One important issue remains and this is that an objector may say in objection that the Sahifah of Al-Madinah has been transmitted in a Mursal (i.e. related by a Taabi’ without mention of the Sahabi in the chain) manner and we are not aware of any Muttasil (i.e. continuous and complete) chain of transmission for it. Consequently, it does not stand up as a proof and it is not permissible for it to be used for the purpose of deduction. We say: The matter is not like that. Rather, it is a transcription of a written document that has been transcribed by transmitters generation following generation, which is apparent from the closeness of the worded expressions and which we could call congruous or in accord. It has come via a host of transmission paths which are without doubt continuous and complete in their chain of transmission and which we will come to discuss in due course. As such, whilst seeking guidance from Allah, we say: It is Sahih (authentic) and stands up as evidence and proof. Had this Sahifah come from the Jews or the Christians we would have these objectors going fully along with it. These are the same people who have pained our heads with their Mursal and Munqati’ (interrupted) chains of narrations which they claim to have been written whilst being guarded by the holy spirit! We will now present a detailed and meticulous study of the chains of transmission of the Sahifah of Al-Madinah, one chain following another:

The first Isnad (chain of transmission): As recorded by Al-Baihaqi:

“Abu Abdullah Al-Hafizh, related from Abu Al-‘Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub, from Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar, from Yunus bin Bukair, from Ibn Ishaq, from Uthman bin Muhammad bin Uthman bin Al-Akhnas bin Shariq who said: It was taken from the family of ‘Umar bin Al- Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him. It had been attached to the written document of As-Sadaqah which ‘Umar had written to the governors”.

- As for Imam Al-Baihaqi, then he is: Al-Hafizh, Al-‘Alamah, the established, the Faqih (jurist), Sheikh ul-Islam, Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Al-Husain bin ‘Ali bin Musa Al-Khusrawjirdi. This is according to “Siyar A’alam An-Nubulaa’” (35/145/86). - Abu Abdullah Al-Hafizh is: Al-Hakim Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamduwaih; the Imam, Al-Hafizh, the Naqid (critic), Al-‘Alamah, Sheikh ul Muhaddithin, Abu Abdullah bin Al-Bayyi’ Ad- Dabbiy At-Tahmaniy An-Naisaburiy Ash-Shafi’iy and author of literary works. This is according to “Siyar A’alam An-Nubulaa’” (33/157/100).

- Abu Al-‘Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub bin Yusuf bin Ma’qil bin Sinan Al-Umawiy, Mawla Bani Umayyah An-Naisaburiy Al-Asammu (the deaf) (DOD: 346 ah). He was the Muhaddith of his age without a competing claim. This is according to “Tarikh ul-Islam” (7/841/243). Nobody questions the scholars like these except for the one whose mind is defective. - Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar: We have summarized his case in the addendum under the heading: “The authentication of Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy”. In it we stated: [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad Al-‘Utaridiy, Abu ‘Umar Al-Kufi, has no issue or problem associated with him. His receiving of the Seera is authentic and he is reliable to be used as evidence. He was from the tenth (i.e. level of chain). He passed away in the 72nd year (meaning 172 AH) at the age 95]. This is to correct the major failing which Imam Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani was party to, when he said in “Taqrib At- Tahdhib” (1/81/64): [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad Al-‘Utaridiy, Abu ‘Umar Al-Kufi, is Da’if (weak) and his receiving of the Seera is authentic, from the tenth (i.e. level of chain). It has not been established that Abu Dawud related from him. He passed away in the 72nd year (meaning 172 AH) at the age 95]. It is also to refute Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi, one of the adherents of Al-Hafizh and among the claimants of “An-Nazhar Wa t-Tahqiq” (Examination and verification), who wrote upon the “Ahl ul-Hadith” online portal on 19/03/2007, when discussing the lines of transmission of the Sahifah of Al-Madinah. He mentioned a number of incomplete transmissions from some of the Imams and concluded by stating: [Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar said: He is Da’if (weak) and his hearing or receiving of the Seera is Sahih (authentic). I said: It is not understood from this statement of Ibn Hajar that he is Thiqah (trustworthy) in respect to the Seera! Rather, his intention was merely to repel the suspicion of Tadlis (i.e. misrepresentation in the chain of transmission) from him because he had been accused of that, as has previously been mentioned. That is because he heard (received) the “Maghaziy” (i.e. Seera) from an early age, alongside his father, from Yunus bin Bukair Ash-Shaibani. He was accused “that the books that he narrates from (actually) belonged to his father and that he had claimed to have received (heard) them alongside him”. Al-Hafizh (Al- Asqalaniy) wanted to establish that he had received it himself and Al- Khatib had transmitted a story that makes clear the authenticity of his receiving from Yunus. That is in the case where he transmitted, with its chain, from Muhammad bin Al-Hasan bin Humaid bin Ar- Rabee’ from his father, the following: “… That they asked Abu Kuraib about the Maghaziy (i.e. Seera) and he said: “Go to see a young man in Al-Kunas (place). His name is Al-‘Utaridiy and he received (heard it) alongside us and his father”. So, we came to him and he said: “I don’t know where it is. Since the time of hearing it I have not looked in it. However, it is in Qimatr (what books are preserved in) which contains books, so seek it there”. I sought and found it and there were pigeon droppings upon it. He had recorded it with his father with an old script. I asked him to give to me and allow me to publish it, and so he did”. If this story is affirmed, then the narrator classifies his memory (by heart) as being weak as he had forgotten it and did not recall it. It also made clear the weakness of his concern to it (the book) as he had left it in the tower with pigeons, to the point that it had pigeon droppings upon it! Consequently, the man is Da’if (weak) just as the Imams who specialise in this matter have stated] [End of Quote]. This is also a recorded text in the archives of “The Ahl ul- Hadith Portal” in the Shamela e-program library (2 - 51/390).

- Yunus bin Bukair: We have also summarized his case in the addendum under the heading: “The authentication of Yunus bin Bukair”. In the conclusion of the addendum we stated in correction to the speech of Al-Hafizh in his “At-Taqrib”: [Yunus bin Bukair bin Wasil Ash-Shaibani, Abu Bakr Al-Jamal Al-Kufi, is Thiqah (trusted), an Imam in respect to the Seera and the Maghaziy and he is in respect to it an established source of evidence, from the ninth. He passed away in the 99th year (meaning + 100 i.e. 199)]. We also refuted the contention of Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi and his casuistic argumentation, which allude to him being a man of whims, who wants to classify the Sahifah of Al-Madinah as being weak (Da’if), employing every possible stratagem to accomplish that. Our detailed refutation can be found in the addendum “The authentication of Yunus bin Bukair”.

- Ibn Ishaq: He is Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar, the indisputable Imam of the scholars of Seera, Maghaziy and history; representing the final point of reference in respect to them. A consensus has virtually been established concerning his authenticity, truthfulness and leadership in the field. Despite that, our companions called Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi could not overcome his whims. So, after affirming that by stating: [As for Ibn Ishaq, then regarding him there is a lot that has been said, the sum of which is: That he is Saduq (truthful), Mudlis (i.e. conceal a narrator in the Isnad) in respect to the Hadith. He is the Imam of the Maghazi and Seera and is the final point of reference in respect to them], we was nevertheless unable to escape from his whims and so he mentioned what he believed would cast a bad or negative shadow upon Ibn Ishaq, when he stated: [‘Abbas Ad-Dawri said: Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked about Ibn Ishaq and so he said: “These Ahadeeth (i.e. concerning the Maghazi and Seera) are written (i.e. transmitted) from him. However, if he comes with the Halal and the Haram, we would want a people to be like this” He then clasped his hands together, placing his two thumbs over his fingers]. In response I ask: What does this signify? Firstly: Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal is exclusively a scholar of Fiqh and Hadith and is not from the scholars of Seera, Maghazi, history or Tafsir. He does not have a deep knowledge of its main transmitters just as he doesn’t have a great deal of transmissions from the companions of Ibn Ishaq for him to have examined what they brought. Indeed, he was indiscriminate or over general when he stated that the books of Maghazi, Fitan (trials and tribulations) and Tafsir had no basis. And from among the greatest of his errors, was his speech regarding the Imam Al-Hujjah (the competent authority) of Al-Maghazi (Seera of military expeditions); Muhammad bin ‘Umar Al-Waqidiy, whose condition and reality we have studied in a painstaking precise manner over a period of many years and which we will present shortly under the title “Fairness to Al-Waqidiy”.

Secondly: Concerning Ibn Ishaq, he said “There is a lot that has been said (concerning him)”. According to what right or defence has the one called Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi presented this small part from this “There is a lot that has been said” whilst completing ignoring all that has been said which completely refutes that part he has mentioned. An example of that is the statement of Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyah in his “Tahdhib Sunan Abi Dawud Wa Iedaah Mushkilaatuhu” (2/373 – Shamela electronic library): [Concerning the Hadith of Ibn Ishaq which contains “Verily His throne is above the heavens like the Qubbah (dome)” and Al-Mundiri’s finding of fault in it. He then said: The scholars of Ithbaat (authentication) said: There is nothing in this which permits you to reject the Hadith. As for accusation against Ibn Ishaq in relation to it, then the answer is: That Ibn Ishaq is the object which Allah has placed knowledge and trustworthiness. ‘Ali Ibn Al-Madiniy also said: His Hadith in my view are Sahih. Ash-Shu’bah said: “Ibn Ishaq is the Ameer ul-Mu’minin in respect to the Hadith”. He also said: he is Saduq (truthful) and ‘Ali bin Al-Madiniy also said: “I have not found from his except two Munkar (defective and rejected) Hadith”. This last statement reflects the greatest level of praise in the case that only two Hadeeth were rejected in spite of the great number of Hadith that he related. ‘Ali also said: “I heard Ibn ‘Uyainah saying: “I have not anyone speaking about Ibn Ishaq except that his speech held appreciation or esteem. And there is no doubt that the people of his time period were more knowledgeable about him than those who spoke about him after them”. Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Hakam said: I heard Ash- Shafi’iy saying: Az-Zuhri said: Knowledge will remain in this area as long as that visionary young man remains in it (intending Ibn Ishaq).” Ya’qub bin Shaibah said: I asked Yahya bin Ma’een: “How is the status of Ibn Ishaq?” He replied: “He was not like that (i.e. to be questioned). I asked: “Do you hold anything in yourself (negative) in respect to his Hadith?” He answered: “No, he was truthful”. Yazid bin Harun said: I heard Shu’bah saying: “If I possessed authority, I would have appointed Ibn Ishaq over the scholars of Hadith”. Ibn ‘Adiy said: “I have examined the Ahadeeth of the great scholar Ibn Ishaq and I did not find in his Hadith that which presents an opportunity for us to ascertain that he is weak (Da’if). He may have erred or been mistaken, just as others err. And it was not known among the trustworthy transmitters that his narration was a lie”. Ya’qub bin Shaibah said: I asked Ibn ul-Madiniy about Ibn Ishaq? And he said: “His Hadith are Sahih (authentic) in my view”. I asked: “What about what Malik said about him?” He replied: “Malik did not sit with him and did not know him or every matter that was spoken in Al-Madinah!”. I said: “Hisham bin ‘Urwah has also spoken about him?” He replied: “That which Hisham said is not an authoritative source. It could be that he (i.e. Ibn Ishaq) met the woman whilst he was a boy and heard from her. Truthfulness is evident in his Hadith: He relates on an occasion: Saying Abu Az-Zinad told me, and sometimes he says: Abu Az-Zinad mentioned and he says: Al-Hasan bin Dinar related to me from Ayub from ‘Amr bin Shu’aib (in relation to Salaf and Ba’i (i.e. issues related to trade)). And he related more than all the people from ‘Amr bin Shu’aib]. There is also what came in the book “Nasb Ar-Rayah Takhrij Ahadeeth Al-Hidayah” by the great scholar Jamal Ad-Din Az-Zai’aliy, with assistance from Ayman Salih Sha’ban (1/252): [Abdullah ibn Mubarak said: Ibn Ishaq is Thiqah, Thiqah, Thiqah (a trustworthy source)]. If the fair critic was to contemplate the speech of the Imam of the Imams in respect to finding faults in Hadith, ‘Ali Ibn Al- Madiniy, who was also one of the great Imams of Hadith and from the greatest Imams of the science of Al-Jarh wa t-Ta’dil (science related to the examination of the narrators of Hadith for their soundness), concerning Ibn Ishaq in general, and what he said about the Hadith of “Salaf and Ba’i” in particular, he would know that he defends him even in respect to the accusation of Tadlis (i.e. the concealment of a narrator in the Isnad). That is because even this suspicion or doubt has no basis for it. It only represented the omission of some links of transmission or summarizing them for the purpose of preserving the flow of the events and historical stories. This is a well-known methodology. It is necessary and there is nothing wrong with it. Necessity dictates that methodology in respect to the books of Seera and history and it doesn’t fall under the category of Tadlis (i.e. deliberate manipulation of the chains of transmission) from the outset or in terms of form. If more information is desired in terms of the “There is a lot that has been said (concerning him)” concerning the Imam Al-Hafizh Al- Hujjah, the Amir ul-Mu’minin in respect to the Hadith, Muhammd bin Ishaq bin Yasar Al-Qurashi, then the addendum under the title “Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar, Amir ul-Mu’minin in respect to the Hadeeth” can be referred back to. It contains more evidence concerning his being a great Imam and refuting the ridiculous accusation of Tadlis (i.e. deliberate manipulation of the chains of transmission that has been attributed to him. - Uthman bin Muhammad bin Uthman bin Al-Akhnas bin Shariq: He is usually referred to by the name Uthman bin Muhammad Al- Akhnasi or Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah or just Uthman Al-Akhnasi. The one called Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi, who posted on the Ahl ul-Hadith online portal on 19/03/2007, stated the following, in imitation to Al-Hafizh bin Hajar, when discussing the chains of transmission of the Sahifah of Al-Madinah: [As for Uthman bin Muhammad bin Mughirah Al-Akhnas Ath-Thaqafi Al-Hijazi, then he is a Saduq (truthful person) who has Awham (erroneous narrations) and Manaakir (Hadith rejected by others)]. This was also recorded in the archives of the Ahl ul-Hadith portal in the Shamela e- library (2 - 51/390). This is all that he (Abdul Qadir) said in order to support his falsehood: One single line collating all of the knowledge of those who came before and have passed by since!! Even his statement: “Manaakir” came from another source because it was not from the speech of Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar, who stated in “Taqrib At- Tahdhib” (1/386/4515): [Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah bin Al-Akhnas bin Shariq Ath-Thaqafi Al-Akhnasiy Hijazi is Saduq (a truthful person) who has Awham, from the sixth (i.e. level of chain)]. In the addendum comprising of nine pages under the heading: “The authentication of Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah Al- Akhnasi”, we have firmly established a correction of the summary of Al-Hafizh (Ibn Hajar) who fell extremely short in his appraisal, in addition to establishing proof that the correct statement regarding him is: [Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah bin Al-Akhnas Ath- Thaqafi al-Akhnasi is Thiqah (trustworthy in narration), a jurist, scholar in Maghazi and history, from the fourth]. The addendum can be referred back to as it contains many important historical benefits in addition to a discussion of the defects in the well-known Hadith of significance “Whoever has taken the responsibility of judiciary (or is appointed as judge), then he has been slaughtered without a knife”. May it bring some delight by Allah’s permission.

- Aali (the family of) ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him: In the addendum entitled “The authentication of Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah Al-Akhnasi” we stated: [As for the Aali (the family of) ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, among whom Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah Al-Akhnasi found the written document of the “Sahifah of Al-Madinah”, then they are without doubt Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, ‘Asim bin ‘Umar and their brothers, children and wives. All of whom, by the praise of Allah, are Thiqaat (trustworthy and accepted relators) of the firmest degree, at the height of trustworthiness, truthfulness and God-fearing, whilst a liar or fabricator has not been known from among them – Allah forbid].

In conclusion: The Hadith is Muttasil (a continuous unbroken chain from beginning to end) and Sahih (authentic), each link in the chain is from the Thiqaat (trustworthy and accepted narrators), through which evidence and proof (Al-Hujjah) is established. It is not how the one named Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi claimed when he made a gross error stating: “This Isnad (chain of narration) is not rejoiced at, as it contains Al--‘Utaridiy and Ibn Bukair, in addition to the suspicion or doubt of the occurrence of an interruption, in the case where Uthman did not state who from among the family of ‘Umar bin Al- Khattab he had taken it (i.e. the Sahifah) from. It could be that he could have been mistaken in that or that the mistake originated from Bukair as he is well known to commit violations, in the case where he would take the speech of Ibn Ishaq and connect himself to the Hadith (i.e. the chain of narration)]. Bravo, is this the result of proper research and examination is undertaken? May Allah’s refuge be sought.

- The second Isnad (chain of transmission): This is the chain as recorded by Ibn Sayed An-Nas in his “Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al- Maghazi wa Ash-Shama’il Wa As-Siyar”, transmitted by Ibn Abu Khaithama:

[Ahmad bin Jinab Ab Al-Walid related from ‘Eisa bin Yunus, from Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr al-Muzani, from his father from his grandfather]. Al-Baihaqi also mentioned the Isnad (chain of transmission) in a summarized form: [Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf related from his father, from his grandfather … It was related to us by Abu Abdullah Al-Hafizh and Abu Bakr Al-Qadi who said Abu Al-‘Abbas related to us from Muhammad bin Ya’qub from Muhammad bin Ishaq Ad-Daghani, from Mu’awiyah bin ‘Amr from Abu Ishaq (Al- Farazi) from Kathir bin Abdullah, who stated it (i.e. the Hadith].

Firstly, we say: Concerning the statement of Ibn Sayed An-Nas in his “Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al-Maghazi wa Ash-Shama’il Wa As-Siyar” (1/330), after presenting the text of the Sahifah of Al-Madinah from Ibn Ishaq in its complete and full length: [This is how Ibn Ishaq mentioned it and Ibn Abu Khaithama also mentioned it (i.e. the text of the Sahifah). He then presented the Isnad (chain of transmitters) and then stated: He mentioned it in the same way], it is not conceivable that he said that unless the two texts conformed to each other or were mutually similar. It is not permitted to expect other than that from the Imam of the Musannaf and a great Hafizh like Ibn Sayed An-Nas, otherwise it would represent a form of treachery and deceit. The truth is that he found it sufficient not to mention the text of Ibn Abu Khaithama due to the presence of the text of Ibn Ishaq (which was the same). At that time the people would write by their own hands and they didn’t have computers to facilitate copying and pasting. There is therefore no significance in what the one named Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi stirred up when he said: [This Hadith does not conform to the Hadith of Ibn Ishaq. It rather came in a summarized form like the forthcoming narrations. Ibn Sayed An-Nas merely mentioned it as he stated i.e. like the document that Ibn Ishaq related. It was then followed up by those who followed it up, whilst not being established to him. That is because Ibn Sayed An-Nas did not mention to us its text, which is considered to be from among that which has been lost from the history of Ibn Abu Khaitham. This is supported by the fact that Al-Baihaqi related it in a summarized form as can be seen].

As for Al-Baihaqi having related it in a summarized form, then that was due to the suitability of that section of the text in respect to the (topic of the) chapter he was addressing. Al-Baihaqi follows this approach a lot and particularly in his “Sunan Al-Kubra”. It was also practised by Al-Bukhari before him in his “Sahih” and by the majority of the compilers of Hadith. There is no relationship between this and it having reached them in a summarized or complete form and by greater reason, reaching other than them, in a summarized or complete form. The following was mentioned concerning him in “Dhail At-Taqyid Fee Ruwaat As-Sunan Wa Al-Asaneed” (1/247/483):

“Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Yahya bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Abu Al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul ‘Aziz bin Sayed An-Nas bin Abu Al-Walid bin Mundhir bin Abdul Jabbar bin Sulaiman Al-Ya’mariy Al-Hafizh Fat’h ud-Din Abu Al-Fat’h bin Ash- Sheikh Abu ‘Umar bin Ash-Sheikh Abu Bakr, who is known under the name of Ibn Sayed An-Nas Al-Ya’mari. He received Sahih Al-Bukhari at the hands of Al-‘Izz Abdul ‘Aziz bin Abdul Mun’im Al-Harani and Sahih Muslim from Muhammad Abdul ‘Aziz bin Al-Hafizh Abu Al- Futuh Nasr Abu Al-Farah Al-Husari. He received Sunan Abu Dawud at the hands of Al-Mu’ayed At-Tousi and Abdur Rahim bin Yusuf bin Khatib Al-Mizza. He received Al-Ghilaniyat via his father’s reading of it and Al-Ghilaniyat from Ghazi Al-Halawi via his reading. He received the Jami’ of At-Tirmidhi from Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Tarjam Amazani, via his reading, and Wa’l Abu ‘Ali Ya’qub bin Ahmad bin Fada’il Al-Halabiy related the Sunan of Ibn Majah to him via his reading. He received the “(Seera) An-Nabawiyah Tahdhib Ibn Hisham” from Abu Al-Ma’aliy Ahmad bin (…), via his reading, with the exception of a small part of it, which he received from other than him. He received the majority of the “Maghazi” of Musa bin ‘Uqbah from Al-‘Izz Ahmad bin Ibrahim Al-Fariqiya, in addition to the book “Adh- Dhuriyah At-Tahirah” by Ad-Dulabi. He received some of the “Maghazi” of Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin ‘Abid Al-Qurashi Al-Katib from Al-Khadr bin Al-Husain bin Al-Khadr bin ‘Abdan. He received the majority of the book “At-Tabaqat Al-Kubra” of Muhammad bin Sa’d from Abdul Muhsin bin As-Sahib Muhyi ud-Din Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Jaradah Al-‘Uqaili, via his reading. He received “Al- Mu’jam As-Saghir” of At-Tabarani from Muhammad bin Abdul Mu’min bin Abu Al-Fat’h As-Suwariy, via his reading, in addition to the reading of Al-Hafizh Abu Al-Hajjaj Al-Mizzi and the Musnad of Abu Ya’la Lamousli. He received the “Mu’jam” of Ibn Jami’ from ‘Umar ibn Al-Qawwas, via his reading, at Gharbil from Ghouta in the Damascus province. He received “Ash-Shifa) of Al-Qadi ‘Iyad from Al- Qadi ‘Ilm ud-Din Muhammad bin Al-Husain bin Rashiq Ar-Rib’iy, via the reading of his father through his hearing it from Ibn Jubair. He received many books of knowledge and his Shuyukh were numerous. He was proficient in the Hadith, Adab (literature) and other areas and became well known by the favour of his capable explanation of a large portion of At-Tirmidhi. He also authored a work on the Prophetic Seera which contained many benefits which he called “Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al-Maghazi wa Ash-Shama’il Wa As-Siyar”. He summarized it and maned the summarized version “Nur ul-Uyun”. His poetry included the book: “Bushra Al-Labib Bi-Dhikra Al-Habib”. He used to narrate from it and from “Uyun Al-Athar” among other written works or compilations of his. He passed away suddenly on the 11 th of Sha’ban in Cairo, in the year 734 AH, whilst he was born in the year 671 ah. He stayed in Damascus in the company of Ibn Al-Mujawir and he received (knowledge) from him. His companion Al-Qutb Al- Halabi received knowledge from him in addition to Ahmad bin As- Sabouni and Al-Jamal Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Abdur Rahim Al- Amyouti”. [End of Quote].

The following also came mentioned (about Ibn Sayed An-Nas) in the “Mu’jam of the companions of Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah” (p. 161 [Shamela E-library]):

“Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Yahya bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Abu Al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul ‘Aziz bin Sayed An-Nas bin Abu Al-Walid bin Mundhir bin Abdul Jabbar bin Sulaiman, Abu Al-Fat’h Fat’h ud-Din Al-Ya’mariy Ash-Shafi’iy [671- 734 AH). He was born in the month of Dhu l-Qa’dah into a household of some leadership and power, and his paternal uncle had been a military commander in Seville. When his father settled in the lands of Egypt his father brought along with him the Ummuhaat (mothers i.e. main sources) of the books of knowledge including the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah, his Musnad, the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaq, Al- Muhalla, Al-Istidhkar and other large compilations. At a young age his father brought him to learn from Shams ud-Din Al-Maqdasi. He also received knowledge at the hands of Al-Qutb Al-Qastalani, Ibn Al- Anmatiy, Ghazi, Ibn Al-Khaimiy and Shamiya bint Al-Bakri. He sought knowledge by himself and wrote by his own hand. He took a great deal from the companions of Al-Kindi and Ibn Tabarzadh. He travelled to Damascus and his arrival coincided with the death of Al- Fakhr bin Al-Bukhari and which pained him. He took a great deal from As-Suwariy, Ibn ‘Asakir, Ibn Al-Mujawir and Ash-Sheikh Al-Mizziy encouraged him to take knowledge from Ash-Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah. He then met him and received knowledge from him. He (Ibn Sayed An-Nas) said regarding him (Ibn Taymiyyah): [I found him to be from those who had attained a great share of knowledge from the Islamic sciences. He had virtually absorbed the Sunan (i.e. Hadith) and Athar (reports) to memory. If he spoke concerning Tafsir he carried his own banner (i.e. he was distinguished). If he provided a judicial verdict he was fully aware of its purpose or aware and if a Hadeeth was mentioned to him, then he was the possessor of its knowledge and of its narration. Or if he attended to giving and dictation you would not see anyone more expansive in his giving and higher in knowledge than him. He was distinguished in every art over his contemporaries. No eye that saw him had seen the like of him and no eye had witnessed a scene like when he would be discussing Tafsir and his session would be attended by a great crowd whilst he would quote from the sea of his sweet and pure knowledge. They would indulge from his excellent merit in the garden and the stream. That continued until some people from his land were afflicted by envy and the people of criticism began to incite against him in relation to his Hanbali views in matters of Aqeedah (belief). And so they took hold of some of his speech concerning that and sought to make that a cause of blame due to it. They prepared arrows to accuse him of deviancy and claimed that he had violated their way and divided their group. And so he disputed with them and they disputed with him, he boycotted some of them and they boycotted him. He then disputed with another group who from those who had no path and claimed that they were upon the most precise knowledge of what was hidden in these matters (i.e. of Aqeedah) and upon its manifest truth. He exposed those groups and mentioned the calamities of what they claimed. So they reached out to the first group of those who disputed with him and sought assistance from those who held malice against him. As a result, they made his affair reach the ears of the rulers and all of them strove to declare his Kufr and worked against his thought. They then prepared a document and incited the spiteful to spread it amongst the noble. They strove to make it reach the ruling kings of the lands of Egypt. He was then taken, arrested and placed in prison as soon as he arrived. They then convened sessions for the spilling of his blood and they gathered for that purpose from the residents of the locality and inhabitants of the schools, from among those who had been involved in the dispute and were crafty in their deception, and from those who were openly calling him a disbeliever and most prominent of those boycotting him, whilst calling him “Raib ul- Manun” (Doubter of fate). Your Lord knows what was hidden in their hearts and what they declared. Those who were openly declaring his disbelief were not worse than those who were deceitful. The scorpions crept towards him but Allah drove back the plotting of them all. He saved him by the hands of those whom Allah had chosen and Allah is dominant over His affair. Following that, he was not spared from one trial after another and throughout his remaining life he did not move from one ordeal except that he was afflicted by another. That was until he took his matter to some of the judges. They imprisoned him and he remained in that prison until the time of his parting to the mercy of Allah Ta’alaa and his passing. And to Allah do all matters return and He is all aware of the treacherous among the people and what the hearts conceal. Its day was witnessed, the streets became narrow for his Janazah (burial) and were filled from Muslims coming from every place seeking blessings in its gathering for the Day when the witnesses will stand, holding fast to his casket until they broke its poles. That was on the 20th night of Dhu l-Qa’dah in the year 728 AH, at the Damascus guarded fortress. He was born in Harran on the 10th of Rabee’ ul-Awwal in the year 661 AH, may Allah have mercy upon him and us all” [End of Quote].

(Continued) He (Ibn Sayed An-Nas) received from him some of the book “Al-Juz’” by Ibn ‘Arafah. Adh-Dhahabi said: “He (Ibn Sayed) almost reached Al-Fakhr (i.e. Al-Bukhari) but missed him by two days. His teachers from the scholars numbered close to one thousand. He transcribed in his own writing, sifted (through knowledge) and was assigned to testimony for a period. He gad good morals (character), cheerful and someone who was joke and be playful. He was Saduq (truthful) in respect to the Hadeeth and he was authoritative source in respect to what he transmitted. He had a sharp penetrating eye in respect to art, experience in respect to transmitters, knowledge of differences in opinion and was outstanding in the knowledge of the language and had abundant virtues. He said: And had I dedicated myself to knowledge as I should have done, I would have travelled to him. However, he would seek distraction from that through writing, while his arrangements were without cost. He was cheerful, intelligent, easy to get on with and did not carry any anxiety with him” (End].

(Continued) Al-Barzali said: “He was one of the eminent people of knowledge. Perfection (excellence) and memorisation, in respect to the Hadith and in terms of comprehending their deficiencies or points of weakness and their Asaneed (chains of transmission). He was knowledgeable of those which were Sahih and those which were faulty. He was a knowledge base of the Seera and he excelled in the Arabic language. He was characterised by good classification, soundness in Aqeedah, quick reading, being well presented, greatly humble, good company, light-hearted, funny and intelligent. He had beautiful poetry and exceptional prose. He was loved by the students of Hadith and no one like him has come after him, as a whole (i.e. with all these qualities combined)” [End of Quote].

(Continued) Ibn Hajar said: “He memorised “At-Tanbih” and his (scholarly) teachers numbered perhaps close to a thousand. He spent a lot of time in the company of Ibn Daqiq Al-‘Eid. He completed the study of Usul ul-Fiqh under him. He returned to him and use to love and be fond of him, listen to his speech and commend him. He received the knowledge of the Arabic language from Bahaa’ ud-Din Ibn An-Nuhas. He wrote both the Maghreb and Egyptian scripts and perfected them. Al-Kamal Al-Adfuwi said (regarding him): “He memorised “At-Tanbih” in Fiqh and authored his book in Seera called: “Uyun ul-Athar”. It is a good book in its subject area and set out to explain (the Sunan of) At-Tirmidhi. Had he restricted himself in respect to that upon the art (knowledge area) of the Hadith rather than the discussion of the Asaneed (chains of transmission), it would have been more complete and better. However, he sought to follow his teacher Ibn Daqiq Al-‘Eid and consequently came to an end before accomplishing what he had wanted to accomplish” [End of Quote].

He also authored books which dazzled and became famous. These include: “Nur ul-Uyun” and “Bushra Al-Labib Bi-Dhikra Al-Habib”. It was a summarised work in the area of the Seera which Ibn Hajar commended. He also authored Prophetic poetic works which he explained in a volume and long poetic proses among other works] [End of speech from the “Mu’jam of the companions of Sheikh Al- Islam Ibn Taymiyyah” (p. 161 [Shamela E-library]).

Let us contemplate the speech of Imam Adh-Dhahabi (in the above text), the uncontested Imam of the scholars of Hadith and history of his age, when he said about this Imam (Ibn Sayed An-Nas): “He was Saduq (truthful) in respect to the Hadeeth and he was authoritative source in respect to what he transmitted”. We would then realise the magnitude of the crime that the one named Abdul Qadir Al- Muhammadi perpetrated against this Imam and against the truth! Let us now focus upon the study of this second path of transmission (of the Sahifah of Al-Madinah):

As for the eminent accomplished Imam Al-Hafizh Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Abu Khaithama, the author of “At-Tarikh Al-Kabir”, and ‘Eisa bin Yunus bin Abu Ishaq As-Sabee’I Al-Hamdani, then they are Imams from among the Thiqat and Athbat (Those who are trustworthy and reliable in terms of transmission), and there is a consensus over that. As for Ahmad bin Janab (Ab Al-Walid Al-Masisi), then he is Thiqah (trustworthy) by consensus and he is Thiqah Thabit (trustworthy and reliable) in respect to ‘Eisa bin Yunus specifically. With the inclusion of Al-Baihaqi, they are all well-known Athbat and Thiqat (trustworthy and reliable) Imams up until the chain reaches Kathir bin Abdullah. Consequently, there is no need to study the circumstance or condition of anyone other than Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf. We have undertaken that in an attached section specified for that under the heading: “Fairness to Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf Al-Muzani”. In it we have established the invalidity of what Al-Hafizh (Al-Asqalani) mentioned in his “Taqrib At- Tahdhib” (1/460/5617) when he said: [Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf Al-Muzani Al-Madani is Da’if (weak). Those who attributed lying to him were excessive; from the seventh]. That is in the case where it is obligatory to replace the text with the following: [Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf Al-Muzani Al-Madani; there is no issue with him and those who attributed lying to him were in error, from the seventh]. In this manner, the injustice is raised from this man and he is dealt with fairly within the boundaries of moderation.

As a consequence of that, the quality of the Isnad is affirmed and its being Hasan (good). Indeed, it is possible that it is sufficient as an evidence to be used as proof by itself, to establish an evidential argument. So, how about if we were to add to it the first Isnad, the authenticity of which we have already established?! - The third Isnad (chain of transmission): The Isnad of Ubaid Al-Qasim bin Salam recorded in his great book “Al-Amwal” (260/518): Yahya bin Abdullah bin Bukair and Abdullah bin Salih related to me and both said: Al-Laith bin Sa’d related to us saying: ‘Uqail related to me from Ibn Shihab, that he said: It reached me that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) …].

This appears from the onset to be from the Mursal narrations of Az- Zuhriy which are generally not of the highest level of quality. However, this Isnad (chain of transmission) is of the highest level of quality. Indeed, it may even be the from the most authentic chains of this Dunya (world).

The correct view is that this Isnad is not from among the general Mursal narrations, rather it is a Balagh (proclamation) and Az-Zuhriy has seven or eight other Balaghat (proclamations), all of which are authentic (Sahih), This indicates that the Balaghat of Az-Zuhriy are contrary to the general Mursal narrations, in respect to the extent of their quality (or soundness). The text in its origin was essentially from a document, even if Az-Zuhriy, evidently dictated it from his memory.

There is therefore no cause to doubt the authenticity of this chain of transmission (Isnad) in itself and particularly as most of its paragraphs or articles have come mentioned from other authentic paths, of the highest level of authenticity.

Whatever its case may be, the discussion of this matter in complete detail has an independent section dedicated to it.