Refutation of al-Khumayyis

Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad

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

Usûl al-Dîn `ind al-Imâm Abî Hanîfa; Manhaj al-Ash`ariyya fîl-`Aqâ’id; Manhaj al-Mâturîdiyya fîl-`Aqâ’id; Al-Tanbîhât al-Saniyya `alâ al-Hafawât fî Kitâb al-Mawâhib al-Lâduniyya; Al-Majmû` al-Mufîd fî Naqd. al-Qubûriyyati wa-Nusrati al-Tawhîd.

One of the latest Saudi pseudo-Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a popelets of misguided auto-da-fés against the real Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a, al-Khumayyis began his career with a doctoral thesis at the University of Muh.ammad ibn Sa`ûd entitled Us.ûl al-Dîn `ind al-Imâm Abî H.anîfa which he turned into a 650-page brick he published in the same town, at Riyadh’s Dâr al-S.umay`î, to once more hurl at the Umma the Najdî 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 Wahhâbism by a Wahhâbî promoted by Wahhâbis for the consumption of Wahhâbis. Among its aberrations:

– Al-Khumayyis claims that the seventeen Musnads of Imâm Abû H.anîfa, Allâh 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.adîth 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.adîth transmission from the Prophet himself, upon him blessings and peace, let alone from the Imâms of later generations such as Sufyân al-Thawrî, Ibn Jurayj, al-Awzâ`î, or Abû H.anîfa, Allâh be well-pleased with them.

The attack against Abû H.anîfa the Musnid is enshrined in two lines of the Tankîl (1:214) originally written in refutation of Imâm al-Kawtharî’s Ta’nîb al-Khat.îb by the Lâ-Madhhabî Wahhâbî `Abd al-Rah.mân al-Mu`allimî then rehashed by Muh.ammad `Abd al-Razzâq H.amza, Muh.ammad Nas.îf, and Nâ al-Albânî(1) in which al-Mu`allimî’s confused pen (and/or others) wrote of the Masânîd of Imâm Abû H.anîfa: “Most of the compilers of those Masânîd came late, a group of them are accused of lying, and whoever among them is not accused has in his chains to Abû H.anîfa, 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 Wahhâbîs against early H.anafî narrators from Abû H.anîfa, 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 Masânîd of Abû H.anîfa, as listed by the h.adîth masters Abû al-Mu’ayyad Muh.ammad ibn Mah.mûd al-Khwârizmî (d. 655) in his Manâqib Abî H.anîfa, Muh.ammad ibn Yûsuf al-S.âlih.î (d. 942) in `Uqud al-Jumân, and Ibn T.ûlûn (d. 953) in al-Fihrist al-Awsat., are narrated with their chains by the following:

1. al-H.âfiz. Abû Muh.ammad `Abd Allâh ibn Muh.ammad ibn Ya`qûb al-H.ârithî al-Bukhârî.(2)

2. al-H.âfiz. Abû al-Qâsim T.alh.a ibn Muh.ammad ibn Ja`far al-Shâhid.

3. Abû al-H.asan Muh.ammad ibn al-Muz.affar ibn Mûsâ.

4. al-H.âfiz. Abû Nu`aym Ah.mad ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Ah.mad al-As.bahânî al-Shâfi`î.

5. Abû Bakr Muh.ammad ibn `Abd al-Bâqî al-Ans.ârî Qâd.î Mâristân.

6. al-H.âfiz. Abû Ah.mad `Abd Allâh ibn `Adî al-Jurjânî al-Shâfi`î the author of al-Kâmil fîl-D.u`afâ’.

7. Abû al-H.asan Muh.ammad ibn Ibrâhîm ibn H.ubaysh from al-H.asan ibn Ziyâd al-Lu’lu’î.

8. Qâd.î Abû al-H.asan `Umar ibn al-H.asan al-Ashnânî.

9. Abû Bakr Ah.mad ibn Muh.ammad ibn Khâlid al-Kalâ`î.

10. al-H.âfiz. Abû `Abd Allâh al-H.usayn ibn Muh.ammad ibn Khusrû al-Balkhî.

11. al-H.âfiz. Qâd.î Abû Yûsuf’s Âthâr.

12. Muh.ammad ibn al-H.asan al-Shaybânî’s samâ`.

13. H.ammâd ibn Abî H.anîfa.

14. Muh.ammad ibn al-H.asan al-Shaybânî’s Âthâr.

15. Qâd.î Abû al-Qâsim `Abd Allâh ibn Muh.ammad ibn Abî al-`Awwâm.

16. al-H.âfiz. Abû Bakr ibn al-Muqri’.

17. al-H.âfiz. Abû `Alî al-Bakrî.

Each one of the narrators between each of the above scholars and Imâm Abû H.anîfa is mentioned by name though not documented by al-Khwârizmî, al-S.âlih.î, and Ibn T.ûlûn. Yet anti-H.anafîs muqallids cling to the ijmâlî disparagement they find in the Tankîl without firsthand knowledge of the narrators. In addition, Imâm al-Kawtharî and his editor in the Ta’nîb, Ah.mad Khayrî, also mention five more Masânîd which, unlike the foregoing ones, are no longer extant except for Zufar’s, narrated by the following:

18. al-H.âfiz. al-Dâraqut.nî, which al-Khat.îb said he had in his possession in Shâm.

19. al-H.âfiz. Ibn Shâhîn, which al-Khat.îb said he had in his possession in Shâm.

20. al-H.âfiz. Ibn `Uqda, mentioned by al-Badr al-`Aynî in his Târîkh al-Kabîr and containing 1,000+ h.adîths.

21. Muh.ammad ibn Makhlad al-Dûrî al-Bazzâz, mentioned in al-Khat.îb’s Târîkh Baghdâd.

22. al-H.âfiz. Abû al-Hudhayl Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl al-‘Anbarî’s Âthâr.

– Al-Khumayyis claims that none of the doctrinal texts attributed to Abû H.anîfa are authentically his except the `Aqîda of Imâm al-T.ah.âwî. This is an orientalist speculation which Wahhâbîs are only glad to endorse since it suits their hawâ. Al-Khumayyis himself shows that early H.anafî 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.yâ al-Balkhî (d. 268), from Muh.ammad ibn Muqâtil al-Râzî, from `Is.âm ibn Yûsuf ibn Maymûn al-Balkhî, from H.ammâd ibn Abî H.anîfa, from his father.

The above narrators are all truthful. Al-Bukhârî alone declared Ibn Muqâtil weak – as mentioned by al-Khalîlî in al-Irshâd – but without explanation, hence Ibn H.ajar dismisses this weakening as based on a difference in Madhhab and the fact that Ibn Muqâtil, like all H.anafîs, was considered a Murji’.(3) Ibn Sa`d declared `Is.âm weak but this is also rejected as unconfirmed since Ibn Sa`d’s severity against the Kufans is known, and Ibn H.ibbân, although a rabid enemy of H.anafîs, declared him “highly reliable despite occasional errors” while al-Khalîlî graded him “truthful” (s.adûq). As for H.âmmâd, al-`Uqaylî declared him weak then Ibn `Adî but their case is the same as Ibn H.ibbân and Ibn Sa`d regarding H.anafîs. Hence, Abû al-Muz.affar al-Isfarâyînî declared this chain sound in al-Tabs.ira fîl-Dîn.

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 `Alî al-Alma`î al-Kâshgharî and Abû Mut.î` al-H.akam ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muslim al-Balkhî who are both weak although their religion is beyond reproach according to al-Sim`ânî and Ibn al-Mubârak respectively. Al-Khumayyis confuses Abû Mut.î` with Abû Salama al-H.akam ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Khat.t.âf, whom Abû H.âtim accused of lying, while he only declared Abû Mut.î` weak.(4)

III. Al-`Âlim wal-Muta`allim. It contains a noted emphasis on the necessity of learning kalâm for the protection of one’s faith and the defense of religion, identical to Istih.sân al-Khawd. fî `Ilm al-Kalâm, which Imâm al-Ash`arî wrote after the H.anbalî Abû Muh.ammad al-Barbahârî slighted his Ibâna. It is at the very least a work by the student of Imâm Abû H.anîfa, Abû Muqâtil H.afs. ibn Salm al-Samarqandî, and the first of its two chains adduced by al-Khumayyis is impeccable and formed of Imâms of fiqh up to Abû Muqâtil who is upright but weak as a narrator.

IV. Risâla ilâ `Uthmân al-Battî.(5) Undoubtedly written by the Imâm and narrated from Abû Yûsuf, its chain is impeccable and comes through al-Marghînânî the author of the Hidâya (misspelled as “Marghiyânî”), Abû al-Mu`în al-Nasafî the Mutakallim, and other Imâms.

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 Imâm, not just one.

The same Khumayyis also produced two books against the Ash`arîs and the Mâturîdîs, respectively entitled Manhaj al-Ash`ariyya fîl-`Aqâ’id and Manhaj al-Mâturîdiyya fîl-`Aqâ’id, which the Jordanian researcher Ustadh Sa`îd Fawda in his al-Naqd wal-Taqwîm said were characterized by the following flaws:

– deep ignorance of the doctrines of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a; – inability to probe the issues in the way of the great mujtahid Imâms of kalâm; – confinement to taqlîd without real understanding of Sunni `aqîda; – sanctification of Ibn Taymiyya and his followers as part of the said taqlîd.

The same Khumayyis also produced a thirty-five page libel he named al-Tanbîhât al-Saniyya `alâ al-Hafawât fî Kitâb al-Mawâhib al-Lâduniyya published by the same house, which he begins with an epigraph from another zealot of Wahhâbism, Mah.mûd Shukrî al-Alûsî’s (d. 1342) Ghâyat al-Amânî (2:14): “Al-Qast.allânî was among the extremists of the tomb lovers (al-qubûriyya) [!]. He affirms the intermediary of the polytheistic type (al-wâ al-shirkiyya) [!!] by making an analogy between Allâh Most High and the kings of this world.” In addition to heinous envy of the Friends of Allâh, such a charge exhibits a Mu`tazilî 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 Imâm al-Qast.allânî, Allâh be well-pleased with him, committed, in which list he himself reveals his ignorance of Qur’ân, Sunna, and Consensus. For example:

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

– He says that Imâm al-Qast.allânî, Allâh be well-pleased with him, said lâ yas.ih.h. of the h.adîth “Whoever makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to me” then, “despite this admission, he builds on this h.adîth 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.adîth they admit to be a falsehood (bâ” This criticism shows ignorance of the difference between the fiqhî application to a h.adîth of the expression “it is not s.ah.îh.” – such as the identical expression of Imâm Ah.mad concerning the Basmala before wud.û’ whose h.adîths 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.adîth “Whoever makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to me,” al-Dâraqut.nî narrated it in his Sunan and  Imâm al-Lacknawî in his  marginalia on Imâm 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-Jawzî and Ibn Taymiyya said, rather, a number of scholars consider its chain fair, and a number consider it weak.”

– He takes to task Imâm al-Qast.allânî, Allâh be well-pleased with him, for adducing the saying of Allâh Most High {If they had only, when they wronged themselves, come unto you and asked the forgiveness of Allâh, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allâh 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.îl would have it. Yet the ruling cited by al-Qast.allânî is the established understanding of the noble verse and found in the recognized sources for the Four Schools, among them:


Al-Nawawî, al-Adhkâr (Makka 1992 ed. p. 253-254), Majmû‘ (8:217), and al-Îd.âh., chapter on visiting the grave of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. Ibn ‘Asâkir, Târîkh Dimashq (2:408). Ibn Kathîr, Tafsîr (2:306) and al-Bidâya wal-Nihâya (Ma’ârif ed. 1:180). Ibn Jamâ’a, Hidâyat al-Sâlik (3:1384). Al-Samhûdî, Khulâsat al-Wafâ (p. 121, from al-Nawawî). Taqî al-Dîn al-Subkî, Shifâ’ al-Siqâm (p. 52) and al-Sayf al-S.aqîl fîl-Radd `alâ Ibn Zafîl [= Ibn al-Qayyim]; Al-Haytamî, al-Jawhar fî Ziyârat al-Qabr al-Mukarram. Dah.lân, Khulâ al-Kalâm (year 1204).


Al-Nasafî’s Tafsîr and al-Alûsî’s Tafsîr (6:124-128). Al-Shurunbulâlî’s Nûr al-Îd.âh.. Ibn al-Humâm’s Sharh. Fath. al-Qadîr (2:337, 3:179-180). Anwar Shâh Kashmîrî’s Fayd. al-Bârî (2:433). Ibn `Âbidîn, H.âshiya (2:257).


Qâd.î `Iyâd. in al-Shifâ’. Al-Qurt.ubî, Tafsîr of verse 4:64 in Ah.kâm al-Qur’ân (5:265). Al-Nu`mân ibn Muh.ammad al-Tilimsânî’s (d. 683) Mis.bâh. al-Z.alâm fîl-Mustaghîthîna bi-Khayr al-Anâm `Alayhi al-S.alât wal-Salâm. Al-Zurqânî in Sharh. al-Mawâhib and al-Burhân fî `Ulûm al-Qur’ân. Ibn Qunfudh al-Qusant.înî in Wasîlat al-Islâm bil-Nabî `Alayhi al-S.alât wal-Salâm.


Ibn ‘Aqîl, al-Tadhkira. Ibn Qudâma, al-Mughnî (3:556-557=3:298=5:465). Ibn Muflih., Mubdi’ (3:259). Shams al-Dîn Ibn Qudâma, al-Sharh. al-Kabîr (3:494-495). Al-Buhûtî, Kashshâf al-Qinâ’ (2:515=5:30). Ibn al-Jawzî, Muthîr al-Gharâm al-Sâkin ilâ Ashraf al-Amâkin (p.. 490) and his Tafsîr. Ibn al-Najjâr, Akhbâr al-Madîna (p. 147).

– Al-Khumayyis overtly lies about the commentary of the h.adîth master al-Zurqânî – whom he calls a H.anafî! – on Imâm al-Qast.allânî’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-Zurqânî’s citation of Ibn `Abd al-Hâdî’s defense of his teacher but leaves out al-Zurqânî’s own words directly following Ibn `Abd al-Hâdî’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 Jumhûr of the Ulema of the Three Schools and many H.anbalîs as well such as the Shat.t.âs of Damascus. This is the very tah.rîf the Qur’ân and Sunna attribute to the Ahl al-Kitab who changed the meanings of the Book, leaving out what runs counter to their hawâ.

– Al-Khumayyis quotes from al-Alûsî’s Qur’ânic commentary that the latter supposedly criticized “al-Tâj al-Subkî for rebuking al-Majd [Majd al-Dîn Ibn Taymiyya the grandfather], as is his habit” but [1] this is not Tâj al-Dîn but his father Taqî al-Dîn in Shifâ’ al-Siqâm, and [2] such a mistake is not from the hand of al-Alûsî the Commentator but from his Wahhâbî successors who tampered with his book as exposed by Imâm al-Kawtharî in his Maqâlât, since the original author distinguishes effortlessly between al-Subkî father and son in over three dozen passages of his Tafsîr, and he calls the father “Mawlânâ”! No doubt he would curse anyone who so offends Ahl al-Sunna as to call one of their foremost authorities a qubûrî since such disparagement is the unmistakable mark of heresy.

At any rate, the passage in question regards Imâm al-Subkî’s rejection of Imâm Majd al-Dîn Ibn Taymiyya’s endorsement of the position attributed to Imâm Abû H.anîfa in prohibition of tawassul through the person of the Holy Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. We addressed this misunderstanding in our Four imâms and Their Schools where we said:

Imâm Abû H.anîfa nowhere objected to tawassul but only – as narrated from Abû Yûsuf in Kitâb al-Âthâr – to the use of specific wordings in supplication, namely, “by the right You owe to So-and-so” (bi-h.aqqi fulâni ‘alayk) and “by the joints of power and glory in Your Throne” (bima’âqid al-‘izz min ‘arshik).(7) The reason for this is that, on the one hand, Allâh 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 ‘alaynâ)} (30:47). On the other hand, “by the right owed so-and-so” is an oath and is therefore a formula restricted to Allâh Most High Himself on pains of shirk. Imâm Abû H.anîfa said: “Let one not swear any oath except by Allâh alone, with a pure affirmation of tawh.îd 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 Imâm 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.anafî School to say “by the sanctity/honor of so-and-so in Your presence” (bi-h.urmati/bi-jâhi fulân). This is stated in the Fatâwâ Bazzâziyya (6:351 in the margin of the Fatâwâ Hindiyya) and is also the position of Abû al-Layth al-Samarqandî and Ibn ‘Âbidîn.

Even so, there is authentic evidence in [1] the h.adîth of Fât.ima bint Asad,(10) [2] the h.adîth “O Allâh, I ask You by the right of those who ask You (bi-h.aqqi al-sâ’ilîna ‘alayk),”(11) [3] the h.adîth: “O Allâh, I ask You by the joints of power in the Throne,”(12) and [4] the h.adîth: “Do you know the right owed to Allâh by His slaves and the right owed by Allâh to his slaves?”(13) to support the permissibility of such a wording. If the above objection is authentically reported from Abû H.anîfa then either he did not deem these h.adîths authentic by his standards, or they did not reach him. An illustration of this is that Abû Yûsuf permitted the formula “By the joints of power…”.(14) Further, the opposite is also reported from Abû H.anîfa, namely, that he permitted tawassul using those very expressions. Ibn ‘Âbidîn said: “In the Tatârkhâniyya: The Âthâr also report what shows permissibility.” Then he cites – from al-Qârî’s Sharh. al-Niqâya, al-Munâwî quoting Ibn ‘Abd al-Salâm (cf. the very first of his Fatâwâ in the printed Risâla edition), and al-Subkî – further explanations that it is permitted, then he cites the fatwa by Ibn Amîr 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.âlih.în.(15)

– Al-Khumayyis rages at Imâm al-Qast.allânî for stating that one faces the Noble Grave when making du`â during ziyâra although this, too, is a matter of the Jumhûr approving and condoning this as we have shown in our documentations of the exchange to that effect between Imâm Mâlik and the Caliph al-Mans.ûr and the ensuing positions of the Four Schools in our Four Imâms and Their Schools where we said:

The position is held by some of the H.anafî Masters such as Abû al-Layth al-Samarqandî and those that followed him such as al-Kirmânî and al-Sarrûjî as well as al-Kamushkhânawî in Jâmi’ al-Manâsik, his commentary on Rah.mat Allâh al-Sindî’s Jamî’ al-Manâsik, that Abû H.anîfa forbade the facing of the Noble Grave during supplication. However, al-Qârî in al-Maslak al-Mutaqassit. – his large commentary on the same work by al-Sindî – said: (1) Ibn al-Humâm said that it is belied by Abû H.anîfa’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-Humâm also said, “This [narration of Ibn ‘Umar] is the sound position (al-s.ah.îh.) in the madhhab of Abû H.anîfa, and Abû al-Layth’s claim that his madhhab is the contrary, is untenable because the Messenger of Allâh, upon him blessings and peace, is alive, and whoever comes to someone who is alive, faces him”; (3) al-Qârî added, this is confirmed by al-Fayrûzâbâdî’s narration [in Sifr al-Sa’âda?] from Ibn al-Mubârak that Abû H.anîfa observed al-Sakhtiyânî do the same during the latter’s visitation.(16) Allâh knows best.

The same Khumayyis produced another 600-page brick entitled al-Majmû` al-Mufîd fî Naqd. al-Qubûriyyati wa-Nus.rati al-Tawh.îd which he published at Riyadh’s Dâr 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 takfîr they themselves have specialized in, alone among all the sects of the last two hundred years. There is no change nor might except in Allâh Most High. May Allâh Most High requite {every sinful, false one} with his just desert!


1. As stated by Imâm al-Kawtharî himself in the introduction to his counter-refutation, al-Tarh.îb bil-Tankîl and as indicated to me by Dr. Nûr al-Dîn `Itr when I asked him about the Tankîl: “Which of the Tankîls do you mean? For several hands mixed their stamp to that of al-Mu`allimî.” I was also told by Wâ’il al-H.anbalî in Damascus that `Abd al-Rah.mân ibn Nâ al-Albânî told him that the reason al-Albânî fell out with Zuhayr al-Shâwîsh was over the royalties from the publication of the Tankîl which contained the (uncredited) alterations and additions of al-Albânî.

2. Abû Zur`a said he was weak.

3. See our documentation of Sunni versus non-Sunni irjâ’ in our Four Imâms and Their Schools.

4. Al-Dhahabî in al-‘Ulûw attributes al-Fiqh al-Akbar to Abû Mut.î’ al-Balkhî as mentioned by Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arna’ûtt. in his edition of Aqâwîl al-Thiqât (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 Imâms and Their Schools.

6. See our translation of Shaykh al-Islâm fîl-Balad al-H.arâm Sayyid Muh.ammad ibn `Alawî al-Mâlikî’s writings on the topic entitled The Prophets in Barzakh.

7.Cf. al-Zabîdî, Ith.âf (2:285), Ibn Abî al-‘Izz, Sharh. al-‘Aqîda al-T.ah.âwiyya (1988 9th ed. p. 237), Durr (2:630), Fatâwâ Hindiyya (5:280), al-Qudûrî, Sharh. al-Karhkî, chapter on detested matters.

8. Cf. al-Kâsânî, Badâ’i’ al-S.anâ’i’ (3:8).

9. Cf. Ibn Taymiyya, Majmû’ al-Fatâwâ (1:202-203) and his imitators.

10. Narrated from Anas by al-T.abarânî in al-Kabîr (24:351) and al-Awsat. (1:152) and Abû Nu’aym in his H.ilya (1985 ed. 3:121) with a chain containing Rawh. ibn S.alâh. concerning whom there is difference of opinion among the authorities. He is unknown according to Ibn al-Jawzî in al-‘Ilal al-Mutanâhiya (1:260-270), Ibn ‘Adî in al-Kâmil (3:146 §667), and al-Dâraqut.nî in al-Mu’talif wal-Mukhtalif (3:1377); Ibn Mâkûlâ in al-Ikmâl (5:15) declared him weak while al-H.âkim asserted was trustworthy and highly dependable (thiqa ma’mûn) – as mentioned by Ibn H.ajar in Lisân al-Mîzân (2:465 §1876), Ibn H.ibbân included him in al-Thiqât (8:244), and al-Fasawî considered him trustworthy (cf. Mamdûh., Raf’ [p. 148]). Al-Haythamî(9:257) said: “Al-T.abarânî narrated it in al-Kabîr and al-Awsat., its chain contains Rawh. ibn S.alâh. whom Ibn H.ibbân and al-H.âkim declared trustworthy although there is some weakness in him, and the rest of its sub-narrators are the men of sound h.adîth.” I was unable to find Abû H.âtim’s declaration of Rawh. as trustworthy cited by Sayyid Muh.ammad ibn ‘Alawî cf. Mafâhîm (10th ed. p. 145 n. 1). Nor does Mah.mûd Mamdûh. in his discussion of this h.adîth in Raf’ al-Minâra li-Takhrîj Ah.âdîth al-tawassul wal-Ziyâra (p. 147-155) mention such a grading on the part of Abû H.âtim although he considers Rawh. “truthful” (s.adûq) and not “weak” (d.a’îf), according to the rules of h.adîth science when no reason is given with regard to a narrator’s purported discreditation (jarh.  mubham ghayr mufassar). Mamdûh. (p. 149-150) noted that although Albânî in his Silsila D.a’îfa (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-Mâlikî adds that the h.adîth is also narrated from Ibn ‘Abbâs by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr – without specifying where – and from Jâbir by Ibn Abî Shayba, but without the du’â. Imâm al-Kawtharî said of this h.adîth in his Maqâlât (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.adîth of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, from Abû Sa’îd al-Khudrî [see next note] constitutes tawassul through the generality of the Muslims, both the living and the dead.”

11. Hasan h.adîth of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, according to Mah.mûd Mamdûh. in his monograph Mubâh.athat al-Sâ’irîn bi-H.adîth Allâhumma Innî As’aluka bi-H.aqqi alSâ’ilîn narrated from Abû Sa’îd al-Khudrî 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’ût. (17:247-248 §11156) who considers it, like Abû H.âtim in al-‘Ilal (2:184), more likely a mawqûf saying of Abû Sa’îd himself; Ibn Mâjah with a chain he declared weak, Ibn al-Sunnî in ‘Amal al-Yawm wal-Layla (p. 40 §83-84), al-Bayhaqî in al-Da’awât al-Kabîr (p. 47=1:47 §65), Ibn Khuzayma in al-Tawh.îd (p. 17-18=1:41) [and his S.ah.îh. per al-Bûs.îrî, Zawâ’id (1:98-99)], al-T.abarânî in al-Du’a (p. 149=2:990), Ibn Ja’d in his Musnad (p. 299), al-Baghawî in al-Ja’diyyât (§2118-2119) and – mawqûf – by Ibn Abî Shayba (6:25=10:211-212) and Ibn Abî H.âtim, ‘Ilal (2:184). Al-‘Irâqî in Takhrîj Ah.âdîth al-Ih.yâ’ (1:291) graded it h.asan as a marfû’ h.adîth as did the h.adîth Masters al-Dimyât.î in al-Muttajir al-Râbih. fî Thawâb al-‘Amal al-S.âlih. (p. 471-472), Ibn H.ajar in Amâlî al-Adhkâr (1:272-273) and al-Mundhirî’s Shaykh the h.adîth Master Abû al-H.asan al-Maqdisî in al-Targhîb (1994 ed. 2:367 §2422=1997 ed. 2:304-305) and as indicated by Ibn Qudâma, Mughnî (1985 Dâr al-Fikr ed. 1:271). Mamdûh. in his monograph rejected the weakening of this h.adîth by Nâ Albânî and H.ammâd al-Ans..ârî.

12. Narrated from [1] the Companion Qayla bint Makhrama by al-T.abarânî in al-Kabîr (25:12) with a fair chain according to al-Haythamî (10:124-125); [2] Ibn Mas’ûd by al-Bayhaqî in al-Da’awât al-Kabîr (2:157 §392) – Ibn al-Jawzî in al-Mawd.û’ât (2:142) claimed that it was forged as cited by al-Zayla’î in Nas.b al-Râya (4:272-273) but this ruling was rejected by al-Suyût.î in al-La’âli’ (2:68); [3] maqt.û’ from Wuhayb by Abû Nu’aym in the H.ilya (1985 ed. 8:158-159); [4] Abû Hurayra by Ibn ‘Asâkir with a very weak chain cf. Ibn ‘Arrâq, Tanzîh al-Sharî’a (1:228); and [5] Abû Bakr in al-Tadwîn and al-Firdaws.

13. Narrated from Mu’âdh in the Sunan and Ah.mad save al-Nasâ’î.

14. Cf. al-Kâsânî, Badâ’i’ al-S.anâ’i’ (5:126).

15. Ibn ‘Âbidîn, H.âshiya (6:396-397).

16.Al-Qârî, al-Maslak al-Mutaqassit. (p. 282), Ibn al-Humâm, Fath. al-Qadîr (3:180).

WAllahu a`lam.

GF Haddad