Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Rahmān al-Khumayyis is the author of:

Usūl al-Dīn ʿind al-Imām Abī
Hanīfa; Manhaj al-Ashʿariyya fīl-ʿAqā'id;
Manhaj al-Māturīdiyya fīl-ʿAqā'id;
Al-Tanbīhāt al-Saniyya ʿalā al-Hafawāt fī Kitāb al-Mawāhib al-Lāduniyya;
Al-Majmūʿ al-Mufīd fī Naqd. al-Qubūriyyati wa-Nusrati al-Tawhīd.

One of the latest Saudi pseudo-Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamāʿa popelets of misguided auto-da-fés against the real Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamāʿa, al-Khumayyis began his career with a doctoral thesis at the University of Muh.ammad ibn Saʿūd entitled Us.ūl al-Dīn ʿind al-Imām Abī H.anīfa which he turned into a 650-page brick he published in the same town, at Riyadh's Dār al-S.umayʿī, to once more hurl at the Umma the Najdī 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 Wahhābism by a Wahhābī promoted by Wahhābis for the consumption of Wahhābis. Among its aberrations:

- Al-Khumayyis claims that the seventeen Musnads of Imām Abū H.anīfa, Allāh 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.adīth 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.adīth transmission from the Prophet himself, upon him blessings and peace, let alone from the Imāms of later generations such as Sufyān al-Thawrī, Ibn Jurayj, al-Awzāʿī, or Abū H.anīfa, Allāh be well-pleased with them.

The attack against Abū H.anīfa the Musnid is enshrined in two lines of the Tankīl (1:214) originally written in refutation of Imām al-Kawtharī's Ta'nīb al-Khat.īb by the Lā-Madhhabī Wahhābī ʿAbd al-Rah.mān al-Muʿallimī then rehashed by Muh.ammad ʿAbd al-Razzāq H.amza, Muh.ammad Nas.īf, and Nās.ir al-Albānī(1) in which al-Muʿallimī's confused pen (and/or others) wrote of the Masānīd of Imām Abū H.anīfa: "Most of the compilers of those Masānīd came late, a group of them are accused of lying, and whoever among them is not accused has in his chains to Abū H.anīfa, 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 pronoucements of Wahhābīs against early H.anafī narrators from Abū H.anīfa, 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 Masānīd of Abū H.anīfa, as listed by the h.adīth masters Abū al-Mu'ayyad Muh.ammad ibn Mah.mūd al-Khwārizmī (d. 655) in his Manāqib Abī H.anīfa, Muh.ammad ibn Yūsuf al-S.ālih.ī (d. 942) in ʿUqud al-Jumān, and Ibn T.ūlūn (d. 953) in al-Fihrist al-Awsat., are narrated with their chains by the following:

1. al-H.āfiz. Abū Muh.ammad ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muh.ammad ibn Yaʿqūb al-H.ārithī al-Bukhārī.(2)
2. al-H.āfiz. Abū al-Qāsim T.alh.a ibn Muh.ammad ibn Jaʿfar al-Shāhid.
3. Abū al-H.asan Muh.ammad ibn al-Muz.affar ibn Mūsā.
4. al-H.āfiz. Abū Nuʿaym Ah.mad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ah.mad al-As.bahānī al-Shāfiʿī.
5. Abū Bakr Muh.ammad ibn ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Ans.ārī Qād.ī Māristān.
6. al-H.āfiz. Abū Ah.mad ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAdī al-Jurjānī al-Shāfiʿī the author of al-Kāmil fīl-D.uʿafā'.
7. Abū al-H.asan Muh.ammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn H.ubaysh from al-H.asan ibn Ziyād al-Lu'lu'ī.
8. Qād.ī Abū al-H.asan ʿUmar ibn al-H.asan al-Ashnānī.
9. Abū Bakr Ah.mad ibn Muh.ammad ibn Khālid al-Kalāʿī.
10. al-H.āfiz. Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-H.usayn ibn Muh.ammad ibn Khusrū al-Balkhī.
11. al-H.āfiz. Qād.ī Abū Yūsuf's āthār.
12. Muh.ammad ibn al-H.asan al-Shaybānī's samāʿ.
13. H.ammād ibn Abī H.anīfa.
14. Muh.ammad ibn al-H.asan al-Shaybānī's āthār.
15. Qād.ī Abū al-Qāsim ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muh.ammad ibn Abī al-ʿAwwām.
16. al-H.āfiz. Abū Bakr ibn al-Muqri'.
17. al-H.āfiz. Abū ʿAlī al-Bakrī.

Each one of the narrators between each of the above scholars and Imām Abū H.anīfa is mentioned by name though not documented by al-Khwārizmī, al-S.ālih.ī, and Ibn T.ūlūn. Yet anti-H.anafīs muqallids cling to the ijmālī disparagement they find in the Tankīl without firsthand knowledge of the narrators. In addition, Imām al-Kawtharī and his editor in the Ta'nīb, Ah.mad Khayrī, also mention five more Masānīd which, unlike the foregoing ones, are no longer extant except for Zufar's, narrated by the following:

18. al-H.āfiz. al-Dāraqut.nī, which al-Khat.īb said he had in his possession in Shām.
19. al-H.āfiz. Ibn Shāhīn, which al-Khat.īb said he had in his possession in Shām.
20. al-H.āfiz. Ibn ʿUqda, mentioned by al-Badr al-ʿAynī in his Tārīkh al-Kabīr and containing 1,000+ h.adīths.
21. Muh.ammad ibn Makhlad al-Dūrī al-Bazzāz, mentioned in al-Khat.īb's Tārīkh Baghdād.
22. al-H.āfiz. Abū al-Hudhayl Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl al-'Anbarī's āthār.

- Al-Khumayyis claims that none of the doctrinal texts attributed to Abū H.anīfa are authentically his except the ʿAqīda of Imām al-T.ah.āwī. This is an orientalist speculation which Wahhābīs are only glad to endorse since it suits their hawā. Al-Khumayyis himself shows that early H.anafī 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.yā al-Balkhī (d. 268), from Muh.ammad ibn Muqātil al-Rāzī, from ʿIs.ām ibn Yūsuf ibn Maymūn al-Balkhī, from H.ammād ibn Abī H.anīfa, from his father.

The above narrators are all truthful. Al-Bukhārī alone declared Ibn Muqātil weak - as mentioned by al-Khalīlī in al-Irshād - but without explanation, hence Ibn H.ajar dismisses this weakening as based on a difference in Madhhab and the fact that Ibn Muqātil, like all H.anafīs, was considered a Murji'.(3) Ibn Saʿd declared ʿIs.ām weak but this is also rejected as unconfirmed since Ibn Saʿd's severity against the Kufans is known, and Ibn H.ibbān, although a rabid enemy of H.anafīs, declared him "highly reliable despite occasional errors" while al-Khalīlī graded him "truthful" (s.adūq). As for H.āmmād, al-ʿUqaylī declared him weak then Ibn ʿAdī but their case is the same as Ibn H.ibbān and Ibn Saʿd regarding H.anafīs. Hence, Abū al-Muz.affar al-Isfarāyīnī declared this chain sound in al-Tabs.ira fīl-Dīn.

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 ʿAlī al-Almaʿī al-Kāshgharī and Abū Mut.īʿ al-H.akam ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muslim al-Balkhī who are both weak although their religion is beyond reproach according to al-Simʿānī and Ibn al-Mubārak respectively. Al-Khumayyis confuses Abū Mut.īʿ with Abū Salama al-H.akam ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Khat.t.āf, whom Abū H.ātim accused of lying, while he only declared Abū Mut.īʿ weak.(4)

III. Al-ʿālim wal-Mutaʿallim. It contains a noted emphasis on the necessity of learning kalām for the protection of one's faith and the defense of religion, identical to Istih.sān al-Khawd. fī ʿIlm al-Kalām, which Imām al-Ashʿarī wrote after the H.anbalī Abū Muh.ammad al-Barbahārī slighted his Ibāna. It is at the very least a work by the student of Imām Abū H.anīfa, Abū Muqātil H.afs. ibn Salm al-Samarqandī, and the first of its two chains adduced by al-Khumayyis is impeccable and formed of Imāms of fiqh up to Abū Muqātil who is upright but weak as a narrator.

IV. Risāla ilā ʿUthmān al-Battī.(5) Undoubtedly written by the Imām and narrated from Abū Yūsuf, its chain is impeccable and comes through al-Marghīnānī the author of the Hidāya (misspelled as "Marghiyānī"), Abū al-Muʿīn al-Nasafī the Mutakallim, and other Imāms.

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 Imām, not just one.

The same Khumayyis also produced two books against the Ashʿarīs and the Māturīdīs, respectively entitled Manhaj al-Ashʿariyya fīl-ʿAqā'id and Manhaj al-Māturīdiyya fīl-ʿAqā'id, which the Jordanian researcher Ustadh Saʿīd Fawda in his al-Naqd wal-Taqwīm said were characterized by the following flaws:

- deep ignorance of the doctrines of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamāʿa;
- inability to probe the issues in the way of the great mujtahid Imāms of kalām;
- confinement to taqlīd without real understanding of Sunni ʿaqīda;
- sanctification of Ibn Taymiyya and his followers as part of the said taqlīd.

The same Khumayyis also produced a thirty-five page libel he named al-Tanbīhāt al-Saniyya ʿalā al-Hafawāt fī Kitāb al-Mawāhib al-Lāduniyya published by the same house, which he begins with an epigraph from another zealot of Wahhābism, Mah.mūd Shukrī al-Alūsī's (d. 1342) Ghāyat al-Amānī (2:14): "Al-Qast.allānī was among the extremists of the tomb lovers (al-qubūriyya) [!]. He affirms the intermediary of the polytheistic type (al-wāsit.at al-shirkiyya) [!!] by making an analogy between Allāh Most High and the kings of this world." In addition to heinous envy of the Friends of Allāh, such a charge exhibits a Muʿtazilī 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 Imām al-Qast.allānī, Allāh be well-pleased with him, committed, in which list he himself reveals his ignorance of Qur'ān, Sunna, and Consensus. For example:

- He takes al-Qast.allānī to task for mentioning the h.adīths in support of the desirability of visiting the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, in Madīna and the ruling that it is among the greatest acts of drawing near (min aʿz.am al-qurūbāt). We have documented the former in our < introduction to Imām Ibn Jahbal's refutation of Ah.mad ibn Taymiyya > (AQSA Publications). As for the latter, al-Qast.allānī is only expressing the Consensus of Ahl al-Sunna, in addition to his remark that some Mālikīs held the ziyāra to be obligatory, whether the materialists and intercession-deniers like it or not!

- He says that Imām al-Qast.allānī, Allāh be well-pleased with him, said lā yas.ih.h. of the h.adīth "Whoever makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to me" then, "despite this admission, he builds on this h.adīth 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.adīth they admit to be a falsehood (bāt.il)??" This criticism shows ignorance of the difference between the fiqhī application to a h.adīth of the expression "it is not s.ah.īh." - such as the identical expression of Imām Ah.mad concerning the Basmala before wud.ū' whose h.adīths 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.adīth "Whoever makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to me," al-Dāraqut.nī narrated it in his Sunan and Imām al-Lacknawī in his marginalia on Imām 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-Jawzī and Ibn Taymiyya said, rather, a number of scholars consider its chain fair, and a number consider it weak."

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

Shāfiʿīs:

Al-Nawawī, al-Adhkār (Makka 1992 ed. p. 253-254), Majmū' (8:217), and al-īd.āh., chapter on visiting the grave of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace.
Ibn 'Asākir, Mukhtas.ar Tārīkh Dimashq (2:408).
Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr (2:306) and al-Bidāya wal-Nihāya (Ma'ārif ed. 1:180).
Ibn Jamā'a, Hidāyat al-Sālik (3:1384).
Al-Samhūdī, Khulāsat al-Wafā (p. 121, from al-Nawawī).
Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī, Shifā' al-Siqām (p. 52) and al-Sayf al-S.aqīl fīl-Radd ʿalā Ibn Zafīl [= Ibn al-Qayyim];
Al-Haytamī, al-Jawhar al-Munaz.z.am fī Ziyārat al-Qabr al-Mukarram. Dah.lān, Khulās.at al-Kalām (year 1204).

H.anafīs:

Al-Nasafī's Tafsīr and al-Alūsī's Tafsīr (6:124-128).
Al-Shurunbulālī's Nūr al-īd.āh..
Ibn al-Humām's Sharh. Fath. al-Qadīr (2:337, 3:179-180).
Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī's Fayd. al-Bārī (2:433).
Ibn ʿābidīn, H.āshiya (2:257).

Mālikīs:

Qād.ī ʿIyād. in al-Shifā'.
Al-Qurt.ubī, Tafsīr of verse 4:64 in Ah.kām al-Qur'ān (5:265).
Al-Nuʿmān ibn Muh.ammad al-Tilimsānī's (d. 683) Mis.bāh. al-Z.alām fīl-Mustaghīthīna bi-Khayr al-Anām ʿAlayhi al-S.alāt wal-Salām.
Al-Zurqānī in Sharh. al-Mawāhib and al-Burhān fī ʿUlūm al-Qur'ān.
Ibn Qunfudh al-Qusant.īnī in Wasīlat al-Islām bil-Nabī ʿAlayhi al-S.alāt wal-Salām.

H.anbalīs:

Ibn 'Aqīl, al-Tadhkira.
Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī (3:556-557=3:298=5:465).
Ibn Muflih., Mubdi' (3:259). Shams al-Dīn Ibn Qudāma, al-Sharh. al-Kabīr (3:494-495).
Al-Buhūtī, Kashshāf al-Qinā' (2:515=5:30).
Ibn al-Jawzī, Muthīr al-Gharām al-Sākin ilā Ashraf al-Amākin (p. 490) and his Tafsīr.
Ibn al-Najjār, Akhbār al-Madīna (p. 147).

- Al-Khumayyis overtly lies about the commentary of the h.adīth master al-Zurqānī - whom he calls a H.anafī! - on Imām al-Qast.allānī'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-Zurqānī's citation of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī's defense of his teacher but leaves out al-Zurqānī's own words directly following Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī'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 Jumhūr of the Ulema of the Three Schools and many H.anbalīs as well such as the Shat.t.ās of Damascus. This is the very tah.rīf the Qur'ān and Sunna attribute to the Jews who changed the meanings of the Book, leaving out what runs counter to their hawā.

- Al-Khumayyis quotes from al-Alūsī's Qur'ānic commentary that the latter supposedly criticized "al-Tāj al-Subkī for rebuking al-Majd [Majd al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyya the grandfather], as is his habit" but [1] this is not Tāj al-Dīn but his father Taqī al-Dīn in Shifā' al-Siqām, and [2] such a mistake is not from the hand of al-Alūsī the Commentator but from his Wahhābī successors who tampered with his book as exposed by Imām al-Kawtharī in his Maqālāt, since the original author distinguishes effortlessly between al-Subkī father and son in over three dozen passages of his Tafsīr, and he calls the father "Mawlānā"! No doubt he would curse anyone who so offends Ahl al-Sunna as to call one of their foremost authorities a qubūrī since such disparagement is the unmistakable mark of heresy.

At any rate, the passage in question regards Imām al-Subkī's rejection of Imām Majd al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyya's endorsement of the position attributed to Imām Abū H.anīfa in prohibition of tawassul through the person of the Holy Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. We addressed this misunderstanding in our Four imāms and Their Schools where we said:

Imām Abū H.anīfa nowhere objected to tawassul but only - as narrated from Abū Yūsuf in Kitāb al-āthār - to the use of specific wordings in supplication, namely, "by the right You owe to So-and-so" (bi-h.aqqi fulāni 'alayk) and "by the joints of power and glory in Your Throne" (bima'āqid al-'izz min 'arshik).(7) The reason for this is that, on the one hand, Allāh 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 'alaynā)} (30:47). On the other hand, "by the right owed so-and-so" is an oath and is therefore a formula restricted to Allāh Most High Himself on pains of shirk. Imām Abū H.anīfa said: "Let one not swear any oath except by Allāh alone, with a pure affirmation of tawh.īd 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 Imām 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.anafī School to say "by the sanctity/honor of so-and-so in Your presence" (bi-h.urmati/bi-jāhi fulān). This is stated in the Fatāwā Bazzāziyya (6:351 in the margin of the Fatāwā Hindiyya) and is also the position of Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī and Ibn 'ābidīn.

Even so, there is authentic evidence in
[1] the h.adīth of Fāt.ima bint Asad,(10)
[2] the h.adīth "O Allāh, I ask You by the right of those who ask You (bi-h.aqqi al-sā'ilīna 'alayk),"(11)
[3] the h.adīth: "O Allāh, I ask You by the joints of power in the Throne,"(12) and
[4] the h.adīth: "Do you know the right owed to Allāh by His slaves and the right owed by Allāh to his slaves?"(13) to support the permissibility of such a wording. If the above objection is authentically reported from Abū H.anīfa then either he did not deem these h.adīths authentic by his standards, or they did not reach him. An illustration of this is that Abū Yūsuf permitted the formula "By the joints of power…".(14) Further, the opposite is also reported from Abū H.anīfa, namely, that he permitted tawassul using those very expressions. Ibn 'ābidīn said: "In the Tatārkhāniyya: The āthār also report what shows permissibility." Then he cites - from al-Qārī's Sharh. al-Niqāya, al-Munāwī quoting Ibn 'Abd al-Salām (cf. the very first of his Fatāwā in the printed Risāla edition), and al-Subkī - further explanations that it is permitted, then he cites the fatwa by Ibn Amīr 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.ālih.īn.(15)

- Al-Khumayyis rages at Imām al-Qast.allānī for stating that one faces the Noble Grave when making duʿā during ziyāra although this, too, is a matter of the Jumhūr approving and condoning this as we have shown in our documentations of the exchange to that effect between Imām Mālik and the Caliph al-Mans.ūr and the ensuing positions of the Four Schools in our Four Imāms and Their Schools where we said:

The position is held by some of the H.anafī Masters such as Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī and those that followed him such as al-Kirmānī and al-Sarrūjī as well as al-Kamushkhānawī in Jāmi' al-Manāsik, his commentary on Rah.mat Allāh al-Sindī's Jamī' al-Manāsik, that Abū H.anīfa forbade the facing of the Noble Grave during supplication. However, al-Qārī in al-Maslak al-Mutaqassit. - his large commentary on the same work by al-Sindī - said:
(1) Ibn al-Humām said that it is belied by Abū H.anīfa'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-Humām also said, "This [narration of Ibn 'Umar] is the sound position (al-s.ah.īh.) in the madhhab of Abū H.anīfa, and Abū al-Layth's claim that his madhhab is the contrary, is untenable because the Messenger of Allāh, upon him blessings and peace, is alive, and whoever comes to someone who is alive, faces him";
(3) al-Qārī added, this is confirmed by al-Fayrūzābādī's narration [in Sifr al-Sa'āda?] from Ibn al-Mubārak that Abū H.anīfa observed al-Sakhtiyānī do the same during the latter's visitation.(16) Allāh knows best.

The same Khumayyis produced another 600-page brick entitled al-Majmūʿ al-Mufīd fī Naqd. al-Qubūriyyati wa-Nus.rati al-Tawh.īd which he published at Riyadh's Dār 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 takfīr they themselves have specialized in, alone among all the sects of the last two hundred years. There is no change nor might except in Allāh Most High. May Allāh Most High requite {every sinful, false one} with his just desert!

NOTES

1. As stated by Imām al-Kawtharī himself in the introduction to his counter-refutation, al-Tarh.īb bil-Tankīl and as indicated to me by Dr. Nūr al-Dīn ʿItr when I asked him about the Tankīl: "Which of the Tankīls do you mean? For several hands mixed their stamp to that of al-Muʿallimī." I was also told by Wā'il al-H.anbalī in Damascus that ʿAbd al-Rah.mān ibn Nās.ir al-Albānī told him that the reason al-Albānī fell out with Zuhayr al-Shāwīsh was over the royalties from the publication of the Tankīl which contained the (uncredited) alterations and additions of al-Albānī.

2. Abū Zurʿa said he was weak.

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

4. Al-Dhahabī in al-'Ulūw attributes al-Fiqh al-Akbar to Abū Mut.ī' al-Balkhī as mentioned by Shaykh Shu'ayb al-Arna'ūtt. in his edition of Aqāwīl al-Thiqāt (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 Imāms and Their Schools.

6. See our translation of Shaykh al-Islām fīl-Balad al-H.arām Sayyid Muh.ammad ibn ʿAlawī al-Mālikī's writings on the topic entitled < The Prophet in Barzakh >.

7.Cf. al-Zabīdī, Ith.āf (2:285), Ibn Abī al-'Izz, Sharh. al-'Aqīda al-T.ah.āwiyya (1988 9th ed. p. 237), Durr (2:630), Fatāwā Hindiyya (5:280), al-Qudūrī, Sharh. Mukhtas.ar al-Karhkī, chapter on detested matters.

8. Cf. al-Kāsānī, Badā'i' al-S.anā'i' (3:8).

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

10. Narrated from Anas by al-T.abarānī in al-Kabīr (24:351) and al-Awsat. (1:152) and Abū Nu'aym in his H.ilya (1985 ed. 3:121) with a chain containing Rawh. ibn S.alāh. concerning whom there is difference of opinion among the authorities. He is unknown according to Ibn al-Jawzī in al-'Ilal al-Mutanāhiya (1:260-270), Ibn 'Adī in al-Kāmil (3:146 §667), and al-Dāraqut.nī in al-Mu'talif wal-Mukhtalif (3:1377); Ibn Mākūlā in al-Ikmāl (5:15) declared him weak while al-H.ākim asserted was trustworthy and highly dependable (thiqa ma'mūn) - as mentioned by Ibn H.ajar in Lisān al-Mīzān (2:465 §1876), Ibn H.ibbān included him in al-Thiqāt (8:244), and al-Fasawī considered him trustworthy (cf. Mamdūh., Raf' [p. 148]). Al-Haythamī (9:257) said: "Al-T.abarānī narrated it in al-Kabīrand al-Awsat., its chain contains Rawh. ibn S.alāh. whom Ibn H.ibbān and al-H.ākim declared trustworthy although there is some weakness in him, and the rest of its sub-narrators are the men of sound h.adīth." I was unable to find Abū H.ātim's declaration of Rawh. as trustworthy cited by Sayyid Muh.ammad ibn 'Alawī cf. Mafāhīm (10th ed. p. 145 n. 1). Nor does Mah.mūd Mamdūh. in his discussion of this h.adīth in Raf' al-Mināra li-Takhrīj Ah.ādīth al-Tawassul wal-Ziyāra (p. 147-155) mention such a grading on the part of Abū H.ātim although he considers Rawh. "truthful" (s.adūq) and not "weak" (d.a'īf), according to the rules of h.adīth science when no reason is given with regard to a narrator's purported discreditation (jarh. mubham ghayr mufassar). Mamdūh. (p. 149-150) noted that although Albānī in his Silsila D.a'īfa (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-Mālikī adds that the h.adīth is also narrated from Ibn 'Abbās by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr - without specifying where - and from Jābir by Ibn Abī Shayba, but without the du'ā. Imām al-Kawtharī said of this h.adīth in his Maqālāt (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.adīth of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, from Abū Sa'īd al-Khudrī [see next note] constitutes tawassul through the generality of the Muslims, both the living and the dead."

11. Hasan h.adīth of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, according to Mah.mūd Mamdūh. in his monograph Mubāh.athat al-Sā'irīn bi-H.adīth Allāhumma Innī As'aluka bi-H.aqqi al-Sā'ilīnnarrated from Abū Sa'īd al-Khudrī 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'ūt. (17:247-248 §11156) who considers it, like Abū H.ātim in al-'Ilal (2:184), more likely a mawqūf saying of Abū Sa'īd himself; Ibn Mājah with a chain he declared weak, Ibn al-Sunnī in 'Amal al-Yawm wal-Layla (p. 40 §83-84), al-Bayhaqī in al-Da'awāt al-Kabīr (p. 47=1:47 §65), Ibn Khuzayma in al-Tawh.īd (p. 17-18=1:41) [and his S.ah.īh. per al-Būs.īrī, Zawā'id (1:98-99)], al-T.abarānī in al-Du'a (p. 149=2:990), Ibn Ja'd in his Musnad (p. 299), al-Baghawī in al-Ja'diyyāt (§2118-2119) and - mawqūf - by Ibn Abī Shayba (6:25=10:211-212) and Ibn Abī H.ātim, 'Ilal (2:184). Al-'Irāqī in Takhrīj Ah.ādīth al-Ih.yā' (1:291) graded it h.asan as a marfū' h.adīth as did the h.adīth Masters al-Dimyāt.ī in al-Muttajir al-Rābih. fī Thawāb al-'Amal al-S.ālih. (p. 471-472), Ibn H.ajar in Amālī al-Adhkār (1:272-273) and al-Mundhirī's Shaykh the h.adīth Master Abū al-H.asan al-Maqdisī in al-Targhīb (1994 ed. 2:367 §2422=1997 ed. 2:304-305) and as indicated by Ibn Qudāma, Mughnī (1985 Dār al-Fikr ed. 1:271). Mamdūh. in his monograph rejected the weakening of this h.adīth by Nās.ir Albānī and H.ammād al-Ans.ārī.

12. Narrated from [1] the Companion Qayla bint Makhrama by al-T.abarānī in al-Kabīr (25:12) with a fair chain according to al-Haythamī (10:124-125); [2] Ibn Mas'ūd by al-Bayhaqī in al-Da'awāt al-Kabīr (2:157 §392) - Ibn al-Jawzī in al-Mawd.ū'āt (2:142) claimed that it was forged as cited by al-Zayla'ī in Nas.b al-Rāya (4:272-273) but this ruling was rejected by al-Suyūt.ī in al-La'āli' (2:68); [3] maqt.ū' from Wuhayb by Abū Nu'aym in the H.ilya (1985 ed. 8:158-159); [4] Abū Hurayra by Ibn 'Asākir with a very weak chain cf. Ibn 'Arrāq, Tanzīh al-Sharī'a (1:228); and [5] Abū Bakr in al-Tadwīn and al-Firdaws.

13. Narrated from Mu'ādh in the Sunan and Ah.mad save al-Nasā'ī.

14. Cf. al-Kāsānī, Badā'i' al-S.anā'i' (5:126).

15. Ibn 'ābidīn, H.āshiya (6:396-397).

16.Al-Qārī, al-Maslak al-Mutaqassit. (p. 282), Ibn al-Humām, Fath. al-Qadīr (3:180).

WAllahu aʿlam.

GF Haddad
[SP 2006-11-03]