سَأَلْتُ أَبِي رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الرَّجُلِ، يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَسْأَلَ، عَنِ الشَّيْءِ، مِنْ أَمْرِ دِينِهِ مَا يُبْتَلَى بِهِ مِنَ الْأَيْمَانِ فِي الطَّلَاقِ وَغَيْرِهِ فِي حَضْرَةِ قَوْمٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ الرَّأْي وَمِنْ أَصْحَابِ الْحَدِيثِ لَا يَحْفَظُونَ وَلَا يَعْرِفُونَ الْحَدِيثَ الضَّعِيفَ الْإِسْنَادِ وَالْقَوِيَّ الْإِسْنَادِ فَلِمَنْ يَسْأَلُ، أَصْحَابَ الرَّأْي أَوْ أَصْحَابَ الْحَدِيثِ عَلَى مَا كَانَ مِنْ قِلَّةَ مَعْرِفَتِهِمْ؟ ⦗١٨١⦘ قَالَ: يَسْأَلُ أَصْحَابَ الْحَدِيثِ وَلَا يَسْأَلُ أَصْحَابَ الرَّأْي، الضَّعِيفُ الْحَدِيثِ خَيْرٌ مِنْ رَأْي أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ٢٣٠ - حَدَّثَنِي مُهَنَّا بْنُ يَحْيَى الشَّامِيُّ، سَمِعْتُ أَحْمَدَ بْنَ حَنْبَلٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ يَقُولُ: مَا قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَعِنْدِي وَالْبُعْدُ إِلَّا سَوَاءً

How is it, then, that the primary transmitter of this book, Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī [أبو إسماعيل الهروي] (using the same chain of transmission as found in the book), does not mention the critical name Abū Ḥanīfa [أبو حنيفة] in his version of the narration?

It cannot be claimed that Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī [أبو إسماعيل الهروي] intentionally omitted the name Abū Ḥanīfa [أبو حنيفة], as he explicitly mentions and criticizes Abū Ḥanīfa by name in other parts of his work Dhamm al-Kalām (see 2:199).

It is also noteworthy that none of the earliest scholars, such as al-Khallāl [الخلال], Ibn Mandah [ابن منده], al-Najjād [النجاد], or Ibn Baṭṭah [ابن بطة], mention the Kitāb as-Sunnah or al-Radd ʿala al-Jahmiyyah by ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal [عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل], despite the fact that they frequently cite narrations found within these works. However, they never reference the books themselves.

The first explicit mention of the Kitāb as-Sunnah appears only after 400 AH, when it is cited by Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā [قاضي أبو يعلى]. Interestingly, some of the material he attributes to the book is not found in the currently available versions of the text!

Conclusion:

All of this suggests that the Kitāb as-Sunnah is a book that was compiled only after the death of ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal [عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل], approximately 100 years later, around the year 400 AH.

The discrepancies in the quotations of Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā [قاضي أبو يعلى] and Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī [أبو إسماعيل الهروي], when compared to the current published versions of the book, strongly suggest that this text was likely a developing forgery during their era, gradually introduced into scholarly discourse.

These inconsistencies undermine the book’s authenticity and raise doubts about its attribution to ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. Instead, the evidence points to the likelihood that the book was shaped by later theological debates and subsequently attributed to ʿAbdullāh, integrating it into the scholarly tradition under his name to lend it credibility.

al-Dhahabī, in his Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (7:380), provides his chain of transmission (isnād) for the Kitāb as-Sunnah, which is attributed to ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal [عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل]. We will examine this chain:

Yaḥyā ibn Abī Manṣūr al-Faqīh [يحيى بن أبي منصور الفقيه] (by authorization) > ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Ḥāfiẓ [عبد القادر الحافظ] > Muḥammad ibn Abī Naṣr al-Isfahānī [محمد بن أبي نصر الإصفهاني] > Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd al-Malik [حسين بن عبد الملك] > ʿAbdullāh ibn Shabīb [عبد الله بن شبيب] > Abū ʿUmar al-Sulamī [أبو عمر السلمي] > Abū al-Ḥasan al-Labānī [أبو الحسن اللباني] > ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal [عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل].

There are three discrepancies in this chain, which lead to breaks in Dhahabī's transmission:

Yaḥyā ibn Abī Manṣūr al-Faqīh [يحيى بن أبي منصور الفقيه] died in 678 AH, while al-Dhahabī [الذهبي] was born in 673 AH. This means al-Dhahabī was only 5 years old at the time, raising doubts about their direct connection.

ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Ḥāfiẓ [عبد القادر الحافظ] was born in 536 AH, but Muḥammad ibn Abī Naṣr al-Isfahānī [محمد بن أبي نصر الإصفهاني] died in 533 AH. This means ʿAbd al-Qādir would have been only 3 years old, making it unlikely that he could have transmitted from him.

Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd al-Malik [حسين بن عبد الملك] was born in 443 AH, while ʿAbdullāh ibn Shabīb [عبد الله بن شبيب] died in 451 AH, meaning Ḥusayn would have been only 8 years old at the time of ʿAbdullāh ibn Shabīb’s death.

Thus, once again, we encounter cases of children transmitting in this chain of narration, casting doubt on its reliability.

Now, let us turn to some of the earliest quotations and mentions of the Kitāb as-Sunnah, which is attributed to ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal [عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل].

The earliest scholar to mention the Kitāb as-Sunnah appears to be Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā [قاضي أبو يعلى] (380–458 AH), followed by Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī [أبو إسماعيل الهروي] (396–481 AH).

The issue, however, lies in the fact that the material they quote is either not found in the current published version of the book or differs significantly in its wording.

Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā explicitly cites the Kitāb as-Sunnah by ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in his work Ibtāl at-Taʾwīlāt (2:348). He states:

"ʿAbdullāh reported in the Kitāb as-Sunnah with his chain of narration from Ibn ʿAbbās: {And construct the ship under Our eyes} (Qurʾān 11:37). Ibn ʿAbbās said: 'Under the eyes of Allah.'”

However, this citation is not found in the currently published version of the Kitāb as-Sunnah!

A similar issue arises in Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī’s [أبو إسماعيل الهروي] work Dhamm al-Kalām [ذم الكلام] (Book 2, Page 179), where he narrates with the following chain of transmission:

Abū Yaʿqūb [أبو يعقوب] informed us > Abū al-Naḍr Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan [أبو النضر محمد بن الحسن] > Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Khālid [محمد بن إبراهيم بن خالد] > ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal [عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل] said:

قَالَ قُلْتُ لِأَبِي رَجُلٌ وَقَعَتْ لَهُ مَسْأَلَةٌ وَفِي الْبَلَدِ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ فِيهِ ضَعْفٌ وَفَقِيهٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الرَّأْيِ أَيُّهُمَا يَسْأَلُ قَالَ لَا يَسْأَلُ أَهْلَ الرَّأْيِ ضَعِيفُ الْحَدِيثِ خَيْرٌ مِنْ قَوِيِّ الرَّأْيِ

"I asked my father: 'A man had a question, and in the city, there was a person from the people of Ḥadīth, who was weak, and a scholar from the people of opinion (Raʾy). Whom should he ask?'

He (Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal) replied:
'Do not ask the people of opinion. A weak Ḥadīth is better than a strong opinion.'"

The defender of the Kitāb as-Sunnah claim that this is a direct quote from the book. However, when we examine this narration in the published version of Kitāb as-Sunnah (1:138), ends at following:

"He said: He should ask the people of Ḥadīth and not the people of opinion. A weak Ḥadīth is better than the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfa."

Kitāb al-Sunnah — ʿAbdallāh ibn Aḥmad.

The two copyists of the manuscript, al-Anjab bin Makkī bin al-Anjab bin Aḥmad al-Tībī [الأنجب بن مكي بن الأنجب بن أحمد الطيبي] (Copied 644 AH) and ʿAbdullāh bin Muḥammad bin ʿAbdullāh al-Ḥanbalī al-Nābulsī [عبد الله بن محمد بن عبد الله الحنبلي النابلسي] (Copied 783 AH), are considered unknown.

The chain of transmission begins as follows: A group of elders (we will soon mention their names) informed us from Abū al-Waqt ʿAbd al-Awal Bin ʿĪsā Bin Shuʿayb al-Sijzī al-Harawī [أبو الوقت عبد الأول بن عيسى بن شعيب السجزي الهروي] > Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī al-Anṣārī [أبو إسماعيل الهروي الأنصاري] > Abū Yaʿqūb Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qurabī/al-Qarrāb [أبو يعقوب إسحاق بن إبراهيم القُرَبِي/القَرّاب] > Abū al-Naṣr Muḥammad bin al-Ḥasan bin Sulaimān al-Simsār [أبو النصر محمد بن الحسن بن سليمان السمسار] > Abū ʿAbdullāh Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm bin Khālid al-Harawī [أبو عبد الله محمد بن إبراهيم بن خالد الهروي] > ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal [عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل].

Those who criticize the Kitāb as-Sunnah, attributed to ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal [عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل], claim that the narrators al-Simsār [السمسار] and Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Khālid al-Harawī [محمد بن إبراهيم بن خالد الهروي] are unknown.

In response, it is argued that al-Simsār [السمسار] appears in numerous narrations, spanning from the works of Abū Yaʿqūb [أبو يعقوب] to the books of Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī [أبو إسماعيل الهروي]. As for Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Khālid al-Harawī [محمد بن إبراهيم بن خالد الهروي], the same name is listed among the individuals included by Ibn Ḥibbān [ابن حبان] in his Thiqat (7 Book Page 33).
It should be noted that Ibn Ḥibbān [ابن حبان] did not explicitly classify this person (Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Khālid [محمد بن إبراهيم بن خالد]) as thiqat (trustworthy), but rather mentioned him passively in the entry of another person. Therefore, we cannot be certain that he is the same Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Khālid al-Harawī [محمد بن إبراهيم بن خالد الهروي]. However, the name and his position as an elder in the time of Ibn Ḥibbān [ابن حبان] align with someone who could have met ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal [عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل].

Returning to the Chain of Transmission:
Let us now return to the beginning, where the chain of transmission starts with the words:
"A group of elders informed us from Abū al-Waqt" [أخبرنا جماعة من الشيوخ عن أبي الوقت].

The names of these "elders" are:

Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin ʿUmar al-Qāṭīʿī [محمد بن أحمد بن عمر القاطعي],
ʿUmar bin Karam bin Abī al-Ḥasan al-Daynūrī [عمر بن كرم بن أبي الحسن الدينوري],
Abū Naṣr ʿAin Abī al-Ḥasan bin Qunaydah [أبو نصر عين أبي الحسن بن قنيضة],
ʿAbd al-Salām bin ʿAbdullāh bin Aḥmad bin Bakrān al-Ẓāhirī [عبد السلام بن عبد الله بن أحمد بن بكران الظاهري].

Abū al-Waqt [أبو الوقت] passed away in the year 553 AH at the age of 95 years.

Muḥammad al-Qāṭīʿī [محمد القاطعي] was born in 546 AH, meaning he was only 7 years old when Abū al-Waqt died.
Daynūrī [الدينوري] was born in 539 AH, making him 14 years old at the time of Abū al-Waqt's death.

The birth date of Abū Naṣr [أبو نصر] is unknown, but he passed away in 626 AH at an age of slightly over 80 years. This means he would not have been older than 7 to 10 years at the time. Al-Ẓāhirī [الظاهري] was born in 546 AH, making him also only 7 years old when Abū al-Waqt [أبو الوقت] died.

What we have here is a "group of elders" that, in reality, consisted of a group of young children, the oldest of whom was just 14 years old at the time of Abū al-Waqt's death. These were children who narrated from a 95-year-old man, who did not live beyond that year.

Taking this into account, along with the fact that we know very little about two of the other narrators from whom Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī [أبو إسماعيل الهروي] transmitted, and the fact that a group of young children narrated this book from a 95-year-old man shortly before his death, the reliability of this transmission comes into question.

Alternativ chain of narration:

Al-Khallal [الخلال] narrated to me
→ Ali ibn Amr al-Hariri [علي بن عمرو الحريري]
→ Ali ibn Muhammad an-Nakhai [علي بن محمد النخعي]
→ Naji ibn Ibrahim [نجيح بن إبراهيم]
→ Ibn Karama [ابن كرامة] said:

"One day, we were with Waki‘ ibn al-Jarrah [وكيع بن الجراح], and a man said, 'Abu Hanifa made a mistake!' In response, Waki‘ said to him: 'How could you claim that Abu Hanifa — Nu‘man ibn Thabit [نعمان بن ثابت] — made a mistake? He was surrounded by such prominent figures as Abu Yusuf [أبو يوسف], also known as Ya‘qub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari [يعقوب بن إبراهيم الأنصاري], and Zufar ibn Hudhayl [زفر بن الهذيل] in Qiyas [القياس] (analogical reasoning). In Hadith knowledge, he was accompanied by Yahya ibn Abi Zaida [يحيى بن أبي زائدة], Hafs ibn Ghiyas [حفص بن غياث], Hibban [حبان], and Mandal ibn Ali [مندل بن علي]. In Arabic linguistics, he had al-Qasim ibn Ma'n [القاسم بن معن], and in Zuhd [الزهد] (asceticism) and Wara [الورع] (piety), he had Dawud at-Tai [داود الطائي] and Fudayl ibn Iyad [فضيل بن عياض].

Anyone sitting in a Majlis [مجلس] (gathering) with companions of such knowledge and virtue would hardly make an error, for if he had, they would have corrected him!'"

Imām at-Tahāwī al-Ḥanafī (رضي الله عنه):

“We believe in what we know of the Karāmāt (miracles) of the awliyā’ and authentic incidents about them proven from trustworthy sources.”

📖 al-Aqīdah al-Tahāwiyyah

Question: If one of the partners in an animal sacrifice intends only to consume the meat and not to perform an act of worship, does this invalidate the sacrifice for the others?

Answer: According to the Hanafi [حنفي] school, if seven people are jointly involved in sacrificing a cow, and six of them intend it for worship while one only intends it for the meat, then the animal no longer qualifies as a valid sacrifice, and the offering of the six will not be accepted.

This is based on the principle that the sacrifice is a single, unified act. If any partner’s intention is flawed, the animal ceases to be a valid sacrificial offering, and the act of sacrifice loses its status as worship.

Those who share in the sacrifice of a cow should be mindful of this matter and carefully consider whom they are joining in this act. They should avoid partnerships with individuals whose beliefs are corrupt and who intend only to consume the meat rather than fulfill the sacrificial worship.

[Reference: Wahba Zuhayli [وهبة الزحيلي], al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuhu [الفقه الإسلامي وأدلته], Vol. 4, p. 401]

So we established that Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abi Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi [أبو عبد الله محمد بن أحمد بن أبي بكر الأنصاري القرطبي] رَحِمَهُ ٱللَّٰهُ did not hold the beliefs of the Najdiyya.

Let us look at another great Imam, a pearl of Ahlus Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah, whom they desperately try to pull to their side. However, nothing fits except ambiguous statements that they take out of context to fit their own creed.

We are talking about Imam Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari [أبو جعفر محمد بن جرير الطبري] رَحِمَهُ ٱللَّٰهُ (224-310 AH). He has nothing to do with you, so stop clinging desperately to ambiguous statements to use him for your purposes.

How does Imam al-Tabari explain {فَوْق عِبَاده} (above His servants) in several places in his Tafsir?

According to your understanding? Certainly not.

Imam al-Tabari said in his Tafsir:

وَإِنَّمَا قَالَ : ” فَوْق عِبَاده ” , لِأَنَّهُ وَصَفَ نَفْسه تَعَالَى بِقَهْرِهِ إِيَّاهُمْ , وَمِنْ صِفَة كُلّ قَاهِر شَيْئًا أَنْ يَكُون مُسْتَعْلِيًا عَلَيْهِ . فَمَعْنَى الْكَلَام إِذَنْ : وَاَللَّه الْغَالِب عِبَاده , فَهُوَ فَوْقهمْ بِقَهْرِهِ إِيَّاهُمْ , وَهُمْ دُونه

"He said: {فَوْق عِبَاده} ('above His servants') because He, the Exalted, described Himself as overpowering them (bi-qahrihi iyyāhum). And it is the attribute of everyone who overpowers something (qāhir) to be elevated above it (musta'līyan 'alayhi). So, the meaning of the statement is: Allah is the Conqueror of His servants (ghālib 'ibādihi), and thus He is above them by His overpowering them (bi-qahrihi iyyāhum), and they are beneath Him."

Also, Imam al-Tabari [أبو جعفر محمد بن جرير الطبري] رَحِمَهُ ٱللَّٰهُ rebukes the Christians, with whom the Mujassimah share similar beliefs (both believe their god is literally residing in the heaven), as he rejects attributing divinity to 'Isa [عليه السلام] due to the fact that, whether on Earth or in the heavens, he is not free from being in some of these places (Amākin).

Imam al-Tabari said in the explanation of Ayah 171 of Surah an-Nisa’:

فَكَيْفَ يَكُون الْمَسِيح اِبْنًا لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ فِي الْأَرْض أَوْ فِي السَّمَوَات غَيْر خَارِج مِنْ أَنْ يَكُون فِي بَعْض هَذِهِ الْأَمَاكِن

"How can anyone claim that Jesus is the son of Allah, while he (Jesus), whether on Earth or in the heavens, is not free from being in some of these places (Amākin)?!"