The Antagonism and Takfīr by Muḥammad b. Abdul Wahhāb’s Opponents
A pdf version of this article can be accessed here.
Note: These arguments were mostly incorporated from Shaykh Faisal al-Jasim’s book, Ḥaqiqat aṣ-Ṣirā‘ fī Tārīkh Da‘wat ash-Shaykh Muḥammad bin ‘Abdul Wahhāb
What is often neglected in conversations surrounding the “Wahhābi” movement is the antagonism and takfīr hurled against Shaykh Muḥammad b. Abdul Wahhāb (MIAW) by his foes. To ensure any conversation surrounding this subject is balanced, it would be essential that one, at the very least, be made aware of this.
We have pointed out elsewhere how even an unsympathetic non-Muslim academic can concede that MIAW’s opponents initiated physical aggression against him.
There is evidence from MIAW’s own writings and that of his supporters, in addition to his opponents, demonstrating the takfīr and antagonism hurled his way.
From MIAW’s Own Writings:
He stated:
تعلم ما جرى من ابن إسماعيل، وولد ابن ربيعة سنة الحبس، لما شكونا عند أهل قبة أبي طالب ... وتعرف روحة المويس وأتباعه لأهل قبة الكواز... ويقول لهم: طالع الناس ينكرون قببكم، وقد كفروا وحل دمهم ومالهم، وصار هذا عندك، وعند أهل الوشم، وعند أهل سدير والقصيم، من فضائل المويس ومناقبه، وهم على دينه إلى الآن مع أن المكاتيب التي أرسلها علماء ...وقد صرحوا فيها أن من أقر بالتوحيد كفر حل ماله ودمه، وقتل في الحل والحرم
You are aware of what transpired with Ibn Isma‘īl and the son of Rabī‘ah in the year of imprisonment when we complained about the people at the dome of Abī Ṭālib…As you are aware of the journey of Al-Muways and his followers to the people of the Al-Kawāz dome... He (Al-Muways) said to them: there has appeared a people who condemn your domes, they have become unbelievers, and their blood and property are ḥalāl. This got to you and the people of Washam and the people of Sudayr and Qaṣīm and was counted as one of the praiseworthy deeds of Al-Muways. They are on his religion till now. And to this day, we have the writings of the scholars of the Ḥaramayn...In these letters, they categorically affirm that whoever affirms Tawḥīd has become kāfir, his life and property are ḥalāl, and he is to be killed even if he is found in the sacred precincts.[1]
He also said:
فأما ابن عبد اللطيف وابن عفالق، وابن مطلق فحشوا بالزبيل أعني: سبابة التوحيد واستحلال دم من صدق به، أو أنكر الشرك
As for Ibn Abdul Laṭīf, Ibn ‘Afāliq, and Ibn Muṭlaq, they abused Tawḥīd and declared lawful the blood of those who affirm it or repudiate shirk.[2]
And:
فهذا هو الذي أوجب الاختلاف بيننا وبين الناس، حتى آل بهم الأمر إلى أن كفّرونا وقاتلونا، واستحلوا دماءنا وأموالنا، حتى نصرنا الله عليهم وظفرنا بهم
This is what caused the conflict between the people and us. Consequently, it led to them declaring us apostates and also fighting us. They declared our lives and properties Ḥalāl until Allah gave us victory over them.[3]
And:
وأقروا لكم أيضًا أن التوحيد الذي يسعون في إطفائه، وفي قتل أهله وحبسهم، أنه دين الله ورسوله... كيف لا يكفر من جاء إلى أهل الشرك يحثهم على لزوم دينهم وتزيينه لهم، ويحثهم على قتل الموحدين وأخذ مالهم؟
They also affirm to you that the Tawḥīd whose light they seek to extinguish by killing and imprisoning its people, is the Dīn of Allah and His Prophet… how would a person not be a kāfir when he goes to the people of shirk, encouraging and beautifying it for them and at the same time encourages the killing and taking of the property of the people of Tawḥīd?[4]
And:
ما فعل المويس وأمثاله، مع قبة الكواز وأهلها، وما فعله هو، وابن إسماعيل، وابن ربيعة، وعلماء نجد في مكة سنة الحبس، مع أهل قبة أبي طالب، وإفتائهم بقتل من أنكر ذلك، وأن قتلهم وأخذ أموالهم، قربة إلى الله، وأن الحرم الذي يحرم اليهودي، والنصراني، لا يحرمهم
And that which Al-Muways and others like him did, as seen in their actions with the Al-Kawāz dome and its people, in addition to people like Ibn Ismā‘īl, Ibn Rabī‘ah, and the scholars of Makkah the year of the imprisonment and their actions with the people of the dome of Abī Ṭālib and their fatwa that whosoever condemns this should be killed. They considered his killing and taking of his property an act of worship. So much so that they held that the rules that grant sanctity to the Jews and Christians do not apply to thsem.[5]
And:
ويصرحون: أن من أنكر الإسلام كله وكذب به، واستهزأ به، أو استهزأ بمن صدق به، فهو أخوك المسلم، حرام المال والدم، مع أنه ما معه من الإسلام إلا أنه يقول: لا إله إلا الله، ثم يكفروننا ويستحلون دماءنا وأموالنا، مع أنا نقول: لا إله إلا الله. إذا سئلوا عن ذلك، قالوا: من كفر مسلما فقد كفر
They clearly state that whosoever denies Islam entirely, belies it, mocks it, and mocks those who affirm its truth, remains categorically Muslims, of sacred blood and life. Even if the only thing he has of Islam is lā ilāha illā Allah, contrariwise, they go ahead to declare us kuffār; they declare our lives and properties ḥalāl, even though we say la ilāha illā Allah. When asked about this contradiction, they say whosoever declares a Muslim kāfir is a kāfir.[6]
He complained:
فكيف بالمويس وأمثاله لا يُكفِّروننا بمحض التوحيد
How do Al-Muways and his ilk find it convenient to declare us kuffār because we call to pure Tawḥīd?![7]
From MIAW’s Supporters:
Ibn Ghannām stresses that MIAW did not fight any of his opponents until they first made takfīr of him and incited violence against him.[8] He also mentioned that Sulaymān b. Suḥaym sent letters to the scholars in different cities inciting them against MIAW, and their replies had clear takfīr; he said:
وبعث الطروس مترعة بالباطل والمين إلى علماء الإحساء والبصرة والحرمين، فقاموا معه فوراً بالإنكار، وأفتوا للحكام والسلاطين والأشرار بأن القائم بدعوة التوحيد حتى أشرق لها أنوارا خارجي لها… فصنفوا المصنّفات في تبديعه، وتضليله، وتغييره للشرع النبوي وتبديله، وعدم معرفته بأسرار العلوم وتجهيله، وسطّروا فيها الجزم بكفره
And they sent letters filled with hate and lies to the scholars of Al-Aḥsā’, Basrah, Makkah, and Madinah. And they quickly joined him in condemnation. They gave the rulers and vile people the fatwá that the one responsible for this growing call to Tawḥīd is a khārijī … they went ahead to author books about him being misguided, an innovator, and that he changed the Prophetic Sharī‘ah. In addition, they opined that he is ignorant of the depths of the Sharī‘ah sciences. They emphatically declared him a kāfir in those writings.[9]
Shaykh Abdur Raḥmān b. Ḥasan, son of MIAW:
وأما ابن منصور وشيعته: فهم أقرب الناس شبهاً بالخوارج، بل هم أعظم، لتكفيرهم المسلمين بالتوحيد، وهو إخلاص العبادة لله وحده لا شريك له؛ فمن كَفَّر المسلمين بالتوحيد، فهو أعظم بدعة من الخوارج) ا.ه. [«الدرر السنية» 11/576
As for Ibn Mansūr and his cohorts have a greater resemblance to the Khawārij; in fact, they are worse. This is because they declare Muslims kuffār because of Tawḥīd, which is nothing but the sincerity of worship and its purification for Allah alone without any association. Whosoever declares Muslims kuffār because of Tawḥīd is worse than the Khawārij.[10]
Shaykh Aḥmad b. Māni‘ (d. 1186 A.H.) wrote a letter refuting Abdullah b. ‘Īsá Al-Muways (1216 A.H.), in which he said about the latter:
وما نقم عليهم إلا أنهم يعلمون الناس دينهم الذي أعظمه شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله، ويعلمونهم أنواع الشرك...فلما بين لهم أمر الدين واشتغلوا بالعلم وتعليمه وبإقامة أمر الله، وحض الناس عليه، قام (المويس) وأمثاله يصيحون ويقولون: أهل شقراء وأهل العارض مرتدون.
He (Al-Muways) had no grudge against them, save that they teach the people their religion which has its highest precept to be Lā ilāha illā Allah. And they teach them the different aspects of shirk… As they explained the religion to people and got busy studying, teaching, and establishing the laws of Allah, he, Al-Muways, and others like him, started screaming and saying: the people of Shaqrā and the people of Al-‘Āriḍ are apostates.[11]
From MIAW’s Opponents:
Aḥmad Zaynī Daḥlān (d. 1304 A.H.) relayed the takfīr of the Makkan scholars on MIAW and his followers. This takfīr was issued repeatedly and at different times. MIAW’s follower were oppressed despite not inciting violence:
وكانوا في ابتداء أمرهم -يعني: الشيخ وأتباعه- أرسلوا جماعة من علمائهم ظنًا منهم أنهم يفسدون عقائد علماء الحرمين، ويدخلون عليهم الشبهة بالكذب والمين، وطلبوا الإذن في الحج، ولو بمبلغ يدفعونه كل عام، وكان أهل الحرمين يسمعون بظهورهم في المشرق وفساد عقائدهم، ولم يعرفوا حقيقة ذلك، فأمر مولانا الشريف مسعود أن يناظر علماء الحرمين العلماء الذين أرسلوهم، فناظروهم فوجدوهم ضحكة ومسخرة، كحمر مستنفرة، فرت من قسورة ونظروا إلى عقائدهم فوجدوها مشتملة على كثير من المكفرات فبعد أن أقاموا البرهان عليهم أمر الشريف مسعود قاضي الشرع أن يكتب حجة بكفرهم الظاهر ليعلم به الأول والآخر، وأمر بسجن أولئك الملاحدة الأنذال، ووضعهم في السلاسل والأغلال فسجن منهم جماعة، وفر الباقون ووصلوا إلى الدرعية وأخبروا بما شاهدوا… حتى مضت دولة الشريف مسعود وأقيم بعده أخوه الشريف مساعد بن مساعد فأرسلوا في مدته يستأذنون في الحج فأبى… فلما مضت دولة الشريف مساعد وتقلد الأمر أخوه الشريف أحمد بن سعيد أرسل أمير الدرعية جماعة من علمائه، كما أرسل في المدة السابقة، فلما اختبرهم علماء مكة وجدوهم لا يتدينون إلا بدين الزنادقة، وأبى أن يقر لهم في حمى البيت قرار، ولم يأذن لهم في الحج بعد أن ثبت عند العلماء أنهم كفار، كما ثبت في دولة الشريف مسعود…
At the beginning of their (i.e., MIAW and his followers) affair, they sent a group of their scholars, aiming to corrupt the beliefs of these scholars of Makkah and Madinah. They hoped to create doubts in their minds with lies and treachery. They sought permission for Hajj even if they had to pay for it annually. The scholars of Makkah and Madinah had heard of their appearance in the East and knew their corrupt ideology, though they did not know the reality of their beliefs. The Sharīf Mas‘ūd instructed the scholars of the Ḥaramayn to debate the scholars they sent. They debated them and found them a joke and an embarrassment, like fleeing donkeys from a lion. They also realized that their creed was filled with many kufri beliefs. When they established the evidence against them, the Sharīf Mas‘ūd ordered the judge to write an official document stating that they were apparent kuffār so that everyone would learn. He then ordered that these disgraceful heretics (malāḥida) be imprisoned. He had them in chains and was able to jail some of them. The rest fled, returning to Dir‘iyyah, and relayed what they went through... When the reign of Sharīf Mas‘ūd ended, his brother, Musā‘id b. Musā‘id became ruler.
They also wrote to him during this period to allow them to perform Hajj, but he refused… When his reign also ended, his brother, Sharīf Aḥmad b. Sa‘īd became the ruler. The Emir of ad-Dir‘iyyah again sent a group of scholars to him just as he had done earlier. When the scholars of Makkah interrogated them, they realized that their religion was none but the religion of heretics (zanadiqah). He also refused to grant them any sanctity in the Ka‘bah. So also, did he deny them Hajj because the scholars held them to be Kuffār just as they did during the reign of Sharīf Mas‘ud...[12]
Muḥammad b. Abdur Raḥman b. ‘Āfāliq (1163 A.H.) ruled that MIAW fell into shirk, kufr and even ilḥād (the rejection of faith in all religions). He stated this in his letter to Ibn Ma‘mar. After quoting from Kashf ash-Shubuhāt of Muḥammad b. Abdul Wahhāb, he commented:
انظر إلى هذا الكفر الصريح… وعبارة هذا الملحد نافية لرسالة رسول الله … فانظروا يا عباد الله إلى هذا الكلام الفاسد الركيك، والكفر والزندقة… فهؤلاء الكفار الذين ذكرهم هذا الملحد لا ينفعهم ما قالوا ولا يدخلهم في الإسلام ما ذكروا؛ حيث لم يقولوا: لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
Look at this clear Kufr…this statement of this mulḥid (a rejecter of all faiths) contradicts the message of the Prophet of Allah…look, O slaves of Allah, at this corrupt, inarticulate, kufri, and heretical speech…these kuffār that this mulhid mentions, what they utter does not benefit them nor does it bring them into Islam because they did not say lā ilāha illā Allah.[13]
Muḥammad b. Abdullah b. Fayrūz (d. 1216 AH) stated that MIAW and his followers were kuffār whose blood was legitimate to be spilled. He argued that their kufr was clear and unambiguous, and anyone with a modicum of knowledge would not hesitate to declare them as such. He said:
والحاصل أن أمر طغاة نجد لا يُشكل إلا على من تشكل عليه الشمس، ولا يَتوقف في تكفيرهم وحِلِّ دمائهم وأموالهم من له مسكة من الدين
Clearly, the affair of the oppressors of Najd is as clear as the sun. No one with a modicum of Dīn would hesitate to make takfīr of them and declare their blood and property permissible.[14]
Uthmān b. Sanad Al-Baṣrī (d. 1250 A.H) ruled that MIAW and his followers are like the followers of Musaylimah, the liar, the false prophet. He mentioned the events of the year 1218 A.H:
فهؤلاء الوهابيون لا نشك في أن كل واحد منهم بمنزلة مسيلمة الكذاب
We do not doubt that every one of these Wahhābis is like Musaylimah, the liar.[15]
The Iraqi poet, Ibrahim Al-Wā’ilī (d. 1408 A.H.) mentioned the great animosity Ibn Sanad had for the call of Ibn Abdul Wahhāb. He said:
عثمان بن سند البصري الوائلي قد سجّل تعصبه الشديد ضدّ الوهابيين بقصائد ومقطوعات كثيرة، وناوأهم أشد المناوأة، وكفَّرهم، ووسمهم بالزيغ والضلال في نثره وشعره على السواء، ودعا إلى حربهم باسم الدين -كما زعم هو وغيره- مارقون خارجون عن إجماع المسلمين وعلى طاعة السلطان
‘Uthmān b. Sanad Al-Baṣrī Al-Wā’ilī registered his passionate hatred of the Wahhābis in several poems. He showed them maximum animosity, declared them kuffār, and described them as heretics and misguided both in prose and poetry. He called for war against them in the name of the Dīn, claiming, as others like him also claimed, that they had violated the consensus of Muslims and rebelled against the Sulṭān.[16]
Then he mentioned some of the poetry of Ibn Sanad praising Thuwaynī b. Abdullah, leader of the tribal confederate, that was to attack the Wahhābis in the year 1211A.H. He also wrote an elegy for him when he was killed. Similarly, he had poems for the Iraqi offensive led by Kikhiyā against Najd in 1213A.H. He also had poems in which he praised the Uthmānī Sulṭān Mahmūd II for destroying the first Saudi state. In fact, he equated him with the four rightly guided caliphs.
Uthman b. Sanad was so vehement in his hatred of the “Wahhābi” call and its people that when he wrote to Ibrahim Pasha b. Muḥammad Ali after his destruction of Dir‘iyyah, he added a poem at the tail end, praising and urging him to kill the Wahhābis: young and old, and not to leave anyone of them alive, even the children!
Ibrahim Al-Wā’ilī said:
وليس أدل على مقت عثمان بن سند دعوة الوهابيين من رسالته التي بعث بها إلى إبراهيم بن محمد علي عندما نزل الدرعية وحرّضه بها أشد التحريض وذيَلها بقصيدة جاء فيها:
ولا تُبق منهم واحداً تستطيبه … إذا خَبُث الآباء لم يَطِب الولد
There is no clearer evidence of Uthman b. Sanad’s animosity against the Wahhābis than the letter he sent to Ibrahim b. Muḥammad b. Ali when he arrived in Dir‘iyyah, inciting him to destroy it. He ended it with a couplet:
And do not leave anyone of them (alive)
Rotten fathers do not leave pure offspring.[17]
Abdul Rahmān Al-Jabartī (d. 1241 A.H.) relays the fatwá of the Mufti of the Ottoman Empire to troops who were to attack Najd that the Wahhābis were kuffar. This was to incite and motivate the men to kill the MIAW’s followers. He mentioned concerning the month of Rabī‘ ath-Thānī, 1228 A.H:
أنه وصل إلى القاهرة مرسوم سلطاني يأمر الخطباء في المساجد يوم الجمعة على المنابر، فيقولوا السلطان ابن السلطان بتكرير لفظ السلطان ثلاث مرات: محمود خان بن السلطان عبد الحميد خان بن السلطان أحمد خان، الغازي، خادم الحرمين الشريفين، لأنه استحق أن ينعت بهذه النعوت لكون عساكره افتتحت بلاد الحرمين وغزت الخوارج وأخرجتهم منها، لأن المفتي أفتاهم بأنهم كفار لتكفيرهم المسلمين، ويجعلونهم مشركين، ولخروجهم على السلطان وقتلهم الأنفس وأن من قاتلهم يكون مغازياً ومجاهداً وشهيداً إذا قُتل
A decree from the Sulṭān reached Cairo instructing the Imams of Friday mosques to mention the Sulṭān, son of the Sulṭān, and that this should be repeated thrice; Maḥmūd Khān b. Sulṭān ‘Abdul Majīd Khān b. Sulṭān Aḥmad Khan, the warrior and servant of the two sacred precincts. This is because he deserved these features because his army had been granted victory over the land of the Ḥaramayn. They waged war on the khawārij and expunged them. The Mufti had given the fatwá that they were kuffār because they declared Muslims kuffār and polytheists. This is in addition to their rebellion against the Sulṭān and their killing of people. Whosoever kills them is a holy warrior and a martyr if killed.[18]
Al-Jabartī mentioned the events of Jumāda ath-Thāniyyah, 1230AH:
في خامسه وصلت عساكر في داوات إلى السويس، وحضروا إلى مصر وعلى رؤوسهم شلنجات فضة؛ أعلاماً وإشارة، بأنهم مجاهدون وعائدون من غزو الكفار، وأنهم افتتحوا بلاد الحرمين وطردوا المخالفين لديانتهم
On the fifth of that month, the armies traveled from Dāwāt to the Suez in Egypt. They had silk head-coverings adorned with jewels as symbols showing that they were mujāhidūn returning from a war against the kuffār and that they had won back the sacred precincts and chased away the dissenters.[19]
Al-Jabartī cites several instances of the Egyptian army describing the adherents of Ibn Abdul Wahhāb’s call as kuffār.[20]
He also mentions in his book that the Egyptian army took as captives of war: women, girls, and children, and they traded them among themselves. He also mentioned that in the year 1235 A.H, they brought some Wahhābi captives of women, girls, and children and sold them to buyers.[21]
Conclusion
The purpose of this article was not to portray MIAW and his followers as infallible people utterly free of any mistakes; instead, the intent behind this article was to provide balance to a lopsided and prevalent narrative surrounding MIAW and his opponents. Many people are unaware that MIAW was violently antagonized first and that his opponents resorted to oppression and takfīr. Without knowledge of these highly significant matters, it would be highly improbable that anyone would be able to offer a just assessment of the theological and political disputes that MIAW had with his critics.
Allah knows best.
Recommending Reading:
Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab Discourse
[1] Ar-Rasāil Ash-Shakṣiyyah, (published within the compilations of Ibn Abdul Wahhāb, vol. 6), vol. 1, p. 205
[2] Ibid., p. 206. MIAW is clearly referring to their abusing his conception of Tawheed and not blanketly. However, the main point of this remark is that his opponents declared his blood to be licit.
[3] Ibid., p. 114
[4] Ibid., p. 272
[5] Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fī Ajwibat an-Najdiyyah, vol. 10, p. 123.
[6] Ibid., vol. 9, p. 395. It is difficult to ascertain which of MIAW’s opponents would have gone so far as to consider one a Muslim still, even if he belies and mocks Islam. Whether this is an exaggeration on MIAW’s part or he is equating “Islam” here with his understanding of it, the takeaway from this quote is that his opponents still made takfīr of and antagonized him.
[7] Ibid., vol. 10, p. 81
[8] He said in Tārīkh Najd:
وصاحوا وباحوا بتكفيره وجماعته في جميع البلدان، ولم يثبتوا فيما جاءوا به من الإفك والبهتان، بل كان لهم على شنيع ذلك المقال إقدام وإسراع وإقبال، ولم يأمر رحمه الله بسفك دم ولا قتال على أكثر الأهواء والضلال، حتى بدأوه بالحكم عليه وأصحابه بالقتل والتكفير.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fī Ajwibat an-Najdiyyah, vol. 11, p. 576
[11] ‘Ulamā’ Najd fī Thamāniyyat Qurūn, vol. 1, p. 506
[12] Khulāṣat al-Kalām fī Bayān Umarā’ al-Balad al-Ḥarām. He relayed the same incident in almost identical words in his book, Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fī ar-Radd ‘alá al-Wahhābiyyah, saying:
فأرسلوا يستأذنونه في الحج وغاية مرادهم إظهار عقيدتهم وحمل أهل الحرمين عليها فأرسلوا قبل ذلك ثلاثين من علمائهم ظنا منهم أنهم يفسدون عقائد أهل الحرمين ويدخلون عليهم الكذب والمين وطلبوا الإذن في الحج ولو بشئ مقرر عليهم كل عام يدفعونه وكان أهل الحرمين قد سمعوا بظهورهم في نجد وإفسادهم عقائد البوادي ولم يعرفوا حقيقة ذلك فلما وصل علماؤهم مكة أمر الشريف مسعود أن يناظر علماء الحرمين العلماء الذين بعثوهم فناظروهم فوجدوهم ضحكة ومسخرة كحمر مستنفرة فرت من قسورة ونظروا إلى عقائدهم فإذا هي مشتملة على كثير من المكفرات فبعد أن أقاموا عليهم الحجة والبرهان أمر الشريف مسعود قاضي الشرع أن يكتب حجة بكفرهم الظاهر ليعلم به الأول والآخر وأمر بسجن أولئك الملحدة الأنذال ووضعهم في السلاسل والأغلال فقبض منهم جماعة وسجنهم وفر الباقون ووصلوا إلى الدرعية وأخبروا بما شاهدوا فعتا أميرهم واستكبر ونأي عن هذا المقصد وتأخر إلى أن مضت دولة الشريف مسعود وتوفي سنة 1165 خمس وستين ومائة وألف وولى إمارة مكة أخوه الشريف مساعد بن سعيد فأرسلوا أيضا يستأذنونه في الحج فأبى وامتنع من الإذن لهم فضعفت عن الوصول مطامهم فلما مضت دولة الشريف مساعد وتوفي سنة 1184 أربع وثمانين ومائة وألف وولى إمارة مكة أخوه الشريف أحمد بن سعيد أرسل أمير الدرعية جماعة من علمائهم فأمر العلماء أن يختبروهم فاختبروهم فوجدوهم لا يتدينون إلا بدين الزنادقة فأبى أن يأذن لهم في الحج
[13] Jawāb ibn ‘Āfāliq ‘alá Risālat ibn Ma’mar. Elsewhere in the same letter, he described MIAW as a heretic (zindīq).
[14] Risālah Muḥammad b. Fayrūz ilá Kahayā Bāshā fīmā yakfuru bihi ar-Rajul. This letter can be seen in full in Abdullah āl Maḥmūd’s (d. 1340 A.H.) work, Taḥdhīr Ahl al-Īmān, which is a response to Ibn Fayrūz.
[15] Maṭāli‘ as-Su‘ūd biṭībi Akbār al-Wālī Dāwūd. See Khizān at-Tawārīkh an-Najdiyyah, vol. 6, p. 293.
[16] Ash-Sh‘ir As-Siyāsī Al-Irāqī fī al-Qarn at-Tāsi‘ ‘Ashar, p. 129
[17] Ibid., p. 133
[18] ‘Ajā‘ib al-Āthār fī at-Tarājim wal-Akhbār, (ed. Dar al-Jīl, Beirut, 2nd edition, 1978), vol. 3, p. 406
[19] Ibid., vol. 3, p. 477
[20] Ibid., vol. 3, p. 342, for example.
[21] Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 334, 342, 606