Dr
Muh-ammad ibn `Abd al-Rahmân al-Khumayyis is
the author of:
Usûl al-Dîn `ind al-Imâm Abî Hanîfa;
Manhaj al-Ash`ariyya fîl-`Aqâ'id;
Manhaj al-Mâturîdiyya fîl-`Aqâ'id;
Al-Tanbîhât al-Saniyya `alâ al-Hafawât fî Kitâb al-Mawâhib al-Lâduniyya;
Al-Majmû` al-Mufîd fî Naqd. al-Qubûriyyati wa-Nusrati al-Tawhîd.
One
of the latest Saudi
pseudo -Ahl
al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a popelets of misguided
auto-da-fés against
the real Ahl
al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a,
al-Khumayyis began
his career with a doctoral
thesis at
the University
of Muh-ammad ibn Saûd entitled:
Usûl
al-Dîn `ind al-Imâm Abî Hanîfa which
he turned into a 650-page
brick he
published in the same town, at Riyadh's
Dâr al-Sumayî, to
once more hurl at the Umma the Najdî
misrepresentation of
the early Muslims, the Sacred Law, and the Religion as a whole,
making them say the contrary of what they said.
In
predictable betrayal of the title, the book is only another
self-absorbed, complacent manifesto of Wahhâbism by
a Wahhâbî promoted
by Wahhâbis for
the consumption of Wahhâbis.
Among
its aberrations:
- Al-Khumayyis claims
that the seventeen Musnads of Imâm
Abû Hanîfa,
Allâh be well-pleased with him, were
compiled after his time and are
therefore attributed to him unreliably.
This
is like the claim of the non-Muslims and their
ignorant acolytes that
the hadîth was compiled after the time of the Prophet, upon him
blessings and peace: what matters is not the time of the final
compilation but the veracity of transmission and attribution, while
it is established that setting pen to paper took place at the
earliest stages of hadîth transmission from the Prophet himself,
upon him blessings and peace, let alone from the Imâms of later
generations such as Sufyân
al-Thawrî, Ibn Jurayj, al-Awzâ`î, or Abû Hanîfa, Allâh
be well-pleased with them.
The
attack against Abû
Hanîfa the Musnid is
enshrined in two lines of the Tankîl (1:214)
originally written in refutation of Imâm
al-Kawtharî's Ta'nîb
al-Khatîb by
the Lâ-Madhhabî
Wahhâbî `Abd
al-Rahmân al-Mu`allimî then
rehashed by Muh-ammad
`Abd al-Razzâq Hamza, Muh-ammad
Nasîf, and Nâsir
al-Albânî (1) in
which al-Mu`allimî's confused
pen (and/or others) wrote
of the Masânîd of
Imâm Abû Hanîfa:
"Most
of the compilers of those Masânîd came
late, a group of them are accused of lying, and whoever among them is
not accused has in his chains to Abû Hanîfa, for the most part,
narrators of undependable rank."
Such
a statement is itself a litotic exercise in vagueness and
unreliability since
it backs its assertions with nothing, and the assertions themselves
are so vague as to be meaningless.
One
should also beware of
the pronouncements of Wahhâbîs against early Hanafî narrators from
Abû Hanîfa, since their business is to discredit such narrations on
principle according to their lusts and not on a scientific basis.
This fact becomes abundantly clear when critics are faced with the
inevitable question:
What
compilers do you mean exactly?
The Masânîd of Abû
Hanîfa,
as listed by the hadîth masters
Abû
al-Mu'ayyad Muhammad ibn Mahmûd al-Khwârizmî (d.
655) in his Manâqib Abî
Hanîfa,
Muhammad
ibn Yûsuf al-Sâlihî (d.
942) in `Uqud
al-Jumân,
and Ibn
Tûlûn (d.
953) in al-Fihrist
al-Awsat., are
narrated with their chains by the following:
1. al-Hâfiz Abû Muhammad `Abd Allâh ibn Muh.ammad ibn Ya`qûb al-Hârithî al-Bukhârî.(2)
2. al-Hâfiz Abû al-Qâsim Talha ibn Muhammad ibn Ja`far al-Shâhid.
3. Abû al-H.asan Muhammad ibn al-Muzaffar ibn Mûsâ.
4. al-Hâfiz Abû Nu`aym Ahmad ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Ahmad al-As.bahânî al-Shâfi`î.
5. Abû Bakr Muh.ammad ibn `Abd al-Bâqî al-Ans.ârî Qâd.î Mâristân.
6. al-Hâfiz Abû Ahmad `Abd Allâh ibn `Adî al-Jurjânî al-Shâfi`î the author of al-Kâmil fîl-D.u`afâ'.
7. Abû al-H.asan Muhammad ibn Ibrâhîm ibn Hubaysh from al-H.asan ibn Ziyâd al-Lu'lu'î.
8. Qâdî Abû al-Hasan `Umar ibn al-Hasan al-Ashnânî.
9. Abû Bakr Ahmad ibn Muh.ammad ibn Khâlid al-Kalâ`î.
10. al-Hâfiz Abû `Abd Allâh al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Khusrû al-Balkhî.
11. al-Hâfiz Qâdî Abû Yûsuf's Âthâr.
12. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybânî's samâ`.
13. Hammâd ibn Abî H.anîfa.
14. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybânî's Âthâr.
15. Qâdî Abû al-Qâsim `Abd Allâh ibn Muh.ammad ibn Abî al-`Awwâm.
16. al-Hâfiz Abû Bakr ibn al-Muqri'.
17. al-Hâfiz Abû `Alî al-Bakrî.
Each
one of the narrators between each of the above scholars and Imâm
Abû Hanîfa is
mentioned by name though not documented by al-Khwârizmî, al-Sâlihî,
and Ibn Tûlûn.
Yet
anti-Hanafîs muqallids cling
to the ijmâlî disparagement
they find in the Tankîl without
first hand knowledge of the narrators. In addition, Imâm al-Kawtharî
and his editor in the Ta'nîb, Ah.mad Khayrî, also mention five
more Masânîd which,
unlike the foregoing ones, are no longer extant except for Zufar's,
narrated by the following:
18. al-Hâfiz al-Dâraqutnî, which al-Khatîb said he had in his possession in Shâm.
19. al-Hâfiz Ibn Shâhîn, which al-Khatîb said he had in his possession in Shâm.
20. al-Hâfiz Ibn `Uqda, mentioned by al-Badr al-`Aynî in his Târîkh al-Kabîr and containing 1,000+ hadîths.
21. Muhammad ibn Makhlad al-Dûrî al-Bazzâz, mentioned in al-Khatîb's Târîkh Baghdâd.
22. al-Hâfiz Abû al-Hudhayl Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl al-'Anbarî's Âthâr.
-
Al-Khumayyis claims
that none
of the doctrinal texts attributed to Abû Hanîfa are authentically
his except the `Aqîda of
Imâm al-Tahâwî.
This
is an orientalist
speculation which Wahhâbîs are
only glad to endorse since it suits their
hawâ.
Al-Khumayyis himself shows
that early Hanafî doctrinal works all have well-known chains of
transmission but he chooses to discard them on the basis of his own
specious discreditation of the narrators:
I. Al-Fiqh
al-Akbar. It
is narrated by Nasr or Nusayr ibn Yahyâ al-Balkhî (d. 268), from
Muhammad ibn Muqâtil al-Râzî, from `Isâm ibn Yûsuf ibn Maymûn
al-Balkhî, from Hammâd ibn Abî Hanîfa, from his father.
The
above narrators are all truthful. Al-Bukhârî
alone declared Ibn Muqâtil weak - as mentioned by al-Khalîlî in
al-Irshâd - but without explanation, hence Ibn Hajar dismisses this
weakening as based on a difference in Madhhab and the fact that Ibn
Muqâtil, like all Hanafîs, was considered a Murji'.(3) Ibn
Sa`d declared `Isâm weak but this is also rejected as unconfirmed
since Ibn Sa`d's severity against the Kufans is known, and Ibn
H.ibbân, although a rabid enemy of H.anafîs, declared him "highly
reliable despite occasional errors" while al-Khalîlî graded
him "truthful" (s.adûq).
As for Hâmmâd, al-`Uqaylî declared him weak then Ibn `Adî but
their case is the same as Ibn Hibbân and Ibn Sa`d regarding Hanafîs.
Hence, Abû al-Muzaffar al-Isfarâyînî declared this chain sound
in al-Tabsira
fîl-Dîn.
II. Al-Fiqh
al-Absat.. Its
text is in catechetical format and differs from the first in content
as well. Its chain contains al-Husayn ibn `Alî al-Alma`î
al-Kâshgharî and Abû Mut.î` al-H.akam ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muslim
al-Balkhî who are both weak although their religion is beyond
reproach according to al-Sim`ânî and Ibn al-Mubârak respectively.
Al-Khumayyis confuses Abû Mut.î` with Abû Salama al-H.akam ibn
`Abd Allâh ibn Khat.t.âf, whom Abû H.âtim accused of lying, while
he only declared Abû Mutî` weak. (4)
III. Al-`Âlim
wal-Muta`allim. It
contains a noted emphasis on the necessity of learning kalâm for
the protection of one's faith and the defense of religion, identical
to Istih.sân
al-Khawd. fî `Ilm al-Kalâm, which
Imâm al-Ash`arî wrote after the H.anbalî Abû Muh.ammad
al-Barbahârî slighted his Ibâna.
It is at the very least a work by the student of Imâm Abû H.anîfa,
Abû Muqâtil H.afs. ibn Salm al-Samarqandî, and the first of its
two chains adduced by al-Khumayyis is impeccable and formed of Imâms
of fiqh up
to Abû Muqâtil who is upright but weak as a narrator.
IV. Risâla
ilâ `Uthmân al-Battî. (5) Undoubtedly
written by the Imâm and narrated from Abû Yûsuf, its chain is
impeccable and comes through al-Marghînânî the author of
the Hidâya (misspelled
as "Marghiyânî"), Abû al-Mu`în al-Nasafî
the Mutakallim,
and other Imâms.
V. Al-Wasiyya. The
chain adduced by al-Khummayis is similar to the previous one but he
shows no knowledge that there are several Wasiyyas attributed
to the Imâm, not just one.
The
same Khumayyis also
produced two
books against the Ash`arîs and
the Mâturîdîs, respectively
entitled:
Manhaj
al-Ash`ariyya fîl-`Aqâ'id and Manhaj
al-Mâturîdiyya fîl-`Aqâ'id, which
the Jordanian researcher Ustadh
Sa`îd Fawda in
his al-Naqd
wal-Taqwîm said
were characterized by the following
flaws:
-
deep ignorance of the doctrines of Ahl
al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a; -
inability to probe the issues in the way of the great mujtahid Imâms
of kalâm;
- confinement to taqlîd without
real understanding of Sunni `aqîda;
- sanctification of Ibn
Taymiyya and
his followers as part of the said taqlîd.
The
same Khumayyis also
produced a thirty-five page
libel he named
al-Tanbîhât
al-Saniyya `alâ al-Hafawât fî Kitâb al-Mawâhib
al-Lâduniyya published
by the same house, which he begins with an epigraph from
another zealot
of Wahhâbism, Mahmûd
Shukrî al-Alûsî's (d.
1342) Ghâyat
al-Amânî (2:14):
"Al-Qastallânî
was among the extremists of the tomb lovers (al-qubûriyya)
[!]. He affirms the intermediary of the polytheistic type (al-wâsitat
al-shirkiyya)
[!!] by making an analogy between Allâh Most High and the kings of
this world."
In
addition to heinous envy of the Friends of Allâh, such
a charge exhibits a Mu`tazilî type
of disavowal of intercession and, what is worse, materialist
disbelief in the realities of Barzakh established
from the Prophetic reports through mass transmission.(6) {And
you will find them greediest of mankind for life and greedier than
the idolaters} (2:96).
Khumayyis then
proceeds to list what he claims are mistakes Imâm al-Qastallânî,
Allâh be well-pleased with him, committed, in which list he himself
reveals his ignorance of Qur'ân, Sunna, and Consensus.
For
example:
- He takes
al-Qastallânî to
task for mentioning the hadîths in support of the desirability of
visiting the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, in Madîna and
the ruling that it is among the greatest acts of drawing near (min
a`zam al-qurûbât).
We have documented the former in our introduction to Imâm
Ibn Jahbal's refutation
of Ahmad
ibn Taymiyya (AQSA
Publications). As
for the latter, al-Qastallânî is
only expressing the Consensus of Ahl
al-Sunna,
in addition to his remark that some
Mâlikîs held the ziyâra to
be obligatory, whether the materialists and intercession-deniers like
it or not!
- He says
that Imâm al-Qastallânî, Allâh
be well-pleased with him, said lâ
yasihh of
the hadîth "Whoever
makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to me"
then, "despite this admission, he builds on this hadîth his
claim that the visit of the Prophet's grave is obligatory... how can
they build their minor and major analogies and its results on a
hadîth they admit to be a falsehood (bât.il)??"
This
criticism shows ignorance of
the difference between the fiqhî application
to a hadîth of the expression "it
is not sahîh" -
such as the identical expression of Imâm
Ahmad concerning
the Basmala before wudû' whose
hadîths are only hasan
- and
its preclusion from being used in absolute terms as if it were forged
and "a falsehood"!
As
for the hadîth "Whoever
makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to
me," al-Dâraqutnî narrated
it in his Sunan and Imâm
al-Lacknawî in
his marginalia on Imâm
Muhammad's Muwatta' (chapter
49: On the Prophet's grave, upon him blessings and peace) said: "It
is not forged as Ibn al-Jawzî and Ibn Taymiyya said, rather, a
number of scholars consider its chain fair, and a number consider it
weak."
- He takes
to task Imâm
al-Qastallânî, Allâh
be well-pleased with him, for adducing the saying of Allâh Most High
{If
they had only, when they wronged themselves, come unto you and asked
the forgiveness of Allâh, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness
for them, they would have found Allâh indeed Oft-Returning, Most
Merciful}
(4:64) as a proof for the obligatoriness of visiting the grave of the
Prophet, upon him blessings and peace and not only in his lifetime
the way the advocates of ta`tîl would
have it. Yet the ruling cited by al-Qastallânî is the established
understanding of the noble verse and found in the recognized sources
for the Four Schools, among them:
Shâfiîs:
Al-Nawawî, al-Adhkâr (Makka 1992 ed. p. 253-254), Majmû' (8:217), and al-Îdâh., chapter on visiting the grave of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. Ibn 'Asâkir, Mukhtas.ar Târîkh Dimashq (2:408). Ibn Kathîr, Tafsîr (2:306) and al-Bidâya wal-Nihâya (Ma'ârif ed. 1:180). Ibn Jamâ'a, Hidâyat al-Sâlik (3:1384). Al-Samhûdî, Khulâsat al-Wafâ (p. 121, from al-Nawawî). Taqî al-Dîn al-Subkî, Shifâ' al-Siqâm (p. 52) and al-Sayf al-S.aqîl fîl-Radd `alâ Ibn Zafîl [= Ibn al-Qayyim]; Al-Haytamî, al-Jawhar al-Munaz.z.am fî Ziyârat al-Qabr al-Mukarram. Dah.lân, Khulâs.at al-Kalâm (year 1204).
Hanafîs:
Al-Nasafî's Tafsîr and al-Alûsî's Tafsîr (6:124-128). Al-Shurunbulâlî's Nûr al-Îd.âh.. Ibn al-Humâm's Sharh. Fath. al-Qadîr (2:337, 3:179-180). Anwar Shâh Kashmîrî's Fayd. al-Bârî (2:433). Ibn `Âbidîn, H.âshiya (2:257).
Mâlikîs:
Qâd.î `Iyâd. in al-Shifâ'. Al-Qurt.ubî, Tafsîr of verse 4:64 in Ah.kâm al-Qur'ân (5:265). Al-Nu`mân ibn Muh.ammad al-Tilimsânî's (d. 683) Mis.bâh. al-Z.alâm fîl-Mustaghîthîna bi-Khayr al-Anâm `Alayhi al-S.alât wal-Salâm. Al-Zurqânî in Sharh. al-Mawâhib and al-Burhân fî `Ulûm al-Qur'ân. Ibn Qunfudh al-Qusant.înî in Wasîlat al-Islâm bil-Nabî `Alayhi al-S.alât wal-Salâm.
Hanbalîs:
Ibn 'Aqîl, al-Tadhkira. Ibn Qudâma, al-Mughnî (3:556-557=3:298=5:465). Ibn Muflih., Mubdi' (3:259). Shams al-Dîn Ibn Qudâma, al-Sharh. al-Kabîr (3:494-495). Al-Buhûtî, Kashshâf al-Qinâ' (2:515=5:30). Ibn al-Jawzî, Muthîr al-Gharâm al-Sâkin ilâ Ashraf al-Amâkin (p.. 490) and his Tafsîr. Ibn al-Najjâr, Akhbâr al-Madîna (p. 147).
- Al-Khumayyis overtly
lies about the
commentary of the hadîth master al-Zurqânî -
whom he calls a Hanafî!
- on Imâm
al-Qastallânî's denunciation
of Ibn
Taymiyya's innovation in forbidding travel to visit the graves of the
Prophet,
upon him blessings and peace.
He cites al-Zurqânî's citation
of Ibn
`Abd al-Hâdî's defense
of his teacher but
leaves out al-Zurqânî's own
words directly following Ibn
`Abd al-Hâdî's citation,
in utter rejection of the latter's excuses and in confirmation of
the condemnation
of Ibn Taymiyya as an
innovator in
the matter, per the Jumhûr of the Ulema of the Three Schools and
many Hanbalîs as well such as the Shattâs of Damascus. This is the
very tahrîf the
Qur'ân and Sunna attribute to the Ahl al-Kitab who changed the
meanings of the Book, leaving out what runs counter to
their hawâ.
- Al-Khumayyis quotes
from al-Alûsî's Qur'ânic
commentary that the latter supposedly criticized "al-Tâj
al-Subkî for rebuking al-Majd [Majd al-Dîn Ibn Taymiyya the
grandfather], as is his habit" but
[1] this is not Tâj
al-Dîn but
his father Taqî
al-Dîn in Shifâ'
al-Siqâm, and
[2] such a mistake is not from the hand of al-Alûsî the Commentator
but from his Wahhâbî successors who tampered with his book as
exposed by Imâm
al-Kawtharî in
his Maqâlât, since
the original author distinguishes effortlessly
between al-Subkî father
and son in over three dozen passages of his Tafsîr,
and he calls the father "Mawlânâ"! No doubt he would
curse anyone who so offends Ahl
al-Sunna as
to call one of their foremost authorities a qubûrî since
such disparagement is the unmistakable mark of heresy.
At
any rate, the passage in question regards Imâm
al-Subkî's rejection
of Imâm
Majd al-Dîn Ibn Taymiyya's endorsement
of the position attributed to Imâm
Abû Hanîfa in
prohibition of tawassul through
the person of the Holy Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. We
addressed this misunderstanding in our Four imâms and Their Schools
where we said:
Imâm
Abû Hanîfa nowhere
objected to tawassul but
only - as narrated from Abû Yûsuf in Kitâb al-Âthâr - to the use
of specific wordings in supplication, namely, "by the right You
owe to So-and-so" (bi-haqqi
fulâni 'alayk)
and "by the joints of power and glory in Your Throne"
(bima'âqid
al-'izz min 'arshik).(7) The
reason for this is that, on the one hand, Allâh owes no-one any
right whatsoever except what He Himself condescends to state on His
part as in the verse {To help believers is incumbent upon Us (haqqun
'alaynâ)}
(30:47). On the other hand, "by the right owed so-and-so"
is an oath and is therefore a formula restricted to Allâh Most High
Himself on pains of shirk. Imâm
Abû Hanîfa said:
"Let one not swear any oath except by Allâh alone, with a pure
affirmation of tawhîd and
sincerity."(8) A
third reason is that the expression "the joints of power and
glory in Your Throne" is a lone-narrator report and is therefore
not retained nor put into practice, in accordance with the rule for
any such reports that might suggest anthropomorphism.
Those
that claim (9) that
the Imâm objected to tawassul altogether
are unable to adduce anything to support such a claim other than the
above caveat, which is not against tawassul but
against a specific, prohibitive wording in tawassul.
A proof of this is that it is permissible in the Hanafî School to
say "by the sanctity/honor of so-and-so in Your presence"
(bi-hurmati/bi-jâhi
fulân).
This is stated in the Fatâwâ
Bazzâziyya (6:351
in the margin of the Fatâwâ
Hindiyya)
and is also the position of Abû al-Layth al-Samarqandî and Ibn
'Âbidîn.
Even
so, there is authentic evidence in [1]
the hadîth of Fâtima bint Asad,(10) [2]
the hadîth "O Allâh, I ask You by the right of those who ask
You (bi-h.aqqi
al-sâ'ilîna 'alayk),"(11) [3]
the hadîth: "O Allâh, I ask You by the joints of power in the
Throne,"(12) and
[4] the hadîth: "Do you know the right owed to Allâh by His
slaves and the right owed by Allâh to his slaves?"(13) to
support the permissibility of such a wording.
If
the above objection is authentically reported from Abû Hanîfa then
either he did not deem these hadîths authentic by his standards, or
they did not reach him. An illustration of this is that Abû
Yûsuf permitted
the formula "By the joints of power…".(14) Further,
the opposite is also reported from Abû Hanîfa, namely, that he
permitted tawassul using
those very expressions.
Ibn
'Âbidîn said:
"In the Tatârkhâniyya:
The Âthâr also
report what shows permissibility." Then he cites - from
al-Qârî's Sharh.
al-Niqâya,
al-Munâwî quoting Ibn 'Abd al-Salâm (cf. the very first of
his Fatâwâ in
the printed Risâla edition), and al-Subkî - further explanations
that it is permitted, then he cites the fatwa by
Ibn Amîr al-Hajj in the thirteenth chapter of Sharh.
al-Munya that
permissibility is not limited to tawassul through
the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, but extends to the
S.âlih.în.(15)
- Al-Khumayyis rages at Imâm
al-Qastallânî for
stating that one faces the Noble Grave when
making du`â during ziyâra although
this, too, is a matter of the Jumhûr approving
and condoning this as we have shown in our documentations of the
exchange to that effect between Imâm
Mâlik and
the Caliph al-Mansûr and the ensuing positions of the Four Schools
in our Four Imâms and Their Schools where we said:
The
position is held by some of the Hanafî Masters such as Abû al-Layth
al-Samarqandî and those that followed him such as al-Kirmânî and
al-Sarrûjî as well as al-Kamushkhânawî in Jâmi'
al-Manâsik,
his commentary on Rahmat Allâh al-Sindî's Jamî'
al-Manâsik, that
Abû Hanîfa forbade the facing of the Noble Grave during
supplication. However, al-Qârî in al-Maslak
al-Mutaqassit. -
his large commentary on the same work by al-Sindî - said:
(1) Ibn al-Humâm said that it is belied by Abû Hanîfa's own narration in his Musnad from Ibn 'Umar that it is part of the Sunna to face the Noble Grave and turn one's back to the Qibla;
(2) Ibn al-Humâm also said, "This [narration of Ibn 'Umar] is the sound position (al-sahîh) in the madhhab of Abû Hanîfa, and Abû al-Layth's claim that his madhhab is the contrary, is untenable because the Messenger of Allâh, upon him blessings and peace, is alive, and whoever comes to someone who is alive, faces him";
(3) al-Qârî added, this is confirmed by al-Fayrûzâbâdî's narration [in Sifr al-Sa'âda?] from Ibn al-Mubârak that Abû Hanîfa observed al-Sakhtiyânî do the same during the latter's visitation.(16) Allâh knows best.
The
same Khumayyis produced
another 600-page
brick entitled al-Majmû`
al-Mufîd fî Naqd al-Qubûriyyati wa-Nusrati al-Tawhîd which
he published at Riyadh's Dâr Atlas [!] and where
he hurls insults and anathema at the Sunnis who visit graves and
believe in the intercession of the righteous.
Such
is the enmity to knowledge that movement promotes while they loudly
pretend to defend the Sunna,
and the Umma witnesses the continuing publication of their drivel
helplessly.
Yet,
no sooner do we warn Muslims of the dangers of their institutes and
websites in
the West than their
ignorant defenders accuse
us of the very divisiveness and takfîr they
themselves have specialized in, alone
among all the sects of the last two hundred years. There is no change
nor might except in Allâh Most High.
May Allâh Most High requite {every sinful, false one} with his just
desert!
NOTES: Here
