because he had alluded, when discussing the question of the created nature of people’s actions, to the view that the reciter’s utterance of the Qur’an is itself created. He hinted at it without stating it outright, yet the truth is plainer still.

Even so, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Abū Zurʿah, and al-Dhuhlī refused to probe that matter or to adopt the expansive phraseology of the speculative theologians, in order to block every avenue that might lead to error. They acted wisely—may Allah reward them with the best of recompense.

Ibn Ismāʿīl therefore left Nīshāpūr in secrecy, aggrieved by Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā’s stance. The remarks great contemporaries level against one another, however, can never be judged in isolation.

I have already set out the details of this episode in the biography of Ibn Ismāʿīl (1). May Allah have mercy on them all, forgive them and us—amen.

When al-Dhuhlī passed away, the ruler of Khurāsān, Muḥammad ibn Ṭāhir, stepped forward to lead the funeral prayer over him in the Ḥusayn Square.

His position as the city’s leading shaykh was inherited by his son Ḥaikān, whose full name is:

105 – Yaḥyā ibn Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā al-Dhuhlī * (q)

The careful ḥāfiẓ, the exacting scholar, the martyr, Abū Zakariyyā.

Al-Ḥākim said: “He is the undisputed imam of Nīshāpūr in issuing legal opinions and in leadership, the son of its former imam, and the commander of the volunteer fighters (the warriors) in Khurāsān.”

He added: “He lived in his father’s house, and each of them had within it a small secluded chamber and visible traces of their worship. Both the alley and the mosque in that quarter were named after Ḥaikān (2).”