The Āḥād Narration
ʿUthmān ʿAlī Ḥasan
An excellent introduction to the issues surrounding al-khabrul-āḥād (the singular narration).
Likewise, the Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) used to believe his Companions in what they informed him of, and likewise, the Companions used to believe each other with regards to what they would narrate from Allāh’s Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam).
DOES THE AAHAAD NARRATION AMOUNT TO KNOWLEDGE?
In this issue there are three opinions:
[i] That the āhād (singular) narration amounts to knowledge absolutely and unrestrictedly.
[ii] That it amounts to knowledge with certain conditions.
[iii] That it does not amount to knowledge at all.
THE FIRST OPINION:
With regards to the first position: which is that the khabarul-āhād amounts to ʿilm (knowledge), and this applies to the report of any person. Al-Āmidī (d.631H) mentions this and then ascribes it to some of the Ẓāhirīs and Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal (d.241H) in one of the two narrations from him concerning this. 
So the reply to this opinion is: that one cannot imagine that a person possessing intellect will affirm everything which he hears, when we know that there are people who lie, who forget and who differ in what they report. Ibn Taymīyyah (d.728H) - raḥimahullāh- said: ‘‘Since none of the people of intellect say that the report of every person amounts to knowledge, and many people have applied themselves in refuting this saying.’’ 
As for the Ẓāhirīs, then their Imām, Abū Muḥammad Ibn Hazm (d.456H) - raḥimahullāh - has clearly stated that the report of a trustworthy person, reporting from his like, all the way back to Allāh’s Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) is certain truth, obligating both action and knowledge. Thus he mentioned the report of the trustworthy person and did not leave it unrestricted. 
As for Imām Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal - raḥimahullāh - then his speech in matters of al-jarh wat-ta’deel (invalidating or validating the narrators) are very famous, and his rejection of the narrations of the duʿāʾʾʾʾfaa(the weak narrators) is more than can be counted.
So that which al-Aamidee, and others from the people of kalām (theological rhetoric) and the Scholars of Uṣūl, have mentioned is merely clouding the issue and causing false alarm about the affair. Rather, the khabar al-wāḥid will be judged to be truthful or false according to its own individual merit. Sometimes it will be clear that it is a lie, sometimes it may seem to be a lie, whilst sometimes judgement will be withheld concerning it - it not being clear whether the report is true or false; there being nothing to prove one over the other. At other times it will be more apparent that the report is true - although without declaring this with certainty, or that it is indeed true for certain - there being no doubt about it. All of this will depend upon the evidence. So it is not the case that the report of every person will amount to knowledge, just as it is not permissible to unrestrictedly deny that the khabar al-wāḥid amounts to knowledge. 
THE SECOND OPINION:
As regards the second position: that the āhādnarration amounts to certain knowledge with conditions, then that is correct.
So the condition is that this narration has with it qarāʿin.  This qareenah may be something which is connected to the report itself, or it maybe something connected to the reporter, and it maybe something connected to both of them. This includes the mustafeed narration, which is reported originally by a single person, then is transmitted by many people and becomes very well-known. Also entering into this is the narration which is accepted by the Ummah, or accepted by the Scholars of this affair - such as that which is reported by al-Bukhārī or Muslim, or any one of them. And from it also, is that which is reported through an isnād (chain) of those who were leaders in precision and memory, such as Mālik relating from Naafi’ relating from Ibn ʿUmar. So this narration - and its like - amount to knowledge with the great majority of the Scholars of Ḥadīth, the Scholars of Uṣūl, most of the people of kalām and the great majority of the fuqahaa of the Ummah; and there was no disagreement between the Salaf about this issue. 
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyyah - raḥimahullāh - said: ‘‘As for the second type of narration; that which has been reported by single reliable narrators and their like - neither its wording nor meaning is mutawātir (concurrent) - yet the Ummah accepts it, acts upon it or affirms it ... this amounts to al-ʿilmul-yaqīnee (certain knowledge) with the majority of the Ummah of Muḥammad (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) - from the earlier and later people. As for the Salaf, then there was no difference between them regarding this matter. As for the khalaf (those from the later generations), then this is the madh′hab of the major Scholars from amongst the followers of the four Imāms. This issue can be found stated in the books of the Hanafiyyah, the Mālikiyyah, the Shaafi’iyyah and the Ḥanbaliyyah.’’ 
Ibn al-Qayyim (d.751H) - raḥimahullāh - related from Ibn Khawāzindaad, the Mālikee Scholar - and he mentioned the khabar al-wāḥid which is not reported except by one or two people - so he said: ‘‘And through this type al-ʿilmud-durooree(necessary knowledge) is also attained, and Mālik has textually stated this.’’ 
Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (d.852H) said: ‘‘Al-Qāḍī Abū Naṣr ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Malikee stated definitely ... that this is correct in that which they all accept.’’ 
Imām al-Shāfiʿī (d.204H) - raḥimahullāh - said: ‘‘If a reliable person relates from another reliable person, all the way back to Allāh’s Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), then it is thābit (established) from Allāh’s Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam).’’
Ibn al-Qayyim quoted from him: ‘‘And what is reported from a single person to another single person, then we indeed know that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said it - due to the truthfulness of the narrators with us.’’ 
Qaadee Abū Ya’lā (d.345H) related from Abū Bakr al-Marroodhee who said: ‘‘I said to Abū ʿAbdullāh - meaning Imām Aḥmad - that there is a man here who says that the narration obligates action but does not obligate knowledge. So he rejected that and said: I do not know what this is.’’  Abū Ya’lā said: ‘‘What is apparent from this is that he made both knowledge and action the same in this regard.’’ 
Imām Aḥmad said about those aḥādīth concerning ar-Ru‘yah (the Believers seeing Allāh in the Hereafter):
‘‘We have īmān (faith) in them and know that they are true.’’  Abū Ya’lā said: ‘‘Thus he stated with certainty that they amount to knowledge. And what is apparent from these words is the saying of a group from our companions, who say: The khabar al-wāḥid in matters of Sharīʿah obligates knowleddge, and this - in my view - is what is correct from the saying of Aḥmad - raḥimahullāh - and that it obligates knowledge by way of istidlāl (derivation), not by way of duroorah(necessity).’’ 
Al-Majd - raḥimahullāh - said: ‘‘And there is a report from Aḥmad which shows that it amounts to certainty if it is authentic. This was the preferred view of a group of our companions.’’  Shihaab said: ‘‘And this has been supported by al-Qaadee (Abū Ya’lā) in al-Kifāyah.’’ 
Abū Muḥammad Ibn Hazm - raḥimahullāh - said: ‘‘Abū Sulaymān (Dāwūd adh-Dhaahiree), al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-Karaabasee and al-Ḥārith Ibn Asad al-Muhaasibee and others have stated: that the khabar al-wāḥid which is reported by reliable narrators - all the way back to Allāh’s Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) - necessitate both knowledge and action. And this is our saying also.’’  Abū Muḥammad supports this position, discusses it at length and refutes all the doubts which the opponents of this cling to.
Abū ’Amr Ibnus-al-Ṣalāh (d.643H) mentioned in his Muqaddimah, that those aḥādīth that al-Bukhārī and Muslim agree upon: ‘‘are certainly authentic and amounts to al-ʿilmul-yaqīnee al-nadharī (certain knowledge arrived at through investigation), as opposed to the saying of those who deny this; seeking to prove this by the fact that in origin it amounts only to dhann (that its level of being certain is greater than it being error or falsehood), and that the Ummah have accepted it only because it is obligatory to act upon dhann (suspicion) - but dhann may be erroneous. And I used to lean towards this myself, thinking that it was strong. But it becomes apparent to me that the position that we initially preferred was correct. Since dhann from one who is protected from error, cannot be error. And the Ummah - when united - is protected from error ... This is a fine and beneficial point, and from its benefits is: the saying that what is related by al-Bukhārī alone, or Muslim alone, falls under that which is to be declared qat’ee (definitely) authentic, since the Ummah has accepted both of their books... except for a very few words, against which some of the critics from the huffaadh (memorisers and preservers of ḥadīth) - such as al-Dāraqutnī and others - have spoken about, which are well-known to the people of this field.’’ 
Ibn Taymīyyah says - whilst affirming the point the khabar al-wāḥid amounts to knowledge: ‘‘So Abū ’Amr Ibnus-al-Ṣalāh mentioned the first saying - that it amounts to knowledge - and he preferred it, declaring that to be correct. However, he did not know about the large number of people who held the same position, in order to be strengthened by them., rather he said it according to what the authentic proofs demanded...’’  Therefore Al-Sakhāwī (d.902H) said in Fat‘h al-Mugheeth (1/51): ‘‘Since he was preceded in that saying - with regards the narration which has been accepted by all - by the vast majority of muhadditheen (Scholars of Ḥadīth), uṣūliyyeen (Scholars of Uṣūl) and the great body of the Salaf (Pious Predecessors). Rather, the same was said by some with regards to what is contained in the two Ṣaḥīḥs (of al-Bukhārī and Muslim).’’ Al-’ʿIrāqee (d.806H) indicated that Ibnus-al-Ṣalāh was preceded in this saying by al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Fadl Muḥammad Ibn Taahir al-Maqdisee and Abū Naṣr ’Abdur-Raheem ibn ʿAbd al-Khāliq ibn Yūsuf, who both said: ‘‘It is qat’ee (definitely certain).’’ 
Abū ’Amr Ibnus-al-Ṣalāh has also been agreed to in this position by a group of the later Scholars, from them: Shaykh Al-Sakhāwī - as has preceded, Shaykh al-Islām al-Balqeenee , al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar , al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr and al-Ḥāfiẓ Jalālud-Dīn as-Suyootee (d.911H). 
Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir - raḥimahullāh - said: ‘‘And the truth which is shown to be the most correct by the authentic proofs, is that which was held by Ibn Hazm and those who hold his saying, which is: that the authentic ḥadīth amounts to al-ʿilm-ul-qat’ee (decisive and certain knowledge); whether it is in one of the two Ṣaḥīḥs, or other than them. This ʿilmul-yaqīnee (certain knowledge) is ʿilm nadharee burhaanee (knowledge arrived at through investigation, and supported by proof). This knowledge does not come about, except to the Scholar who has delved deeply into the science of Ḥadīth, having full knowledge about the condition of the narrators and their weaknesses...’’ 
THE PROOFS FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS OPINION:
And they are plentiful - and all praise is for Allāh - but this is not the place to encompass them all. However, from them: 
Firstly: Differentiating between the mutawātir and the āhād, with respect to that which amounts to knowledge, is a newly-invented terminology, not proven by the Book, nor the Sunnah, nor was it known to the Companions, nor the Tābi’īn. Thus, the truthfulness of the Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) was affirmed by the Believers with regards to what he informed them of, without the need for them to be informed by a mutawātir number of people. 
Likewise, the Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) used to believe his Companions in what they informed him
Likewise, the Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) used to believe his Companions in what they informed him of, and likewise, the Companions used to believe each other with regards to what they would narrate from Allāh’s Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam). None of them ever said to the one that was narrating to him: ‘Your report is that of a single person and thus does not amount to knowledge, unless and until it is reported by a mutawātir number of people.’ And that some of them would sometimes withhold from accepting certain matters until supported by the narration of someone else - then this is not a proof for rejecting the āhād narration. Rather, on some very rare occasions they asked to seek some further verification. 
Likewise, the Tābi’īn - both as groups and individuals - used to meet the Companions; they took knowledge from them and believed them, without seeking to attain mutawātir proof. Likewise, each Scholar or imām would sit and teach his students, and they would believe him in that - and he was a single person. Indeed, the saying that the āhād narration does not amount to knowledge, would demolish both the Religion and worldly affairs - and it rents asunder the clear ijmāʿ’ (consensus) of the Companions, the Tābi’īnand those who came after them from the People of Knowledge. 
Secondly: That the Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) used to send single Companions to the various kings and governors to convey from him the Message of his Lord. So if the reports of these single Companions was not going to establish knowledge - he would not have sent them - as this would be futile, from which the Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) is certainly free.
Thirdly: That the Muslims - when they were praying Fajr in Qubaa - were informed by single person that the qiblah (direction of the Prayer) had been changed to the Kaʿbah, they accepted his report. This was the case even though the proof which they were previously upon was something qat’ee (definite and amounting to knowledge), yet they turned to the new qiblah in response to the order of Allāh and His Messenger - (which was also qat’ee to them) and which had been conveyed to them by way of a single person. And the Messenger (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) did not criticize them for this, rather they were praised for it. 
THE THIRD OPINION:
Which is that the āhād narration does not establish knowledge at all - whether it has a qareenah or not.
This is the position of some of the People of Kʿalám (rhetorical speech and theology) and Scholars of Uṣūl - such as Abū Ma’aalee al al-Juwaynee (d.478H),  al-Ghazaalee (d.505H), Abū Mansoor al-Baghdādī (d.4629),  al-Baaqilānee (d.403H),  and it is quoted by Ibn al-Haajib (d.555H) in at-Taqreer wat-Tahbeer (2/268) as being the saying of the majority of the Scholars of Fiqh and Ḥadīth- and this statement should really be re-examined, due to what has preceded about the second opinion, and also due to what will follow - if Allāh wills.
It is sometimes also quoted as being one of two sayings from Imām Aḥmad (d.241H), basing that upon what is attributed to him by al-Athram in Ma’aaniyyul-Āthār, where he said: ‘‘He - meaning Aḥmad - said: When the ḥadīth comes from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) with a ṣaḥīḥ isnād (authentic chain of transmission), containing a ruling or an obligation, then I act upon it and take it as part of my Religion before Allāh. However, I do not bear witness that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said that.’’  Abū Ya’lā (d.438H) said: ‘‘This saying is clear that he does not state it to be qat’ee.’’ 
It is also attributed to him that he said: ‘‘And we do not bear witness about anyone from the people of the Qiblah, that he is in the Fire due to a sin he has committed, nor a major sin of which he is guilty - unless it occurs in a ḥadīth like that, which we affirm and have knowledge that it is like that, but we do not bear witness. Nor do we bear witness that anyone is in Paradise due to his righteous actions, nor due to any good he has done, except due to a ḥadīth which is reported like that. So we affirm it as it is reported, but we do not stipulate that.’’  Abū Ya’lā said: ‘‘Its meaning with me - and Allāh knows best - is that he does not state it to be qat’ee (definite).’’ 
The reply to the narration of al-Athram is from a number of angles:
Firstly: al-Athram is alone in reporting this narration. It does not occur in his book al-Masaa‘il, nor in his book al-Sunnah. Rather, it has been quoted by Abū Ya’lā who said that he found it in the book Ma’aaniyyul-Āthār. 
Secondly: al-Athram did not mention that he heard it from Imām Aḥmad. Rather it could have been that it reached him from a person who was mistaken, who erred with regards to its wording - since none of his companions and students relate this from him. 
Thirdly: What is correctly reported from Imām Aḥmad is contrary to this, as occurs in his bearing witness in favour of al-’Asharatul-Mubasharah (the ten promised Paradise) - and the report about this is an āhādone. 
Fourthly: Perhaps Imām Aḥmad said it out of wara’ (cautiousness and piety), since he used to definitely state things to be forbidden or obligatory, but would sometimes be cautious and withhold from applying the term ḥarām (unlawful) or wājib(obligatory). So he would say: ‘I hate this,’ or ‘I recommend this.’ 
As regards the second narration: Ibn Taymīyyah said: ‘‘The wording: ‘‘nuss’’ (stipulate) is what is well known. Its meaning is that we do not bear witness with regards to a particular person. However, he also says: ‘‘We have knowledge as it is reported.’’ So this means that it amounts to knowledge. And from this principle also is that he bears witness to the ten being in Paradise due to the narration reported about this - and this narration is an āhād narration. ‘‘He also said: ‘‘The wording: ‘‘I bear witness,’’ and ‘‘I have knowledge,’’ is one and the same, and this is a proof that he would bear witness due to the āhād narration...’’ 
Imāmul-Haramayn al-Juwaynee mentions in al-Irshād (p. 416-417) that which is contrary to what he mentions in his other books, so he says: ‘‘And every narration which does not reach the level of being mutawātir, then it does not amount to knowledge on its own, unless it is accompanied by a qareenah which obligates affirmation of it - for example, that it conforms to an intellectual proof, or it is supported by a miraculous event which affirms it, and likewise if the Ummah accepts a narration and are in consensus upon its acceptance - then we know its truthfulness.’’ So this is totally contrary to what is mentioned in his other books that the khabar al-wāḥid does not establish knowledge at all.
And Abū Mansoor al-Baghdādī declares that the khabarul-mustafeed  amounts to knowledge, and there is no doubt that the mustafeed is not from the category of mutawātir; and he declares it to be of four types, from them: ‘‘The khabar al-wāḥid which is accepted by the Ummah.’’ Then he said: ‘‘And all the types of this mustafeed necessitate action and acquired knowledge.’’ 
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyyah - raḥimahullāh - said, after mentioning the position of the great majority of the earlier and the later people - with regards to the āhādnarration amounting to knowledge, and mentioning its being preferred by Ibnus-al-Ṣalāh - then he said: ‘‘And those who raise an objection to it, from the Shaykhs who possessed knowledge and Religion - but who did not have sufficient knowledge in this matter - thought that this saying of Abū ʿUmar Ibnus-al-Ṣalāh, is a saying of his alone, to the exclusion of the great majority. Their excuse for this was that, in this particular issue, they turned to what can be found from the sayings of Ibn al-Haajib. And if they take a step higher, then they would reach to Sayfud-Dīn al-Aamidee (d.631H) and to Ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (meaning Abū ʿAbdullāh al-Fakhrur-Rāzee d.510H). If they look further back for the source, then they would reach to al-Ghazzaalee (d.505H), al-Juwaynee (d.478H) and al-Baaqilānee (d.403H).’’ 
So from those Shaykhs who raise objections against Ibnus-al-Ṣalāh are al-’Izz ibn ’Abdus-Salām (d.660H)  Ibn Burhān (d.518H),  and al-Nawawī (d.676H), who said - after quoting the saying of Ibnus-al-Ṣalāh - : ‘‘And most of the precise researchers differ with him.’’
Al-Balqeenee said: ‘‘What al-Nawawī and Ibn ’Abdus-Salām and those who followed them said is not the case.’’  Then he quotes what Ibn Taymīyyah reported from the position of the earlier and later people in this matter, and from them are all the people of Ḥadīth, the heads of the four madh′habs and most of the people of kalām. 
 From his Manhaj al-Istidlāl ʿalá Masaa‘ilil-Iʿtiqād ’inda Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamāʿah(1/115-129).
 Refer to al-Ihkaam (1/234) of al-Aamidee, al-Burhān fī Uṣūlil-Fiqh (1/606) of Abū Ma’aalee al-Juwaynee and at-Taqreer wat-Tahbeer (2/268) of Ibn Ameerul-Haaj.
 al-Muswaddah fī Uṣūlil-Fiqh (p. 244) of Āl-Taymīyyah.
 Refer to al-Ihkaam fī Uṣūlil-Aḥkām(1/121, 126-127) of Ibn Hazm.
 Refer to Mukhtasarus-Sawaa‘qul-Mursalah(2/359-360).
 Singular: Qareenah. It is the matter which indicates what is intended and correct, and emphasizes it. Refer to at-Ta’reefaat(p. 183) of al-Jurjaanee.
 Refer to Raf’ul-Mʿalám ’anil-A‘immatil-A’lām (p. 63) of Ibn Taymīyyah and also Fat‘h al-Mugheeth(1/51) of al-Ḥāfiẓ Al-Sakhāwī.
 Recorded by Ibn al-Qayyim in Mukhtasar as-Sawaa‘iqul-Mursalah (2/372 -373), and its like can be found in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwá(8/41)
 Mukhtasar as-Sawaa‘iqul-Mursalah (2/362-363). Refer also to al-Tamhīd limaa fil-Muwaṭṭaa minal-Ma’nee wal-Asaaneed (1/8) of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr and al-Ihkaam (1/132) of Ibn Hazm. Imām al-Shawkānī said in al-Irshādul-Fuhool(p. 48): ‘‘Ibn Khawāzimdaad related this from Mālik ibn Anas, preferring it and discussing in its favour at length.’’
 an-Nukat (1/373) of al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar
 al-Umm (7/177)
 Mukhtasarus-Sawaa‘iq (2/365-366)
 al-’Uddah fī Uṣūlil-Fiqh (3/899) of Abū Ya’lā
 al-’Uddah fī Uṣūlil-Fiqh (3/899)
 al-’Uddah fī Uṣūlil-Fiqh (3/900)
 al-’Uddah fī Uṣūlil-Fiqh (3/900)
 al-Muswaddah fī Uṣūlil-Fiqh (p. 240)
 al-Muswaddah (p. 240)
 al-Aḥkām fī Uṣūlil-Ihkaam (1/132) of Ibn Hazm
 Muqaddimah fī ’Uloomil-Ḥadīth (pp. 14-15) of Ibnus-Saalah
 Recorded from him by Ibn al-Qayyim in Mukhtasarus-Sawaa‘iq (2/373)
 at-Taqyeed wal-Eedaah (p. 28)
 Refer to: Muhaasinul-Istilāh wa Tadamīn Kitāb Ibnus-al-Ṣalāh (p. 101) by al-Balqeenee
 an-Nukat ʿalá Ibnis-al-Ṣalāh (1/371) of Ibn Ḥajar
 al-Baa’ithul-Hatheeh Sharḥ Ikhtiṣār Uloomil-Ḥadīth (p. 37) of Ibn Kathīr.
 Refer to Tadrībur-Rāwee (1/134) of as-Suyootee
 al-Baa’ithul-Ḥathīth (p. 39)
 For a further in-depth discussion of this matter refer to al-Ihkaam (1/135 onwards) of Ibn Hazm and Mukhtasarus-Sawaa‘iqul-Mursalah (2/394) of Ibn al-Qayyim. And from the contemporary books refer to Akhbaarul-Aahaad fil-Ḥadīthin-Nabawee (p. 61) of Shaykh ʿAbdullāh Ibn Jibrīn and al-Ḥadīth Hujjatun ibn-Nafsee fil-’Aqaa‘id wal-Aḥkām (p.57) of Shaykh al-Albānī - which has been translated into English under the title The Ḥadīth is proof Itself in Belief and Laws.
 Refer to ar-Risālah (p. 436) of Imām al-Shāfiʿī.
 Refer to Mukhtasarus-Sawaa‘iq (2/361).
 Refer to Mukhtasarus-Sawaa‘iq (2/362) and al-Ihkaam (1/150-151).
 Refer to ar-Risālah (p. 406-408) and al-Muswaddah (p. 247). The narration mentioned is reported by al-Bukhārī (8/174).
 Refer to al-Burhān fī Uṣūlil-Fiqh (1/599).
 Refer to al-Mustasfaa (1/145).
 Refer to al-Farq baynal-Firaq (p. 325-326) and Uṣūlud-Dīn (p. 12).
 Refer to al-Tamhīd fī Radd ’alal-Mulhidah Mu’attilah war-Rāfidah wal-Khawārij wal-Muʾtazilah (p. 164).
 al-Muswaddah (p. 241) and al-’Iddah (3/898) of Abū Ya’lā
 al-’Iddah (3/898)
 al-’Iddah (3/899)
 al-’Iddah (3/899)
 Refer to Mukhtasarus-Sawaa‘iq (2/370)
 Mukhtasarus-Sawaa‘iq (2/370-371)
 Refer to Mukhtasarus-Sawaa‘iq (2/371). As for Imām Aḥmad’s bearing witness to al-’Asharah then refer to Tabaqaatul-Hanaabilah(1/289) of Ibn Abī Ya’lā.
 Mukhtasar as-Sawaa‘iq (2/371)
 al-Muswaddah fī Uṣūlil-Fiqh (p. 242)
 It is a narration which is reported by a minimum of three narrators at every level of the chain.
 Uṣūlud-Dīn (p. 12-13)
 Ibn al-Qayyim quotes it from him in Mukhtasarus-Sawaa‘iqul-Mursalah (2/373-374).
 Refer to Tadrībur-Rāwee (1/132).
 Refer to the introduction of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bi Sharḥin-Nawawee (1/20). And Ibn Burhān is: Abū al-Fath, Aḥmad Ibn ʿAlī Ibn Burhān, well-known as Ibn al-Jaamee the Faqīh of Baghdād. He learnt Fiqh with Ibn ʿAqīl and excelled in the madh′hab of Aḥmad, then he criticised him for some things and moved to the madh′hab of al-Shāfiʿī and pre-occupied himself with al-Ghazaalee and ash-Shaashee. He was born in 479H and died in the year 518H. Refer to al-Bidāyah wan-Nihāyah (12/194) and also al-A’lām(1/167) of az-Zarkalee.
 at-Taqreeb (1/132) of al-Nawawī - along with Tadrībur-Rāwee. Refer also to al-Nawawī’s Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (1/20).
 Mahaasinul-Istilāh (p. 101)
 Its like occurs in Mukhtasarus-Sawaa’iqul-Mursalah (2/373-374). And refer to an-Nukat (1/376-377) of Ibn Ḥajar and also al-Baa’thul-Ḥathīth (p. 38) of Ibn Kathīr.