al-Dimyāṭī, and al-Ḥusayn and al-Ḥasan, the two sons of ʿAlī ibn Shaʿbān.

Al-Ḥākim failed to mention him in his History—he simply overlooked him—and he is not listed in the History of Baghdad or in the History of Damascus, for he never entered either city.

He is counted among the Shāfiʿī jurists.

Shaykh Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Nawawī (1) said: “The level of exactitude found in his books is unmatched; no one approaches him in that regard. His command of hadith was consummate, and when he adopts a position he does not confine himself to any single school, but rather follows the evidence wherever it leads.”

I say: No one binds himself to a single school except someone whose grasp of knowledge is limited—as is the case with most scholars of our day—or someone who is sectarian. This Imām, however, was a standard-bearer of proof, running in the same track as Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Surayj, and that distinguished company—may Allah have mercy on them.

ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-Munʿim informed us; Abū al-Yaman al-Kindī informed us in the year 608 AH in writing; ʿAlī ibn Hibat Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Salām informed us; the Imām Abū Isḥāq related to us in his book Al-Ṭabaqāt (2), saying:

“Among them is Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mundhir al-Naysābūrī. He died in Mecca in 309—or 310—AH. He wrote books on the areas of disagreement among the scholars, the like of which no one else produced; both supporters and critics alike were in need of his writings. I do not know from whom he learned jurisprudence.”

I say: He certainly studied under the disciples of Imām al-Shāfiʿī. As for the date of death mentioned by Shaykh Abū Isḥāq, it is based on conjecture, for Ibn ʿAmmār heard from him in the year