So the basic principle (asl) is that speech about the Attributes is speech about the Essence (dhaat) of Allāh, so it follows it in that and takes it as a model of example.
Verily the praise is for Allāh, we seek His aid and guidance. And we seek refuge from the evils of our own selves and from the evils of our actions. Whomsoever Allāh guides, then none can misguide him. And whosoever He misguides, then there is no guide for him. And I testify that there is no deity worthy of worship besides Allāh alone, without any associates. And I testify that Muḥammad is His servant and Messenger, may the complete and perfect greetings and peace of Allāh be upon him. To proceed:
So this is the treatise, Mas‘alah fis-Sifaat which covers two issues. Firstly, there is a narration from al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Khaṭīb concerning an issue from the Masaa‘il of Imām Abū ʿAbdullāh Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal (d.241H) with respect to belief in the Speech of Allāh the Mighty and Majestic and a refutation of the statement of the Jahmiyyah. Secondly, there is a fatwá́ from al-Khaṭīb concerning an issue related to the Attributes. In it he mentions the general ʿaqīdah (creed) of the Salaf in the Attributes of Allāh the Mighty and Majestic. And in it, he affirms that the path of the Salaf is the moderate path, just as he affirms the foundation of Salafīyyah, ‘Speaking about the Attributes is a branch of speaking about the Dhaat (Essence of Allāh).’ So he affirmed the Attributes, along with tanzeeh (negating anthropomorphism) and he nullifies ta‘weel (figurative interpretation).
And he opposes the People of Innovation in their attacks upon Ahl al-Sunnah wa-al-Athar, due to the fact that they narrate the aḥādīth about the Attributes and explain the obligation of referring the mutashaabih (unclear) back to the muhkam (clear) in all of that and submitting to it. Then he resorted to a division of the aḥādīth that mentions the Attributes into three categories by way of acceptance and rejection. And he explained that whatever is confirmed from them must be carried in the same manner as what is mentioned of them by the Qurʾān: upon ithbaat (affirmation) and negating tashbīh (resemblance). So this quality that al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī was upon is the iʿtiqād (creed) of the Salaf, Ahl al-Sunnah wa-al-Ḥadīth. He was not as some claim when they connect him to some of the companions of al-Ashʿarī. His statement concerning al-Ithbaat (affirmation) generally agrees with the statement of al-Ashʿarī in al-Ibānah, 2 since that is what he traversed therein. So this does not amount to evidence in attaching him to Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, since the madh′hab of ithbaat (affirmation) was the madh′hab of the Salaf before the existence of al-Ashʿarī. And al-Khaṭīb was an imām of Ahl al-Ḥadīth in his time, so attaching him to them (Ahl al-Ḥadīth) is an obligation besides which nothing else is befitting. Rather, you will see in the issue discussed in this treatise that which completely frees al-Khaṭīb from being upon the Ashʿarī madh′hab; since he did not take the position concerning the creation of the Qurʾān by which the Ashʿariyyah left the ʿaqīdah of the Salaf, Ahl al-Sunnah wa-al-Ḥadīth. I ask Allāh the Mighty and Majestic to protect you and I from misguidance, and there is no might, nor power except for Him.
In the checking of this treatise I utilized the sole preserved manuscript in Daarul-Kutubudh-Dhaahiriyyah in Damascus found entirely under (no. 16).
The treatise deals with two issues as I mentioned in the introduction. Firstly, from the narration of al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Nāṣir as-Sulāmee with his isnād leading up to the narration of al-Khaṭīb. And the second is from the narration of Abī Ṭālib as-Sayrafī with his isnād leading up to the speech of al-Khaṭīb. And the narrator from whom I extracted the two of them is not particular to me, because he connected the treatise: Iʿtiqādus-Sunnah of al-Ismāʿīlee (d.371H), and that was from the narration of Imām Muwaffiqud-Dīn Ibn Qudāmah (d.620H) that was used by a later group of scholars. Indeed, the second issue from this treatise is narrated by Ibn Qudāmah in his book, Dhammut-Ta‘weel (no. 15), as is narrated through him by al-Dhahabī in al-’Uluww (p. 185) from Abī Ṭālib as-Sayrafī with his isnād and he mentioned a portion from it. So to convey through his narration is a strong conveyance.
So with regards to the modes of transmission that are confirmed, it becomes clear that this treatise comes from the narration of Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī Ibn Abī ʿAbdullāh Ibn ʿAlī al-Muqayyar al-Baghdādī, with his Ijaazah (license to narrate) from Ibn Nāṣir and from Abī Ṭālib as-Sayrafī. And Ibn al-Muqayyar is musnad (supported), mukaththar (having many narrations) and saalih (righteous). Indeed, a group heard this treatise from him in 633H. And Ibn al-Muqayyar has an Ijāzāh for this treatise as well from Ibn al-Ma’aalee al-Fadl Ibn Sahl al-Isfaraayeenee, with his Ijāzāh (license to narrate) from al-Khaṭīb, as is found in the transmission of another manuscript. I say, Ibn al-Ma’aalee is authentic in transmission, but he was charged with lying through his dialect. 3 There is a transmission by another group dated Saturday, the twenty-ninth of Dhu al-Ḥijjah 730H, upon the righteous Shaykhah Umm ʿAbdullāh Zaynab ibnt Aḥmad Ibn ’Abdur-Raheem as-Ṣāliḥiyyah, with her Ijāzāh from the noble Musnadah ’Ajeebah ibnt Muḥammad Ibn Abī Ghaalib al-Baaqadaaree al-Baghdādiyyah, with her Ijāzāh from Abū al-Farj Masʿūd Ibn al-Ḥasan ath-Thaqafī with his Ijāzāh from al-Khaṭīb.
This is the third isnād for the treatise, but it is weak since they have spoken of the Ijāzāh of al-Khaṭīb for ath-Thaqafī and its feebleness (wahn). 4 And in what has preceded is sufficient confirmation of the authenticity of this treatise to al-Khaṭīb. Indeed, al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū Taahir as-Silafī followed Abū Ṭālib as-Sayrafī, so he related the second issue from az-Za’faraanee. It was related by al-Dhahabī in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubʿalāʾ‘ (18/283-284) and in Tadhkiratul-Huffaadh (3/142-143) and he mentioned the issue up until his statement,
“There is none equal to Him.”
[Sūrah al-Ikhlās 112:4]
The treatise was not named in its original form purposely. So I have named it due to its contact and due to the beginning of the answer from al-Khaṭīb, ‘As for speech concerning the Attributes…’
I have added endnotes to the treatise in terms of notes to places where they were needed. They include explaining the narration and the ruling upon its isnād, explaining a benefit, and in front of you is the text:
We were informed by al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Fadl Muḥammad Ibn Nāṣir Ibn Muḥammad Ibn ʿAlī al-Baghdādī 5 who said, we were informed by Abū al-Husayn al-Mubārak Ibn ʿAbd al-Jabbaar Ibn Aḥmad as-Sayrafī 6, reading aloud to him whilst I was listening in Shawwāl of the year 494H, that Abū Bakr Aḥmad Ibn ʿAlī Ibn Thābit al-Khaṭīb informed us: Abū Mansoor Muḥammad Ibn ’ʿĪsá al-Bazzaar 7 informed us saying, Ṣāliḥ Ibn Aḥmad al-Ḥāfiẓ 8 relates to us saying, I heard ʿAbdullāh Ibn Ishāq Ibn Sayaamarad 9 saying, I met al-Marroodhee 10 in Tarsoos, so I said to him, ‘How did you hear Abā ʿAbdullāh 11 speaking about the Qurʾān?’ He said, ‘I heard Abā ʿAbdullāh saying, ‘The Qurʾān is the Speech of Allāh, it is not created. So whoever says, ‘It is created,’ then he is a disbeliever.” I said, ‘How did you hear him speaking about the one who stops?’ He said, ‘This is an evil man, and I fear that he calls to the creation of the Qurʾān.’ I said to him, ‘O Abā Bakr, how did you hear Abū ʿAbdullāh speaking about al-Lafdh (the wording of the Qurʾān)?” He said, “Whoever says the wording of the Qurʾān is created, then he is a Jahmee.” I said to him, ‘And who is the Jahmee?’ 12 He said, “He is the one who doubted in Allāh for forty days.” 13 I said, “Whoever doubts in Allāh, then he is a disbeliever?” He said, “Yes.” 14
We were informed by Shaykh Abū Ṭālib al-Mubārak Ibn ʿAlī as-Sayrafī, 15 granting permission, who said Abū al-Ḥasan Muḥammad Ibn Marzooq Ibn ʿAbd al-Razzāq az-Za’faraanee 16 informed us, reading it out whilst I was listening in Rabīʿ al-Awwal of the year 560H, he said, al-Khaṭīb al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū Bakr Aḥmad Ibn ʿAlī al-Baghdādī who said, “So the people of Damascus wrote to me asking me about some issues – and he mentioned them – so I answered them about that – and he read to us the answers to what he was asked about. So he said, “I stand upon what the noble Shaykh wrote, may Allāh continue to aid him and to make good his success and correctness, and I sufficed with what had been presented to me of knowledge about him. I traverse…17 upon his footsteps. I answered with that which I hope will fall into agreement with his choice. And I ask Allāh for protection from humiliation and the success to recognize the correct statement and action by His bounty and mercy.
As for speech concerning the Attributes, then whatever is related about them from the authentic Sunan in the madh′hab of the Salaf – may Allāh be pleased with them all – is to be affirmed and conveyed upon its apparent (dhaahir) meaning, and the kayfiyyah (modality) and tashbīh (resemblance) must be negated from it. Indeed, a group has neglected them, thus nullifying what Allāh the Glorified had affirmed. And a group affirmed and actualized them to such an extent that they left from that and fell into performing tashbīh (resemblance) and takyīf (asking how). However, the correct view is only to tread the moderate path between the two affairs. And the true Religion of Allāh stands between extremism and neglect.
So the basic principle (asl) is that speech about the Attributes is speech about the Essence (dhaat) of Allāh, so it follows it in that and takes it as a model of an example. So when it is known that the affirmation of the Lord of the Worlds, the Mighty and Majestic, is an affirmation of existence, then likewise, affirmation of His Attributes is only an affirmation of existence, not an affirmation of limitation (tahdeed) and modality (takyīf). So when we say, ‘Allāh has a Hand, Hearing and Seeing,’ then these are only Attributes that Allāh has affirmed for Himself. And we do not say that the meaning of Hand is Power, nor do we say that the meaning of Hearing and Seeing is Knowledge. And we do not say that these are bodily limbs and tools to perform actions. Rather, we say that it is obligatory to affirm them, but to make tawqeef 18 of what is mentioned concerning them, due to the statement of Allāh the Blessed and Exalted,
“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.”
[Sūrah al-Shūrá, 11]
And there is the statement of Allāh the Mighty and Majestic,
“And there is none equal to Him.”
[Sūrah al-Ikhlās, 112:4]
So when the people of innovation find fault with the People of Narration due to their quoting the likes of the aḥādīth, and they fool the one with weak knowledge, by claiming that whatever they (Ahl al-Sunnah) relate is not befitting for Tawḥīd, nor is it correct in the Religion. And they charge them with the disbelief of the people of tashbīh and the neglect of the people of ta’teel (denial). 19 So they answer by stating that in the Book of Allāh the Exalted, there are muhkamaat (clear) āyāt whose meaning is understood by taking them upon their apparent (dhaahir) sense, and there are unclear (mutashaabihaat) āyāt, whose meaning cannot be comprehended, except by referring them back to the clear ones. And it is obligatory to have tasdeeq (attestation) and īmān (faith) in all of them. So likewise, the narrations of the Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) are to be conveyed in the same manner and they are to be treated the same as the Revelation (Qurʾān), the mutashaabih from it must be referred back to the muhkam, and all of it is to be accepted.
So the aḥādīth that are narrated about the Attributes are divided into three categories. From them are the narrations whose authenticity was affirmed by all of the Scholars due to their abundancy and trustworthiness in narration. So it is obligatory to accept them and to have faith in them, along with preserving the heart against that which inclines towards the belief in what necessitates resembling Allāh to His creation and describing Him with that which does not befit Him from bodily organs and parts and changing and movements. The second category consists of narrations whose asaaneed (chains of narration) are not of good repute and they contain repugnant statements. The people of knowledge have united upon the rejection of these narrations. So it is not permissible to occupy oneself with them, nor to give them any consideration. The third category contains narrations over whose conditions and transmissions the people of knowledge have differed. So some of them accepted them, whilst others did not. So in this case, it becomes obligatory to strive hard and to look into the affair so as to discern whether it is to be associated with the people of acceptance, or if it is to be placed within the confines of corruption and falsehood. As for pointing out such aḥādīth, then I have not pre-occupied myself with that, nor has anything emanated from me in terms of an attempt to compile them. Perhaps that will occur in the future, if Allāh wills.20
 The following is taken from the al-Hikmah quarterly (issue 1/p.).
 Translator’s Note: Imām Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (d.324H) – raḥimahullāh– said, “If it is said: Why do you deny His statement,
‘‘Do you not see that We have created for them what our Own Hands have created.’’
[Sūrah Yaa Seen, 36:71]
And His statement,
‘‘Whom I have created with My Own Hands.’’
[Sūrah Saad 38:75]
are majāz (metaphorical)? To him it is said: The ruling concerning the Speech of Allāh – the Mighty and Majestic – is that it is taken upon its dhaahir (apparent) and hʿaqīqah (real) meaning. Nothing is moved from its dhaahir meaning to a majaaz (metaphorical) one, except with a proof…Likewise, the statement of Allāh – the Mighty and Majestic, ‘‘Whom I have created with My Own Hands,’’ its dhaahir and hʿaqīqah meaning is affirming the Yadayn (two Hands of Allāh). So it is not permissible to alter it from the dhaahir meaning of Yadayn to that which our opponents claim, except with a proof…Consequently, about His statement, ‘‘Whom I have created with My Own Hands.’’ It is obligatory to affirm two hands for Allāh – the Most High – in its hʿaqīqah (real) meaning, not with the meaning of ni’matayn (two bounties of Allāh).” Taken from al-Ibānah ’an Uṣūlid-Diyaanah (p. 133). The ascription of this book to Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, and that it was his final book concerning ʿaqīdah (creed) – has been testified to by a number of Scholars, and from them: al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn ’ʿAsākir in Tabyeenul-Kadhibul-Muftaree (p. 152), al-Bayḥaqī in al-Iʿtiqād (p. 31), Imām al-Dhahabī in al-’Uluww (no. 276) and Ibn al-’Imaad in Shadharaatudh-Dhahab (p. 303).
 Refer to Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubʿalāʾ‘ (20/226).
 Refer to Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubʿalāʾ‘ (18/285), (30/47).
 He is commonly known as ‘as-Salāmee’ (d.550H), he is reliable, a precise memorize, a person of the Sunnah, a zāhid (not concerned with the world). He used to be Ashʿarī in the first part of his affair, then he relocated to the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa-al-Ḥadīth. For his biography, refer to Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubʿalāʾ‘ (20/265).
 He is commonly known is Ibn al-Taywaree (d.500H), a firm and reliable Baghdādī, upon correct principles along with steadfastness upon the Religion and good manners. For his biography, refer to Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubʿalāʾ‘ (19/213).
 He is al-Hamdhaanee (d.431H), he is truthful and reliable, a righteous man. For his biography, refer to Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubʿalāʾ‘ (17/563).
 He is at-Tamīmee al-Hamdhaanee (d.431H), he is truthful and reliable, a righteous man. For his biography, refer to Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubʿalāʾ‘ (16/518).
 He is an-Nūḥaawandee, Abū ’Abdur-Raḥmān; al-Ḥāfiẓ Ṣāliḥ Ibn Aḥmad said, ‘I heard from him along with my father. He was reliable, a respectful possessor of the Sunnah. He memorized and retained. He came to us in the year 380H.” For his biography, refer to Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubʿalāʾ‘ (15/247).
 He is Aḥmad Ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Ḥajjaaj, Abū Bakr (d.275H), a Baghdādī, an exemplary imām, a leader in defending the Sunnah and calling to it. He was from the most particular companions of Imām Aḥmad and at the head of their level. And Aḥmad would not put anyone before him. For his biography, refer to Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubʿalāʾ‘ (13/173).
 Meaning, Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal (d.241), may Allāh bestow mercy upon him.
 That is to say, who is the Jahmee to whom this statement is attributed?
 ʿAbdullāh Ibn Aḥmad relates in al-Sunnah (no. 189) with an authentic isnād from Zayd Ibn Hārūn who said, “May Allāh curse al-Jahm and whosoever says what he said. He was an obstinate disbeliever, he left the Prayer for forty days, claiming that he has apostated from the Religion, and that was due to his doubt about Islām.” I say, al-Jahm was Ibn Ṣafwān, the head of innovation, an imām of misguidance. May Allāh disfigure his face.
 The isnād of this issue is authentic from Imām Aḥmad. And he meant by ‘those who stop,’ those who say, ‘The Qurʾān is the Speech of Allāh,’ and then they become silent. So they do not say, ‘It is created,’ nor do they say, ‘It is not created.’ Indeed, this used to be sufficient before the emergence of the statement concerning the creation of the Qurʾān. As for after it had emerged and become widespread, then it was not permissible to remain silent. So it became obligatory to refute the innovation and to make the Sunnah apparent, just as those who remain silent, because they are concealing the creed of the Jahmiyyah. So they will say, ‘The Qurʾānis the Speech of Allāh,’ yet their innovation is in their statement, ‘It is created,’ so if they do not deny it, then what distinguishes them from it?
As for the affair of al-Lafdh (the wording of the Qurʾān), then whoever spoke with it was declared a Jahmee by Imām Aḥmad, because after Allāh the Mighty and Majestic exposed the falsehood of the people of misguidance, they fled from their statement, ‘The Qurʾān is created,’ to their statement, ‘My recitation (lafdh) of the Qurʾān is created.’ So this became the belief that the Ashʿariyyah traversed upon when they fled from the innovation of the clear Muʾtazilah to an unclear innovation is opposition to them. That was because the Ashʿariyyah agreed with the Muʾtazilah in that the al-ʿArabīc Qurʾān, which is well-known to the common-folk as well as the notables, written with letters, which begins with al-Fātiḥah and closes with al-Nās is created. This is that by which they intend the Qurʾān with words. And the one that is not created is the meaning which comes from Allāh Himself, not the one with letters and verses. So you will see Imām Aḥmad opposing this innovation, yet this occurred before any Ashʿarī could be found. Indeed, I have discussed and explained that in my book, al-’ʿAqīdahtus-Salafīyyah fī Kʿalámi Rabbil-Bariyyah, so refer to it.
 He is known as ‘Ibn Khudayr’ (d.562H), a truthful Baghdādī having many narrations, a righteous man. For his biography, refer to Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubʿalāʾ‘ (20/487).
 He is al-Jʿaláb (d.517H), a Baghdādī faqīḥ (jurist), a precise muhaddith. For his biography, refer to Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubʿalāʾ‘ (19/47).
 It was not possible to read this word.
 This refers to stopping at the texts of the Book and the authenticated Sunnah.
 Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAlīm Abū al-Hammaam of al-Azhar University said, after addressing the issue of interpolating istiwaa (He ascended) to mean istawlā (He conquered), “And from this is the danger of ta‘weel (i.e. that it necessitates the consideration of Allāh and His Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) to have lied). And Ibn al-Qayyim explains that it (ta‘weel) is more evil than ta’teel – which is merely ‘denying the Divine Attributes and rejecting their being established with the Essence of Allāh (dhaat) – the Most Perfect.’ This is because it (ta‘weel) contains both tashbīh, ta’teel and also playing and fooling with the texts as well as having a bad opinion of them. The mu’attil (denier of the Attributes) and the mu‘awwil (one who interpolates them) have shared (with each other) in the denial of the realities of the Names and Attributes. However, the mu‘awwil has exceeded in his playing and fooling with the texts and having a bad opinion of them and also ascriibng to the one who speaks with them – that he speaks with their apparent meanings, that he is astray and leads others astray. Therefore, they have combined in (falling into) four dangers:
: Their belief that what is manifest and apparent from the words of Allāh and His Messenger is impossible and is falsehood – therefore they have understood them to be tashbīh (anthropomorphism) from the very beginning.
: They have denied the reality of their meanings on the basis that this is such an understanding that does not befit them and nor does it befit the Lord – the Most Perfect.
: Ascribing to the speaker – the perfect in knowledge and elucidation (bayān) and the perfect in giving advice – and that is Allāh, the Most Perfect – the opposite of elucidation (bayān), guidance (hudaa) and giving direction (irshaad). This (i.e. resorting to ta‘weel) necessitates that they are more knowledgeable than Him, more eloquent and clear in speech than Him and greater in giving advice to mankind.
: Playing with the texts of the Book and the Sunnah and putting and end to their sanctity and sacredness. Let alone:
: That the mu‘awwil (one who resorts to ta‘weel) is not pleased with – for Allāh the Exalted – what the most knowledgeable of Him amongst the people – and he is the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) – was pleased with for Him.
: That this ta‘weel – had Allāh desired it for Himself – then He would have ordered it in His Book or upon the tongue of His Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) and then ta‘weel of the Attributes of Allāh – the Exalted- would have been obligatory, a necessary part of the Religion; the neglection of which would be forbidden and whoever abandoned it would have been sinful. And this is in addition to the fact that when Allāh – the Exalted – has not permitted it then doing it would be a mistake and it would be a manner that is blameworthy and forbidden – due to what it implies – (that is): Its being a form of correcting and rectifying Allāh – the Most High – and His Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam).
: That the mu‘awwil of the Attributes of Allāh – in fleeing from tashbīh (anthropomorphism) and fearing it – has been ignorant of a great reality and this is the impossibility of there being any likeness between the Attributes of Allāh – the Exalted – and the attributes of His servants since there can be no likeness between the Attributes of the Creator and the attributes of the creation ever. And this is due to the fact that Allāh has informed that there is nothing like Him and He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing, and that He is Unique (Ahad) and that there is none equal to Him. And the mu‘awwil (in resorting to ta‘weel) is a liar (kaadhib) since the reality differs from what he says in its entirety and is also a denier (mukadhdhib) because he has rejected Allāh with respect to His saying,
“There is nothing like Him.”
[Sūrah al-Shūrá, 42:11]
And he is a pagan (mushrik) and a disbeliever (kāfir) due to associating some of the servants of Allāh with some of the Attributes of Allāh the Exalted.
: That this mu‘awwil of the Attributes of Allāh – the Most High – in fleeing from tashbīh and in fearing it – the mighty difference between the Attributes of the Creator – the Magnificent and Most High – and between the attributes of the weak and incapable servants has become hidden from him.
: And ta‘weel makes the texts (of the Book and the Sunnah) lose their characteristic reverence and prestige since this ta‘weel has not depended upon an authentic text from the Sharīʿah and not a single one of the scholars of the Salaf have spoken with it.
: And likewise this ta‘weel contraḍīcts with the fact of Islām being a practical religion that is compatible and in harmony with every age and era. And it also contraḍīcts the fact that Allāh the Exalted has described the Qurʾān as being a discourse (bayān), an explanation (tibyaan) for every single thing, and something made easy for remembrance – and in whose āyāt – reflection and contemplation has been requested. And for this reason Abū al-Qāsim Ibn Mandah said in his book ar-Radd ʿalal-Jahmiyyah, ‘To the People of Ḥadīth, ta‘weel is a form or rejection (takdheeb),’” Tuhfatul-Ikhwān fī Sifaatir-Raḥmān(p. 36-38).
 The isnād (chain of narration) of this treatise is authentic up to al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Khaṭīb.
Checking by ʿAbdullāh Ibn Yūsuf al-Juday
Translated by Maaz Qureshi