An Analysis of the Various Stances Held by Scholars Regarding the Legal Authority of the Ṣaḥābah’s Juridical Verdicts
By Mohammad Nawaz (3rd Year Alim Student, DarusSalam Seminary)
Throughout the history of Islām, the jurists and scholars worked tirelessly to preserve, transmit, and explain the religion’s principles and injunctions so that we can live our lives in accordance with them. The jurists would issue their verdicts and rulings based on Islam’s primary sources – the Qurʾān and the Sunnah. At times, they passed judgements based on secondary sources, such as ijmāʿ (scholarly consensus) and qiyās (analogy). As one studies Islāmic jurisprudence and legal theory, he will notice that the scholars may issue different rulings for one issue. This is due to the differences in their understanding as well as what they consider to be the valid sources of Islāmic law (ar. sharīʿah). One source, qawl al-ṣaḥābī, is a matter of disagreement among scholars. The debate revolves around whether qawl al-ṣaḥābī is a ḥujjah – an authoritative source by which laws and verdicts are established, and which must be followed – or not. Herein, I will discuss the scholars’ opinions regarding the legal authority (ar. ḥujjiyyah) of qawl al-ṣaḥābī.
Before delving into their opinions, it is imperative to understand what qawl al-ṣaḥābī is and where exactly the ikhtilāf (difference of opinion) occurs. Firstly, according to Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar a ṣaḥābī is someone who met the Prophet ﷺ while believing in him and died as a Muslim, regardless of whether he became an apostate in between or not. Next, the qawl al-ṣaḥābī refers to the opinions and statements of the companions (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhum) that are based solely on their ijtihād (independent reasoning) in juridical matters. After the Prophet’s ﷺ death, new issues arose for which there was no solution in the Qurʾān or aḥādīth. As a result, the ṣaḥābah had to exert their ijtihād and form their own legal opinions.
It should also be noted that the legal theorists (ar. uṣūliyyūn) sometimes refer to qawl al-ṣaḥābī by other terms such as fatwá al-ṣaḥābī, madhhab al-ṣaḥābī, and taqlīd al-ṣaḥābī.
Additionally, a qawl al-ṣaḥābī that pertains to matters that have no scope for ijtihād, such as doctrine (ar. ʿaqāʾid), are considered marfūʿ. Marfūʿ means it is attributed to the Prophet.ﷺ Similarly, when it comes to matters that do have scope for ijtihād, and multiple ṣaḥābah state a similar opinion, that opinionwill be an ijmāʿ. Likewise, according to most scholars, such as Imām al-Sarakhsī, al-Karkhī, Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, and others, if a qawl al-ṣaḥābī spreads amongst the ṣaḥābah and no one opposes or affirms it, neither verbally nor practically, then it will be considered ijmāʿ sukūtī (tacit consensus).  These three types of qawl al-ṣaḥābī are valid ḥujaj (plural of ḥujjah) and sources of establishing legal rulings. Thus, they do not fall under the purview of this discussion.
Additionally, this discussion does not concern the qawl of non-mujtahid ṣaḥābah. Similarly, the qawl al-ṣaḥābī that conflicts with the primary sources, other aqwāl al-ṣaḥābah, or matters in which concession was given due to ʿumūm al-balwá is not intended herein. The scholars agree that these forms of qawl al-ṣaḥābī are not ḥujaj.
In essence, the differences of opinion lie in the legally authoritative ṣaḥābī’s qawl that pertains to matters of ijtihād and meets the following criterion:
(1) The opinion did not spread amongst the ṣaḥābah.
(2) It was not objected to by other ṣaḥābah.
(3) It does not conflict with the Qurʾān or the Ḥadīth.
(4) It is not conflicting with a matter in which concession was given due to ʿumūm al-balwá.
In this case, the jurists and legal theorists, such as, but not limited to, Ibn al-Ḥājib, al-Āmidī, and al-Qādī Abū Bakr, agreed that the qawl al-ṣaḥābī is not a ḥujjah on other legally authoritative (ar. mujtahidūn) ṣaḥābah. Other prominent scholars like Imām al-Bukhārī and Ibn Niẓām al-Dīn al-Anṣārī adopt a more general stance and assert that the qawl al-ṣaḥābī is not a ḥujjah on any ṣaḥābī. As for the mujtahidūn of the ṭābiʿīn, atbāʿ al-ṭābiʿīn, and their successors, there are many views regarding whether qawl al-ṣaḥābī is a ḥujjah for them or not.
The first view is that qawl al-ṣaḥābī is not a ḥujjah. Many classical scholars and jurists held this view, including Imām al-Shāfiʿī based on his latest opinion, Imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (according to one of two narrations), the Ashāʿirah, and the Muʿtazilah. This is also the view of many eminent uṣūliyyīn, such as Imām al-Āmidī, Imām al-Shawkānī, Imām al-Ghazālī (according to one narration), and others. According to the proponents of this position, the mujtahidūn of the later generations are not obliged to adhere to the aqwāl al-ṣaḥābah. Instead, they must come to their own conclusions regarding the matter based on their ijtihād.
Furthermore, supporters of this view have provided many textual and rational proofs in support of it. For example, Allāh taʿālá says:
فاعتبروا يا أولي الأبصار
“Derive a lesson, O you who are endowed with insight!”Sūrat al-Ḥashr 2
They deduce from this that the command of “iʿtabirū” is in the meaning of “ijtahidū.” Allāh taʿālá is ordering the scholars and mujtahidīn to exercise their ijtihād and not follow the opinions of others, including the ṣaḥābah. Essentially, by following the qawl of others, the mujtahidūn are abandoning the command in this verse.
Another verse used to substantiate this stance is:
فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ
“If you should ever dispute over anything, refer it to God and the Messenger, if truly you believe in God and the Last Day.”Sūrat al-Nisāʾ 59
According to this verse, the believers are ordered to refer only to Allāh and the Prophet in times of argument and conflict. Therefore, if the qawl al-ṣaḥābī was indeed a ḥujjah, the verse would have mentioned it. They also argue that the ṣaḥābah are not infallible and are prone to error. Hence, their aqwāl cannot be qualified as ḥujaj.
The second opinion that Imām al-Shāfiʿī maintained is that qawl al-ṣaḥābī is a ḥujjah when qiyās corroborates it. Therefore, when qiyās conflicts with qawl al-ṣaḥābī, itis not a ḥujjah.
Upon further examination , one will notice that qawl al-ṣaḥābī is not a ḥujjah according to this view. Instead, qiyās is the ḥujjah and qawl al-ṣaḥābī affirms it. In response to this objection, Ibn al-Qaṭṭān states two plausible explanations: (1) the scenario that Imām al-Shāfiʿī intended was that there are two analogical deductions presented, with one of them being supported by qawl al-ṣaḥābī. In this case, the qiyās that is backed by the qawl al-ṣaḥābī should be preferred over the other. (2) Imām al-Shāfiʿī did not want people to say he disregards qawl al-ṣaḥābī. To avoid such allegations, he professed the above-mentioned opinion.
The third view on this issue is held by Ibn Barhān, al-Ghazālī (according to one narration), and others. They adopt the view that qawl al-ṣaḥābī is a ḥujjah only when it conflicts with an established qiyās. They base this assertion on the reasoning that a ṣaḥābī does not issue rulings and judgments from his own side. Rather, he bases them on textual evidence such as the Qurʾān and aḥādīth. Hence, if he goes against qiyās, it will be assumed that his claim is underlined by evidence stronger than the qiyās and that it is, in fact, tawqīfī, i.e., based on canonical sources.
This opinion is not establishing the ḥujjiyyah of qawl al-ṣaḥābī. As was mentioned, qawl al-ṣaḥābī in this scenariois based on a higher source, such as the Qurʾān or the Sunnah. Thus, the higher source is the true ḥujjah while qawl al-ṣaḥābī is simply a proclamation of the higher source.
Next, the fourth opinion is that only the four rightly guided caliphs’ qawl is a ḥujjah. This view is based on the narration that is related on ʿIrbāḍ b. Sāriyah’s authority:
قال ﷺ: …فإنه من يعش منكم يرى بعدي اختلافاً كثيراً. فعليكم بسنتي وسنة الخلفاء الراشدين المهديين.
“He ﷺ said, ‘…Indeed, whoever among you lives after me shall see much discord. My way and the way of the rightly guided caliphs is obligatory upon you.’”
Based on this narration, the advocates of this view contend that the Prophet ﷺ specifically instructed the Muslims to follow the khulafāʾ rāshidīn; thus, the aqwāl of all ṣaḥābah other than Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhum) are not to be followed or considered ḥujaj. Lastly, it should be noted that this view was mentioned in several prestigious books of legal theory, such as Imām al-Bazdawī’s Kanz al-Wuṣūl and Imām al-Ghazālī’s al-Mustaṣfá. However, an explicit attribution to a specific scholar or group was not mentioned.
Similarly, scholars mention a fifth opinion that states that only the first two caliphs’ – Abū Bakr and ʿUmar (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhumā) – qawl is a ḥujjah. And, just like the fourth opinion, an explicit attribution has not been found. Regardless, the followers of this view justify their stance by following a narration related on Ḥudhayfat b. al-Yamān’s authority:
قال رسول الله ﷺ: اقتدوا باللّذينَ من بعْدِي أبي بكرٍ وعمرَ.
“The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Follow the way of those after me, i.e, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhumā).’”
Finally, the sixth and most popular opinion is that qawl al-ṣaḥābī is a ḥujjah that precedes qiyās in terms of legal authority. Consequently, succeeding mujtahidūn must abide by aqwāl al-ṣaḥābah and cannot exercise their own ijtihād in these matters. Advocators of this opinion include Abū Saʿīd al-Bardaʿī, Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, al-Bazdawī, and al-Sarakhsī. Imām al-Bukhārī also mentions in Kashf al-Asrār that many Ḥanafī jurists, including Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf, held this opinion. As well, Imām Mālik, Imām Aḥmad (according to one of two narrations), and Imām al-Shāfiʿī in one of his opinions, subscribe to this view. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah explicitly states:
فإن لم أجد في كتاب الله ولا في سنة رسوله ﷺ وسلم أخذت بقول الصحابة.
“If I do not find it in the book of Allah nor in the Sunnah of His messenger, I adopt qawl al-ṣaḥābah.”
The proponents of this view corroborate their proposition through numerous verses of the Qurʾān, aḥādīth, and legal reasoning. An oft-presented verse is Sūrah Āl ʿImrān 110:
كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّه
“You are the best community brought forth for the good of humankind: You enjoin what is right, and you forbid what is wrong. And you believe in God.”
The scholars explain that this verse pertains to the ṣaḥābah. They also maintain that the definite particle prefixed to the words “maʿrūf” and “munkar” is for istighrāq or inclusivity of all the particulars of a certain class. In other words, the ṣaḥābah enjoined all that was good and forbade all that was wrong. Therefore, any verdicts the ṣaḥābah issued solely based on ijtihād are generally correct and must be accepted.
Another verse that is cited is:
وَالسَّابِقُونَ الْأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنصَارِ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحْسَانٍ رَّضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي تَحْتَهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ
“As to the forerunners (in faith)— the first of the Émigrés and the Helpers— as well as (all) those who have followed their course in goodness, God is well-pleased with them. And they are well-pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens beneath which rivers flow— wherein they shall abide, forever and ever. That is the magnificent triumph!”
In this verse, Allāh taʿālá praises the ṣaḥābah and those who follow them. So, if the ṣaḥābah come to juridical conclusions and other legally adept scholars follow them, then the followers are attaining the praise and pleasure of Allāh taʿālá. Thus, there is no need for later scholars to exercise their ijtihād in this issue.
As for the aḥādīth, the jurists and uṣūliyyūn bring, among other narrations, the narration of ʿImrān b. Ḥuṣain (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhumā) as follows:
قالَ رسول الله ﷺ: خَيْرُ أُمَّتي قَرْني، ثمَّ الذين يَلُونهم.
“The Messenger of Allāh said, ‘The best of my nation is my generation, then those who follow.’”
From this narration, the jurists conclude that since the ṣaḥābah were the epitome of excellence, their ijtihād and aqwāl are also the best. As such, the aqwāl and verdicts of later generations are of a lower tier. Therefore, the aqwāl al-ṣaḥābah should be followed.
They also present the narration of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr that states:
أصحابي كالنجوم بأيهم اقتديتم اهتديتم
“My companions are like stars; you shall be guided by whosoever of them you follow.”
This narration shows that following the ṣaḥābah is sufficient for one’s guidance. And so there is no need for later generations to employ their ijtihād in the matter.
Essentially, the ṣaḥābah were the closest people to the Prophet ﷺ and the most knowledgeable of the injunctions of Islām. They had the highest intelligence just as they had the most eloquent tongues. Due to their first-hand experience and personal connection with the Prophet ﷺ, their aqwāl are, more likely than not, nearest to the truth and farthest from falsehood. Hence, the scholars in support of this stance rule the aqwāl al-ṣaḥābah to be valid ḥujaj.
In conclusion, while there are many opinions regarding the ḥujjiyyah of qawl al-ṣaḥābī, two opinions dominate: (1) the qawl al-ṣaḥābī is not a ḥujjah at all and (2) the qawl al-ṣaḥābī is an absolute and binding ḥujjah. As such, those who do consider it to be a ḥujjah may have verdicts that differ from those who opine to the contrary. However, since each side has provided substantial evidence for their opinions, it is difficult to definitively rule in favor of one side and not the others.
ʿAbd ʿAbbās, Aḥmad. Qawl al-Ṣaḥābī wa Atharuh fī al-Masāʾil al-Fiqhhiyyah. Shabakat al-
Alūkah, 2016. https://www.alukah.net/library/0/97965/.
al-Āmidī, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad. Al-Iḥkām fī Uṣūl al-Aḥkām. Riyadh: Dār al-Ṣumaiʿī, 2003.
al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad b. Ḥajar. Nukhbat al-Fikr fī Muṣṭalaḥ Ahl al-Athar. Beirut: Dār ibn Hazm, 2006.
al-Bazdawī, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad. Kanz al-Wuṣūl ilá Maʿrifat al-Uṣūl. Karachi: Mīr Muḥammad Kutub Khānah.
al-Bukhārī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Aḥmad. Kashf al-Asrār ʿan Uṣūl Fakhr al-Islām al-Bazdawī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿArabī, 1890.
al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Damascus: Dār ibn Kathīr, 2002.
al-Ghazālī, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad. al-Mankhūl min Taʿlīmāt al-Uṣūl. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr al- Muʿāṣir, 1998.
al-Ghazālī, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad. al-Mustaṣfá min ʿIlm al-Uṣūl. Madinah: Shirkat al- Madīnat al-Munawwarat li al-Ṭibā‘ah, 1992.
al-Anṣārī, Muḥammad b. Niẓām al-Dīn. Fawātiḥ al-Raḥamūt. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al- ʿ Ilmiyyah, 2002.
al-Māwardī, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad. al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr fī Fiqh al-Madhhab al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1994.
al-Rājihī, ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. Baḥth fī Ḥujjiyyat Qawl al-Ṣaḥābī wa Atharuhā fī al-Masāʾil
al-Sarakhsī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. Uṣūl al-Sarakhsī. Hyderabad: Lajnat Iḥyāʾ al-Maʿārif al- ʿUthmāniyyah, 1993.
al-Shawkānī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī. Irshād al-Fuḥūl ilā Taḥqīq al-Ḥaqq min ʿIlm al-Uṣūl. Riyadh: Dār al-Faḍīlah, 2000.
al-Tirmidhī, Muḥammad b. ʿĪsá. al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1996.
al-Turkmānī, ʿAbd al-Majīd. Dirāsāt fī Usūl al-Ḥadīth ʿalá Manhaj al-Ḥanafiyyah. Damascus: Dār ibn Kathīr, 2012.
al-ʿUṣaimī, Ḥasan b. Ḥāmid. “Awjuh al-Tashābuh wa al-Ikhtilāf Baina al-Ijmāʿ al-Sukūtī wa Qawl al-Ṣaḥābī Dirāsat Muqārinah.” Ḥawliyyat Kulliyat al-Dirāsāt al-Islāmiyyat wa al- ʿArabiyyat li al-Banāt bi al-Iskandariyyah 36, no. 4 (2020): 791.
al-Zarkashī, Muḥammad b. Bahādir. al-Baḥr al-Muḥīt fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh. Kuwait: Wizārat
al-Awqāf wa al-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyyah, 1992.
Ḥammad, Aḥmad Z. The Gracious Quran: A Modern-Phrased Interpretation in English. Lucent Interpretations, 2008.
Ḥusām al-Dīn, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad. Muntakhab al-Ḥusāmī. Karachi: Maktabat al-Bushrā, 2010.
Ibn al-Ḥanbal, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. Musnad al-Imām Aḥmad bin al-Ḥanbal. Beirut: Muʾassis al-Risālah, 1991.
Ibn Amīr al-Ḥājj, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad. al-Taqrīr wa al-Taḥbīr. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al- ʿIlmiyyah, 1991.
Ṣadr al-Sharīʿat al-Aṣghar, ʿUbaid Allāh b. Masʿūd. al-Tawḍīḥ fī Ḥall Ghawāmiḍ al-Tanqīḥ.
 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Nukhbat al-Fikar fī Muṣṭalaḥ Ahl al-Athar (Beirut: Dār Ibn Hazm, 2006), 318.
 Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Sarakhsī, Uṣūl al-Sarakhsī (Hyderabad: Lajnat Iḥyāʾ al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyyah, 1993), 1:303; Muḥammad b. Bahādir al-Zarkashī, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīt fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh (Kuwait: Wizārat al-Awqāf wa al-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyyah, 1992), 4:495.
 In short, those who do not consider this type of qawl al-ṣaḥābī to be ijmāʿ sukūtī divide into two broad groups: (a) those who say this type of qawl al-ṣaḥābī is not a ḥujjah such as Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī and (b) those who say this type is a ḥujjah (but not ijmāʿ) such as Abū Bakr al-Ṣayrafī (al-ʿUṣaimī, p. 791).
 Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Shawkānī, Irshād al-Fuḥūl ilā Taḥqīq al-Ḥaqq min ʿIlm al-Uṣūl (Riyadh: Dār al-Faḍīlah, 2000), 2:995.
 ʿUmūm al-balwá: A critical circumstance in which a problem becomes so widespread that many people fall victim to it and avoiding it becomes improbable. Also, Imām al-Turkmānī mentions that the condition of ʿumūm al-balwá is specific to the Ḥanafī madhhab (al-Turkmānī p. 513).
 Muḥammad b. Niẓām al-Dīn al-Anṣārī, Fawātiḥ al-Raḥamūt (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2002), 2:232.
 al-Anṣārī, Fawātiḥ, 2:232; al-Shawkānī, Irshād, 2:995; Muḥammad b. Muḥammad Ḥusām al-Dīn, Muntakhab al-Ḥusāmī (Karachi: Maktabat al-Bushrā, 2010), 181.
 al-Zarkashī, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīt, 6:53; ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Āmidī, Al-Iḥkām fī Uṣūl al-Aḥkām (Riyadh: Dār al-Ṣumaiʿī, 2003), 4:182.
 al-Anṣārī, Fawātiḥ, 2:231-232; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Aḥmad al-Bukhārī, Kashf al-Asrār ʿan Uṣūl Fakhr al-Islām al-Bazdawī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿArabī, 1890), 3:217.
 This paper is not an exhaustive study of all the different opinions regarding the matter of qawl al-ṣaḥābī; al-tatabbuʿ yanfī al-ḥaṣr.
 al-Āmidī, Al-Iḥkām, 4:182.
 al-Āmidī, Al-Iḥkām, 4:182; al-Shawkānī, Irshād, 2:995; Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Ghazālī, al-Mustaṣfá min ʿIlm al-Uṣūl (Madinah: Shirkat al-Madīnat al-Munawwarat li al-Ṭibā‘ah, 1992), 2:451.
 Q, 59:2. Aḥmad Z. Ḥammad, The Gracious Quran: A Modern-Phrased Interpretation in English (Lucent Interpretations, 2008), 963.
 ʿUbaid Allāh b. Masʿūd Ṣadr al-Sharīʿat al-Aṣghar, al-Tawḍīḥ fī Ḥall Ghawāmiḍ al-Tanqīḥ, 466.
 Q, 4:59. Ḥammad, The Gracious Quran, 143.
 al-Āmidī, Al-Iḥkām, 4:182-183.
 ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Māwardī, al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr fī Fiqh al-Madhhab al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1994), 16:112; al-Zarkashī, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīt, 6:56-57.
 al-Zarkashī, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīt, 6:57-58.
 al-Zarkashī, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīt, 6:59; al-Ghazālī, al-Mustaṣfá, 2:450.
 Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Ghazālī, al-Mankhūl min Taʿlīmāt al-Uṣūl (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr al-Muʿāṣir, 1998), 475; al-Shawkānī, Irshād, 2:996.
 al-Ghazālī, al-Mustaṣfá, 2:455-456.
 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ibn al-Ḥanbal, Musnad al-Imām Aḥmad bin al-Ḥanbal (Beirut: Muʾassisat al-Risālah, 1991), 28:373.
 ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Bazdawī, Kanz al-Wuṣūl ilá Maʿrifat al-Uṣūl (Karachi: Mīr Muḥammad Kutub Khānah), 234; al-Ghazālī, al-Mustaṣfá, 2:451.
 al-Bukhārī, Kashf al-Asrār, 3:217; al-Ghazālī, al-Mustaṣfá, 2:450.
 Muḥammad b. ʿĪsá al-Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1996), 6:43.
 al-Ghazālī, al-Mustaṣfá, 2:450-451.
 al-Anṣārī, Fawātiḥ, 2:231-232; al-Āmidī, Al-Iḥkām, 4:182.
 al-Bukhārī, Kashf al-Asrār, 3:217.
 Q, 3:110. Ḥammad, The Gracious Quran, 106.
 Q, 9:100. Ḥammad, The Gracious Quran, 331.
 Muḥammad b. Muḥammad Ibn Amīr al-Ḥājj, al-Taqrīr wa al-Taḥbīr (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1991), 2:402.
 Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Damascus: Dār ibn Kathīr, 2002), 897.
 ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rājihī, Baḥth fī Ḥujjiyyat Qawl al-Ṣaḥābī wa Atharuhā fī al-Masāʾil al-Fiqhhiyyah, 19.
 It should be noted that ḥadīth specialists deem this narration weak (ar. ḍaʿīf).
 Ṣadr al-Sharīʿat al-Aṣghar, al-Tawḍīḥ fī, 467.
would this be a better word than “retrospection”?