Imam al-Kawthari

Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad

Muhammad Zahid ibn Hasan al-Kawthari al-Hanafi al-Ash`ari (1296-1371), the adjunct to the last Shaykh al-Islam of the Ottoman Caliphate and a major Hanafi jurist praised by Imam Muhammad Abu Zahra as a Reviver (mujaddid) of the fourteenth Islamic century.1 He studied under his father as well as the scholar of Qur’an and hadith Ibrahim Haqqi (d. 1345), Shaykh Zayn al-`Abidin al-Alsuni (d. 1336), Shaykh Muhammad Khalis al-Shirwani, al-Hasan al-Aztuwa’i, and others. When the Caliphate fell he moved to Cairo, then Sham, then Cairo again until his death, where the late Shaykhs `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda and `Abd Allah al-Ghumari became his students. Following is his prestigious chain of transmission in fiqh:

Imam al-Kawthari (d. 1371) took fiqh from his father, and also from the hadith master Ibrahim Haqqi (d. 1345) and from Shaykh Zayn al-‘Abidin al-Alsuni (d. 1336). Al-Kawthari’s father took fiqh from the hadith master Ahmad Dya’ al-Din al-Kamushkhanawi al-Naqshbandi (d. 1311) the author of the hadith index Ramuz al-Ahadith. who took fiqh from Sayyid Ahmad al-Arwadi (d. 1275) who took fiqh from the hadith master Muhammad Amin, Ibn `Abidin (d. 1252), whose chain is given elsewhere.

Both Haqqi and Alsuni took fiqh from the hadith master Ahmad Shakir (d.1315) who took fiqh from the hadith master Muhammad Ghalib (d. 1286) who took fiqh from Sulayman ibn al-Hasan al-Kraydi (d. 1268) who took fiqh from Ibrahim al-Akhiskhawi (d. 1232) who took fiqh from Muhammad Munib al-`Aynatabi (d. 1238) who took fiqh from Isma`il ibn Muhammad al-Qunawi (d. 1195) who took fiqh from `Abd al-Karim al-Qunawi al-Amidi (d.1150) who took fiqh from Muhammad al-Yamani al-Azhari (d. 1135) who took fiqh from `Abd al-Hayy al-Shurunbulali who took fiqh from Abu al-Ikhlas al-Hasan al-Shurunbulali (d. 1069) who took fiqh from `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Nuhrayri and from Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Muhibbi al-Qahiri (d. 1041) who both took fiqh from `Ali al-Maqdisi (d. 1004) who took fiqh from Ahmad ibn Yunus al-Shalabi (d. 948) who took fiqh from `Abd al-Barr ibn al-Shahna (d. 921) who took fiqh from Imam al-Kamal ibn al-Humam (d. 861) who took fiqh from Siraj al-Din `Umar ibn `Ali Qari’ al-Hidaya (d. 829) who took fiqh:

1) from `Ala’s al-Din al-Sirami (d. 790) who took fiqh from Jalal al-Din al-Karlani who took fiqh from `Abd al-‘Aziz al-Bukhari (d. 730) [the author of Kashf al-Asrar, a manual of Usul al-Fiqh] who took fiqh from Hafiz al-Din Imam `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad al-Nasafi (d.701) who took fiqh from the Sun of Imams Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Sattar al-Kardari

2) from Akmal al-Din Muhammad al-Babarti (d. 796) who took fiqh from Qawwam al-Din Muhammad al-Kaki (d. 749) who took fiqh from al-Husayn al-Saghnaqi (d. 711) who took fiqh from Hafiz al-Din al-Kabir Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Bukhari (d. 693) who also took fiqh from Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Sattar al-Kardari (d. 642) Al-Kardari took fiqh from the author of the Hidaya, Imam `Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Marghinani (d. 593) who took fiqh from al-Najm Abu Hafs `Umar al-Nasafi (d. 537) who took fiqh from the two Pazdawi brothers, Fakhr al-Islam (d. 482) and Sadr al-Islam (d. 493), the first of whom took fiqh from the Sun of Imams al-Sarkhasi (d. 483) the author of the Mabsut, who took fiqh from the Sun of Imams al-Halwa’i (d. 448) who took fiqh from al-Husayn ibn Khidr al-Nasafi (d. 423) who took fiqh from Muhammad ibn al-Fadl al-Bukhari (d. 381) who took fiqh from `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Harithi (d. 340) who took fiqh from Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Hafs (d. 264) who took fiqh from his father Abu Hafs al-Kabir (d. 217) who took fiqh from the Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (d. 189) the companion of Imam Abu Hanifa – Allah be well-pleased with him -, while Sadr al-Islam took fiqh from Isma`il ibn `Abd al-Sadiq who took fiqh from `Abd al-Karim al-Pazdawi (d. 390) who took fiqh from the Imam of Guidance Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333) who took fiqh from Abu Bakr al-Jawjazani who took fiqh from Abu Sulayman Musa ibn Sulayman al-Jawjazani who also took fiqh from the Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani. Al-Shaybani took fiqh from the founder of the madhhab Imam Abu Hanifa al-Nu`man (d. 150) who took fiqh from Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman (d. 120) who took fiqh from Ibrahim ibn Yazid al-Nakha`i (d. 95) who took fiqh from [1] `Alqama ibn Qays (d. 62), [2] al-Aswad ibn Yazid (d. 75), and [3] Abu `Abd al-Rahman `Abd Allah ibn Hubayyib al-Sulami (d.74 or 73)

`Alqama and al-Aswad took fiqh from `Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud (d. 32) – Allah be well-pleased with him -, while al-Sulami took fiqh from Sayyiduna `Ali – Allah be well-pleased with him – who was martyred in Kufa in the month of Ramadan of the year 40. Both Ibn Mas`ud and Sayyiduna `Ali took from the Seal of Prophets and Leader of the Radiant-faced ones, the Master of the First and the Last among angels, jinn, and human beings including Prophets and Messengers: who was taken to the Highest Company in the late morning of the Second Day of the week, the 13th of the month of Rabi` al-Awwal in the year 11, the blessings and greeting of Allah upon him, honor, generosity, and mercy, and upon his excellent and chaste Family as well as his pure and Godfearing Companions.2

A tireless scholar, there is apparently no field of the Islamic sciences in which al-Kawthari did not have a well-founded claim to authority. He edited and brought back into circulation countless classical books of fiqh, hadith, and usûl after he moved to Cairo. A staunch Ash`ari, he held an extremely critical view of anti-Ash`aris, considering Ibn Taymiyya an unmitigated anthropomorphist. Among the books he authored as listed by his student Ahmad Khayri:

* Bulugh al-Amani fi Sira al-Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, a biography of the foremost Hanafi authority after Imam Abu Hanifa.

* Al-Fara’id al-Wafiya [or: al-Fawa’id al-Kafiya] fi `Ilmay al-`Arud wa al-Qafya (“The Abundant Peerless Matters in the Two Sciences of Prosody and Rhyme”), published without the name of the author.

* Fiqh Ahl al-`Iraq (“The Jurisprudence of the Iraqi Scholars”), less than a hundred pages in length, it is one of the great works on the remarkable character of Hanafi fiqh and its school and contains useful definitions of key concepts such as analogy (qiyâs), scholarly exertion (ijtihâd), and discretion (istihsân) as well as biographical notices on the most eminent figures of the Hanafi school. It was meticulously commented upon by Shaykh `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda.


– (In praise of al-Zayla`i) “If the students of fiqh find one among the hadith masters who is profoundly learned and truly insightful without being taken over by vain lusts – let them hold onto him tooth and nail, for such a type is, among them, as rare as red sulphur.”

“There is no jurisprudence without juridical opinion” ( fiqh bidûn ra’î).” -Ra’î in this sense is a positive term for the quality of every jurisprudent and refers to perspicuity and complete insight. This is why you find Ibn Qutayba in al-Ma`arif mentioning the fuqahâ’ under the heading, `The People of Juridical Opinion’ (ashâb al-ra’î), counting among them al-Awza`i, Sufyan al-Thawri, and Malik ibn Anas. So does the hadith master Muhammad ibn al-Harith al-Khushani in his Qudat Qurtuba refer to Malik’s companions as `The People of Juridical Opinion.’ So does the hadith master Abu al-Walid ibn al-Faradi in his Tarikh `Ulama’ al-Andalus. So does the hadith master Abu al-Walid al-Baji in his commentary on al-Malik’s Muwatta’.”3

– “What is found in the words of Ibrahim al-Nakha`i and those of his biographical layer to the effect that `the people of ra’î are the enemies of the Sunan’4 is in the sense of the ra’î that contradicts the Sunna that is transmitted concerning doctrine. They meant by it the Khawârij, the Qadariyya, the Mushabbiha, and similar innovators. They did not mean ra’î in the sense of scholarly exertion (ijtihâd) in the branches of the Law that concern legal rulings. To give this any other sense is to tamper with their wording. How can it be otherwise when al-Nakha`i himself and Ibn al-Musayyib himself are among those who express personal juridical opinion in the branches, in spite of those who cannot picture them doing so?” Ibn `Abd al-Barr mentioned the same explanation.5

* Hanin al-Mutafajji` wa Anin al-Mutawajji`, a poem on the horrors of the First World War.

* Al-Hawi fi Sira al-Imam Abi Ja`far al-Tahawi, a biography of one of the foremost authorities in the early Hanafi school in which he states:

The `Aqida Tahawiyya received several commentaries, among them that of Najm al-Din Abu Shuja` Bakbars al-Nasiri al-Baghdadi – one of Sharaf al-Din al-Dimyati’s shaykhs -, that of Siraj al-Din `Umar ibn Ishaq al-Ghaznawi al-Misri, that of Mahmud ibn Ahmad ibn Mas`ud al-Qunawi, that of Sharh al-Sadr `Ali ibn Muhammad al-Adhra`i, and others. A commentary was published, authored by an unknown [“Ibn Abi al-`Izz”] spuriously affiliated with the Hanafi school, but whose handiwork proclaims his ignorance of this discipline and the fact that he is an anthropomorphist who has lost his compass.6

* Husn al-Taqadi fi Sira al-Imam Abi Yusuf al-Qadi, a biography of the second foremost Hanafi authority after Imam Abu Hanifa. Ibda’ Wujuh al-Ta`addi fi Kamil Ibn `Adi (“Exposing the Different Sides of Enmity Found in Ibn `Adi’s al-Kamil fi Du`afa’ al-Rijal“) in which al-Kawthari demonstrated the many flaws of the reports adduced by Ibn `Adi whereby Abu Hanifa was supposedly criticized by Sufyan al-Thawri, Malik, and Ibn Ma`in. Shaykh `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda said in his annotations of al-Lacknawi’s al-Raf` wa al-Takmil that al-Kawthari refuted Ibn `Adi’s excesses against Abu Hanifa in three works: Ta’nib al-Khatib, al-Imta` bi Sirat al-Imamayn, and the unpublished Ibda`. Ibn `Adi shows enmity to Abu Hanifa as he reports nothing but criticism, relying entirely on weak and inauthentic reports. Al-Kawthari said in his introduction to Nasb al-Raya and in Fiqh Ahl al-`Iraq:

1″Among the defects of Ibn `Adi’s Kamil is his relentless criticism of Abu Hanifa with reports that are all from the narration of Abba’ ibn Ja`far al-Najirami, one of Ibn `Adi’s shaykhs, and the latter tries to stick what al-Najirami has directly to Abu Hanifa, and this is injustice and enmity, as is the rest of his criticism. The way to expose such cases is through the chain of transmission.”

* Al-Ifsah `an Hukm al-Ikrah fi al-Talaq wa al-Nikah (“The Eloquent Proclamation of the Ruling Concerning Forced Divorce or Marriage”).

* Ihqaq al-Haqq bi Ibtal al-Batil fi Mughith al-Khalq, a refutation of Imam al-Haramayn’s pamphlet entitled Mughith al-Khalq fi Tarjih al-Qawl al-Haqq proclaiming the superiority of the Shafi`i school to the Hanafi and Maliki schools. He followed it up with a tract titled Aqwam al-Masalik fi Bahth Riwayati Malik `an Abi Hanifa wa Riwayati Abi Hanifa `an Malik in which he cited narrations showing that Imam Malik had narrated from Imam Abu Hanifa and vice-versa – may Allah have mercy on both of them.

* Al-Imta` bi Sirat al-Imamayn al-Hasan ibn Ziyad (al-Lu’lu’i d. 204) wa Sahibihi Muhammad ibn Shuja` (al-Thalji d. 266), a biography of two great figures of the Hanafi school.

* Is`ad al-Raqi `ala al-Maraqi on Hanafi fiqh, in which he documented the hadiths of al-Shurunbulali’s Maraqi al-Falah.7

* Al-Ishfaq `ala Ahkam al-Talaq fi al-Radd `ala Man Yaqul Inna al-Thalatha Wahida, a refutation of Ibn Taymiyya’s position on divorce in which the latter dissented from the Consensus of the scholars.

* Al-Istibsar fi al-Tahadduth `an al-Jabr wa al-Ikhtiyar (“The Obtainment of Insight Concerning Determinism and Freedom of Choice”).

* Izaha Shubha al-Mu`ammam `an `Ibara al-Muharram, resolving the ambiguity of a certain expression used by a shaykh named al-Muharram in his supercommentary on al-Jami’s commentary on Ibn al-Hajib’s al-Kafiya in Arabic grammar.

* Al-Jawab al-Wafi fi al-Radd `ala al-Wa`iz al-Awfi. An extemporaneous 20-page reply to a preacher from the town of Awf (on the shore of the Black Sea) who had attacked Sufis.

* Lamahat al-Nazar fi Sira al-Imam Zufar, a biography of the third foremost Hanafi authority after Imam Abu Hanifa.

* Mahq al-Taqawwul fi Mas’ala al-Tawassul, a refutation of those who deny the validity of using the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – and the righteous as means in supplicating Allah Most High.

Maqalat al-Kawthari, a collection of important articles written in Egypt in the thirties and fourties on a variety of contemporary issues and ranging from two to twenty pages. Among them:

Bid`a al-Sawtiyya Hawl al-Qur’an (“The Innovation of Asserting Pre-Existence for Qur’an-Recitation”) in which he states: “It is a fact that the Qur’an as found on the Tablet, on Gibril’s tongue and that of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him -, as well as the tongue of all those who recite it, their hearts, and their tablets, is created, originated, and necessarily brought to be. Whoever denies this is a sophist who is unworthy of being heard. The pre-existent is only the concept that subsists in Allah Most High in the sense of Allah’s own self-discourse (al-kalâm al-nafsî) within His Knowledge, as expressed by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn Hazm.”8

– Hadith Man Tashabbaha bi Qawmin fa Huwa Minhum (“The Hadith: `Whoever Outwardly Imitates A People, He is One of Them'”)9 in which he says:

“This hadith is one of the pithy statements of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him. Al-Najm al-Ghazzi – one of the great Shafi`i scholars of the eleventh century – authored a large volume titled Husn al-Tanabbuh li Ahkam al-Tashabbuh (“The Excellent Awakening to the Rulings That Pertain to Outward Imitation”) in which he examines at length the rulings inferred from this hadith. This volume is in Damascus’ Zahiriyya library and deserves to be published.”10 In the corollary article entitled Mansha’ Ilzam Ahl al-Dhimma bi Shi`arin Khassin wa Hukmu Talabbus al-Muslimi bihi `Inda al-Fuqaha’ (“The Origin of the Imposition of a Distinctive Vestimentary Sign on Non-Muslim Citizens and the Juridical Status of Its Donning by a Muslim”) – written in response to Muhammad `Abduh’s fatwa permitting the donning of fedoras and top hats by Muslims – he cites the hadith of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him -: “Dye your white hair and do not imitate the Ahl al-Kitab.”11 and mentions that Ibn Taymiyya adduced it as evidence that tashabbuh may take place passively on our part and without specific intention.12 This is a proof against beardless Muslims that wear a suit and tie “without intending to imitate non-Muslims” let alone those who endorse their fashions.

– Hijab al-Mar’a (“Woman’s Veil”) in which he adduced the report of Ibn `Abbas and `Ali’s companion `Abida al-Salmani – narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir – whereby the meaning of the verse {they [women] should cast their outer garments (jalâbîb) over their persons} (33:59) included the face but for one eye.13 Ibn Rushd said that this verse has been adduced as proof that all of woman’s body constitutes nakedness14 while al-Qurtubi in his commentary on the verse said that the jilbâb is the cloak that conceals all of the body including the head. Another verse states {And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their headcovers (khumûrihinna) over their bosoms} (24:31), “only that which is apparent” meaning their face and hands according to most jurists, provided they pose no risk of enticement.15 The Hanbalis include the hands and face among the limbs that must be covered, as they read the above verses in the light of the Prophet’s – Allah bless and greet him – statement: “Woman is nakedness (al-mar’atu `awra), so when she goes out the devil is facing her, and the nearest she is to her Lord’s countenance is in the privacy of her house.”16 `A’isha defined the headcover as follows: “When a woman reaches puberty she must cover whatever her mother and grandmother must cover,”17 their khimâr being “nothing short of what covers both the hair and skin,”18 “without transparency.”19 She also said: “By Allah, I never saw any better women than the women of the Ansar nor stronger in their confirmation of the book of Allah! When Sura al-Nur was revealed {and to draw their khumûr over their bosoms} (24:31) – their men went back to them reciting to them what Allah had revealed to them in that [sura or verse], each man reciting it to his wife, daughter, sister, and relative. Not one woman among them remained except she got up on the spot, tore up her waist-wrap and covered herself from head to toe (i`jtajarat) with it. They prayed the very next dawn prayer covered from head to toe (mu`tajirât).”20 The two interpretations of the order to {draw their headcovers over their bosoms} among the women of the Companions and the generation that immediately succeeded them – on which are based the two views of the Four Schools, to cover everything or leave out the face and hands – stem from the fact that some women drew from the top down, some from the sides and over. The result for the first category was to cover the face, while the second category left the face uncovered.21

* Khutura al-Qawl bi al-Jiha (“The Gravity of the Doctrine That Attributes Direction [to Allah Most High]”) in which he reports al-Bayadi’s explanation of Imam Abu Hanifa’s statement:

“Whoever says, `I do not know whether my Lord is in the heaven or on earth’ is a disbeliever and, similarly, whoever says, `He is on the Throne and I do not know whether the Throne is in the heaven or on earth’ is a disbeliever.” Al-Bayadi said in Isharat al-Maram: “This is because he implies that the Creator has a direction and a boundary, and anything that possesses direction and boundary is necessarily created. So this statement explicitly attributes imperfection to Allah Most High. The believer in [divine] corporeality and direction is someone who denies the existence of anything other than objects that can be pointed to with the senses. They deny the Essence of the Deity that is transcendent beyond that. This makes them positively guilty of disbelief.”22

* Al-Lamadhhabiyya Qantaratu al-Ladiniyya (“Anti-Madhhabism is the Archway of Atheism”).23

* Layla al-Nisf Min Sha`ban (“The Night of Mid-Sha`ban”) in which he cites the hadith whereby the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – said: “The night of mid-Sha`ban let all of you spend in prayer and its day in fasting, for Allah descends to the nearest heaven during that night beginning with sunset and says: `Is there no-one asking forgiveness that I may forgive them? Is there no-one asking sustenance that I may grant them sustenance? Is there no one under duress that I may relieve them? Is there not such-and-such, is there not such-and-such, and so forth until until dawn rises.'”24 Al-Kawthari commented:

“The meaning of descent is His opening the gate of response to His servants, and this is true Arabic usage. As for explaining it as His displacement from top to bottom, it is ignorance of what is permissible and impermissible to apply to Allah Most High. Therefore, one has to explain it metaphorically as Allah’s sending down a herald sounding out this call, as indicated by al-Nasa’i’s narration; or, also metaphorically, as His `turning toward’ (yuqbilu `alâ) those who ask forgiveness etc. as related from Hammad ibn Zayd25 and others. Also, sunset and the last third of the night differ for each region, so both go on continuously according to each different region of the world. It cannot be imagined that a sensory descending is meant in all the formulations of the hadith of descent, and the hadith of mid-Sha`ban is in the same category.”26

* Ma Hiya al-Ahruf al-Sab`a? (“What Are the Seven Wordings?”) in which he expressed the positions that the ahruf al-sab`a were not dialects but synonyms, most of which were either abrogated or retained in their known current form.27

* Mahq al-Taqawwul fi Mas’ala al-Tawassul (“The Eradication of Gossip Concerning the Use of Intermediaries”), a seminal article on the question.28 * Tahdhir al-Umma Min Du`at al-Wathaniyya (“Warning the Community About Those Who Call to Idol-Worship”), written in 1942, in which he lambasts al-Azhar for allowing the publication of `Uthman ibn Sa`id al-Darimi’s al-Radd `ala al-Jahmiyya which contains phrases like “[Allah Most High] moves if He wishes, descends and ascends if He wishes… stands and sits if He wishes”; “Allah Most High has a limit… and His place also has a limit, as He is on His Throne above His heavens, and these are two limits”; “if He wished, He would have settled on the back of a gnat” and other enormities.29 This is identical to Ibn Karram’s doctrine whereby “Allah has a body unlike bodies, and a limit.”30 Yet Ibn Taymiyya ardently defends al-Darimi’s views,31 citing them time and again in his attack on Fakhr al-Din al-Razi’s Asas al-Taqdis – a refutation of anthropomorphism – entitled al-Ta’sis Radd Asas al-Taqdis,32 even claiming that Imam Ahmad upheld the doctrine of that Allah Most High possesses a limit.33 At the same time he admits that Ahl al-Sunna did hold the opposite view: “The position that He is above the Throne but has no limit (hadd) nor dimension nor body is that of many of the upholders of the Divine Attributes (al-sifâtiyya) among the followers of Ibn Kullab and the Ash`ari Imams including their early authorities and whoever agrees with them among the jurists … and the hadith scholars and the Sufis… among them Abu Hatim, Ibn Hibban, and Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi.”34 Then he states: “Al-Qadi [Abu Ya`la] said that Ahmad asserts in absolute terms that Allah Most High had a limit but he negates it in Hanbal’s narration, saying: `We believe that Allah is on the Throne in the manner He wishes and however He wishes, without limit nor description anyone could give or define Him by.’ So he negated the limit that pertains to the description he mentioned, meaning the limit known by creatures… And that is the meaning of Ahmad’s statement: `Allah Most High has a limit that only He knows.'”35 The latter is in blatant contradiction of what is authentically reported from Imam Ahmad by the major authorities of his school.36

* Naqd Kitab al-Du`afa’ li al-`Uqayli (“Critique of al-`Uqayli’s Du`afa“), in which al-Kawthari denounced the Hanbali al-`Uqayli’s excessive anti-Hanafi bias in his book of discredited narrators titled Kitab al-Du`afa’. Possibly the most fanatic and least reliable of narrator-criticism authorities, his notice on Imam Abu Hanifa is a collection of weak and fabricated reports but he also attacked the likes of Thabit al-Bunani, Ibn al-Madini, al-Bukhari, `Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shayba, `Affan ibn Muslim, and others, for which he earned al-Dhahabi’s strong reprimand.37 Al-Kawthari said: “We find in al-`Uqayli’s Du`afa’ and Ibn `Adi’s Kamil much idle talk against our masters, the Imams of jurisprudence, because of the former’s anthropomorphist creed and the latter’s partisanship for his [Shafi`i] school, together with his questionable creed.”38

* Al-Naqd al-Tammi `ala al-`Iqd al-Nami `ala Sharh al-Jami, a supercommentary on the Turkish Shaykh Muhammad Rahmi al-Akini’s commentary titled al-`Iqd al-Nami on `Abd al-Rahman al-Jami’s al-Fawa’id al-Diya’iyya Sharh al-Kafiya in grammar.

* Al-Nazm al-`Atid fi Tawassul al-Murid (“Poem on the Means Sought by the Student”), after which came its commentary entitled Irgham al-Murid fi Sharh al-Nazm al-`Atid. * Nazm `Awamil al-I`rab (“Poem on Declensions”), in Persian, his first work.

* Nazra `Abira fi Maza`im Man Yankur Nuzul `Isa `Alyhi al-Salam Qabla al-Akhira (“A Cursory Look at the Claims of Those Who Deny `Isa’s Descent Before the Next Life”), a 67-page epistle similar to Shaykh `Abd Allah al-Ghumari’s subsequent `Aqida Ahl al-Islam fi Nuzul `Isa `Alayhi al-Salam (“The Doctrine of the Muslims Concerning the Descent of `Isa – peace upon him -“) which lists all the authentic evidence to that effect and which al-Kawthari prefaced. Both works were written in refutation of a strange fatwa by Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut of al-Azhar. * Al-Nukat al-Tarifa fi al-Tahadduth `an Rudud Ibn Abi Shayba `ala Abi Hanifa, a commentary on Ibn Abi Shayba’s attack on Abu Hanifa in his Musannaf.

* Qawa`id `Aqa’id al-Batiniyya (“The Foundations of the Doctrines of the Esoterics”).

* Qurra al-Nawazir fi Adab al-Munazir, a treatise on debate translated from the original Turkish of Jawdat Basha.

* Raf` al-Ishtibah `an Hukm Kashf al-Ra’s wa Labs al-Ni`al fi al-Salat (“The Removal of Doubt Concerning the Status of Praying Bare-Headed and Wearing Shoes”), a fatwa – also included in the Maqalat – which denounces the then new “Salafi” fashion of praying “in the appearance of the lowborn.”39

* Al-Suhuf al-Munshara fi Sharh al-Usul al-`Ashara li Najm al-Din Kubra, an explanation of the “Ten Principles” by the Sufi master Najm al-Din Kubra.

* Tadrib al-Tullab `ala Qawa`id al-I`rab, a manual for training in grammatical analysis.

* Tadrib al-Wasif `ala Qawa`id al-Taswif.

* Tafrih al-Bal bi Hall Tarikh Ibn al-Kamal, on the way to solve the riddles contained in the history of the Ottomans entitled Tarikh Al `Uthman by Shams al-Din Ahmad ibn Sulayman ibn Kamal Basha (d. 940).

* Ta’nib al-Khatib `ala Ma Saqahu fi Tarjimati Abi Hanifata Min al-Akadhib (“Rebuking al-Khatib for Citing Lies in His Biography of Abu Hanifa”) to which the “Salafi” scholar `Abd al-Rahman ibn Yahya al-Mu`allimi al-Yamani (1313-1386) responded with his two-volume al-Tankil Lima Warada fi Ta’nib al-Kawthari min al-Abatil (“Repelling the Falsehoods Cited in al-Kawthari’s Ta’nib“). The Tankil contains a wicked attack on the early Hanafi school engulfing Ash`aris and giving free vent to the author’s anti-madhhabi and anthropomorphist views, to the point that he states: “To negate [from Allah] the corporeality that is necessarily forbidden some said: `Allah has a body unlike bodies.'”40 Al-Kawthari countered with al-Tarhib bi Naqd al-Ta’nib41 in which he revealed that the publication of al-Mu`allimi’s critique was financed by Muhammad Nasif, the same wealthy Jeddah patron who had financed the printing of al-Qari’s hapless fatwa that the parents of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – were in hellfire, the dissemination in India of the derogatory part of al-Khatib’s biography of Imam Abu Hanifa with an Urdu translation, and the publication of the anthropomorphist Kitab al-Sunna attributed to `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, concerning which book Shaykh Shu`ayb al-Arna’ut said that “at least 50 percent of the hadiths in it are weak or outright forgeries.”42 Al-Kawthari also revealed that al-Mu`allimi’s editor, Muhammad `Abd al-Razzaq Hamza, collaborated on the publication of `Uthman ibn Sa`id al-Darimi’s Naqd al-Jahmiyya, which contains similar Israelite reports, anthropomorphist forgeries and other enormities.

* Tarwid al-Qariha bi Mawazin al-Fikr al-Sahiha, a treatise on logic translated from the original Turkish of Jawdat Basha.

Among the books al-Kawthari edited or forwarded:

* Al-Bayadi’s Isharat al-Maram min `Ibarat al-Imam, on Imam Abu Hanifa’s positions in kalâm and the terminologies he used.

* Al-Bayhaqi’s al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat.43

* Al-Ghaznawi’s (d. 773) al-Ghurra al-Munifa fi Tahqiq Ba`d Masa’il al-Imam Abi Hanifa, a work of comparative fiqh between the Hanafi and Shafi`i schools similar to al-Bayhaqi’s al-Khilafiyyat, written by request of the scholarly emir Sirghatmish al-Misri in refutation of al-Razi’s al-Tariqa al-Baha’iyya fi al-Khilaf, a treatise on the differences of the jurists advocating the supremacy of the Shafi`i position. Al-Ghaznawi translated al-Razi’s work into Arabic from the original Persian in the process.

* Ibn `Asakir’s Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari `ala Abi al-Hasan al-Ash`ari, a biography of the Imam of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a containing a statement of his doctrine and a refutation of positions falsely attributed to him.

* Ibn Qutayba’s Al-Ikhtilaf fi al Lafz wa al-Radd `ala al-Jahmiyya wa al-Mushabbiha (“The Difference of Opinion Concerning the Pronunciation [of the Qur’an] and the Refutation of the Jahmis and the Anthropomorphists”).44

* Ibn Qatlubagha’s (d. 879) Munyat al-Alma`i fima Fata min Takhrij Ahadith al-Hidaya li al-Zayla`i, a continuation of al-Zayla`i’s Nasb al-Raya in the documentation of

* Al-Nabulusi’s (d. 1143) Kashf al-Satr `an Fardiyya al-Watr (“The Disclosure of the Obligatory Nature of the Witr Prayer”), in which the author adduces the proofs of the Hanafi school on this topic. Al-Kawthari mentioned in his introduction the sayings of the great Imams on this prayer, notably the rejection of the legal testimony of one who did not pray witr by Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad, and the saying of Imam al-Shafi`i in al-Umm: “Whoever leaves the Sunna of fajr or Salat al-Witr, is in a worse state than if he had left all the supererogatory prayers.”45

* Al-Qaysarani’s, Shurut al-A’imma al-Sitta (“The Criteria [of Hadith Authentication] According to the Six Imams: al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah”) together with al-Hazimi’s Shurut al-A’imma al-Khamsa (“The Criteria [of Hadith Authentication] According to the Five Imams: al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nasa’i”).

* Al-Shafi`i’s Musnad and his Ahkam al-Qur’an.

* Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi’s al-Intisar wa al-Tarjih li al-Madhhab al-Sahih (“The Defense and Advocacy of the True School of Law”) in praise of Abu Hanifa and his school.

* Al-Tahawi’s `Aqida.

* Ibn al-Jawzi’s Daf` Shubah al-Tashbih (“The Repelling of the Insinuations of Anthropomorphism at the Hands of Divine Transcendence”) in which al-Kawthari collected many of the most insightful explanations of the Sunni scholars on the verses and hadiths misquoted by the anthropomorphists to support their ideas.

* Tabdid al-Zalam, al-Kawthari’s commentary on al-Subki’s refutation of Ibn Qayyim entitled al-Sayf al-Saqil fi al-Radd `ala Ibn Zafil.

Al-Kawthari is criticized for what is perceived by some as excessive partisanship for the Hanafi school and a contentious style in refuting or attacking opponents. Shaykh `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari (1328-1413) wrote in Bida` al-Tafasir (p. 180-181):

“We admired al-Kawthari for his knowledge, wide reading, and modesty, just as we hated his bias for the Hanafis. This bias of his exceeded al-Zamakshari’s bias for the Mu`tazili school to the point that my brother, the hadith master Abu al-Fayd [Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari] used to call him “Abu Hanifa’s madman!” (majnûn Abi Hanifa).

“When he offered me his espitle entitled Ihqaq al-Haqq [bi Ibtal al-Batil fi Mughith al-Khalq] (“Making Truth Prevail in Exposing the Falsehoods of Mughith al-Khalq“), a refutation of Imam al-Haramayn’s [Abu al-Ma`ali `Abd al-Malik ibn `Abd Allah ibn al-Juwayni] epistle on the preferability of the Shafi`i school [entitled Mughith al-Khalq fi Tarjih al-Qawl al-Haqq in which the Imam attacked the Hanafi and Maliki schools], I found him casting aspersions [cf. Ihqaq p. 19-20] on the [Qurayshi] lineage of Imam al-Shafi`i, citing [the trustworthy hadith master Zakariyya ibn Yahya ibn Dawud] al-Saji’s statement [in his book Manaqib al-Shafi`i].46 I criticized him for this aspersion and said to him: “Questioning lineages does not constitute a scholarly refutation.” He replied: “A sectarian refuting a sectarian.” He said this verbatim, so he acknowledges his sectarianism.

“I visited him in his house once, together with the noble Sharîf, al-Sayyid Muhammad al-Baqir al-Kattani, and as we discussed certain scholarly issues the name of the hadith master Ibn Hajar came up. Al-Sayyid al-Baqir showed his admiration of Ibn Hajar’s memorization and his commentary on al-Bukhari, and I echoed his opinion. Whereupon he deprecated that commentary and said: “Ibn Hajar used to depend upon hadith indexes (al-atrâf) when collating the different routes of the hadith,” which is untrue. Then he said that he – Ibn Hajar – used to follow women in the streets and make passes at them, at one time following a woman thinking that she was beautiful, until she arrived at her house with him in her tracks; when she removed her face-veil (burqu`), she turned out to be an ugly black woman, so he turned back, frustrated.

“Now, the reason behind this attack, is that al-Hafiz used to assail some of the Hanafis in his books of biography, such as al-Durar al-Kamina and Raf` al-Isr [`an Qudat Misr].47 He said of the Hanafi al-`Ayni that he used to take the manuscript pages of Fath al-Bari from one of his students and use them in his commentary [on Sahih al-Bukhari, entitled `Umdat al-Qari]. When al-Hafiz found out, he prevented the distribution of these pages to students.

“Worse than this, al-Kawthari imputed senility to Anas bin Malik – Allah be well-pleased with him – for relating a hadith that contradicts the school of Abu Hanifa.48 Worse yet is his attempt to pass a fabricated hadith as authentic because it might imply the tidings of Abu Hanifa, namely, the hadith: “Were knowledge (al-`ilm) to be found at the Pleiades, certain men from among the Persians would go there to obtain it.” The hadith is in the two Sahihs with the word “belief” [“Were belief (al-îmân) to be found at the Pleiades, a man from those people would go there to obtain it”49], and when the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – said it he put his hand on the shoulder of Salman al-Farisi – Allah be well-pleased with him -. Some forger then changed the word “belief” to “knowledge” as pointed out by my brother, the hadith master Abu al-Fayd, in al-Mathnuni wa al-Battar, who said: “Even if it were authentic there would not be in it any reference to Abu Hanifa but to the hadith masters who came out of Persia, such as Abu al-Shaykh and Abu Nu`aym, for `ilm in the terminology of Islamic law means the Book and the Sunna, not juridical opinion (ra’î) and analogy (qiyâs).”50 Al-Kawthari took him to task in Ta’nib al-Khatib for saying this and replied to him with some harsh words, whereupon my brother wrote a reply to him in which he collected his scholarly blunders and the self-contradictions caused by his odious fanaticism, with some harshness, at the same time acknowledging his knowledge and learning. That reply was not submitted for publication out of deference for their friendship.The difference of opinion between two scholars does not break up their friendship and, like two lawyers differing in a court of justice, they meet as friends outside of it…. May Allah have mercy on my brother and on al-Kawthari, the two major scholars of their time without contest, and may Allah gather us with them in the Abode of His Mercy.”51

Following is Imam Abu Zahra’s eulogy of al-Kawthari after the latter’s death:

“Islam has lost one of the Imams of the Muslims, who worked alone far from the trivialities of this life, devoting themselves to knowledge with the devotion of a believer in the worship of his Lord. That is because he knew that knowledge is part of the acts of worship whereby the scholar seeks the pleasure of Allah and none besides Him. He does not seek thereby a lofty station on the earth, nor corruption, nor influence on account of distinction and reputation. Nor does he seek any of the fleeting things of this world. He seeks only to bring victory to the truth, in order to please the True One – Most High and Exalted. That is Imam al-Kawthari. May Allah make his resting place pleasant, be pleased with him and make him pleased.

“I do not know of any scholar who has departed and left his position vacant these past years such as the position Imam al-Kawthari has left vacant. He was the Remnant of the Pious Predecessors, who did not take knowledge as a source of income, nor as a stepping-stone to a worldly goal.

“He was – Allah be well-pleased with him! – a scholar of learning who personified the transmitted report, “The ulamas are the inheritors of the Prophets.”52 He did not consider this inheritance a mere title of honor by which to pride himself and dominate others. Rather, he considered it a jihad for the purpose of announcing Islam, showing its truths, and banishing the illusions that conceal its essence. He would show it to people pristine and radiant so that they rose to its light and were well-directed by its guidance. He considered such an inheritance demand of the scholar that he strive just as the Prophets strove, standing firm against hardships and tribulations just as they did, remaining patient like them when faced by the stubbornness of those he called to the truth and guidance. Such inheritance is not an honor except to those who practice the means that lead to it, give it its due rights, and know the duties that come with it. Imam al-Kawthari did all of the above.

“That distinguished Imam was not an adherent of a new school of thought, nor was he an inviter to a novel matter with no precedent, nor was he one of those whom people label nowadays as reformers. Nay, he used to shy from that, for he was a follower (muttabi`) and not an innovator. Yet, in spite of that, I say that he was one of the Renewers (al-mujaddidîn) in the true sense of Renewal. For Renewal is not what people today commonly think, namely, casting off the noose and a return to the beginnings of Prophecy;53 rather, it consists in returning to the religion its splendor and dispelling the confusions that were cast over it, so that it will be shown to people in the purity of its essence and in its original pristine state. Renewal consists in giving life to the Sunna, causing innovation to die, and for the column of Religion to stand among mankind.

“That is real and true Renewal and, indeed, Imam al-Kawthari undertook the revival of the Prophetic Sunna. He uncovered what had lain hidden in the alcoves of history out of the books of the Sunna; clarified the methods of its narrators; and made known to the people the Sunna of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – in its sayings, its deeds, and its tacit rulings through his epistles and his books. Then he devoted himself entirely to the efforts of the past ulamas who upheld the Sunna and gave it its due right. He published the books in which they compiled their works for the purpose of reviving the Sunna at a time when souls were imbued with love of the Religion, hearts had not yet been corrupted, and the scholars were not swayed by the world away from the hereafter nor spent time at the beck and call of rulers.

“Imam al-Kawthari was a true scholar; the scholars knew his knowledge. I knew him years before meeting him. I knew him through his writings in which the light of truth shone forth. I knew him through his commentary of manuscripts which he undertook to publish. By Allah! My amazement at the manuscript did not match my amazement at the commentary of the editor. Even when the original manuscript was a brief epistle, yet the Imam’s commentary on it would turn it into a major work that should be read. Truly one’s insight and wide erudition show plainly in such commentaries. All this he did with an elegant style, subtle allusions, forceful analysis, accomplished accuracy, and total mastery over his own thought and writing technique. It could not occur to the mind of the reader that he was a non-Arab writer and not patently Arab. … Yet it is not really astonishing, for he was Turkish in ancestry, education, and everyday life at the time he lived in Istanbul (al-Astana) but his scholarly life was purely Arabic, for he read nothing but Arabic, and nothing filled his head but the shining light of Muhammadan Arabic. …

“He came from a Caucasus family, as reflected in his vigor, strength, handsome body and spirit, and the quality and depth of his thought. His father moved to Istanbul where he was born in surroundings of guidance and truth. He studied the Islamic sciences until he attained the highest rank in them at around twenty-eight years of age. Then he ascended the ladder of teaching positions until he reached their highest level quite early. He reached the point when he was confronted by those who wanted to separate the world from religion in order to rule the world by other than what Allah has revealed, but he stood in ambush for them despite the fact that he was yet without experience, with everything that a young man at the beginning of his career could hope for. But he chose his Religion over their world. He chose to defend what is still left of Islam rather than have a pleasant life. He preferred to face continuous enmity while obtaining the good pleasure of Allah Most High rather than pleasure and comfort amidst people’s approval and the good pleasure of those who held the keys of the lower world. Obtaining the good pleasure of Allah is truly the goal of faith.

“He fought the promoters of atheism (al-ilhâdiyyîn) in power when they tried to shorten the period of study for the religious curriculum when he saw that to shorten it would jeopardize its preliminary and final parts, so he left no stone unturned until he did away with their wish and even lengthened the period that they were trying to cut short, so that students would be able to absorb and digest all the disciplines they needed, especially for non-natives learning in a patent Arabic tongue. …

“He strove with all his might and effort – may Allah be well-pleased with him – on the loftiest paths until he became Deputy of the Office of Shaykh al-Islam in [Ottoman] Turkey. He was among those known to give such a post its due. He never exceeded bounds so as to please someone high-placed, no matter how great their power over him, eventually preferring to be expelled from his position for the sake of upholding the public good. It is better to be expelled for the sake of truth than to implement falsehood. …

“Then the lofty-minded, abnegating, Godwary scholar was put to the severest test when he saw his dear country – the Great Land of Islam, the pivot of his strength, the locus of hopes for Muslims – overshadowed by atheism and taken over by those who do not wish any honor for this Religion. The one who clings to his Religion in such a place soon becomes like one clasping a burning coal. Then he finds himself targeted by persecution so that unless he escaped, he would be thrown into some forlorn prisons and blocked from all that is knowledge and teaching. At that point, the Imam faced three choices. Either to remain a prisoner in chains, his knowledge put out in the deep gaol; a harsh fate for a scholar of learning accustomed to teach and guide others, extracting the treasures of the Religion and bringing them to light for the benefit of humankind. Or grovel and flatter and kowtow, short of which he would remain in fetters or even risk losing his life. Or emigrate – and vast are the lands of Allah. He remembered the saying of Allah, {Was not the earth of Allah spacious that you could have migrated therein?} (4:97).

“So he emigrated to Egypt then moved to Syria. He then returned to Cairo, then went back to Damascus again, until he finally settled in Cairo.

“During his trips to Sham and his residence in Cairo he was a beacon of light. His residence expanded into a school to which flocked the students of true knowledge – not the students of schoolish knowledge. Those students were guided to the sources of knowledge through the books that were written when the marketplace of the Islamic sciences was vibrant and the souls of the `ulama thriving with Islam. He coached the minds of those searching students with those sources and directed them to them. At the same time he would explain whatever they found obscure and pour out the abundance of his learning and share the fruits of his thought. …

“I bear witness that I have heard the praise of eminent personalities and scholars, but I never prided myself with any of it as much as I prided myself with the praise of this magnificent shaykh – for such is a scholarly badge from someone who is truly able to give it. …

“That noble man who suffered many trials and overcame them, was also afflicted with the loss of loved ones, for he lost his children during his own lifetime, death taking them one after the other. By virtue of his knowledge, he was able to be patient, uttering the statement of the Prophet Ya`qub – peace upon him -, {Patience is beautiful, and the help of Allah must be entreated} (12:18). … He passed on to his Lord, patient, thankful and praiseful, as the sincere and righteous pass on. May Allah be pleased with him and make him pleased!”54


1In Abu Zahra’s preface to the Riyad edition of al-Kawthari’s Maqalat.

2From Maqalat al-Kawthari (p. 29-31).

3Al-Baji, al-Muntaqa (7:300).

4Attributed to `Umar as narrated from `Amr ibn Hurayth and others by al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (4:146), al-Bayhaqi in al-Madkhal (p. 190), Ibn Hazm in al-Ihkam (6:213), Ibn `Abd al-Barr in Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm (2:1041-1042 #2001-2005) and al-Lalika’i in Sharh Usul I`tiqad Ahl al-Sunna (1:123). Also attributed to al-Zuhri, cf. Ibn `Abd al-Barr Jami` (2:1052 #2032). See the definition of permissible ra’î by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 13:189) and Ibn al-Qayyim in I`lam al-Muwaqqi`in (1:83) as well as al-Kawthari’s Fiqh Ahl al-`Iraq and the introduction to al-Tahanawi’s I`la’ al-Sunan.

5Al-Kawthari, Fiqh Ahl al-`Iraq (p. 10, 12, 17, 23-24). Cf. Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm (2:1052).

6Al-Kawthari, al-Hawi fi Sira al-Imam al-Tahawi (p. 38-39). Our shaykh al-Sayyid Muhammad al-Ya`qubi said that the authorship of Ibn Abi al-`Izz for the commentary attributed to him is far from certain, and that its style and wording reveal the hand of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, whom he certainly follows in key points (such as saying that the Fire shall go out). Other commentaries: `Abd al-Ghani al-Ghunaymi al-Maydani and al-Bajuri (Ash`ari), Akmal al-Din al- Babarti (Maturidi), Hasan al-Busnawi (d. 1024) (“Salafi”), and Hasan al-Saqqaf.

7Cf. Muhammad Adnan Darwish, Hidaya al-Fattah fi Dhikr Adilla Nur al-Idah (Damascus: Dar al-Majd, 1994), a complete documentation of the hadiths of Nur al-Idah by al-Shurunbulali.

8Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 123). See on this issue our translation of Ibn `Abd al-Salam’s The Belief of the People of Truth (al-Mulha fi I`tiqad Ahl al-Haqq).

9Narrated by Abu Dawud, Ahmad, and Ibn Abi Shayba (5:313) with a sound chain according to al-`Iraqi as stated by al-`Ajluni in Kashf al-Khafa’ (2:240) and Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (Dar al-Fikr ed. 10:274) while Ibn Taymiyya in his Iqtida’ al-Sirat al-Mustaqim (p. 82) calls Abu Dawud’s and Ahmad’s chain “a good chain.” Cf. Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (8:53). Al-Bazzar also relates it through Hudhayfa and Abu Hurayra, Abu Nu`aym through Anas, and al-Quda`i relates it through Tawus, a chain which Ibn Hibban declared sound in his Sahih. It is confirmed by the hadith “He is not of us who outwardly imitates other than us” (laysa minnâ man tashabbaha bi ghayrinâ), narrated from `Abd Allah ibn `Amr by al-Tirmidhi who declared its chain weak.

10Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 164).

11Narrated from Abu Hurayra by al-Tirmidhi (hasan sahîh) and Ahmad, from Ibn `Umar and al-Zubayr by al-Nasa’i, and from al-Zubayr and Anas by Ahmad. Ubay ibn Ka`b was an exception among the Companions in the fact that he left his white hair undyed.

12Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 323).

13Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 327-328).

14Ibn Rushd, Bidaya al-Mujtahid (1:83).

15Cf. al-Nawawi, al-Majmu` (4:158); al-Quduri, Sharh al-Lubab (3:217); al-`Ayni’s commentary on al-Marghinani entitled Sharh al-Hidaya (4:223); al-Dirdir, al-Sharh al-Saghir (1:89) and Mawahib al-Jalil (1:499); Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni (1:349); also al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra (1:187); al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, verse {And when you ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a veil} (33:53); Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, verse {only that which is apparent} (24:31).

16Narrated from Ibn Mas`ud by Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih (3:93 #1685) and Ibn Hibban (12:413 #5599) with a sound chain meeting Muslim’s criterion according to al-Arna’ut. As for the narration in which the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – is related to say to Asm’a: “If the woman reaches the age of puberty, no part of her body should be seen but this – and he pointed to his face and hands,” it should not be adduced as evidence in a ruling as it is a weak hadith as indicated by Abu Dawud himself as well as Ibn Hajar in al-Diraya fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Hidaya (1:173). Narrated mursal with a chain missing the Successor-link from `A’isha by Abu Dawud, al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (1:187) and Shu`ab al-Iman (6:165).

17Narrated by al-Bayhaqi, Sunan (6:57) and Ibn Abi Shayba (2:229).

18Narrated by `Abd al-Razzaq (3:133).

19Narrated by Malik in his Muwatta’, book of clothing.

20Narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim in his Tafsir as mentioned by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr 1981 ed. 3:285) and Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 8:490) while al-Bukhari narrates something similar in his Sahih. Ibn Hajar notes that `A’isha said something similar about the women of the Muhajirin (i.e. the women of Mecca) but that the two reports are reconciled by the fact that the women of Madina were the first to apply the verse.

21Cf. Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman Ghawiji’s Libas al-Mar’a wa Zinatuha (Beirut: Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyya, 1998) and Shaykh Sa`id Fa’iz al-Dakhil’s Mawsu`a fiqh `A’isha Umm al-Mu’minin (Beirut: Dar al-Nafa’is, 19932), articles “hijâb” (p. 258-263) and “khimâr” (p. 305-306).

22Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 368-369).

23Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 219-228).

24Narrated from `Ali by Ahmad and Ibn Majah with a chain containing Ibn Abi Sabra who is weak (da`îf), but it is corroborated by the hadith whereby `A’isha said: “I missed the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – one night so I went out to al-Baqi` [and found him there]. He said: `Were you afraid that Allah Most High would wrong you and that His Prophet would wrong you?’ I said: `O Messenger of Allah, I thought that you might have gone to visit one of your wives.’ He said: `Allah Most High descends to the nearest heaven on the night of mid-Sha`ban and He forgives to more people than the number of hairs on the hides of the sheep of the tribes of Kalb.'” Narrated by Ahmad, Ibn Majah, and al-Tirmidhi who said that he had heard al-Bukhari grading this hadith as weak because some of the sub-narrators did not narrate directly from each other. In a similar hadith the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – said: “Allah looks at His creation in the night of mid-Sha`ban and He forgives all His creation except for the idolater and the one bent on hatred.” Narrated by Ibn Hibban (12:481 #5665) with a sound chain according to al-Arna’ut and by al-Tabarani with a chain of sound narrators according to al-Haythami.

25In al-Bayhaqi, al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (al-Kawthari ed. p. 456=al-Hashidi ed. 2:380).

26Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 145).

27Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 121).

28Al-Kawthari, Maqalat ( (p. 450-468).

29Al-Kawthari, Maqalat ( (p. 378-383, cf. 361-367, 391-406, 420).

30See `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq (p. 203, 217).

31Ibn al-Qayyim in his Ijtima` al-Juyush al-Islamiyya (p. 88) revealed that Ibn Taymiyya “praised and recommended al-Darimi’s two books [Naqd al-Jahmiyya and al-Radd `ala Bishr al-Marrisi] most strenuously”!

32This work was newly printed under the made-up title Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya fi Ta’sis Bida`ihim al-Kalamiyya, 2 vols., ed. Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rahim ibn Qasim (Mecca: Matba`a al-Hukuma, 1972). Cf. Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya (1:426-427, 1:433, 1:443-444, 2:111, 2:157-160, 2:494-495).

33Ibn Taymiyya, al-Ta’sis = Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya (1:445 and 2:162): “The Book and the Sunna definitely show that concept [that Allah exists and is separate from His creation and firmly established to be real] as already mentioned of Imam Ahmad’s adducing as proof for this what the Qur’an says, which indicates that Allah Most High has a limit by which He distinguishes Himself from creatures., and that there is a chasm (infisâl) and a separation (mubâyana) between Him and creation, so it is true that matters ascend and rise up to Him, and it is true that He comes and arrives.” “Al-Khallal said: And Muhammad ibn `Ali al-Warraq narrated to us: Abu Bakr al-Athram narrated to us: Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Qaysi narrated to me: I said to Ahmad ibn Hanbal that it is said that Ibn al-Mubarak was asked: How do we know our Lord? and he replied: `In the seventh heaven on His Throne, with a limit.’ Ahmad said: `And that is what we say also.'”

34Ibn Taymiyya, Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya (1:548, 1:600, 2:169).

35Ibn Taymiyya, Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya (2:173).

36[1] Al-Khallal narrated that Ahmad said: “Allah Most High has a Throne and the Throne has carriers carrying it while Allah Most High is on His Throne although He has no limit, and Allah Most High knows best its limit.” In Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-`Aqida Riwayata Abi Bakr al-Khallal, ed. `Abd al-`Aziz `Izz al-Din al-Sayrawan (Damascus: Dar Qutayba, 1988) p. 78. [2] Hanbal narrated that Ahmad said: “Allah Most High is not to be described more than whatever He described Himself with, or His Prophet described Him with, without limit nor delimitation (bilâ haddin wa lâ ghâya).” In Ibn Qudama, Dhamm al-Ta’wil (p. 20 #32). [3] Abu al-Fadl al-Tamimi narrated that Ahmad said: “Allah Most High is not subject to change, substitution, nor limits, whether before or after the creation of the Throne.” In Ibn Abi Ya`la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila (2:296-297).

37″Have you no mind, O `Uqayli (afamâ laka `aqlun yâ `Uqayli?)! Do you know who you are speaking about? The only reason we mention what you say about them is in order to repel from them the statements made about them – as if you did not know that each one of those you target is several times more trustworthy than you! Nay, more trustworthy than many trustworthy narrators whom you did not even cite once in your book… If the hadith of these narrators were to be abandoned, then shut the gates, cease all speech, let hadith transmission die, put the free-thinkers in office, and let the antichrists come out!” Al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-I`tidal (2:230, 3:140).

38Al-Kawthari, Fiqh Ahl al-`Iraq (p. 83).

39Cf. Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (1993 ed. p. 201-218=1994 ed. 258-273). Cf. translated excerpts in Shaykh Hisham Kabbani’s Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine (6:128-130).

40Al-Mu`allimi, al-Tankil (2:371).

41The Ta’nib and the Tarhib were reprinted together in 1990 without mention of place nor publisher and in Egypt at al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya li al-Turath in 1998.

42See the website

43The “Salafi” editor of the two-volume edition of this work in Riyad, `Abd Allah al-Hashidi, openly states in his preface that his purpose was to fulfill his shaykh’s wish that “someone should refute al-Kawthari’s heretical positions in his edition of al-Asm’a wa al-Sifat.” A refutation of al-Hashidi’s own heretical positions can be found in our own translation and commentary of excerpts from al-Bayhaqi’s work.

44The fact that Ibn Qutayba made a scathing attack on Imam Abu Hanifa in his Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith shows that al-Kawthari placed the necessity of refuting the anthropomorphist heresy above his supposed Hanafi partisanship.

45Narrated from al-Rabi` in al-Umm (1:142).

46Al-Saji is not alone in narrating this lineage, as shown by Ibn Hajar’s narration of an identical report from al-Za`farani through Abu Nu`aym in Tawali al-Ta’nis (p. 34).

47As recognized by his student al-Sakhawi in al-Daw’ al-Lami`, cf. al-Kawthari, al-Hawi fi Sira al-Imam al-Tahawi (p. 28-30).

48The charge that al-Kawthari imputed senility to Anas – Allah be well-pleased with him – is true, since he said in Ta’nib al-Khatib (orig. ed. p. 80=1990 ed. p. 158-159=1998 ed. p. 129): “The narration of the braining [of the young girl by a robber who was then brained in requital] is related [by al-Bukhari and Muslim] from Anas alone in the time of his senility, just as he is alone to relate the drinking of the urine of the camels in Qatada’s narration [in Sahih Muslim] and the account of the punishment of the `Uraniyyîn [by mutilation and blinding in Sahih Muslim].” This imputation of senility specifically to Anas is unprecedented, as pointed out by al-Mu`allimi in al-Tankil (1:63-64), but not baseless, and the latter’s reaction seems overdone and disingenuous. Al-Khatib narrated in his Jami` li Akhlaq al-Rawi (2:474 #1999), chapter 46 entitled “Ceasing Narration in Old Age Lest Memory is Affected and the Mind Becomes Confused”: “Abu Muhammad al-Hasan ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn Khallad said: `If the hadith scholar lives a long life, I find it preferable that he stop transmitting narrations at the age of eighty, for it is the period of senility.'” Abu Hanifa did narrate from Anas – who died at the age of 103 – a full twenty hadiths in his Musnad according to al-Qari in Sharh Musnad Abi Hanifa through the following Tâbi`în: Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman (1), al-Zuhri (3), Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir (1), Yahya ibn Sa`id (2), al-Haytham and Rabi`a (1), Ibrahim al-Nakha`i (2), Yazid ibn `Abd al-Rahman (2), Sufyan ibn Talha (1), `Abd al-Karim ibn Umayya (1), al-Haytham ibn Habib (1), Muslim ibn Kaysan (2), `Abd al-Rahman ibn Hazm (1), and al-Qasim ibn `Abd al-Rahman (2). However, as al-Kawthari said in his response to al-Tankil entitled al-Tarhib bi Naqd al-Ta’nib (1990 ed. p. 415=1998 ed. p. 337-338): “All I did concerning Anas – Allah be well-pleased with him – was convey the method of Abu Hanifa in selecting some of his narrations [i.e. those which he is not alone to narrate]. This is well-known in the books of the people of learning, and does not constitute an aspersion against Anas.” So the real reason for al-Kawthari’s remark on Anas is not “for relating a hadith that contradicts the school of Abu Hanifa” as claimed by al-Ghumari, but because the method of Abu Hanifa in hadith narrators was primarily precaution (al-ihtiyât). Furthermore, Anas’s narration of the braining conveys a ruling (hukm) that is contradicted by the sound hadith “No capital requital except by the sword” (lâ qawad illâ bi al-sayf) narrated from five Companions – Abu Bakrah, al-Nu`man ibn Bashir, Ibn Mas`ud, Abu Hurayra, and `Ali ibn Abi Talib ( – so that the ruling of the retributive braining not only “contradicts the school of Abu Hanifa” but also that of al-Sha`bi, al-Nakha`i, al-Hasan al-Basri, and Sufyan al-Thawri as pointed out by al-`Ayni in in his commentary on al-Bukhari’s Sahih entitled `Umdat al-Qari (9:597-598) (Kitab al-Talaq, Bab al-Ishara fi al-Talaq). And Allah knows best.

49Narrated from Abu Hurayra by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

50Al-Qari and countless hadith scholars before him saw tidings of Imam Abu Hanifa in the hadith of the Pleiades and there is no doubt that their vast majority consider him an Imam of `ilm in the Book and the Sunna whose stature is many times that of Abu al-Shaykh and Abu Nu`aym put together. In fairness, the Ghumaris’ aspersion against him is offensive to say the least, and more offensive yet than all the charges against al-Kawthari is Abu al-Fayd al-Ghumari’s own declaration in his al-Mughir `ala al-Ahadith al-Mawdu`a fi al-Jami` al-Saghir (p. 102-104) that al-Bukhari and Muslim’s Sahihs contain some fabricated narrations. The great Tâbi`î Ibrahim ibn Abi `Abla (d. 152) said: “Whoever learns the aberrations of knowledge learns a great evil.” Narrated by al-Khatib in al-Kifaya, al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal (2:144), and al-Dhahabi in the Siyar (6:486=al-Arna’ut ed. 6:324) while al-Awza`i warned, “Whoever holds on to the rare and unusual positions of the scholars has left Islam.” At any rate, the scholars have recommended discarding the aspersions related from contemporaries: cf. Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm (2:1087-1119) and Ibn al-Subki, Qa`ida fi al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil. May Allah have mercy on them and us.

51`Abd Allah al-Ghumari, Bida` al-Tafasir (p. 179-181).

52Part of a longer hadith narrated from Abu al-Darda’ by al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and Ibn Majah in their Sunan, Ahmad and al-Darimi in their Musnads, Ibn Hibban, and al-Bukhari in “inset” form (mudman), without chain, in the Book of Knowledge of his Sahih, chapter entitled “Knowledge [comes] before talk and action.” Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1:193) mentions its strengthening through its many chains. It is also cited by al-Tahawi in Mushkil al-Athar (3:10-11 #982=1:429), al-Baghawi in Sharh al-Sunna (1:275 #129 gharîb), Ibn `Abd al-Barr in Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm (p. 37-41), and others. It is a fair (hasan) hadith as stated by Shaykh Shu`ayb al-Arna’ut in his commentary on Ibn Hibban (1:290), Abu al-Ashbal al-Zuhayri in his commentary on Ibn `Abd al-Barr’s Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm (1:160 #169), and Khaldun al-Ahdab in Zawa’id Tarikh Baghdad (4:225).

53For an interesting explanation of this mentality see the article “Protestant Islam” at the website

54Muhammad Abu Zahra, preface to al-Kawthari’s Maqalat and his edition of Ibn al-Jawzi’s Daf` Shubah al-Tashbih, adapted from this partial translation.

And Allah Almighty knows best. And Praise belongs to Allah the Lord of the Worlds. Blessings and greetings of Allah upon our Master Muhammad, his Family, and his Companions.

Copyright As-Sunna Foundation of America