I have already cited his waṣiyya (testament) given at the time of his death, noting that in it he renounced the discipline of kalām and returned to the way of the Salaf, submitting to the transmitted texts in the sense intended and befitting the Majesty of Allah, exalted is He (1).
Shaykh Shihāb al-Dīn Abū Shāma states in al-Dhayl (2), in his biographical notice of him: He (3) used to preach and inveigh against the Karrāmiyya (4), while they, for their part, reviled him and branded him an unbeliever for what they deemed major sins. It is said that they employed someone to give him poison (5); when he died they rejoiced at his passing, and they constantly accused him of grave offenses (6).
He adds (7): His death occurred in the month of Dhu al-Ḥijjah, and his merit is beyond dispute. [The calumnies leveled against him rest on a few matters; among them is his habit of saying] (8): “Muḥammad al-Tāzī (9) said”—meaning the Arab, that is, the Prophet (10), peace and blessings be upon him—and: “Muḥammad al-Rāzī said,” meaning himself.
Another charge is that he would present his opponents’ objection in copious detail, then dismiss it with the briefest indication, and so on (11).
He further reports: I have been informed that he left in coined gold eighty (12) thousand dinars, apart from (13) the animals and other property he possessed.
(1) al-Dhahabi recorded it in full in Tarikh al-Islam (vol. 13: 143–145), and Taj al-Subki cited it from him in al-Tabaqat (Bishr).
(2) In Dhayl al-Rawdhatayn (entry 68).
(3) In the edition: “kana,” as here and in Dhayl al-Rawdhatayn.
(4) In manuscript B: “from the karamat, a type of them.”
(5) In manuscript A and in the edition: “simman.”
(6) In the edition: “They accuse him of sins, together with the mamluks and others.”
(7) In manuscript B: “and he said.”
(8) In the edition the passage reads: “and not concerning what he practices. He used to accompany the sultan and love the world excessively, which is not befitting a scholar. Thus many slanders were heaped upon him and grave accusations arose due to remarks he made. None of this appears in Dhayl al-Rawdhatayn.”
(9) In manuscript B: “al-Bari”; in the edition: “al-Badi.” In the margin of Dhayl al-Rawdhatayn there is a note on this term: “al-Tazi—written with zayn; non-Arabs used it for Arabs, signifying ‘Arab.’ Ibn Kathir’s comment that ‘al-Badi derives from al-badiya (desert)’ is a distortion, since al-Tazi balances al-Razi. The reference to the letter zayn here points to Shaykh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari (may Allah have mercy on him). The misreading stems from copyists, not from Ibn Kathir. Note that al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya lacks a critical edition; the Berlin manuscript used for our edition reads “al-Tazi,” in agreement with Dhayl al-Rawdhatayn.”
(10) After this, in the edition: “attributed to al-Badiya.”
(11) The wording in Dhayl al-Rawdhatayn differs from that here; compare accordingly.
(12) In al-Usul: “two hundred,” as in Dhayl al-Rawdhatayn. This report is corroborated by a note a few lines later stating that each of his two sons received forty thousand dinars.
(13) In Dhayl al-Rawdhatayn: “stingy with what he owned.”