Q. As a Muslim, must we believe in the return of Jesus, peace be upon him, and also in the Dajjal?

Why
are such matters not mentioned in the Qur’an? And is it true that the ahadith which mention them are
all lies and fabrications?

A. Alhamduli’Llah wa’l-salatu wa’l-salamu ‘ala rasulillah. Before launching into a reply, let’s begin with
two important preliminaries (muqaddamat) concerning knowledge (‘ilm). After that, we’ll discuss the
ahadith about nuzul ‘isa ‘alayhi-salam – the descent of Jesus, peace be upon him; respond to some of
the above objections; and then conclude with the ruling concerning someone who rejects the belief in
Jesus’s return and the emergence of the Dajjal. I’ll also add, in the conclusion, a few words about
correctives and clarifications, and in what spirit they should be undertaken, and what our main focus
ought to be.

In Islam, knowledge is considered to be of three categories: Firstly, matters of Islam which everyone
must know; be they scholar or layman. Such matters are technically known as al-ma‘lum min al-din bi’l-
darurah – ‘Necessarily known to be part of the religion.’ Secondly, issues which not everybody knows.
Thirdly, those matters differed upon by the scholars.1

Denying anything from the first category of knowledge can amount to disbelief (kufr), providing there is
no excuse not to know these things, like someone who is a recent convert, or was raised in a place
where ignorance of the religion was rife and widespread.

Denying something from the second category is only disbelief if one persists in denying it after he is
made to understand that it is actually a part of what Allah sent His Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬with as
religion. Before this, he is excused for not knowing; either out of it being inaccessible to him, or it is
beyond what he is reasonably expected to know.

As for the third category, then such issues cannot be used as a yardstick to cast aspersions on someone’s
orthodoxy; let alone charge them with disbelief.

II
If knowledge, for want of a simple definition, is true, justified belief, what are its sources? Or to put it
slightly differently: I know something if I believe it to be true and that belief is justified; but what is its
justification?

Our scholars say the sources of knowledge (madarik al-‘ulum) – in other words, our epistemology – are
three: knowledge gained via (i) the five senses (al-hawas al-khams), (ii) truthful reports (ikhbar sahih);
and finally (iii) rational inquiry (al-nazr).2 So if knowledge comes by way of the sound senses, a truthful
report, or via sound premises and reasoning, then it can be said to be justifiably true. If it comes from
senses that are impaired, a false report, or from faulty premises or unsound reasoning, then believing it
will be unjustified.

The senses refer to: hearing, sight, smell, taste and touch. Rational inquiry via the sound intellect (‘aql)
begets two types of knowledge: Dururi – ‘axiomatic’ or ‘self-evident’; i.e. knowledge that is so evident,
immediate and well-established that it needs no investigation, and is accepted without question or
controversy. That the whole is greater than its part is an example of dururi knowledge. It is the type of
knowledge people just know. Or istidlali – ‘inferential’; where some pause for thought is required, or
some level of investigation; such as knowledge that there is a fire on seeing smoke.

As for truthful reports (ikhbar sahih, or khabar sadiq), it too is of two types: (i) Mutawatir – ‘multiple-
chain transmission’; i.e. a report narrated by numerous individuals, separately, such that it is
inconceivable for them to have concurred upon a lie or coincidently made the same error. Such reports
yield certainty in knowledge (yufid al-‘ilm) or definite (qat‘i) knowledge. While scholars disagree on just
how many people constitutes a mutawatir report (numbers range from four, five, twenty, seventy; even
three-hundred and thirteen), the majority hold that what counts is not the question of a specific
number, but any reasonable number whose testimony precludes the possibility of a collective lie or
mistake, thus engendering sure knowledge. The Qur’an, in its entirety, is mutawatir; i.e. it has been
mass-transmitted. Some hadiths are also mutawatir, as are a some reports of scholarly consensus
(ijma‘).

The second type is the ahad – ‘singular’ or ‘solitary’ reports. The ahad includes any report which doesn’t
reach the level of being mutawatir; whether it be one, two, three or however many reporting it. Such a
report yields [highly] probable (zanni) knowledge; not certain. The rationale is that, even if the reporters
in the chain are all precise, reliable and upright and not known to lie, there is always the possibility – as
slim as it may be – that an error could have crept in. Whilst for the vast majority of scholars the ahad will
offer highly probable, or probable or merely possible knowledge – enough to act upon and be
reasonably sure – it cannot yield certainty or definite knowledge. Most authentic hadiths are of the ahad
type, and thus yield zanni knowledge, as do some ijma‘ reports.

Some theologians contend that if any ahad hadith has corroborative evidence (qarinah, pl. qara’in), then
its epistemological value will be bumped up to the level of certainty and sure knowledge (yufid al-‘ilm).
That is, it will be like the mutawatir. This qarinah, or corroborative piece of evidence, may be a scholarly
consensus (ijma‘) about the truthfulness of the report, or that the specialists of the ummah have
accepted it (talaqihi al-qubul) within the theological canon, or other such qara’in. A number of Hanbali
jurist-theologians took this view; they include Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Hamdan, al-Tufi, Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn
Balban. On investigation, however, the relied upon, mu‘tamad view of the Hanbali school is that the
sound ahad hadiths, apart from those classified as mustafid,3 even if accompanied by a corroborative
evidence, do not reach the level of being qat‘i; definite, but only zanni; highly probable or strongly
possible.4 And Allah knows best.

With that so, let’s move on to the actual question, by first visiting those hadiths that speak about the
descent of Jesus, peace be upon him, and his End of Days return:

III

The fact of the matter is, there are many truthful hadiths about Jesus’ descent and return, ‘alayhis-
salam, that are authentically related from the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬. They include:-

1 – ‘By Him in whose hand is my life, [Jesus] the son of Mary will soon descend among you as a just
judge. He will break the cross, slay the swine, abolish the jizyah-tax, wealth will flow to the extent that
no one will accept it, and a single prostration will be better than the world and whatever it contains.’5

2 – ‘By Him in whose hand is my life, [Jesus] the son of Mary will soon descend among you as a fair
arbiter. He will break the cross, slay the swine, and abolish the jizyah-tax. Sturdy camels shall be
abandoned and neglected. Spite, rancour and mutual envy shall depart, and money will be offered but
none will take it.’6

3 – ‘There will never cease to be a group of my nation fighting upon the truth, being triumphant till the
Day of Judgement. Jesus, son of Mary will descend, so their leader will say: “Come, lead us in prayer.” He
will reply: “No, some of you are leaders over others, as an honour Allah has granted to this nation.”’7
4 – ‘How will you be when the son of Mary descends among you and your ruler is from yourselves?’8

5 – About the Hour, the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said: ‘It will not come till you have seen ten signs before
it.’ Then he mentioned: The Smoke; the Dajjal; the Beast; the rising of the sun from the west; the
descent of Jesus son of Mary; Gog and Magog; and three earthquakes, one in the East, one in the West,
and one in Arabia; and the last of which is a fire that will blaze forth from Yemen and drive people to
their place of assembly.9

6 – ‘I am the closest of people to Jesus, son of Mary, since there was no prophet between him and me.
He will descend. So when you see him, recognise him. He is a man of medium [height], slightly ruddy [in
complexion] … He will fight the people for Islam’s sake. He will break the cross, slay the swine and
abolish the jizyah. In his time, Allah shall put an end to all religions other than Islam, and the Dajjal shall
perish at his hands.’10

7 – ‘The Hour will not be established until the Romans descend upon al-A‘maq or Dabiq.11 An army,
made up of the best of the people of the earth that day, will set forth from Madinah against them …
When the prayer is being established, Jesus son of Mary shall descend and lead them. When the enemy
of Allah [the Dajjal] sees him, he will begin to dissolve, as salt dissolves in water. If anything of him were
to remain, he would continue to perish. But Allah will slay him at his [Jesus’] hand, and he will show the
Muslims his blood on his spear.’12

IV

A number of hadith masters and Quranic exegists, both past and present, have categorically asserted
that the hadiths about Jesus’ descent, ‘alayhi-salam, and the coming of the Dajjal; the Antichrist, are
mutawatir. That is, the hadiths on the topic reach the highest degree of authenticity and certainty, and
any belief based upon them is true and wholly justified. As for the other details in these ahadith, besides
Jesus’ descent and the coming of the Dajjal, each of them will have to be considered on their own merit,
to assess their epistemological values in terms of whether they yield qat‘i or zanni knowledge.

These hadiths, and more besides, however, each have a recurrent theme which runs through them via
mass-transmission; namely, the descent of Jesus. Thus, this matter is taken to be a mutawatir fact. This
is something which, as already said, has been asserted by many religious authorities:
At the head of them we have Imam al-Tabari, who wrote in explanation to the verse: [And remember]
When Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I am gathering you and raising you to Me.’ [Q.3:55]: ‘The most preferred of
these views in terms of soundness, in our opinion, is the view of those who say: “The meaning of this
[i.e. of Jesus being raised] is: I have taken you from the earth and raised you to Myself,” due to the
mutawatir reports from Allah’s Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬who said that Jesus son of Mary will descend
and will slay the Dajjal …’13

Likewise, Ibn Kathir said: ‘These hadiths are mutawatir from the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, via
the narrations of: Abu Hurayrah, Ibn Mas‘ud, ‘Uthman b. Abi’l-’As, Abu Umamah, al-Nawwas b. Sam‘an,
‘Abd Allah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As, Mujammi‘ b. Jariyah, and Abu Sarihah Hudhayfah b. Usayd. They contain an
evidence for the description of his descent, and its place; in that it is in Greater Syria – in fact, in
Damascus at the Eastern minaret …‘14

Other verifying scholars have demonstrated the same; including: al-Kattani,15 Siddiq Hasan Khan,16
Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri,17 and al-Albani.18

I am not aware of any historical grievance from classical Sunni thought on the question of Jesus’
descent, peace be upon him, and the coming of the Dajjal. In fact, as we’ll see, the ‘ulema felt it certain
enough to make it an article of Sunni creed as early as the eighth century of the common era (i.e. the
second century of Islam). By the nineteenth century, however, under the weighty influence of Western
ideas of rationality and progress, certain Muslim reformers set about modernising the scholarly tradition
and turath, even if it meant rejecting parts of it and turning other parts on their head. Out of this alleged
enlightenment came, among other things, the first real objections to the long held belief about Jesus’
second coming. So let’s briefly engage some of these objections:

The first objection is that, if the descent of Jesus, ‘alayhis-salam, is true, why is such an important
eschatological fact left out of the Qur’an? The reply:

Not all notable beliefs or practices of Islam are in the Qur’an. Some are stated in the Hadith corpus. Take
the two ‘Id days and ‘Id prayers, they aren’t mentioned in the Qur’an, only in the hadiths. But what
Muslim would dream of rejecting these annual celebrations of Islam on account of them not being
mentioned in the Qur’an, just the hadiths? The same goes for the obligatory details of how to pray or
perform hajj, and other mandatory teachings found only in the sound hadiths. Thus Jabir relates: A
donkey that had been branded on the face passed by the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, so he said: ‘Is there
anyone among you who has not heard that I have cursed those who brand or strike an animal’s face?’19
So someone who hasn’t yet heard it, is excused for not knowing it. But it becomes disbelief if one
persists in denying it after being made to understand that it is part of what the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
came with as religion. This also applies to the matter of Jesus’ return and the Dajjal.

Another objection states that these hadiths sound ‘too Christian’; too much like certain passages from
the Bible, so this belief must have crept into Islam from Christianity.

The response: The fact that there are similarities isn’t reason enough to reject these well-established
hadiths. Otherwise shouldn’t all similarities be rejected? Furthermore, who decides what is ‘too’
Christian anyway? This subjective way of thinking is akin to Christians rejecting the Qur’an as divine
revelation on the grounds that it contains stories also found in the Bible; thus the claim that the Prophet
‫ ﷺ‬must have copied parts of the Bible. The Muslim reply to this faulty thinking is to point
out that mere similarities is not a proof of borrowing from the Bible. Instead, the Qur’an is simply
affirming that such stories are historical truths forming a shared sacred history in the saga of Abrahamic
monotheism. Any similarities between the hadiths about Jesus’ descent and the Bible equally has its
roots in that same common sacred history. To deny the Descent-hadiths because of their Biblical
similarity is, in all honesty, a rather flimsy objection. To reject such hadiths which have gone through a
rigorous process of academic authentication, based on what amounts to little more than a hunch, seems
like a desperate attempt to nail jelly to the wall!

A third objection claims: It is forbidden to do taqlid in issues of ‘aqidah. Instead, ‘aqidah matters must be
arrived at through rational reflection (nazr). Belief in Jesus’ descent and return is based on taqlid, on top
of which it is irrational.

The reply: Theologians have divided ‘aqidah into three parts: ilahiyyat – creedal issues related to God
and divinity; nubuwwat – matters related to prophets and the nature of prophethood; and sam‘iyyat –
doctrines received ex auditu, from sound reports unprovable by reason, although not unreasonable or
irrational in themselves. So while Islam’s highly rationalised kalam theology requires core doctrines
concerning ilahiyyat and nubuwwat to be rationally established – in terms of what is rationally necessary
(wajib) for God and His prophets, what is possible (ja’iz), and what is impossible (mustahil) – the same is
not the case for the sam‘iyyat.20 The sam‘iyyat (from the Arabic word sam‘ – to ‘hear’; in other words,
these are ‘matters that are heard’ or ‘received in faith’) are considered to lie outside the reach of
rational proof, unlike the other two main categories of theological inquiry, metaphysics (ilahiyyat) and
prophecy (nubuwwat). The task of theology, when it comes to the sam‘iyyat, is to defend scriptural
predictions from false interpretations or over rationalisations. For Allah to return Jesus to earth and for
him to slay the Dajjal are all matters that are rationally possible, if Allah wills. To claim they are irrational
is itself nonsensical. Likewise, to say that the sam‘iyyat must be rationally justified is to betray a level of
ignorance of Islamic theology and the concern of the sam‘iyyat that one would not expect, even from a
mediocre student of ‘aqidah; let alone one that is seasoned. Either that, or the objection is a dishonest
one to begin with. As for it being taqlid, to follow such words of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬which have
been rigorously authenticated and preserved is called ittiba‘; not taqlid!

Qadi ‘Iyad stated: ‘The descent of Jesus, peace be upon him, and his slaying the Dajjal, is true and
authentic in the view of Ahl al-Sunnah; due to the authentic hadiths concerning this. There is nothing,
rationally or religiously, to invalidate this: therefore it is obligatory to affirm it.’21

VI

In terms of the hadiths that speak of Jesus’ descent, peace be upon him, then a number of these hadiths
are related in al-Bukhari’s Sahih or Imam Muslim’s Sahih. Some are narrated in both, making them:
muttafaqun ‘alayhi – ‘agreed upon’ in terms of their authenticity. Hadiths that are agreed upon by both
al-Bukhari and Muslim reach a level of believability and certainty second only to the Qur’an, in the
science of Hadith. As with the above three objections, this one also lacks academic precision or
intellectual rigour. It alleges that the reliability of al-Zuhri, who narrates many of these Descent-hadiths,
is questionable. Some of them have stated that he is unreliable; or more specifically, he is a mudallis
who practiced tadlis in terms of reporting hadiths. This has been used by some in these times to smear
the reputation of this early Muslim pietist and scholar. But the reality of such an allegation is as follows:

In hadith terminology, tadlis (to ‘conceal’, ‘obfuscate’) refers to a narrator who reports from his shaykh,
whom he has met and has related hadiths from, but didn’t directly hear this specific hadith. The one
engaged in tadlis, the mudallis, narrates it in a manner which creates the impression that he did directly
hear the hadith from his shaykh. The usual way would be to narrate it with a vague expression, like: ‘an
– ‘on the authority of,’ rather than the precise: sami‘tu – ‘I heard it from,’ or haddathana – ‘he narrated
to me.’22

A narrator may indulge in tadlis for a variety of reasons, not all being deceitful or insidious. A narrator
may conceal their immediate source because he or she was considered weak or untrustworthy, or hold
beliefs opposed to Sunni Islam whilst still being a reliable narrator. It could even be that a student might
have to leave a hadith dictation session to answer the call of nature, let’s say, and so he would hear the
hadiths he missed from a classmate; although when it came to relating those hadiths, he might miss out
the classmate’s name and simply say: ‘On the authority of such and such teacher …’ There is also tadlis
that does not involve tadlis al-isnad, indirect reporting. There’s tadlis al-shuyukh, where the narrator
uses a source’s name that isn’t the usual name he or she is known by; thus causing some element of
obfuscation.

While hadith masters did indeed include al-Zuhri in the category of those who committed tadlis, it’s also
true that they graded such mudallisun into differing levels. Ibn Hajr lists them as five categories: [1]
Those who fell into it rarely or occasionally. [2] Those whose tadlis was tolerated and who were narrated
from in the Two Sahih and Malik’s Muwatta, let alone other hadith collections; due to their honesty,
precision, knowledge and godliness. [3] Those who fell into tadlis frequently, but whose hadiths the
scholars have accepted if they were reported with direct hearing. [4] Those whose hadiths the scholars
agreed are unreliable, unless reported with direct hearing, due to them committing tadlis frequently
from weak and unknown narrators. [5] Those who were deemed unreliable as narrators for reasons
other than tadlis; their hadiths were rejected even when they reported directly.23

As for al-Zuhri’s integrity, precision and trustworthiness, there’s unanimity of the scholars in respect to
his being one of the righteous, leading ‘ulema of early Islam. So someone as critical as Imam Ahmad b.
Hanbal said: ‘Al-Zuhri was the best of people in hadiths and the most excellent of people in terms of
chains of narrators.’24 In fact, for Imam Ahmad, the most authentic chain of hadith – i.e. his ‘Golden
Chain’ – is: al-Zuhri, from Salim, from his father Ibn ‘Umar.25 Also, Imam Malik relates around twenty
percent of his hadiths in al-Muwatta from al-Zuhri; and his hadiths abound in the Sahihs of al-Bukhari
and Muslim. This is why Ibn Hajr describes him thus: ‘The jurist (faqih) and hadith master (hafiz) whose
greatness, precision and reliability is agreed upon.’26 As for the question of his tadlis, Imam al-Dhahabi
remarked: ‘He would commit tadlis rarely.’27 All this is assuming that his indirect reports constitute
tadlis, not mursal khafi: an issue that doesn’t alter his reliable status, nor can it be explored here.

The long and the short of it is that Imam Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri is one of the most righteous scholars and
trustworthy hadith narrators from the salaf. Those who seek to tarnish the reputation of this exemplary
scholar, with lies; half-truths; and red herrings, they are the real deceivers and obfuscaters of truth. Our
belief and attitude towards such early scholars should be as Imam al-Tahawi states in his famous
‘Aqidah:

‘The scholars of the salaf from the forerunners, and those who followed in their footsteps after them –
the people of virtue and narrations, and of jurisprudence and investigation – are not to be spoken
about, save in the most respectful way. Whoever speaks ill of them is surely upon a path that is
astray.’28
VII

As mentioned, due to the definite nature of these hadiths, Muslim theologians were certain enough to
make belief in Jesus’ descent, ‘alayhis-salam, and his killing the Dajjal, part and parcel of the orthodox
Sunni creed by as early as the second Islamic century. Below is a small sample of such creedal
declarations:

Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal stated in his Usul al-Sunnah: ‘To believe that the Dajjal will come forth, and
written on his forehead shall be [the word] “kafir,” as per the hadiths that have come concerning it; and
that Jesus will descend and slay him at the gate of Lod.’29

Imam al-Tahawi wrote: ‘We believe in the signs of the Hour, like the emergence of the Dajjal and the
descent of Jesus son of Mary, upon whom be peace, from heaven.’30

Imam Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari, who wrote under the forty-second point of ijma‘, or scholarly consensus:
‘There is ijma‘ about the Prophet’s intercession ‫ ﷺ‬for the major sinners …’ After which he
said: ‘And likewise what is reported about the Dajjal and the descent of Jesus son of Mary, and his killing
him.’31

Ibn Qudamah said: ‘From them are the signs of the Hour, like the emergence of the Dajjal; the descent
of Jesus son of Mary, ‘alayhis-salam, who shall kill him; the emergence of God and Magog; the coming of
the Beast; the rising of the sun from the West; and their like from what is authentically reported.’32

VIII

As for the ruling upon one who denies the return of Jesus, peace be upon him, or the coming of the
Dajjal, it is grave indeed. Given the certain knowledge such mutawatir hadiths yield, and the obligation
to submit to revealed knowledge on pain of obstinate refusal and rejection, a number of scholars have
categorically confirmed the disbelief of those who persist in denying them after being made to
understand that they are part of what the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬came with as religion. From these
scholars are:
Imam al-Suyuti, who said that to take the hadith: ‘There is no prophet after me’ on its literal meaning
‘entails one of two things: either denial of Jesus’ descent, or negating prophethood from him – both of
which are disbelief (kufr).’33

Al-Alusi stated: ‘It is obligatory to believe in it. Those, such as the philosophers, who deny the descent of
Jesus, peace be upon him, during the end of days, have disbelieved.’34

Let me begin to wrap it up with this rather incisive statement from Shaykh al-Kawthari, who wrote:
‘Assuming hypothetically that the hadith concerning the descent of Jesus is an ahad report which al-
Bukhari and Muslim agreed upon; reporting it without criticism from anyone, from the perspective of
the Hadith sciences. The ummah received it with acceptance (talaqqahu al-ummah bi’l-qubul); the later
ones from the earlier ones. The scholars of the ummah have uninterruptedly believed in its content
down through the ages. It is imperative, therefore, to accept it. This is assuming it to be an ahad report.
So how will it be when it is, in fact, undeniably mutawatir; as per the words of the specialists in the field
we cited! Thus rejection of it, after recognising the level of the hadith, is indeed dangerous. We ask Allah
for safety. The verified opinion on the issue of [Jesus’] ascent and his descent is that the reports are
mutawatir. Al-Bazdawi stipulated towards the end of his discussion about the mutawatir that one who
rejects the mutawatir, and opposes it, becomes a disbeliever.’35

And while there may be a number of excuses why someone in this day and age isn’t a disbeliever (kafir)
for denying the descent of Jesus, ‘alayhi-salam, and of the Dajjal perishing at his hands, the statement
itself is disbelief (kufr). It is the latter – the ruling about the denial: not any specific person who does the
actual denying – which must be the focus of Muslim scholarly concern.

To conclude: The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬taught: ‘You must enjoin good and forbid evil until you see
greed being obeyed, desires being followed, worldliness being preferred and each person being
impressed with his own opinion.’36

Islam, no doubt, is a corrective tradition. False notions and misunderstandings have to be engaged and
addressed. A vacuum cannot be left, but must be wisely filled. Perhaps because egos had become
infatuated with their own opinions; or because back and forth argumentation in religious matters tends
to harden the hearts, rile up souls or increases their stubbornness, that early orthodoxy went for a more
sober approach to any corrective. Qul kalimatak wa’mshi – ‘Say your piece and move on’ – pretty much
sums up that approach. Hence Imam Malik insisted: ‘Inform him of the Sunnah, if he accepts it [all well
and good]; if not, then say no more.’37 Imam Ahmad urged something similar: ‘Tell him of the Sunnah,
but do not get into argumentation.38

This particular corrective, as with others on this blog, has been written in such a spirit. It’s also written
knowing that while there’s a need to firefight – shar‘an wa ‘aqlan, as the saying goes – we have far
larger fish to fry. Correctives should not take us away from our greater focus, which is to evolve a long
term strategy for how best to engage this bizarre new world in which there is a constructed absence of
teleology, metaphysics and meaning, and an existential despair and loneliness which accompanies this
void. Niels Bohr once said about Quantum physics that anyone who is not mystified by it, hasn’t
understood it. The same might be said for modernity. Those religious minds who fail to see what all the
fuss is about; who see it as an overblown manifestation of the worldliness we humans have always
plunged into, have yet to understand our age. And in the absence of this understanding, they are
unlikely to be effective healers.

Finally, correctives should not be an expression of the ego. Nor should they be used to mock, insult or
debase those who have erred. For: ‘Others are our fellow travellers, even if they have lost the road.’39
Instead, let correctives be done in the same spirit as Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned, when he offered this
insight into his own commitment to honouring brotherhood and sincere concern for the guidance and
welfare of others: ‘The first of what I shall begin with from this principle is what relates to me. So you all
know, may Allah be pleased with you all, that I wish no harm at all, neither inward nor outward, to
anyone from the general public, let alone my colleagues. I do not harbour ill-will against anyone, and nor
do I blame anyone in the slightest. Rather, in my estimation, they are deserving of honour, esteem, love
and respect: over and over; each according to what they deserve.

‘And a person is either: someone who sincerely strives their best to reach the truth, and is correct; or
[sincerely strives but] errs; or is sinful. So the first is rewarded and thanked. While the second is
rewarded for his striving to know the truth, and is excused and forgiven his error. As to the third, then
may Allah forgive us, and him, and all the believers.’40

Given that, my final du‘a – for both myself and for others – is the du‘a of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, when
he would pray: ‘O Allah, whoever from this community is upon other than the truth, believing himself to
be upon the truth, return him to the truth, that he may be from the People of the Truth.’41

Wa’Llahu wali al-mu’minin.

‫ان مِنْ َه ِذ ِه اأْل ُ َّم ِة َعلَى غَ ي ِْر ْال َح ِّق‬
َ ‫اللَّ ُه َّم َمنْ َك‬

ُ‫ظنُّ أَ َّن ُه َعلَى ْال َح ِّق َف ُر َّده‬

ُ ‫َوه َُو َي‬

َ ‫إِلَى ْال َح ِّق لِ َي ُك‬

‫ون‬

‫مِنْ أَهْ ِل‬

‫ْال َح ِّق‬

1. Consult: al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, al-Faqih wa’l-Mutafaqqih (Dammam: Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, 1996), 1:434.

2. Cf. al-Saffarini, Lawami‘ al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah Sharh al-Durrat al-Madiyyah (Riyadh: Dar al-Tawhid,
2016), 3:736-46.

3. The mustafid hadith (often synonymous with the mashhur) is one that never has less than three
narrators at every level of its chain, and has become well-known or widespread among the scholars.
Some see it as a category between mutawatir and ahad. Consult: Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani, Nuzhat al-Nazr fi
Tawdih Nukhbat al-Fikr (Karachi: Maktabah al-Bushra, 2011), 42-43.

4. Al-Futuhi, Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir (Riyadh: Maktabah al-‘Ubaykan, 1993), 2:348; Ibn Taymiyyah,
Majmu‘ Fatawa (Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1991), 13:351; Ibn Balban, Qala’id al-‘Iqyan (Jeddah: Dar al-
Minhaj, 2015), 129; and al-Safarini, Lawami‘ al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah, 1:140-60.

5. Al-Bukhari, no.3448; Muslim, no.242.

6. Muslim, no.243.

7. Muslim, no.247.
8. Al-Bukhari, no.3449; Muslim, no.244.

9. Muslim, no.2901.

10. Ahmad, no.9349. Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani graded its chain to be sahih in Fath al-Bari (Cairo: Dar
al-‘Alamiyyah, 2013), 8:70-71; as did al-Albani, Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah (Riyadh: Maktabah al-
Ma‘arif, 1991), no.2182.

11. Two cities near Aleppo, Syria.

12. Muslim, no.2897.

13. Al-Tabari, Jami‘ an Ta’wil al-Qur’an (Cairo: Dar Hijr, 2001), 5:451.

14. Tafsir Qur’an al-‘Azim (Alexandria: Dar al-‘Aqidah, 2008), 1:824.

15. Al-Nazm al-Mutanathir min al-Ahadith al-Mutawatir (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Salafiyyah, n.d.), 239;
no.291.

16. In his al-Idha‘ah lima Kana wa ma Yakun Bayna Yadyi al-Sa‘ah (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2000), 198.

17. As per his monologue on the topic: al-Tasrih bima Tawatur fi Nuzul al-Masih (Damascus & Beirut: Dar
al-Qalam, 1992).

18. See: Al-‘Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah Sharh wa Ta‘liq (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma‘arif, 2001), 107, no.100.

19. Abu Dawud, no.2564.

20. For the suprarational basis of the sam‘iyyat, consult: al-Saffarini, Lawami‘ al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah,
2:433; the rational basis behind the ilahaiyyat, and what is possible and inconceivable for the prophets,
see: 1:263.

21. Cited in al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1995), 18:61.

22. As in Ibn Hajr, Nuzhat al-Nazr, 80-81. Also cf. J. Brown, Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval
and Modern World (London: Oneworld, 2018), 93-94.

23. See: Ibn Hajr, Ta‘rif Ahl al-Taqdis bi Maratib al-Mawsufin bi’l-Tadlis (Jordan: Dar al-Manar, n.d.), 13-
14.

24. Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risala, 1998), 5:335.

25. Cited in Ibn Kathir, Ikhtisar ‘Ulum al-Hadith (Riyadh: Dar al-Mayman, 2013), 97.

26. Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Riyadh: Dar al-‘Asimah, 1416H), 896.

27. Mizan al-I‘tidal (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifah, 1963), 4:40. It’s rather surprising to see Ibn Hajr put al-Zuhri
in the third category of mudallisun, in his above essay Ta‘rif Ahl al-Taqdis, 45. The proofs suggest he be
in the first or second level, if he should be classed as a mudallis in the technical sense of the term at all.

28. Al-‘Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah (Dar al-Athariyyah, 2007), 63; §.97.

29. The short creed is cited in Ibn Abi Ya‘la, Tabaqat al-Hanabilah (Saudi Arabia; Maktabah al-Malik Fahd,
1999), 2:169, by way of ‘Abdus b. Malik al-‘Attar. Lod is a city nine miles southeast of Tel Aviv, Israel.
30. Al-‘Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, 64; §.100.

31. Risalah ila Ahl al-Thaghr (Madinah: al-Jami‘ah al-Islamiyyah bi’l-Madinah al-Munawwarah, 1413H),
166.

32. Lum‘at al-I‘tiqad (Dar al-Athariyyah, 2007), §.57.

33. Al-Hawi li’l-Fatawi (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2000), 2:157.

34. Ruh al Ma‘ani (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risalah, 2010), 21:342.

35. Nazrat ‘Abirah fi Maza‘im man Yunkir Nuzul ‘Isa ‘alayhis-salam Qabl al-Akhirah (Cairo: n.p., 1986),
110-11.

36. Al-Tirmidhi, no.3058, who said that the hadith is hasan gharib.

37. Cited in al-Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala, 8:108.

38. Cited in Ibn Muflih, al-Adab al-Shar‘iyyah (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risalah, 1996), 1:221.

39. Abdal Hakim Murad, Contentions, 10/45.

40. Majmu‘ Fatawa, 28:52-53.

41. Cited in Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah (Beirut: Maktabah al-Ma‘arif, 1990), 10:329.