Al-Ḥayda wal-Iʿtidhār Attributed to ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Kinānī (d. 240 AH)
الحيدة والاعتذار للكناني
Al-Ḥayda wal-Iʿtidhār [The Evasion and Apology]
Attributed to ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Kinānī
(d. 240 AH)
Compiled by:
الشيخ محمود يزبك أبو عبد الرحمن
Shaykh Maḥmūd Yazbak Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān[i]
التَّرْجَمَة مَعَ الحَوَاشِي بِقَلَم:
أَبِي الحَسَن حُسَين أَحْمَد
Translation with additional commentary by:
Abul Ḥasan Ḥussain Aḥmed
(darultahqiq.com)
موضوع في سنده وضاع!!
Fabricated in its chain of narration and lost!!
كتاب الحيدة والاعتذار لعبد العزيز الكناني موضوع، في سنده وضاع وهو محمد ابن الأزهر القطايعي، اتهمه الحفاظ بالوضع، وكذلك الكتاب فهو المروي من خلاله.
The book Al-Ḥayda wal-Iʿtidhār[ii] [The Evasion and Apology] by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Kinānī (d. 240 AH) is fabricated, in its chain is a fabricator who is Muḥammad ibn al-Azhar al-Qaṭāʾiʿī. The scholars of hadith [ḥuffāẓ] accused him of fabrication, and likewise the book as it is narrated through him.
الكتاب بتحقيق د. علي بن ناصر الفقيهي
The book was critically edited by Dr. ʿAlī ibn Nāṣir al-Faqīhī[iii]
كتاب الحيدة والاعتذار للكناني في سنده وضاع، وهو أبو بكر محمد بن الحسن بن الأزهر بن حسين القطايعي.
The book Al-Ḥayda wal-Iʿtidhār[iv] [The Evasion and Apology] by al-Kinānī has a fabricator in its chain, who is Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Azhar ibn Ḥussain al-Qaṭāʾiʿī.[v]
اتهم الذهبي الكتاب بالوضع، قال: “قلت لم يصح إسناد كتاب الحيدة إليه فكأنه وضع عليه. والله أعلم” [ميزان الاعتدال – 639/2].
Al-Dhahabī suspected the book of being a fabrication, saying: “I say: the chain of al-Ḥayda [The Evasion] to him is not authentic, thus it appears it was fabricated upon him (al-Kinānī). And Allah knows best” [Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl [The Scale of Moderation] – 2/639].[vi]
وكذا السبكي، قال المحقق: “فقد تبع في ذلك قول الذهبي – وزاد قوله – إن في الكتاب أمورا مستشنعة – ثم قال – ولكنه موضوع كما قال شيخنا الذهبي“.
And likewise, al-Subkī,[vii] the editor (ʿAlī ibn Nāṣir al-Faqīhī) said: “He followed al-Dhahabī’s statement in this – and added his saying – that in the book are reprehensible matters – then he said – but it is fabricated as our teacher al-Dhahabī said.”
وكذا ابن حجر، بعد أن ذكر ترجمة محمد بن الأزهر قال: “ويغلب على ظني أنه هو الذي وضع كتاب الحيدة، فإني لأستبعد وقوعه جدا” [لسان الميزان – 128/5]
And likewise, Ibn Ḥajar,[viii] after mentioning the biography of Muḥammad ibn al-Azhar said: “It predominantly appears to me that he is the one who fabricated the book al-Ḥayda, for I find its occurrence very improbable” [Lisān al-Mīzān – 5/128]
وأيضا بحسب موسوعة الحديث، اتهمه ابن الجوزي والسمعاني والبغدادي، فقد قال بأنه وضاع خمسة من أئمة الحديث إذا قالوا عنه وضاع!!
And also, according to Mawsūʿat al-Ḥadīth [The Encyclopaedia of Hadith], Ibn al-Jawzī[ix], al-Samʿānī and al-Baghdādī[x] accused him, as five of the hadith scholars [aʾimmat al-ḥadīth] have said he is a fabricator when they spoke about him!![xi]
[راجع الكتاب بتحقيق د. علي بن ناصر الفقيهي – ص 7-10]
[See the book with critical edition by Dr. ʿAlī ibn Nāṣir al-Faqīhī – pp. 7-10]الكتاب الملصق عليه اسم ابن تيكتوكا الفوطي
The book with Ibn Ṭiktokā al-Fūṭī’s[xii] name attached to it
وبنفس الإسناد الذي اعتمده المحقق الفقيهي نقل ابن تيكتوكا الفوطي محمد بن شمس الدين، إذ ابن تيكتوكا الفوطي فقط يضع اسمه على الكتاب ولا يحقق وينقل فقط. ولكي يهرب من كون الكتاب موضوعا قال: نقله ابن بطة في الإبانة. فتعالوا بنا للنظر
And with the same chain that al-Faqīhī the editor relied upon, Ibn Ṭiktokā al-Fūṭī Muḥammad ibn Shams al-Dīn transmitted it, as Ibn Ṭiktokā al-Fūṭī only puts his name on the book and does not verify but only transmits. And to escape from the book being fabricated he said: Ibn Baṭṭa transmitted it in al-Ibāna[xiii] [The Clarification]. So let us examine
في ترجمة ابن بطة
The biography of Ibn Baṭṭa (d. 387 AH)
الخطيب البغدادي يبين إسنادا موضوعا من فعل ابن بطة
Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī explains a fabricated chain from Ibn Baṭṭa’s doing:
قال الخطيب بعد إيراد الحديث: “قلت: وهذا الحديث باطل من حديث مالك، ومن حديث مصعب عنه، ومن حديث البغوي عن مصعب، وهو موضوع بهذا الإسناد، والحمل فيه على ابن بطة، والله أعلم.” [تاريخ بغداد (الشاملة) – ت بشار عواد – 100/12]
Al-Khaṭīb said after citing the hadith: “I say: And this hadith is false from the hadith of Mālik, and from the hadith of Muṣʿab from him, and from the hadith of al-Baghawī from Muṣʿab, and it is fabricated [mawḍūʿ] with this chain of transmission [isnād], and the blame for it falls upon Ibn Baṭṭa, and Allah knows best.” [Tārīkh Baghdād [The History of Baghdad] (al-Shāmila) – ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād – 12/100]
ابن بطة يحك اسما من الكتاب ويثبته لنفسه!
Ibn Baṭṭa erases a name from the book and establishes it for himself!
قال الحافظ: “وقال الخطيب حدثني أحمد بن الحسن بن خيرون قال: رأيت كتاب بن بطة بمعجم البغوي في نسخة كانت لغيره، وقد حك اسم صاحبها وكتب عليها اسمه، قال ابن عساكر: وقد أراني شيخنا أبو القاسم السمرقندي بعض نسخه بن بطة بمعجم البغوي فوجدت سماعه فيه مصلحا بعد الحك كما حكاه الخطيب عن ابن خيرون.”
The Ḥāfiẓ (Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī) said: “And al-Khaṭīb said Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Khayrūn told me: I saw Ibn Baṭṭa’s book of al-Baghawī’s Muʿjam [Lexicon] in a copy that belonged to someone else, and he had erased its owner’s name and wrote his name on it. Ibn ʿAsākir said: And our teacher Abū al-Qāsim al-Samarqandī showed me some of Ibn Baṭṭa’s copies of al-Baghawī’s Muʿjam [Lexicon] and I found his hearing in it corrected after erasure as al-Khaṭīb narrated from Ibn Khayrūn.”
[لسان الميزان (الشاملة) – 114/4]
[Lisān al-Mīzān (al-Shāmila edition) – 4/114]تلاعب ابن بطة بالإسناد
Ibn Baṭṭa’s manipulation of the chain:
قال الحافظ: “وحكى الحسن بن شهاب نحو هذه الحكاية عن الدارقطني وزاد أنهم أبردوا بريدا إلى اردبيل وكان ولد حفص بن عمر حيا هناك فعاد جوابه أن أباه لم يروه عن رجاء بن مرجا ولم يره قط وأن مولده كان بعد موته بسنتين قال فتبع بن بطة النسخ التي كتبت عنه وغير الرواية وجعل مكانها عن أبي البراء حبان عن فتح بن شخرف عن رجاء” [لسان الميزان (الشاملة) – 114/4]
The Ḥāfiẓ (Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī) said: “And al-Ḥasan ibn Shihāb related something similar to this account from al-Dāraquṭnī and added that they sent a messenger to Ardabīl, and the son of Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar was alive there. His reply came back that his father did not narrate it from Rajāʾ ibn Marjā and never saw him at all, and that his birth was two years after his (Rajāʾ’s) death. He said so Ibn Baṭṭa followed up the copies that were written from him and changed the narration and put in its place [a chain] from Abū al-Barāʾ Ḥibbān from Fatḥ ibn Shakhraf from Rajāʾ” [Lisān al-Mīzān (al-Shāmila) – 4/114]
وقد ضعف ابن بطة عدد من الحفاظ منهم الذهبي وابن حجر والخطيب والأزهري وغيرهم.
And a number of the hadith scholars [ḥuffāẓ] weakened Ibn Baṭṭa including al-Dhahabī,[xiv] Ibn Ḥajar,[xv] al-Khaṭīb[xvi], al-Azharī[xvii] and others.
تعليق إنفوجرافيك سنة:
Sunna Infographic Comment:
يحتج المخاليط بهذه الكتب ويقولون كيف تنكرون كتبا نقل عنها العلماء، ويقصدون بهؤلاء العلماء – طبعا – ابن تيمية وابن القيم. وينبغي للوهابي أن يكون كليل الفهم والإدراك حتى يعترض بمثل هذا الاعتراض، وهو كذلك مع الأسف، إذ كيف يتحتج برموز هم أساسا طرف في الخلاف أولا، ثانيا حتى لو نقل غيرهم من الأجلاء شيئا هذا لا يعتبر حجة في ثبوت كل ما بين أيدينا، فنحن لا نعرف النسخة التي كانت عندهم وبأي إسناد كانت، ولكننا ملزمون بإثبات ما بين أيدينا لا ما كان بين أيدي أحد سابقا، وأيضا احتمال انقطاع الإسناد فيما كان بين أيديهم وارد، وفي كل الأحوال لا حجة فيها .. فتأمل كيف يراوع هؤلاء المخاليط فقط من أجل إثبات هذه العقائد بأي طريقة كانت، تماما كفعل اليهود والنصارى، ولا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله
The confused ones argue with these books and say how can you deny books that scholars transmitted from, and they mean by these scholars – of course – Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim. And it is fitting for the Wahhābī[xviii] to be dull in understanding and comprehension until he objects with such an objection, and he is like that unfortunately, for how can one argue using figures who are essentially a party to the dispute firstly, secondly even if others from the eminent ones transmitted something this is not considered proof in establishing everything we have, for we do not know the copy they had and with what chain it had, but we are obligated to establish what we have not what someone else had previously, and also the possibility of discontinuity in the chain in what they had is possible, and in all cases there is no proof in them.. So, contemplate how these confused ones deceive only for establishing these beliefs by any means possible, exactly like the actions of the Jews and Christians, and there is no power or might except with Allah.
Original Sunna Infographic:
Commentary by the translator:
[i] His background details were mentioned by himself in Arabic and here is a summary of what he mentioned:
Maḥmūd Zakī Yazbak (Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān) is a Shāfiʿī scholar born in Damascus, Syria in 1985 who follows the Ashʿarī school of theology. His educational journey began in 2000 at the Institute of Shaykh Badr al-Dīn al-Ḥasanī (formerly al-Amīniyyah), where he studied various Islamic sciences.
He studied under numerous scholars, including specialists in each field. He later enrolled at Damascus University, graduating from the History Department in 2011. Due to circumstances, he was forced to emigrate and temporarily pause his religious studies. In 2015, he resumed his Islamic studies under Shaykh ʿAbdullāh Idrīs al-Khalīlī, focusing particularly on the Ashʿarī creed.
[ii] The full title: Al-Ḥayda wal-Iʿtidhār fī al-Radd ʿalā man Qāla bi-Khalq al-Qurʾān (The Evasion and Apology in Refuting Those Who Claim the Qur’an is Created), attributed to: Abūl-Ḥasan ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā ibn Muslim ibn Maymūn al-Kinānī al-Makkī (d. 240 AH).
[iii] ʿAlī ibn Nāṣir al-Faqīhī (1354-1446 AH) was a prominent Saudi-Salafi author and Professor at the Prophet’s ﷺ Mosque and Islamic University of Madina. He edited a few works related to Islamic creed (aqīda). He died on 20-8-24. His biography is available here – https://shamela.ws/author/2113
The front cover of the edition he edited and being referred to in this article:
[iv] This work was praised, printed and disseminated by certain Salafis in recent times. For example, the Salafi writer known as Abū Sahl Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Maghrāwī said the following in his Mawsūʿat Mawāqif al-Salaf fī al-ʿAqīda wal-Manhaj wal-Tarbiya (Encyclopedia of the Salaf’s Positions on Creed, Methodology, and Education, 3/483) said the following:
كتاب الحيدة:
هذا شخص مبارك يعرفه من قرأ له كتابه ‘الحيدة’ وهو من أروع الكتب التي حملت قوة علم السلفيين، وشجاعتهم، وقوة ثباتهم وعدم مبالاتهم بالسلطان المبتدع الضال، ومن قرأ الكتاب يتبين له جهل المبتدعة بالمعقول والمنقول، وأن سلاحهم الوحيد في نشر بدعهم هو الحيلة والمكر والروغان المستمر، وعدم معرفتهم بباطلهم والرجوع إلى الحق. ولما لهذا الكتاب من مكانة في العقيدة السلفية، حاول أعداء هذه المدرسة الطعن في الشخص والكتاب
Meaning: “Kitab al-Ḥayda: This is a blessed person (al-Kinānī) known to those who have read his book ‘al-Ḥayda’, which is one of the most magnificent books that carried the scholarly strength of the Salafis, their courage, their steadfastness, and their indifference to the innovative and misguided ruler. Whoever reads the book will see the innovators’ ignorance of both reason and transmission, and that their only weapon in spreading their innovations is trickery, deception, continuous evasion, and their lack of recognition of their falsehood and return to truth. Due to this book’s status in Salafi creed, the enemies of this school tried to discredit both the person and the book..”
Al-Albānī’s verdict:
The late Salafi writer known as Muḥammad Nāṣirud-Dīn al-Albānī (d. 1999) had the following to say about this work in his notes to Sharḥ al-ʿAqīda al-Ṭaḥāwiyya by the controversial Ibn Abī al-ʿIzz (see p. 172 here – https://app.turath.io/book/10549?page=168):
عبد العزيز المكي: هو عبد العزيز بن يحيى الكناني، أحد الفقهاء من أصحاب الشافعي، قدم بغداد أيام المأمون، وجرى بينه وبين بشر المريسي مناظرة في خلق القرآن، بحضرة الخليفة المأمون، وصنف كتاب «الحيدة» أثبت فيه نص مناظرته لبشر لكن في ثبوت هذه المناظرة نظر فإنه تفرد بروايتها محمد بن الحسن بن أزهر الدعاء، وقد اتهمه الخطيب بأنه يضع الحديث وذكر الذهبي أنه هو الذي وضعها، فراجع «الميزان» «٣/ ٤٤» و«طبقات السبكي» «١/ ٢٦٥».
Meaning:
ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Makkī: He is ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Kinānī, one of the jurists from among al-Shāfiʿī’s companions. He came to Baghdad during the days of al-Ma’mūn, and there occurred between him and Bishr al-Marīsī a debate concerning the creation of the Qur’an, in the presence of the Caliph al-Ma’mūn. He authored the book “Al-Ḥayda” in which he documented the text of his debate with Bishr. However, there is doubt regarding the authenticity of this debate, as its narration was exclusively reported by Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Azhar al-Daʿʿāʾ , whom al-Khaṭīb accused of fabricating hadith. Al-Dhahabī mentioned that he [ibn Azhar] was the one who fabricated it. Refer to “Al-Mīzān” (3/44) and “Ṭabaqāt al-Subkī” (1/265).
[v] Al-Dhahabī has the following to say in his Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (4/91, Risāla edition):
6985- محمد بن الحسن بن أزهر الدَّعَّاء.
عن عباس الدوري.
اتهمه أَبو بكر الخطيب بأنه يضع الحديث.
قلت: هو الذي انفرد برواية كتاب الحيدة.
رواه عنه أَبو عمرو بن السماك, ورأيت له حديثا إسناده ثقات سواه, وهو كذب: في فضل عائشة.
ويغلب على ظني أنه هو الذي وضع كتاب الحيدة, إني لأستبعد وقوعها جدا.
قال الخطيب: هو أَبو بكر القطائعي الأصم الدعاء.
حدث عن قعنب بن المحرر, وعمر بن شبة, والعباس بن يزيد البحراني.
روى عنه ابن السماك, ومحمد بن عَبد الله بن بخيت الدقاق, وأبو حفص بن شاهين, وأبو حفص الكتاني, قال: وكان غير ثقة، يروي الموضوعات, فمما ألصق بالبحراني: حدثنا ابن علية, حدثنا أيوب, عن نافع, عن ابن عمر, مرفوعًا: وزن حبر العلماء بدم الشهداء فرجح عليهم.
مات سنة عشرين وثلاث مِئَة.
Meaning:
“6985- Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Azhar al-Daʿʿāʾ.
[He narrated] from ʿAbbās al-Dūrī.Abū Bakr al-Khaṭīb accused him of fabricating hadith.
I say: He is the one who solely narrated the book Al-Ḥayda.
Abū ʿAmr ibn al-Sammāk narrated from him, and I saw a hadith from him with trustworthy narrators except for him, and it is a lie: regarding the virtues of ʿĀʾisha.
It predominantly appears to me that he is the one who fabricated the book al-Ḥayda, for I find its occurrence very improbable.
Al-Khaṭīb said: He is Abū Bakr al-Qaṭāʾiʿī al-Aṣamm al-Daʿʿāʾ.
He narrated from Qaʿnab ibn al-Muḥarrar, ʿUmar ibn Shabba, and al-ʿAbbās ibn Yazīd al-Baḥrānī.
Ibn al-Sammāk, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Bakhīt al-Daqqāq, Abū Ḥafṣ ibn Shāhīn, and Abū Ḥafṣ al-Kattānī narrated from him. He said: And he was not trustworthy, he would narrate fabrications. Among what he falsely attributed to al-Baḥrānī: Ibn ʿUlayya told us, from Ayyūb, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, as a raised report [marfūʿan]: “The ink of scholars was weighed against the blood of martyrs and it outweighed them.”
He died in the year three hundred and twenty [320 AH].”
—
Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī said the following about the above narrator in his Tārīkh Baghdād (2/591):
وكان غير ثقة، يروي الموضوعات عن الثقات.
Meaning:
“And he was not trustworthy, he would narrate fabrications from trustworthy narrators.”
Here follows the chain of transmission from three manuscripts of Kitab al-Hayda all having the unreliable narrator (Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Azhar al-Daʿʿāʾ) in them:
- Tübingen manuscript (https://opendigi.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/opendigi/MaVI95#p=6):
- University Library of Leipzig, Vollers collection no. 112, folio 2a:
- Manuscript from the Asad Effendi collection in Turkiye (no. 2377, folio 2a):
[vi] The full entry by al-Dhahabī in his Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (2/557):
4885- عَبد العزيز بن يحيى بن عَبد العزيز الكناني المكي.
الذي ينسب إليه الحيدة في مناظرته لبشر المريسي, فكان يلقب بالغول لدمامته.
ذكر داود الظاهري أنه صحب الشافعي مدة.
روى عن ابن عيينة وجماعة يسيرة.
روى عنه أَبو العيناء, والحسين بن الفضل البجلي, وأبو بكر يعقوب بن إبراهيم التيمي.
وله تصانيف.
قلت: لم يصح إسناد كتاب الحيدة إليه, فكأنه وضع عليه.
والله أعلم.
Meaning:
“4885- ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Kinānī al-Makkī.
He is the one to whom Al-Ḥayda is attributed regarding his debate with Bishr al-Marīsī, and he was nicknamed “The Ghoul” due to his ugly appearance.
Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī mentioned that he accompanied al-Shāfiʿī for a period.
He narrated from Ibn ʿUyayna and a small group.
Abū al-ʿAynāʾ, al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Faḍl al-Bajalī, and Abū Bakr Yaʿqūb ibn Ibrāhīm al-Taymī narrated from him.
He has written works.
I say: The chain of narration for the book al-Ḥayda to him is not authentic, so it appears it was fabricated upon him.
And Allah knows best.”
[vii] Tāj al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Subkī (d. 771 AH) mentioned the following in his Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-Kubrā (The Major Biographical Dictionary of Shafi’i Scholars, 2/144):
عبد الْعَزِيز بن يحيى بن عبد الْعَزِيز بن مُسلم بن مَيْمُون الكنانى المكى
الذى ينْسب إِلَيْهِ كتاب الحيدة
روى عَن سُفْيَان بن عُيَيْنَة ومروان بن مُعَاوِيَة الفزارى وَعبد الله بن معَاذ الصنعانى وَمُحَمّد بن إِدْرِيس الشافعى وَبِه تخرج وَهِشَام بن سُلَيْمَان المخزومى وَغَيرهم
روى عَنهُ أَبُو العيناء مُحَمَّد بن الْقَاسِم بن خَلاد وَالْحُسَيْن بن الْفضل البجلى وَأَبُو بكر يَعْقُوب بن إِبْرَاهِيم التيمى وَغَيرهم وَهُوَ قَلِيل الحَدِيث
وَيُقَال كَانَ يلقب بالغول لدمامة منظره
وَعَن أَبى العيناء لما دخل عبد الْعَزِيز المكى على الْمَأْمُون وَكَانَت خلقته شنعة جدا ضحك أَبُو إِسْحَاق المعتصم فَقَالَ يَا أَمِير الْمُؤمنِينَ لم يضْحك هَذَا لم يصطف الله يُوسُف ﵇ لجماله وَإِنَّمَا اصطفاه الله لدينِهِ وَبَيَانه فَضَحِك الْمَأْمُون وَأَعْجَبهُ
قَالَ الْخَطِيب قدم بَغْدَاد زمن الْمَأْمُون وَجَرت بَينه وَبَين بشر المريسى مناظرة فى الْقُرْآن
قلت أى رد على بشر قَوْله بِخلق الْقُرْآن كَذَا بَينه الشَّيْخ أَبُو إِسْحَاق وَهُوَ مَشْهُور
قَالَ الْخَطِيب وَكَانَ من أهل الْعلم وَالْفضل وَله مصنفات عدَّة وَكَانَ مِمَّن تفقه بالشافعى واشتهر بِصُحْبَتِهِ
وَقَالَ دَاوُد بن على الظاهرى كَانَ عبد الْعَزِيز بن يحيى أحد أَتبَاع الشافعى والمقتبسين عَنهُ وَقد طَالَتْ صحبته لَهُ وَخرج مَعَه إِلَى الْيمن وآثار الشافعى فى كتب عبد الْعَزِيز ظَاهِرَة
وَنقل الْخَطِيب أَن عبد الْعَزِيز قَالَ دخلت على أَحْمد بن أَبى دؤاد وَهُوَ مفلوج فَقلت إنى لم آتِك عَائِدًا وَلَكِن جِئْت لِأَحْمَد الله أَن سجنك فى جِلْدك
قَالَ شَيخنَا الذهبى فَهَذَا يدل على أَن عبد الْعَزِيز كَانَ حَيا فى حُدُود الْأَرْبَعين
قلت وعَلى أَنه كَانَ ناصرا للسّنة فى نفى خلق الْقُرْآن كَمَا دلّت عَلَيْهِ مناظرته مَعَ بشر وَكتاب الحيدة الْمَنْسُوب إِلَيْهِ فِيهِ أُمُور مستشنعة لكنه كَمَا قَالَ شَيخنَا الذهبى لم يَصح إِسْنَاده إِلَيْهِ وَلَا ثَبت أَنه من كَلَامه فَلَعَلَّهُ وضع عَلَيْهِ
Meaning:
ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Muslim ibn Maymūn al-Kinānī al-Makkī, to whom the book Al-Ḥayda is attributed, narrated from Sufyān ibn ʿUyayna, Marwān ibn Muʿāwiya al-Fazārī, ʿAbdullāh ibn Muʿādh al-Ṣanʿānī, Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī (under whom he studied), Hishām ibn Sulaymān al-Makhzūmī, and others.
Those who narrated from him include Abū al-ʿAynāʾ Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim ibn Khallād, al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Faḍl al-Bajalī, Abū Bakr Yaʿqūb ibn Ibrāhīm al-Taymī, and others. He narrated few hadith, and it is said he was nicknamed “The Ghoul” due to his ugly appearance.
According to Abū al-ʿAynāʾ, when ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Makkī entered upon al-Maʾmūn, and his appearance was very unsightly, Abū Isḥāq al-Muʿtaṣim laughed. So he said, “O Commander of the Faithful, why does this one laugh? Allah did not choose Yūsuf (peace be upon him) for his beauty, but rather Allah chose him for his religion and his eloquence.” Al-Maʾmūn laughed and was impressed by this.
Al-Khaṭīb said: He came to Baghdad during al-Maʾmūn’s time and had a debate with Bishr al-Marīsī about the Qur’an. I say: meaning he refuted Bishr’s statement about the creation of the Qur’an, as Shaykh Abū Isḥāq explained, and it is well-known.
Al-Khaṭīb said: He was among the people of knowledge and virtue, and he has several works. He was among those who studied jurisprudence under al-Shāfiʿī and became known for accompanying him. Dāwūd ibn ʿAlī al-Ẓāhirī said: ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā was one of al-Shāfiʿī’s followers and those who learned from him. He accompanied him for a long time and went with him to Yemen. Al-Shāfiʿī’s influence is apparent in ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz’s books.
Al-Khaṭīb related that ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz said: “I entered upon Aḥmad ibn Abī Duʾād while he was paralyzed, and I said: ‘I didn’t come to visit you, but I came to praise Allah for imprisoning you in your own body.'” Our Shaykh al-Dhahabī said: This indicates that ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz was alive around the year 240. I say: And it shows that he was a supporter of the Sunna in denying the creation of the Qur’an, as evidenced by his debate with Bishr and the book al-Ḥayda attributed to him. In it are reprehensible matters, but as our Shaykh al-Dhahabī said, its chain of narration to him is not authentic, nor is it established that it is from his words, so perhaps it was fabricated upon him.
[viii] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī was actually quoting the words of al-Dhahabī from his Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (4/91).
[ix] Ibn al-Jawzi mentioned the following about him in his Al-Muntaẓam fī Tārīkh al-Umam wal-Mulūk (13/312):
وَكَانَ غير ثقة، يروى الموضوعات عن الثقات
Meaning: “He was unreliable, transmitting fabricated [reports by concoction] from trustworthy authorities”
[x] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī also mentioned the following in his Lisān al-Mīzān (7/71):
قال ابن السمعاني: كان يضع الحديث.
وقال الخطيب: هذان الحديثان، يعني اللذين تقدما – مما صنعت يداه.
ووجه استبعاد المصنف كتاب “الحيدة” أنه يشتمل على مناظرات أقيمت فيها الحجة لتصحيح مذهب أهل السنة عند المأمون وأعجبه قول صاحبها , فلو كان الأمر كذلك ما كان المأمون يرجع إلى مذهب الجهمية ويحمل الناس عليه ويعاقب على تركه ويهدد بالقتل، وَغيره كما هو معروف في أخباره وفي كتب المحنة.
Meaning:
Ibn al-Samʿānī said: “He used to fabricate hadith.”
Al-Khaṭīb said: “These two hadith – meaning the preceding ones – are from what his hands created (fabricated).”
The author’s reason for finding the book al-Ḥayda [The Evasion] improbable is that it contains debates in which evidence was established to validate the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna before al-Maʾmūn, and he was impressed by its author’s statements. If this were the case, al-Maʾmūn would not have reverted to the doctrine of the Jahmiyya, compelled people to follow it, punished those who abandoned it, and threatened with execution and other punishments, as is well-known in his historical accounts and in the books about the Inquisition [miḥna].
[xi] The late Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ (d. 2016) and Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf mentioned their verdict in their Taḥrīr Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb (2/374) as follows:
قلنا: لا تصح نسبة كتاب «الحيدة» إليه، فقد قال الذهبي في ترجمته من «الميزان» ٢/ ٦٣٩: ولم يصح إسناد كتاب الحيدة إليه فكأنه وُضع عليه، ثم قال في ترجمة محمد بن الحسن بن أزهر الدعاء: اتهمه الخطيب بأنه يضع الحديث، وهو الذي انفرد برواية كتاب «الحيدة»، ويغلب على ظني أنه هو الذي وضع كتاب «الحيدة»، فإني لأستبعد وقوعها جدًّا. وقال السبكي في «طبقاته» ٢/ ١٤٥: وكتاب «الحيدة» المنسوب إلى عبد العزيز الكناني، فيه أمور مستشنعة، لكن كما قال شيخنا الذهبي لم يصح إسناده إليه، ولا ثبت أنه من كلامه، فلعله وضع عليه.
Meaning: We say: The attribution of the book “al-Ḥayda” to him is not authentic, for al-Dhahabī said in his biography in “Al-Mīzān” 2/639: “The chain of narration of the book Al-Ḥayda to him is not authentic, so it appears it was fabricated upon him.” Then he said in the biography of Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Azhar al-Daʿʿāʾ: “Al-Khaṭīb accused him of fabricating hadith, and he is the one who solely narrated the book ‘Al-Ḥayda’, and it predominantly appears to me that he is the one who fabricated the book ‘Al-Ḥayda’, for I find its occurrence very improbable.” And al-Subkī said in his “Ṭabaqāt” 2/145: “And the book ‘Al-Ḥayda’ attributed to ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Kinānī contains reprehensible matters, but as our teacher al-Dhahabī said, its chain of narration to him is not authentic, nor is it established that it is from his words, so perhaps it was fabricated upon him.”
[xii] The passage appears to be referencing a contemporary Salafi social media commentator known as Muḥammad ibn Shams al-Dīn, who has disseminated unscholarly critiques of traditional Sunni scholarship and works through online platforms like TikTok, YouTube etc. The author’s tone suggests disagreement with this individual’s approach to scholarly discourse.
[xiii] Meaning his al-Ibāna al-Kubrā
[xiv] Al-Dhahabī said the following about Ibn Batta in his al-Mughnī fī al-Ḍuʿafāʾ(The Sufficient Book on the Weak Narrators, 2/417, no. 3944):
عبيد الله بن مُحَمَّد بن بطة العكبري إِمَام لكنه لين صَاحب أَوْهَام مَاتَ سنة ثَمَانِينَ وثلثمائة
Meaning:
“ʿUbaydullāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Baṭṭa al-ʿUkbarī, an Imam but he was lenient [in narration], possessor of delusions. He died in the year three hundred and eighty [380 AH].”
NB – Ibn Batta actually died in 387AH as other biographies have mentioned. By delusions he meant mistakes in his transmission of certain narrations.
Al-Dhahabī said the following about Ibn Baṭṭa in his Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ(16/530):
قُلْتُ: لابنِ بَطَّةَ مَعَ فضلِهِ أَوهَامٌ وَغلطٌ.
“I say: Despite his virtue, Ibn Baṭṭa has delusions (in transmission of narrations) and errors.”
Al-Dhahabī also mentioned the following in his Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ(16/532):
قَالَ عَبْدُ الوَاحِدِ: وَكُنْتُ قَدْ رَأَيْتُ فِي كُتُبِ ابْنِ بَطَّةَ نُسْخَةً بِحَدِيْثِ عَلِيِّ بنِ الجَعْدِ قَدْ حَكَّهَا، وَكَتَبَ بِخَطِّهِ سمَاعَهُ فِيْهَا، فذكرتُ ذَلِكَ لِلْحَسَنِ بنِ شِهَابٍ، فَعجبَ مِنْهُ.
قَالَ عَبْدُ الوَاحِدِ: وَرَوَى ابْنُ بَطَّةَ، عَنِ النَّجَّادِ، عَنِ العُطَارِدِيِّ، فَأَنكرَ عَلِيُّ بنُ يَنَالَ عَلَيْهِ، وَأَسَاءَ القَوْلَ فِيْهِ، حَتَّى هَمَّتِ العَامَّةُ بِابْنِ ينَالَ، فَاخْتَفَى، ثُمَّ تَتَبَّعَ ابْنُ بَطَّةَ مَا خَرَّجَهُ كذَلِكَ، وَضَرَبَ عَلَيْهِ .
وَقَالَ عُبَيْدُ اللهِ الأَزْهَرِيُّ: ابْنُ بَطَّةَ ضَعِيْفٌ، وَعِنْدِي عَنْهُ (مُعْجَمُ البَغَوِيِّ) ، وَلاَ أُخرِّجُ عَنْهُ فِي (الصَّحِيْحِ) شَيْئاً.
وَقَالَ حَمْزَةُ بنُ مُحَمَّدِ بنِ طَاهِرٍ الدَّقَّاقُ: لَمْ يَسْمَع ابْنُ بَطَّةَ الغريبَ مِنِ ابْنِ عزيزٍ، وَقَالَ: ادَّعَى سمَاعَهُ.
قَالَ الخَطِيْبُ: وَرَوَى ابْنُ بَطَّةَ كتبَ ابْنِ قُتَيْبَةَ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ الدِّيْنِوَرِيِّ عَنْهُ، وَلاَ يعرفُ ابْنُ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ.
Meaning:
“ʿAbd al-Wāḥid said: I had seen among Ibn Baṭṭa’s books a manuscript containing the hadith of ʿAlī ibn al-Jaʿd which he had erased, and he wrote in his own handwriting his attestation of hearing [samāʿ] in it. I mentioned this to al-Ḥasan ibn Shihāb, and he was astonished by it.
ʿAbd al-Wāḥid said: Ibn Baṭṭa narrated from al-Najjād, from al-ʿUṭāridī, and ʿAlī ibn Yanāl criticized him for it and spoke badly of him, until the common people threatened Ibn Yanāl, so he went into hiding. Then Ibn Baṭṭa traced what he had transmitted like this and struck it out.
ʿUbaydullāh al-Azharī said: Ibn Baṭṭa is weak, and I have from him “Muʿjam al-Baghawī”, but I don’t extract anything from it in “the Ṣaḥīḥ”.
Ḥamza ibn Muḥammad ibn Ṭāhir al-Daqqāq said: Ibn Baṭṭa did not hear “al-Gharīb” from Ibn ʿAzīz, and he said: He claimed to have heard it.
[xv] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī mentioned the following in his Lisān al-Mīzān (5/342):
5039 – عُبَيد الله بن محمد بن بطة العكبري الفقيه.
إمام لكنه ذو أوهام لحق البغوي، وَابن صاعد.
قال ابن أبي الفوارس: روى ابن بطة عن البغوي عن مصعب عن مالك، عَن الزُّهْرِيّ، عَن أنس رضي الله عنه مرفوعا: طلب العلم فريضة على كل مسلم.
وهذا باطل.
العتيقي: حدثنا ابن بطة , حدثنا البغوي , حدثنا مصعب , حدثنا مالك عن هشام، عَن أبيه فذكر حديث قبض العلم وهو بهذا الإسناد باطل.
وقد روى ابن بطة عن النجاد عن العطاردي فأنكر عليه علي بن ينال وأساء القول فيه حتى همت العامة بابن ينال فاختفى.
وقال أبو القاسم الأزهري: ابن بطة ضعيف ضعيف.
قلت: ومع قلة إتقان ابن بطة في الرواية فكان إماما في السنة إماما في الفقه صاحب أحوال وإجابة دعوة رضي الله عنه، انتهى.
وقد وقفت لابن بطة على أمر استعظمته واقشعر جلدي منه. [ص:343]
قال ابن الجوزي في الموضوعات: أخبرنا علي بن عُبَيد الله الزاغواني أخبرنا علي بن أحمد بن البسري أنبأنا أبو عبد الله بن بطة , حدثنا إسماعيل بن محمد الصفار , حدثنا الحسن بن عرفة , حدثنا خلف بن خليفة، عَن حُمَيد الأعرج، عَن عَبد الله بن الحارث، عَن عَبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه قال: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: كلم الله تعالى موسى يوم كلمه وعليه جبة صوف وكساء صوف ونعلان من جلد حمار غير ذكي فقال: من ذا العبراني الذي يكلمني من الشجرة؟ قال: أنا الله.
قال ابن الجوزي: هذا لا يصح وكلام الله لا يشبه كلام المخلوقين والمتهم به حميد.
قلت: كلا والله بل حميد بريء من هذه الزيادة المنكرة فقد أخبرنا به الحافظ أبو الفضل بن الحسين بقراءتي عليه أخبرنا أبو الفتح الميدومي أخبرنا أبو الفرج بن الصيقل أخبرنا أبو الفرج بن كليب أخبرنا أبو القاسم بن بيان أخبرنا أبو الحسن بن مخلد أخبرنا إسماعيل بن محمد الصفار , حدثنا الحسن بن عرفة , حدثنا خلف بن خليفة، عَن حُمَيد الأعرج، عَن عَبد الله بن الحارث، عَن عَبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: يوم كلم الله تعالى موسى كانت عليه جبة صوف وسراويل صوف وكساء صوف وكمه صوف ونعلاه من جلد حمار غير ذكي.
وكذلك رواه الترمذي، عَن عَلِيّ بن حجر عن خلف بن خليفة بدون هذه الزيادة.
وكذا رواه سعيد بن منصور عن خلف دون هذه الزيادة.
وكذا رواه أبو يَعلَى في مسنده عن أحمد بن حاتم عن خلف بن خليفة بدون هذه الزيادة. [ص:344]
ورواه الحاكم في “المُستَدرَك” ظنا منه أن حميد الأعرج هو حميد بن قيس المكي الثقة وهو وهم منه.
وقد رواه من طريق عمر بن حفص بن غياث، عَن أبيه وخلف بن خليفة جميعا، عَن حُمَيد بدون هذه الزيادة.
وقد رويناه من طرق ليس فيها هذه الزيادة وما أدري ما أقول في ابن بطة بعد هذا فما أشك أن إسماعيل بن محمد الصفار لم يحدث بهذا قط والله أعلم بغيبه.
وقال أبو الفتح القواس: ذكرت لأبي سعد الإسماعيلي ابن بطة وعلمه وزهده فخرج إليه فلما عاد قال لي: هو فوق الوصف.
قال الخطيب: حدثني عبد الواحد بن علي العكبري قال: لم أر في شيوخ أصحاب الحديث، وَلا في غيرهم أحسن هيئة من ابن بطة. ومات سنة 387.
قال أبو ذر الهروي: سمعت نصر الأندلسي – وكان يحفظ ويفهم ورحل إلى خراسان – قال: خرجت إلى عكبرا فكتبت عن شيخ بها، عَن أبي خليفة وعن ابن بطة ورجعت إلى بغداد فقال الدارقطني: أيش كتبت، عَنِ ابن بطة؟ قلت: كتاب السنن لرَجَاء بن مُرَجَّا حدثني به عن حفص بن عمر الأردبيلي عن رَجَاء بن مُرَجَّا فقال الدارقطني: هذا محال دخل رَجَاء بن مُرَجَّا بغداد سنة أربعين ودخل حفص بن عمر سنة سبعين فكيف سمع منه.
وحكى الحسن بن شهاب نحو هذه الحكاية عن الدارقطني وزاد: إنهم أبردوا بريدا إلى أردبيل وكان ولد حفص بن عمر حيا هناك فعاد جوابه أن أباه لم يروه عن رَجَاء بن مُرَجَّا ولم يره قط وأن مولده كان بعد موته بسنتين.
قال: فتتبع ابن بطة النسخ التي كتبت عنه وغير الرواية وجعل مكانها: عن ابن الراجيان عن فتح بن شخرف عن رجاء. [ص:345]
وقال أبو القاسم التنوخي: أراد أبي أن يخرجني إلى عكبرا لأسمع من ابن بطة معجم الصحابة للبغوي فجاءه أبو عبد الله بن بكير وقال له: لا تفعل فإن ابن بطة لم يسمعه من البغوي.
وقال الأزهري: عندي، عَنِ ابن بطة معجم البغوي فلا أخرج عنه في الصحيح شيئا لأنا لم نر له به أصلا وإنما دفع إلينا نسخة طرية بخط ابن شهاب فقرأناها عليه.
وقال الخطيب: حدثني أحمد بن الحسن بن خيرون قال: رأيت كتاب ابن بطة بمعجم البغوي في نسخة كانت لغيره وقد حك اسم صاحبها وكتب عليها اسمه.
قال ابن عساكر: وقد أراني شيخنا أبو القاسم السمرقندي بعض نسخة ابن بطة بمعجم البغوي فوجدت سماعه فيه مصلحا بعد الحك كما حكاه الخطيب، عَنِ ابن خيرون.
وقال أبو ذر الهروي: أجهدت على أن يخرج لي شيئا من الأصول فلم يفعل فزهدت فيه.
Meaning:
5039 – ʿUbaydullāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Baṭṭa al-ʿUkbarī, the jurist.
An Imam but prone to delusions (when transmitting narrations). He met al-Baghawī and Ibn Ṣāʿid.
Ibn Abī al-Fawāris said: Ibn Baṭṭa narrated from al-Baghawī from Muṣʿab from Mālik, from al-Zuhrī, from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) as a raised report [marfūʿan]: “Seeking knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim.”
And this is false.
Al-ʿAtīqī: Ibn Baṭṭa told us, al-Baghawī told us, Muṣʿab told us, Mālik told us from Hishām, from his father – then he mentioned the hadith about the withdrawal of knowledge, and with this chain it is false.
Ibn Baṭṭa narrated from al-Najjād from al-ʿUṭāridī, and ʿAlī ibn Yanāl criticized him for it and spoke badly of him until the common people threatened Ibn Yanāl, so he went into hiding.
Abū al-Qāsim al-Azharī said: “Ibn Baṭṭa is weak, weak.”
I say: Despite Ibn Baṭṭa’s lack of precision in narration, he was an Imam in the Sunna, an Imam in jurisprudence, a person of spiritual states and answered prayers, may Allah be pleased with him. End quote.
I came across something from Ibn Baṭṭa that I found enormously troubling and that made my skin crawl. [p.343].
Ibn al-Jawzī said in “al-Mawḍūʿāt” [The Fabrications]: ʿAlī ibn ʿUbaydullāh al-Zāghwānī informed us, ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad ibn al-Basrī informed us, Abū ʿAbdullāh ibn Baṭṭa informed us, Ismāʿīl ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣaffār told us, al-Ḥasan ibn ʿArafa told us, Khalaf ibn Khalīfa told us, from Ḥumayd al-Aʿraj, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ḥārith, from ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: The Prophet ﷺ said: “When Allah the Exalted spoke to Mūsā on the day He spoke to him, he was wearing a woolen cloak and woolen garment and sandals from the skin of an untanned donkey, and He said: ‘Who is this Hebrew who speaks to Me from the tree?’ He said: ‘I am Allah.'”
Ibn al-Jawzī said: This is not authentic. Allah’s speech does not resemble the speech of created beings, and Ḥumayd is accused regarding it.
I say: No, by Allah! Rather, Ḥumayd is innocent of this rejected addition, for the Ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Faḍl ibn al-Ḥussain informed us with my reading to him that Abū al-Fatḥ al-Maydūmī informed us, Abū al-Faraj ibn al-Ṣayqal informed us, Abū al-Faraj ibn Kulayb informed us, Abū al-Qāsim ibn Bayān informed us, Abū al-Ḥasan ibn Makhlad informed us, Ismāʿīl ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣaffār told us, al-Ḥasan ibn ʿArafa told us, Khalaf ibn Khalīfa told us, from Ḥumayd al-Aʿraj, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ḥārith, from ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “On the day Allah the Exalted spoke to Mūsā, he was wearing a woolen cloak, woolen trousers, a woolen garment, a woolen hood, and his sandals were from untanned donkey skin.”
And this is how al-Tirmidhī narrated it from ʿAlī ibn Ḥujr from Khalaf ibn Khalīfa without this addition.
And this is how Saʿīd ibn Manṣūr narrated it from Khalaf without this addition.
And this is how Abū Yaʿlā narrated it in his Musnad from Aḥmad ibn Ḥātim from Khalaf ibn Khalīfa without this addition. [p.344]
Al-Ḥākim narrated it in “Al-Mustadrak” thinking that Ḥumayd al-Aʿraj was Ḥumayd ibn Qays al-Makkī the trustworthy one, and this was a mistake on his part.
It was also narrated through ʿUmar ibn Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth, from his father and Khalaf ibn Khalīfa together, from Ḥumayd without this addition.
We have narrated it through various chains none of which contain this addition, and I don’t know what to say about Ibn Baṭṭa after this, for I have no doubt that Ismāʿīl ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣaffār never narrated this at all, and Allah knows best what is hidden.
Abū al-Fatḥ al-Qawwās said: I mentioned Ibn Baṭṭa’s knowledge and asceticism to Abū Saʿd al-Ismāʿīlī, so he went to him, and when he returned, he said to me: “He is beyond description.”
Al-Khaṭīb said: ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn ʿAlī al-ʿUkbarī told me: “I have not seen among the hadith scholars’ teachers, nor among others, anyone of better appearance than Ibn Baṭṭa.” He died in the year 387.
Abū Dharr al-Harawī said: I heard Naṣr al-Andalusī – who was a memorizer and understood [hadith] and travelled to Khurāsān – say: “I went out to ʿUkbarā and wrote from a Shaykh there, from Abū Khalīfa and from Ibn Baṭṭa, and returned to Baghdad. Al-Dāraquṭnī said: ‘What did you write from Ibn Baṭṭa?’ I said: ‘The book of Sunan by Rajāʾ ibn Murrajjā, he narrated it to me from Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar al-Ardabīlī from Rajāʾ ibn Murrajjā.’ Al-Dāraquṭnī said: ‘This is impossible. Rajāʾ ibn Murrajjā entered Baghdad in the year forty, and Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar entered in the year seventy, so how could he have heard from him?'”
Al-Ḥasan ibn Shihāb related something similar to this account from al-Dāraquṭnī and added: They sent a messenger to Ardabīl, and the son of Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar was alive there. His reply came back that his father never narrated from Rajāʾ ibn Murrajjā and never saw him at all, and that his birth was two years after his death.
He said: So, Ibn Baṭṭa followed up the copies that were written from him and changed the narration and put in its place: from Ibn al-Rājiyān from Fatḥ ibn Shakhraf from Rajāʾ. [p.345]
Abū al-Qāsim al-Tanūkhī said: My father wanted to take me to ʿUkbarā to hear from Ibn Baṭṭa the Muʿjam al-Ṣaḥāba [Lexicon of Companions] by al-Baghawī, but Abū ʿAbdullāh ibn Bukayr came to him and said: “Don’t do it, for Ibn Baṭṭa never heard it from al-Baghawī.”
Al-Azharī said: I have al-Baghawī’s ‘Muʿjam’ from Ibn Baṭṭa, but I don’t extract anything authentic from it because we never saw him having an original copy of it. He only gave us a fresh copy in Ibn Shihāb’s handwriting, which we read to him.
Al-Khaṭīb said: Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Khayrūn told me: “I saw Ibn Baṭṭa’s copy of al-Baghawī’s ‘Muʿjam’ in a manuscript that belonged to someone else, and he had erased its owner’s name and written his name on it.”
Ibn ʿAsākir said: Our teacher Abū al-Qāsim al-Samarqandī showed me some of Ibn Baṭṭa’s copy of al-Baghawī’s ‘Muʿjam’, and I found his hearing certificate in it corrected after erasure, just as al-Khaṭīb related from Ibn Khayrūn.
Abū Dharr al-Harawī said: I tried hard to get him to bring out some of the original manuscripts, but he wouldn’t do it, so I lost interest in him.
[xvi] Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī mentioned as part of his entry on Ibn Baṭṭa the following in his Tārīkh Baghdād (12/100):
حَدَّثَنِي أحمد بن الحسن بن خيرون، قال: رأيت كتاب ابن بطة بمعجم البغوي في نسخة كانت لغيره، وقد حك اسم صاحبها وكتب اسمه عليها
Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Khayrūn narrated to me, saying: I saw Ibn Baṭṭa’s copy of al-Baghawī’s ‘Muʿjam’ in a manuscript that belonged to someone else, and he had erased its owner’s name and written his name on it.
قال لي أبو القاسم الأزهري: ابن بطة ضعيف، ليس بحجة، وعندي عنه معجم البغوي ولا أخرج منه في الصحيح شيئا.
Abū al-Qāsim al-Azharī said to me: Ibn Baṭṭa is weak, not authoritative, and I have al-Baghawī’s ‘Muʿjam’ from him, but I do not include anything from it in authentic narrations.
قلت له: فكيف كان كتابه بالمعجم؟ فقال: لم نر له أصلا به، وإنما دفع إلينا نسخة طرية بخط ابن شهاب فنسخنا منها، وقرأنا عليه
I said to him: “How was his book of the Muʿjam?” He said: “We never saw his original copy of it. He only gave us a fresh copy in Ibn Shihāb’s handwriting, so we copied from it and read it to him.”
شاهدت عند حمزة بن محمد بن طاهر الدقاق نسخة بكتاب محمد بن عزيز في غريب القرآن وعليها سماع ابن السوسنجردي من ابن بطة، عن ابن عزيز فسألت حَمْزَة عن ذلك، فأنكر أن يكون ابن بطة سمع الكتاب من ابن عزيز وقال: ادعى سماعه ورواه.
I witnessed at Ḥamza ibn Muḥammad ibn Ṭāhir al-Daqqāq’s possession a manuscript of Muḥammad ibn ʿAzīz’s book on rare words in the Qur’an [Gharīb al-Qurʾān], and on it was Ibn al-Sūsanjirdī’s certification of hearing [samāʿ] from Ibn Baṭṭa, from Ibn ʿAzīz. So, I asked Ḥamza about this, and he denied that Ibn Baṭṭa had heard the book from Ibn ʿAzīz and said: ‘He claimed to have heard it and transmitted it (falsely).’
قلت: وكذلك ادعى سماع كتب أبي محمد بن قتيبة ورواها عن شيخ سماه ابن أبي مريم، وزعم أنه دينوري حدثه عن ابن قتيبة، وابن أبي مريم هذا لا يعرفه أحد من أهل العلم ولا ذكره سوى ابن بطة، فالله أعلم.
I say: And likewise, he claimed to have heard the books of Abū Muḥammad ibn Qutayba and narrated them from a Shaykh he named Ibn Abī Maryam, claiming he was from Dīnawar and narrated to him from Ibn Qutayba. And this Ibn Abī Maryam is not known to any of the scholars, and no one mentioned him except Ibn Baṭṭa, and Allah knows best.
حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ الْوَاحِدِ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الأَسْدِيُّ، قَالَ: قَالَ لِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي الْفَوَارِسِ: رَوَى ابْنُ بَطَّةَ، عَنِ الْبَغَوِيِّ، عَنْ مُصْعَبِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ قَالَ: «طَلَبُ الْعِلْمِ فَرِيضَةٌ عَلَى كُلِّ مُسْلِمٍ»
ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn ʿAlī al-Asadī narrated to me, saying: Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Fawāris said to me: Ibn Baṭṭa narrated from al-Baghawī, from Muṣʿab ibn ʿAbd Allāh, from Mālik, from al-Zuhrī, from Anas, from the Prophet ﷺ who said: “Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim.”
قلت: وهذا الحديث باطل من حديث مالك، ومن حديث مصعب عنه، ومن حديث البغوي عن مصعب، وهو موضوع بهذا الإسناد، والحمل فيه على ابن بطة، والله أعلم.
I say: And this hadith is false as a narration of Mālik, and as a narration of Muṣʿab from him, and as a narration of al-Baghawī from Muṣʿab, and it is fabricated with this chain, and the burden for it falls upon Ibn Baṭṭa, and Allah knows best.
حَدَّثَنِي أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْعَتِيقِيُّ بِلَفْظِهِ مِنْ أَصْلِ كِتَابِهِ وَكَتَبَهُ لِي بِخَطِّهِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ حَمْدَانَ الْفَقِيهُ بِعُكْبَرَا، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْبَغَوِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا مُصْعَبُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الزُّبَيْرِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ أَنَسٍ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ يَقُولُ: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَقْبِضُ الْعِلْمَ انْتِزَاعًا»، الْحَدِيثَ.
Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-ʿAtīqī narrated to me in his words from his original book and wrote it for me in his handwriting, saying: ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥamdān the jurist narrated to us in ʿUkbarā, saying: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad al-Baghawī narrated to us, saying: Muṣʿab ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Zubayrī narrated to us, saying: Mālik ibn Anas narrated to us, from Hishām ibn ʿUrwa, from his father, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: “Indeed Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it,” the hadith.
وَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ أَيْضًا بَاطِلٌ مِنْ رِوَايَةِ الْبَغَوِيِّ عَنْ مُصْعَبٍ وَلَمْ أَرَهُ، عَنْ مُصْعَبٍ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ أَصَلا، فَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ
And this hadith is also false from the narration of al-Baghawī from Muṣʿab, and I have not seen it from Muṣʿab from Mālik at all, and Allah knows best.
—–
The verdict of Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 756 AH) on Ibn Baṭṭa:
Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī mentioned the following in his refutation of Ibn Taymiyya known as Shifāʾ al-Siqām fī Ziyārat Khayr al-Anām (p. 273):
وَقَدْ ذَكَرَ الخَطيبُ ابْنَ بَطَّة في «تأْريخِ بَغْداد» وَحَكى كَلامَ المُحَدِّثينَ فيهِ مِنْ جِهَةِ دَعْوى سَماعِ ما لَمْ يَسْمَعْ، وَقَوْلَ أَبي القاسِمِ الأَزْهَرِيّ فيهِ: إِنَّهُ ضَعيفٌ، ضَعيفٌ، ضَعيفٌ، لَيْسَ بِحُجَّةٍ.
Al-Khaṭīb mentioned Ibn Baṭṭa in Tārīkh Baghdād and related the statements of the hadith scholars about him regarding the claim of hearing what he did not hear, and Abū al-Qāsim al-Azharī’s statement about him: “He is weak, weak, weak, not an authority [ḥujja].”
وَذَكَرَ عَنْهُ، عَنِ البَغَوِيّ، عَنْ مُصْعَب، عَنْ مالِك، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيّ، عَنْ أَنَس، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّم: «طَلَبُ العِلْمِ فَريضَةٌ عَلى كُلِّ مُسْلِمٍ»
And he related from him, from al-Baghawī, from Muṣʿab, from Mālik, from al-Zuhrī, from Anas, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family): “Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim.”
وَقالَ: إِنَّهُ باطِلٌ مِنْ حَديثِ مالِكٍ وَمِنْ حَديثِ مُصْعَبٍ عَنْهُ، وَمِنْ حَديثِ البَغَوِيّ عَنْ مُصْعَب، وَهُوَ مَوْضوعٌ بِهذا الإِسْنادِ، وَالحَمْلُ فيهِ عَلى ابْنِ بَطَّة، هَكَذا قالَ في التّاريخِ.
And he said: “It is false from the hadith of Mālik and from the hadith of Muṣʿab from him, and from the hadith of al-Baghawī from Muṣʿab, and it is fabricated [mawḍūʿ] with this chain of transmission, and the blame for it falls upon Ibn Baṭṭa,” thus he said in the Tārīkh (History).
The verdict of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyā al-Muʿallimī al-Yamānī:
A well-known Salafi editor of Arabic manuscripts was the late ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyā al-Muʿallimī al-Yamānī (d. 1386AH/1966 CE). He mentioned the following about Ibn Batta after mentioning some narrations in his Al-Tankīl bi-mā fī Taʾnīb al-Kawtharī min al-Abāṭīl (2/571):
فالذي يتحصل أن ابن بطة مع علمه وزهده وفضله وصلاحه البارع كثير الوهم في الرواية فلا يتهم بما ينافي ما تواتر من صلاحه ولا يحتج بما ينفرد بروايته، ولا يشنع على الخطيب فيما صنعه وفاء بواجب فنه وإظهاراً لمقتضى نضره. والله الموفق
Meaning:
“What can be concluded is that Ibn Baṭṭa, despite his knowledge, asceticism, virtue, and outstanding righteousness, had many errors in narration [riwāya]. He should neither be accused of things that contradict what has been consistently reported of his righteousness, nor should what he alone narrates be used as evidence. And al-Khaṭīb should not be condemned for what he did in fulfilling the requirements of his discipline and demonstrating what his examination necessitated. And Allah is the One who grants success.”
Al-Albānī on Ibn Baṭṭa:
The late Salafi writer known as Muḥammad Nāṣirud-Dīn al-Albānī (d. 1999) had the following to say in a conversation available on audio in this link:
السائل : على ذكر ابن بطة كتابه الإبانة الصغرى الذي … هل يؤخذ عنه في الأسماء والصفات مثلًا؟ ذكرت الابانة لكن هل الإبانة الكبرى أو الصغرى؟
Questioner: Speaking of Ibn Baṭṭa, his book Al-Ibāna Al-Ṣughrā which… can it be relied upon regarding the Divine Names and Attributes for example? You mentioned Al-Ibāna but is it Al-Ibāna Al-Kubrā or Al-Ṣughrā?
الشيخ : ما أستحضر الجواب الآن، عندنا في المكتبة الظاهرية نسخة خطية من الابانة مشوشة الترتيب، وكانت أصابها الماء ومحا كثيرًا مِن كتابتها، وكنت استفدت منها أشياء كثيرة فتجلى لي أنّ ابن بطة من الحنابلة الذين عندهم شيء من الغلو في إثبات الصفات، وقد يثبتون صفة بروايات لا تصح أسانيدها، وإن صحت فلا تصح نسبتها إلى الرسول عليه السلام؛ لأنها تكون إما – يعنى – موقوفة وإما مقطوعة، وعلى نحو هذا الدارمي في رده على المريسي، … والحقيقة أنه هذا الموضوع هام جدًّا، وينبغي تصفية الروايات الضعيفة وإبعادها عن العقيدة الصحيحة، وهذا ما حاولت القيام به حينما اختصرت ” العلو للعلي الغفار ” أو ” للعلي العظيم ” للإمام الذهبي، … كون الامام الذهبي – كما تعلمون – إمامًا في هذا الصدد، ومع ذلك تساهل في ذكر بعض الروايات ومنها مثلًا رواية مجاهد أنّ الله عز وجل يقعد معه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على عرشه، وهذه رواية تلقاها الكثير ممن … عقيدتهم كأنه حديث مرفوع عن الرسول عليه السلام، مع أنه لو قال مجاهد: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في حديث فقهي لكان هذا الحديث مرسلًا ولا يثبت به حكم فقهي، فكيف وهو – أوَّلًا – لم يرفعه إلى الرسول عليه السلام، وثانيًا: هو في العقيدة وليس في الفقه، ومع ذلك تلَقَّوْه على طريقة التسليم أو المسَلَّمات، فالحقيقة ينبغي الاحتياط في مثل هذه القضايا.
Shaykh: I cannot recall the answer now. We have in the Ẓāhiriyya Library a manuscript copy of Al-Ibāna that is disorganized in arrangement, and it had been damaged by water which erased much of its writing. I had benefited many things from it, and it became clear to me that Ibn Baṭṭa was among the Ḥanbalīs who had some exaggeration (al-ghuluw) in affirming the divine attributes, and they would sometimes affirm attributes through narrations whose chains of transmission are not authentic, and even if authentic, their attribution to the Messenger (peace be upon him) is not authentic because they are either suspended [mawqūf] or disconnected [maqṭūʿ]. Similarly with al-Dārimī in his refutation of al-Marīsī... The truth is that this topic is very important, and weak narrations should be filtered out and kept away from correct doctrine. This is what I attempted to do when I summarized “Al-ʿUluw lil-ʿAlī al-Ghaffār” or “lil-ʿAlī al-ʿAẓīm” by Imam al-Dhahabī… Given that Imam al-Dhahabī – as you know – is an authority in this regard, yet he was lenient in mentioning some narrations, including for example Mujāhid’s narration that Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, seats the Prophet (peace be upon him) with Him on His throne. This narration was received by many whose… doctrine is as if it were a raised [marfūʿ] hadith from the Messenger (peace be upon him), even though if Mujāhid had narrated a juristic hadith saying “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said,” this hadith would be considered disconnected [mursal] and no juristic ruling would be established by it. So how about when – firstly – he did not raise it to the Messenger (peace be upon him), and secondly: it concerns doctrine and not jurisprudence, yet they received it as if it were among the accepted givens. The truth is one should be cautious in such matters.
السائل : … .
الشيخ : هذا يحتاج إلى شيء من السياق، التعارض عندك … .
يا الله، نحن معكم على الموعد إن شاء الله
Questioner: …
Shaykh: This needs some context, the contradiction you have…
Oh Allah, we are with you at the appointed time, Allah willing.
السائل : الله يبارك فيك
الشيخ : لكن باقي لموعد إخوانا
السائل : عشر دقائق
الشيخ : خمس دقائق تقريبًا
Questioner: May Allah bless you.
Shaykh: But there remains time for our brothers’ appointment.
Questioner: Ten minutes.
Shaykh: Approximately five minutes.
السائل : طيب على ذكر كتابي السنة وكتاب الدارمي
الشيخ : نعم
السائل : السؤال … الجواب، كتاب السنة ما أكملت تخريجه؟
الشيخ : أي نعم
Questioner: Alright, speaking of the two books “Al-Sunna” and the book of al-Dārimī…
Shaykh: Yes.
Questioner: The question… the answer, you haven’t completed the documentation [takhrīj] of “Kitāb al-Sunna”?
Shaykh: Yes, that’s right.
السائل : هل هذا يعنى تستمر في طبعة أخرى أو لماذا؟
الشيخ : لا، هذا قضية أنه سنتمم التحقيق هذا في علم الغيب
السائل : يعنى ما هو موجود الآن؟
الشيخ : نعم نعم، هل سنتفرغ لإتمامه أم لا فهذا في علم الغيب، أمَّا لماذا؟ فذلك لأنني كنت قد كُلِّفت مِن الأخ زهير بتحقيق هذا الكتاب، فلما طال الأمد – لأنه أنا في عندي … انشغال في أمور أخرى – لما طال الأمد يبدو أنه قد تسنى له من ألح عليه بطباعة كتاب من أهل السنة، ولذلك أخذ الإتحاف قبل أن … التخريج وطبعه كما ترون، أما هل سنعود؟ فالله أعلم هذا … المستقبل.
Questioner: Does this mean you will continue with another edition or why?
Shaykh: No, this matter of completing the verification is in the knowledge of the unseen.
Questioner: You mean it’s not available now?
Shaykh: Yes, yes. Whether we will have time to complete it or not is in the knowledge of the unseen. As for why? That’s because I had been tasked by brother Zuhayr to verify this book, but when time dragged on – because I have… involvement in other matters – when time dragged on, it seems that someone who insisted on printing a book from Ahl al-Sunna became available to him, and therefore he took the Itḥāf before… the documentation and printed it as you see. As for whether we will return to it? Allah knows best, this… the future.
السائل : كتاب الدارمي طبع لاسمك مع المتن والتخريج
الشيخ : هذه أعمال تجارية، مع الأسف، وبهذه المناسبة لقد رأينا ما هو أعجب من ذلك، … الكتاب يعني لعلكم تذكرون، رأيت كتابًا نُسِب إلى ابن قدامة الحنبلي وهو ليس له، وتَقَصَّدُوا من ذلك من أجل الترويج للكتاب في البلاد السعودية، الآن الناشرون عندهم طرق في التجارة بالكتب عجيبة جدًّا، يستغلون أسماء بعض المشهورين في سبيل نشر الكتاب، ولو أن يُنسَب الكتاب لغير مؤلفه، فهذا سهل بالنسبة لذاك مع الأسف نعم.
Questioner: The book of al-Dārimī was printed with your name along with the text and documentation.
Shaykh: These are commercial works, unfortunately. And by this occasion, we have seen what is even more surprising than that… the book, I mean perhaps you remember, I saw a book attributed to Ibn Qudāma al-Ḥanbalī that was not his, and they intended by that to promote the book in Saudi Arabia. Now publishers have very strange methods in book trading, they exploit the names of some famous people for the sake of publishing the book, even if the book is attributed to someone other than its author. This is easy compared to that, unfortunately, yes.
In another conversation available on audio on this link al-Albānī explained what he thought of Ibn Baṭṭa as a transmitter of narrations:
السائل : هنا حديث الأعمى الذي قتل المرأة … تشتم النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – ؛ ما رواه الشعبي عن علي أن يهودية كانت تشتم النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – فتقع فيه ، فخنقها رجل حتى ماتت ، فأبطل رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – دمَها ، هكذا رواه أبو داود في ” سننه ” وابن بطة في ” سننه ” ، ابن بطة هل … ؟
Questioner: Here is the hadith of the blind man who killed the woman… who insulted the Prophet (peace be upon him); what al-Shaʿbī narrated from ʿAlī that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace be upon him) and defame him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) invalidated [the punishment for shedding] her blood. This is how Abū Dāwūd narrated it in his “Sunan” and Ibn Baṭṭa in his “Sunan.” Ibn Baṭṭa, did he…?
الشيخ : مش معروف كتاب ” السنن ” ، أما ابن بطة معروف أنه من كبار الحنابلة علماء الحنابلة والمحدثين في وقت واحد ، لكن تكلَّم بعضهم في حفظه ، فأحاديثه هو تفرَّد بها تُؤخذ منه على حذر ، أما إذا شارك غيره بذلك فهو إما أن يستفاد منه كما يستفاد من الحديث الذي يُستشهد براويه .
Shaykh: The book “Al-Sunan” is not well-known, but Ibn Baṭṭa is known to be among the major Ḥanbalī scholars and hadith scholars simultaneously. However, some scholars have criticized his memory, so the hadiths that he alone narrated should be taken from him with caution. As for when he shares [in narration] with others, then it can be benefited from just as one benefits from a hadith whose narrator is used for supporting evidence [istishhād].
Also, the following compilation known as Mawsūʿat al-Albānī fī al-ʿAqīda quoted al-Albānī saying the following about Ibn Baṭṭa:
https://app.turath.io/book/36190?page=2618
مَثَلاً كابنِ بَطَّة الحَنْبَلي صاحِب «الإبانة» فَهُوَ عَلى هَذا النَّمَط، لَكِنَّهُ يَرْوي في إبانَتِهِ نَفْسِهِ ما هَبَّ وَدَبَّ مِنْ أحاديث حَتَّى ما كانَ مِنْها مُتَعَلِّقاً بِالصِّفات…
“For example, like Ibn Baṭṭa al-Ḥanbalī, author of “Al-Ibāna,” he follows this pattern, but he narrates in his Ibāna itself all sorts of indiscriminate hadiths including those related to [divine] attributes…
فَهَذِهِ نُقْطَة مُهِمَّة جِدّاً لَيْسَ كُلُّ مَنْ يَكْتُبُ في الصِّفاتِ يَكونُ مُتَحَقِّقاً فيما يَذْكُرُ مِنَ الرِّوايات.
This is a very important point – not everyone who writes about [divine] attributes is meticulous in what they mention of narrations.”
[xvii] Al-Dhahabī quoted the following in his Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (3/18):
وقال أَبو القاسم الأزهري: ابن بطة ضعيف ضعيف
And Abū al-Qāsim al-Azharī said: “Ibn Baṭṭa is weak, weak.”
Note: The repetition of “weak” (ضعيف ضعيف) in Arabic is for emphasis, indicating that Ibn Baṭṭa was very weak or extremely unreliable as a narrator.
The title Wahhabi and its acceptance by some of its scholars:
[xviii] This refers to the adherents of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Najdī (d. 1206/1792), whose theological and reformist movement emerged in central Arabia known as Najd during the eighteenth-century CE. Contemporary Salafī scholars and practitioners, while actively promoting and disseminating his works, generally reject the designation “Wahhābī,” considering it a pejorative term.
This position is noteworthy given that some prominent scholars historically associated with the movement have themselves employed this nomenclature in their published works.
A case in point is Sulaymān ibn Siḥmān (or some read it as Sahmān, d. 1349/1930), a significant theological Wahhābī writer who in his defence of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb’s doctrinal positions and movement, authored two treatises explicitly incorporating the term “Wahhābiyya” in their titles. See below:
- Al-Hadiyya al-Saniyya wa-l-Tuḥfa al-Wahhābiyya al-Najdiyya (الهَدِيَّة السَّنِيَّة وَالتُّحْفَة الوَهّابِيَّة النَّجْدِيَّة) [The Splendid Gift and the Wahhābī Najdī Present] was published as a 2nd edition in Egypt in 1344 AH, with the assistance of another Wahhābī/Salafi writer known as Rashīd Riḍā. Title page:
- B) Al-Mawāhib al-Rabbāniyya fī al-Intiṣār lil-Ṭāʾifa al-Muḥammadiyya al-Wahhābiyya wa-Radd Aḍālīl al-Shubah al-Daḥlāniyya (المَواهِب الرَّبّانِيَّة في الانْتِصار لِلطّائِفَة المُحَمَّدِيَّة الوَهّابِيَّة وَرَدّ أَضاليل الشُّبَه الدَحْلانِيَّة) [The Divine Gifts in Support of the Muḥammadan Wahhābī Sect and in Refutation of the Erroneous Specious Arguments of Daḥlān], which he completed in 1302/1884. The manuscript is held in the King Saud manuscript collection in Saudi Arabia (see it uploaded here – https://archive.org/details/1713Pdf_201812/page/n1/mode/2up).
Title page:
The verdict of the late Saudi grand Muftī ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Bāz (d. 1999 CE) on the title Wahhābī
The late ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Bāz viewed the designation “Wahhābī” as an honorific title for the adherents of the religious call [daʿwa] of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Najdī, rather than as a pejorative term as some of its adherents have contended. For ibn Bāz, this appellation signified association with the movement’s commitment to Islamic monotheism [tawḥīd] and its opposition to what it deemed as polytheistic practices [shirk], such as the veneration of graves and excessive devotion to righteous figures. This interpretation stands in contrast to the position of some followers who reject the term, viewing it as an externally imposed label meant to delegitimize the movement by reducing it to a separate sect rather than what they consider a return to authentic Islamic practices.
In the following link one may listen to the verdict of Ibn Bāz on the title in question:
Some quotes:
السؤال: له سؤال ثالث وأخير يقول فيه: يسمي بعض الناس عندنا العلماء في المملكة العربية السعودية بالوهابية، فهل ترضون بهذه التسمية؟ وما هو الرد على من يسميكم بهذا الاسم؟
Meaning:
The question: He has a third and final question in which he says: Some people among us call the scholars in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia “Wahhābīs,” so are you content with this naming [tasmiya]? And what is the response to those who call you by this name?
الجواب: نعم هذا لقب مشهور هذا اللقب مشهور لعلماء التوحيد لعلماء نجد، ينسبونهم إلى الشيخ الإمام محمد بن عبد الوهاب رحمة الله عليه؛ لأنه دعا إلى الله في النصف الثاني من القرن الثاني عشر واجتهد في إيضاح التوحيد وبيان الشرك للناس، حتى هدى الله به الجم الغفير، ودخل الناس في توحيد الله وتركوا ما هم عليه من أنواع الشرك الأكبر، من عبادة أهل القبور ومن البناء على القبور وعبادة الأشجار والأحجار والغلو في الصالحين، فصارت دعوته دعوة تجديدية إسلامية عظيمة نفع الله بها المسلمين في الجزيرة العربية وفي غيرها، رحمه الله رحمة واسعة، وصار أتباعه ومن دعا بدعوته ونشأ على هذه الدعوة في نجد يسمى بالوهابي، وكان هذا اللقب علماً على أهل التوحيد، كل من دعا إلى توحيد الله ونهى عن الشرك وعن التعلق بالقبور أو التعلق بالأشجار والأحجار وأمر بالإخلاص لله سموه وهابياً، فهو لقب شريف عظيم يدل على أن من لقب به من أهل التوحيد ومن أهل الإخلاص لله، وممن ينهى عن الشرك بالله وعن عبادة القبور والأشجار والأحجار والأصنام والأوثان. هذا هو أصل هذه التسمية وهذا اللقب
.
Meaning:
“The answer: Yes, this is a famous title [laqab mashūr], this title is well-known for the scholars of monotheism [ʿulamāʾ al-tawḥīd], for the scholars of Najd, who are attributed to al-Shaykh al-Imām Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, may Allah have mercy on him; because he called to Allah in the second half of the twelfth century and strove in clarifying monotheism [tawḥīd] and explaining polytheism [shirk] to people, until Allah guided through him numerous people, and people entered into the monotheism [tawḥīd] of Allah and abandoned what they were upon of types of major polytheism [al-shirk al-akbar], from worshipping the people of graves and from building upon graves and worshipping trees and stones and exaggeration [ghuluw] regarding the righteous. Thus, his call [daʿwa] became a great Islamic revivalist call through which Allah benefited Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula and elsewhere, may Allah have vast mercy upon him. His followers and those who called with his call and grew up upon this call in Najd came to be called Wahhābī, and this title became a mark for the people of monotheism [ahl al-tawḥīd] – everyone who called to the monotheism of Allah and forbade polytheism and attachment to graves or attachment to trees and stones and commanded sincerity to Allah, they called him Wahhābī. So, it is a noble, great title [laqab sharīf ʿaẓīm] indicating that whoever is titled with it is from the people of monotheism [ahl al-tawḥīd] and from the people of sincerity to Allah, and from those who forbid polytheism with Allah and the worship of graves, trees, stones, idols and false deities. This is the origin of this naming [tasmiya] and this title [laqab].”
He also said:
فهو لقب معروف شريف وليس بالمستنكر بل هو لقب لأهل التوحيد والإيمان، لأهل الدعوة إلى الله عز وجل وهكذا انتشر هذا اللقب
“So, it is a well-known, noble title [laqab maʿrūf sharīf] and not something to be denounced [mustankar], rather it is a title for the people of monotheism and faith [ahl al-tawḥīd wa-l-īmān], for the people who call [ahl al-daʿwa] to Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, and thus this title spread.”
Some critics have raised a grammatical objection to the designation “Wahhābī” for the movement of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, suggesting it should instead be termed “Muḥammadī” if derived from the founder’s name. However, this argument overlooks established precedents in Islamic scholarly nomenclature. Two notable examples demonstrate the validity of deriving school names from the patronymic (nasab) rather than the given name (ism):
1) Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī: His legal school [madhhab] is known as Shāfiʿī (derived from his patronymic) rather than Muḥammadī
2) Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: His legal school is termed Ḥanbalī (derived from his patronymic) rather than Aḥmadī
Thus, the designation “Wahhābī,” derived from the patronymic “ʿAbd al-Wahhāb,” follows established patterns of Islamic scholarly nomenclature, making it grammatically sound and historically consistent with traditional naming conventions for Islamic intellectual movements.
Peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muḥammad
Completed on 17th February 2025/Shaʿbān 18th 1446 AH
Download the above as a PDF file –
