(1) There are many such cases, and the scholars and men of sound understanding have never made this analogy [sic]. The prophets were killed by disbelievers, as were the Companions who were martyred. ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, al-Ḥusayn, and their like were slain by the rebellious Kharijites—all were not executed according to sharʿī rule by the madhhabs of the great jurists (Malik, al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfa, Aḥmad, and others). Indeed, the imams of the religion agree on the prohibition of shedding their blood, yet unanimously permit the execution of al-Ḥallāj and his like. (2) One’s true insight into God’s awliyāʾ (saints) can only come from one who knows the path of walāyah, namely faith (īmān) and piety (taqwā). Among the greatest signs of faith and piety is avoiding the statements of the anthropomorphists and monists (ahl al-ḥulūl wa al-ittiḥād). Whoever concurs with al-Ḥallāj in such doctrinal positions is ignorant of faith and piety, and therefore unqualified to discern between God’s saints and others. (3) This person himself has declared his agreement with al-Ḥallāj’s statement, making him of the same ilk. His testimony to al-Ḥallāj’s sanctity is thus self-testimony—like a Jew, a Christian, or a Rafidhi testifying to his own rightness. Self-testimony in matters whose truth or falsehood one does not know is rejected; how much more so when it favors oneself and one’s sect, who have been shown by the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and consensus to be people of error. (4) It is said either that al-Ḥallāj repented privately before God at death, or that he did not—this is the unseen, known only to God. As for the claim that he uttered his statements only under torture, this is false. He authored books and proclaimed these doctrines fully conscious. As noted above, a lapse of reason is an excuse inwardly though not outwardly; even if one were to grant it, one could not then say his execution was unjust, nor agree with his beliefs, nor bear witness to what one does not know. How much less, then, when the case is otherwise? The believing Muslim’s objective is, whether one excuses al-Ḥallāj or attributes to him torture or doubt, either to accept what he said— which is the stance of the heretics and atheists—or, if one does not permit his execution, one has deviated from Islam. Our task is to know the monotheism enjoined upon us and the path of God prescribed for us; from both we learn that al-Ḥallāj’s doctrines are false and that one like him must be executed. As for al-Ḥallāj himself—whether in private he merited God’s forgiveness through repentance or other means—that matter belongs to God alone; there is no need to ascertain its reality, and God knows best. He was also asked: “What about one who believes that the karāmāt (miracles) of the awliyāʾ are real, and that among them are those who unveil the past and the future— is this belief correct?” He replied: “The karāmāt of the awliyāʾ are a reality by consensus of the imams of Ahl al-Islām, al-Sunnah, and al-Jamāʿah. They are alluded to in multiple places in the Qur’an, attested in sound hadiths, and in mutawātir reports from the Companions, the Tabiʿīn, and others. Only the innovators—the Muʿtazilites, the Jahmiyyah, and their followers—denied them. The imams of Islam and those sheikhs accepted by God did not deny them. Yet many who claim these miracles, or to whom they are ascribed, are liars or possessed. Moreover, such portents do not prove their possessors’ infallibility nor impose obligatory following of all their statements. Indeed, extraordinary feats of unveiling and the like have been shown by certain disbelievers—polytheists, People of the Book, and those worse than them. As related in the Ṣaḥīḥ, the magus (al-dhkhkhāl) says to the sky, “Rain,” and it rains; to the earth, “Bring forth,” and it brings forth; he kills someone then restores him to life; he brings forth vaults of gold and silver behind him. Hence the jurists agree that if a man flies in the air or walks on water, one must not be deceived by him until one observes his adherence to the commands and prohibitions with which God sent His Messenger ﷺ. This is a brief summary of a detailed discussion elsewhere; and God knows best.” He was further asked of Shaykh al-Islām Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Taymiyya (may God have mercy on him) concerning al-Ḥallāj: “Was he a ṣiddīq (devout believer) or a zindīq (heretic)? Was he among God-fearing awliyāʾ, in a state of divine mercy, or among the brethren of devils, in a satanic state? Was he executed for heresy in the presence of the Muslim scholars, or was he killed unjustly? And what did the scholars say on this matter?”