Concerning the jalsat al-istirāḥah (the sitting of rest)

His statement: “The scholars have disagreed about its legal status because the reports differ; we shall therefore quote the summary that Ibn al-Qayyim compiled on the issue …,” after which he reproduces it.

I say: This wording suggests that there are conflicting ḥadiths on the subject, whereas in reality every narration that mentions the sitting affirms it, and not a single report negates it. The most that can be said is that some narrations simply do not mention it. Such silence, however, does not create the alleged disagreement; otherwise, the same claim would have to be made regarding every sunnah that is not found in all narrations—and no one holds that view.

His words: “Abu Umāmah was asked about how to rise, and he replied, ‘On the balls of the feet, following the ḥadith of Rifāʿah.’ ”

I say: From the context in Zad it is evident that “Abu Umāmah” here refers to Imām Aḥmad—may Allah have mercy on him. Yet none of the biographical sources record that he was ever called Abu Umāmah, nor that he had a child named Umāmah.

I later found, in the margin of the Indian edition of Zad, that another manuscript reads: “Abu ʿAbd Allāh.” That is most likely the correct reading.

As for his phrase “following the ḥadith of Rifāʿah,” he means the narration of Rifāʿah ibn Rāfiʿ. ʿAbd Allāh, the son of Imām Aḥmad, says in his Masāʾil 81 / 286:

“I heard my father say: If someone follows the ḥadith of Mālik ibn al-Huwairith—which was cited a little earlier—I hope there is no harm in that.”

I say: He then mentioned the jalsat al-istirāḥah (sitting of rest) and said: