ibn Ya`qb al-H.rith al-Bukhr.(2)

2. al-H.fiz. Ab al-Qsim T.alh.a ibn Muh.ammad ibn Ja`far al-Shhid.

3. Ab al-H.asan Muh.ammad ibn al-Muz.affar ibn Ms.

4. al-H.fiz. Ab Nu`aym Ah.mad ibn `Abd Allh ibn Ah.mad al-As.bahn al-Shfi`.

5. Ab Bakr Muh.ammad ibn `Abd al-Bq al-Ans.r Qd. Mristn.

6. al-H.fiz. Ab Ah.mad `Abd Allh ibn `Ad al-Jurjn al-Shfi` the author of al-Kmil fl-D.u`af'.

7. Ab al-H.asan Muh.ammad ibn Ibrhm ibn H.ubaysh from al-H.asan ibn Ziyd al-Lu'lu'.

8. Qd. Ab al-H.asan `Umar ibn al-H.asan al-Ashnn.

9. Ab Bakr Ah.mad ibn Muh.ammad ibn Khlid al-Kal`.

10. al-H.fiz. Ab `Abd Allh al-H.usayn ibn Muh.ammad ibn Khusr al-Balkh.

11. al-H.fiz. Qd. Ab Ysuf's thr.

12. Muh.ammad ibn al-H.asan al-Shaybn's sam`.

13. H.ammd ibn Ab H.anfa.

14. Muh.ammad ibn al-H.asan al-Shaybn's thr.

15. Qd. Ab al-Qsim `Abd Allh ibn Muh.ammad ibn Ab al-`Awwm.

16. al-H.fiz. Ab Bakr ibn al-Muqri'.

17. al-H.fiz. Ab `Al al-Bakr.

Each one of the narrators between each of the above scholars and Imm Ab H.anfa is mentioned by name though not documented by al-Khwrizm, al-S.lih., and Ibn T.ln. Yet anti-H.anafs muqallids cling to the ijml disparagement they find in the Tankl without firsthand knowledge of the narrators. In addition, Imm al-Kawthar and his editor in the Ta'nb, Ah.mad Khayr, also mention five more Masnd which, unlike the foregoing ones, are no longer extant except for Zufar's, narrated by the following:

18. al-H.fiz. al-Draqut.n, which al-Khat.b said he had in his possession in Shm.

19. al-H.fiz. Ibn Shhn, which al-Khat.b said he had in his possession in Shm.

20. al-H.fiz. Ibn `Uqda, mentioned by al-Badr al-`Ayn in his Trkh al-Kabr and containing 1,000+ h.adths.

21. Muh.ammad ibn Makhlad al-Dr al-Bazzz, mentioned in al-Khat.b's Trkh Baghdd.

22. al-H.fiz. Ab al-Hudhayl Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl al-'Anbar's thr.

- Al-Khumayyis claims that none of the doctrinal texts attributed to Ab H.anfa are authentically his except the `Aqda of Imm al-T.ah.w. This is an orientalist speculation which Wahhbs are only glad to endorse since it suits their haw. Al-Khumayyis himself shows that early H.anaf doctrinal works all have well-known chains of transmission but he chooses to discard them on the basis of his own specious discreditation of the narrators:

I. Al-Fiqh al-Akbar. It is narrated by Nas.r or Nus.ayr ibn Yah.y al-Balkh (d. 268), from Muh.ammad ibn Muqtil al-Rz, from `Is.m ibn Ysuf ibn Maymn al-Balkh, from H.ammd ibn Ab H.anfa, from his father.

The above narrators are all truthful. Al-Bukhr alone declared Ibn Muqtil weak - as mentioned by al-Khall in al-Irshd - but without explanation, hence Ibn H.ajar dismisses this weakening as based on a difference in Madhhab and the fact that Ibn Muqtil, like all H.anafs, was considered a Murji'.(3) Ibn Sa`d declared `Is.m weak but this is also rejected as unconfirmed since Ibn Sa`d's severity against the Kufans is known, and Ibn H.ibbn, although a rabid enemy of H.anafs, declared him "highly reliable despite occasional errors" while al-Khall graded him "truthful" (s.adq). As for H.mmd, al-`Uqayl declared him weak then Ibn `Ad but their case is the same as Ibn H.ibbn and Ibn Sa`d regarding H.anafs. Hence, Ab al-Muz.affar al-Isfaryn declared this chain sound in al-Tabs.ira fl-Dn.

II. Al-Fiqh al-Absat.. Its text is in catechetical format and differs from the first in content as well. Its chain contains al-H.usayn ibn `Al al-Alma` al-Kshghar and Ab Mut.` al-H.akam ibn `Abd Allh ibn Muslim al-Balkh who are both weak although their religion is beyond reproach according to al-Sim`n and Ibn al-Mubrak respectively. Al-Khumayyis confuses Ab Mut.` with Ab Salama al-H.akam ibn `Abd Allh ibn Khat.t.f, whom Ab H.tim accused of lying, while he only declared Ab Mut.` weak.(4)

III. Al-`lim wal-Muta`allim. It contains a noted emphasis on the necessity of learning kalm for the protection of one's faith and the defense of religion, identical to al-Khawd. f `Ilm al-Kalm, which Imm al-Ash`ar wrote after the H.anbal Ab Muh.ammad al-Barbahr slighted his Ibna. It is at the very least a work by the student of Imm Ab H.anfa, Ab Muqtil H.afs. ibn Salm al-Samarqand, and the first of its two chains adduced by al-Khumayyis is impeccable and formed of Imms of fiqh up to Ab Muqtil who is upright but weak as a narrator.

IV. Risla il `Uthmn al-Batt.(5) Undoubtedly written by the Imm and narrated from Ab Ysuf, its chain is impeccable and comes through al-Marghnn the author of the Hidya (misspelled as "Marghiyn"), Ab al-Mu`n al-Nasaf the Mutakallim, and other Imms.

V. Al-Was.iyya. The chain adduced by al-Khummayis is similar to the previous one but he shows no knowledge that there are several Was.iyyas attributed to the Imm, not just one.

The same Khumayyis also produced two books against the Ash`ars and the Mturds, respectively entitled Manhaj al-Ash`ariyya fl-`Aq'id and Manhaj al-Mturdiyya fl-`Aq'id, which the Jordanian researcher Ustadh Sa`d Fawda in his al-Naqd wal-Taqwm said were characterized by the following flaws:

- deep ignorance of the doctrines of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jam`a; - inability to probe the issues in the way of the great mujtahid Imms of kalm; - confinement to taqld without real understanding of Sunni `aqda; - sanctification of Ibn Taymiyya and his followers as part of the said taqld.

The same Khumayyis also produced a thirty-five page libel he named al-Tanbht al-Saniyya `al al-Hafawt f Kitb al-Mawhib al-Lduniyya published by the same house, which he begins with an epigraph from another zealot of Wahhbism, Shukr al-Als's (d. 1342) Ghyat al-Amn (2:14): "Al-Qast.alln was among the extremists of the tomb lovers (al-qubriyya) [!]. He affirms the intermediary of the polytheistic type ( al-shirkiyya) [!!] by making an analogy between Allh Most High and the kings of this world." In addition to heinous envy of the Friends of Allh, such a charge exhibits a Mu`tazil type of disavowal of intercession and, what is worse, materialist disbelief in the realities of Barzakh established from the Prophetic reports through mass transmission.(6) {And you will find them greediest of mankind for life and greedier than the idolaters} (2:96).

Khumayyis then proceeds to list what he claims are mistakes Imm al-Qast.alln, Allh be well-pleased with him, committed, in which list he himself reveals his ignorance of Qur'n, Sunna, and Consensus. For example:

- He takes al-Qast.alln to task for mentioning the h.adths in support of the desirability of visiting the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, in Madna and the ruling that it is among the greatest acts of drawing near (min a` al-qurbt). We have documented the former in our introduction to Imm Ibn Jahbal's refutation of Ah.mad ibn Taymiyya (AQSA Publications). As for the latter, al-Qast.alln is only expressing the Consensus of Ahl al-Sunna, in addition to his remark that some Mliks held the ziyra to be obligatory, whether the materialists and intercession-deniers like it or not!

- He says that Imm al-Qast.alln, Allh be well-pleased with him, said l yas.ih.h. of the h.adth "Whoever makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to me" then, "despite this admission, he builds on this h.adth his claim that the visit of the Prophet's grave is obligatory... how can they build their minor and major analogies and its results on a h.adth they admit to be a falsehood (" This criticism shows ignorance of the difference between the fiqh application to a h.adth of the expression "it is not s.ah.h." - such as the identical expression of Imm Ah.mad concerning the Basmala before wud.' whose h.adths are only h.asan - and its preclusion from being used in absolute terms as if it were forged and "a falsehood"! As for the h.adth "Whoever makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to me," al-Draqut.n narrated it in his Sunan and  Imm al-Lacknaw in his  marginalia on Imm Muh.ammad's Muwat.t.a' (chapter 49: On the Prophet's grave, upon him blessings and peace) said: "It is not forged as Ibn al-Jawz and Ibn Taymiyya said, rather, a number of scholars consider its chain fair, and a number consider it weak."

- He takes to task Imm al-Qast.alln, Allh be well-pleased with him, for adducing the saying of Allh Most High {If they had only, when they wronged themselves, come unto you and asked the forgiveness of Allh, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allh indeed Oft-Returning, Most Merciful} (4:64) as a proof for the obligatoriness of visiting the grave of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace and not only in his lifetime the way the advocates of ta`t.l would have it. Yet the ruling cited by al-Qast.alln is the established understanding of the noble verse and found in the recognized sources for the Four Schools, among them:


Al-Nawaw, al-Adhkr (Makka 1992 ed. p. 253-254), Majm' (8:217), and al-d.h., chapter on visiting the grave of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. Ibn 'Askir, Trkh Dimashq (2:408). Ibn Kathr, Tafsr (2:306) and al-Bidya wal-Nihya (Ma'rif ed. 1:180). Ibn Jam'a, Hidyat al-Slik (3:1384). Al-Samhd, Khulsat al-Waf (p. 121, from al-Nawaw). Taq al-Dn al-Subk, Shif' al-Siqm (p. 52) and al-Sayf al-S.aql fl-Radd `al Ibn Zafl [= Ibn al-Qayyim]; Al-Haytam, al-Jawhar f Ziyrat al-Qabr al-Mukarram. Dah.ln, al-Kalm (year 1204).


Al-Nasaf's Tafsr and al-Als's Tafsr (6:124-128). Al-Shurunbull's Nr al-d.h.. Ibn al-Humm's Sharh. Fath. al-Qadr (2:337, 3:179-180). Anwar Shh Kashmr's Fayd. al-Br (2:433). Ibn `bidn, H.shiya (2:257).


Qd. `Iyd. in al-Shif'. Al-Qurt.ub, Tafsr of verse 4:64 in al-Qur'n (5:265). Al-Nu`mn ibn Muh.ammad al-Tilimsn's (d. 683) al-Z.alm fl-Mustaghthna bi-Khayr al-Anm `Alayhi al-S.alt wal-Salm. Al-Zurqn in Sharh. al-Mawhib and al-Burhn f `Ulm al-Qur'n. Ibn Qunfudh al-Qusant.n in Waslat al-Islm bil-Nab `Alayhi al-S.alt wal-Salm.


Ibn 'Aql, al-Tadhkira. Ibn Qudma, al-Mughn (3:556-557=3:298=5:465). Ibn Muflih., Mubdi' (3:259). Shams al-Dn Ibn Qudma, al-Sharh. al-Kabr (3:494-495). Al-Buht, Kashshf al-Qin' (2:515=5:30). Ibn al-Jawz, Muthr al-Gharm al-Skin il Ashraf al-Amkin (p.. 490) and his Tafsr. Ibn al-Najjr, Akhbr al-Madna (p. 147).

- Al-Khumayyis overtly lies about the commentary of the h.adth master al-Zurqn - whom he calls a H.anaf! - on Imm al-Qast.alln's denunciation of Ibn Taymiyya's innovation in forbidding travel to visit the graves of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. He cites al-Zurqn's citation of Ibn `Abd al-Hd's defense of his teacher but leaves out al-Zurqn's own words directly following Ibn `Abd al-Hd's citation, in utter rejection of the latter's excuses and in confirmation of the condemnation of Ibn Taymiyya as an innovator in the matter, per the Jumhr of the Ulema of the Three Schools and many H.anbals as well such as the Shat.t.s of Damascus. This is the very tah.rf the Qur'n and Sunna attribute to the Ahl al-Kitab who changed the meanings of the Book, leaving out what runs counter to their haw.

- Al-Khumayyis quotes from al-Als's Qur'nic commentary that the latter supposedly criticized "al-Tj al-Subk for rebuking al-Majd [Majd al-Dn Ibn Taymiyya the grandfather], as is his habit" but [1] this is not Tj al-Dn but his father Taq al-Dn in Shif' al-Siqm, and [2] such a mistake is not from the hand of al-Als the Commentator but from his Wahhb successors who tampered with his book as exposed by Imm al-Kawthar in his Maqlt, since the original author distinguishes effortlessly between al-Subk father and son in over three dozen passages of his Tafsr, and he calls the father "Mawln"! No doubt he would curse anyone who so offends Ahl al-Sunna as to call one of their foremost authorities a qubr since such disparagement is the unmistakable mark of heresy.

At any rate, the passage in question regards Imm al-Subk's rejection of Imm Majd al-Dn Ibn Taymiyya's endorsement of the position attributed to Imm Ab H.anfa in prohibition of tawassul through the person of the Holy Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. We addressed this misunderstanding in our Four imms and Their Schools where we said:

Imm Ab H.anfa nowhere objected to tawassul but only - as narrated from Ab Ysuf in Kitb al-thr - to the use of specific wordings in supplication, namely, "by the right You owe to So-and-so" (bi-h.aqqi fulni 'alayk) and "by the joints of power and glory in Your Throne" (bima'qid al-'izz min 'arshik).(7) The reason for this is that, on the one hand, Allh owes no-one any right whatsoever except what He Himself condescends to state on His part as in the verse {To help believers is incumbent upon Us (h.aqqun 'alayn)} (30:47). On the other hand, "by the right owed so-and-so" is an oath and is therefore a formula restricted to Allh Most High Himself on pains of shirk. Imm Ab H.anfa said: "Let one not swear any oath except by Allh alone, with a pure affirmation of tawh.d and sincerity."(8) A third reason is that the expression "the joints of power and glory in Your Throne" is a lone-narrator report and is therefore not retained nor put into practice, in accordance with the rule for any such reports that might suggest anthropomorphism.

Those that claim(9) that the Imm objected to tawassul altogether are unable to adduce anything to support such a claim other than the above caveat, which is not against tawassul but against a specific, prohibitive wording in tawassul. A proof of this is that it is permissible in the H.anaf School to say "by the sanctity/honor of so-and-so in Your presence" (bi-h.urmati/bi-jhi fuln). This is stated in the Fatw Bazzziyya (6:351 in the margin of the Fatw Hindiyya) and is also the position of Ab al-Layth al-Samarqand and Ibn 'bidn.

Even so, there is authentic evidence in [1] the h.adth of Ft.ima bint Asad,(10) [2] the h.adth "O Allh, I ask You by the right of those who ask You (bi-h.aqqi al-s'ilna 'alayk),"(11) [3] the h.adth: "O Allh, I ask You by the joints of power in the Throne,"(12) and [4] the h.adth: "Do you know the right owed to Allh by His slaves and the right owed by Allh to his slaves?"(13) to support the permissibility of such a wording. If the above objection is authentically reported from Ab H.anfa then either he did not deem these h.adths authentic by his standards, or they did not reach him. An illustration of this is that Ab Ysuf permitted the formula "By the joints of power…".(14) Further, the opposite is also reported from Ab H.anfa, namely, that he permitted tawassul using those very expressions. Ibn 'bidn said: "In the Tatrkhniyya: The thr also report what shows permissibility." Then he cites - from al-Qr's Sharh. al-Niqya, al-Munw quoting Ibn 'Abd al-Salm (cf. the very first of his Fatw in the printed Risla edition), and al-Subk - further explanations that it is permitted, then he cites the fatwa by Ibn Amr al-H.ajj in the thirteenth chapter of Sharh. al-Munya that permissibility is not limited to tawassul through the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, but extends to the S.lih.n.(15)

- Al-Khumayyis rages at Imm al-Qast.alln for stating that one faces the Noble Grave when making du` during ziyra although this, too, is a matter of the Jumhr approving and condoning this as we have shown in our documentations of the exchange to that effect between Imm Mlik and the Caliph al-Mans.r and the ensuing positions of the Four Schools in our Four Imms and Their Schools where we said:

The position is held by some of the H.anaf Masters such as Ab al-Layth al-Samarqand and those that followed him such as al-Kirmn and al-Sarrj as well as al-Kamushkhnaw in Jmi' al-Mansik, his commentary on Rah.mat Allh al-Sind's Jam' al-Mansik, that Ab H.anfa forbade the facing of the Noble Grave during supplication. However, al-Qr in al-Maslak al-Mutaqassit. - his large commentary on the same work by al-Sind - said: (1) Ibn al-Humm said that it is belied by Ab H.anfa's own narration in his Musnad from Ibn 'Umar that it is part of the Sunna to face the Noble Grave and turn one's back to the Qibla; (2) Ibn al-Humm also said, "This [narration of Ibn 'Umar] is the sound position (al-s.ah.h.) in the madhhab of Ab H.anfa, and Ab al-Layth's claim that his madhhab is the contrary, is untenable because the Messenger of Allh, upon him blessings and peace, is alive, and whoever comes to someone who is alive, faces him"; (3) al-Qr added, this is confirmed by al-Fayrzbd's narration [in Sifr al-Sa'da?] from Ibn al-Mubrak that Ab H.anfa observed al-Sakhtiyn do the same during the latter's visitation.(16) Allh knows best.

The same Khumayyis produced another 600-page brick entitled al-Majm` al-Mufd f Naqd. al-Qubriyyati wa-Nus.rati al-Tawh.d which he published at Riyadh's Dr At.las [!] and where he hurls insults and anathema at the Sunnis who visit graves and believe in the intercession of the righteous.

Such is the enmity to knowledge that movement promotes while they loudly pretend to defend the Sunna, and the Umma witnesses the continuing publication of their drivel helplessly. Yet, no sooner do we warn Muslims of the dangers of their institutes and websites in the West than their ignorant defenders accuse us of the very divisiveness and takfr they themselves have specialized in, alone among all the sects of the last two hundred years. There is no change nor might except in Allh Most High. May Allh Most High requite {every sinful, false one} with his just desert!


1. As stated by Imm al-Kawthar himself in the introduction to his counter-refutation, al-Tarh.b bil-Tankl and as indicated to me by Dr. Nr al-Dn `Itr when I asked him about the Tankl: "Which of the Tankls do you mean? For several hands mixed their stamp to that of al-Mu`allim." I was also told by W'il al-H.anbal in Damascus that `Abd ibn al-Albn told him that the reason al-Albn fell out with Zuhayr al-Shwsh was over the royalties from the publication of the Tankl which contained the (uncredited) alterations and additions of al-Albn.

2. Ab Zur`a said he was weak.

3. See our documentation of Sunni versus non-Sunni irj' in our Four Imms and Their Schools.

4. Al-Dhahab in al-'Ulw attributes al-Fiqh al-Akbar to Ab Mut.' al-Balkh as mentioned by Shaykh Shu'ayb al-Arna'tt. in his edition of Aqwl al-Thiqt (p. 63) but he means the version known as al-Fiqh al-Absat.. The orientalists name the two versions respectively Fiqh al-Akbar I and Fiqh al-Akbar II cf. Watt's Islamic Creeds.

5. We translated this letter in full in our Four Imms and Their Schools.

6. See our translation of Shaykh al-Islm fl-Balad al-H.arm Sayyid Muh.ammad ibn `Alaw al-Mlik's writings on the topic entitled The Prophets in Barzakh.

7.Cf. al-Zabd, Ith.f (2:285), Ibn Ab al-'Izz, Sharh. al-'Aqda al-T.ah.wiyya (1988 9th ed. p. 237), Durr (2:630), Fatw Hindiyya (5:280), al-Qudr, Sharh. al-Karhk, chapter on detested matters.

8. Cf. al-Ksn, Bad'i''i' (3:8).

9. Cf. Ibn Taymiyya, Majm' al-Fatw (1:202-203) and his imitators.

10. Narrated from Anas by al-T.abarn in al-Kabr (24:351) and al-Awsat. (1:152) and Ab Nu'aym in his H.ilya (1985 ed. 3:121) with a chain containing Rawh. ibn S.alh. concerning whom there is difference of opinion among the authorities. He is unknown according to Ibn al-Jawz in al-'Ilal al-Mutanhiya (1:260-270), Ibn 'Ad in al-Kmil (3:146 667), and al-Draqut.n in al-Mu'talif wal-Mukhtalif (3:1377); Ibn Mkl in al-Ikml (5:15) declared him weak while asserted was trustworthy and highly dependable (thiqa ma'mn) - as mentioned by Ibn H.ajar in Lisn al-Mzn (2:465 1876), Ibn H.ibbn included him in al-Thiqt (8:244), and al-Fasaw considered him trustworthy (cf. Mamdh., Raf' [p. 148]). Al-Haytham(9:257) said: "Al-T.abarn narrated it in al-Kabr and al-Awsat., its chain contains Rawh. ibn S.alh. whom Ibn H.ibbn and declared trustworthy although there is some weakness in him, and the rest of its sub-narrators are the men of sound h.adth." I was unable to find Ab H.tim's declaration of Rawh. as trustworthy cited by Sayyid Muh.ammad ibn 'Alaw cf. Mafhm (10th ed. p. 145 n. 1). Nor does Mamdh. in his discussion of this h.adth in Raf' al-Minra li-Takhrj Ah.dth al-tawassul wal-Ziyra (p. 147-155) mention such a grading on the part of Ab H.tim although he considers Rawh. "truthful" (s.adq) and not "weak" (d.a'f), according to the rules of h.adth science when no reason is given with regard to a narrator's purported discreditation (jarh.  mubham ghayr mufassar). Mamdh. (p. 149-150) noted that although Albn in his Silsila D.a'fa (1:32-33) claims it is a case of explicated discreditation (jarh.  mufassar) yet he himself declares identically-formulated discreditation cases as unexplicated and therefore unacceptable in two different contexts! Al-Mlik adds that the h.adth is also narrated from Ibn 'Abbs by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr - without specifying where - and from Jbir by Ibn Ab Shayba, but without the du'. Imm al-Kawthar said of this h.adth in his Maqlt (p. 410): "It provides textual evidence whereby there is no difference between the living and the dead in the context of using a means (tawassul), and this is explicit tawassul through the Prophets, while the h.adth of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, from Ab Sa'd al-Khudr [see next note] constitutes tawassul through the generality of the Muslims, both the living and the dead."

11. Hasan h.adth of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, according to Mamdh. in his monograph Mubh.athat al-S'irn bi-H.adth Allhumma Inn As'aluka bi-H.aqqi al-S'iln narrated from Ab Sa'd al-Khudr by Ah.mad in his Musnad with a fair chain according to H.amza al-Zayn (10:68 11099) - a weak chain according to al-Arna't. (17:247-248 11156) who considers it, like Ab H.tim in al-'Ilal (2:184), more likely a mawqf saying of Ab Sa'd himself; Ibn Mjah with a chain he declared weak, Ibn al-Sunn in 'Amal al-Yawm wal-Layla (p. 40 83-84), al-Bayhaq in al-Da'awt al-Kabr (p. 47=1:47 65), Ibn Khuzayma in al-Tawh.d (p. 17-18=1:41) [and his S.ah.h. per al-Bs.r, Zaw'id (1:98-99)], al-T.abarn in al-Du'a (p. 149=2:990), Ibn Ja'd in his Musnad (p. 299), al-Baghaw in al-Ja'diyyt (2118-2119) and - mawqf - by Ibn Ab Shayba (6:25=10:211-212) and Ibn Ab H.tim, 'Ilal (2:184). Al-'Irq in Takhrj Ah.dth al-Ih.y' (1:291) graded it h.asan as a marf' h.adth as did the h.adth Masters al-Dimyt. in al-Muttajir al-Rbih. f Thawb al-'Amal al-S.lih. (p. 471-472), Ibn H.ajar in Aml al-Adhkr (1:272-273) and al-Mundhir's Shaykh the h.adth Master Ab al-H.asan al-Maqdis in al-Targhb (1994 ed. 2:367 2422=1997 ed. 2:304-305) and as indicated by Ibn Qudma, Mughn (1985 Dr al-Fikr ed. 1:271). Mamdh. in his monograph rejected the weakening of this h.adth by Albn and H.ammd al-Ans..r.

12. Narrated from [1] the Companion Qayla bint Makhrama by al-T.abarn in al-Kabr (25:12) with a fair chain according to al-Haytham (10:124-125); [2] Ibn Mas'd by al-Bayhaq in al-Da'awt al-Kabr (2:157 392) - Ibn al-Jawz in al-Mawd.'t (2:142) claimed that it was forged as cited by al-Zayla' in Nas.b al-Rya (4:272-273) but this ruling was rejected by al-Suyt. in al-La'li' (2:68); [3] maqt.' from Wuhayb by Ab Nu'aym in the H.ilya (1985 ed. 8:158-159); [4] Ab Hurayra by Ibn 'Askir with a very weak chain cf. Ibn 'Arrq, Tanzh al-Shar'a (1:228); and [5] Ab Bakr in al-Tadwn and al-Firdaws.

13. Narrated from Mu'dh in the Sunan and Ah.mad save al-Nas'.

14. Cf. al-Ksn, Bad'i''i' (5:126).

15. Ibn 'bidn, H.shiya (6:396-397).

16.Al-Qr, al-Maslak al-Mutaqassit. (p. 282), Ibn al-Humm, Fath. al-Qadr (3:180).

WAllahu a`lam.

GF Haddad