Muţāraĥāt fī Al-ʾAqīdah

A Portrait of the Umayyad

Islam

From Defaming to Profaning:

The Purified Progeny of the Prophet

Lectures Delivered by:

His Eminence Ayatollah the Allama

Kamāl Al-Ĥaidarī

Compiled by:

Ali Al-Madan

In the Name of Allah

the Most merciful, The Most Beneficent

1

Table of Contents

Translator Introduction ..................................................................................... 6

Book Introduction .............................................................................................. 7

GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................... 10

Methodical Priorities in Perceiving Religious Erudition ............................. 12

Defining the Intellectual Marjiʾ: ..................................................................... 12

(The reference point of intellectual religious authority) .............................. 12

Preface ................................................................................................................ 14

Initiating Such Researches : Why and Wherefore .............................................. 16

Aims and Objectives of these Researches .......................................................... 24

Drawbacks and Risks of Direct Doctrinal Dialogue .......................................... 26

The Qur’anic Approach to Dialogue .................................................................. 28

Deciding Which Marjiʾ:The Reference Point of Religious Authority ............... 33

Attitude of the Companions School towards the Transfer from the ʾItrah:

Sahih Al-Bukhārī as an Instance ........................................................................ 41

Axes Proposed for Debating the Dilemma......................................................... 50

Passageways to the Prophetic Sunnah: Two Main Attitudes ............................. 53

First Attitude: Engaging Positively in the Prophetic Sunnah ............................ 53

Second Attitude: Engaging Passively in the Prophetic Sunnah: ........................ 55

Is the Abstention of the Messenger from Writing .............................................. 68

A Tacit Sustenance to the Protesters .................................................................. 68

Main Conclusions to Draw from the Theory:

(Sufficient for us: the Book of Allah) ................................................................ 71

The First Portrait (1)

Defiling the Infallible Progeny of the Prophet .............................................. 72

Ibn Taimiyyah: His stand from Imam Ali:

The Love and Grudge Hadith: An Instance .................................................. 72

2

Justifications for Interest in the Topic ................................................................ 73

Benefits Obtainable from the Topic ................................................................... 79

First Benefit: Bind the Opponent by what he Made Binding upon himself ...... 79

Second Benefit: Absolution of the Charge: Shiʾa of Ahlul Bait Fanatic and

Heretic ................................................................................................................ 83

Hadith of love and Grudge ................................................................................. 87

First Research: Hadith Sources .......................................................................... 87

Second Research:The Hadith Overtones ............................................................ 93

Third Research:What does it mean: Imam Ali a Norm Distinguishing the

Believer from the Hypocrite ............................................................................... 96

The Fourth Research:The Standardising Normative Value in the Love and

Hatred of Ali in the Mission Society .................................................................. 98

Ibn Taimiyyah Method in Approaching Ahlul Bait (as) Virtues and

Prerogatives ...................................................................................................... 105

The Theoretical Aspect of Ibn Taimiyyah Method in Approaching Ahlul Bait

(as) Prerogatives ............................................................................................... 105

The Applied Aspect of Ibn Taimiyyah in Approaching the Prerogatives of

Ahlul Bait (as): The Host of the Love Hadith as a Sample ............................. 106

The Normative Value of the Love of Ali Bin Abu Ţālib (as) and the Issue of the

Companions Uprightness ................................................................................. 116

The Attitude of Qur'an towards the Equivocal Issue of the Companions'

Uprightness ....................................................................................................... 119

The Attitude of Hadith towards the Equivocal Issue of the Companions

Uprightness ....................................................................................................... 124

Summary of Key Facts Precipitated from the Research .................................. 129

Muʾāwiyyah: Whether or not Resentful of Imam Ali (as) ............................... 131

3

The First Portrait (2)

Defiling the Immaculate Progeny of the Prophet ........................................ 147

Hating and Swearing at Ali (as)

The Immaculate ʾItrah ................................................................................... 152

For Ahlul Bait School and the Companions School ........................................ 152

Threefold Classification of the Islamic Schools: ............................................. 155

Reference Quotes from Prominent Figures ...................................................... 155

Some Evidences on the First Umayyad Portrait .............................................. 159

The Umayyad Policy: ....................................................................................... 165

Quotes from some Prominent Figures .............................................................. 165

Percussions of the Umayyad Policy on the Science of Aspersion and

Acclamation ...................................................................................................... 171

Firstly: Slander and Ill-Speaking on the Loyalists to Ahlul Bait ............... 171

Secondly : Authentication and Praise Of the Grudge - Holding to Ahlul

Bait .............................................................................................................. 177

The First Portrait (3)

Defiling the Immaculate Progeny of the Prophet ........................................ 181

The Chief Lady of the Worlds: Az-Zahra Al-Batul

Ibn Taimiyyah Debasement of her Character ............................................. 181

Preface .............................................................................................................. 182

The First Axis :The Grade of Siddiqah Az-Zahra in the Prophetic

Accounts .......................................................................................................... 185

The First Cluster: Best of all the Women of the people of Paradise ............... 186

The Second Cluster: Sufficing for you: the Mistresses of the Worlds ............ 190

The Difference between the two Clusters ........................................................ 193

Regarding Precedence ...................................................................................... 193

Precedence of Az-Zahra over Others ............................................................... 194

4

Evidencing Texts on the Superiority of Az-Zahra (as) .................................... 195

The Significance of the Mastery Ascribed to Fatima Az-Zahra (as) ............... 199

Axis Two The Attitude of Ibn Taimiyyah from the Mistress of the Women

of the Worlds (as) ........................................................................................... 200

Prelude: Vilifying Ahlul Bait a Systematic Step by Ibn Taimiyyah ................ 200

Attitude One: Fatimah (as): A Seeker of Worldly Matters ..................... 205

Attitude Two: Fatimah (as) Action Resembles the Hypocrites' Actions . 206

Attitude Three: Fatimah Desertion and Breaking off with the First

Caliph A Slander to her ............................................................................ 210

Attitude Four: The Will of Fatimah to Bury her at Night and not to do her

Funeral Prayer an Act to be censured for ................................................. 211

Attitude Five: Fatimah Split Asunder the Federation of Moslems, Declined

Allah Command and Incurred His Wrath for this Transgression ............. 213

Attitude Six: Her Desperation (as) for the Elapsing Lower World and Grief

for a Fleeting Matter ................................................................................. 217

Attitude Seven: What is Narrated on Fatimah of Slanderous Acts Abundant

................................................................................................................... 223

The Second Portrait

Desecrating the Immaculate ʾItrah of the Prophet ..................................... 230

The Martyrdom of Imam Hussain: An Instance......................................... 230

Preface .............................................................................................................. 231

First Axis Legitimacy of the Umayyad Rule and Legitimacy Of the Murder of

Imam Hussein (as) ............................................................................................ 236

First Sub-researcher: Attitude of the Umayyad Islam Theorists from Yazīd: . 236

Seco nd Sub-research: The Legitimacy of Slaying Al-Hussein (as) ............... 239

And Acquitting Yazīd of Liability ................................................................... 239

1. Ibn Taimiyyah Stand (d.726 A.H): ............................................................. 241

5

2. Al-Qāđī Ibn Al-ʾArabī Stand (d.543 A.H): ................................................. 250

The Contemporary Developments of the Umayyad Islam Stand .................... 255

Axis Two :Yazīd and the Sacredness of Al-Hussein Blood For the

Companions School ........................................................................................ 259

First Sub-research: Yazīd Character for the Companions School ................... 260

Yazīd: Commander of the Forgiven Army ................................................. 262

Al-Ālūsī Sums up Ahlul Sunnah Attitude towards Yazīd ......................... 268

The Second Sub-Research: The Sanctity of Al-Hussein Blood and the Soil of

Karbala for the Scholars of Ahlul Sunnah ....................................................... 275

Preface .............................................................................................................. 275

A Point for Contemplation: .............................................................................. 278

Can we Rely on "Dream-Vision" in such Researches ..................................... 278

Firstly: the Sanctity of Imam Hussein Blood ................................................... 280

For Ahlul Sunnah Scholars .............................................................................. 280

Secondly: The Sanctity of the Soil of Imam Hussein ...................................... 282

For the Scholars of Ahlul Sunnah .................................................................... 282

References ........................................................................................................ 298

English Translation ........................................................................................... 298

6

Translator Introduction

This introduction is not to pad out extra notes to an already bulky work; it is targeted towards the

translation tactics and other respective issues which might have bearing to the text. Briefly

speaking:

Glossary provided by the translator, aiming to make the reading easier and quicker for unspecialised

reader, is elementary explanation of technical terms of Hadith recurrently used in the study, noting

it is restrictively designed for sole use of this study, and the reader can consult his own references

for further illustration or other Hadith terminology classified upon reliability and other criteria.

Certain glossary have alternated between the original and the equivalent English, such as hasan &

good, da'īf & weak, sanad & chain of transmission, where readability is more attainable. However,

apart from these few instances, the translation has been systematic.

The translator's notes are isolated from the author's in endnotes, majorly paraphrasing cultural

terminology or denoting a case in point for the translation.

The Qur'anic texts alone are taken from available translations, mainly from Abu Al-Alā Al-

Mawdūdī and Yūsuf Ali, where the contextual meaning is best conveyed. Minor modifications may

be applied to the ayah and only rarely the ayah is directly relayed by the translator in view of

accessibility of the message.

The transliteration might seem unsystematic due to the exclusion of a few proper names or words

which are highly circulated or standardised in the target language, e.g. Abdullah, Hussein, Abbas,

Umar & Sahih, Salah, etc.

Publishing Houses keep the original proper names they are identified with; thus no transliteration

been applied.

Short for veneration diction, commonly attached to the prophet name 'Muhammad' is (SAW),

whereas (sawa) & (saw-a) have been innovated to account in this study for a difference that the

writer tries to reflect between diverse narrations as whether or not Ahlul Bait (explained in the text)

are incorporated in seeking the blessings. This usage is determined by anti-or-pro attitude towards

Ahlul Bait. The hyphenated (saw-a) denotes anti-imbued narrations whereby 'a' denotes Ahlul Bait,

and the hyphenation indicates it is not used in the origin.

Capitalised 'Imam' is differentiated from 'imam' in that the former has been confined to the Imams

of Ahlul Bait to indicate spiritual and political credentials, i.e. leadership, rather than simply a

distinct status.

Bibliography provides English translation of the original reference, yet some transfers may sound

rhetorical or purportless, being rendered word for word. Titles of classical books can be decorative

and descriptive, which cannot put a big sense once translated. Still, other approaches of translation

proved to be more feasible with some titles, which convey a bigger semantic import.

Finally, it is worth noting that terminology in the Science of Hadith may be approached differently

by different schools of thought.

7

Book Introduction

Is not Islam a one-fused global religion? Is not the message of Islam

universal addressing the whole of mankind? Then what is this book for? And

what does a book entitled "the Umayyad Islam" try to communicate? Have

we blundered in these researches into some faulty definition of Islam?

In the modern world, it has become axiomatic that a human is historically

embedded and thus termed as a 'historical being'. This idiom despite its

brevity contains multifarious meanings, most important of which:

Humans in their capacity as intellectual beings are the offspring of history,

bound by its machine to a great extent beyond the dominant intrinsic

conception, about the 'human' himself and the 'body of thought' he earned,

that they are entities which cannot be impacted by history or rotated by its

wheel.

Differently put: every concept of mankind is root and branch implanted in the

habitat where it was originated. It is indebted to the available resources of its

era and the readily obtainable corpus of thoughts, criteria, concepts and

values of the environment.

The fact that the 'human' and his 'thought' have been historically leaning on

the statistics and facts of the outer reality is a tremendous gain for the

humanistic modern thought. One of its remarkable effects on the diachronic

studies of concepts is that it motivates researchers to implement inferential

reading for all the intellectual cultural facets of mankind in line with the reality

where they first emerged, and against the backgrounds of these facets within

that very reality, whether they be intellectual, linguistic, political, economic,

social, or ethnic etc.

This is what especially caused some researchers to consider afresh the

study of the Islamic history with a new realistic perspective seeking to

introduce to the diversified societal conceptions that were disseminated by

Islam about Islam itself, and simultaneously to show forth the cultural

background of every society or faction, and its role in shaping the perception

to Islam.

From the number of objectives observed by this perspective, we select two

pivotal ones that were particularly aimed at:

Firstly: to subvert any unilateral approach to Islam tending to monopolise the

truth and finalise its representation with a certain party not the other.

8

Secondly: to disclose that the understanding of Islam is not an abstract

theoretical process, more or less in pursuit of the infinite truth, unshackled by

the challenges and gravitating powers of reality. In the fore of these

challenges are: firstly the Islamic conquests and expansions by war, and

secondly the social integration of society with new constituents which have

miscellaneous backgrounds: intellectual, psychological and ritualistic.

I by no means intend in this hasty look to officially evaluate the extent of

integrity and legitimacy of this trend. It is however untimely to do that over

here. Therefore I will only indicate to the idea I try to impart, that is: not only

has the issue of diversification in the "human understanding" of Islam become

a highly anticipated prospect in nowadays serene heavyweight studies, but it

is identified as an independent field that no one can suspect from the

observers of the Islamic setting on the level of the public or a select group,

neither can they be doubtful about the diversifications and divisions in

experiencing Islam, in the awareness, comprehension and representation of

its essence.

As for the book at our disposal, the first chapter undertook the task of

featuring the prominence and legitimacy of the matters it dealt with, and

thereby it is pointless to recapitulate in our brief introduction. What must be

stressed about the book is its idiosyncratic context and unique mood from

which the researches were launched and the grounds were founded. In short,

we may say: the book rests on a certain belief that the understanding of Islam

and deciphering any of its modes, explicitly in this context: the mode of "Islam

of Umayyad personalities and those who follow in their steps", is a subject

whose discussion exceeds the influences which are normally exerted by

reality on the formulation of the human thought. This is because these

influences that seem ostensibly impartial and objective are overstepped by

others which are the product of the human consciousness and the deliberate

intention to uphold and impose a specific concept above others, owing to

some political factional advantages and material negligible gains.

The book is an effort to uncover that intentionality of the Umayyads which

endeavours to distort and misrepresent axioms and principles in the

Moslems' minds pertinent to the prophet's progeny (as), i.e. their ranks and

roles in defending Islam's mission, concepts and values, as well as to undo

the ill-effects of thoughts and attitudes coerced by the political authorities and

reinforced by relevant written works of some Moslem scholars.

Finally, it remains necessary to remind of some points:

9

Firstly: the origin of the book is 24 dialogue-based lectures delivered by

Ayatollah the Allama Kamal Al-Haidari on Al-Kawthar T.V. (a satellite

channel) in a programme entitled "Muţāraĥāt fī Al-ʾAqīdah”.

Secondly: our work centred on the re-writing and editing of these lectures,

extracting the relevant narratives and sayings, and giving titles for each part

and the general theoretical framework.

Thirdly: because the above T.V. programme has a time limit and involves the

viewers’ opinion, it is impracticable Include a total coverage of the research.

Therefore, I took the labour to patch up some details so as to produce a full

picture for the reader, all implemented in coordination with Sayed Kamāl Al-

Ĥaidarī.

Fourthly: this work would not have come to light in its final shape without the

concentric and remarkable efforts of "Imam Jawad Foundation for Islamic

Thought & Culture" staff starting from the administrators, proof-readers and

technicians. For all those dutiful ladies and gentlemen best gratitude and

appreciation.

Eventually, all I ever hope is that the prestigious reader finds this book

beneficial in one way or another, and his reservoir on the Islamic intellectual

history is enriched in a sound and scientific manner, and his critical sense is

propelled to operate in wider spheres and horizons where darkness still

prevails.

Ibrahim Al-Baśrī

ebraheemalbasri@gmail.com

4 July 2011

2 Shaban 1432

10

GLOSSARY

Āĥād آحاد : isolated and unfrequented

Lit. ‘singular’ but in the discipline of hadith, the above equivalent is more feasible, as it

describes hadiths that have not fulfilled certain requirements to reach the level of

‘tawātir’ complete authenticity.

Bihi ـه authentic in itself”; without support of other hadiths, or other factors to lend‟ :ب

it strength, e.g. multiple chains of transmitters.

Binaĥwihi نحوه by its example”; the extracted hadith by the succeeding reporter‟ :ب

has some addition (a supplement) either in the matn or sanad with the wording is

similar.

Gharīb ب .strange; one in which there is at least in one layer only one narrator :غري

Al-Hafiz (Al-Ĥāfiź) الحافظ: Hadith master: a memoriser of one hundred thousand

hadith by matn and sanad with comprehension.

Ĥasan سن good; the source and reporter of the hadith are known- less authentic :ح

than Sahih.

Isnad ʾĀlī يع ال .made up with a minimum number of links : اسناد

Al-Jarĥ and At-Taʾdīl Aspersion and Acclamation; a scientific : الجرح والتعديل

discipline which investigates the realibilty and non-realibility of hadith reporters:

Acclaimed is the one whose narrtions are accepted.

Aspersed is the one whose narrations are rejected.

Lighairihi يره غ ,otherwise”; authentic by virtue of corroboration from other hadiths‟ :ل

or by another factor to lend it strength, e.g. multiple chains of transmitters.

Maʾmūl bihi حديث معمول به: enforced hadiths; they are good or authentic enough to

be deemed irrevocable.

Marfūʾ مرفوع: specifically traced back to the prophet, regardless of whether sound or

not, broken or unbroken, i.e. traced to the prophet without any break in the chain of

reporters

Mashhūr مشهور: famous; hadith which has not fulfilled the requisites of ‘tawātir’

complete authenticity, and it is conveyed by a number of narrators not less than three.

11

Matn تن text; the import as produced by the originator to where the chain of :م

transmitters ends.

Mithlihi مثله: ‟like it” with similar text or wording but different sand.

Munqaţiʾ قطع ن broken; a link somewhere before the narrating successor is :م

missing.

Mursal سل Lit. unrestricted; the narrator between the successor and prophet is :مر

missing or omitted from the sanad.

Mustafiđ مستفيض: elaborate; it is a level above mashhūr, conveyed by a number of

narrators above three.

Mutābiʾāt عات تاب م the concurrence and compliance of a certain narrator with :ال

another narrator on a specific hadith.

Mutawātir ر توات unbroken and authentic; narration conveyed by such a large :م

number of people that they cannot be expected to agree upon a lie, thus accepted as

unquestionable in its veracity.

Śaĥīĥ يح صح : authentic / sound; narration free from irregularities in the text or

defects in the Isnad, i.e. the chain of transmitters is made up of reporters classified as

trustworthy in their memory of hadith.

Sahih: a canonical collection of authentic hadith, e.g. Sahih Muslim or the six Sahih

books.

Sanad ند سـ : chain of narrators/ transmitters/ reporters.

Shawāhid شواهد : supporting evidences or alternatively evidencing examples; another

hadith with similar import but with the sanad from another companion. It is type of

Mutabʾa, i.e. a companion concurs with another companion on the matn of a certain

hadith.

12

Chapter (I)

Methodical Priorities in Perceiving

Religious Erudition

Defining the Intellectual

Marjiʾ:

(The reference point of intellectual religious authority)

Preface

Initiating Such Researches: Why and Wherefore?

Aims and Objectives of these Researches

Drawbacks and Risks of Direct Doctrinal Dialogue

The Qur’anic Approach to Dialogue

Deciding Which Marjiʾ: The Reference Point of Religious Authority

Attitude of the Companions School towards the Transfer from the

ʾItrah:

Sahih Al-Bukhārī as an Instance

Axes Proposed for Debating the Dilemma

Passageways to the Prophetic Sunnah: Two Main Attitudes

Is the Abstention of the Messenger from Writing

A Tacit Sustenance to the Protesters

Main Conclusions to Draw from the Theory:

(Sufficient for us: the Book of Allah)

13

14

Preface

There is no civilisation all over the globe that may have a symmetrical

composite of doctrines, intellectual trends and orientations. In reality, it must

witness a variation in this complex and this holds true worldwide to every

civilisation invariably so much so that this phenomenon was recognised

unanimously as a manifestation of a vibrant, creative and fertile civilisation.

This has prompted many recent historians to presume that the dissolution of

any civilisation and retreat from the global arena are the outcomes of

fossilisation, inwardness and suppression of varied intellectual internal trends

and approaches.

The Islamic civilisation is no different from other civilisations in experiencing

this phenomenon during its bonanza eras, not solely in the sense that it

comprised astonishing variety of intellectual doctrines and trends, but also

because this variation had motivated all parties to engage into rich weighty

discussions in order to substantiate and advocate the views and grounds of

their sects.

Truly, those discussions were not all alike in their high quality and precision in

observing the scientific foundations and ethical codes of research, neither

were they equal in their conception towards violence as a tool for settling

these discussions. Therefore, it was no wonder that some debates would end

into intellectual battling and indictment of one party to the other of disbelief,

leading thereafter to losses of Moslems lives solely to champion for their own

beliefs and convictions. In some of these conflicts, both factions were the

culprit, but mostly the culprit was the governing party who holds power on the

ground.

Currently, one virtue of our age is that it has diminished to a great extent

these sinister clashes and paved the way for parties to express their opinions

and embrace any precept and belief they opt non-coercively. With such

liberties, some sound sincere thoughts arose and started to breathe out and

collect a growing number of supporters and partisans, in contrary to the past

when the authorities restrained and stifled people with a strong fist and put a

barricade between them and their beliefs. This dramatic renewal has been

widely welcomed and hailed by everyone as a favourable transformation of

the age, save by a single group who viewed it as a motive for concern about

their intellectual beliefs and groundwork. As a result they resorted to violence

as a strategy to subdue individuals and groups, hence force them to comply

with their proposals. They are specifically represented by the ‟Salafi Jihadi”

15

group who adopted the notions and premises of Ibn Taimiyyah on Jihad, and

posed a serious threat for the security of our societies and a device to

overlook others human and intellectual rights.

However, if the activity of those extremists is restricted to the officially

undisguised use of weapons to force their convictions, things would have

been less horrifying, for their savage actions would strip them off credibility to

assess others’ thoughts and opinions, hence lead to isolate them and

marginalise their roles. But the dire problem lies in the other face of that

faction, which is unarmed and disengaged with violence. Realising the harms

and futility of violence in today's world, they had to freeze these activities in

favour of a new tactic veiling their dark side under the mantra: ‟defence for

the truth”. They continuously express their concern about the destinies of

other sects differing with them, not shunning from exiling whole schools of

thought, defaming their creeds and branding their followers as atheists, using

epithets borrowed from the fiercest and most jarring lexicons of dictionary and

exploiting for that the latest technology available to humankind, i.e. the

media, the satellite and the internet.

16

Initiating Such Researches:

Why and Wherefore

Friends, acquaintances and loving ones from more than one Moslem and

non-Moslem country by and large, who, with their favourable judgment upon

me, have entreated me to engage in a confrontation with the lurking threat

posed to the social body of our Moslem community on the level of security

and creed. Each and every time I endeavour to start retaliating against that

ferocious campaign that is almost unilaterally directed at the followers of Ahlul

Bait sect, I find myself loaded with lectures and researches for my students in

the hawza ilmiyyai, until there came a time when those Sheikhs, appearing in

the satellite channels, have transgressed every conceivable decorum and

civility in the dialogue with their opponents, and every manner and formality,

expected of Moslems towards adversaries in their community. All that urged

me to earnestly go through a retrospective review and reflect on my aptitudes

to stand up for that duty. Eventually, I concluded that an action must be taken

to face up to that campaign, criticise its intellectual dogmatic grounds and

uncover its bombastic alleges about the feel of solicitude and concern for

Moslems’ beliefs and the need to aid them.

In short, I can pinpoint a number of justifications to embark on such

researches, but only two are given below:

Firstly: what falls into the category of the aforementioned media campaign

(TV and the internet) launched by that Wahhabi extremist faction, and lately

the escalation of its battling defamatory discourse against the doctrine of

Ahlul Bait, derisively nicknaming its scholars and icons, and imputing takfīr to

its followersii, implementing for that sham scholars, so fiery and hot-headed

that they impulsively blast with offensive abusive words and scandalous

remarks.

Secondly: to resolve some false paradoxes and anecdotal challenges they

raise against the doctrine of Ahlul Bait, and to defy the onslaught of the takfīrī

campaign which seeks to assail and pounce on Ahlul Bait followers, shake

their faith in the credibility and integrity of the doctrine conceptually and

dogmatically, or underrate and discredit their Imams, scholars and dignitaries.

It must be noted, however, that such misleading takfīrī campaigns against the

doctrine of Ahlul Bait are not unprecedented in history, nor they have not

been experienced by Ahlul Bait followers, nor that the campaigners

17

themselves were first to use these tactics and procedures but many of their

forefathers, the so-called Salaf, were pioneering in that direction.

Furthermore, those campaigners are not simply a squad of amateurs,

infatuated by modern media; they rather originate from extensive stock of

forefathers who laid the foundation of the anti-truth artifice, and enforced for

them methods grounded on counterfeiting and fabrication of facts while

slandering others beliefs as baseless and vain.

If I were to cite every evidencing example, I will end up in volumes and

thousand pages, and the study will divert from its main objectives. Therefore,

I will cite no more than two paragraphs excerpted from their ancestor's legacy

by one of the first rate reporters, just for the reader to realise that nowadays

picture of slander, swearing and derisive nicknaming is nothing new. As a

matter of fact, it is a deep-rooted custom that they grew familiar with and

relished over time, until it turned into a common practice and a tradition.

The two excerpts are quoted from their most prominent book that is highly

circulated in their milieus, ‟Minhāj As-Sunnah”, written by Abul Abbas

Taqiyyul Dīn Ahmed Bin Abdul Ĥalīm Ibn Taimiyyah, Al-Ĥarrāni, Al-Ĥanbalī

and Damashqī (d.728). The satirical book has not left any repulsive abusive

takfīrī-incriminating lexicon unincluded so much so that the book and its hot-

blooded, short-tempered author has turned into an inspiring source and

dictionary for later generations of adherents and camp followers to derive

from.

Excerpt One: let us see how Ibn Taimiyyah opens his discussion on the

concept of Shiʾism at first mention:

‟And so forth, a group of Ahlul Sunnah and Jamaʾah have brought me a

book, compiled by Ar-Rāfiđahiii Sheikhs as merchandise to call for the Imami

Rāfiđī creed…. In reply I advised them that this book, though contains the

highest argument and testament of what they state, belongs to the folk who

are most strayed of all from the righteous way…. most strayed in their

‘transferals’ and ‘rationalities’iv; they are the nearest to Allah’s saying: {they

will say: ‟If we had only listened and understood, we would not be

among the inmates of the Blazing Fire”}.1 They are the folk who, in the

transfer of narratives, are the biggest liars and in the rational reasoning are

1 Al-Mulk (10)

18

the most ignorant of people. Out of the transferals, they believe in what the

scholars know by corollary as fictitious, and give the lie to what is irrevocably

known as recurrent and renowned on a large scale around the nation and

across generations. They cannot discern, amongst knowledge carriers,

hadith reporters and account relaters, between those who are known for

lying, error and ignorance in their transfers, and those who are creditable,

well-memorising, competent and reputed for knowledgebility by the legacy

and memorials they handed down. They rely for all that on taqlidv. They are

the most ignorant among all factions about theories and therefore they are

recognised, in the eye of the scholarly milieu, as the most ignorant faction

amongst Moslems.”2

Then, as he elaborates on the book under criticism: ‟Minhāj Al-Karāmah fī

Maʾrifat Al-Imāmah”, he describes it and its author the Allama Ibn Muţţahar

al-Ĥillī:

‟Chapter: as they insisted on making a response to this manifest error.. this

falsity …

This compiler has entitled his book ‟The Pathway of Honour in the Cognition

of the Imamate”, albeit worthy of the title: ‟The Pathway of Remorse”.

Equally true, whoever feigned the purification of heart, while he is one whom

Allah Wills not to purify, is rather from the folk of hypocrisy, Jibt and Ţaghūtvi,

and to describe him as filthy and impure is more befitting … The worst malice

that settles in hearts is that in the heart of a servant of Allah who can have

grudge against the elite of believers, and masters of Allah's trustees after the

prophets. That being the case, they take after the Jews in malevolence,

capriciousness and other conducts of the Jews, while simultaneously they

take after the Christians in extremism, ignorance and other conducts of the

Christians. They have aspects by which they resemble ‘these’ in some way or

‘those’ in another way, and they are still identified by people as such.”3

Yet Ibn Taimiyyah does not halt at that, he conveys As-Shiʾbī profile on the

Shiʾa, hence says: ‟of the most insightful into them are As-Shiʾbī and other

2 Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul Abbas Taqyyul Dīn Ahmed Bin Abdul Ĥalīm, Al-Ĥarrānī, Al-Ĥanbali:

“Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah”, reviewed by: Muhammad Rashād Sālim, the Islamic

University of imam Muhammad Bin Saʾud- Saudi Arabia, pub.1, 1406 A. H., 1986 A.D, vol.1, pp.

4-9.

3 Ibid: same source, vol. 1, pp. 15-22

19

matching scholars from Kufa. It is established that As-Shiʾbi said: I have not

met anyone who is more blockheaded than al-Khashabiyyah.4 If they were

birds, they would have been Egyptian vulturesvii, if they were from the breed

of beast, they would have been jackasses. By Allah, if I ask them to fill this

house to the brim with gold just for me to fabricate some hadith in favour of

Ali, they surely will. By Allah I would never do that. I warn you of these

misguiding caprices; and the lousiest of which is the Rāfiđah, those who have

not come to Islam out of desire or veneration, but out of spite for the people

of Islam and to give them offense in ambush.”5

He proceeds to substantiate the similarity between the Shiʾa and the Jews

and Christians: ‟an indicator for that is the fact that the tribulation of the

Rāfiđah is one and the same of that of the Jews. The Jews said: Only the

family of Dāwūd (David) are worthy of the reign, whereas the Rāfiđah did say:

Only the children of Ali are worthy of the Imamate, … the Jews said so and

so … and the Rāfiđah said so and so...”6

He carries on with the comparisons until he says: ‟the Jews and Christians

are preferred to the Shiʾa in two features: …)!!7

Excerpt two: as he cites from the two Sahih books the prophetic hadith that

is narrated by a number of companions in variable wordings, whereby he

4 The book reviewer put a comment to paraphrase the word, and I hereby cite it uncommented by

me: “… Al-Khashabiyyah originates etymologically from Khashab (the wood), whereby its

representatives refused to use the sword for fighting and alternatively used wooden tools … Ibn

Ĥazm (chapter 5: p.45) alluded that part of the Shiʾa believed that using weapons is prohibited until

their awaited one will appear. For fighting, they used to either choke or stone the enemy, whereas

Al-Khashabiyyah members used wood”.

5 Ibid: same source, vol.1, pp. 22-23

6 Ibid: same source, vol. 1, pp. 24-25. It is ironical that the similarity, he pointed to, between the

Shiʾa and the Jews concerning the family of Dawūd dominion is in fact a Qur’anic privilege

endowed upon them, as in the ayahs: {O Dawūd, We have appointed you vicegerent on earth.

Therefore, rule among people with justice and do not follow your desires lest it should lead

you astray from Allah’s Path. Allah’s severe chastisement awaits those who stray away from

Allah’s Path, for they had forgotten the Day of reckoning} (Śad: 26), and {We bestowed upon

Dawūd Suleiman (Solomon) (for a son). How excellent a servant of Ours he was} (Śad: 30),

{And Suleiman succeeded Dawūd and said: O people we have been taught the speech of birds,

and we have been endowed with all kinds of things. Surely this is conspicuous favour from

Allah} (Al-Naml: 16).

7 Ibid: same source, vol.1, p. 27

20

(sawa) – as worded by Al-Bukhārī- says: On the authority of Abdul Melik, I

heard Jābir Bin Semura, saying: I heard the prophet (saw-a) saying: ‟There

will be twelve Amir (Rulers)”, he then uttered something I could not hear,

so my father said that he had said: ‟All of them are from Quraish”. Over

here Ibn Taimiyyah makes a commentary in quite a sizeable text, which I

transfer in full for its importance:

‟It was in such a manner; there were the Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman,

Ali and next reigned he whom the public unanimously conceded on, and

who gained might and fortitude: Muʾāwiyah, his son Yazid, hence Abdul

Melik and his four sons including Umar Bin Abdul Aziz. Subsequently, the

state of Islam had encountered a flaw that is still existing to date, as Banu

Umayyah had ruled all over the Islamic province, and had the state well-

founded during their era, and the caliphs were not acquainted with titles like

Ađuldul Dawlah, ʾIzzil Dīn, Baha’ul Dīn and so-and-so Ad-Dīn, but used to be

called in their first names, i.e. Abdul Melik and Suleiman. Any of them was

leading the five times prayers himself, and in the mosque, he hoists the flag

up for war, appoints regional rulers, and makes his own house his dwelling

place, neither residing in a fort nor shunning himself from his subjects … As a

matter of fact, what mostly pricked people against Banu Umayyah lies in two

things: one of them is their talk over Ali, and the second: delaying prayers

from the due time.

Then, it was by way of Allah mercy and blessing that when the state moved

to Banu Hāshim, it settled on Banul Abbas, despite the fact that not any of

Banul Abbas has conquered Andalusia neither the uttermost of Morocco.

Only a group of them have had the power over Africa for a certain course of

time, and eventually were overthrown, in contrary to those who had

conquered the entire Moslem kingdom and defeated enemies of Islam

altogether. Their armies were widespread: in Andalusia to conquest and

prevail, in the realm of the Turks to combat with the Big Khan, in the Slaves

homeland as well as the Romans land. Islam then was evermore

expanding and gaining power, powerful and well-fortified all over the

land…

Those twelve vicegerents are verily the ones adduced in the Torah when

revealing the glad tidings of Ismail: ‟there will be born twelve great ones.”

Whoever assumes that those twelve great ones are those envisioned by the

Rāfiđah as Imams, he must be far out ignorant, as no one of those except Ali

21

Bin Abu Ţālib had a swordviii, and nonetheless, he failed during his rule to

overrun the infidels, and not anywhere he conquered a city, nor he killed

some infidel; he rather had the Moslems drawn into fighting each other, until

the infidels from the Polytheists and the People of the Book in the East and

Damascus were enticed to crave after the their land. It was even said that

portions from the Moslem land were fragmented, and that if any of the infidels

ceased to inflict harm on Moslems, it was by means of mediation or petition.

Where is the vigour of Islam in all that, when the sword strikes at Moslems,

and when their enemies’ greed had awakened and succeeded to make its

way to them?!

As for the rest of the twelve Imams other than Ali, none of them had a sword,

particularly the awaited one who is in the eye of those assented to him, either

scared and crippled or running away and hidden for more than 400 years; he

even has not guided someone strayed to the right path, neither he enjoined

Good nor forbade Evil or triumphed for someone aggrieved, he gave no

religious ruling neither a legal verdict to anyone, he is not traceable, so of

what avail is his existence if he ever exists? And moreover, how can Islam be

vigorous through his medium?!”8

Let the prestigious reader, in his capacity as a Moslem from any school of

thought, take effort to discern how matters are muddled and mingled, how

history is swindled and distorted? And thereupon we put on view these

questions: since when we were recognising the governmental leadership as a

virtue in itself unmindful of its apparatuses and devices? Are Moslems

unaware of the policies with which both Banu Umayyah and Banul Abbas

came to the throne, i.e. subjugation, persecution, heads chopping, gouging

eyes out, etc.? Could the multitude congregate around Muʾāwiyah had it not

been for his deception and cunningness? How do we justify al-Ĥarra battle

and the background setting when the locals of Al-Medina abstained from

paying homage to Yazid? Should we be oblivious to the uprising of Marwan

Bin al-Ĥakam against Abdullah Bin Az-Zubair who had already received

pledges of allegiance and was combating with Shuʾba Bin Az-Zubair and Ad-

Đahhaq Bin Qais in Marj Rahţ, when these turbulences enabled Marwan’s

son, Abdul Melik, to mount to the throne, and only in virtue of Al-Ĥajjaj At-

Thaqafī (the greatest butcher in the Islamic history) he stayed in power?

Have not they and their successors built palaces and mansions (e.g. Banī

8 Ibid: same source, vol.8, pp. 238-242.

22

Ĥadīla palace in Al-Medina built by Muʾāwiyah,)? Have not they shunned

themselves from the subjects with gate-attendants and servants to shield

them (the first to shun was Muʾāwiyah)? Have not they initiated heresies and

novelties in religion that manipulate major Sunnah practices, such as: drop

the audibility of takbir (recite out loud the phrase ‘Allah is the Greatest’), omit the

talbiyah (sort of prayer stating: Here I am at thy service O Allah) in Hajj, enforce the

Adhan (call for prayer) over the Eid and many others by Muʾāwiyah. Others by

Abdul Melik is the act of raising and waving hands on the pulpit on Friday’s

congregation, and the recreational recitals after the Fajr and Aśr prayers

under the plea of preaching and admonishing? Will the crafty wording of Ibn

Taimiyyah that it was merely ‟talk over Ali” alleviate the atrocity of the

Umayyad in defiling and swearing at Imam Ali (as) for a whole of seventy

years on the Moslems’ pulpits? Is not that so-called: ‟talk over” conflicting

with the Qur’anic verse on the purification and cleansing of Ahlul Bait, and

likewise the prophetic hadiths of At-Tthaqalain, Al-Ghadīr, Al-Manzila or

rather dozens or hundreds of hadiths in the praise of Imam Ali (as)?

Furthermore, why would Ibn Taimiyyah, in this instance, be lenient about

abusing one of the four revered caliphs, and one of the greatest companions

of the prophet, when he, from the outset, believes the prophet (sawa) has

said: ‟abuse not my companions”? Why would he use double-standard

policy on one and the same issue?

Actually, to detect and bring to light Ibn Taimiyyah incongruities and breaches

of truth and history, we will require far more exhaustive researches and

diversified sub-researches. Enough paradox is how he draws an analogy

between the Shiʾa and the Jews, and yet in the second paragraph, he

incidentally moves to talk on the twelve men from Quraish proclaiming they

are the ones denoted by the glad tidings of the Torah but does not take it to

apply to the twelve Imams of Ahlul Bait (as). The absurdity is that the parable

of the Torah cannot be a touchstone for the rectitude and credibility of a

specific concept only when that concept accords with Ibn Taimiyyah’s thesis,

and once it accords with the Shiʾite thesis, it becomes inevitably deviant and

aberrant from the Islamic principles! Besides, I cannot tell how can Yazid, the

demolisher of Al-Kaaba and ravager of the Meccan natives, signify for the

glad tidings of Ismail, who betokens the sacrifice of Al-Kaaba, while the

Master of the Youth of Paradise, Al-Hussein, does not?! That is a riddle not to

figure out only by Ibn Taimiyyah himself.

23

On top of that, I would like to draw the reader's attention to the considerable

degree of uncertainty that Ibn Taimiyyah shows about listing Imam Ali (as)

with the "twelve successors". I am almost positive that he must have been

awash in anguish as he had him enlisted, considering that he stipulates the

strength and grandeur of Islam under one’s rule to qualify for the prerogative

of the ‟twelve”, and obviously, according to him, Islam was humbled during

Imam Ali reign, and the state was in tumult and fury, and thereupon he cannot

be included.

In point of fact, he asserts: ‟As for Marwan and Az-Zubair, they had no

access to the office of the supreme leadership, and during their age turmoil

prevailed, and Islam earned no glory and barely any jihad against the

enemies of Islam took place, which can be noteworthy. As a result a faction

of people treated the reign of Ali in like manner. They maintained that his

caliphateix was neither sanctioned by Naśx nor by unanimity. However, Imam

Ahmed and others have condemned that view … more details are given

subsequently. The point in question here is that the hadith which denotes the

twelve Imams, whether ordained that Ali be included or not, is intended to

purport that the aforesaid caliphs are from Quraish.”9

Anyhow, I by no means intend to discuss the notions of Ibn Taimiyyah or to

relay them in this book. Rather, I aim to arrive at some conclusion, that is, the

present-day defamers of Prophet Mohammed’s Progeny are in reality an

extension of their ancestors who set the scene for them in the past. They are

dragging in their way; and per se a replica of them; non-variant only as

concerns the opportunities created by modern technology for them to

propagate and proliferate, along with the facilities to validate their delusive

notions and to increase their uproar and loud noise in the audible and visual

media.

9 See ibid: same source, vol. 8, pp. 243-244

24

Aims and Objectives of these Researches

I have tried, not knowing how far successful my efforts, (an aspect I leave for

professionals to assess), not to involve into thorough complications or half-

baked complications contrived by the other party, nor to revolve around the

orbit of objections they posed, because this can abate the profitability of the

research and decrease its intellectual value. Anyhow, there is not much in

the other party discourse that needs to gather response from our side or be

subject to pose-viewing. I have always harboured the belief that what has

curbed the capacities and horizons of Ahlul Bait School from expanding is

yielding to debate and heated dispute, and that has almost always been

historically the case. Intemperate debates leave no room for –or be at the

expense of- opportunities for setting up an independent edifice of thought,

constructive and unstrained by controversy and revocation.

I aimed by these discussions to achieve two goals at one time:

Firstly: to sketch clearly the methodical provisions on which the discussion

dwells, so as not to let any intellectual dubiosities breed in the progress of the

research, nor to let efforts drag in vain, or time to slip with no scientific and

practical gain for the reality of Moslems, or no input made into their collective

vision towards their history and religion.

Secondly: To reconcile opinions of Moslems, foreground common factors

and bring closer varied viewpoints, no matter how wide these variations can

be. Our contemporary world is continuously heading towards approximation

of thought, increasing interconnection and integration. Yet, this motion in itself

started to impinge on smaller blocs, coalitions and factions, posing threats of

extinction on these defenceless entities or impairing their capacity to

administer their internal affairs, let alone being able to positively influence a

broader scope of the global thought. This assimilation is one of the harms of

globalisation as it tends to undermine the natural diversity and variation of

humankind with the potential incentives to approach the truth.

If we had no choice but to keep pace with cannons of our age and to cultivate

its bountiful resources, the best we should do is to call for the unity and

solidarity of Moslems, absorb each one’s beliefs and have the readiness to

co-exist with parties differing with us.

Consequently, I cannot make sense of any anti-dialogue initiatives which lack

faith in mutual talks and symposiums convened to enhance harmony

between sects, and instead seek to segregate and disperse Moslems. On my

25

part, I took it upon myself, not to try to entice non-Shi'ite parties to give up

their precepts for the sake of Ahlul Bait’s. These researches are not geared to

collect a bigger number of followers for Ahlul Bait. They first and foremost

seek to elucidate the standpoints of that School towards essential Islamic

issues under debate, relating to the articles of faith and history of the Islamic

community and civilisation. We solely aspire to illuminate what Ahlul Bait

School believe in and introduce the aphorisms of their own scholars, books

and references in respect to creed, decrees, ethical conducts and history,

and leave the option for receptors to or not to follow Ahlul Bait sect, and make

their personal decision; it is not us wanting them to do that.

Furthermore, what this study aspires for as well is to illustrate a highly

important aspect, that is, to dissociate two scenes from each other: the front

scene with whom we conduct our discussion, i.e. As-Sheikh Ibn Taimiyyah

and his Wahhabi patrons, and the rear scene, embodied by the entire trends

of the remainder of Ahlul Sunnah , and to demonstrate that the former trend

is irrelevant to the latter, no matter how strenuously it endeavours to

monopolise the latter’s voice, officially represent them and act as the

spokesmen for them.

In point of fact, it appears that the intricacies dealt with in our study are not

literally about Ahlul Bait School vs. the Companions School; the genuine

beliefs as embraced by Ahlul Sunnah. They are basically intricacies between

Ahlul Bait School and the Umayyad trend, as founded by Muʾāwiyyah Bin

Abu Sufiān, and theorised by Ibn Taimiyyah, hence circulated –and being

circulated- by the manufacturers of the Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, with their

superfluous financial resources and wide-range broadcast media.

26

Drawbacks and Risks of Direct Doctrinal Dialogue

Some persons may wonder why I tend not to participate in the doctrinal

dialogue running in some T.V. channels, exclaiming: ‟so long as you are so

spirited to show the truth and bring to light the tenets of Ahlul Bait (as), a

shorter route for that is to attend debates and enter into discussions with the

Sheikhs from the other party in media programmes. This way, the audience

will have the leisure of watching you and also enabled to smoothly recognise

and opt out the right view.”

As a matter of fact, I disagree with this opinion which has been suggested to

me more than once and still being suggested throughout queries and

discussions during my conversational serial lectures on some channels.

Nonetheless, I still believe in the sensibility and rationality of my outlook, and

at the same time treasure every view I receive from my viewers.

Before I lay down, for the prestigious reader the grounds of my attitude, I

would like to point out that it portrays the conventional method of presentation

in our scientific settings in Najaf, Qum and other seminary religious sites.

Since I started my study in the Howzat ʾIlimiyyah, I witnessed our renowned

tutors dealing with opinions and proposals of their contemporary peers by

means of non-face-to-face dialogue, using that very critical approach. Their

students normally undertake the task of transposing every new proposal to

the other tutor as a purely scientific notion. Then the recipient tutor would

launch a discussion, on his part, and answers back for what he debates. The

scenario progresses in tranquillity and ease, which sets the scene for a well-

thought and composed scientific inquiry on the intellectual issues.

My grounds are exhibited as follows:

Firstly: Face-to-face dialogues are predominantly improvised and hasty,

which strips off chances for any placid careful examination or time to audit

and look into books and references, Qur’anic verses and narrations. The

main method in this dialogue for the two parties is to rely on instant memory

and stored information.

Secondly: Direct talks may entertain someone who delights in beating and

embarrassing antagonists but not someone who is truly after the truth and a

righteous cause. They cannot in the least gratify the truth; neither can they

secure the discourse from prejudice and predisposition which causes the

debate to venture into unthoughtful retorts and shoot uncertain answers by

the participants.

27

Such talks, for the most part, are not immaculate from infertile argument and

battling dispute, with the intent to quell and foil the antagonist and pin down

his defects at the expense of conveying the truth and fulfilling the ethics of

scientific discourse.

Thirdly: Direct talks may pave the way for non-specialists to intervene and

have a say, or those shallowly educated on the subject to take part and

comment, which shakes the scientific grounds of the discussion and makes

the programme more like advertising than a scientifically oriented approach.

Fourthly: These dialogues are not governed by the logical hierarchy in the

sequence of points under dispute, neither can they observe the unity of the

topic. Participants jump from one topic to another, tangle one issue into

another before having each one fully satisfied, or before rectifying their

grounds and putting each ground to the test. Scenes where each party yells

in the face of the other party for a chance to conclude his point and deal with

his queries are so common on these programmes and we all had watched

similar scenes.

Drawbacks of the kind were good reasons for me not to involve in face-to-

face dialogue or simply to withdraw and overlook this unproductive

procedure. On the other hand, the manner, I rely on, can circumvent and get

away with all these drawbacks or in the least minimise them. More

essentially, it corresponds with the essence of good conduct that Qur’an

commands in dealing with adversaries.

28

The Qur’anic Approach to Dialogue

While discussing the drawbacks of direct talks as so commonly practised

today, it is well-suited in this context to give a brief background on the

Qur’anic approach to dialogue and the manners and decorum recommended

in that way. What are the Qur’anic criteria of conversing with our adversaries

over some issue? What does Qur’an try to instil in the Moslem’s

consciousness, who is totally preoccupied with call for the ethos and

principles of Islam?

At this point, I will swiftly touch upon this crucial issue, considering that many

of us, and sometimes right to the end, have turned a blind eye to these

standards and failed to notice the Qur’anic outlook to dialogue. As a result,

the Qur’anic wisdom that must have disciplined our debates and dialogues

has been thwarted.

Among the ayahs that set the pillars of a fruitful positive dialogue are the two

given below:

{Invite to thy Lord with wisdom and fair preaching; and argue with them

in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knows best who

has strayed from His path and who receive guidance}10

{And certain it is that either we or you are on right guidance or in

manifest error}11

To amplify the meanings of these verses, we will surely use a much wider

space than this brief-noting. But even with brevity, we cannot be exempt from

leaking some vital points to the reader:

Point one: the first ayah stresses that the call for Allah’s way is a duty laid on

every Moslem's shoulder, rather than an option made permissible by Islam. In

other words, to engage in a dialogue on some Islamic topic is not only a

Moslem’s right to either take or not to take, but an obligation to undertake

with its burdens. It also pinpoints another pillar for the call for Islam, that is,

the ‘peaceful call’ is placed in Qur’an as the first and foremost option for

Moslems in conversing with others, not by recourse to intimidation,

compulsion, weaponry and fighting, nor by detaching oneself from Moslems’

affairs and not to care.

10 An-Naĥl (125)

11 Saba’ (24)

29

Needless to say, ‘God’s way’, that a Moslem is supposed to call for, is not a

unilateral route on which factions unanimously and indisputably agreed, but it

is multifaceted and relatively viewed by every school of thought and

denomination. Each of them, in their faith reckon what they opted is the right

track and access. This applies to us by the same token, we believe that Ahlul

Bait are the embodiment of God’s way; and what they called for and imparted

of Islamic teachings, values, concepts and decrees are the right track and

access.

Point two: the ‟call for Islam” takes three forms, represented by: the call with

‟wisdom”, ‟fair preaching” and ‟argue in ways that are best”. However,

without going deep into the concept of ‟wisdom” as introduced by Qur’an, I

note down a few points:

'The wisdom' that a dialoguer has to observe is but a form of tranquil

logical reasoning which derives from the main elements of the human’s

cognition, his natural intuition and constitution, and what his innate self

and intellect are structured from, that every human soul converge on as

universal.

As for 'fair preaching', certainly not every piece of exhortation is

righteous. There is a great deal of unpleasant ill-preaching opposite to

the pleasant preaching, and Qur’an urges towards the latter.

The manner of preaching has to be 'in the way that is best'. Qur’an

loathes that we use random ways in our argument which may indulge

us in assault, swearing, desecration or make others object of ridicule.

Equally true, no matter how refined and neat our argument can be, it is

still loathed when void from compassion, kindness and amiability.

Qur’an prescribes a formula for the dialogue that is best in every

respect, not dropping any element of the fair symmetry.

Point three: among the ‟best manners”, subsumed by the first ayah, is the

dialoguer’s attitude in the preaching process. When he trusts in his own

righteousness, he will not have the right to do injustice to his antagonist,

mistreat him or ruin his self-esteem, not even temporarily, just because of his

faith in his rectitude. Without this, the dialogue cannot be neat and

straightforward. Reviewing the Messenger’s conduct (saw), we find: firstly:

he was positive of his righteousness ‟relying on clear proof”, and thus

enjoined by Allah (AZW) to declare: {I am relying on clear proof from my

30

Lord}12, secondly: the Message shouldered on him is Qur’anicly said to:

{there has come unto you a proof from your Lord}13, and thirdly: though

he was commanded to initiate preaching and call for Islam while recollecting

he was on the right track: {do invite to thy Lord: for thou art assuredly on

the Right Way}14, and only to communicate to receptors the message that

Allah (AZW) is viewing them and knowing about their deeds, for He is the All-

Seeing, All-Encompassing, All-Knowing {if they dispute with you, then say:

'Allah is most Knowing of what you do}, yet, against all that Qur’an

astounds us by coupling this preaching with strategies more open and

tolerant in the call for Islam, confirming that to start a dialogue, we need to

presuppose that either party: us and them, could be right or wrong: {and

certain it is that either we or you are on the right guidance or in manifest

error! Say you shall not be questioned as to our sins nor shall we be

questioned as to what you do.}15

Knowing that the prophet (sawa) was addressing the polytheists of the Arabs

in his speech, as inferred from the contextual meaning of the previous two

verses, it ensues that he (sawa) who excelled in character and conduct, had

not ignored the protocols of dialogue which necessitate postulating either

party could be erroneous including himself.

{Say: call upon the other gods whom you fancy besides Allah: They

have no power, -not the weight of an atom-, in the Heavens or on earth:

No sort of share they have therein, nor is any of them a helper to Allah*

No intercession can avail in his presence, except for those for whom He

has granted permission. So far that when terror is removed from their

hearts, they will say: what is it that your Lord commanded? They will

say that which is true and just; and He is the most High Most Great.}16

Explaining the honourable ayah, Mohammed Hussein Aţ-Ţabāţabā’ī

comments: this verse is a ‟completion to what the prophet (sawa) had to say

in the previous two verses. What he must 'Say' after the conclusive argument

12 Al-Anʾām (57)

13 Al-Anʾām (157)

14 Al-Ĥajj (67)

15 Sabā’ (24-25)

16 Sabā’ (22-23)

31

and the materialisation of the truth of the Divinity issue is based on the codes

of conduct of justice and righteousness. It purports: as every piece of

utterance is either guided or misguided with no mediating route to be the

third, weather positively or negatively, and as we both differ in our utterances

and diverge, it should be that either we are rightly guided and you are

misguided or conversely you are rightly guided and we are misguided. So all I

ask you is just to contemplate what I lay before you with an eye of fairness,

and tell apart between the guided and the misguided, the rightful and the

erring one.”17

It is worth mentioning that the Qur’anic verse under discussion was not overt

about the glossary used for the polytheists as erroneous. It utilised a stylistic

usage based on hyperbaton creating a link between the phrase ‟right

guidance” and ‟We”, ‟manifest error” and ‟you” in the manner they were

assorted. With such stunning accuracy and gracefulness, it expressed the

idea respectfully and courteously. This refinement and decency is the

archetype of Qur’anic style as opposed to Pharaoh’s style. In the following

verses where Pharaoh is the protagonist, he: {gathered his people and

declared:* I am the supreme lord of you all}18, while Qur’an recommends

dealing with him with such logic: {talk to him in a gentle manner,

perchance he may take warning or fear Allah}19, the very logic that

corresponds with that of the prophet (sawa), as illustrated in this honourable

verse: {It was thanks to Allah’s Mercy that you were gentle to them. Had

you been rough and harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from

you, so pass over (their faults) and pray for their forgiveness, and take

counsel from them in affairs of importance. Then when you are resolved

on a course of action put your trust in Allah, for Allah loves those who

put their trust in Him}20. It is the logic that refrains from any fraction of

satire, derision and defamation, as commanded by the noble Qur’an: {do not

revile those whom they invoke than Allah, because they will revile Allah

in ignorance out of spite. We have indeed made the deeds of every

people seem fair to them. Then their return is to their Lord He will

17 Aţ-Ţabābā’ī, Sayed Mohammed Hussein, “Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr Al-Qur’ān”, Jamāʾat al-

Mudarisīn, al-Hawza al-Ilmiyya Publications, Qum, vol.16, p.374.

18 An-Nāziʾāt (23-24)

19 Ţāha (44)

20 Āl-ʾImrān (159)

32

inform them of what they have done}21, the logic that aims to constrain

injustice and aggression to substitute by the language of the people of

Paradise, i.e. tenderness, kindness and soft words, {there they shall hear

neither idle talk nor any sinful speech. All talks will be sound and

upright}22, in contrary to the language of the people of Hellfire, who address

each other with curses: {as a nation enters Hell, it will curse the one that

went before}23.

This latter logic is being promulgated by the media channels indicated before;

it opts out styles based on obscene offensive words, rough language and

extreme hostility that know no bounds for abuse, slander, and abasement of

their adversaries. Eccentric enough, all this is practised under the pretext of

triumphing to virtue, knowledge and Islam. This way they stood as a typical

example for Amīrῡl Mu’minīn verdict on such groups:

‟And another one has served himself the title of a scholar, when he is

not truly so. He merely appropriates some unlettered pieces from

unlettered people, and works of aberrance from aberrant people. He

entraps people by ropes of arrogance and forged slogans. He interprets

the Book in line with his convictions, and converts the truth in line with

his caprices. He renders people feeling secured about ordeals and

soothed about grievous misdeeds. He says: I reflect on dubiosities

when he relapses into them! He says: I detach myself from heresies

while he slumbers amongst them! By the look of him, he strikes you as

a human, whereas he has the heart of a beast. He does not know the

gate of guidance to follow through, neither the gate of blindness to

withdraw. The like of him is the dead in the living”24.

21 Al-Anʾām (108)

22 Al-Wāqiʾah (25-26)

23 Al-Aʾrāf (38)

24 See: “Nahj Al-Balaghah, Sharĥ Mohammed ʾAbdha”, Majmaʾ al-Dakhair al-Islamiyya for

research and printing, Qum, pub.1, 1412 A.H, vol.1, p.153.

33

Deciding Which Marjiʾ:

The Reference Point of Religious Authority

The diversity of denominations and factions in Islam is an inescapable

reality. Every fancy for a unified Moslem Ummah, and every doctrinal

debate endeavouring to understand Islam and investigate the legitimacy

of each faction to represent it, cannot eliminate this multiplicity. The

variation will continue inevitably, and all this toil will not merge today’s

Moslems into one denomination, insomuch as it failed to do so for

yesterday’s Moslems. Nonetheless, we can still say that Moslems’

dilemma is not in their multiplicity as much as in their incapacity for

‟peaceful coexistence” within that variation, closed nature against each

other and refusal to accept the other party as he is.

That said, it does not mean the fact that one single truth can literally

represent Islam is abolished, neither that Moslems are denied the right

to debate and confer on affairs of Islam, nor can any faction be

prohibited from highlighting their beliefs and convictions on the

principal issues of the Islamic thought and legislation. We just suggest

that Moslems, each within their frame of mind, need to strive for

possibilities for cohabitation and sharing, rather than inciting conflicts,

disrupting the structure of the Islamic society, fostering hatred and a

sense of alienation between members of one community.

With that said, I go over again my earlier statement: my chief concern is

not to retaliate for those who have not embraced the doctrine of Ahlul

Bait, nor to increase the number of Ahlul Bait partisans, as much as to

unveil what the school believes in and adopts, what is dimmed on this

doctrine and simultaneously to block the way for those who ascribe to

the School some outlandish sayings and beliefs. However, we are not

suggesting thereby the correctness of its entire underlying precepts

and sentiments, but reminding of the undeniable fact that it represents

one of the largest schools in Islam, in its approaches and propositions

on the dogmatic, legal and ethical levels. Over one thousand and four

hundred years, masses were affiliating with the School; and double of

their number, books and treatises were being composed, and many

sub-trends and orientations evolved. Therefore, it is irrational to claim

34

that this colossal legacy in total conforms to the truth and upholds

legitimacy. No one of our scholars has come to this conclusion.

It is sarcastic that some researchers and critics of the doctrine, due to

incomprehension of the significance of miscellaneous trends and

tendencies within the framework of one school, think of it as an

inadequacy that exposes schism and disunion inside the school. Most

probably, the motive of those criticisers arises from the fact that this

miscellany and divergence, though completely healthy and sound in

relevance to the logic of thought, will impede them, against their will,

from ruling a disqualifying judgement against the whole lot of affiliates

of Ahlul Bait, banishing them and accusing them of apostasy, as well as

generalising peculiarities of someone’s drawbacks to everyone

belonging to the School indistinctively.

Actually, the flexibility of this school and the divergence of its trends is

a source of pride for us; it shows forth how immense and tremendous

the intellectual efforts and products of the School are. This merit baffles

only the spiteful and narrow-minded people who try to take advantage

of any situation to undermine the entity of the School.

Moreover, to note that I am disinclined to recognise the credibility of the

whole package of products made by the School across history, does

not formally implicate that all these products share no common

grounds from which the exuberant heritage of the School have

stemmed. Equally true, I do not intend to dispute the genuine principles

and values where all these efforts and intellectual products intersect.

Rather, I would like to pinpoint over here something of great import: the

School of Ahlul Bait, like any other school in the history of the Islamic

thought, comprises the intrinsic and the extrinsic; some fundamental

premises with the unanimous consensus of scholars versus some

diminutive proposals made by individual scholars and thus

representing their originators. More plainly, there are some common

factors in the School central to its thought and at the same time some

independent works belonging to their producers. Therefore, it is

improper not to take notice of such crucial substantial differences, and

not to address our criticism towards individual cases instead of the

whole body of the doctrine. We cannot take second-rate products in the

school to exemplify first-rate celebrated ones.

35

In my opinion, to take this into consideration, we will be able to

constrain the hassle of objections and discussions which are

intrinsically no more than systematic obscure points to throw others

into confusion, or false accusations ultimately not launched in quest for

the truth.

Anyhow, the research problem is grounded on an axiom which is widely

accepted on its own merits by the Moslem scholars, that is, the main

sources for deriving the maxims of Islamic knowledge and formulating

conceptions on our creed, ethics, statutes, manners and any existential

visions, is the holy Qur’an and the prophet’s Sunnah. The totality of

Moslems believes in Allah’s sayings: {We shall call a witness from

among every community to testify against it. And We shall call you to

testify against these people; (that is why) We have sent down to you

this Book which makes plain and is guidance, blessing and good news

to those who have surrendered themselves entirely}25, {we have sent

the Admonition to you (O Mohammed) so that you should make plain

and explain to the people the teachings of the Book which has been

sent for them; and so that they should ponder over it}26, and {so accept

whatever the Messenger gives you and refrain from whatever he forbids

you. And fear Allah: verily Allah is Most Stern in retribution.}27

Yet, having one source of inspiration for the precepts of Islam does not

change the fact that Moslems are still divided into trends, sects and

doctrines, and these questions still exasperate everyone: why had this

divergence occurred in the first place? How did it originate? How can

such acute and huge difference take place when all Moslems admit the

unity of the major source of reference for Islam, i.e. the Marjiʾ?

According to me, these questions are thresholds to a wider area of the

problem, and their answers substantially hit upon the gist of these

divisions and help us understand how they were originated.

25 An-Naĥl (89)

26 An-Naĥl (44)

27 Al-Ĥashr (7)

36

Personally, I reckon the predicament lies chiefly in the second source

for Islam rather than the first, i.e. the prophet’s Sunnah, not the holy

Qur’an.

In other words, how receptors approach the Sunnah as a point of

reference is the main element that rendered Moslems divided and

entrenched into the shackles of factions, and that is basically what must

be discussed and investigated before embarking on doctrinal dialogue.

It is commonly known that the Moslem world splits into two schools of

thought in tackling this problem: the school who took to the progeny of

the prophet (sawa), ‟ʾItrah”, as the Marjiʾ believing in their priority to

convey the Sunnah, paraphrase it, interpret the Qur’anic text and

reproduce its concepts and visions, (‟ʾItrah”: the title appointed here

exclusively to Imam Ali, Az-Zahra’ and their children to replace ‟Ahlul Bait”,

the very term that is being used by certain groups in a bid to impose the

prophet’s wives into Ahlul Bait circle), and the other school who heads for

the companions as to have been entrusted with these tasks and

prioritised to perform these roles.

As a result, resolving these doctrinal intricacies and dogmatic

contentions is conditional on the solution of above problem; it needs to

be dealt with before moving into the smaller-scale problems, like: the

dogmatic discrepancies on monotheism, the meanings of Allah’s

attributes and their relation to His Holy Ego (Taʾala), or in respect of

other conceptual discrepancies like intercession, tawassul (Plead to God

via holy dignitaries) and visiting holy shrines, noting that the selected

examples are the current hour talk, otherwise the actual examples are

too varied and open-ended. Apparently such issues should have been

settled by recourse to the prophetic Sunnah, but the Sunnah in itself is

accessed and interpreted differently by different schools of thought.

In point of fact, these are specifically the avenues that should be the

centre of discussion by all schools; we need primarily to deal with the

question: should we commit to the prophet’s heritage as conveyed by

the companions or by that of the ʾItrah? Any stride towards the study of

differences between Moslems should start from here, I believe.

It might occur to someone that to encounter between the ʾItrah and the

companions as two conflicting poles is contrived by us, not a matter

that genuinely existed in the polemics of the Islamic history.

37

Progressively, one might assume: the Companions School after all look

upon Imam Ali (the Master of the ʾItrah, and the pivot in the above equation:

ʾItrah vs. companions) unquestionably as the prophet’s companion; the

supreme and preeminent of other companions. Even more, they adhere

firmly to what he relates and reports from the prophet (sawa), and this

applies similarly to the other members of Ahlul Bait like Imam Al-

Hassan and Imam Al-Hussein (Masters of Paradise and grandchildren of

the prophet). So to isolate Imam Ali and other protagonists of Ahlul Bait

(as) from the remaining companions is groundless and unjustified;

unwitnessed in the past in the course of Islamic history by the literature

of Moslem thinkers and scholars.

Nevertheless, we think that the outlooks towards Imam Ali by the two

Schools are not the same in theory, in that Ahlul Bait School holds him

as the embodiment of Islam and the heart of the Islamic knowledge,

concepts, views and statutes. Any of his opinions, conceptions and

narrations in any field, which are proved correct by methods of

verification and reliable chain of transmission, historically and

jurisdictively, are regarded as authoritative statements and the ultimate

perception of Islam; and anything laid out against them is null and void.

In other words, he is the norm and paradigm in knowing and enforcing

the central tenets of religion and the prophet’s Sunnah, and no one of

the companions or the succeeding generations can be parallel to him in

this ranking. This outlook towards Imam Ali character and the role he

plays in Islam as well as the exclusiveness of that role to his person is

maintained solely by the Shiʾa, not any other. Furthermore, there will

appear that this very view is not only disowned by the other School, but

above and over that, Imam Ali (as) for them is not equalised to the

remainder of other companions. We will prove in forthcoming chapters,

in the eye of that School, the role of Imam Ali is marginalised and side-

lined as compared to other companions, weather in conveying the

Sunnah or interpreting the Islamic teachings and practices, and so forth

with other pillars of Islam. They do not take into account his distinction

and uniqueness in proportion to other companions.

This conclusion is not made by means of theoretical analysis of a

survey on the Companions School, but a declaration made by their

scholars admitting that the first, second and third Caliphs are more

38

knowledgeable than Imam Ali (as), as each one’s merit and worth is

subordinate to his gradation in caliphate and succession in reign.

As for opting out the companions as the primary point of refence:

Marjiʾ, there is a great number of relevant hadiths that can fill a volume

or over. But this is not about enumerating or laying emphasis on these

hadiths as much as to cite a few evidencing examples:

1. In an excerpt that nearly accommodates the whole theory of the

School, Abu Isĥāq Ibrahim Bin Musa As-Shāţibī Al-Andalusī (d.790

A.H) in his book ‟Al-Muwāfiqāt fī Uśῡl Al-Fiqh” maintains: ‟the

Sunnah of the companions … is to refer to and act upon … there

are evidencing factors for that:

Firstly: They were praised by Allah (Taʾala) in a way unheard of

and unprecedented, commended for fairness and other

concomitant features, as seen in Allah (Taʾala) Sayings: (you are

the best nation that has been raised up for mankind}28, {Thus We

have appointed you a middle nation, that you may be witnesses

against mankind and that the Messenger may be a witness against

you.}29

The first verse substantiates their precedence over the remaining

nations, which stipulates that they were unalterably righteous at

any event, and they were habitually consenting to the Sunnah

rather than contravening, whereas the second verse substantiates

their unbounded fairness, and ascertains the significance of the

first verse.

Secondly: clear command purported by the hadith to take after

them and treat their Sunnah as enjoined upon us to follow akin to

the Sunnah of the prophet (saw-a), as in his saying: ‟you are duly

to keep up to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided

successors ‟Caliphs”, cling to it and clench it stubbornly with

teeth.”

28 Āl-ʾImrān (110)

29 Al-Baqarah (143)

39

Thirdly: the multitude of scholars has placed the companions in

the forefront when examining the 'sayings' (hadiths), as to which

saying outweighs the other.

Fourthly: what is given in the hadiths on obligating their love and

condemning grudge against them, stressing that to love them is a

token for loving the prophet (saw-a), and in like manner to hate

them is a token for hating the prophet (saw-a). This is not only

because they had seen him, lived close to him, and conversed

with him, which is hardly a merit, but because they used to keep

up pace with him so vehemently, and bind themselves to his

Sunnah, protect him and stand up for him. Whoever therefore has

such excellence is apt to be a commendable role model, and his

biography be made the centre of attraction.”30

2. Al-Ghazālī (d.505 AH) said in his book ‟Al-Mustaśfā fī Iśῡl Al-

Fiqh”: ‟a certain folk headed towards holding the tenet of a

companion as an authoritative source unrestrictedly.”31

30 As-Shāţibī, Ibrahim Bin Musa Bin Mohammed Allakhmī Al-Ghurnāţī, “Al-Muwāfiqāt fī Uśῡl

Al-Fiqh ”, reviewed by Mashhῡr Bin Hassan Āl Salmān, Dar Ibn Affan - Saudi, pub. 1, 1417 A.H-

1997 A.D, vol. 4, pp. 446-493.

31 Al-Ghazālī, Muhammad Bin Muhammad, “Al-Mustaśfa fī Iśῡl Al-Fiqh”, reviewed by Hamzah

Bin Zuhair Hāfiđ, Al-Madinah press, Jeddah, 1413 A.H, vol. 2, p. 450.

It is worth mentioning that Al-Ghazālī is aware of the dilemma that to treat the credentials of the

companions as unquestionable and unrestrictedly deem their sayings as authoritative will dictate the

impeccability of those companions, a matter for which they have been censuring the Shʾia over and

over finding them at fault for ascribing impeccability to the Imams of Ahlul Bait (as). So he tended

to nullify this opinion on the grounds that: “Whoever can lapse into mistakes or unintentional

oversight, and their impeccability has not been verified, their sayings upon that are not

authoritative. How can we take their sayings as authoritative when they are likely to commit

mistakes? How can we avow their impeccability without some recurrent and famous evidence?

How can we conceive of some folk as impeccable when they differ among themselves? How can

two impeccable persons differ? How can this be when the companions themselves concurred on

licensing others to differ with them? Abu Bakr and Umar have not had remonstrated those who

made Ijtihād (juristic inference) opposite to theirs using their own discretion; they rather enjoined

that each Mujtahid* (juristic analyst) is to follow his independent opinion at issues requiring Ijtihād.

Accordingly, the absence of evidence on impeccability, the disagreement among themselves, and

avowing the permissibility to counteract and differ with them, all serve as conclusive evidences (for

non-authoritativeness of the companions).” (ibid: same source: p.451)

40

This evinces clearly that the understanding of Islam, the explanation of

its creeds, rulings and visions, according to that School, is conducted

throughout the Sunnah of the companions, or their transmission from

the prophet (sawa).

Some might elusively induce the argument into a corner saying: ‟so

long as you do not believe in what we transfer from the companions,

neither accept our hadiths, and likewise we do not believe in what you

transfer from the ʾItrah (as), neither accept your hadiths, why do not we

resort to the first source in Islam, that is, the holy Qur’an, take and act

upon its content, and quit what contradicts it?!”

Actually, we cannot consent to this rationale for these reasons:

Firstly: the prophetic Sunnah is indispensable to the understanding of

Islam, and in no way we can disregard it, as the holy Qur’an testifies:

{We have sent the admonition to you (O Muhammad) so that you should

make plain and explain to the people the teachings of the Book which

has been sent to them; and so they should ponder over it}32 and {So

accept whatever the Messenger gives you and refrain from whatever he

forbids you. And fear Allah; verily Allah is stern in retribution.}33

Secondly: the holy Qur’an can be multifaceted; it has a large number of

ayahs that can be classified as entwined (Mutashābih), probable,

general and absolute. It can also be replete with figurative usages,

metonymies and metaphors. This feature makes its understanding in

isolation from the prophet’s Sunnah extremely hard if not impossible,

so it does not suffice to stand by itself as a source for accessing Islam.

It appears thus –according their School on the authoritativeness of the companions’ sayings- that

while they deny the companions’ impeccability, practically speaking, they attach it to them without

officially announcing it. This is especially true as they narrate and circulate a saying from the

prophet (sawa), albeit they themselves argue over the soundness of its chain of transmission: “My

companions are like stars; whomever you take as a guide, you will be rightly guided.”

*Mujtahid: an Islamic scholar competent enough to do independent reasoning and interpret matters

of Sharia.

32 An-Naĥl (44)

33 Al-Ĥashr (7)

41

Thirdly: the sweeping generalisation that each party does not accept

what the other party reports in total is not fully right. We do not reject all

that is transferred by Al-Bukhārī and Muslim for example, but reject the

idiosyncratic of their reports or ones whose accuracy has not been

verified as creditworthy, otherwise reports which are not unique to them

are rated as authoritative by our School. Equally true what has been

substantiated by unanimity or by consistency with the Holy Qur’an and

other criteria stated by the Science of Jurisprudence is also deemed as

authoritative.

Attitude of the Companions School towards

the Transfer from the ʾItrah:

Sahih Al-Bukhārī as an Instance

I have illuminated the main difference that distinguishes the ʾItrah School

from the Companions School stating that the level of adherence towards the

ʾItrah legacy ranging from the narrations to the exposition of Islamic

teachings, is not equally alike for the two Schools, and that only devout ones

to the School can be identified with ʾItrah loyalists. We also elucidated that

the objection to the counterbalance between the ʾItrah and the companions

seeing it as fictional and contrived is totally incorrect and inaccurate, and

rather there are dozens of evidences which indicate it actually existed in the

literature of Islamic history.

For the time being, I would like to outline for the prestigious reader some of

the aftereffects of this counterbalance and how by every measure the Imams

42

of the ʾItrah were unduly banished and marginalised by the most notable

book of the Companions School, specialised on hadith heritage, i.e. ‟Sahih

Al-Bukhārī”. It is true that everyone narrates this hadith –with different

wording - from the prophet tradition: ‟I am about to be summoned, and I

would respond duly. I have left behind that through which you will never

go astray after me: the two weighty things; one is bigger than the other:

the Book of Allah, a line from Heaven to earth, and my ʾItrah; verily they

will not part until they happen to meet me on the Fount”, but historically

the reality shows that no rightful regard has been assigned to the ʾItrah by the

Companions School whether in deriving from or attaching to their erudition.

To illustrate this state of indifference and obliviousness to the ʾItrah legacy,

we conduct a comparative study between two companions' calibre in Al-

Bukhārī book, the space they occupy and the amount of transmissions on

their authority from the prophet (sawa), namely, Imam Ali (as) and Abu

Hurairah Abdul Raĥmān Bin Ṡakhar Ad-Dῡsī (d.57 A. H).

I will not wade into the real nature of Abu Hurairah Islam, his relation with the

prophet (sawa) and how penchant for Muʾāwiyah he was, the constant formal

enemy of Imam Ali (as). But I will content myself with glimpses into the

subject quoting from a writer most conversed with his biography and

specialised in his scientific and political profiles and the narrations on his

authority, i.e. Maĥmῡd Abu Rayyah who divided his study into two books:

‟Ađwā’ ʾalā As-Sunnah Al-Muhammadiyyah” and ‟Abu Hurairah, Sheikh

Al- Muđīrah”.

We will open our topic with a piece of information of critical importance,

featured by Abu Rayyah in his former book: ‟Ađwā’” and supported

meticulously by scientific proofs in his subsequent book: ‟Sheikhul

Muđīrah”. It propounds that Abu Hurairah has not had accompanied the

prophet (sawa) only a year and nine months or at best three years according

to Abu Hurairah himself –if we assume this to be true and accept the ‘three

years’ version, it is because it slightly makes change to our attitude from his

narrations.

43

Let us cast a look on what Abu Rayyah states himself or quotes from other

scholars and researchers, in connection with Abu Hurairah and his

narrations:

Abu Rayyah quotes from Muhammad Rashīd Riẓa: ‟should the age of

Umar have extended until Abu Hurairah had died, a plethora of these

hadiths would not have reached us.”

Then he cites a statement from Ibn Qutaibah, Abu Muhammed

Abdullah Bin Muslim Ad-Dainūrī in his book ‟Mukhtalaf Ta’wīl Al-

Hadith”: ‟as Abu Hurairah was rendering from the prophet (saw-a)

narrations that were novel to the majority of his companions and the

earlier forerunners, they incriminated and condemned him, saying: only

you heard that? Who else heard it with you? And Aisha had most

intensively condemned him above all others, as both of them had long

life-spans.”34

In point of fact, ‟Abu Hurairah was the first hadith-narrator in Islam who

was indicted on corruption”, as Abu Rayyah quotes from the writer

Mustafā Sādiq Ar-Rāfiʾī, and in no doubt both writers were right in their

points.

It is reported by Al-Bukhārī that Abu Hurairah had a ‘pouch’xi from which

he brings out his hadiths! He said: ‟Abu Sāliĥ related that Abu Hurairah

had related that Allah Messenger (saw-a) said: ‟Best charity is the

beneficent and bountiful, and the upper hand is better than the lower

hand; start with ones who are dependents on you for provision”, then he

supplements: ‟a wife would say: either you provide me with food or you

divorce me, and the slave would say: provide me with food then use me

in your service, and the child would say: provide me with food, to whom

you are forsaking me”. The surrounding people said to him: ‟O Abu

Hurairah; have you heard that from the Messenger of Allah”? ‟No, this

is from the pouch of Abu Hurairah”, he replied.35

34 Abu Rayyah, Maĥmῡd, “Ađwā’ ʾalā As-Sunnah Al-Muhammadiyyah”, 5th pub. offset: the

Egyptian copy, p.203.

35 Al-Bhukhārī, Abu Abdullah Muhammad in Ismail, “Al-Jāmiʾ Al-Musnad As-Sahih Al-

Mukhtaṡar”, reviewed by Muhammad Bin Zuhair Bin Nāṡir An-Nāṡir, Dar Tawk al-Najat, Beirut:

44

Quoting from Abu Muhammad Bin Hazm, Abu Rayyah reports that Abu

Hurairah had narrated 5374 hadiths from the prophet (sawa), of which 446

were authenticated by Al-Bukāharī. Then he remarks that this phenomenal

rendition of Abu Hurairah must have established a standard and a quantifying

rule for the amount of narrations we should predict from every companion,

saying: ‟what remains is to know the amount of narrations rendered by those

pub.1, 1422 A.H. Kitab: “The Book of Expenditure”, Ch.2: “Expenditure Made Incumbent on

Dependents: Duty”, vol. 7, p.63, hadith 5355.

Actually, the pouch of Abu Harairah was broad enough to incorporate more hadiths with this phrase

attached: ‘from the pouch of Abu Hurairah’, such as:

1. His saying (I had reported to you “whoever becomes impure in body (Junub), he would

break his fasting”, but that is actually from the pouch of Abu Hurairah as anyone who gets impure

in body (Junub) does not truly break his fasting”, see: Al-Khaţīb Al-Baghdādī (392-463 A.H), Abu

Bakr Bin Ahmed Bin Ali Bin Thābit, “Al-Faqīh wal Mutafaqqih”, reviewed by: ʾĀdil Bin Yῡsuf

Al-ʾAzzāzī: Dar Ibn Al-Jawzi, Saudi Arabia, pub. 1, 1417-1996 A.D, vol. 2, Ch.“The overturn of

the Juristic interpreter (Mufti) of his Legal Verdict (Fatwa) as the Truth Unveils to be

elsewhere”, pp. 421-422, hadith 1404.

If Ibn Ĥajar discredited the chain of transmission aspect of the hadith, his challenge is overruled by

the succeeding hadith (no.1405) which purports that Abu Hurairah has overturned and withdrawn

his verdict on ‘body impurity (Junub) breaking fasting’. Therefore it would have been better to say

that Abu Hurairah ceased to narrate the hadith not that he withdrew his verdict.

2. What is reported in Musnad Ahmed on a number of prohibitions declared by the prophet on

the means of earning a living, i.e. the hadith on the authority of Al-Mughīrah whereby he said: “I

heard ʾUbaidullah Bin Abī Nuʾm relating that he heard Abu Hurairah saying: ‘the Messenger of

Allah (saw-a) has prohibited earning money from the career of a cupper (Al-Ĥajjam), the

prostitute and the cost of a dog’, and he said further: ‘Asbul Faĥal’ (noble horses lent for

copulation with female horses of another owner)?”, then Bin Abī Nuʾm said that Abu Hurairah

proceeded: “this is from my pouch”. Musnad Ahmed, reviewed by Shuʾaib Al-Arna’ῡt, Mussasat

al-Risala, Beirut. Pub.1, 1416 A.H, vol. 13, p355, hadith no.7976.

It should be noted that the phrase “Asbul Faĥal” which sounds like verbosity made by Abu

Hurrairah is but an interjection and a continuation made by ʾUbaidullah Bin Abī Naʾum. This note

can be corroborated by An-Nasā’ī wording of the hadith (see: “Sunnan An-Nasā’ī”, reviewed by:

Mashhῡr Bin Hassan Āl Salmān, commentary: Muhammad Nāṡirul Dīn Al-Albāni, Makatabat al-

Maarif for publishing and distribution, Riyadh, pub.1, p.712, hadith 4673, wherein the phrase “from

my pouch” is not included.

Incidentally, driven by the need to elicit an acceptable signification for this very phrase, many of

Abu Hurairah partisans had it tailored to suit some entry of meaning and interpretation, such as: the

container, the wit, an acute insight, or merely a sarcastic reply to his enquirers, and by some it is

deemed as an inkling to abolish the hadith, and so forth of pedantic fruitless attempts, for which we

have no space to elaborate further.

45

who preceded him in Islam; who were more loyal to the Messenger (sawa),

more knowledgeable on religion, with higher honour and longer history of

jihad than the Muhājirs, the Anśār or others, and had for an extended period

of time associated with the prophet, to see how far did those seniors narrate

from the prophet (sawa).”

He proceeds thereafter with instances from pre-eminent companions in

sequence indicating the volume of their narration, saying: ‟there we see Abu

Bakr, the first to enter Islam after Ali, master of all the companions, who spent

with the prophet all that extended period in Mecca and Al-Madinah, and who

was a tracer of the Arabs ancestry, I wonder how many hadiths he had

narrated? Al-Nawawi says in his ‟Tahdhīb” book: ‟the Siddique has narrated

142 hadith, 104 were reported by As-Siyῡtī in his book: ‟Tarīkh Al-Khulafā’”,

and 22 of them by Al-Bukhārī. That is to say, Al-Bukhārī has related for Abu

Hurairah twice twenty times as much as he related for Abu Bakr.

As for the Caliph Umar Bin Al-Khaţţāb, Abu Rayyah says: ‟he entered the

faith of Islam on year six, accompanied the prophet (sawa) till the end of his

honourable life (sawa), and among his sayings: ‟I and a fellow-mate of mine

were alternately calling on the Messenger of Allah; one day I call on him

myself, and the second day he does. If it were my turn I would bring him

tidings from the latest of the Revelation and other accounts of the day. If it

were his turn, he would do the same”, despite that only fifty of his hadiths

were authenticated, as recorded by Ibn Hazm.”

Then Abu Rayyah turns to Imam Ali (as): ‟he was first to enter Islam; he was

brought up in the holy lap of the prophet, lived under his wing since the

mission of prophethood, and accompanied him until the prophet's soul went

to her last resting place. He had not parted with him either in voyaging or at

home place; he is his cousin and been married to his daughter, he witnessed

all battles and every episode in Islam except for Tabῡk, as the prophet

installed him as his successor in Al-Madinah. At that time he said: ‟are you

leaving me among children and women?” and the prophet said to him: ‟are

you not pleased to be for me like Harῡn (Aaron) to Musā (Moses)?” This

imam, who is almost unmatched in knowledge by all the companions, had

been assigned no more than fifty eight hadiths on his authority as As-Siyῡtī

46

unfolds, whereas Ibn Hazm announces: only fifty hadiths were authenticated,

and no more than twenty hadiths were related for him by Al-Bukhārī and

Muslim.

‟On Uthman and other companions, Abu Rayyah states:

As for Uthman, nine hadiths has been narrated on his authority by Al-Bukhārī

and five by Muslim.

Az-Zubair Bin Al-ʾAwwām: nine hadiths by Al-Bukhārī and one by Muslim.

Talĥah Bin Ubaidullah: four hadiths by Al-Bukhārī.

Abdul Raĥmān Bin ʾAof: nine hadiths by Al-Bukhārī.

Ubai Bin Kaʾab: from all the sixth books (six canonical hadith collections), a

bit more than sixty were narrated for him.

Zaid Bin Thābit: eight hadiths by Al-Bukhārī; only five of which had the

consensus of the two Sheiks.

Salmān Al-Fārisī: four hadiths were extracted for him by Al-Bukhārī and three

by Muslim.

It is also evinced that many of the companions have not had narrated from

the prophet.”36

It eventually transpires, what Al-Bukhārī had narrated for Abu Hurairah

surpasses the number of hadiths narrated for Imam Ali by as much twice

twenty two times.

This is the case with Imam Ali in the accounts of Al-Bukhārī, if however, we

scan the remainder of late Imams of Ahlul Bait, including ones who were

contemporary to Al-Bukhārī himself, i.e. Imam Al-Jawād, Al-Hādī and Al-

ʾAskarī, we will realise that they were expelled altogether! Al-Bukhārī has

36 Abu Rayyah, “Ađwā’ ʾalā As-Sunnah Al-Muhammadiyyah”, ibid, pp. 224-225 noting that the

number of Al-Bukhārī narrators totals to 2400. It is useful to consult in this connection a book

entitled: “Al-Ifṡāh ʾan Aĥwāl Ruwāt Aś-Ṡiĥāĥ”, written by Muhammad Hassan Al-Muźaffar

(d.1375) where the reader can introduce to those narrators and see the feedback of the specialists the

discipline of Aspersion & Acclamation on them.

47

related not even one single hadith for them!? Even with respect to Imam Aṡ-

Ṡādiq, who laid the foundations of the four schools of thought, father of the

masters of these schools, not one sole hadith has been narrated on his

authority. What is more far-out is that Al- Bukhārī has lived in the same

scientific incubator where Imam Aṡ-Ṡādiq had lived, namely, Al-Hejaz and the

gap between him and the Imam from the perspective of the traditionists is

not extensive. Imam Aṡ-Ṡādiq died in 146 or 148 A.D, while Al- Bukhārī died

in 256 A.D, that is, a gap of one century and a few years over. Further to that,

he transfers from the students of Imam Aṡ-Ṡādiq, while the master is denied

this right.

Sheikh Mohammed Śādiq Najmī, author of the weighty book: ‟At-Ta’amul fī

Aś-Śaĥīĥain”, states: ‟we find Al- Bukhārī relates from twenty six men called

Al-Hassan, twenty three narrators named Mūsā, thirty nine traditionists with

the name Ali, yet none of them includes Al-Hassan Al-Mujtabā (as), the

delight of the prophet’s heart (sawa), neither Mūsā Bin Jaʾfar, the descendant

of the prophet (sawa) nor Ali Bin Mūsā Al-Riẓā (as) whose erudition and

honour were recognised by the loving and the disdainful.

Indeed, Muslim and Al- Bukhārī have extracted not even one single hadith to

any of Ahlul Bait, like Imam Al-Hassan Al-Mujtabā, Imam Mūsā Bin Jaʾfar,

Imam Ali Bin Mūsā Al-Ridha, Imam Muhammad Al-Jawād, and Imam Al-Hādī,

and with particular reference to Imam Al-Hassan Al-ʾAskarī (as) who existed

in the same timeframe of Al- Bukhārī.”37

I conclude by citing from the Allama Muhammad Hussein At-Tabābā’ī his

pronouncement in his book ‟Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr Al-Qur’ān”: ‟the proceedings

37 Najmī, Muhammad Śādiq, “Ađwā’ ʾalā Aś-Śaĥīĥain: Dirāsat wa Taĥlīl li Sahih Al-Bukhārī

and Muslim”, Arabicized by: Yaĥyā Kamāl Al-Baĥrānī, Mussasat al-Maarif al-Islamiya, Qum,

pub.1, 1419 A.H, p.113.

48

with regard to the successorship of Allah Messenger (sawa) entailed the

divergence of the Moslem public opinion on Ahlul Bait; some were devoted

and adoring, others were neglectful and oblivious of their calibre and rank

amid the Qur’anic Sciences, while others were resentful and vindictive. This

has run counter to the prophet’s (sawa) recommendation, which is

undeniable and irrefutable for every Moslem, to acquire knowledge from them

rather than to dictate it for them, for they are the most well-versed in Allah

Holy Book than anyone, pointing that they will not misinterpret nor

misconceive the Book, besides saying in the Mutawātir hadith of At-Thaqalain

(two weighty matters): ‟I leave behind the two weighty things: the Book of

Allah and my ʾItrah; verily they will not part until they happen to meet

me on the Fount” (…). Also in part of his prolific tradition, he (sawa) said:

‟He who interprets Qur’an according to his own discretion, should yield

himself thereby to his place in Hellfire” (…), and that was the biggest cleft

to afflict the Qur’anic Sciences as well as the procedures of contemplation

and deliberation commended by Qur’an itself.

An evidence of this state of inattentiveness towards ʾItrah (as) is the rarity of

hadiths transferred from them. As we do a rundown on the Science of Hadith

(…), and try to enumerate what is transferred from Ali, Al-Hassan and Al-

Hussein (as), particularly as concerns the Exegesis of Qur’an, the findings

will be confounding: the companions have not transferred for Ali (as) only

trivially and insignificantly, whereas the successors transferred no more than

one hundred narrations –if counted- as opposed to the whole entity of Qur’an.

As for Al-Hassan (as), the transfers cannot probably mount to ten hadiths,

and no hadith is available to recall for Al-Hussein, noting that some

traditionists have concluded the narrations on Qur’anic exegesis into

seventeen thousand, all from the side Ahlul Sunnah scholars (Jimhῡr)38, and

a similar rate of narrations in the field of jurisprudence.”39

38 Aţ-Ţabābā’ī footnoted in respect of this phrase: “it was mentioned by As-Siyῡţī in “Al-Itqān’’,

and mentioned the number of narrations in his exegesis book: “Turjuman Al-Qur’an” and his

abridged book: “Ad-Dur Al-Manthῡr.”

39 Aţ-Ţabābā’ī, Muhammad Hussein, “Al-Mizān”, Jamaʾat al-Mudarisīn Publications, al-Hawza al-

Ilmiyya, Qum, vol. 5, p. 274.

49

50

Axes Proposed for Debating the Dilemma

In view of the notion we made over the dilemma of doctrinal dialogue,

and specifically the stringent demand to start a conversation on the

second source of the Islamic thought: ‟the Prophetic Sunnah”40, along

with the pressing necessity to examine it and deal with queries that

transpire in the scene before turning to side details, we propose to lay

out for the reader the main axes which we reckon substantive for the

study and analysis of this notion.

Obviously to do that we need a fairly exhaustive research incorporating

minute details, which are beyond this brief study, and which may lead

us to solely focus on the first axis at this point.

Against this knotty background, I had these axes drafted in the form of

questions:

Axis One: contains a cardinal question that discusses whether or not

we need to resort to the prophetic Sunnah as a source for Islamic

erudition in the first place; and alternatively weather it suffices to

confine ourselves to the Qur’anic text?

Not only does the answer to this question affect our theoretical

conception on the structure of Islamic thought; how it is mapped on the

level of creed, legislation and ethics, and the bearing it has on the holy

Qur’an, but it also affects our conception on the function and the

intellectual mission of the Sunnah reporters, namely all companions

and Ahlul Bait members (as); hence extends to shake their position and

significance in later Islamic ages. All this can be a consequent result of

our answer if we agreed to isolate the prophetic Sunnah from the

structure of Islamic thought and totally rely on Qur’an.

40 I would like to draw the attention of the prestigious reader that every time we say “Sunnah” in

this research, we mean the prophetic Sunnah exclusively. As regards the Sunnah of Ahlul Bait (as)

who confirmed all the time that their acts are similitude of the Messenger’s, and their sayings are

replica of his hadith, this is an issue to investigate thoroughly in coming chapters.

51

Axis Two: a subdivision of the first axis, highly dependent on the

conclusions we draw from that axis. More plainly, if we choose to

answer the question positively admitting our need for the Sunnah as

part of the formula of the intellectual Islamic thought, and seeing that

without it we are unable to accomplish this task rightly to the purpose,

only then we can activate the second axis and start a query on the role

and function of the Sunnah. The query notably investigates if that

particular role is complementary to what the Qur’anic text failed short

for, or if such presumption subsuming deficiency in Qur'an is null and

void according to our creed, which entails that the Sunnah is merely an

elucidating, explanatory and amplifying documentation? Or if it is in the

nature of Qur’an to inherently require that Sunnah for explanation and

interpretation, or it is we, the receptors, who are deficient in that sense?

Axis Three: if we presumed that the Sunnah is indispensable for the

construction of the Islamic thought and it is intended in the main to

explain and interpret, we will have, in that event, to answer the following

focal questions: how can we obtain that Sunnah? What are the methods

for eliciting genuine Sunnah neatened from intrusive material which has

pervaded by time and been widely recognised by Moslems as false and

forged?

In this very axis lies the core of what we defined earlier as varying

approaches to the Sunnah, and explained that Moslems are accessing

the Sunnah differently: some have relied on the companions as a route

conducive to that Sunnah, while others had recourse to the ʾItrah (as)

for this task, and each party have furnished grounds for what they

picked out producing dozens of compilations and books, dispersed all

over the Islamic sciences, e.g. the Foundation of Jurisprudence, the

Science of Hadith, the Study of Hadith Reporters, etc.

Moreover, the axis does not only aim to prove the existence of such

difference between the two schools, or the rigid adherence of each

school to their choice and what they provide of foundations for that

choice, but includes minor issues evolving progressively throughout

the discussion, such as: the criteria to verify a specific narration, the

scientific requisites for verifying reports whether they be ‘āĥād’,

52

‘mutawātir’, ‘mustafiđ’ 41 (see glossary), the criteria for the Science of

Aspersion and Acclamation (Al-Jarĥ and At-Taʾdīl) in assessing the

authority and credibility of reporters from the layers of chain of

transmission, besides other meticulous detailing sub-researches.

The axis brings into view as well schemes by which numerous

prominent personalities of high scientific calibre belonging to the ʾItrah

School were banished and marginalised, their integrity and reliability

were infringed, and their faith discredited with derisive nicknames, (like:

Rāfiđī and Mutashayiʾxii and so forth of epithets pervading the literature

of Aspersion and Acclamation of the Companions School), not for any

apparent offence save for loyalty to Ahlul Al-Bait (as).

Axis Four: concerned with what has come to be called in the domain of

Hadith Studies: the 'Internal Textual Criticism' as opposed to the

'External Textual Criticism' which pertains to the third axis. It

investigates the devices that are used to analyse and understand the

import of the Sunnah. More plainly, how is the Sunnah understood?

What are the procedures and concepts that promote this crucial task?

As a matter of fact, this is an axis where theories multiplied, and trends

from the myriad of philosophers, Islamic jurists, Sufis and others

diversified even inside one sole genre of thought. This way, it has

become tantamount in its diversity to the trends pertaining to the

inferential reading and interpretation of the Qur’anic text; a diversity

that resulted in a big host of approaches to its study and a new

independent discipline called ‟Methods of Exegesis."

42 An-Najm: (4)

The investigation of this ayah as regards its comprehensiveness of all the prophet’s acts, sayings,

approvals and disapprovals will be linked to another coming research, associated with a topic on the

prophet's impeccability (sawa), its dimensions, boundaries and evidences. This way we will not

digress from the main point in this section.

53

Passageways to the Prophetic Sunnah:

Two Main Attitudes

From the past four axes, we can pin down in the first axis which addresses

the question of whether or not to dispense with the Sunnah, two

passageways to the Sunnah in the Islamic intellectual history. Despite the

wide strides that the second passageway has taken that rendered it hugely

distanced from its origin, it can still be identified as an independent attitude

with affiliates and supporters (to elaborate further shortly) or at least it can be

deemed so during the first decades of Moslems’ life immediately after the

demise of the prophet (sawa). It is true that in later historical stages this

attitude had retreated and attenuated, which makes our analytical review

more theoretically-oriented and limited to a particular epoch, but this sort of

analysis remains indispensable for our study so long as we need to place

these attitudes in categories in the minds of Moslems.

First Attitude:

Engaging Positively in the Prophetic Sunnah

This is the prevalent general attitude for Moslems with the sundry of sects

and trends they have. It looks upon the prophetic Sunnah as a robust source

for the understanding and construction of the religious erudition, in which

case the holy Qur’an signifies the pivotal source and the Sunnah serves as

the expository text. This attitude of Moslems towards the prophet's Sunnah -

in the form of sayings, acts or tacit approvals on someone’s doing- is

ultimately owing to the Qur’anic verse:

‟Nor does he speak out of his desire. This is nothing but a revelation

that is conveyed to him.”42

42 An-Najm: (4)

The investigation of this ayah as regards its comprehensiveness of all the prophet’s acts, sayings,

approvals and disapprovals will be linked to another coming research, associated with a topic on the

54

The evidences that reinforce this attitude are plentiful, part of which:

Firstly: The Practical Consensus: embodied by the consensus of all the

today Moslems on this view (indicated above recently).

Secondly: The Qur’anic Evidence: a host of Qur’anic verses that urge

Moslems to embrace what yields from the prophet (sawa) and to comply with

his teachings, such as:

A. ‟Whatever (from the possessions of the town’s people) Allah has

bestowed on His Messenger belongs to Allah, and to the

Messenger, and to his kinsfolk, and to the orphan, and to the

needy, and to the wayfarer so that it may not merely circulate

between the rich among you. So accept whatever the Messenger

gives you, and refrain from whatever he forbids you. And fear

Allah, verily Allah is Most stern in retribution.”43

B. ‟(O Messenger), tell people: ‟If you indeed love Allah, follow me,

and Allah will love you and will forgive you your sins. Allah is All-

Forgiving, All-Compassionate. Say obey Allah and obey the

Messenger. If they turn away, then know that Allah does not love

those who refuse to obey Him and His Messenger.”44

C. ‟He who obeys the Messenger thereby obeys Allah; as for he who

turns away, We have not sent you as a keeper over them.”45

Thirdly: The Narrative Evidence: it determines the need for the Sunnah as

a requisite. There are several hadiths in this respect, such as the mutawātir

hadith that is uncontested among Moslems: 'hadith At-Thaqalain' (the two

weighty matters). Although this hadith is rendered with varied wordings: ‟the

Book and the ʾItrah” vs. ‟the Book and the Sunnah”46, this partial variation

prophet's impeccability (sawa), its dimensions, boundaries and evidences. This way we will not

digress from the main point in this section.

43 Al-Ĥashr (7)

44 Āl-ʾImrān (31-32)

45 An-Nisā’ (80)

46 According to our beliefs as well as Ahlul Sunnah scholars’ beliefs, the hadith implying the word:

“ʾItrah” is mutawātir and unarguable, whereas the content with the word “Sunnah” or “my Sunnah”

55

does not overrule its position as a reference for inference and deduction, or

more simply, it does not destroy the unanimous faith of Moslems that the

safekeeping of the Ummahxiii and its fortification against erroneousness are

unattainable only by subservience to the Sunnah, whether we take the

avenue of the companions or the Immaculate ʾItrah (as). Amid the four axes,

only the third axis is susceptible to this phrasal variation (ʾItrah-Sunnah),

because in that axis a recruitment process is conducted to locate the real

carrier of the Sunnah and the conducive way from the two passageways,

noting that we believe in the ‘ʾItrah’ as the avenue and the word ‘ʾItrah’ as the

original phrasing of the hadith (elaboration to substantiate this notion will follow in

future researches of this series, God Willing).

Second Attitude:

Engaging Passively in the Prophetic Sunnah:

(The Theory of "Sufficient for us is Allah’s Book")

This attitude tends to believe that we can dispense with the prophetic Sunnah

in the process of constituting and understanding the Islamic erudition, noting

that it is no longer advocated by any school of thought in our contemporary

Moslem world. However, its absence from the present day should not

understate the fact it was a fully-fledged intellectual attitude with followers

and callers, albeit limited in time and unsuccessful in every respect.

There will appear that the founder of this attitude towards the prophetic

Sunnah is –almost exclusively- Umar Bin Al-Khaţţāb, the second caliph, and

in the documentations texts /documentary reports at our hand, some

traditionists have kept his name undercover, while others were more explicit.

Additionally, we have other historical accounts confirming that it was a

sustained meditated policy by the second caliph, not a spur of the moment

attitude.

The most outstanding account is the statement made by the second caliph

when the prophet (sawa) was on the brink of death, and he (sawa) was

assaying to document a will that safeguards the Moslem nation from

perplexity and aberrance, and Umar hastened to hinder its writing.

is one of the āĥād reports; and even more it has been categorised as hadith daʾīf (elaborated in

future researches).

56

The hadith portraying the incidence is rendered by Ahlul Sunnah higher-

ranking hadith records. Yet we quote exclusively from the two forefront

references of hadith, i.e. "Sahih Al-Bukhārī" and "Sahih Muslim", as they

suffice to bear witness to the incidence and bind the other party. Afterwards,

an important word for one of the most renowned Islamic scholars, Abu Iṡhāq

Ibrahim Bin Mūsā Al-Lakhmī As-Shāţibī Al-Andalusī is annexed.

This hadith is reported by "Sahih Al-Bukhārī" in four places, three of them are

unique to him, and the fourth is reciprocated by Muslim. The four hadiths are

cited in line with the sequence of the origin:

1. Ubaidullah Bin Abdullah Bin Utbah on the authority of Ibn Abbas (R.A) said:

"when the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) was near to death, and men

were on every side of the house, he (saw-a) said: ‟come along, so

that I write you a script after which you will not go astray”, some of

them said: ‟Indeed the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) is overcome by

pain, you do have the Qur’an; and for us sufficient is the Book of Allah”.

People in the house argued and were engaged in a wrangle, some

were saying: ‟converge on the prophet, so that he may write you a

script after which you are not straying”, while others were saying

something else. With the escalation of their dispute, the Messenger of

Allah (saw-a) said: ‟draw away from me”. Ubaidullah said: Ibn Abbas

used to constantly say: ‟Indeed the calamity, the utter calamity is what

hampered the prophet from writing that very script; it was due to their

clamour and discord.” 47

2. Narrated by Ubaidullah Bin Abdullah from Ibn Abbas his saying: "when the

ailment of the prophet (saw-a) intensified, he said: ‟fetch me a sheet

so that I will write you a script after which you will not go astray”,

Umar said: ‘indeed the prophet (saw-a) is overcome by pain, we do

have the Book of Allah; sufficing for us’. They argued and bustled so

much so that the prophet (saw-a) said: ‘draw away from me; it is

unbecoming you contend in my vicinity’. Ibn Abbas went out saying:

47 “Al-Jāmi Al-Musnad As-Sahih: Kitāb Al-Maghāzī - Book of Military Campaigns“, Ch. “On

the Illness and Demise of the Prophet”, vol. 6, p.9, hadith 4432.

57

‘indeed, the calamity, the utter calamity is what intervened between the

prophet (saw-a) and his writing.” 48

3. Narrated by Ubaidullah Bin Abdullah from Ibn Abbas (R.A) his saying:

"when the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) was at the point of death, and

there were men in the house including Umar Bin Al-Khaţţāb, the

prophet (saw-a) said: ‟come along so that I write you a script after

which you will not go astray”. Umar said: ‟the prophet (saw-a) is

pain-stricken, you do have the Book; sufficient for us is the Book of

Allah”. People in the house argued and were engaged in a wrangle.

Some were saying: ‟move towards the prophet (saw-a) so that he may

write you a script after which you are not straying”, others were

reverberating what Umar had said. As their uproar and dispute

heightened, the prophet (saw-a) said: ‟draw away”. Ubaidullah said:

Ibn Abbas was constantly saying thereafter: ‟Indeed the calamity, the

utter calamity is what hampered the prophet from writing that very

script; it was out of their clamour and discord.” 49

4. Narrated by Saʾīd Bin Jubair who said: ‟Ibn Abbas said: ‘Thursday, and

what will explain to you what Thursday is’! As the ailment of the

Messenger of Allah (saw-a) aggravated, he said: ‟draw near so as to

write you a script that will forever protect you from straying”, they

hassled, and it is improper to contend around a prophet, hence they

said: ‟what is the matter with him!? Is he delirious? ask him then?”, so

they went to face up with him, but he said: let go of me, what I am

experiencing is better than what you assemble for”, he

recommended for them three clauses, saying: ‟Evacuate the

polytheists from the Arab Peninsula, and grant allowance in the

same vein I used to grant them (the recipients)”xiv, as for the third, he

went quiet, or he just said: ‘I forgot it.”50

48 Ibid: same source, vol.1, p.34, hadith no.114.

49 Ibid: same source, vol.7, p.120, hadith 5669.

50 Ibid: same source, vol.6, p.9, hadith: 4431. See also: Al-Qushairī An-Naisābūrī , Abu al-Hussein

Muslim Bin Al-Ĥajjāj, “Sahih Muslim”, Dar Ihia al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, reviewed by

Muhammad Fu’ād Abdul Bāqī, Kitab: “Al-Waṡiyyah - The Book of the Will”, Ch. “Drop the

Will by he who has Nothing to Bequeath”, vol.3, p.1257, hadith no.1637. He said: narrated by

Saʾīd Bin Jubair from Ibn Abbas who said: “Thursday, You know not what the Day of Thursday

is!” then teardrops started to pour forth on his cheeks, visible like arrayed pearls, and he said: the

58

As regards Abu Isĥāq As-Shāţibī word promised to the reader, it is quoted

from the chapter entitled: ‟On the Reason for the Breakup of the Heretical

Factions from the Moslem Bloc” (Ch.9) in his book ‟Al-Itiśām", in which the

author campaigns against what strikes him as heresies; the type of novelties

that tear the Ummah apart, foster conflicts and distance people from the right

path. After sketching how epithets like ‘disunion’ and ‘dissension’ are

characteristic of the heretical people, he moves on to explain the motives that

incite them. From his perspective, they are twofold: ‟one is predestined, not

procured by human action, and the other is procured by human action for

which humans are held accountable”. As he distinguishes three areas of

dispute: ‟firstly: dispute on the foundations of the doctrine along with the sub-

foundations. Secondly: on the sub-foundations of the doctrine other than the

foundations. Thirdly: dispute on the general rules of the doctrine and

consensus on the foundations”, he singles out the second and third as the

heart of conflict among Moslems, and expounds that in the second, Moslems

take no blame as it manifests Allah’s Mercy, while the third embodies the sort

of heretical dispute which has been prohibited. Eventually, he elaborates on

the third and last dispute to highlight the motives behind it. On my part, the

message I try to impart for the reader is related to his concept on a

predestined dispute and inevitable dissension originated by Allah (Taʾala)

rather the human action, whereby he says:

‟he (saw-a) was very solicitous and concerned about our solidarity and

guidance to the extent that it was established by hadith from Ibn Abbas (R.A)

his saying: ‟by the time the prophet (saw-a) was on the brink of death, and

men, among whom Umar Bin Al-Khaţţāb, were in the house, he said: ‟come

along so as to write you a script after which you will not go astray”. But

Umar said against that: ‟ailment has overwhelmed the prophet (saw-a). You

do have the Qur’an. Sufficient for us is the Book of Allah”. People in the

house argued and were engaged in a wrangle. Some of them were saying:

‟converge on the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) so that he may write you a

script that protects you from straying’, while others were mimicking Umar.

Messenger of Allah (saw-a) said: “fetch me a sheet and inkwell (or: a panel and ink) to write

you a script that protects you forever from straying”, they said: “the Messenger of Allah (saw-a)

is raving.”

59

When the uproar and dispute escalated around the prophet (saw-a), he said:

‟draw away from me”. So, Ibn Abbas was iterating: ‟Indeed the calamity,

the utter calamity is what hampered the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) from

writing that very script; it was out of their clamour and discord.”

It might be that –God knows best- the Divine Inspiration revealed to him from

Allah that should he write that very script, they will not be misled for the whole

eternity. This way, the Ummah will be exempt from Allah’s saying: ‟they will

not cease to dispute..” to fall into the category of His Mercy: ‟except those

on whom thy Lord has bestowed His Mercy”, yet Allah disdained that for

them and foreordained what is in His Pre-knowledge of discord and

dissension, just as bygone nations had underwent. We submit to Allah Act;

we beseech Him with His grace to fasten our grips to the Book and the

Sunnah and to conclude our lives on that path.”51

My wonders will never cease for what As-Shāţibī says herein! He proclaims

that the prophet (sawa) devotes great care to our guidance and solidarity to

the extent that he summoned Moslems to write a script upon a Divine

Revelation, and that Umar hampered its writing. Yet, he reckons

simultaneously it is by ordinance of Allah (Taʾala) his writing was disrupted,

saying: so, ‟Allah disdained that for them and foreordained what is in His Pre-

knowledge of discord and dissension, just as what bygone nations had

underwent”. Is there a paradox more outrageous than this one that we may

envision!?

In conclusion, I would like to foreground certain points from these excerpts

which in turn highlight some vital dimensions, such as:

1. The prestigious reader should observe that the attitude of the prophet

(sawa) in all the above scenes is unrelenting on requesting a pen and

a paper to record his will. This act, like any other act of the prophet

(sawa), should promptly invoke the Qur’anic description: ‟so accept

51 As-Shāƫibī, Abu Isĥāq Ibrahim Bin Mūsā Bin Muhammad Allakhmī Al-Andalusī, “Al-Iʾtiṡām”,

reviewed by: Mashhῡr Āl Salmān, Maktabat al-Tawhid, Manama, pub.1, 1421 A.H – 2000 A.D,

vol.3, pp.126-127.

60

whatever the Messenger gives you and refrain from whatever he

forbids you.” 52

2. The saying of the prophet (sawa) in the above excerpts ‟you will not

go astray” demonstrates that the script content barely relates to any

frivolous secular matter, or everyday-living matters, but rather hinges

on matters with solemnity like the Ummah salvation, guidance and

safekeeping from aberrance.

3. His saying ‟… after which or after me, you will never go astray”,

indicates to the perpetuity and certainty of the result: ‟not to stray”.

4. Though the above excerpts provide no names for the attendees

whether from Ahlul Bait (as) or the companions in the very room

where he (sawa) faced pangs of death and met his end. But quite

expectedly, they were not a big flock, and restricted to his household

members and a few of the high calibre companions. This conclusion

can be drawn from the surrounding circumstances of the incident in

relevance to time and place. Time in the scene is the hour of death-

struggle of the prophet (sawa), which is the most grievous stretch in

time and the biggest affliction for Moslems in general and the eminent

companions in particular. As for the place factor, our prior knowledge

about the capacity of rooms in that historical period thwarts any thesis

that overstates the number of companions in the room, and overrides

the presumption they were strictly from the circle of eminent

companions.

5. The unanimity of Moslem scholars agreed on the identity of the man,

who disrupted the prophet’s will-writing and claimed he went delirious

from a strenuous pain, as the second caliph Umar Bin Al-Khaţţāb. But

what is striking is that earlier reports kept his name confidential and

only hinted: ‟they said….”, or simply: ‟some of them….”, and, the

ones that were more outright did not exceed beyond his first name

‟Umar”, omitting his second or clan name, which poses the question:

did the intensity of the incident and its serious repercussions on the

one hand, and the fierce domineering personality of the caliph on the

other hand have relevance with the traditionists’ attitude in keeping

52 Al-Ĥashr (7)

61

his name undercover!? This question being the age-old issue looms

large over history and it is inescapable for the reader to think it over.

6. What adds to the absurdity of the situation is that these earlier reports

present Umar as someone more insightful into the prophet's inner

state (sawa) than the person of the prophet (sawa) himself! The

prophet (sawa) says: ‟move towards me or come along so that I

write you the script”, while Umar says against it: do not react

seriously to the prophet’s request for he is pain-stricken or

hallucinating!

However, Umar’s pronouncement cannot be justified in that he was

merely alluding to the prophet’s ailment not intending to prevent the will

writing and only inadvertently disadvantaged him.

We counter say: the reason for rejecting this thesis is dictated by the

import of his pronouncement itself; he did not simply combine two

elements: the Book and Sunnah, saying: ‟sufficient for us are the Book

of Allah and the Sunnah of his prophet”, so as to conjecture that he only

inadvertently deterred the will-documentation. He made a clear-cut

statement: ‟sufficient for us is the Book of Allah”, which reveals he was

fully conscious of the bid to ban the Sunnah and the script that the

Messenger of Allah (sawa) was fretting to write.

If we were not bound by our word not to comprise in this study any

hadith from outside the two Sahih books, we would have proceeded

with bigger profile on the caliph Umar; his sayings and conducts which

are all clustered on the effort to inhibit hadith-recording, exiling the

Sunnah and contenting ourselves with the Holy Qur’an53. Anyhow, I will

53 One of his strategies is to detain the companions and proscribe hadith-narration. Reported by

Shuʾbah Bin Al-Ĥajjāj from Saʾad Bin Ibrahim, from his father: Umar Bin Al-Khaƫƫāb has detained

a number of people including Abu Hurairah, ordering: “curtail narration from the Messenger of

Allah (saw-a)”. They had Abu Hurairah in jail until his death. As-Sā’ib Bin Yazīd said that he

frequently heard Umar saying to Abu Hurairah: “either you quit narrating hadith from the

Messenger of Allah (saw-a) or I exile you to Dous province”. Abu Hurairah signaled to that saying:

“should I have narrated to you these hadiths during the lifetime of Umar, by Allah I will find the

cane flogging my back”!?

Moreover, Umar used to commend his provincial governors on the Islamic provinces and the

companions migrating to these provinces to tighten up hadith-narration, saying: “curtail narration

from the Messenger of Allah (saw-a), and I am indeed your collaborator in that”, or: “dissociate

Qur’an from its interpretation (tafsir), and curtail narration from the Messenger of Allah; go forward

62

cite here these two accounts, and it is down for the reader to detect the

implications and overtones produced by the second account which

illustrate aspects of his personality subsumed by the first account:

• First Account: from Al-Qāsim Bin Muhammad Bin Abu Bakr:

‟news reached Umar Bin Al-Khaţţāb that certain scripts were

circulated around by people. He denounced that and convulsed

about it, and said: O folk of people, news reached me that you

are circulating scripts; and indeed the scripts which are most

equitable and righteous are most gratifying for Allah; so not

anyone of you should keep a script undelivered to me, so that I

may have my say on them”. He added: they thought, by ‟have a

say”, he intends to review and rectify the content to eliminate any

inconsistency among them, and as they handed them over, he

set fire on them.”54

and I am indeed your collaborator in that”. Exemplifying this is the incident with Qurđa Bin Kaʾab

when he was heading to Iraq.

For the above data, see: Ad-Dhahabī, Abu Abdullah Shamsul Dīn Muhammad Bin Ahmed, "Siyer

Aʾlām An-Nubalā’“, reviewed by: co-reviewers under supervision of: Shuʾaib Al-Arna’ῡƫ,

Mussasat al-Risala, vol.3, 1405 A.H - 1985 A.D, vol. 2, p.600 upward & Ibn Abdul Al-Barr,

“Jāmiʾ Biān Al-Iʾlm wa Fađluh”, reviewed by Abu Al-Ashbāl Az-Zuhairī, Ch. Reference to:

“Those who Dispraise the Profuse Narration of hadith Incomprehensively”, vol.1, p.998

upward.

Ad-Dhahabī comments on Umar’s threats to Abu Hurairah: “That is how Umar truly was… he used

to say: ‘curtail narration of hadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw-a)’. He chided more than one

companion for hadith promulgation, and this is what Umar and some others were inclined to.”

Muʾāwiyyah Bin Abu Sufiān exploited this situation effectively to tighten the grip of these stern

Umari measures, and license hadith narration only inasmuch as Umar used to license when he was

in office. He announced: “O people, reduce the narration from the messenger of Allah (saw-a), but

as you will go ahead with narration without fail, then do narrate that which have been circulated

during the era of Umar. Umar was certainly… intimidating people in admonishment of Allah (see:

Aƫ-Ţabaranī, Abu Al-Qāsim Sulaimān Bin Ahmed Al-Lakhmī, “Musnad As-Shāmiyīn”, reviewed

by: Ĥamdi Abdul Majīd As-Salafi, Mussasat al-Risala, pub.1, 1409 A.H- 1989 A.D. vol.3, p. 250).

It is worth mentioning that history swarms with accounts on this profile of Umar life and his

conduct with those who deal with hadith-narration so much so that they can set up an independent

broad field of study. But we will keep that for later stages God Willing.

54 See: Abdul Khāliq, Abdul Ghanī, “Ĥujjiyat As-Sunnah”, the International Institute of Islamic

Thought, Washington, Dar Al-Fikr, Beirut, 1407 A.H, p.359 & Al-Khaţīb al-Baghdādī, Abu Ahmed

63

• Second Account: Narrated by Al-Muqdām Bin Madī Karib Al-

Kindī that the Messenger of Allah (sawa) said: ‟there will be a

time so close when a man, reclining on his couch, would narrate

some hadith of mine saying: ‘parting between us and you is the

Book of Allah (AZW), whatever it deems lawful, we deem lawful;

and whatever it forbids, we deem forbidden. Verily, what the

Messenger of Allah (saw-a) forbids is identical to what Allah

forbids.”55

7. Some parties tried to ascribe the phrase ‟it is unbecoming to contend

around a prophet” to Ibn Abbas not the prophet (sawa)56, but such

claims are unfounded and fallacious, considering that the second

account taken from Al-Bukhārī from his Sahih is sound and explicit in

identifying the utterer as the Messenger (sawa).

Meaning of ‟Al-Hajr”: "Delirium"

Comentators Outlooks & Counter Comments

Apart from a few anomalous views, Al-Bukhārī annotators57 concurred on

defining the lexical meaning of ‟al-Hajr” used to speak ill of the prophet

Bin Ali, “Taqyīd Al-Iʾlm”, reviewed by: Saʾīd Abdul Ghaffār Ali, Dar l-Istaqama, Cairo, pub.1,

1429 A.H- 2008 A.D, pp.53-54.

55 See: Al-Albānī, Muhammad Nāṡirul Dīn, “Sahih Sunnan Ibn Mājeh”, Maktabat Al-Maarif for

publishing and distribution, Riyadh, 1st edition, 1417 A.H-1997 A.D, vol.1, p.21.

56 This view was proposed by Ibn Ĥajar as a probability, while Al-Aʾinī made a passive form

statement: “it was said”. Then, they rectified that to trace it to the Messenger (saw-a). See: Ibn

Ĥajar Al-Asqalānī, Ahmed Bin Ali, “Fatĥ Al-Bārī Sharĥ Saĥiĥ Al-Bukhārī”, reviewed by:

Abdul Aʾziz Bin Abdullah Ibn Bāz et al. Dar al-Salam: Riyadh, pub.1, 1421 A.H- 2001 A.D, vol. 8,

p. 167 & Al-Aʾinī, Abu Muhammad Badrul Dīn Maĥmῡd Bin Ahmed Al-Ĥanafī, “ʾUmdat Al-

Qārī Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī”, reviewed by: Abdullah Mahmῡd Muhammad Umar, Ali Beiđῡn

publications and Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, Pub.1, 1421 A.H- 2001 A.D, vol. 18, p. 79.

57 See: Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalani, “Fatĥ Al-Bārī Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī”, ibid: same source, vol.

8, 167 & Abu Mohammed Al-ʾAini, “ʾUmdat Al-Qārī Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī”, ibid: same

source, vol. 18, p.80 & Al-Qaśţalānī, Ahmed Bin Mohammed, “Irshād As-Sārī Sharĥ Sahih Al-

Bukhārī”, al-Amiriyyah Al-Kubra press, Egypt, pub.7, vol.7, p.462.

64

(sawa) in terms of ‟delirium” and ‟obscenity”. Ibn Ĥajar quoting from Al-

Qurƫubī said: ‟al-Hujr” (with the vowel ‟u” and a mute vowelless ending) is

‟delirium” which signifies what vents out of words from someone affected by

illness, usually incongruent and ultimately worthless for its void essence.” 58

Those annotators have worked out ways to amend and construe the word

‟Hajr” in an agreeable manner, though admittedly they avow and proclaim the

unlikelihood of such a presumption that Allah’s Messenger (sawa) be

susceptible to this kind of personality disorder, pursuant to the Qur'anic verse:

‟nor does he speak out of his desire. This is nothing but a revelation

that is conveyed to him”, and the prophet’s hadith: ‟I say naught but the

truth whether pleased or displeased”. In this venue, Ibn Ĥajar made a

summary of the most prominent interpretations of the word, taken from Al-

Qurƫubī who originally summarised from ʾIyāđ version; and hereby I quote

passages from Ibn Ĥajar with reference to the phrase: "what is the matter

with him? Is he delirious?”

‟Verily, he who uttered that but said it in reprimand to the one who failed to

comply with the prophet’s command and caused to freeze any response to

bring him an ink and pen. It was as though he said: 'how dare you not obey?

Do you think he becomes delirious at illness like others? Comply with his

command and fetch what he requested, for he is someone who does not utter

but the evident truth'. He said: this is the best explanation, and also said: it is

possible that somebody, swept by fleeting doubt, had said it. But considering

the fact that the rest of companions, albeit elites, have not had condemned

his act eliminates this possibility. If there were any counter condemnation, it

would have come into sight through narrations. Equally possible, the utterer,

in a state of awe and bewilderment, which afflicted many of them at his

departure (saw-a), ventured with these words."

Consequently, when he says his final word on these explanations, Ibn Ĥajar

maintains:

58 See: “Fatĥ Al-Bārī” on the same given data. Also see: Al- Qaśţalānī “Irshād As-Sārī Sharĥ

Sahih Al-Bukhārī”, the same given data. He said: “delirium is what the patient utters that is

inconsistent.”

65

‟I said: it sounds to me that the third probability given by Al- Qurƫubī

outweighs the others, which presupposes that the utterer must have recently

entered Islam, and was used to the fact that anyone under excruciating pain

may be too engrossed to be able to compile a draft with the intended

message, and this is likely to happen in reality.”

This very view is equally adopted by Al-ʾAinī in ‟ʾUmdat Al-Qārī’”, as well as

Al-Qasƫalānī.

To elaborate these views, we will digress from the real issue. Therefore we

will take the study only as far as to remind the reader of certain points:

Firstly: the accounts portraying the Umari clipping policy of the prophet's

tradition (sawa), over and above proscribing hadith-recording (part of these

accounts cited above) yield concrete evidences that his acts are but the offspring

of a firm unwavering calculated agenda. Subsequently, those particular acts

which date back to the prophet's time should be interpreted in view of his

future policy when he was in office. Needless to say what Al- Qurƫubī and Al-

Qasƫalānī try to sway our mind for, claiming it was a motion of censure for the

one who overlooked the prophet’s (sawa) order, is never true, considering

what Ad-Dhahabī divulged and certified on the nature of his policy. (See as

above)

Secondly: contention was the immediate upshot of his statement which

avers it was said with the intent to actually deter the writing, not in the least to

denounce an act of disobedience to the prophet's order. It affirms too that the

contention was strictly speaking sparked by that statement, not a bit before or

after that.

Thirdly: Umar’s phrase addressing the spectators: ‟ask him”, immediately

after the statement attributing delirium to the Messenger (sawa) broadcasts a

message that it was by no means intended to prompt subservience to the

prophet’s order (sawa), and this outweighs the view that his former phrase

was in the way to disrupt the writing. If it were not so, he would have

otherwise addressed his speech to the transgressor of the order, not the one

who gave it.

66

Fourthly: all the above theses could have been tolerated if this account

stood alone without other analogous accounts with much the same import to

support it (partly cited above). So can the annotators overlook these accounts?

In what way will they deal with accounts which clearly declare: Umar said:

‟the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) is overcome by pain”, and: ‟sufficient for us

is the Book of Allah”, and expound how the attendees differed into either

saying ‟converge on the prophet (saw-a) so that he may write you a script

after which you will not stray”, or resounded what Umar had said. With all

these conclusive reports on the incident, will there remain any room for

random fanciful interpretations.

Fifthly: pursuant to these points, especially the fourth, Al-Qurƫubī thesis (in his

second probability as transferred by Ibn Ĥajar), that in these circumstances the rest

of surrounding companions should have condemned what Umar said if he

truly said it, represents one absurd extreme view. How can condemnation be

any louder than what happened? All the reports convey a scene of dispute

and dissension in the circle of companions; they had split into two factions:

one faction call for compliance with the prophet’s command, and the second

sides with Umar in his stance!?

67

68

Is the Abstention of the Messenger from Writing

A Tacit Sustenance to the Protesters

Can we presume that, once the prophet (sawa) abstained from writing, he

made a gesture in favour of the protesters implicitly sustaining their

challenge? In other words, had he acknowledged his incapability of writing or

at least its unproductivity?

On our part, we have unshakable faith in the improbability of this theory, and

thereby we retort to those who say vice versa:

Firstly: to show the inner contradiction of the theory, we concede to say that

he (sawa) admitted the conquest of pain over him, but this immediately raises

a second question: would he still admit undergoing a state of hallucination!? I

do not believe any of today’s Moslems can accept this theory, and how can

the prophet (sawa) admit his infirmity, when the holy Qur’an relates about

him: ‟nor does he speak out of his desire. This is nothing but a

revelation that is conveyed to him.”

Secondly: more importantly, if the prophet had approved of that phrase, he

would have said to the speaker: ‟well done, it is true I am beaten by pain, so

you cannot take seriously what I said”! At variance, he proclaims: ‟draw away

from me”, a word fraught with disfavour and disapproval of what is said,

hardly voicing any approval.

Thirdly: with the broadcast of that phrase, the prophet (sawa) refers to the

current stand as ‟contention” saying: ‟you should not contend in my

vicinity”. Therefore if we grant he consented to the offence laid against him

by his challengers, it follows he must have ordered the dissidents from

Umar’s opinion to keep quiet, rather than describing their conduct as

contention, hence ordering them to leave saying: ‟what I am experiencing

now is better than what you assemble for.”

Fourthly: Ibn Abbas portrayal of the scene when the prophet (sawa) quit

writing plainly indicates: ‟calamity”, or rather ‟utter calamity”, which proves

that he deciphered a gesture of disapproval by the prophet (sawa) for what

had been said, and if otherwise the gesture tacitly conveyed approval, there

will be no sense in Ibn Abbas anguish and in what he blurts out: the

‟calamity”, and it ends up that the prophet (sawa) himself is the one who

actuated that calamity, or at the least, he had a hand in its actuating!!

69

We cannot say the prophet (sawa), being the envoy of Heaven with a

mission to guide the whole of mankind, need not react towards these

challenges against his vocation hence freeze his actions, because doing that,

he will disdain the divine mission he is shouldered with. In reality, it has never

been the case that Allah’s messengers would relinquish divine errands just

for being met with opposition by their receptors.

Furthermore we say: it is not unprecedented example that the prophet

(sawa) refers to the issue of 'caliphate' and its relevance to Imam Ali (as); it is

a motif that has been brought forward repeatedly over time. We believe that

the prophet (sawa) left no detail in religion unexplained, according to Allah’s

Saying: ‟this day I have perfected for you your religion, and have

bestowed upon you My bounty in full measure, and have been pleased

to assign for you Islam as your religion. (Follow then, the lawful and

unlawful bounds enjoined upon you.) As for he who is driven by hunger

without being wilfully inclined to sin, sure Allah is All-Forgiving, All-

Compassionate”59 and likewise His Saying (AZW) on behalf of his

Messenger (sawa): ‟Neither does he withhold grudgingly the knowledge

of the Unseen.”60

In point of fact, we necessarily conclude that what the Messenger (sawa) had

essayed to do at the verge of death was merely to bring sharply into focus a

specific issue which has been illuminated time and again in the past. Evoked

by his capacity as a father for this Ummah and feeling of solicitude, as so-

presented in the holy Qur’an: ‟ardently anxious he is over you; to the

believers he is most kind and merciful”61, he wanted to uncover the

ultimate truth that safeguards the Ummah from straying; the truth for which he

consumed his whole noble life to foster and consolidate in the minds of

Moslems. Afterwards, the Imams of Ahlul Bait (as) followed suit of him

focusing throughout the last will on smaller details and particles of the Sharia

that they dedicated their whole lives to teach and promulgate. Exemplifying

this is the will of Imam Aś-Śādiq (as) in which he foregrounded 'Salah-

performance' (the five daily prayers), but that does not mean he never came

across this topic and only in the long run when facing death he would say: ‟O

people, pay heed to your Salah”. He but said it at this juncture for emphasis

59 Al-Mā’idah (3)

60 At-Takwīr (24)

61 At-Tawbah (128)

70

on the magnitude of Salah, and this is ultimately what the prophet (sawa)

willed to do at the moments of death.

As for the reason why the prophet (sawa) desisted from writing and

suspended his last will, the rationale of the story bring us to understand that

by virtue of Umar's words, a rigid barricade was drawn between Moslems and

their Messenger stripping their fervour to respond to him with the pen and

paper, and this has particularly rendered the command of the Messenger

(sawa) valueless and ineffective. Subsequently, if it were ordained for him to

fulfil the writing at any event, the purpose of the script: ''the safeguard of the

Ummah'' will dissolve. It will be inoperative so long as the public will look

upon its content as the product of deliriousness and ailment. Even worse, it

will lead to graver consequences in that it engulfs every prior act and saying

by the prophet (sawa); a portion will be graded as the input of revelation and

another as the projection of illness and deliriousness.

Accordingly, the moral of the script will not only be mislaid, but any attempt to

insist on its writing will bring out abominable repercussions subjugating the

entire prophetic tradition, that has been accrued over time, to interrogation,

doubt and debate, hence leading it to the retrogressive decline altogether.

71

Main Conclusions to Draw from the Theory:

(Sufficient for us: the Book of Allah)

As we swiftly toured through the set of circumstances and facts that surround

the second attitude, we can briefly draw some conclusions from this theory:

‟Sufficient for us is the Book of Allah”:

First Conclusion: this phrase, which mirrors the mainstay of the second

attitude, unreservedly counteracts the Qur’anic clear declaration that truth

and righteousness are associated with the Messenger of Allah (sawa), and

that all the way his utterances are but Divine Revelation, unmarred by

whimsical speculation or falsity.

Second Conclusion: this phrase openly contravenes the prophet’s

command to write the script, noting that all the narrations on the incident

purport it was the Messenger (sawa) in person who made the command.

Third Conclusion: this phrase has become the impetus for suspending the

last will of the Messenger of Allah, and blocking exuberant favour and profuse

reward in store for Moslems. It stood as a barrier against a script that is

described by the prophet (sawa) as a guard against deviation from the right

path: "after which you will not go astray forever". Sufficient is this prophetic

word to illustrate the colossal losses and deprivations incurred on Moslems

by that Umari phrase.

72

Chapter II

The First Portrait

Defiling the Infallible Progeny of the Prophet

(1)

Ibn Taimiyyah: His stand from Imam Ali:

The Love and Grudge Hadith: An Instance

Justifications for Interest in the Topic

Benefits Obtainable from the Topic

The love and Grudge Hadith

The Hadith Sources

The Hadith Overtones

What does it mean: Imam Ali a Norm Distinguishing the Believer

from the Hypocrite

The Standardising Normative Value in the Love and Hatred of Ali

in the Mission Society

Ibn Taimiyyah Method in Approaching Ahlul Bait (as) Virtues and

Prerogatives

The Theoretical Aspect

The Applied Aspect

The Normative Value of the Love of Ali Bin Abu Ţālib (as) and the

Issue of the Companions Uprightness

The Attitude of Qur'an towards the Equivocal Issue of the

Companions' Uprightness

The Attitude of Hadith towards the Equivocal Issue of the

Companions Uprightness

Muʾāwiyyah: Whether or not Resentful of Imam Ali (as)

73

Justifications for Interest in the Topic

A question may arise: why we take special interest in a subject

concerned with the study of Imam Ali (as) merits arguing what gain

might we have in exploring his merits at this juncture? Has not this

subject been saturated with countless products compiled by preceding

scholars? Is not the Islamic library abounding with these compilations?

One more question may also arise: even with the presupposition that

we have satisfactory solid grounds for dealing with the topic of Imam Ali

(as), as regards Ibn Taimiyyah what makes the research single him out

from the whole set of Islamic thinkers? Why should the research be

centred on his thought?

In reply, I’d rather start from the last question, that is, the correlation of

Ibn Taimiyyah with the subject, and the grounds for nominating him as

the browser for the merits of Amīrῡl Mu’minīn (as).

However, no more labour may be required to throw light on the

importance of this joint of research to the reader. It is a common

knowledge that the Salafi trend is witnessing inside the Islamic Sunni

incubators –from over a century and a half- an increase in the number

of adherents, as a result of many historical, social, economic and media

factors in the backdrop whose details are currently irrelevant. But it

matters that we recognise that the expansion of the Salafi trend in

general and the Wahhabi in particular, indicates by necessity to the

spread and centralisation of the front runners thought in the Islamic

milieus.

Moreover, if we considered Ibn Taimiyyah dynamic character and vital

position as a highly acknowledged point of reference for that trend, as

well as the sovereignty of his thought in the minds of his followers and

vigour of his biography being a role model in their conduct, we will be

justified in that direction for the peculiar interest we take in his thought,

its study, examination and filtration. Anyhow, this effort will be

scientifically useful to the overall Islamic thought and likewise socially

advantageous to the Moslem society in the sense that it liberates and

salvages Moslems from twisted trends, divergent from the essence of

the Book and Sunnah, whether intellectually or behaviourally.

74

Actually, the signification of Ibn Taimiyyah in our study is owing to his

disastrous part in distorting rooted intellectual dogmatic facts in the

Islamic thought, and the sinister role of his own thought and person in

subverting the scientific conventions of the Islamic scholastic settings,

and the social inherited traditions of the Moslem community.

So far, any evidence to satisfy the prestigious reader, who may be in

hot haste for details, is beyond this part of the research. I hope that as

he progresses, he will find adequate evidences to support and

elaborate the issue.

As for why we are concerned in the first place with the review of Amīrῡl

Mu’minīn merits, and if there is any advantage behind it, it actually

stems from our preoccupation with the Sunnah of the prophet (sawa),

our own understanding of his character (sawa) as dictated by the holy

Qur’an: ‟Nor does he speak out of his desire. This is nothing but a

revelation that is conveyed to him”62, and from our commitment

towards his person (sawa) as enjoined on us by the Qur’anic verse: {so

accept whatever the Messenger gives you and refrain from

whatever he forbids you}63. More plainly, what we are ‟given” from the

prophet (sawa) on the feats and virtues of the great character of Imam

Ali (as), and what is bestowed on him by the prophet (sawa) of profound

reverence and high esteem in an unprecedented way with other

companions are the motives for navigating this subject.

The truth that Imam Ali’s merits and feats are unmatched by any of the

companions is not a mere allegation unqualified for, but a crystal-clear

fact asserted by many first level narrators, and there is a big number of

narrations in this respect, part of which:

5. Al-Hafiz, Jalālul Dīn As-Siyūţī allocated a whole chapter to the subject

in his book ‟Tārīkh Al-Khulafā'”, under the title: ‟A Chapter on

Hadiths on his Merits”. Stated in the chapter: ‟Imam Ahmed Bin

Ĥanbal said: on no one’s virtues, amongst the companions of the

62 An-Najm: (3-4)

63 Al-Ĥashr: (7)

75

Messenger (saw-a), there has been renderings as much as on Ali’s

(R.A)”64

6. What Ahmed Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Bin Ĥajar Al-Haitami at the start of

part two in his book ‟Aś-Śawā'iq” had cited: ‟concerning his merits

(may Allah be pleased with him and ennobles his face): they are enormous,

great and renowned, until he said: no amount of virtues were

rendered on anyone as much as those which have been rendered

on Ali. Ismāʾil Al-Qāđī, An-Nasā'ī and Abu Ali An-Naisābūrī all said:

‟there have been no narrations with finest and most well-founded

sanad on any of the companions than the narrations on Ali.”65

Ibn Ĥajar tries later to come up with some explanation for this

phenomenon in the Islamic heritage, saying: ‟then when that dispute

and the insurgency against him took place, the companions who have

heard hadiths on his merits, started to broadcast them as ethical

teachings for the Ummah. Afterwards when the affliction aggravated,

and when a faction from Banu Umayyah initiated a ceaseless onslaught

against him on the pulpits; debasing and abusing him with offensive

words, and the Kharijites (curse be upon them)xv coincided with them, and

even more went far-fetched to declare his apostasy, the great masters

from the traditionists of Ahlul Sunnah reacted by absorbing into

propagating his virtues so much so that they multiplied, so as to morally

instruct the Ummah and to triumph for the truth.”66

The above quotation purports a certain truth on which we congregate

with Ibn Ĥajar, that is, the Companions School substantially differ from

the model of Islam nurtured by the Umayyads. The Umayyad faction

has reserved no effort –or as expressed by Ibn Ĥajar ‟initiated

ceaseless onslaught”- for disparaging the character of Imam Ali (as),

slandering and offensively abusing him on the pulpits of Moslems.

64 As-Siyūţī, Imam Al-Hafiz Jalalul Dīn Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abu Bakr, “Tārīkh Al-Khulāfā’”, al-

Maktabah al-Asriya, Saida, Beirut, p. 191.

65 Ibn Ĥajar Al-Haitamī, Ahmed bin Mohammed Bin Ali As-Sa’di, “Aś-Śawai’q Al-Muĥriqah”,

reviewed by: Abdul Raĥmān At-Turkī et al, Mussassat al-Risala, pub.1, 1997 A.D, vol.2, p.353.

66 Ibid: same source

76

We should not intermingle the two intellectual trends as far Amīrῡl

Mu’minīn (as) is concerned. We are fully aware of the methodical

differences between the Umayyad trend whose main concern is to

debase Imam Ali (as), and the trend of Ahlul Sunnah School who have

liberally spent efforts to broadcast his virtues and to uphold the truth.

From our side, not in the least we doubt in the latter’s principled

attitude.

Best exemplifying this is An-Nasā’ī67 attitude and the circumstances

under which he wrote his renowned book: ‟Khaśā'iś Amīrῡl Mu’minīn,

Ali Bin Abu Ţālib.”

67 Given on his biography by Ad-Dhahabī in his book “Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā’” the following:

“The Scrupulous imam Al-Hafiz, Sheikh ul-Islam and hadith reviewer: Abu Abdul Raĥmān,

Ahmed bin Shuʾaib Bin Ali Bin Sinan, Bin Baĥr Al-Khurāsanī An-Nasā’ī, author of “As-Sunnan”).

(See: Ad-Dhahabī, Shamsul Dīn Mohammed Ahmed bin Uthman, “Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā’ ”,

Mussasat al-Risala, supervised the book the review and hadith extraction: Shuʾaib Al-Arnā’ūţ. The

chapter reviewed by: Akram Al-Būshī, pub.1, 1403-1983, vol.14, p.125).

He said elsewhere:

(Al-Hafiz Abu Ali An-Naisāburī said: “the imam told us that, in hadith-reporting, Abu Abdul

Raĥmān An-Nasā’ī is certainly unequalled.”

While Abu Al-Hassan Ad-Dar Quţnī said: “Abu Abdul Raĥmān comes to the fore when anyone of

his age, who is identified with this discipline of science, is mentioned”. Also Al-Hafiz Bin Ţāhir

said: “I asked Saʾad Bin Ali Az-Zinjānī about a certain personality from the hadith reporters. He

authenticated him, and I said: An-Nasā’ī had weakened his reliability. So he said: O Son, Abu

Abdul Raĥmān imposed provisions on hadith-reporters harder than those of Al-Bukhārī and

Muslim.”

I said (the speaker: Ad-Dhahabī): “he told the truth, as he attenuated the reliability of a group of the

personalities appearing in Sahih Al-Bukhārī and Sahih Muslim. […] I said: no body on the top list

of the three hundred can be a better memoriser of hadith than him. He is superbly skilled with

hadith, its defects, and the personalities of the reporters, more than Moslem, Abo Dawūd and Abu

ʾĪsā. He follows the same course of Al-Bukhārī and Abu Zurʾah (ibid: pp.131-133).

The question that imposes itself hereunder: if Ad-Dhahabī “Sheikh ul-Islam” thinks that An-Nasā’ī

is more skilfully conversant with the hadith than Muslim as well as with diagnosing the defects of

hadiths and the personalities of reporters, as signalled by the reviewer of chapter 12 of “Siyer

Aʾlām An-Nubalā’ ”: Śāliĥ As-Samar –reviewed under the supervision of Shuʾaib Al-Arnā’ūţ-

saying: “the supremacy of Sahih Muslim over Sahih Al-Bukhārī” according to the Maghāribah (the

Westerners: North Africa) and Abu Ali an-Naisābūrī from Al-Mashāriqah (the Easterners: Arab

countries to the east of the Red Sea) (for details see: vol.12, p.566), if that was the case, then why

77

has not the book of An-Nasā’ī “As-Sunan” been duly rated as a top grade book on a par with Al-

Bukhārī and Muslim books?

Probably the reply can be illustrated by the two incidents below, as reported by Ad-Dhahabī in the

same source:

1. Abdul Raĥmān Bin Mandah said on the authority of Ĥamzah Al-ʾAuqbī Al-Maśrī et al: at the

final stage of his life, An-Nasā’ī left Egypt heading towards Damascus where he was asked about

Muʾāwiyah and what has been narrated on his merits. He said: “so he (Muʾāwiyah) does not accept

to be head-to-head with him (Imam Ali), and rather he wants to preside over him”. He added: they

started to prick him on his testis (the book reviewer Shuʾaib Al-Arnā’uţ said hereunder in his

footnote: “on his flanks”, while in “Shadharāt Ad-Dhahab”, it was stated: “on his testis”, until he

was evacuated from the Mosque and was carried to Ar-Ramlah province where he died.

Ad- Dār Quţnī said: “he started his journey for Hajj, and in the way he faced tribulation in

Damascus and was martyred. (Ad-Dhahabī: “Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā”, ibid, vol.14, p.132)

The last phrase of Ad-Dār Quţnī “he was martyred” clarifies that An-Nasā’ī was murdered, and it is

obvious his murderers were the upholders of the Umayyad trend who did not like his sound logic

that clings strongly to the prophetic Sunnah and abstains from acts of falsification by transferring

forged hadiths, or distorting the Sunnah through concealment of the truth about Muʾāwiyah and his

lowliness. Therefore, we find Ad-Dhahabī proceeding with the comment: “he is following the same

course of Al-Bukhārī and Abu Zurʾah, yet he harbours little of Shiʾism and a state of deviance from

Imam Ali antagonists like Muʾāwiyah and ʾAmru” (ibid: p.133), that is, loyalty to Imam Ali versus

disloyalty to his antagonists.

Factually, that is the core problem of An-Nasā’ī: (his inclination to Ali and indifference to his

antagonists), an attitude that is deemed, according to them, a blatant mischief bringing the downfall

of the person even though he descends from the rank of An-Nasā’ī. Any prudent reader can discern

the reason why the books of Al-Bukhārī and Muslim were put at the forefront whereas other

existing hadith books which are not less significant, or more significant from a certain perspective,

remained in background.

2. Al-Wazīr Ibn Ĥinzābah said: (I heard Mohammed bin Mūsā Al-Ma’mūnī, a companion of An-

Nasā’ī saying: I heard a certain folk censuring Abu Abdul Rĥmān An-Nasā’ī for allocating his book

“Khaśā’iś” for Ali (R.A) while neglecting to compile on the two Sheiks merits. So I had this

reported to him, for which he said: “I have been to Damascus where a great number of people

wandering astray from Ali, so I compiled the book of “Khaśā’iś” with the hope that Allah (Taʾala)

may guide them to the right path”. Afterwards, he compiled his book on the companions’ virtues

“Fađā’il Aś-Śaĥābah”, and they came then to say, while I was listening: “are you not writing a

review on Muʾāwiyah’s virtues…?”, and he retorted: “what should I write in the review? Is it the

hadith: O Allah never let his belly be satisfied from food?”, and the inquirer fell silent thereafter.

(ibid:129)

The reader should be acquainted that the denunciation of Al-Hafiz An-Nasā’ī for the proposal of the

Umayyad partisans, and his injurious winking at Muʾāwiyah which points to the prophetic hadith:

“O Allah never let his belly be satisfied” has not deflected the Umayyad adherents from their

intention (further details given below). They even more carried it too far by turning An-Nasā’ī wink

78

An-Nasā’ī is unanimously recognised to belong to Ahlul Sunnah school

of thought, far from the Umayyad trend.

7. What Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalanī opined to in his book ‟Fatĥ Al-Bārī Sharĥ

Sahih Al-Bukhārī” saying: ‟Ahmed, Ismail Al-Qāđī, An-Nasā’ī and Abu

Ali An-Naisābūrī have said: ‟there have been no narrations with the

finest and most well-founded sanad on any companion than the

narrations on Ali.”68

In point of fact, it appears that our concern with Imam Ali virtues is not out

of willingness to do that or in response to some party advocating and

voicing this issue, but upon a principle instituted by the Prophet (sawa)

who: ‟Nor does he speak out of his desire. This is nothing but a

revelation that is conveyed to him.”

into a merit and a feat for Muʾāwiyah, and merging this hadith originally intended to condemn

Muʾāwiyah with other hadiths, forged by their manufacturers, e.g. Ad-Dhahabī’s comment on the

above hadith: “this might be a virtue, as it had been said by the prophet (saw-a): “O Allah,

whomever I have cursed or verbally abused let it be a purification and mercy for him”. Other

similar endeavours are manifest in manipulating the condemnation: “may Allah not let his belly be

satisfied” alleging that it connotes saving him from undergoing hunger on the Doomsday, according

to the prophetic hadith: “the more extended the time people are overstuffed from food in this

World, the more extended their hunger on the Doomsday”!! (See Al-Buśairī: Ahmed Bin Abu

Bakr Bin Ismā’īl, “Itĥāf Al-Khaiyarah Al-Maharah bi Zawāi’d Al-Masanīd Al-ʾAsharah, reviewed

by: Abu Abdul Raĥmān ʾAdil Bin Saʾīd et al, Makatabat al-Rushd, Riyadh, pub. 1, 1419-1998,

vol.5, p.310)

68 Ibn Ĥajar Al-Haitami, Ahmed Bin Ali Al-Asqalānī, “Fatĥ Al-Bārī Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī”,

Dar al-Marifa, 1379 A.H, vol. 7, 71.

79

Benefits Obtainable from the Topic

Motives for interest in the creditable character of Amīrῡl Mu’minīn (as) have

been laid out earlier entailing that this subject is important on its own merit as

to foreground and bring to light the Sunnah of prophet Muhammad (sawa),

and the bearing it has on our contemporary world. Therefore, to deal with it is

not by way of fulfilling a desire to enter a race for the top list of virtues among

companions. More specifically, our purpose is not solely to honour the

exemplary character of Amīrῡl Mu’minīn or meet an ethical requirement

insomuch as to delineate the role anticipated from every Moslem as he gains

insight into the matter.

The fruits which are reaped from this subject are plentiful and they extend to

many levels such as the ideological and historical, all springing from our faith

that his virtues and merits (as) are solid universal facts. Only partly we cite

these benefits:

First Benefit:

Bind the Opponent by what he Made Binding upon himself

As we navigate the tradition of Moslem scholars focusing more intently on the

Companions School, it transpires that the criterion for defining the notion of

'Caliphate'xvi is specific and clear-cut. It subsumes the precedence of the

successor (Caliph) in virtue, and this precedence is restrictively the crucial

touchstone for appointing prospective nominees in the right hierarchal order

in lieu of the Messenger (sawa). As a corollary, the one with utmost moral

excellence is the one who has the right to this divine momentous position.

From here, we figure out why the Companions school is so adamant to

establish the precedence of Abu Bakr and Umar over Ali Bin Abu Ţalīb (as),

and even more the supremacy of Uthman according to some group. This

determination is out of belief in the inseparability between precedence and

eligibility to Caliphate.

Ibn Taimiyyah said in this regard: ‟because the prophet (saw-a) is the best

and finest of all creatures, and whoever bears the highest resemblance to

him, he is surely superior to the one who does not. And so long as the

Caliphate is a succession to prophethood not a monarchical possession, the

one who would succeed him and be in his place should be his analogue. And

he who bears the biggest resemblance to him is surely the best and finest, as

80

he who succeeds him must be the closest analogue to him, and that closest

analogue must be the best and finest, thus he who succeeds him must be the

best and finest.”69

It is true that there is a small group of the Muʾtazilah who believe in the

precedence of Imam Ali (as) over the remaining caliphs, and that the

Caliphate had passed to the less worthy other than the worthier, but that is

strictly limited to the Muʾtazilah and other groups almost of the same

mentality, barely infiltrating the public opinion of Moslems. The conviction of

the Companions School that no Naś exists from the Messenger (sawa) to

name the caliph person is what made them resort to alternative criterion for

identifying the one with priority and eligibility to the reign. The criterion is

supremacy in religion and antecedence in Islam, that is, the magnitude of

effect he had on Islam: offerings, sacrifices and role in backing religion and

the great prophet of Islam (sawa). Consequently, should this level of

precedence be demonstrated for someone, he certainly has the right to the

caliphate!

Upon this criterion, the School tried to inaugurate a new cultural context in

researching the issue of Caliphate, according to which dozens of books were

compiled, revolving around the merits of the three caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar

and Uthman. Accordingly, chronicles on their heroic actions started to

emerge; the first caliph's early migration with the Messenger (sawa) (the

Cave tale), his financial jihad by spending for the mission of Islam etc. the

second caliph's devotion, bravery and valour in the way of the truth and

mission, and so forth with the third caliph.

In this study, we try to assume for the sake of argument that what the logic of

precedence states is true; a precedence conducive to the belief in one's

eligibility to the reign of Caliphate, although it is inconsistent with our logic

and what we ideologically reckon as the standard. To the best of our belief,

we hold to the theory of Naś from the prophet (sawa); we think too this Naś

clearly identifies the nominee as Ali (as) as the immediate rightful caliph for

Moslems after the prophet (sawa). However, even if we only temporarily

relinquish our belief and accept the opposite approach and standard, we still

think in practice they mistook in the applied research. This is because as we 69 Ibn Taimiyyah, Abu Al-Abbas Taqiyyul Dīn Ahmed Bin Abdul Ĥalīm Al-Ĥarranī Al-Ĥanbalī,

“Minhāj As-Sunnah”, reviewed by: Muhammad Rashād Sālim, The Islamic University of Imam

Muhammad Bin Saud, Saudi Arabia, pub.1, 1406 A.H - 1986 A.D, vol.4, p.513.

81

probe into the tradition of the Companions School, we will end up into

findings contradicting the results anticipated from the research, and it

transpires this tradition documents and testifies for the precedence of Imam

Ali (as) and his antecedence over the remainder, henceforth his eligibility to

the successorship of the Messenger (sawa).

It should be noted that this kind of deductive reasoning we follow, i.e. to

accord with the opponent’s view and postulate his logic, which deems

precedence parallel to rightfulness to reign, is the very controversial method

that Imam Ali (as) leaned on across his book: "Nahj Al-Balaghah" in many of

his speeches. More often than not, we find him declaring he is the one with

priority; the one with precedence, as if he aims to say: so long as this is your

approach and pathway in tackling the issue of Caliphate, in that you rely on

one's virtues and applaudable acts irrespective of the prophet's will and Naś,

I would say to this: in line with your logic itself, I am the best and most worthy

of this post not any other.

In consequence, the first benefit we obtain from treading on this topic is to

bind the opponent by what he is binding himself, and to deduce what proves

the disintegration of the method they carry out in their research and the

tentative nature of conclusions drawn upon that method, and the fact that the

truth runs counter to their findings and derivations, all based on their heritage.

Yet, in order to preserve the scientific standards of the research and

constrain any fallacious debate, we shall stick to three clauses as regards the

narrations we use to corroborate Imam Ali precedence over others. These

clauses are:

Clause one: to be sound

Clause two: to be explicit

Clause three: to have received the consensus of the two Schools: Ahlul

Sunnah School and the Imami Ahlul Bait School.

These three clauses sum up the technique that we will use throughout this

study, according to which we will not cite narrations in the interest of Imam Ali

(as) only where both Schools have concurred on their authentication, and

when they are explicit in conveying the message.

Despite the serious challenges and scientific difficulties that pervade this

technique, we chose it on purpose with scrupulous care for knowing it is the

quickest access to the reader who pursues the truth and wants to be

82

reassured. It becomes especially important as we have from our Islamic

tradition plenty of texts available at the present day, voicing the opinion that

‟the Ummah will not concur on error”, and thereby it is not liable to go

astray70, whereby the Ummah herein denotes: (scholars all over the Islamic

nation with the diversity of trends, intellectual ideological pillars and so forth).

That is to say, if the scholars' views congregate on a certain matter of faith in

any field of knowledge, this will be precisely the clue for its soundness,

70 The Narratives given in this context are great in number, part of which:

1. Al-Hussein Al-Idrisī, renowned as Al-Kittānī, Abu Al-Faiđ Jaʾfar, “Nuźm Al-Mutanāthir

min Al-Hadith Al-Mutawātir”, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, 1400 A.H -1980 A.D, pp.104-105,

said: “the hadiths on the impeccability of the Ummah, stating that it does not concur on aberrance

and error, are:

Ibn Al- Humām mentioned in his book “At-Taĥrīr”, and others also did, that this hadith is

mutawātir in import. He stated: ‘among the heard evidences (Samʾī hadith) (hadiths transferred as

someone heard), that the consensus is a conclusive authoritative proof, there are āĥād or mutawātir

hadiths (see glossary), and others are reciprocal, all stating: my Ummah will not concur on error,

and so forth with many others.

Some wordings of the hadith: “Allah will not let my Ummah unite on aberrance”. This hadith was

extracted by At-Tirmidhī et al on the authority of Ibn Umar, extracted by Ahmed et al on the

authority Abu Buśrah Al-Ghafārī, extracted by Abu Dāwūd et al on the authority of Abu Malik Al-

Ashʾarī, extracted by Ibn Mājeh et al on the authority of Anas, extracted by Al-Ĥākim in “Al-

Mustadrak” on the authority of Ibn Abbas, and also adduced by him in “Al-Maqāśid” under the

letter Lam-alif –LA.”

He said as he proceeds: “from the sum of hadiths, this hadith is mashhūr (see glossary) in its

content, with many chains of transmission and authoritative evidences, all are among the hadiths

marfūʾ (see glossary) that is traceable to the prophet (sawa) by the chain of reporters, and other

categories of hadith.”

2. Ibn Ĥanbal, Abu Abdullah Ahmed Bin Mohammed, “Al-Mawsūʾah Al-Ĥadīthiyyah:

Musnad Imam Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal”, Mussasat al-Risala, Beirut, 1421 A.H – 2001 A.D, ser/ss:

45, the part reviewed and the hadiths extracted and annotated by: Shuʾaib Al-Arna’ūt et al, p.200,

hadith: 27224.

3. Al-Khaţīb Al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr Bin Ahmed Bin Ali Bin Thābit, “Al-Faqīh wal

Mutafaqqih”, reviewed by: ʾĀdil Bin Yūsuf Al-ʾAzāzī, Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, Saudi Arabia, 1417 A.H

– 1996 A.D, vol.1, p. 423, hadith: 447 and 448.

4. Al-Albānī, Muhammad Naśirul Dīn, “Silisilat Al-Aĥādīth Aś-Śaĥiĥah”, Maktabat al-

Maarif for publishing and distribution, Riyadh, 1415 A.H -1995 A.D, vol.3, p.319, hadith no.1331.

He said after the transfer of the hadith through several routes “I said: the hadith from all these

routes is ĥasan (see glossary)”

83

validity and compliance with the intellectual dogmatic Islamic standards.

Consequently, whoever wants to lunch a discussion against the concepts and

notions of this study, he too must conform to the same technique we

followed, viz. it is inept for the second party to debate relying mainly on his

own doctrinal tradition while dismissing Ahlul Bait tradition, henceforth trying

to obligate us with the findings of that discussion, as from the very start it is

reduced to a form of stereotyped prejudiced discourse, and it cannot thus

obligate the first party whose intellectual and ideological premises

descending from a variant tradition.

Second Benefit:

Absolution of the Charge: Shiʾa of Ahlul Bait Fanatic and Heretic

The second prospective benefit in this study -a derivative from the first- is to

expose the illegitimacy and invalidity of the wrongfully unfairly filed charge

against the Shiʾa as fanatic and heretic, or rather against anyone pro the

precedence of Ali (as) over the rest of companions.

Running over the Islamic history, we will be ascertained beyond doubt that

the crisis of the Shiʾa antagonists with the followers of Ahlul Bait and the

barefaced lies released against them is not in effect to the technicalities and

particularities of the Shiʾite ideology. It is neither the Shiʾa theology nor belief

in the Imams' impeccability that have occasioned this hostility, but other

elements on a much narrower scale. Sheer belief in the precedence of Ali

(as) over the companions is deemed inadmissible, in which case the fiercest

and most ruthless descriptions are applicable to the believer. This is exactly

the backbone of the body of thought of the Umayyad Islam; it perceives of the

Shiʾite individual as a heretic believer, not because he falls for the concept of

impeccability but for the love of Ali (as) and the favourable rank he assigns to

him above others.

Best exemplifying the definition of Schism in terms of Ali’s favouritism is Ibn

Ĥajar statement given below:

‟Schism is ultimately the love Ali and seeing him presiding over the

companions; whosoever rates him above Abu Bakr and Umar, he is a radical

Shiʾite to be called: Rāfiđī, or else a Shiʾite. If on top of that, he adds

84

swearing and open grudge against them, he is extremist in his Rafđ, while if

he believes in Rajʾahxvii in this World, he is even a greater extremist.”71

This conviction in itself is sufficient to recognise the person as a heretic; it is a

minor heresy to prefer Ali (as) to other companions, and a major heresy to

prefer him to Abu Bakr and Umar. Let the prestigious reader reflect on the

text below:

Ad-Dhahabī says in the biography of Abān Bin Taghlub:

‟A deep-seated ardent Shiʾite, but trustworthy. For us will be his honesty, and

against him will be his heresy. Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal, Yaĥyā Bin Maʾīn and Abu

Ĥātam have authenticated him. Ibn ʾAdiy also hinted to him saying: he was

extreme in Shiʾism. As-Saʾdī said about him: he is erratic and publicly

confessing his sins.

Someone might wonder: how can a heretic person be authenticated, when

the level of acceptability is to have fairness and excellence? How can

somebody with heresy be fair?

In answer to that: the heresy has two facets: a minor heresy such as

extreme Schism, or Schism free from extremism or erraticism… then the

major heresy as in total rejection which can be overstated extreme level,

added to the liberty in demeaning Abu Bakr and Umar … hence calling for

that … at the moment I cannot recall in this facet the memory of either honest

or trustworthy man. Rather, lying is their motto and circumspectionxviii and

hypocrisy are their garments, so how can we accept the reports of someone

who is like that? Nay, God forbids”72, he also says: ‟Abān Bin Taghlub has

71 See: Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalani, Shahābul Dīn Abu Al-Fađl Ahmed Bin Ali Bin Mohammed,

“Hadyi As-Sārī fī Muqaddamat Fatĥ Al-Bārī: Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī, annotated by: Abdul

Raĥmān Al-Barrāk, reviewed by: Abu Qutaibah Naźar Al-Fariābī, Dar Ţaibah, Riyadh, pub.1, 1426

A.H-2005 A.D, vol.2, Ch. “On Discerning the Motives of Slandering”, p. 1238.

72 Ad-Dhahabī, Shamsul Dīn Abu Abdullah Mohammed Bin Ahmed bin Uthman, “Mizān Al-

Iʾtidāl fī Naqd Ar-Rijāl”, reviewed by: Ali Muhammad Al-Bajāwī, Dar al-Marifa, Beirut, pub.1,

1382 A.H - 1963 A.D, vol.1, pp.5-6.

85

never hit on the subject of the two Sheikhs; he might be seeing Ali better than

them.” 73

Let us stop over the notion that is used in the above text as plea to categorise

Abān Bin Taghlub as a heresy-maker, and contemplate the meaning of

‟heresy” in this very connection? It means nothing but being the Shiʾite of Ali,

that is, having affection, loyalty, and adherence to him and preference to

others. What else purported but that sense, particularly when reinforced by

Ad-Dhahabī statement that Abān Bin Taghlub has never hit on the subject of

the two Sheikhs? So what justifications are still pendant to accuse him of

heterodoxy but his love to Ali (as) and faith in his precedence over the two

Sheikhs, simply what they see as transgressing the red line. This is ultimately

what made them categorise Ibn Abu Al-Ĥadīd as Shiite and insist on that,

though he clearly acknowledges in his explanation of "Nahj Al-Balāghah" the

validity and legitimacy of the homage paid to Abu Bakr Caliphate! The reason

for this is favouring Ali (as) over Abu Bakr.74 Let us run across what Ibn Abu

Al-Ĥadīd says as regards the issue of Caliphate:

‟All our Sheikhs (may Allah have mercy on them), the earlier and the latest, from

Basra and Baghdad, have agreed unanimously that the homage paid to Abu

Bakr for Caliphate is valid and legitimate […]. They differed only on the matter

of precedence […]. As for us we head towards what our Sheikhs from

Baghdad headed to in assigning ‟precedence” to him (as).

This extract implies an overt declaration by Ibn Abu Al-Ĥadīd that he believes

in the validity and legitimacy of the allegiance made to Abu Bakr. Yet, he is

emphatically linked to Shiʾa faction, just for his closing phrase that expresses

a view in favour of Ali (as), and that is the very aspect that caused Ad-

73 Ibid: same source: p.6

74 See for example: Ibn Kathīr Ad-Dimashqī, ʾImādul Dīn Abu Al-Fidā’ Ismail Bin Umar, “Al-

Bidāyah wal Nihāyah”, reviewed by: Abdullah bin Abdul Muĥsin At-Turkī in collaboration with

The Centre for Research and Arabic Islamic Studies, al-Hijr for publishing, distribution and

advertising, pub.1, 1419 A.H - 1998 A.D, vol.17, p.354.

86

Dhahabī to describe Abān Bin Taghlub as heretic. When he referred to him

as 'resolute/ forbearing', he hastened to add that it is because he is

'trustworthy', as if the Shiʾite individual for Ad-Dhahabī is originally

mendacious at the base, or actually that is what he concretely stated in his

above phrase on the second facet: ‟currently, I cannot recall in this facet the

memory of neither honest nor trustworthy man. Rather, lying is their motto

and dissimulationxix and hypocrisy are their garments.”

In any case, with the conclusion we drew from the analysis of the second

benefit, that the precedence and distinction of Imam Ali (as) in every respect

and in a matchless way over the companions, is a vivid fact in the books and

compositions of the Companions School and Ahlul Sunnah, the

fallaciousness of such statements against the Shiʾa becomes quite

perceptible.

87

Hadith of love and Grudge

First Research: Hadith Sources

The hadith under scrutiny is from the range of hadiths that have been handed

down by the Islamic tradition with variable patterns and wordings. It is the

immediate rendering of Amīrūl Mu’minīn (as) from the Messenger (sawa) with

a content addressed to him: ‟No one but a believer would love you, and

no one but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against you”, or alternatively

other pertinent sayings with similar content but different patterns.

It is incorporated by the myriad of books and compilations of the Companion

School; and hereby some contexts from these books:

First Context: what is adduced in "Sahih Muslim": transferred from ʾAdiy

Bin Thābit from Zur, he said: Ali said: ‟by Him, He who split the seed and

originated the breeze, it is the covenant of the untutored prophet (sawa)

to me that no one but a believer would love me, and no one but a

hypocrite would nurse a grudge against me.”75

Second Context: what is adduced in " Sahih Ibn Ĥabbān": transferred from

ʾAdiy Bin Thābit from Zur Bin Ĥubaish from Ali Bin Abu Țālib (as), he said:

‟‟by Him, He who split the seed and originated the breeze, it is the

covenant of the untutored prophet (sawa) to me: indeed no one but a

believer would love me, and no one but a hypocrite would nurse a

grudge against me.”76

75 Al-Qushairī An-Naisaburī, Muslim Ibn Al-Ĥajjāj, “Sahih Muslim”, elaborated by: Abu Ṡuha’ib

Al-Karmī, Directed and executed by: the team of Bait Al-Afkar Adawliah for publishing and

distribution, Riyadh, 1419 A.H – 1998 A.D, vol.1, Kitab: “Al-Īmān - The Book of Faith”, Ch.33:

“Evidence for: Love of Al-Ansār and Ali (R.A) is a Segment and Sign of Faith”, hadith no.78,

p.60.

76 Al-Fārisī, ʾAla’ul Dīn Ali Bin Balbān, “Sahih Ibn Ĥabbān bi Taqrīb Ibn Balbān”, reviewed,

annotated and the hadiths extracted by: Shuʾaib Al-Arna’ūt, Mussasat al-Risala, vol.15, p.367,

hadith: 6924.

88

The book reviewer Shuʾaib Al-Arnāʾῡt annotated: its chain of transmission is

authentic, its reporters are reliable; recruited by the two Sheikhs apart from

Muhammad Bin Aṡ-Ṡabāĥ Al-Jarjarā’ī. Nevertheless, Abu Dāwῡd and Ibn

Mājeh narrated from him; he is trustworthy, and been scrutinised”.

Third Context: what is adduced in ‟Musnad Abu Yaʾlā Al-Mῡṡulī”: from

ʾAdiy Bin Thābit from Zur Bin Ĥubaish from Ali (as), he said: ‟by Him, He

who split the seed and originated the breeze, it is the covenant of the

Messenger of Allah (sawa) to me that indeed no one but a believer

would love you, and no one but a hypocrite would nurse a grudge

against you.”77

The book reviewer Hussein Salīm annotated: its chain of transmission is

authentic.

Fourth Context: what is adduced in "Musnad Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal": from

ʾAdiy Bin Thābit from Zur Bin Ĥubaish, he said: Ali said: ‟By Allah, from that

which is covenanted to me by the Messenger of Allah (sawa): indeed no

one but a believer would love me, and no one but a hypocrite would

nurse a grudge against me.”78

The two book reviewers annotated: ‟its chain of transmission is warranted

after the provisions of the two Sheikhs except for ʾAdiy Bin Thābit79 […]”, then

they said80: ‟it was extracted by Ibn Mājeh from the route of Abdullah Bin

77 Abu Yaʾla Al-Mawṡilī, Ahmed Bin Ali Bin Al-Muthannā At-Timīmī, “Musnad Abu Yaʾla Al-

Mawśilī, reviewed and hadiths extracted by: Hussein Salīm Asad, Dar al-Mamun for Heritage,

Beirut, vol.1, p.251, hadith no.391.

78 Ibn Ĥanbal, Abu Abdullah Ahmed Bin Muhammad As-Shaibānī, “Musnad Imam Ahmed Bin

Ĥanbal”, reviewed, annotated and the hadiths extracted by: Shuʾaib Al-Arna’ῡt et al, Mussasat al-

Risala, pub.1, 1416 A.H – 1995 A.D, vol.2, p.71, hadith no. 642.

79 Ibid: same source, p.71

80 Ibid: same source, p.73. I would like to remind the prestigious reader that the above excerpt

comprises the volume and page numbers of each given source. But due to having multi and varying

editions, it will be pointless to elaborate on this data and include the extractions of hadith, and

thereby we skipped them. We refer the reader to the original source if he likes to chase up the

authentication.

89

Numair with this chain of transmission, extracted by Al-Ĥamīdī, Ibn Abu

Shaibah, Muslim, Ibn Mājeh, At-Tirmidhī, Ibn Abu ʾĀṡim, Abdullah Bin Ahmed

in ‟Zawā’id Al-Fađā’il”, Al-Bazzār, An-Nasa’ī in ‟Al-Kubra” and in

‟Khaṡā’iṡ Ali”, Abu Yaʾlā, Al-Khaƫīb in ‟Tārikh Baghdad”, and Al-Baghawī

in ‟Sharĥ As-Sunnah” from the routes of Al-Aʾmash.”

Fifth Context: what is adduced by Imam Al-Hafiz Abu Abdul Raĥmān Ahmed

Bin Shuʾaib An-Nasā’ī in his book ‟Khaṡā’is Amīrūl Mu’minīn Ali in Abu

Ţālib” under the title: ‟Chapter on the Difference between the Believer and

the Hypocrite”81. The hadith is given in three patterns, all valid in their chain of

transmission. They are as below: 82

1. Pattern One: from ʾAdiy Bin Thābit from Zur from Ali (may Allah

ennoble his face) said: ‟By Allah, by He who split the seed and

81 Title of this chapter of the book “Al-Khaṡā’iṡ” differs in the different imprints. The title of the

edition reviewed by Sheikhs Muhammad Hādī Al-Amīnī, published in Najaf 1969 A.D, republished

several times, is given as “Love of Ali Parts between the Believer and the Disbeliever”, which

accords with the hadiths import in that section of the book more than Āl Zahawī title does: Ch. “On

the Difference between the Believer and the Hypocrite” whereby the name of Imam Ali is not

included in the title. What is more eccentric is that all other titles of the book in the two imprints

start as below:

Al-Amīnī: the prophet’s saying (sawa): “Allah Will never Dishonour Ali” … his saying (sawa) to

Ali: “you are all forgiven”… his saying (sawa): “Ali from me and I am from him”… and so on.

Āl Zahawī: the prophet’s saying: “Ali is your custodian after me”… his saying (sawa):

“whosoever verbally abuses Ali, he certainly has verbally abused me”…

The titles endowed upon the hadith in question bear no resemblance to the context of the book. The

title that looms first to mind: (the Prophet’s Saying: “Certainly, Love of Ali is an Embodiment of

Faith, Grudge against him is an Embodiment of Hypocrisy”, or a matching one.

We pointed out that Al-Aminī title is more genuine and more coherent with the context, and as for

Āl Zahawī, we cannot tell if he made some alteration, or there was originally an existing difference

between the manuscripts incurred by the scribes, God knows.

82 An-Nasā’ī, Abu Abdul Raĥmān Ahmed Bin shuʾaib Ahmed Bin Shuʾaib, “Khaṡā’iṡ Amīrūl Al-

Mu’minīn Ali Bin Abu Ţālib”, reviewed by: Ad-Dānī Munīr Āl Zahawī, al-Maktaba al-Asriyya,

Saida- Beirut, numbers of narrations according to the above sequence of citation: 100-101-102,

p.86.

90

originated the breeze: it is indeed the covenant of the prophet

(sawa) to me that no one but a believer would love me, and no

one but a hypocrite would nurse a grudge against me.”

2. Pattern Two: from ʾAdiy Bin Thābit from Zur from Ali (may Allah be

pleased with him) said: ‟it is covenanted to me by the prophet

(sawa): no one but a believer would love me, and no one but a

hypocrite would nurse a grudge against me.”

3. Pattern Three: from ʾAdiy Bin Thābit from Zur who said: Ali said:

‟Indeed it is the covenant of the prophet (sawa) commended to

me that no one but a believer would love you, and no one but a

hypocrite would nurse a grudge against you.”

According to the book reviewer, all the above narrations have been

authenticated by Al-Hafiz An-Nasā’ī.

Sixth Context: What is adduced by Imam Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal in his book

‟Fađā’il Aṡ-Ṡahābah”, he said: from ʾAdiy Bin Thābit from Zur from Ali, he

said: ‟it is covenanted to me by the prophet (sawa): no one but a

believer would love you, and no one but a hypocrite would nurse a

grudge against you.”83

The book reviewer, Waṡiyullah Bin Muhammad Abbas added a footnote:

‟Chain of transmission is authentic; it appears with analogous sand and matn

in the Musnad, i.e. ‟Musnad Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal.”

The hadith was extracted by Ibn Abu ʾĀṡim in ‟As-Sunnah”, Ibn Mandah in

‟Al-Imān” from the route of Al-Wakīʾ, extracted as well by At-Tirmidhī, Ibn

Mājeh, Ahmed, Al-Baghawī, Al-Khaƫīb in his history book ‟Tārikh”, and Abu

83 Ibn Ĥanbal, Abu Abdullah Ahmed Bin Muhammad, “Fađā’il Aṡ-Ṡaĥabah”, reviewed and

hadiths extracted by: Waṡiyullah Bin Muhammad Abbas, Dar Ibn Al-Jawzi, new revised edition,

vol.2, p.196, no.948.

91

Naʾīm in his book ‟Al-Ĥilyah”, all from the route of Al-Aʾmash. With this

regard Abu Naʾīm annotated: ‟this is an authentic hadith, unanimously agreed

on and narrated by the great majority of the masses throughout Al-Aʾmash.”84

I have but cited the book reviewers notes with respect to this hadith, laying

emphasis on Abu Naʾīm's, just because regardless of what he says:

‟unanimously agreed on and narrated by the great majority of the

masses”, there are groups still skeptical about it, as we will find out with the

progress of the research.

In same context, we find Abu Naʾīm’s testimony duplicated in ‟Siyer Aʾlām

An-Nubalā’” by Al-Hafiz Shamsul Dīn Ad-Dhahabī. While the former

highlights the unanimity reached beyond doubt on the hadith throughout the

Fundamentals of Transmission and Narration, the latter states in like manner:

‟I have collected hadiths of ‘Aţ-Ţair’ (the bird) in one part, and the routes for

hadith: ‟for whomever I am his master …” which proved to be more

authentic, though the hadith that is most authentic over and above the first

two is what Muslim extracted from Ali saying: ‟Indeed it is the covenant of

the untutored prophet to me: no one but a believer would love you, and

no one but a hypocrite would nurse a grudge against you.”85

As yet, Ad-Dhahabī proclaims: the hadith ‟no one but a believer ….” is

more authentic than the Mawlā (master) hadith: ‟for whoever I am his

master Ali is his master too.”

The chief concern herein is that should Ad-Dhahabī rate the ‘love and

grudge’ hadith as more authentic than the ‘master’ hadith, it is of paramount

importance to know the merit of the ‘master’ hadith for him as regards the

sanad? Only then we may understand the real sense of ‟more authentic” in

84 Ibid: same source

85 Ad-Dhahabī, “Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubala’”, Mussasat al-Risala, reviewed, annotated and the

hadith extracted by: Shuʾaib Al-Arnā’ῡƫ et al, pub.1, 1983 A.D, vol.17, p.169.

92

Ad-Dhahabī phrase, hence recognise the magnitude of the ‘love and

grudge’ hadith for him, as well as the high merit of its sanad.

Let us review what Ad-Dhahabī said in the same book ‟Siyer A’lām An-

Nubalā’” when he came upon the ‘Mawlā’ hadith:

‟the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) walked out of a tent or a canopy, signalled

with his hand three times, held the hand of Ali (may Allah be pleased with) and

said: ‟for whomever I am his master Ali is his master too”, this hadith is

deemed particularly highly ĥasan (see glossary), and its matn is mutawātir.”86

From his closing phrase, we realise the meaning of ‟more authentic”, and

know that the merit of the sanad of the ‘love and grudge’ hadith for imam Ad-

Dhahabī is mutawātir, or rather more authentic than merely mutawātir.

You may wonder: why are we so consumed over the hadith authenticity?

Actually, the reason for that as we will come to know shortly is basically

owing to the pitiful hopeless endeavours of some of the Umayyad figures to

discredit the hadith and arouse suspicion about it in the Science of Hadith.

So far, it appears that this hadith, among other hadiths, has received the

consensus of Moslem scholars so much so that Ad-Dhahabī, one of the big-

names of Moslem scholars, find it more authenticated in sand than other

hadiths deemed mutawātir.

As a result, a vital conclusion precipitates which literally embodies one of the

key optimal procedures in tackling the inconsistency among the reports and

narrations. The conclusion states that if this hadith is opposed by other

hadiths lower in the merit of sanad, or if vain doubt was cast about its merit,

this opposition is scientifically indefensible and improper according to the

rules applied to the Science of Fundamentals of Jurisprudence in case of

incongruity.

Proven to be authentic, admittedly accepted and circulated and equally

unanimously agreed on its calibre and tenability by Moslem scholars from the

Companions School, the hadith sanad will no longer be a subject of

discussion in our research. But it is worth mentioning that if I am stressing the

86 Ibid: the same source, vol. 8 (volume reviewed by: Muhammad Naʾīm Al-ʾArqasῡsī), p.335.

93

‟Companions School” here, I purposely want to keep it aside from the

Umayyad frame of mind, the prime culprit for putting the hadith in doubt but

whose efforts were always shed in vain.

Second Research:

The Hadith Overtones

It matters that as we refer to the hadith overtones of: ‟no one but a believer

would love you, and no one but a hypocrite would nurse a grudge

against you”, the reader calls to mind the utterer's portrait, i.e. the

Messenger of Allah (sawa) in his capacity as the Seal of prophets with his

extraordinary stature, and the high stations he orbits around, and only this

way the hadith gains its virtual value and takes its due place.

It is the hadith of the one described in the holy Qur’an as: {‟Nor does he

speak out of his desire. This is nothing but a revelation that is conveyed

to him”}87, in which case the motives and incentives of his utterances and

actions can neither stem from prejudice towards kinship and folk people, nor

from political partisanship to realise personal goals and intentions, nor can his

assertions and commendations be prompted by desires and fancies (Allah

forbids). He draws from the divine Revelation and a holy point of reference,

and the matter at heart is a fulfilment of the Will of Heaven. This sacred

covering of legitimacy bestowed upon the prophet (sawa) is the ground from

which his utterances must be understood.

The Major Question here: Islam, as a spiritual religion and the final

destination for mankind, must have been intensely careful about setting a

norm for the demarcation between sincere faith of genuine believers and

false faith of hypocrites and fakers who trade in the name of religion and

spiritual values, and act upon Sharia under false pretence, so what could this

norm be?

At this particular juncture, this great hadith comes into view: ‟no one but a

believer would love you, and no one but a hypocrite would nurse a

grudge against you” to equip us with the norm; a genuine guideline which

enables every Moslem to distinguish between belief and hypocrisy, not solely

on a collective social level in relevance to factions, classes and trends in the 87

An-Najm (3)

94

Islamic society but on a personal subjective level. Henceforth, if anyone

debates himself: How do I know I am among the people of belief or

hypocrisy? The hadith readily puts at his disposal a norm in one sentence

stating: if you love Ali, you are among those of faith, and if you hate him, you

are among the hypocrites.

As such, Ali symbolises the real distinguisher and partition between truth and

falsehood even on a personal level. The love and hatred of Ali can pierce

through the fathoms of human self, expose its interiors and divulge the nerve

root of its outer conduct that may strike you as good and righteous, when in

reality it is frail and vacant.

Actually, to personify the parameter of belief and hypocrisy by someone's

love and hatred exhibits a high spiritual status for the assignee, represented

by strong affinity and empathy with the essence of truth and falsehood,

guidance and misguidance! Apparently, the prophet (sawa) has not coupled

the parameters of belief and hypocrisy with Ali’s love and hatred on the

condition that he is on the right track, but he did that unconditionally

determining they are constantly rotating in the wheel of his love and hatred,

and totally contingent on them.

This very 'contingency' stands as a shiny beacon which upholds the Shiʾa

conviction of the infallibility and cleanliness of Imam Ali (as) from sins, errors

and triviality, in actions, sayings or inward thoughts. If otherwise he were

fallible and thus liable to commit errors and sins, it will ensue his hatred for

that error or sin is no longer a sign of hypocrisy, but contrary to that, a sign of

faith.

In point of fact, it appears that the identification of the love and hatred of Ali

(as) with belief and hypocrisy is a clear indicator to the infallibility of this great

man and purification from guilt and spurious acts.

Moreover, in the same way that the identification of faith and hypocrisy with

the love and hatred of Ali (as) has necessitated his infallibility, it would

necessitate theologically the identification of the love and hatred of Allah

(Taʾala) with the love and hatred of Ali. More conspicuously, the love of Allah

(Taʾala) is a consequence of loving Ali, while the hatred of Allah (Taʾala) is a

consequence of hating Ali. This unique consortium between Allah (Taʾala)

and Imam Ali (as) was crystallised in some narrations which denote: ‟He

95

who loves Ali, indeed he loves Allah, he who hates Ali, indeed hates

Allah.”88

A number of narrations are laid down for the precious reader with the above

import:

1. Al-Hafiz As-Siyῡƫī said in ‟Tārīkh Al-Khulafā’”: Aƫ-Țabarānī extracted

with an authentic chain of transmission, on the authority of Um Salamah

from the Messenger (sawa) his saying: ‟whoever loves Ali, indeed he

loves me, and whoever loves me, indeed he loves Allah, and

whoever hates Ali, indeed he hates me, and whoever hates me,

indeed he hates Allah.”89

2. He said too in his other book: ‟Al-Jāmiʾ As-Saghīr min Hadīth Al-

Bashīr wal Al-Nadhīr”:

‟Whoever loves Ali, indeed he loves me, and whoever hates Ali,

indeed he hates me.”90

3. The book reviewer, Ibrahim Śāliĥ said the following in the footnotes91: ‟it

is authentic. Extracted by Al-Ĥākim in ‟Al-Mustadrak” from Salmān,

whereby Al-Ĥākim said: it is authentic according to the provisions of the

two Sheikhs and Ad-Dhahabī coincided with him. Equally extracted by

Ahmed and Aƫ-Țabarānī in his book ‟Al-Kabīr” on the authority of Um

88

There will appear later (God willing) that there are many reports with the same shades of meaning

or nearby, such as: “whoever hurts Ali, indeed he has hurt me, and whoever hurts me, indeed he has

hurt Allah”, or his saying: “whoever swears at Ali, indeed he has sworn at me, and whoever swears at

me, indeed he has sworn at Allah”.

89 As-Siyῡƫī, Jalālul Dīn Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abu Bakr, “Tārīkh Al-Khulafā’”, reviewed by: Ibrahim Śāliĥ,

Dar Sadir, Beirut, p.206.

90 As-Siyῡƫī, “Al-Jāmiʾ Aṡ-Ṡaghīr min Hadīth Al-Bashīr wal Al-Nadhīr”, reviewed by: Mahdi Ad-

Damirdāsh Muhammad, Maktabat Nazr Mustafa Al-Baz, vol. 4, p.1667, hadith no. 8319.

91 Ibid: same source

96

Salamah, and authenticated by Al-Albānī in ‟Sahih Al-Jāmiʾ” and ‟As-

Saĥiĥah.”

I hereby convey the verification made by Al-Albānī after transferring the

hadith, as indicated by Ibrahim Śāliĥ:

‟1299- He who loves Ali, indeed loves me, and whoever loves me,

indeed he loves Allah, and whoever hates Ali, indeed he hates me,

and whoever hates me, indeed he hates Allah.”

Narrated by Al-Mukhlis in ‟Al-Fawā’id Al-Muntaqāt” with an authentic

chain of transmission, on the authority of Um Salamah: ‟she said: I bear

witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah (sawa) saying: then he

stated the hadith…”92

Third Research:

What does it mean: Imam Ali a Norm Distinguishing the Believer from

the Hypocrite

Introducing Imam Ali (as) as a scale to set apart between the two states of

belief and hypocrisy, upon reports handed down from the Messenger (sawa),

brings out a number of key findings scattered on two levels: the Afterlife level,

and this World level.

As for the finding pertinent to the Afterlife, it impinges upon our deeds as

whether or not accepted on the Judgement Day, all depending on the load of

truthfulness in one’s faith. Therefore, the same deed that has once been

accepted by Allah (Taʾala) will be turned back once infused with hypocrisy

and lying. However, so long as faith and hypocrisy are contingent on the love

and hatred of Ali (as), it follows that one’s deeds are accepted or rejected by

Allah (Taʾala) upon a scale personified by Imam Ali93. Whoever loves him will

92

Al-Albānī, Muhammad Naṡirul Dīn, “Silisilat Al-Aĥādīth Aṡ-Ṡaĥiĥah”, ibid: same source, vol.3,

pp. 287-288, hadith no.1299.

93 Imam Ali (as) as a scale for the acceptance of human’s deeds is a topic widely furnished by

prophetic narrations. However, our concern herein is not to cite these narrations as much as to

97

be branded as a believer, thus his deeds are accepted by Allah (Taʾala), and

whoever hates him (as) will be branded as a hypocrite, thus his deeds are

rejected.

As for the finding pertinent to this World, it is the materialisation of Imam

Ali (as) as a scale and a norm, placed by the prophet (sawa) within reach of

every individual Moslem to enable him to distinguish between the faithful and

the hypocrite from the masses of Moslems in the vast Islamic society,

including or actually comes to the fore, the people contemporary to the

prophet (sawa) whether in his lifetime or succeeded straight away. More

clearly, an emblem of Islam, Ali Bin Abu Ţālib, is assigned according to the

prophetic hadiths as a scale for the assessment of all the companions and

every Moslem co-existed with the Imam (as).

The holy Qur’an explicitly declares that the Islamic society in the prophet’s

era (sawa) was composed of two categories: the believers and hypocrites.

Examples of these verses are:

‟There are many hypocrites among the Bedouins who dwell around

you, and likewise among the citizens of Al-Madinah there are hypocrites

who have become experts in hypocrisy. You do not know them, but We

do know them. The time will come when We give them double

chastisement, then they shall be turned to a far greater torment”94,

similarly: ‟the believers were then put to a severe test and were most

violently convulsed. And call to mind when the hypocrites and all those

with diseased hearts said: All that Allah and His Messenger had

promised us was nothing but deceit”95, another: ‟when they are told:

‘come to that which Allah has revealed, and come to the Messenger’,

you will notice the hypocrites turning away from you in aversion.”96

Consequently, if this description maps out the Islamic society which co-

existed with the Naś era, how about succeeding societies when it goes

without knowing the believers from hypocrites? What is the tool for knowing

reproduce the very import of these narrations as an effect that transpires from the hadith at issue

(the love and grudge of Imam Ali (as).

94 At-Tawba (101)

95 Al-Aĥzāb (11-12)

96 An-Nisā’ (61)

98

the two categories? How can we bridge this long gap, during which politics

and whimsical desires played a critical part in falsifying many truths, so as to

distinguish and separate between the two categories? Over here the Moslem

individual, being obligated to comply with the prophetic reports, becomes

equally obliged to admit that Ali Bin Abu Ţālib is the guideline to diagnose the

members of each category in society.

The Fourth Research:

The Standardising Normative Value in the Love and Hatred of Ali in the

Mission Society

What is advanced as regards Imam Ali (as) is neither told from our vintage

point, nor does it reflect our own interpretation of these narrations. Inversely,

it was a common practice in the Moslem society at that time to refer to Imam

Ali as the standard and norm for discriminating between believers and

hypocrites of their own fellow-people. The narrations we have today at our

disposal were clearly put into practice to that effect: ‟no one but a believer

would love you, and no one but a hypocrite would nurse a grudge

against you”, and they were simply codes of conduct for the mission society.

In other words, people used to reckon on the love and hatred of Ali (as) as a

touchstone for setting aside the hypocrite from the believer in their

environment.

Let us review the following narrations:

1. Stated in the book of ‟Juzu’ Ali Bin Mohammed Al-Ĥumairī”97, hadith

no.38:

‟Hārūn Bin Isĥāq related to us: Sufiān Bin ʾUyaynah related to us, from

Az-Zuhrī, from Yazīd Bin khaśifah, from Busr Bin Saʾīd, from Abu Saʾīd

Al-Khudrī, saying: ‟we were not recognising the hypocrites at the

97 Ad-Dhahabī said about him in “Siyer A’alām An-Nubalā’” (ibid: same source: vol.15, p.13):

“Al-Ĥumairī, the Allama imam and Islamic jurist, Al-Kufa judge Abu Al-Hassan Ali Bin

Mohammed Bin Hārūn Al-Ĥumairī Al-Kufī Al-Hafiz”.

99

age of the Messenger of Allah (sawa) only through the hatred of

Ali.”98

The chain of transmitters is cited in full in order that we investigate the

soundness and weakness of the hadith, and herein I would like to

explore the biography of every name in this chain and find out how they

were assessed through the discipline of Aspersion and Acclamation in

terms of authenticity:

The First Name: Hārūn Bin Isĥāq:

Ad-Dhahabī said about him: ‟Hārūn Bin Isĥāq Al-Hamadānī Al-Kūfī

memorised from Abu ʾUyaynah and Muʾtamar, and from him narrated

At-Tirmidhī, An-Nasā’ī, Ibn Mājeh, Ibn Khazīm and Al-Muĥāmilī, and he

is trustworthy and a worshipper.”99

The Second Name: Sufiān Bin ʾUyaynah

Ibn Ĥajar Al-‘Asqalānī said about him: ‟Sufiān Bin ʾUyaynah Bin Abu

ʾImrān Maimūn Al-Hilālī, Abu Mohammed Al-Kūfī, hence Al-Kūfī is a

trustworthy memoriser and Islamic jurist, an authoritative imam, but his

memorisation changed in the long run, he might have used tadlīsxx,

though only from reliable reporters.”100

98 Al-Ĥumairī, Abu Al-Hassan Ali Bin Mohammed Bin Hārūn Bin Ziyād, “Juzu’ Ali Bin

Muhammad Al-Ĥumairī”, reviewed, studied and extracted by: Abdul ʾAziz Bin Sulaimān Bin

Ibrahim Al-Buʾaimī, Maktabat al-Rushd, Riyadh, pub.1, 1418 A.H, p.97, hadith no.38.

99 Ad-Dhahabī, Abu Abdullah Shamsul Dīn Mohammed Bin Ahmed, “Al-Kāshif fī Maʾrifat man

lahu Riwāyah fī Al-Kutub As-Sittah”, reviewed by: Farīd Abdul ʾAziz, Dar al-Hadith, Cairo,

1429 A.H – 2008 A.D, vol.3, 230.

100 Ibn Ĥajar Al-‘Asqalānī, Ahmed in Ali, “Taqrīb At-Tahdhīb”, review, annotation, illustration

and additions: Abu Al-Ashbāl Saghīr Ahmed Shāghif Al-Pakistani, introduced by: Bakr Bin

Abdullah Abu Zaid, Dar al-Asima for publishing and distribution, 2nd edition, 1423 A.H., p.395,

biography no. 2464.

100

The reader can observe how the assessment and verification are made

to highest degree of precision, particularly that his tadlīs is only from the

side of reliable sources, noting that Sufiān Bin ʾUyaynah more often

than not transfers from Az-Zuhrī –as stated in the Sahih books.

The Third Name: Mohammed Bin Muslim Az-Zuhrī

Abdul ʾAzīz Bin Sulaimān Bin Ibrahim Al-Buʾaimī, reviewer of ‟Juzu’ Ali

Bin Mohammed Al-Ĥumairī”, annotated on the page from where we

cited the narration: ‟He is Abu Bakr Mohammed Bin Muslim Bin

Ubaidullah Bin Abdullah Bin Shahāb Az-Zuhrī Al-Qarashī who is

trustworthy, competent and authoritative memoriser.”101

The Fourth Name: Yazīd Bin Khasifah

The above reviewer of: ‟Juzu’ Ali Bin Mohammed Al-Ĥumairī”

annotated: ‟[…] trustworthy, authenticated by Ahmed, Yaĥyā Bin Maʾīn,

An-Nasā’ī, Abu Ĥātam, Ibn Saʾad, Ibn Ĥajar and Ibn Ĥabbān.”102

The Fifth Name: Busr Bin Saʾīd

Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī in ‟Taqrīb At-Tahdhīb” said about him: Busr Bin

Saʾīd Al-Madanī, the worshiper and servant of Ibn Al-Ĥaźramī is

trustworthy and venerable.”103

With this swift voyage with the narrators in terms of reliability and

weakness, the normative hadith has been demonstrated as sound and

101 Al-Ĥumairī, “Juzu’ Ali Bin Mohammed Al-Ĥumairī”, ibid, p.74, footnote: 3.

102 Ibid: same source, p.97, footnote: 4.

103 Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī, “Taqrīb At-Tahdhīb”, ibid, p.166, biography no. 672.

101

irrevocable. Even if the tadlīs of Sufiān Bin ʾUyaynah from the ‟reliable

reporters” triggered some scratch, that single scratch will not in the

least remove the hadith from its position as ‟ĥasan”.

2. In Imam Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal book ‟Fađā’il As-Sahābah”, he said: on

the authority of Abu saʾīd Al-Khudrī who said: ‟indeed, we knew the

hypocrites of the Anśār merely by the hate they harbour to Ali.”104

The book reviewer, Waśiyūl Dīn, said in comment on the hadith: ‟its

chain of transmission is authentic.”

Elsewhere, he also transferred the hadith from the route of Jābir Bin

Abdullah as: ‟we, the folk of the Anśār, were not recognising our

hypocrite ones only by the hatred of Ali.”105

The book reviewer said: ‟its chain of transmission is ĥasan.”

3. What At-Tirmidhī transferred in his book ‟Sunan” saying: from Abu

Hārūn, from Abu Saʾīd Al-Khudrī, he said: ‟we used to recognise the

hypocrites –from the folk of the Anśār- by their hatred of Ali Bin

Abī Ţālib”106. On this hadith, Al-Albānī commented: ‟its chain of

transmission very weak.”107

104 Ibn Ĥanbal, Abu Abdullah, Ahmed Bin Mohammed, “Fađā’il Aś-Śaĥābah”, reviewed and

hadiths extracted: Waśiyyullah Bin Mohammed Abbas, new revised edition, Dar Ibn al-Jawzi,

Saudi Arabia, pub.2, 1420 A.H – 1999 A.D, vol.1, 715, hadith no. 979.

105 Ibid: same source, p.792, hadith: 1086.

106 At-Tirmidhī, Abu ʾĪsa Mohammed Bin ‘Isa, “Al-Jāmiʾ Al-Mukhtaśar min As-Sunan” [he

enlisted Al-Albānī’s Book “Al-Aĥkām”, edited by: Fariq Bait al-Afkar Adawlia for publishing

and distribution, p. 581, hadith no. 3717.

107 Ibid, also see: Al-Albānī, Mohammed Nāsīrul Dīn “Đaʾīf Sunan At-Tirmidhī”, Maktabat al-

Maarif for publishing and distribution, Riyadh, 1st edition of the new impression, 1420 A.H - 2000

A.D, p. 424, hadith: 3717.

102

Anyhow, this is Al-Albānī’s own vision, but At-Tirmidhī has another

opinion whereby he literally said in the above book at the front of ‟A

Book on the Defects”: ‟Abu ʾĪsa said: all the hadiths comprised in the

book are enforced (maʾmūl bihi: see glossary), and some scholarly

people refer to the book as a whole excluding two hadiths …”108

4. This hadith is also transferred in ‟As-Sahih Al-Musnad min Fađā’il

Bait An-Nubuwwah”109, a book composed by the researcher Um

Shuʾaib Al-Wādiʾiyyah, supervised and prefaced by one of the biggest

names of the contemporary Salafi scholars, Sheikh Muqbil Bin Hādī Al-

Wādiʾī, whereby he said in the preface: ‟Among the she-researchers is

the virtuous austere pious Um Shuʾaib Al-Wādiʾiyyah, who wrote on

‟As-Sahih Al-Musnad fī Fađā'il Ahlu Bait An-Nubuwwah”, and her work

is deemed the best composition on the virtues of Ahlul Bait as it sticks

to the sound hadiths. A list of authors, too extensive to count, has

written on that but they could not distinguish the weak from the sound

hadiths.”110

Accordingly, the fact that the love and hatred of Ali being a criterion to

decide on the faithful belief or alternatively hypocrisy of each member of

the Moslem society including the companions, is not our own

speculation, but a historical truth that was practically implemented

during the Revelation age and the lifetime of the prophet (sawa), as the

above narrations showing.

The matter becomes significantly important, when we realise that some

groups are meddling in the historical reality of Moslems in a bid to

distort it and produce an alternative anti-truth depiction. A glaring

example is Ibn Taimiyyah when he says: ‟it is a common knowledge

108 At-Tirmidhī, Muhammad ʾĪsā, “Al-Jāmiʾ Al-Mukhtaśar min As-Sunan”, ibid, p.608.

109 Al-Wādiʾiyyah, Um Shuʾaib, “As-Sahih Al-Musnad fī Fađā’il Ahlu Bait An-Nubuwwah”,

supervised and introduced by: Abdul Raĥmān Muqbil Bin Hādī Al-Wadiʾī, Dar al-Athar for

publishing and distribution, pub. 12, 1421 A.H -2000 A.D, p.63 (the hadith is transferred from the

narration of Abu Saʾīd Al-Khudrī).

110 Ibid: same source, p.4.

103

that Allah has designated for the companions a special status of

affection in the hearts of every Moslem, and that applies particularly to

the caliphs, but more specifically to Abu Bakr and Umar. The generality

of common companions had affection for them both, and those were

the best generation among centuries. While Ali was not like that as

many companions and their successors used to hate him, swear at him

and fight him”111, and when he says too: ‟it is well-known that many

companions were defaming Ali.”112

What he says is sheer lying and twistedness of historical facts, not even

the strictest followers of his pathway coincide with him in this respect.

Al-Albānī amid his talk on the credibility of Mūsā Bin Qais, and after

citing Al-ʾUqaili’s note discrediting Mūsā for fanaticism and narration of

defective hadiths, comments on a specific hadith that Al-ʾUqailī

transfers from Mūsā whereby the latter announces his love for Ali more

than Abu Bakr: ‟All what is about it [the saying of Mūsā Bin Qais] is that

he loves Ali more than Abu Bakr, as apparently shown, and as a matter

of fact many of the Salafi prominent figures were like that as their

biographies showing.”113

It appears so far, the historical truth is a counter-image of what is given, in

that the hatred of Ali Bin Abu Ţālib (as) was a valid norm and regulator, by

which the Moslem society at that time used to uncover the reality of

hypocrites. As for the swearing, defamation and fighting with Imam Ali (as),

they were almost completely the practices of the Umayyad House, their fans

and followers and everyone walked in their track (only a few were from the

companions). Apart from that, there were the Kharijites who were not directly

subservient to the Umayyads but also lost their way under their deceitful and

cunning policies. However, it is necessary to note down here that our 111 Ibn Taimiyyah, Abu Al-Abbas Taqiyyul Dīn, reviewed by: Mohammed Rashād Sālim, Mussasat

al-Risala, pub.1, 1406 A.H – 1986 A.D, vol.7, p.137-138.

112 Ibid: same source, vol.7, p.147.

113 See: Al-Albānī, Mohammed Nāśirul Dīn, “Silisilat Al-Aĥādith Aś-Śaĥīĥah”, ibid, vol.1, S.1,

p.319, at the bottom of hadith no.166.

104

discussion is basically concerned with the incursions made by Ibn Taimiyyah,

otherwise it is granted for us that the love and hatred of Ali Bin Abu Ţālib has

stood as a long-lasting prophetic norm for the evaluation of the companions

regardless of whether negative or positive was their attitude towards Imam

Ali, and that the very norm was comprehended and implemented by the

companions themselves (to elaborate throughout the progress of the research).

105

Ibn Taimiyyah Method in Approaching

Ahlul Bait (as) Virtues and Prerogatives

To sketch out the method and strategy carried out by Ibn Taimiyyah and his

followers in approaching hadiths which celebrate the virtues and feats of

Imam Ali (as) and the entirety of Ahlul Bait (as), the research can be

considerably extended, though we still hope that we can go beyond swift

allusions into wider details. We can tackle the subject, in brief, across two

aspects:

The Theoretical Aspect: the intellectual groundwork of Ibn Taimiyyah and

his followers in approaching and interpreting these commendation hadiths

along with the scientific grounds they dwell on.

The Applied Practical Aspect: the practical steps in the application of the

method on a general level, and the application to one hadith or another on a

particular level.

I will firstly write a brief account for the reader on the principal methodical

steps that Ibn Taimiyyah applies to these hadiths, and then swerve to the

practical aspect using a tangible specimen, i.e. the hadith in question and

other hadiths with relevant import.

The Theoretical Aspect of Ibn Taimiyyah Method in Approaching Ahlul

Bait (as) Prerogatives

The theoretical aspect rests on three steps:

Step One: criticise the hadith via its sanad either by denying it or deeming it

as forged or simply by arousing doubts about it and shaking its grounds.

If this step proves to be practically unsuccessful, with the hadith appears to

be mutawātir, mashhūr (see glossary) or concurred on by Moslem scholars, he

moves to the next step:

106

Step two: criticise the hadith via its matn, by fiddling with the plain import

deflecting it from the original message. If that does not work as well and the

hadith import proves to be too distinct and crystal-clear, he moves to the last

step.

Step Three: criticise the hadith by underrating the significance of its

undisguised import, tearing it off from its particularity to Amīrūl Mu’minīn Ali

and detaching him (as) as the object of the hadith, while attaching a general

capacity to the content so that it applies collectively to other companions or

even a lay Moslem with righteousness. For doing that, he obscures the

original message by enveloping his own notions with some ayah from Qur’an

or a prophetic tradition so as to peel off the hadith of its genuine import, or he

contradicts the entire hadith with either some ayah or a prophetic tradition

that have identical or matching import but denoting other characters.

These are the steps of Ibn Taimiyyah in approaching the commendable acts

and remarkable stands of Imam Ali (as) and Ahlul Bait (as) as a whole.

The Applied Aspect of Ibn Taimiyyah in Approaching the Prerogatives of

Ahlul Bait (as): The Host of the Love Hadith as a Sample

We will deal with the subject in practical terms showing Ibn Taimiyyah

method towards the hadiths of praise of Ahlul Bait (as), with reference to

aforesaid hadiths on the love and hatred of Imam Ali (as), explaining how

they impact one’s faith or hypocrisy.

So far, we cited three narratives on the love of Imam Ali (as) as follows:

Narrative One: as narrated by Imam Ali (as): ‟indeed it is the covenant of

the Messenger of Allah (saw) to me: no one but a believer would love

me, and no one but a hypocrite would nurse a grudge against me”, or

variably: ‟no one but a believer would love you, and no one but a

hypocrite would nurse a grudge against you."

Narrative Two: as transferred from the Messenger of Allah (sawa): ‟he who

loves Ali, surely loves me, and he who hates Ali, surely hates me", and

in certain reports, there is something annexed: ‟he who loves Ali, indeed

107

loves me, and whoever loves me, indeed he loves Allah, and whoever

hates Ali, indeed he hates me, and whoever hates me, indeed he hates

Allah.”

Narrative Three: as conveyed by a number of companions who explicitly

declare: ‟we, the folk of the Anśār, were not recognising our hypocrite

ones only by the hatred of Ali”, or ‟we were not recognising our

hypocrite ones, at the age of Allah’s Messenger, only by the hatred of

Ali.”

We learnt earlier that these hadiths have been conceded on, postulated and

authenticated by the multitude of Moslem scholars, and duly we raise the

question: what is the attitude of Ibn Taimiyyah towards these hadiths in

line with his threefold step method?

As for the first narrative: ‟no one but a believer would love you, and no

one but a hypocrite would nurse a grudge against you", Ibn Taimiyyah

says:

‟these hadiths, (i.e. the love of the Aanśār: an embodiment of faith and their

hatred an embodiment of hypocrisy) are more authentic than what is narrated by

Ali: ‟indeed it is the covenant of the Messenger of Allah (sawa) to me: no

one but a believer would love me, and no one but a hypocrite would

nurse a grudge against me", which is one of the unique narrations of

Muslim, handed down by ʾAdiy Bin Thābit from Zur Bin Ĥubaish from Ali, and

it was overlooked by Al-Bukhārī.114 Conversely, the Anṡār hadith had

received the unanimous consensus of the Sahih books compilers, such as Al-

Bukhārī, besides the fact that the people of knowledge know with certitude

that it is said by the prophet (saw-a), while the hadith of Ali was subject to

doubt by some parties.”115

114

If Al-Bukhārī overlooking this hadith will open the gate for a big inquest to conduct by

researchers to investigate the motives and reasons for that attitude, and this inquest is as colossal

as the stretched history of tragedies that has been afflicting Ahlul Bait (as): Why would Al-Bukhārī

drop from his narrations what is concurred on by Moslems, circulated and authenticated? We lay

down this question for the reader to reflect on.

115 Ibn Taimiyyah, "Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah", ibid, vol.7, pp.147-148.

108

This excerpt is a conspicuous example of the tactic employed by Ibn

Taimiyyah with narratives he is not in favour of, just as they clash with his

whimsical speculation. As he failed to label Ali's hadith as false or refute its

chain of transmission, he desperately tried in vain to cast skepticism about it

saying: "while the hadith of Ali was subject to doubt by some parties",

without showing, neither him nor the book reviewer, Muhammad Sālim, the

identity of those skeptical people! He even tries to distract the reader from

what he stated by another immediate statement that the Anṡār hadith is more

authentic, which presupposes according to Arabic grammatical rules that the

former hadith, despite the suspicion aroused about it allegedly, should be

authentic. However, rather than disclosing his attitude towards the hadith and

the doubts he alleges to have been expressed by some groups, he left it

floating, in which case the reader would stray about .

It would have been less hectic or less burdensome if this strategy toned down

and faded away with Ibn Taimiyyah figure. But the blight it is being

rejuvenated by several contemporary researchers who embraced it as a

systematic method in dealing with every hadith they are willing to dispose of

or strip off its genuine import that can be disconcerting and bothersome for

their thought and intellectual foundations.

Let us contemplate for instance what the reviewer of ‟Musnad Imam Ahmed

Bin Ĥanbal” said when he came upon this hadith:

‟Its chain of transmission is authentic according to the provisions of the two

Sheikhs, but as for ʾAdiy Bin Thābit, …, even though the two Sheikhs

extracted for him, Shuʾbah said about him: he was narrating heavily from the

marfūʾ hadith (see glossary). Ahmed said: he was engaged in Schism. Equally,

Ibn Maʾīn said: he is an extravagant Shiʾite, Ad-Dār Qutnī said: he is

trustworthy, but extremist in Schism.

We said before: the people of knowledge have repelled from the narratives of

this trustworthy that which is concordant with his heresy. Ad-Dār Qutnī had

criticised Muslim in ‟At-Tatabuʾ” for extracting this hadith, saying: "Muslim

109

had extracted the hadith of ʾAdiy Bin Thābit: 'by He who split the seed...',

yet Al-Bukhārī had not extracted it.”116

Evidently, the book reviewer failed to find a loophole or a flaw that empower

him to disfavour this hadith other than what he did by insinuating a derogatory

remark for ʾAdiy Bin Thābit, the trustworthy, and accusing him of heresy,

claiming that whatever the heretic would transfer in line with his heresy

should be repelled and cropped up. At this point, the reader may recall what

we hinted earlier that heresy is defined by them in these contexts as

ultimately and entirely the love of Ali (as); and this helps him understand the

state of confusion they were sown in over this hadith.

This is specifically what we meant by the Umayyad perception of Islam. It is

per se a preliminary dismissal attitude for what is least related to the

prerogatives of Ahlul Bait (as), according to which all their bright laudable

traits and conducts are controverted, repelled and manipulated. It is

pioneered by Ibn Taimiyyah who laid the foundation of the method, hence

pursued by his followers who put his method into effect.

As far as the 'second narrative' is concerned, it has been transferred by the

Allama Ibn Al-Muƫƫahar Al-Ĥillī within a sequence of hadiths on the merits of

Imam Ali (as), and it is number two in the list.

Over here, Ibn Taimiyyah annotates: ‟these hadiths are ones that the

erudite scholars on hadith are well aware they are fictitious.”117

He said too: ‟the first ten in total are lies.”118

116

Ibn Ĥanbal, Abu Abdullah As-Shaibānī, "Musnad Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal", the part reviewed by:

Shuʾaib Al-Arna'ūt and ʾĀdil Murshid, Mu'assasat al-Risala, Beirut, pub.1, 1416 A.H -1995 A.D, vol.2,

pp.71-72, hadith no.642.

It sounds that the above attitude of Ad-Dār Qutnī stems from his sense of dread for the appalling

consequences and tight predicaments to result from the extraction of Muslim for this hadith in his

Sahih, in that it leads to browse and scan the chronicles of the antagonistic attitudes towards Imam

Ali by his opponents, whether launched by the companions and successors contemporary to him or

by later generations of the Moslems community. Therefore, we find him turning to Al-Bukhārī for

reference among others, as the latter saved him from the 'dilemma’ not letting him get entangled in

its web by overlooking the hadith altogether in his Sahih.

117 Minhāj As-Sunnah, ibid, vol.5, p.42.

118 Ibid: same source

110

On our part, we remind the reader that the content of hadith two in the list of

Ibn Al-Muƫƫahar, is what has been transferred from Salmān in answer to: ‟how

intense is your love for Ali?’, he said: ‟I heard the Messenger of Allah saying:

"he who loves Ali, indeed loves me, and he who hates Ali, indeed hates

me."

To uncover the truth behind Ibn Taimiyyah claim that this hadith is but a ‘lie’,

we note down:

Firstly: this hadith is part of the transfer of Al-Ĥākim An-Naisābῡrī in his book

‟Al-Mustadrak”, on which he added saying:

‟This hadith is authentic in accordance with the provisions of the two

Sheikhs, but it is not extracted by them.”119

Secondly: concurred with Al-Ĥākim An-Naisābῡrī on this opinion is Imam Ad-

Dhahabī in his summary of Al-Ĥākim book saying: (Kh, M)120, i.e. consistent

with the provisions of Al-Bukhārī and Muslim.

Thirdly: authenticated the hadith one of the preeminent contemporary Salafi

scholars, Muqbil Bin Hādī Al-Wādiʾī in his book ‟As-Sahih Al-Musnad

mimmā Laisa fī Aṡ-Ṡaĥīĥain”121 albeit, beyond a shadow of doubt, Al-Wādiʾī

is aware of Ibn Taimiyyah denial of this hadith. Therefore to have it

authenticated is to show a bold front to Ibn Taimiyyah on this point.

Fourthly: Ibn Abdul Bir cited it as mursal (see glossary) but postulated its

ascription to the Messenger (sawa) saying: "he (sawa) said: he, who loves

Ali, indeed loves me, and he who hates Ali, indeed hates me. And he

119

Al-Hākim An-Naisābūrī, "Al-Mustadrak ʾalā Aś-Śaĥiĥain", appended by: "At-Talkhīś", Dar al-

Marifa, Beirut, 1418 A.H, photocopied from the Indian imprint, vol.3, p.130.

120 Ibid: same source

121 Al-Wādiʾī, "As-Sahih Al-Musnad Mimma Laisa fī Aś-Śaĥīĥain", Dar al-Athar, Sanaa, vol.1, p.373,

hadith no.442.

111

who hurts Ali, indeed he hurts me, and he who hurts me, indeed hurts

Allah."122

Fifthly: even if we make concession for the sake of argument granting the

invalidity of the hadith sanad, this will not engulf the body of matn which

remains valid. The rule in view of which scholars of Aspersion and

Acclamation tackle this matter is to separate between the sanad of the hadith

and its content (matn) as regards authenticity and validity.

Each one's authenticity is not conditional upon the other; just as it is probable

for the sanad and matn to be simultaneously authentic, they can be jointly

nullified, or alternatively one can be nullified and the other authentic but only

authenticated from another route. This rule is pinned down and implemented

by the Allama Al-Albānī in his works, whereby he says in his book ‟Sahih

Sunan Ibn Mājeh”:

‟By saying ‘authentic’ or ‘good’, I am referring to the matn. As far as the

sanad is concerned, it can be authentic and good ‘in itself’ (see glossary: bihī)

without support of other hadiths; or ‘otherwise’ (see glossary:lighairihī) by support

from other hadiths.”123

It follows, the content of the hadith may still be sound even though we

acknowledge the weakness of the sanad, and yet it does not eventuate as a

result the weakness or invalidity of the matn, due to the possibility to have the

sanad authenticated by other routes or to have the matn supported by other

narratives to corroborate its soundness.124

On these grounds, we maintain here that if Ibn Taimiyyah had more or less

observed scientific integrity, he must have said: 'the content of the hadith is

122

Ibn Abdul Bir, "Al-Istīʾāb fī Maʾrifat Al-Aśhāb", reviewed by: Ali Albijāwī, Dar al-Jil, Beirut, pub.1,

1412 A.H, vol.3, p.1101.

123 Al-Albānī, "Sahih Sunan Ibn Mājeh", Maktabat al-Maarif for publishing and distribution, Riyadh,

1st edition of the new impression , 1417 A.H - 1997 A.D, vol.1, p.14.

124 And that is what Al-Albānī did precisely. Despite attenuating the sanad of Salamān narration, he

used it as evidence to support the hadith which he deems authentic, i.e. "whoever loves Ali, indeed

he loves me, and whoever loves me, indeed he loves Allah (AZW)", narrated from Um Salamah. See

Al-Albānī "Silsilat Al-Aĥādīth Aśaĥīĥah", ibid, vol.3, 287-288, hadith no.1299.

112

sound and fixed, although by sanad, it constitutes a problem', rather than

generalising his statement to classify the whole hadith as false: a 'lie',

henceforth to delude the reader.

As for the 'third narrative', Ibn Taimiyyah traversed it in two contexts, and

both of which were classified as a 'lie'.

1. He said in the first context: ‟this (hadith) is one that every scholar

knows it is a lie.”125

2. He said in the second context: ‟and this is what exposes the lie

beneath the narrations of some companions like Jābir in that he

said: (we were not recognising the hypocrite ones, at the age of the

Messenger of Allah, only by the hatred of Ali), in truth, this negation

is a lie, the most ever visible lie.”126

Earlier, we displayed the sources of this hadith, with particular focus on

the book of ‟Juzu’ Ali Bin Muhammad Al-Ĥumairī” whose reporters

are said to be all trustworthy.

Ahead in the research, we exhibited the method that Ibn Taimiyyah

devised and the trend he pioneered, branding it as the Umayyad Trend

that is ceaselessly on motion to eradicate the merits of Imam Ali (as),

defame him and diminish the worth of his actions, roles and

contributions to Islam. Eventually, I would like to conclude with a

quotation from Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī in connection with Ibn Taimiyyah

commentary on the third hadith and his book ‟Minhāj As-Sunnah”, the

very book that poses itself nowadays as a first-degree source for the

Umayyad trend towards their perception of Islam and their critique of

Ahlul Bait doctrine; it is also the main reference for every mimicker of

Ibn Taimiyyah trend. So herby, I quote some appraisal statement on him

and his book from someone who does not in the least affiliate with the

School of Ahlul Bait and in no way can he be perceived of as prejudiced

and subjective. He is rather a valued fellow and marcher in the

125

"Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.4, p.298.

126 Ibid: same source, vol.7, p.149.

113

procession of Ibn Taimiyyah, drifted in his path and intertwined with the

general framework of his School.127

Ibn Ĥajr says in his book ‟Lisān Al-Mizān” in the biography on Ibn Al-

Muƫƫahar Al-Ĥillī, after pointing to Ibn Taimiyyah response to the Allama

book: ‟I have reviewed the aforesaid response, and found it

corresponding with what As-Sabkī said in ‟Al-Iṡtīfā’”, but personally I

found him exceedingly prejudiced in repelling the hadiths reported by

Ibn Al-Muƫƫahar, though they are in majority among the untenable and

forged hadiths. But actually in the process he repelled plenty of the

finest hadiths for which he had not consulted during his compilation

their original locations and references. Being a prolific memoriser, he

relies on the reservoir of his rib cage, albeit humans are susceptible to

forgetfulness. Eventually, his exaggerated attitude in attenuating the

discourse of the Rāfiđī has resulted more often than not in

127

To say that Ibn Ĥajar is interwoven in the fabric of Ibn Taimiyyah; spun in his School, is because he

implements criteria identical to the latter's in dealing with the legacy of prophetic hadith and with the hadith

narrators, particularly as concerns the commendation hadiths on Imam Ali and Ahlul Bait (as).

Reviewing this paragraph from Ibn Ĥajar, the prestigious reader will fathom the truth of the matter:

"I used to find it problematic that they authenticate nearly all the Nāśibī and attenuate the Shiʾite altogether,

considering that it has been transferred in respect of Ali: "no one but a believer would love him, and no

one but a hypocrite would detest him". Afterwards the answer to this problem was uncovered to me: this

hatred therewith is owing narrowly to the fact that he actively supported and triumphed for the prophet (saw-

a), as it is in the nature of humans to detest someone who caused them offense, or the other way around for

loving someone. All that was often in relevance to matters of this secular world, and as such the statement

on the love of Ali is not unconditional. It happened that he was loved by some to such a degree that they

went extravagant and claimed him to be a prophet, or a god -be He raised far above this manifest lie.

However, what is rendered on Ali has been rendered similarly on the Anśār, on which the scholars have

pointed out that if the Anśār were detested for the victory they achieved, this will be a sign of hypocrisy, and

vice versa, and this is applicable to Ali by the same token. Equally noticeable, the majority of those described

as Nāśibī are reputed for integrity and adherence to matters of religion, contrary to those described as Rāfiđī;

they are majorly liars and hardly God fearing in dealing with the reports. Originally it dates back to a time

when the Nāśibī faction held the belief that Ali had murdered Uthman or he aided into that, so they detested

him out of religiousness as they claim, besides having relatives who were murdered in the wars of Ali.

See: Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī, "Tahdhīb At-Tahdhīb", edited by: Ibrahim Az-Zaibaq et al, Mu'ssasat al-Risala,

Damascus, pub.1, 2008 A.D, vol.3, p.480.

114

deprecating Ali. However, this biography does not have the capacity to

elaborate on that and highlight related examples.”128

As a matter of fact, the deprecation of Ibn Taimiyyah for the character of

Imam Ali (as) is not a casual mishap or sheer blunder. In fact, there are

several matching context-indicators all over his book, which induce the

thought that his statements are unleashed by premeditated tactics. Where Ibn

Ĥajar withdrew and ostensibly apologised for not citing some evidencing

examples due to shortage of space in his book, we hereunder undertake this

task hoping that the reader finds in this study and future studies a satisfactory

sum of examples to bring him closer to this belief. Anyhow, this ongoing

debate we are conducting is a crystal-clear example in that direction. We

witnessed how Ibn Taimiyyah does not shun from denying hadiths which all

Moslem scholars deem authentic, and he alone classifies them as forged, or

moreover goes as far as to fumble for excuses for the detesters of Amīrūl

Mu'minīn Ali (as) including his murderers, and accredit and eulogise their

deeds.

Let the prestigious reader reflect on how Ibn Taimiyyah, led by his caprices,

creates justifications for the murderer of Ali (as). In a gesture whereby he

reminds us that his murderer is someone who prayers, fasts and rehearses

Qur’an, he presumes that after all he committed his crime out of belief that

Allah (Taʾala) and His Messenger (sawa) love the murderer of Ali, so he did it

for a noble cause in love of Allah and His Messenger -not knowing how Ibn

Taimiyyah probed into the depths of the man to tell on his behalf. He is

therefore at worst no more than a 'stray heretic', whereas the murderer of

Umar is unmistakably an atheist, considering the fact that a 'stray heretic' is

not dissident from Islam, but someone who did juristic inference and reached

at the wrong conclusion. Ultimately, Ibn Taimiyyah is trying to convince us

that the killer of Umar is an atheist and the one who killed Ali (as) is only at

fault due to a jurisdictional process, not knowing what has incited him to

discriminate between the two murderers!!

He says: "it is a common knowledge that the dislike of a person being an icon

of hypocrisy does not necessarily subsume his precedence over others. It is

unquestionable for anyone acquainted with the state of affairs of the

128

Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī, "Lisān Al-Mizān", edited by: Abdul Fattāĥ Abu Ghuddah, Maktab Al-

Islami’s Published Books, Beirut, pub.1, 1423 A.H - 2002 A.D, vol.8, pp.551-552, biography no.2619.

115

companions that Umar earned bigger enmity against the atheists and

hypocrites than Ali did, and his impact on the triumph and glory of Islam and

the humiliation of the hypocrites was greater than that of Ali, and the atheists

and hypocrites detested him more than they did for Ali. Consequently, the

one who killed Umar is a disbeliever detesting Islam, the prophet and the

Ummah, and with these motivations he perpetrated the murder. While the

one who killed Ali is someone who prays, fasts and rehearses Qur'an, thus he

killed him thinking it pleases Allah and His Messenger. So he did it out of

devotion to Allah and His Messenger -as he alleges- yet he remains a stray

heretic."129

129

"Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah", ibid, vol.7, pp.152-153.

116

The Normative Value of the Love of Ali Bin Abu Ţālib (as) and the Issue

of the Companions Uprightness

As indicated, the hadiths descended on the love of Imam Ali (as) has

established a highly critical rule, that is, his love and hatred (as) are the norm

to arbitrate on people's faith and hypocrisy. This norm renders every hadith

on the rightfulness of some lay or elite Moslem methodically untenable,

unless prior to that the love of Ali (as) is consummated by this Moslem.

Therefore, to clearly define someone as fair and rightful, in the sense that he

shows meticulous adherence to the rules and regulations of religion, is

pointless when he is likely to be a hypocrite or unbeliever.

If we cling to this vital rule as a systematic method, only then we will be able

to understand in a sound plausible manner the issue that has been

extensively discussed over and over giving rise to a great deal of complexity,

that is, the issue of the companions uprightness.

In order for this methodical rule to take its due course in this study, we need

first of all to consult the holy Quran tracing its perspective on this matter,

considering in the meantime that the ayahs of Qur'an interpret each other;

and each ayah maintains a tenuous grip on the other to formulate in the end

one whole coherent vision. In the event that some vague points are still

pending in the ayahs, the prophetic hadith, dictated by its religious and

missionary tasks, mends the gap by illuminating details vital and vigorous for

the construction of the overall divine Qur'anic theory.

Reverting to the honourable ayahs, we find three points mapped out as an

appraisal approach to one's faith:

Point One: the person should be heartily believing, not feigning belief: {The

Bedouins say: "we believe" (O prophet) say to them: "you do not

believe, you should rather say: "we have submitted", for belief has not

yet entered your hearts}130, according to which, it is determined that

humans are not deemed believers by mere verbal utterance, but they need to

have concomitant belief permeating their hearts.

130

Al-Ĥujurāt (14)

117

Point two: one's faith has to be uninterrupted; ceaselessly persisting with no

overturn or vicissitude whether pre-or-post the demise of the Messenger

(sawa): {those who swore fealty to you (O prophet) in fact swore fealty

to Allah. The Hand of Allah is above their hands. So whoever breaks his

covenant breaks it to his own hurt, and whoever fulfils the covenant that

he made with Allah, He will bestow on him a great reward}131. This clearly

states that the pledge of allegiance in itself is insufficient to demonstrate

one's faith, but one must fulfil what he pledged for; and if he breaks it or

apostates, he is immediately ejected out of faith.

Another honourable ayah in the same context: {Muhammad is no more

than a Messenger, and messengers have passed away before him. If

then he were to die or be slain, will you turn about your heels? Whoever

turns about on his heels can in no way harm Allah. As for the grateful

ones, Allah will soon reward them}132, stipulates that to be a believer, one

should stay steadfast in faith and not to overturn after the demise of the

prophet (sawa).

Point Three: one's faith should be accompanied with good deeds, or else

truthful faith cannot be accomplished by some abstract form of heartily belief

even though it remains stable and unchanging. This category and the other

two are envisaged by this Qur'anic verse: {indeed the ones possessed of

true faith are those who believed in Allah and His Messenger and then

they did not entertain any doubt and strove hard in the Way of Allah

with their lives and their possessions. These are the truthful ones.}133

These are specifically the foundations of faith in Islam as laid down by the

holy Qur'an.

131

Al-Fatĥ (10)

132 Āl-ʾImrān (144)

133 Al-Ĥujurāt (15)

118

Nevertheless, what remains is to know the norm under which we can signify

for the first prerequisite of point one, i.e. the heart-piercing belief, so how can

a Moslem attain faith of this nature?

It is precisely here where the missionary role of prophethood sets about to

answer for that submitting this Naś, which is the crux of our study: "no one

but a believer would love you, and no one but a hypocrite would nurse

grudge against you". This way, the 'love' of Ali would embody the 'minor

premise' of that ayah in the analogical reasoningxxi whereas the ayah itself

embodies the 'major premise' of the logical analogy, that is, faith must be

nailed down our heart to culminate belief, and without which we end up

Moslems at the face value. In other words, the prophetic hadith protrudes

here to delineate the minor premise of the analogy elucidating that heartily

belief cannot be materialised only via the love of Ali Bin Ab Ţālib (as). We

were enlightened earlier that this Qur'anic/prophetic logic was prevalent and

valid in the historical reality of Moslems, and people were unable to discern

the hypocrites only by virtue of their dislike to Imam Ali (as).

Another concurrent issue forwarded by Qur'an, point two, which needs to be

understood, relates to an outer reality that evolved during the era of the

Messenger (sawa), and represented by members of the society who had

overturned, broke the pledge and failed to fulfil the covenant, as illustrated in:

{Muhammad is no more than a Messenger, and messengers have

passed away before him. If then he were to die or be slain, will you turn

about your heels? Whoever turns about on his heels can in no way

harm Allah. As for the grateful ones, Allah will soon reward them.}134

We will put this subject in the spotlight furnishing it with narratives in coming

researches. But we need beforehand to examine the entire corpus of ayahs

onto which some factions cling to support their claim of unconditional

"uprightness of the companions". However, only briefly we will touch upon

this topic as it requires an independent exhaustive research getting into the

nerve of the problem (to come elsewhere). We can only say here that pursuant

to the rule and regulator we introduced above, that is, the love of Imam Ali

(as) personifies a criterion to adjudge on one’s belief or non-belief whether he

were a companion or a lay Moslem, this regulator alone will help us take the

134

Āl-ʾImrān (144)

119

research forward to determine the companion’s veracity or vice versa, taking

into account the ayahs used allegedly to prove this veracity.

The Attitude of Qur'an towards the Equivocal Issue of the Companions'

Uprightness

The principal Qur'anic verses, intensely used by some groups to substantiate

blanket rightfulness for the companions, are as follows:

The First Verse:

{Allah was much pleased with the believers when they swore featly to

you under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts. So He bestowed

inner peace upon them and rewarded them with a victory near at

hand.}135

Apparently, this honourable ayah is not addressed to the wide spectrum of

companions: the faithful and non-faithful, but clearly addressed to the former

in terms of 'believers', saying thus: {Allah was much pleased with the

believers}. So the question that arises here: who are those believers

signified by the verse? For the answer, it is binding at this point to turn to the

Scale which has been assigned by the prophet (sawa): "No one but a

believer would love you, and no one but a hypocrite who would nurse a

grudge against you."

The Second Verse:

{Muhammad is Allah's Messenger, and those who are with him are firm

with the unbelievers but compassionate about each other. You see them

occupied in bowing and prostrating and in seeking Allah's bounty and

good pleasure. They are distinguished from others by the marks of

prostration on their faces. This is their parable in the Torah and in the

Gospel, like a seed which sends forth its blade, then strengthens it so

that it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem. This is a sight

pleasing to the sowers and one by which the unbelievers will be

enraged. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do

righteous deeds forgiveness and a great reward.}136

135 Al-Fatĥ (18)

136 Al-Fatĥ (29)

120

This particular ayah is emphatically used by these groups to establish the

rightfulness of the companions, clutching notably to the segment: {"and

those who are with him"} as expressly an absolute and blanket description.

Yet, at the bottom of the ayah, we find it stating, contrary to that: {"Allah has

promised those among them forgiveness and a great reward"}, whereby

the preposition 'among' in 'among them' suggests segmentation, i.e. only

part of those who were "with him" were promised forgiveness and an

abundant reward. It cannot be comprehensive to every companion who co-

existed with the Messenger (sawa), as it is originally designated for the

devout truthful believers.

The Third Verse:

{Allah was pleased with those from the Muhājirsxxii and Anśār who were

the first to respond to the invitation to the Faith, and with those also

followed them in their righteous conduct, and they, too were pleased

with the reward from Allah; He has got ready for them gardens

underneath which canals flow and they will abide therein forever; this is

the greatest success.}137

The key point they stick to in this honourable ayah is the infinity of the

statement made on the {Muhājirs and Anśār}. The discrepancy point stems

from the usage of {from} in 'from the Muhājirs and Anśār', and the

interpretation they draw for its semantic significance. Seeing it as

'explanatory' renders it comprehensive to all the Muhājirs and Anśār, and

therefore provides extra evidence towards the uprightness of the whole

companions.

But as regards Ahlul Bait School, scholars disagree with this version and tend

to interpret the preposition: 'from' in terms of segmentation, relying for that on

the immediately annexed verse: {there are many hypocrites among the

Bedouins who dwell around you, likewise among the citizens of Al-

Medina there are hypocrites who have become obstinate in hypocrisy:

you know them not, but We do know them. The time is coming when We

will give them double chastisement: then they shall be returned to far

greater torment}138. The verse maintains that among the locals of Al-

137 At-Tawbah (100)

138 At-Tawbah (101)

121

Madinah, there exist some hypocrites who, without fulfilling the precondition

of belief, cannot attain Allah (Taʾala) pleasure with them and win the Gardens

of Heaven.

Moreover, considering the instrumental rule which is an indispensable

requisite for the interpretation of Qur'an that every exegetist or contemplator

have to take into account, i.e. the honourable ayahs of Qur'an paraphrase

each other, it becomes impossible to try to build up a sound Qur'anic vision

whilst disconnecting its ayahs, looking at some and blinking at others. Such

approach is condemned by the holy Qur'an, and anyone who implements it

will be included among those: {who have made Qur'an into shreds (as

they please)}139, who segmented the Book, believing in one part and ignoring

the other.

However, as we contemplate the verse on the Muhājirs 'immigrants': {"from

the Muhājirs who were first to respond"}140, we find the holy Qur'an

resolves this controversy about the identity of immigrants in: {those who

emigrated and were driven out from their homesteads, or suffered harm

in My cause, or fought or have been slain- verily, I will blot out from

them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing

beneath. This is their reward with their Lord; and with Allah lies the best

reward}141. This verse reduced the meaning of immigration and the faction

categorised as the immigrants to a specific conceptual notion. Not only to

move from one place to another, the concept of immigration is realised in the

measures of Allah (Taʾala), but the immigrant must have encountered

adversaries in the way of Allah, endured pain and hardship for his religion;

must have killed for Allah or faced martyrdom. These are the conditions

which are made compulsory by this Qur'anic vision in order to be identified as

‘Muhājirs’, noting that there are some companions, among the prominent

ones, who never entered a battle; and were not historically distinguished with

one single incident of jihad, or even worse, some were discouraging people

from rising to fight for Allah sake.

139 Al-Ĥijr (91)

140 At-Tawbah (100)

141 Āl-ʾImrān (195)

122

Over here, with the resultant meaning from bordering the two Qur'anic verses,

we realise that 'from' in the controversial verse is not explanatory but simply

a segmentation tool which renders the ayah infeasible to use as evidence for

the uprightness of companions in whole.

The Fourth Verse:

{Allah forgave the Prophet and those Muhājirs and Anśār, who stood by

him in a time of distress, after that the hearts of a part of them nearly

swerved (from duty); but Allah forgave them (also): for He is unto them

Most Kind, Most Merciful.}142

Again, some have used this verse to conclude and corroborate the

uprightness of companions by giving a generalised unbounded sense for the

term: {Muhājirs and Anśār} who were bestowed Allah's favour of

forgiveness. But, with recourse to preceding ayahs in the same Surah, we

immediately recognise the deficiency of this notion, i.e. {Allah has helped

you on many occasions before this; (recently you witnessed the glory of

his help on the day of the Battle of Ĥunain; you were proud of your

great numbers which had deluded you but it availed you nothing and

the earth, with all its vastness, became too narrow for you, and turning

your backs, you fled. Then Allah has sent his peace and tranquillity

upon His Messenger and the Believers, and sent down aid forces which

you could not see and chastised those who denied the truth, for this is

the due recompense of those who deny the truth.}143

These honourable ayahs maintain that Allah (Taʾala) has sent down His

tranquillity on the believers of the Muhājirs and Anśār in particular, yet clearly

not on an unspecified sample. However, to define the meaning of the

intended believers in this verse, we will have to fall back on the hadith: "no

one but a believer would love you, and no one but a hypocrite would

nurse grudge against you" so as to determine who the believer is and who

the hypocrite is. Henceforth, if anyone is proved to be one of the believers, he

will be encompassed by the favour of forgiveness in the honourable ayah, or

else he remains outsider.

142 At-Tawbah (117)

143 At-Tawbah (25-26)

123

The Fifth Qur'anic Verse:

{Surely, those who believed and migrated and strove hard in the way of

Allah with their possessions and their lives, and those who sheltered

and helped them- they alone are the true allies of one another. And

those who believed but did not migrate (to Dar-a-Islam), you are under

no obligation of alliance unless they migrate. And should they seek help

from you in the matter of religion, it is incumbent on you to provide help

unless it be against a people with whom you have a pact. Allah is

cognizant of all that you do.}144

Though this is one of the very verses, used as evidence-base for the

uprightness of companions, it actually has especially introduced restrictions

on the sense of 'immigration', stipulating belief as a constituent and a partition

between two types of immigrants. As a result, only the faithful of immigrants

firm in belief can be the guardians of each other, and may have:

{forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous}145, whereas those

immigrants lacking in faith are totally outlandish to these privileges and

statutes.

In sum, without consummating faith, the human actions including the

immigration and support for Islam will be valueless. It is stated in Qur'an in

this respect: {Allah does accept offerings only from those pious ones}146

and undoubtedly, piety cannot be actualised regardless of belief and good

deeds.

The Sixth Qur'anic Verse:

{It also belongs to the poor Emigrants who have been driven out of their

homes and their possessions, and those who seek Allah's favour and

good pleasure and help Allah and His Messenger. Such are the truthful

ones. It also belongs to those who before them had homes (in Al-

Medina), and had faith before the (arrival of the) Muhājirs. They love

those who have migrated to them and do not covet what has been given

them; they even prefer them above themselves though poverty be their

own lot. And whosoever are preserved from their own greed, such are

the ones that will prosper. (And it also belongs to) those who came after

144 Al-Anfāl (72)

145 Al-Anfāl (74)

146 Al-Mā'īdah (27)

124

them, and who pray: "O our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who have

preceded us in faith, and do not put in our hearts any rancour towards

those who believe. Lord, you are the Most Tender, the Most

Compassionate.}147

Again these honourable ayahs are used by and large to demonstrate the

uprightness of all the companions, but as we read them with attention to

detail, notably: {but those who before them had homes (in Al-Medina),

and had faith"}, it becomes transparent again that in order for a member

from the Anśār to be esteemed by Allah (Taʾala), he needs to have faith, and

this is specifically what the supplication of those who succeeded them

underlies in the concluding ayah: {and those who came after them say:

"Our Lord! Forgive us and our brothers who came before us into faith};

they invoke Allah for forgiveness but not indefinitely; forgiveness solely

directed to believers.

Moreover, we find the first ayah at the bottom describing them as: {such are

indeed the truthful ones}, and as we probe into the word 'truthful',

considering that verses of the holy Qur'an interpret each other, it appears

elsewhere clearly defined: {indeed the ones possessed of true faith are

those who believed in Allah and His Messenger and then they did not

entertain any doubt and strove hard in the Way of Allah with their lives

and their possessions. These are the truthful ones}148. Henceforth, the

'truthful' is firstly: a believer in Allah and His Messenger, secondly:

entertaining no doubt, and thirdly: underwent migration.

These are the descriptions of the 'truthful': belief comes to the fore, and yet it

cannot be realised or unearthed only throughout the Scale, which is placed

for us by the prophet (sawa): "no one but a believer would love you, and

no one but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against you", addressing

Imam Ali (as).

The Attitude of Hadith towards the Equivocal Issue of the Companions

Uprightness

In the above overview on the intricacies resulting from hypothesising

unconditional rightfulness for the companions pertinently to the ‘love and

grudge’ hadith, we hinted how the holy Qur'an tackles the matter depending

147 Al-Ĥashr (8-10)

148 Al-Ĥujurāt (15)

125

on certain criteria for the personality appraisal of the Moslem individual. In the

same discussion, point two, we highlighted a specific key issue underpinned

by the holy Qur'an in this respect, i.e. a believer is someone who is steady

and firm in faith with no change, vicissitude or reversion. Equally true, we

alluded that Qur'an bears witness that such overturn acts have virtually

occurred in the Moslem community, and we promised to have another

stopover on the topic to support it with extra evidences.

In this section, we shall come across the bulk of hadiths undealt with,

providing that the selection of hadiths is strictly made from narratives traced

to the top source-books of the Sunni thought, i.e. Sahih Al-Bukhārī and

Muslim.

From ‟Sahih Muslim”, I select the following:

First Narrative: from Abdullah Bin Ubaidullah Bin Abu Mulaikah that he

heard Aisha saying: I heard the Messenger of Allah, amid his companions,

saying: "I am at the Fount waiting for whoever of you happen to meet

me. Yet by Allah, the track will be hindered with no men traversing. I

would say: O Lord! From me and from my Ummah! He says: you know

not what they perpetrated after you, they have been constantly turning

back on their heels."149

Second Narrative: from Abdullah Bin Rāfiʾ, servant of Um Salamah on the

authority of Um Salamah ... the Messenger (sawa) said: "I am your

forerunner on the Fount, whereupon no one of you would come to me

and he is not being repelled just as how a strayed camel is repelled,

whereupon I would say: what is this for? It would be said: you know not

what they innovated after you, I would say: far-off be they."150

Third Narrative: from Al-Aʾmash from Shaqīq from Abdullah, he said: the

Messenger of Allah (sawa) said: "I am your forerunner on the Fount and I

would fight in defence for some folks, but my efforts would be foiled, so

149 Al-Qushairī An-Naisābūrī, Abu Al-Husain Muslim Bin Al-Ĥajjāj, “Sahih Muslim”, reviewed

and hadiths extracted by: Muslim Bin Mohammed Uthman As-Salafī Al-Atharī, introduced and

assessed: Mohammed Mustafa Al-Zuĥailī, Dar al-Khair, vol.4 & Kitab “Al-Fađāil - Book of

Virtues”, p.119, hadith no. 2294.

150 Ibid: same source, hadith no.2995

126

I say: O Lord my companions, my companions! It would be said: you

know not what they innovated after you."151

From Al-Bukhārī narrations, I select the following:

First Narrative: Abu Ĥāzim said: and so heard me (An-Nuʾmān Bin Abu

ʾAyyāsh) ... then said (i.e. An-Nuʾmān): I bear witness that I heard Abu Saʾīd

Al-Khudrī annexing to it [to a preceding narrative transferred by Abu Ĥāzim

from Sahl Bin Saʾad]: "I would say: they are from me, and it will be said:

you know not what they innovated after you. I would say: far-flung, far-

flung he be who altered after me."152

Second Narrative: from Saʾīd Bin Al-Musayyab from Abu Hurairah that the

latter was relating that the Messenger of Allah (sawa) said: "there will come

to me on the Doomsday a squad from my companions, and they will be

expelled from the Fount, and I would say: O Lord my companions, and it

will be said: you know not what they innovated after you, they retraced

their steps backward."153

Third Narrative: from ʾAţā' Bin Yasār from Abu Hurairah from the prophet

(sawa) he said: "there will come to me on the Doomsday a squad from

my companions, and they will be expelled from the Fount, and I would

151 Ibid: same source, p.121, hadith no.2997

152 Al-Bukhārī, "Al-Jāmi' As-Sahih", explained and reviewed by: Muhibul Dīn Al-Khaţīb,

volumes, chapters and hadiths collected by: Mohammed Fu'ād Abdul Bāqī, published, revised,

edited and supervised the printing: Quśai Muĥibul Dīn Al- Khaţīb, Maktaba al-Salafiya, Cairo,

pub.1, 1400 A.H, vol.4, p.206, hadith no.6584.

153 Ibid: hadith no.6585. Adduced in Ibn Ĥajar transcript in his book: "Fatĥ Al-Bārī": "back on

their heels", which corresponds to the lexical Qur'anic usage in: {Muhammad is no more than a

Messenger, and messengers have passed away before him. If then he were to die or be slain

will you turn back on your heels? Whoever turns back on his heels can in no way harm Allah.

As for the grateful ones, Allah will soon reward them} (Āl-ʾImrān:144), and brings us to wonder

why the two reviewers made no indication to this. Ibn Ĥajar Al-Āsqalānī, Ahmed Bin Ali, see:

"Fatĥ Al-Bārī Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī", edited by: Abdullah Bin Abdul ʾAzīz Bin Bāz,

footnotes completed under the supervision of Ibn Bāz: his student: Ali Bin Abdul Azīz As-Shibl,

numbers assigned by: Mohammed Fu'ād Abdul Bāqī, Dar al-Salam, Riyadh, pub.1, 1421-2000,

vol.11, p.577.

127

say: O Lord my companions, and it will be said: you know not what they

innovated after you, they retraced their steps backward."154

There is a plethora of relevant hadiths, yet I will take this much of samples

lest we lengthen the research unnecessarily. However, this portion can be

adequate to convince the reader about the core idea.

On our part, rather than doing an in-depth analysis or searching out the

content of these reports, we make some swift remarks:

First Remark: these are outright narrations on the fact that the companions

have brought novelties to the religion originally non-existent, and they

retraced their steps or according to Ibn Ĥajar transcript: 'turned back on their

heels', whereby the latter expression is but a repercussion of the Qur'anic

verse: {Muhammad is no more than a Messenger, and messengers have

passed away before him. If then he were to die or be slain will you turn

back on your heels? Whoever turns back on his heels can in no way

harm Allah. As for the grateful ones, Allah will soon reward them},155 that

is, they receded into the Jāhiliyyah traditions and beliefs.

In point of fact, upon the standards of scientific discipline, those who cling to

the concept of indefinite rightfulness of the companions must start to discard

a baseless belief and admit the fact that some companions deviated from the

path of Islam. They ought also to acknowledge that what is imputed to the

Shiʾite regarding the apostasy of some companions is equivalently and

explicitly a conviction we locate in the most salient Sunni sources: Sahih

Muslim and Al-Bukhārī.

Second Remark: it appears from these narrations that the number of

companions who introduced novelty to religion or retraced their steps is fairly

big. Yet, so as not to be locked in a vicious cycle of debate over the exact

number of such companions, we only simply figure out from the diction of

these narratives that their number reached a very high score. Examples of

this diction: his exclamation (sawa): "O my companions, my companions!", or

his proclamation (sawa): "the track will be hindered with no men traversing",

or his frequent description of the companions as a 'squad', and thereupon

said to: "there will not be distilled from them (the squad) but so much as

154 Ibid: same source, pp.206-207, hadith no.6587.

155 Āl-Imrān (144)

128

'hamal an-naʾam (only a few)" , as 'squad' is known in the Arabic lexicons as

a group or a multitude of people.156

As for the segment: "there will not be distilled but so much as 'hamal an-

naʾam'" cited in Sahih Al-Bukhārī, Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī annotates: "Al-

Hamal (with two short vowels /a/) is the camel with no shepherd", while Al-

Khaţţābī said: "Al-Hamal is the animal which is not put to graze nor it is

utilised. The term is also used for strayed animals in the wilderness. The

overall meaning is that there will not come to (the Fount) only a few of them,

as the Hamal of camels is little compared to others."157

Third Remark: Ibn Ĥajar interpreted the word: 'man' cited in the last hadith,

which we transferred from Al-Bukhārī, saying: "it is meant by 'man': the angel

consigned with that, and I could not find out his name."158

His interpretation in a way is bizarre as the two contexts of the narration with

the word 'man' not 'angel' were forthright and unreserved. Thereupon, we turn

again to the heritage of Ahlul Bait for the interpretation of 'man', quoting the

prophet's saying (sawa) with respect to Imam Ali (as): "you are the Divider

of Paradise and Hell",159 and Imam Ali personally saying with the same

import: "I am the Divider of Paradise and Hell"160. No wonder, he is the

Divider; for when his love and hatred are touchstones for the believers and

hypocrites, he is not overstating his value by the self-portrait he gives on

himself as the divider between Hell and Paradise in the Hereafter, since life in

this World is a plantation for the other World.

Ibn Ĥanbal was asked about this particular saying of Amīrul Mu'minīn about

himself, and he replied: "what do you chide in that; is it for who he is? Have

we not been narrated by the prophet his saying to Ali: no one but a believer

156 See Zumer entry in Arabic lexicons.

157 “Fatĥ Al-Bārī”, ibid, vol.11, p.578.

158 Ibid: same source

159 Ibn Bābawaih Al-Qummī, Abu Jaʾafar Mohammed Bin Ali Bin Al-Hussein, "ʾUyūn Akhbār

Ar-Riđā", authenticated, introduced and annotated by: Hussein Al-Aʾlamī, Mussasat al-Alami for

publication, Beirut, pub.1, 1404 A.H -1984 A.D, vol.1, p.30 & 92.

160 Al-Kulainī, Abu Jaʾfar Bin Muhammad Bin Yaʾqūb Bin Isĥāq, "Al-Uśūl min Al-Kāfī",

authenticated and annotated by: Ali Akbar Al-Ghafārī, Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya, Tehran, pub.3,

1388 A.H, vol. 1, pp. 196-197-198.

129

would love you, and no one but a hypocrite would nurse a grudge

against you? We said: yes, indeed. He said: then where is the abode of the

believer? We said: in Paradise. He +said: then where is the abode of the

hypocrite? We said: in Hell. He said: henceforth, Ali is the Divider between

Hell and Paradise.161

Fourth Remark: these narrations have avowed clearly that among the

companions, there will be some who deviate from Islam after the demise of

the prophet (sawa), and they will introduce novelties into religion. Relevantly,

it is handed down from the prophet (sawa): "the first to alter in my Sunnah

will be a man from Banu Umayyah."162

It is noteworthy that if I am slightly touching on this matter, it is because this

research is one link in a series on full portrait of: "the Umayyad Islam" leading

eventually to a vivid coverage of the bits and pieces. Nonetheless, the reader

needs to bear in mind that the historical survey of narratives we made so far

on acts of apostasy and novelty is made in as much as to undermine the

thesis of unbounded rightfulness of the companions. Added to that, it will

appear later through a comparative study of these narratives with others that

the leading figures of these acts, i.e. distortion, alteration and apostasy are

strictly from the interiors of the Umayyad clan, headed by Muʾāwiyah Bin Abu

Sufiān.

Summary of Key Facts Precipitated from the Research

A number of key facts have precipitated from the late research, which are in

short:

First Fact: the reference made by the holy Qur'an to those who accompanied

the Messenger (sawa) of the Muhājirs and Anśār, and the special

descriptions given to them are actually applicable to a specific faction rather

161 Abu Yaʾla Al-Farrā' Al-Baghdādī Al-Ĥanbalī, Al-Qāđī Abu Al-Hussain Muhammad Bin Abu

Yaʾl, "Tabaqāt Al-Ĥanābilah", reviewed and introduced by: Abdul Raĥmān Bin Sulaimān Al-

ʾUthaimīn, Riyadh, 1419 A.H – 1999 A.D, vol.2, p.358.

162 Further elaboration on this hadith will follow. So far I only note that the Allama Al-Albānī

authenticated this hadith. See Al-Albānī, Muhammad Nāśirul Dīn, "Slisilat Al-Aĥādith Aś-

Śaĥīĥah", ibid, vol.4, p.329, hadith no.1749.

130

than the entirety of companions; this specific faction possesses the truthful

sincere belief.

Second Fact: within the chapters of Qur'an, there are verses which point to a

faction of hypocrites existing among Moslems, e.g. {(O Prophet), when the

hypocrites come to you, they say: "We bear witness that you are

certainly Allah's Messenger." Allah certainly knows that you are His

Messenger. But Allah also bears witness that the hypocrites are utter

liars!}163. We believe that such clear pronouncements and fact sheet on the

hypocrites, not only leave no room for the argument of indefinite rightfulness

of companions, but set the scene for a bigger inquest on the magnitude of

this faction in the Islamic community at that time, their characteristics

according to Qur'anic vision, and the admonition of Allah regarding their

destiny.

Third Fact: the tradition in respect of Amīrul Mu'minīn (as): "no one but a

believer would love you, and no one but a hypocrite would nurse a

grudge against you" illustrates layers for the companions where the

believing ones are set apart from hypocritical ones by means of a prophetic

norm. That said, it should be noted that narrowing down the track of this norm

to the circle of companions in this study is because the issue of companions

is currently under spotlight, otherwise it functions on a much wider scale

beyond that group encompassing every Moslem across ages.

Fourth Fact: the honourable Qur'anic text and the esteemed tradition of the

prophet (sawa) have placed for us three pillars to judge on the companion

and estimate the extent of his faith as follows:

Firstly: to be a believer (the criterion of belief cited above)

Secondly: not to innovate in religion, overturn or revert rearward.

Thirdly: inapplicability of the prophetic hadith to him: "he who dies without

allegiance, his death is one of the Jāhiliyyah". In other words, he should

not have lingered nor withdrawn from the pledge to the legitimate Imam,

whether at an advanced stage, as in the example of Abdullah Bin Umar, or at

later stages by way of overturn or violation of allegiance, as seen with some

163 Al-Munāfiqūn (1)

131

groups who paid allegiance to Imam Ali (as) at the outset then disavowed it.

(This pillar is amplified elsewhere)164

Muʾāwiyyah: Whether or not Resentful of Imam Ali (as)

The final remark holds a critical clue for the inauguration of this section (see:

the Attitude of Companions: remark four). To start with, there are groups who

malevolently exploit modern mass-media to send false messages on the

Shiʾite thought letting pass some misconceptions as regards the companions

and their crucial role in serving Islam. Earlier in the research, reviewing the

principal criteria for the appraisal of companions, we pinpointed the extent of

misrepresentation that the Shiʾite thought has been subjected to in this

respect, evincing as well how these criteria were implemented by the glorious

Qur'anic text and noble prophetic tradition. In the meantime, we have not

provoked any row or vicious argument in relation to certain personalities, for

our main concern is to set the scene for a systematic scientific approach

towards the topic rather than browsing any companion's profile here or there.

Undeniably, no one is empowered to call upon others to accept the

guardianship of a specific individual or faction, before stressing and giving

prominence the systematic grounds applied by Qur'an and the prophetic

Sunnah towards the equivocal question of the avowal-disavowal, i.e.

accepting someone's Imamate or rejecting it. Qur'an declares in this context:

{did you not see the hypocrites say to their brothers, the unbelievers

among the People of the Book: "if you are banished, we too will go with

you and will not listen to anyone concerning you; and if war is waged

against you, we will come to your aid". But Allah bears witness that they

are liars.}165

The honourable ayah evidently voices the opinion that the hypocrites and

atheists are fraternally related: 'brothers'166, while elsewhere another ayah

164 See: Lecture Series: "Al-Iţrūĥah Al-Mahdawiyyah"

165 Al-Ĥashr (11)

166 It is important for the reader to note that this ayah (Al-Ĥashr: 11) is a link in a chain of the most

vital ayahs (8-10) used to claim the "the uprightness of all companions". By their succession, they

seem to suggest two points at one time: firstly: to urge Moslems to pray for the goodness of their

brothers who preceded them in Islam, secondly: to disown the hypocrites who are deemed by the

ayah as brotherly with the atheists from the people of the Book. This point is very crucial and

worthy of attention.

132

sharply delineates the right attitude of Moslems towards the unbeliever as

impunity, i.e. freeing him from any obligation towards the unbeliever: {this is

a declaration of immunity from obligation by Allah and His Messenger

towards those idolaters with whom you made a treaty. You are free to

move about in the land for four months more: but you should know that

you cannot frustrate the Will of Allah, and that Allah will degrade the

rejecters of the Truth.}167

According to this ayah, it becomes incumbent on Moslems to disown the

hypocrites and keep apart from them. Incidentally, knowing that the

hypocrites were virtual reality in the Islamic society during the prophet's era, it

ensue that belief in indefinite fairness for the companions and accepting their

authority as guardians in total are contradictory to the sacred teachings of

Qur'an.

This is the core concept of the Shiʾite Imami thought on the status of the

companions. In no way does it misuse the Qur'anic text clinging to a certain

ayah with unbounded meaning and isolate it from its context and other

relevant ayahs which contribute to its content so as to squeeze out a certain

intended message, unlike the case with groups who took all these liberties to

wring out any desired message from the Qur'anic text and use it to instil

sectarian rioting and doctrinal dissension, or to force a certain wrongful

conviction, e.g. we are commanded to ask forgiveness for the companions

and revere them as our guardians. Such attempts, being unable to

differentiate between the classifications and divisions of the companions

which are dictated by the holy Qur'an itself, fail to consider any subtleties and

specificities implicated in this heavy weight declaration. Furthermore, they do

not halt at this level of vile deception, but lash out loud that the Shiʾa accuse

all the companions of unbelief and degrade them excluding a few, aiming by

this to obliterate the truth, and discredit the doctrine of Ahlul Bait (as) among

the public Sunni milieus.168

167 At-Tawbah (1-2)

168 The fact that their motives are to obliterate the truth and bring the doctrine of Ahlul Bait to

disrepute will be uncovered for the reader once he realises that the number of companions who

were martyred only in the battle of Śiffīn at the side of Amīrul Mu'minīn exceeded seventy,

mindless of the names of the prominent companions who stood by him (as) in battles and other

proceedings. All this proves it is implausible for the Shiʾite individual to say that all-or-majority of

the companions have turned into disbelief or apostatised. However, clinging to such narratives in

the process of discussion without scrutinising the sanad and ignoring the scholars' verdicts about

133

We will halt only briefly at the names of companions who failed to pass the

test of the Scale: "no one but a believer would love you, and no one but a

hypocrite would bear a grudge against you". This topic requires a broader

and massive research to be thoroughly satisfied. At this point, we will go over

profiles of some companions who are lavishly awarded the honour of

companionship, assigned attributes of rightfulness and fairness, and they are

still being revered as Amīrul Mu'minīn or still enjoying prerogatives such as:

people seeking Allah's pleasure with them. By this description, I signal to

Muʾāwiyyah Bin Abu Sufiān, the pioneer and founder of the "Umayyad Islam"

(title given for this series of research) on the intellectual and political levels in the

Moslem community.

The key question at this point: where is Muʾāwiyyah standing in relevance to

the love and hatred of Imam Ali (as)? What is his calibre from the perspective

of the Scale: "no one but a believer would love, and no one but a

hypocrite would bear a grudge against you"? Has he passed this test

successfully or he fell into hypocrisy?

It is indisputable that deep down any grudge, there is a spiritual element

based on hatred and repulsion against the person in question, and naturally

this element has clues and gestures to indicate it and lay it open to view, viz.

direct confession of hatred, and here we have several narratives (to be

exhibited later) on a bunch of companions who were not shunning from

confessing their hatred to Imam Ali (as), and went beyond that to show

feelings towards certain people for nothing other than their hatred to him (as).

Other gestures of grudge are outer conducts which are conventionally

interpreted as hatred, vindictiveness and hearty dislike, manifested by curse,

debasement, swearing and slandering.

them is a way to obscure and elude facts for a non- specialised reader. The prestigious reader must

have noticed that we committed ourselves from the very start, whether in this research or

forthcoming ones of this series, not to cite any hadith without taking into account the attitude of

Ahlul Sunnah scholars and ensure their accreditation and acceptance of the hadith. In any case, the

concept of 'apostasy' as cited in such hadiths does not mean to break up from religion and repudiate

it, but merely to reject some essentialities of Islam and deny some foundation pillars, and this

concept is similarly stated in the Sunni narratives given earlier. This subject is so copious and

diversified that it cannot be well-furnished in this abridgement. A more thorough study will

hopefully be provided in a future opportunity.

134

Seen in this light, we can figure out the stance of Muʾāwiyah towards Imam

Ali (as) in relevance with of the equation (love-hatred) throughout his outer

conduct, irrespective of whether or not he was debasing Imam Ali (as),

swearing at him, cursing and slandering?

Our conviction as regards Muʾāwiyah is that not only has he pioneered the

acts of swearing and cursing, but he founded an organisational culture that

held the hatred of Ali (as) as a ceremonial religion for public worship.

Muʾāwiyah has established a community and cultivated a whole generation

that will continue for decades not communicating with Imam Ali (as) only via

resentment, strong dislike and bare grudge. For this, we have multiple

evidences and testimonies, the biggest of which is the ceaseless warfare led

by Muʾāwiyah against Ali (as), encroachment upon him and shedding his

blood with impunity granted to the perpetrators. All these acts were

nationwide fads of the era and publicly practised. However, mindless of the

warring issues, we can submit to the prestigious reader a number of authentic

reports substantiating the resentment of Muʾāwiyah to Imam Ali (as). The

following examples are illustrative but not exhaustive:

1. Ibn Mājeh Al-Qazwīnī said in his "Sunnan": Ali Bin Muhammad related to

us saying: Abu Muʾāwiyah related to us saying: Mūsā Bin Muslim related to

us from Ibn Sābiţ who is called Abdul Raĥmān, from Saʾad Bin Abu Waqqaś

who said: Muʾāwiyah went on one of his Hajj voyages, and Saʾad called in.

As the name of Ali was mentioned, Muʾāwiyah assailed him, which angered

Saʾad and said: you are debasing a man on whom I heard the Messenger

(sawa) saying: "whoever I am his master, Ali indeed is master too", "you

are for me like Aron to Moses, but no prophet will follow me" and "I

would give the war-flag to a man who loves Allah and His

Messenger."169

169 Ibn Mājeh Al-Qazwīnī, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Yazīd, "Sunnan Ibn Mājeh", reviewed,

annotated and hadith extracted by: Shuʾaib Al- Arnā’ūţ et al, Risala Al-Alamiya publisher,

Damascus, pub.1, 1430 A.H, vol.1, p.88, hadith no.121.

135

The book reviewers including Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt, who is one of the signposts

in the Science of Aspersion and Acclamation, annotated: "The hadith is

authentic, and the chain of transmitters is trustworthy."

An-Nasā'ī in his book "Al-Kubra" had it extracted with the same chain of

transmitters, whereby his version is longer than the above-given, but not

including: "whoever I am his master, Ali indeed is his master": Muslim [...]

and At-Tirmidhī [...]"170

2. The above hadith has been adduced by Nāśirul Dīn Al-Albānī in his book

"Sahih Sunnan Ibn Mājeh", which means he had it rated as authentic, and

added commenting on the phrase: "he assailed him", saying: "in other words,

it is Muʾāwiyah who assailed Ali and spoke ill of him."171

I have but transferred Al-Albānī comment that Muʾāwiyah in person is the

slanderer and abuser, because soon enough it will unveil that hands have

been laid on this hadith, altering and tampering with its content, i.e. deleting

names and substituting by pronouns, so as to make it susceptible to multiple

interpretations and deflect its original connotations.172

Furthermore, Imam Abu Al-Hasan As-Sindī Al-Ĥanafī had preceded Al-Albānī

with this view in his explanation of "Sunan Ibn Mājeh", amplifying:

"It means: Muʾāwiyah had assailed Ali, abased and swore at him, and

moreover he commanded Saʾad to swear at him, as stated in Muslim and At-

Tirmidhī. This tension is originated by the worldly matters of this mortal life

that were running between them. There is no might or power but with Allah.

May Allah forgive us and connive at our wrongdoings. If this is duly well

170 Ibid: same source.

171 Al-Albānī, Muhammad Nāśirul Dīn, "Sahih Sunnan Ibn Mājeh", ibid, vol.1, p.58.

172 Part of these attempts is what Al-Mubākafūrī did in his explanation of “Jāmiʾ At-Tirmidhī”,

whereby he presumed that Saʾad was among a faction accustomed to the swearing at Ali, and that

the narrative does not explicitly tell that Muʾāwiyah has ordered Saʾad to do the swearing. See: Al-

Mubākafūrī, Abu Alʾūla Muhammad Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abdul Raĥīm, “Tuĥfat Al-Aĥwadhī bi

Sharĥ Jāmiʾ At-Tirmidhī”, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilimiya, Beirut, pub.1, 1410 A.H -1990 A.D, vol.10,

pp.156-157.

136

thought out173, it ensue that the swearing has been made in terms of a

critique or other acts admissible for the people of juristic inference on

this wise, but not at all in terms of cursing or so forth.”174

I had some phrases highlighted to note that this sort of analysis cannot be

warranted, namely, to say both Muʾāwiyah and Ali (as) were prompted in their

conflict by "worldly matters of this mortal life". This is certainly an

eccentric way to flatten the matter!! Not only because it is scientifically

untenable with the documents we have that uncover the ulterior motives of

conflict for each man, but because it comes in an endeavour to fold this page

without taking the trouble to inspect one of the bloodies, the most tragic and

rampaging periods of the Islamic history.

The engendering factors of this conflict were never one and the same for

each man, so that we take liberty to say: "worldly matters .. between them".

In reality, matters of this mortal world were solely the pursuit of Muʾāwiyah no

more, whereas for Ali (as) it was a principle much more profound; it lies in the

heart of Islam and none other than Islam, i.e. to protect the creed of

monotheism and teachings of Sharia. More plainly, it was Islam versus

Jāhiliyyah, not simply a modest small-scale war for rulership and sovereignty.

All the historical documentations serve as clear proofs for these facts and

testify how Muʾāwiyah, driven by lust and fancy for power, has been anti-truth

173 It is noteworthy that the logic of "well thinking" in respect of the assailers of Ali (as) is not

applied equitably and evenly to everyone. As regards Muʾāwiyah, this logic is valid all the time, but

as for others, the same logic is subject to consideration! It is functional by the same token with

reporters who are icons of naśb when assessed by the Aspersion and Acclamation books, but it can

be impaired with other reporters and only functioning as a tool for discrediting their faith to the

degree that their narrations are dropped and banned. Therefore, we do not know what is so special

about Muʾāwiyah to always enjoy the privilege of ‘well thinking’? What is the truth behind it? Is it

sheerly ethically motivated, or set in defence of Muʾāwiyah, his symbols and what he represents of

the political and ethical systems!?

See for example what is said by the assessors of Aspersion and Acclamation in respect of:

Aś-Śilt Bin Dinār Al-Azdī Al-Baśrī, Azhar Bin Abdullah Al-Ĥarāzī, Ĥarīz Bin Uthmān Ar-Raĥbī

As-Sharqī, Lumazah Bin Zabār Al-Azdī Al-Jahađamī, Abdullah Bin Sālim Al-Ashʾarī, Abdullah

Bin Shaqiq Al-ʾUqailī, Naʾīm Bin Abu Hind Al-Ashjaʾī, etc.

174 As-Sindī, Abu Al-Hasan Bin Abdul Hādī Al-Tatawī, "Sharĥ Sunan Ibn Mājeh” & in the

margins of the book: "Taʾlīqāt Muśbāh Az-Zujājeh fi Zawā'id Ibn Mājeh", Imam Al-Buśairī,

reviewed the origins (according to the six Sahih books), hadiths extracted, numbered by: Khalīl

M'mūn Shaiĥā, Dar al-Marifa, Beirut, pub.3, 1420 A.H, vol.1, p.86.

137

and pro-falsehood175, to the extent that Amīrul Mu'minīn (as) after his battle

with the Kharijites came out with his famous utterance: "do not kill the

Kharijites after me, for he who pursues the truth but he mishits is not

like someone who pursues falsehood and attains it" hinting at Muʾāwiyah

and his ulterior motives. Even if we oust Imam Ali (as) from his infallibility

(recognised as infallible by Ahlul Bait School), it tuāns up that the historical

sequence of events after his martyrdom were running concordantly with that

declaration, proving beyond doubt the validity and reliability of his verdict on

Muʾāwiyah and his peers, and also revealing the intentions and motives of

this conflict when Muʾāwiyah converted the reign of Allah's Messenger (sawa)

into hereditary despotic rulership, squandering Moslems wealth, shedding in

vain their dignity, distorting their creed and suspending the Sharia rules and

ethos.

Although knowing that these points need full-colour illustrations and more

vivid details to help lift the veil of obscurity and forgery from history, which

rendered the truth too complex to grasp by the lay reader, I hope that Allah

may grant me success to deal with the subject in future researches of this

series: "The Umayyad Islam" with the due meticulous care and scientific

procedure it requires.

However, to interpret Muʾāwiyah's conduct as a 'critique', and a practice of

'juristic inference' which 'mishit the target' is but a barefaced blatant exercise

to twist the prophetic hadith: "no one but a believer would love you and no

one but a hypocrite would bear grudge against you" and eschew other

sound accounts (samples given earlier) which equate between the verbal abuse

of Ali and the Messenger of Allah, hence the abuse of Ali and Allah (Taʾala).

With this logic, instead of taking his right position amidst history as a

hypocrite, offender and abuser of Allah and His Messenger, Muʾāwiyah has

become Mujtahid anticipating the reward of Heaven for the effort he made in

an inference process though with faulty end result. This is a hopeless attempt

to patch up and adorn the ugly face of Muʾāwiyah. It is unhidden for a witty

175 See: Ibn Abī Al-Ĥadīd Al-Madā'inī, Abu Ĥāmid ʾIzzil Dīn Abdul Ĥamīd Bin Hibahtullah,

"Sharĥ Nahj Al-Balaghah", reviewed by: Muhammad Abu Al-Fađl Ibrahim, Dar Ihia Al-Kotob

Al-Arabiya, pub.1, 1379 A.H -1959 A.D, vol.5, p.78.

138

reader that if the story is conversed and Ali (as) stands in Muʾāwiyah's

position in the dock, there will not be any attempts to interpret his acts in

terms of good will. On the contrary, he will be subject to malevolent

treatment; suspected, incriminated, defamed and accused of offences which

he has not truly perpetrated, as typically carried out by Ibn Taimiyyah and the

like of him.

Back to As-Sindī's claim that to "assail him" does not constitute to 'curse

him' but simply to 'swear' and 'speak slanderously and unfavourably on him'

which is "a jurisdiction for the people of juristic inference", we say it is a weak

presumption, infirm and lacking in historical evidence. However, swearing in

itself on the part of Muʾāwiyah is an evildoing violating the explicit Sunnah

and hadith of the prophet (sawa), and misrepresenting the moral ethical

codes of Islam that prohibit filthy, obscene language and abusive tongue.

More importantly, contrary to this claim, history testifies that the pillars of

Naśb were set up by Muʾāwiyah, and the custom of cursing was first

performed on the pulpits of Moslems by him again. This point will be shortly

elaborated for the reader to know how far the partisans of Muʾāwiyah plunged

into erroneousness just to advocate him.

3. This narrative is also transferred in "Al-Muśannaf", by Abu Shaibah Al-

'Absī Al- Kūfī (d. 235). The book is highly important for its old age and

genuineness firstly, and for containing crucial information which has been

tampered with and altered at subsequent stages.

Abu Shaibah, whose chain of transmission is the same as that of Ibn Mājeh

said: "from Saʾad, he said: Muʾāwiyah went on one of his Hajj voyages, and

Saʾad called in. As they mentioned Ali, Muʾāwiyah assailed him, which

angered Saʾad who said: "you are saying this for someone on whom I heard

the Messenger of Allah saying he has three faculties, whereby possessing

any of these faculties is more desired for me than the whole of this World and

its treasures. I heard the Messenger (sawa) saying ‟for whoever I am his

master Ali is his master too", I also heard him say: "you are for me like Aaron

139

to Moses, but no prophet will follow in my wake", and similarly heard him: "I

would give the war-flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger."176

Muhammad ʾAwamah, the book reviewer annotated:

"its chain of transmission is vigorous, it has been narrated by Ibn Abu ʾĀśim

in "As-Sunnah" from "Al-Muśannaf", with no other corroborating hadith in

itself [...], narrated with the same chain of transmission of "Al- Muśannaf" by

Ibn Mājeh, narrated by An-Nasa'ī from Mūsā Bin Muslim, equally narrated by

a group excluding his saying: ‟for whoever I am his master Ali is his master

too” which was substituted by "O Allah, these are my family members "

correspondently with the Qur'anic verse: {say: let us summon our sons and

your sons}. Also with the same wording, the hadith was narrated by Ahmed,

Muslim, At-Tirmidhī, An-Nasa'ī and Al-Ĥākim."177

On my part, I have revised all these references, and found no word with the

name of Muʾāwiyah but substituted by a pronoun! And that is what we meant

earlier by meddling in the hadith. Therefore, I recommend the prestigious

reader to turn to older genuine references whether manuscripts or printed

books reviewed by contemporary researches.

So far, it has become evident we have at our disposal narrations which are

straightforward and plain in stating that Muʾāwiyah used to assail Ali and

abuse him verbally, besides commanding others to do so, as seen in the

account of Saʾad Bin Abu Waqqāś.

Yet, all what we advanced is dealing only with part one of stage one of

Muʾāwiyah's amid the equation of the "love and hatred" of Ali (as). This part

basically shows that Muʾāwiyah was assaulting Ali on a personal level and

swearing at him in public, with the companions and Moslems are on sight.

176 Abu Shaibah Al-ʾAbsī Al-Kufi, Abu Bakr Abdullah Bin Muhammad (159-235), "Al-

Muśannaf", reviewed, rectified and hadiths extracted by: Muhammad ʾAwwāmah, Dar al-Qiblah,

vol.17, p.101, hadith no. 32741.

177 Ibid: same source.

140

As for part two, stage two with the same equation and Muʾāwiyah, it exceeds

the personal or individual level extending to the social to incorporate the

populace of Moslems in the hatred mode and verbal abuse of Imam Ali (as).

In other words, Muʾāwiyah erected a novel Sunnah and social rite for the

daily practice of the general public reckoning the swearing and cursing of

Imam Ali (as) as permissible, or even more so, desirable and recommended

in Islam, and a requisite of religion to seek nearness to Allah (Taʾala).

At this juncture, Muʾāwiyah appears so adamant with all his potential to

educate a whole generation with the hatred of Imam Ali (as), and get them

into the habit of cursing and swearing at him. We are faced with a colossal

scheme with cultural, intellectual and dogmatic dimensions, investing all the

state expedience and finance, the broadcasting media starting from prayer

leaders in mosques, Friday orators, to the narrators and tutors congregations,

etc. only to overturn the scale of love and hatred in the minds of Moslems,

and install a new scale revolving around the question of avowal and

disavowal. It is a brand new industry based on cultivating and steering

Moslems' feelings and passions in the interest of that political personal

scheme. More seriously, the objectives and end effects were not addressed

to the lay people who can be labelled as intellectually superficial and simple-

minded, but swept a wide class of scholars and thinkers, who served the

scheme to a high degree with their theorisation and compositions turning it

into an intellectual compact doctrine, and inviting Moslems to embrace it. The

protagonist scholars who led the scheme were: Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Ĥajar, Ibn

Taimiyyah, Ibn Al-Qayyim and Ad-Dhahabī.

How did Muʾāwiyah do that? Let us review Ad-Dhahabī phrase in "Siyer

Aʾlām An-Nubalā":

"There are swarms of people in the background of Muʾāwiyah, who love him,

overvalue and give him a favourable regard. They were either drawn to him

for his generosity, forbearance and bestowals, or they were born with his

love, including a small number of companions, and a big number of

141

successors and dignitaries, who fought the people of Iraq with him, as they

grew with Naśb. We seek refuge in Allah from caprices."178

What Ad-Dhahabī describes as the 'forbearance' of Muʾāwiyah is no more

than his 'smart cunningness' that he was reputed for in all historical

documentations, whereas the 'generosity and bestowals' are other

expressions for looting and exploiting the treasury of Moslems in his capacity

as a ruler for his personal interests.

But what we are concerned with in Ad-Dhahabī descriptive account is the

portrait he gives for the Syrian society in that era: 'they grew with Naśb'179. It

is obvious that this growth with naśb is the aftermath of propaganda and

governmental scheme to nurse grudge and hostility against Imam Ali (as),

with Muʾāwiyah sitting on top of the scheme. Though Ad-Dhahabī does not

acknowledge the fact that such campaign has been administered and

supervised by Muʾāwiyah, the reader can decipher that the very traits of

Muʾāwiyah sketched lavishly for him by Ad-Dhahabī: generosity, forbearance

and giving by which he won the hearts of the Syrian younger generation,

were not purposeless. There was an ultimate purpose behind that, and the

question is: what is that purpose? Whose interests it serves? It is the naśb

and nothing other than naśb, or else how do we justify the evolution and

development of this concept?! It certainly has not come out of the blue or

unplanned! Ad-Dhahabī has illustrated the layout of that hatred scheme, its

mechanism and repercussions, but as he comes to the name of the culprit,

178 Ad-Dhahabī, "Siyer A'lām An-Nubalā'", supervised the book review and hadith extraction by:

Shuʾaib Al-Arnāūt, reviewed by: Muhammad Naʾīm Al-'Arqasūsī et al, Mussasat al-Risala, Beirut,

1402 A.H -1992 A.D, vol.3, p.128.

179 The reviewer of Ad-Dhahabī book defined the "naśb" as follows: the Nāśibah are the hypocrites

and those religiously nurtured the hatred of Ali"; they do not only hate Ali, but practice their

religion and seek nearness of Allah through his hatred (as). See Shamsul Dīn, “Siyer”, ibid, vol.4,

(volume reviewed by: Ma'mūn As-Śāgharjī), p.37. The same is said by Ibn Taimiyyah, see:

“Minhāj”, ibid, vol.4, p.554, where he defined naśb as the hatred of Ali and his children.

142

he keeps it secret. However, the unsaid cannot be concealed from a witty

reader that the frontman of the campaign is precisely speaking Muʾāwiyah.

But in order to assure the reader about Ad-Dhahabī awareness of Muʾāwiyah

position as the frontman and plotter of the scheme, we quote another part of

the same paragraph where he deals with Imam Ali (as) agenda in Iraq,

considering it as equivalent and counterpart to that of Muʾāwiyah in Syria, a

theory for which he provides some explanation afterwards. And as Ad-

Dhahabī sees the outlook of Iraqis, relationship and mental attitude towards

Muʾāwiyah as the product of Imam Ali policy in Iraq, we easily guess from his

logic of equivalence the one who is accountable on the other side for framing

the Syrians minds, outlook, relationship and mental attitude towards Imam Ali

(as), according to him. In relevance with that, Ad-Dhahabī digresses:

"... just as the army of Ali and his subjects, excluding the Kharijites, are

indoctrinated to love him and rise with him to war, dislike whoever

wrongs him, and disown him, notwithstanding many of them went to

extravagant lengths in Schism, so how is it like by Allah the condition of

someone who grew in a territory where you almost see no one but

extravagant in love, excessive in hatred? How can justice be

executed?"180

In this extract, Ad-Dhahabī constricts the entire scheme of Muʾāwiyah; the

indoctrination of the Syrians on his love counter to the hatred of Imam Ali

(as), into a form of political agenda, against which stands a collateral agenda

by Imam Ali in Iraq which correspondingly leans on promoting his love to his

subjects opposite to the hatred of Muʾāwiyah. As for the vast majority, they

are for him the victims of political coaching and the current mood of the social

climate.

I have been receiving enquiries from my readers and viewers investigating

whether or not I can provide an evidence for rating Ad-Dhahabī as Nāśibī. In

response, I introduce some of his scripts which evince his precept of naśb,

and enquire on my part: is he truly ignorant of the difference between the

180 Ad-Dhahabī, Shamsul Dīn, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā'", ibid, vol.3, p.128.

143

implication in loving Imam Ali (as) and hating him; between affection to

Muʾāwiyah and affection to Ali (as)? Is the love of Ali (as) truly the offspring of

social upbringing dictated by the political climate and pursuit for power or is it

part of religious coaching, enjoined by Qur'an and the Messenger of Allah

(sawa) who literally called to embrace his love and to condemn his detester,

assailer or abuser? Can we reduce the Scale of his love and hatred to merely

political clashes, or is it actually a principle of faith; an Islamic decree,

concept, value, and a norm according to which we know to whom we avow or

disavow? What should the Moslem individual do in this case? Should he

identify Ali (as) with the political conflict, and place him in equal position with

Muʾāwiyah, overlooking the prophetic tradition in respect of his love, loyalty

and his status as our guardian? Or should he stand up for the malicious plots

of Muʾāwiyah and expose how he repelled the teachings of Islam and orders

of the prophet (sawa)?

The answers to these questions circumscribe the state of Naśb.

By now, the reader has some tangible grounds to tell which party Ad-Dhahabī

sides with. Not only does he declare his affiliation with Muʾāwiyah, but he

openly implores forgiveness and mercifulness of Allah (AZW) for the

offenders, continuing his last phrase as follows:

"we utter praise to Allah for good health, He Who offered us existence in a

time when Truth is sifted and clarified at which side of the two parties it

stands, so much so that we distinguished the flaws of each faction, gained

insight into things, and thereafter found excuses, asked forgiveness, and

loved mildly, sought Allah mercy for the offenders by applying some

agreeable interpretation to a certain sentence, or by anticipating forgiveness

for some error God willing, hence we said just as we were taught by Allah:

{our Lord! Forgive us, and our brothers who preceded us in faith, and

do not put in our hearts any rancour towards those who believe.}181

Ad-Dhahabī, the insightful, was guided by his clear insight to love Ali 'mildly',

but as regards Muʾāwiyah even though an offender -as Ad-Dhahabī admits

himself- he can be justified by ‘'applying some agreeable interpretation to a

181 Ad-Dhahabī, Shamsul Dīn, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā'", ibid, vol.3, p.128.

144

certain sentence'’ or by ‘'anticipating forgiveness for some error God willing'’,

therefore for him he is excused, or moreover he asks forgiveness and

mercifulness for him, incessantly beseeching Allah not to instil in his heart a

grudge against him for he is among {those who believe}.

Just for the reader to know the frailty of Ad-Dhahabī effort in advocating

Muʾāwiyah, let him examine closely his phrases: ''applying some agreeable

interpretation to a certain sentence'' and 'anticipating forgiveness for

some error God willing'' to see what brittle and flabby expressions they are

and how craftily exploited to evoke sympathy in his favour, and thereafter to

withdraw an extremely grave conclusion, that is, to decisively and firmly

merge Muʾāwiyah with those who believe, on whom the ayah urged the

believers to implore Allah (AZW) to remove any grudge against them from

their hearts?! So instead of itemising him among the hypocrites pursuant to

the prophetic hadith: "no one but a believer would love you, and no one but a

hypocrite would bear grudge against you", Muʾāwiyah was turned by virtue of

Ad-Dhahabī modest bashful statement into a 'devout believer' at first,

henceforth into a man of indisputable faith!

Eventually, away from Ad-Dhahabī fiery rhetoric on his clear vision, we

proceed with Muʾāwiyah and the hatred policy fostered to a whole society

against Imam Ali (as). By then, the state of affairs was so frantic that the

Moslem society was deserting the prophetic Sunnah just to escape

Muʾāwiyah punishment for the offence of loving Imam Ali (as)! From the

amount of multifarious accounts, I cite these two for the reader, which suffice

to illustrate the public fear from penalty for the love of Imam Ali (as) and how

the prophet's Sunnah was forsaken by people lest they should be

incriminated:

1. Adduced in ‟Sunan An-Nasā'ī” and authenticated by Al-Albānī the

following: "from Saʾīd Bin Jubair, he said: I was with Ibn Abbas in Arafat

mount, whereby he asked: "why cannot I hear people doing talbiyah?”,

‟Scared of Muʾāwiyah", I said. So Ibn Abbas went out of his tent and did

145

talbiyah saying: "O Allah, here I am wholly submitting to you. Verily they

deserted the Sunnah out of hatred for Ali."182

2. Imam As-Sindī said in his commentary on As-Siyūţī's explanation of Sunan

An-Nasā'ī, with respect to Ibn Abbas statement ("verily they deserted the

Sunna out of hatred for Ali"), -noting that the phrases in brackets are made by

As-Sindī himself, on which he explained:

"[...] and thereafter the root cause of disagreement among scholars over

the talbiyah in Arafat has come to light, from which it transpired that the

truth can be at either side of the two factions, all due to the hatred of Ali;

explicitly for hating him, that is, he was unyielding about the practices of

Sunnah, and thus they abandoned it out of his hatred."183

In conclusion, we close this chapter with a stanza composed by Ibn Kathīr

Ad-Dimashqī, one of the prominent figures of the Umayyad Islam, appearing

at the end of his book: "Al-Bidāyah wan Nihāyah". After long chanting

rhymed verses with the names of all the caliphs, whom he describes as

praiseworthy, he concludes in that very stanza that Muʾāwiyah was Nāśibī,

loathing Imam Ali (as):

"As-Sheikh ʾImād Ad-Dīn Ibn Kathīr said: "I wrote some rhymed metrical

verses afterwards". He cited some lines concerning the Tatar invasion of the

Islamic kingdoms, the overthrowing of the Abbasid Caliph and the aftermath

of events, henceforth referred in another poem to the affairs of the Fatimid

caliphs in Egypt, and eventually allotted a whole poem on the Umayyad

affairs, saying at the prelude:

As such are the Caliphs of Banu Umayyad

Their count is like the count of the Rāfiđiyyad

182 Al-Albānī, Muhammad Nāśirul Dīn, “Sahih Sunan An-Nasā'ī”, Maktabat al-Maarif for

publishing and distribution, Riyadh, pub.1 of the new edition, 1419 A.H – 1998 A.D, vol.2, p.343,

hadith no.3006. This narration is also verified by the writer of “At-Taqlīqāt As-Salafiyyah”, vol.1,

p.264.

183 “Sunan An-Nasā'ī bi Sharĥ Jalālul Dīn As-Siyūtī, annotated by: Nūrul Dīn As-Sindī”,

reviewed, indexed, numbered by: Islamic Heritage Investigation Office, Dar al-Marifa, Beirut,

vol.5, p.279.

146

Yet, below the scale of hundred years was their period

All of them were Nāśibī save for Umar, the rightly guided

Muʾāwiyah, henceforth his son Yazīd

Then his son-child Muʾāwiyah, the unerring.184

184

Ibn Kathīr, "Al-Bidāyah wal Nihāyah", ibid, vol.17, p.375.

147

Chapter III

The First Portrait

Defiling the Immaculate Progeny of the Prophet

(2)

Hating and Swearing at Ali (as)

Preface: Research Topic and Objectives

The Immaculate ʾItrah for Ahlul Bait School and the Companions

School

Threefold Classification of the Islamic Schools: Reference Quotes

from Prominent Figures

Some Evidences on the First Umayyad Portrait

The Umayyad Policy: Quotes from some Prominent Figures

Percussions of the Umayyad Policy on the Science of Aspersion and

Acclamation

Firstly: Slander and Ill-Speaking on the Loyalists to Ahlul Bait

Secondly: Authentication and Praise of the Grudge-Holding to

Ahlul Bait

148

Preface: Research Topic and Objectives

There can be nothing more complicated than recording the intellectual history

of a certain faction, not only for the deficiency of documentations, and the

nature of these documentations, degree of reliability and disparity between

them, but due to another intricacy, embodied by the relationship of that

historical term with the dominant politics, and the dubuiosities that are likely

to emanate and impact the investigation of the truth and reality of that

particular history and the boundaries of its setting.

To explain these dubuiosities at a greater length and unravel their threads,

the research will take another channel. So in order for the reader to

understand the implication of our remark, he can call to mind the simplest

form of such dubiosity, that is, the conventional relationship between a

particular intellectual trend and the prevailing politics of the historical term to

be recorded, which commonly takes two forms: either fused with the

dominant policy and ruling authority, enslaved to their agenda, icons,

objectives and orientations, or at the other extreme: confronting and

opposing. In both cases politics plays a big part in mystifying and disfiguring

the intellectual scene of the period:

In the first case, the political authorities would act in a manner that

embellishes the intellectual maxims and sentiments of the trend, disguises its

origins and objectives, henceforth patches and merges the trend with another

set of intellectual maxims that are readily accepted by receptors. This way the

whole trend is blurred and its real features are masked under the guise of

some catchy slogan.

In the second case, the political authorities would act conversely to the

former, leading extermination, suppression and libel campaigns against

opponents from the other trend, and making every effort to efface the

scholarly output of compositions and compilations. This is largely what baffles

a historian pursuing the truth, and double his work to such a degree that he

may not be able to dig out the truth and fathom the reality of the contents and

intentions of the trend under study.

In the next few pages of the research, we try to approach a certain issue

undergoing such difficulties. The issue is not a side effect of some agenda

but directly manufactured and schemed by politics (as revealed later). It can be

summed up by the following question: is the archetype of Islam presented by

149

the Umayyad House, whose highest official is Muʾāwiyah Bin Abu Sufiān, the

same Islam instituted and imparted by the prophet (sawa), the Islam we

inherited from authentic acclaimed sources, or it varies in methods, objectives

and contours?

The general policy implemented by the Umayyad House takes two steps:

Step One: establish far and wide in the Moslem society a set of rules and

principles on the intellectual and political levels, glaringly contrasting with the

ethos and concepts of Islam, such as spreading tribal sectarianism, distorting

the mission of Islamic conquests and expansions, monopoly of Moslems

wealth, initiating enmity towards the Household of the Messenger (sawa) and

so on.

Step Two: convey a misleading impression that the archetype of Islam they

diseminate is analogical to that of the prophet's companions. Therefore to

preserve the companions' legacy and assign them the due regard, one must

consummate that by similar regard for the icons of the Umayyad House, be

subservient to their policies, trust in them, acknowledge their virtues and have

favourable judgement on their precepts which are ostensibly analogous to the

companions'.

In point of fact, this research at your disposal my dear reader, endeavours to

achieve a binary task at one time while answering that question:

Task One: to provide the prestigious reader with a vivid scientific portrayal on

some features and contours of the Umayyad Islam, supported by evidences

to show how they hardly meet with the tuition of Islam, and to prove that the

Umayyad House, early back from first coming into Islam, were plotting evil for

the prophet (sawa) and his mission on the prospect to undermine and deface

their monumental features.

From the wide range of portraits which highlight this truth, we opted a pivotal

one, that is, the unabating policy implemented all along the Umayyad reign,

namely the attitude towards the ʾItrah of the prophet (sawa), mirrored by

hostility, denial of virtues, massacre and oppression. In a word, that attitude

rests on the ferocious strenuous effort to obliterate and uproot every vestige

of Imam Ali (as) and Ahlul Bait (as), coupled with the companions who

revered them, recognised their ranking in the Islamic history and stood

against the Umayyad trend.

150

Task Two: to abrogate the Umayyad House allegation that they are

representatives of the companions in ideology and teachings of Islam,

assuming their identity and following in their track, and that the corpus of

concepts, convictions and policies they promote and implement are replica of

the companions'.

It is common knowledge that Ahlul Bait School rejects the theory of 'blanket

uprightness' of the companions, and judge their calibre by the degree of

empathy with the principles of faith, indistinctively from later comers to Islam

of succeeding generations. It also attests for the great majority of companions

their virtuousness, strife and sacrifices in the way to propagate and triumph

for Islam. Accordingly, this research aims to peel off the mantle of legitimacy

that the Umayyad House feigned by claiming to set out from the credentials

of companions as a point of reference, in their practices and intellectual

convictions. Probably, at the present or future research, we identify the

companions who were attired the capacity of Marjiʾ by the Umayyad House,

introduce to their statures and statuses, the actual proportion they historically

contributed to the call for Islam, hence prove the prodigious fallacy of the

Umayyads and their partisans that they had the companions on their side and

that they represent them and speak for them.

The danger of the Umayyad proposals in relevance to the Islamic thought

and history does not only lie in the false allegations and counterfeit of

historical facts by which they induce people and win their hearts, but also in

their diligence to construct the Moslem community according to these

proposals and bring them to the point of persuasion. More vexing is the

continuation of some scholars in the footsteps of the Umayyads, theorising

and contriving some intellectual foundations for their formula of Islam in terms

of the companions' and forerunners' Islam who first existed in the Islamic era.

Eventually, what we will be concerned with as much as the study can tolerate

is to subvert this artifice and deceit overshadowing our intellectual history,

hence expose how the Umayyad formula barely relates to the companions'

legacy, and how sinister and anomalous the consequences they levied on

Islam.

We maintained that the primary target of this study is to outline side views of

the Umayyad anti-prophetic Islam, and currently the venue for that is the

immaculate ʾItrah of the prophet (sawa) and the Umayyad's attitude towards

them. But the reader needs to note here that this chapter will take the

exclusive instance of Imam Ali (as), displaying how the Umayyad House

151

relentlessly tried to wipe out his name, debase him and deny him his laudable

achievements. But before we progress further, we will shed light on the

general conceptions of both Ahlul Bait School and the Companions School

towards the ʾItrah (as), which demarcates the huge gap between the

Umayyad trend and the Companions School and evinces the difference

between each one's convictions. At the end, I will equip the reader with

excerpts with the view that the Umayyad Islam is independent from the two

Schools of Ahlul Bait and the Companions, having its very own character.

152

The Immaculate ʾItrah

For Ahlul Bait School and the Companions School

The usage of the term 'Ahlul Bait' in this study is idiosyncratic, unlinked to the

semantic entry of ''one's household'' in the glossary of Arabic lexicons.

According to mutawātir scripts, it is confined to the figures of: "Ali, Fatimah,

Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein", along with the succeeding nine Imams on whom

evidences from the first emblems of Ahlul Bait themselves, were handed

down to indicate their incorporation in this term.

Below are the main pillars of the conception of Ahlul Bait School on their

Imams:

First Pillar: believe from a dogmatic angle in the impeccability of Imam Ali,

Fatimah Al-Zahra' and the nine Imams of their progeny (as), their stand as

the natural extension of the prophet (sawa) in his capacity as the divine Marjiʾ

of Islam and the consultative leadership from which statutes, rulings and

values are derived.

Second Pillars: believe from a political angle, as regards the post of

caliphate and allegiance in lieu of the prophet (sawa), they are (as)

conclusively the legitimate caliphs.

As for the Companions School, though the two pillars are disacknowledged,

i.e. the impeccability and exclusive succession after the prophet (sawa), they

conceive of Imam Ali and his household (as) as high-ranked emblems in

Islam, and Imam Ali (as) in particular, as the fourth rightly guided successor

of the prophet (sawa). Incidentally, his love and hatred are embodiment of

faith and hypocrisy alternately, and he is one of ten men promised Paradise,

and anyone who rebels against him is deemed impudent transgressor,

destined for Hellfire unless he repents. A parallel perception of grandeur and

affection is applied to Fatimah Al-Zahra' (as), hence to Al-Hassan and Al-

Hussein (as) acknowledging they are the delight of the Messenger (sawa)

and the Masters of the youth of Paradise; and they and their parents (as) are

the protagonists of the Cloak event who had the honour of utter purification

from filth by the holy Qur'an.

As for the nine Imams of Ahlul Bait, the descendants of Imam Hussein (as),

the Companions School commends them and celebrates their magnificent

merits and exquisite knowledge.

153

The reviewer, Al-Manāwī (952-1031A.H)185 said at the bottom of his

explanation of hadith no. 2631 in Jalālul Dīn As-Siyūţī’s "Al-Jāmiʾ As-Saghīr

min Ahādith Al-Bashīr An-Nadhīr" ("I hereby leave among you two

things in my place: the Book of Allah, a line stretched from Heaven to

Earth, and my ʾItrah and Household. They will not depart each other till

they meet me at the Fount") interpreting the term 'Ahlul Bait':

"This is a detailed description after abbreviation, either in the appositive or

illustrative formxxiii. It is said they are the Cloak members who were cleansed

from filth and purified, and also said: they are the ones who are prohibited

Zakat being too elevated, a view which is outweighed by Al-Qurţubī, and this

purports: if you stick to what the Book enjoins, refrain from what it prohibits,

be inspired by the guidance of my ʾItrah and take after their conduct, you will

be guided and will not go astray. Al-Qurţubī said: this prophetic will and its

emphatic tone make binding on us the respect of his household, obedience,

reverence and love on a par with other strictly stressed religious duties, and

failure to observe that is inexcusable. This is over and above their special

statuses for the prophet (sawa) in that they are integral part of him. They are

the roots from where he grew and the branches that grew from him, just as

he said: "Fatimah is part of me."

Then he proceeds in the same context: "despite that Banu Umayyah have

returned these mighty vested rights by transgression and disobedience, they

shed the blood of Ahlul Bait, enslaved their women and captivated their

children, ruined their homes, renounced their honour and virtues, and

licensed their captivity and curse. So they infringed the Mustafa (sawa) will,

met him with ingratitude, contrary to his aim and wish. What a big shame

awaits them when they stand before him, and what a disgrace in store for

them when they are arrayed before his eyes."186

185

See his biography in: Al-Zarkalī, Khairul Dīn Bin Maĥmūd Ad-Dimashqī, "Al-Aʾlām", Dar El Ilm

Lilmalayin, pub.15, 2002 A.D, vol.6, p.204.

186 Al-Manāwī, Mohammed, nicknamed as Abdul Ra'ūf Bin Tāj Al-ʾArifīn Bin Ali Al- Ĥaddādī Al-Qāhirī,

"Faiđ Al-Qadīr Sharĥ Al-Jāmiʾ As-Saghīr min Ahādīth Al-Bashīr Al-Nadhīr", proofreading and

verification by: Ahmed Abdul Salām, Muhammad Ali Baizun publications: Dar Al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah,

Beirut, 1422 A.H. 2001 A.D, vol.3, pp.19-20, hadith no.2631.

154

What Al-Manāwī indicates in the last part of his phrase is essentially the core

problem of the Umayyad Islam. No matter how hard they tried to seize the

voice of the Companions School and assume an official capacity in their

name, they are evidently and completely antithetical to the grounds of that

School, particularly in the attitude towards the ʾItrah of the prophet (sawa).

This fact is clearly announced by a number of Moslem prominent figures (to

elaborate further shortly).

155

Threefold Classification of the Islamic Schools:

Reference Quotes from Prominent Figures

It has been reiterated throughout the study that the approach of Moslems

towards Islam, particularly with respect to Imam Ali (as) has not been

symmetrical. The arena of intellectual history proved to have witnessed a

trend at variance with Ahlul Bait and the Companions Schools. While the last

two have major intersection points, the third has demonstrated all along

history a different profile. In so much as the Companions School varies with

Ahlul Bait's in that the latter identifies Imam Ali (as) as dogmatically infallible

and politically the immediate caliph after the Messenger (sawa), they criss-

cross on allegiance to Imam Ali (as), his love and disownment of his enemies.

They acknowledge too his virtues, feats and great position in the history of

Islam, which isolates them from the trend of antipathy and defamation, and

singles out a third school unique to itself. Rigidly speaking, we called that

school: the Umayyad Islam, but this is not a novelty from our side or a newly

fashioned term we coined for the specific use of this study, unprecedented by

other scholars over history. To prove that, we present quotes and references

from the writings of some scholars who embraced the term before we did,

and traced that threefold classification in their books or simply made implicit

reference to a third trend:

First Reference: allusions made by Ibn Taimiyyah in "Minhāj As-Sunnah"

that a triple division in the stand towards Ahlul Bait (as) is traceable in history.

He said: "it is well-known that when he came to post (i.e. Imam Ali), the

companions and the remainder of Moslems were divided into three

categories; one who fought with him, one who fought him, and others who

were motionless, neither involved with this side nor the other, whereby the

majority of the earliest predecessors were among the motionless."187

187 Ibn Taimiyyah, "Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah", reviewed by: Muhammad Rshād

Sālim, Mussasat Cordoba, pub.1, 1406 A.H-1986 A.D, vol.7, p.55.

As for Ibn Taimiyyah’s claim that the majority of the predecessors were among the motionless who

involved in no action, it is one of his pieces of truth-evasion and distortion. It will appear on due

time that most of the remaining companions particularly the earliest forerunners were at the side

Imam Ali (as) in his wars. In order not to keep the prestigious reader waiting for our next

investigation, I select this extract from one of the contemporary researchers of Ahlul Sunnah, who

said after exhibiting evidences on the legitimacy of Imam Ali (as) wars in his confrontation with

Muʾāwiyah and describing these evidences as 'huge in number', considering the most outstanding of

which as: "ʾAmmar is to be killed by the transgressing faction": "There was only a negligible

156

Ibn Taimiyyah stated in multiple contexts that a big number of the Umayyads

and their partisans hated him and used to swear at him188, and that the

subjects of Muʾāwiyah are themselves the loyalists of Uthman and the people

who clustered round him, and among them there were the Nāśibī detesters of

Ahlul Bait.189

Second Reference: statements made by Shamsul Dīn Ad-Dhahabī while

recording the biography of Al-Fa'fā' Khālid Bin Salamah Al- Qarashī Al-Kufi in

his book "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā'", -noting that Al-Fa'fā' was an assailer of

Imam Ali (as)- in which he said: "the earliest foregoing people after the battle

of Śiffīn were pulled apart into multi-divisional factions: Ahlul Sunnah who

were people of erudition, lovers of the companions, sober and self-restraining

on disputes among themselves, like Saʾad, Ibn Umar, Mohammed Bin

Salamah and many others, then the Shiʾa who centre their loyalty around Ali,

assail those who fought him deeming them as oppressive inequitable

Moslems, then the Nāśbī who fought Ali on the battle of Śiffīn; they

acknowledge the Islam of Ali and his predecessors but say: he failed the

caliph Uthman in time of need." 190

This quote from Ad-Dhahabī, despite its brevity contains many points that we

disagree with. Irrespective of the historical layout he creates for the three

divisions, the format of beliefs he ascribes for each one, and the Sharia

number with Muʾāwiyah". Then he paraphrases his phrase: "I said only negligible, because he had

at his side only ʾUmru Bin Al-ʾĀś, Al-Mughīrah Bin Shuʾbah, An-Nuʾmān Bin Al-Bashīr,

Muʾāwiyah Bin Ĥudaij, Muslim Bin Mukhallad, and a few others, whereas with our master Ali

(may Allah be pleased with him) there were seventy men from the battle of Badr, seven hundred

from the Ar-Riđwān Pledge and four hundred from the remainder of the Muhājirs and Anśār..."

See: At-Talīdī, Abu Al-Fitūĥ Abdullah Bin Abdul Qādir "Al-Anwār Al-Bahirah”, Maktabat al-

Imam al-Shafiʾi and Dar Ibn Hazm, pub.1, 1417 A.H, p.69.

188 See for example: "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.7, p.210 & "Majmūʾ Fatāwā wa Maqālāt

Mutanawiʾah", edited and hadiths extracted by: ʾĀmir Al-Jazzar et al, Dar al-Wafa, pub.5, 1426

A.H-2005 A.D, vol.4, pp.276-298.

189 Ibn Taimiyyah, "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.5, p.466.

190 Ad-Dhahabī, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubala'", reviewed by a group of researchers under the

supervision of Shuʾaib Al-Arna'ūt, Musassat al-Risala, pub.3, 1405 A.H-1985 A.D, vol.5, p.374.

157

rulings about them according to Allah's Book and the prophetic Sunnah, we

are ultimately concerned with the fact that Ad-Dhahabī admits the existence

of threefold division.

Third Reference: allusions made by Ibn Ĥajar Al-Asqalānī in his book "Fatĥ

Al-Bārī" as he embarks on the biography Ali (as) in a chapter, titled: "The

Feats of Ali Bin Abu Ţālib", saying:

"[...] though people were two factions, the heretics were inconsiderable in

number. But when the affair of Ali followed afterwards, another faction came

into being and fought him. Then the calamity aggravated, so they started to

abase him and made of his curse a fixed Sunnah on the pulpits. The

Kharijites coincided with them on his hatred and heightened it until they

accused him of apostasy, which adds up to Uthmanxxiv. Eventually, people

have ended in respect of Ali into three divisions: Ahlul Sunnah, the heretics of

Kharijites and the combatants against him from Banu Umayyah and their

followers. Under these circumstances, Ahlul Sunnah felt the need to

disseminate his virtues, so transmitters of these virtues proliferated with the

proliferation of those who opposed that action." 191

Fourth Reference: what some contemporary researcher expressed, i.e. Abu

Al-Fitūĥ Abdullah Bin Abdul Qādir Al-Talīdī in his book: "Al-Anwār Al-Bāhira

bi Fađā'il Ahlul wal Dhuriyyah Aţ-Ţāhirah", while explaining the third

reason for writing his book saying: "to rebuff the allegations of the extremists

in general who accused Ahlul Sunnah of Naśb, absolute animosity for Ahlul

Bait and deflection from them, and this is wronging Ahlul Sunnah and

overstepping all boundaries, as the non-Shiʾite Moslems has been and still

are loving Ahlul Bait, respecting and exalting them, and putting them in their

due place. They are even better than the Shiʾa in that respect, as Ahlul

Sunnah do love the purified Ahlul Bait and their descendants in the same way

191

Ibn Ĥajar, Abu Al-Fađl Ahmed Bin Ali Al-ʾAsqalānī, "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", reviewed and verified by: Abdul

ʾAziz Bin Abdullah Bin Bāz, hadiths and chapters numbered by: Muhammad Fu'ād Abdul Bāqī, editing and

proofreading: Muhibul Dīn Al-Khaţīb, Dar al-Marifa, Beirut, 1379, vol.7, p.71, Ch. ‘The Feats of Ali Bin

Abu Ţālib’.

158

they love the prophet's companions whom they respect and seek Allah's

pleasure for them just as it is the case with Ahlul Bait."192

192 "Al-Anwār Al-Bāhira bi Fađā'il Ahlul wal Dhuriyyah Aţ-Ţāhirah", ibid, p.6.

159

Some Evidences on the First Umayyad Portrait

Narratives in this respect are abundant, but as I made an obligation upon

myself not to produce evidences only when they are equally validated by both

Schools, I will solely cite to the effect that substantiates the existence of the

antipathy and degradation policies when Muʾāwiyah was in office. Proving

that does not require great effort when bearing in mind that Muʾāwiyah shed

Amīrul Mu'minīn blood with impunity, fought and rebelled against him.

Evidences:

Evidence One: What is adduced in "Sahih Muslim", chapter: "Virtues of

Imam Ali", saying: related to us Qutaibah Bin Saʾīd and Muhammad Bin

ʾAbbād -and they were very close in their versions- saying: related to us

Ĥātem who is Ibn Ismaʾīl from Bukair Bin Musmār from Āmir Bin Saʾad Bin

Abu Waqqāś from his father, he said: Muʾāwiyah Bin Abu Sufiān ordered

Saʾad saying: what stops you from swearing at Abu Turāb? Saʾad said: so

long as I remember three faculties endowed upon him by the Messenger

(saw-a), I will not swear at him; to have any of these faculties is more

desirable for me than the finest camels. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw-

a) saying to him when he was heading for some of his incursions and thus

appointing him his successor, in reply to Ali who said: "O Messenger of Allah,

you left me behind with the women and youngster?", so the Messenger (saw-

a) said: "you are for me like Aaron to Moses, but no prophet will follow

in my wake", and on the Day of Khaiber: "I would give the war-flag to a

man who loves Allah and His Messenger". He added: we aspired for that

and extended our heads, but the prophet (sawa) said: "call Ali for me", and

Ali was summoned, sore-eyed, and he spat into his eye to heal and handed

him the war-flag, hence Allah (Taʾala) opened wide the gates for him.

When this Qur'anic verse was revealed: {let us call upon our children and

your children} the Messenger (saw-a) called for the presence of Ali,

160

Fatimah, Hassan and Hussein saying: "O Allah these are my

household."193

An-Nawawī, the annotator of "Sahih Muslim", tried to defend Muʾāwiyah and

acquit him from his wrongdoings claiming that the hadith does not fully and

clearly articulate the name of Muʾāwiyah as to have ordered Saʾad to do the

swearing, saying:

"Scholars said: the renderings of hadiths which outwardly open with the

phrase: 'a companion called in on to me', must all be subjected to

interpretation. They amplified: nothing in the texts of the reliable narrators but

not to be interpreted. Accordingly, this saying of Muʾāwiyah does not involve

a declaration ordering Saʾad to swear at him, but an interrogation on why he

is not doing that, as if though inquiring: 'did you quit that out of religious

dutifulness or for fear or other motives, and if it were dutifulness and

veneration for him in a way you cannot abuse him, you are thus free of error

and a good doer, and if it were something else, there should be another

explanation in this case. Probably Saʾad was from a faction who were

accustomed to swearing, and while he abstained from that, he fell short of a

means to reprove their act, and in the end he managed to reprove them, and

accordingly he asked him this question. They also said: another interpretation

is possible purporting: what stopped you from disproving the opinion and

juristic inference he made, and rather showing people our discerning opinion

and juristic inference, upon which you make manifest he is at fault."194

This is an abortive fruitless attempt; it can be overruled firstly by the

equivalence made in the narrative between two phrases: 'he ordered' and

'what stops you from swearing', with 'so' mediating between them, in 'so

Saʾad said'. 'So' contextually indicates clear cohesion and unity between the

subject of abstention from the act 'the swearing at Ali' and the content of the

193 Al-Qushairī, Muslim Bin Al-Ĥajjaj, "Sahih Muslim", edited by: Abu Śuhaib Al-Karmī, Bait al-

Afkar Adawliya, 1419 A.H – 1998 A.D, p.979, Kitab: Fađā’il Aś-Śaĥābah – Book of The

Virtues of the Companions", Ch. "The Virtues Ali Bin Abu Ţālib", hadith no. 2404.

194 An-Nawawī, Abu Zakariyyah Muĥīl Dīn Yaĥya Bin Sharaf Bin Marī, "Al-Minhāj: Sharh

Sahih Muslim Bin Al-Ĥajjāj", al-Masriya Press, Al-Azhar, pub.1, 1347 A.H - 1929 A.D, vol.15,

pp.175-176. From him: Al-Mubārakfūrī, Muhammad Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abdul Raĥīm, “Tuĥfat

Al-Alhwadhī bi Sharĥ Jāmiʾ At-Tirmidhī”, proofreading and verification by: Abdul Raĥmān

Muhammad Uthman, Dar al-Fikr, vol.10, p.228, hadith no. 3808.

161

order: 'to swear', or else if the order addresses another issue, its inclusion by

the narrator would be redundant and unnecessarily elaborated. Secondly,

there are other relevant narratives (to come later in the research) explicitly stating

the fact that Muʾāwiyah was the one who ordered the swearing. It should be

noted however that the lord master of this trend, the defender and backer of

the Umayyads, Ibn Taimiyyah has admitted in more than one location in his

book "Minhāj As-Sunnah" that Muʾāwiyah had ordered Saʾad to do the

swearing.195

Evidence Two: what is adduced in "Al-Mustadrak ʾalā Aś-Śaĥiĥain" by Al-

Ĥākim An-Naisābūrī, whereby he said:

"related to us Abu Bakr Muhammad Bin Dāwūd Bin Sulaimān, related to us

Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Nājiyah, related to us Rajā' Bin Muhammed Al-

ʾUdhrī, related to us ʾUmru Bin Muhammad Bin Abu Razīn, related to us

Shuʾbah from Misʾar from Ziyād Bin ʾIlāqah from his uncle: that Al-Mughīrah

Bin Shuʾbah swore at Ali Bin Abu Ţālib, so Zaid Bin Arqam rose to him

saying: O Mughīrah, do not you know that the Messenger of Allah (saw-a)

prohibited the offensive abuse of the dead, so why do you swear at Ali when

he is dead?" 196

195 Whereby he said: "as for the hadith of Saʾad, when Muʾāwiyah ordered him to do the swearing,

and the latter rejected etc.", see: "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.5, p.42. A contemporary annotator

of “Sahih Muslim” has retorted to that evasive attempt of An-Nawawī saying:

"An-Nawawī is trying to absolve Muʾāwiyah from his wrongdoing, saying: ...", he cites An-

Nawawī paragraph and thereafter comments: this is an interpretation conspicuously unfair and far-

removed from the truth. What is established so far is that Muʾāwiyah used to order the abuse of Ali

by swearing. That said, Muʾāwiyah is infallible and is liable to err. Anyhow, we should quit

disparaging any of the companions of the Messenger (saw-a), and the practice of swearing at Ali

during the era of Muʾāwiyah is explicit in our ninth narration", see: Lāshīn: Mūsā Shāhin, "Fatĥ

Al-Munʾim Sharĥ Sahih Muslim", Dar al-Shorouk, pub.1, 1423 A.H - 2002 A.D, vol.9, p.332. In

his last phrase, he denotes the final narrative in "Ch.“The Virtues of Imam Ali" of "Sahih

Muslim."

196 Al-Ĥākim A-Naisābūrī, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad, "Al-

Mustadrak ʾala Aś-Śaĥīĥain", the edition appened by Ad-Dhahabī critical notes, at the bottom

"Tatabuʾ Awhām Al-Ĥākim” for Abdul Raĥmān Bin Muqbil Bin Hādī Al- Wadiʾī, Dar al-

162

This hadith depicts the atmosphere of intellectual intimidation that some of

the companions were undergoing during the reign of one the biggest curators

of the Umayyad policies, especially as it concerns Imam Ali (as). It is striking

that Zaid Bin Al-Arqam was unable to do proper admonishment to Al-

Mughīrah or defying that abusive policy, and only faintly makes a gesture

reminding him of the death of Ali (as) and the inhibition in respect of the

dead!! He was too powerless to retaliate with facts on Amīrul Mu'minīn (as),

reviving his virtues, his precedence in Islam, his strife to spread the mission,

over and above the prophetic tradition that grudge against Ali (as) is a token

of hypocrisy. Even more, he was unable to support his argument with

pertinent hadiths from the Companions School, like Imam Ali being one of the

ten promised Paradise and the fourth caliph of Moslems, lest he should be

indicted with insurgency against the Sultan, his command and policy.

Evidence Three: what is given by Ibn Mājeh in his "Sunnan":

"Related to us Ali Bin Muhammad, related to us Abu Muʾāwiyah, related to us

Mūsā Bin Muslim from Ibn Sābit who is Abdul Raĥmān from Saʾad Bin Abu

Waqqāś, saying: Muʾāwiyah went on one of his Hajj voyages, and Saʾad

dropped in. As the name of Ali was mentioned, Muʾāwiyyah assailed him,

which angered Saʾad and said: you are debasing a man on whom I heard the

Messenger saying: ‟whoever I am his master, Ali is his master too", "you

are for me like Aron to Musa, but no prophet will follow in my wake" and

"I would give the war-flag to a man who loves Allah and His

Messenger."197

Haramain bookshop for publishing and distribution, Cairo, pub.1, 1417 A.H – 1997 A.D, vol.1,

p.536, hadith no.1420. This hadith was authenticated by Ad-Dhahabī, Al-Wādiʾī (see: ibid) and Al-

Albānī: "Silsilat Al-Aĥādīth Aś-Śaĥīĥah", maktabat al-Maarif, Riyadh, vol.5, p.520, hadith

no.2397. The latter said: Al-Ĥākim said: it is sound according to the criteria of Muslim, and Ad-

Dhahabī coincided with him, and I would say just as they said.

197 Ibn Mājeh, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Yazīd Al-Qazwīnī, "Sunnan Ibn Mājeh", annotated

by: Muhammed Nāśirul Dīn Al-Albānī, edited by: Abu Ubaidah Āl Salmān, Maktabat al-Maarif,

Riyadh, pub.1, p.37, hadith no.121. This hadith throws light on the preceding hadith of evidence

one, which some exegetists tried to manipulate, as indicated above.

163

Evidence Four: what is adduced in "Tārīkh Al-Umam wal Mulūk" for Abu

Jaʾfar Bin Jarīr Aţ-Ţabarī while recording the injunctions of Muʾāwiyah to Al-

Mughīrah Bin Shuʾbah as he appointed him the ruler of Al-Kufa. He cited this

incident along the proceedings of year 51 A.H. on the cause behind Ĥijr Bin

ʾAdiy murder with his companions, and these injunctions represent a

complete charter that comprises the overall policy and tactics of Muʾāwiyah in

dealing with Imam Ali (as), his followers and companions.

Aţ-Ţabarī said:

"Hishām Bin Muhammad reported from Abu Mikhnaf from Mujālid Bin Saʾīd

and As-Saʾqab Bin Zuhair and Fuźail Bin Khudaij and Al-Hussein Bin ʾUqbah

Al-Murādī, saying: each one has related to me a glimpse of this hadith, and

these glimpses intersected with the account I cited on Ĥijr Bin ʾAdiy and his

companions: when Muʾāwiyah Bin Abu Sufiān assigned the rule of Al-Kufa to

Al-Mughīrah Bin Shuʾbah on Jumada, year forty one, he summoned him,

praised Allah and said: ‟having said so” hence quoting some poet he

resumed:

"For a person with lenience and forbearance before this day, no stick knocks,

just Al-Mutalammis said:

[For a person with lenience and forbearance before this day, no stick will be

knockedxxv

Humans are but taught what they are nurtured]

A farsighted man with wisdom may suffice without learning. I had the intent to

dictate to you dozens of injunctions, but I will dismiss them relying ultimately

on your insight into how you please me; cause my sovereignty to prosper and

my subjects to change for the better. Yet, I will not refrain from

recommending a certain manner: never let your passion cool off from the

abuse and dispraise of Ali, from seeking mercy and forgiveness for

Uthman, finding faults with the companions of Ali, banishing them, and

164

in no case lending ear to them, while praising the loyalists of Uthman...

bringing them nearer and lending them a good ear."198

Al-Mughīrah adhered to the injunctions accurately to the full. On his

biography, Shamsul Dīn Ad-Dhahabī in "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā'" said: from

Abu Bakr Bin ʾAyyāsh from Ĥuśain from Hilāl Bin Yasāf from Abdullah Bin

Źālim, he said: Al-Mughīrah in his speeches used to assail Ali, and he

appointed orators who were similarly assailing him..."199

198 Aţ-Ţabarī, Abu Jaʾfar Muhammad Bin Jarīr, "Tārīkh Ar-Rusul wal Mulūk", reviewed by:

Abu Al-Fađl Ibrahim, Dar al-Maarif, Egypt, pub.2, vol.5, pp.253-254.

199 Ad-Dhahabī, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubala'", ibid, vol.3, p.31.

165

The Umayyad Policy:

Quotes from some Prominent Figures

We have alluded earlier to some confessional statements made by Ibn

Taimiyyah which confirm the hatred and abuse policy practised by the

Umayyads against Imam Ali (as), though the purpose of these confessions is

chiefly to alleviate the evils of this policy and to conceal the underlying legal

liability. He says elusively as regards Imam Ali (as): "their talk on Ali", not

signifying for the nature and extent of that 'talk', nor explaining how far

compliant this 'talk' with the Islamic principles and ethics, trying by this to

camouflage the fact that it was rather cursing, swearing, abusing and mass

execution of his lovers and companions.

Though Ibn Taimiyyah by tending to circumvent the truth is justified by his

creed towards Ahlul Bait (as), many other Moslem scholars not only have

been plain and transparent on the nature of this 'talk', but they also compiled

books in this vein which are indispensable for the library of the prestigious

reader to know the truth.

I will only mention four of the prominent figures who alluded to the Umayyad

Nāśibī policies against Ahlul Bait (as) and how these policies impacted the

society under their rule; two of them were more prolific and went beyond

mere allusions to use it as a topic for writing. They are as follows:

First Figure: Al-Hafiz Abu Al-Hassan Ali Bin Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin

Abu Saif Al-Madā'inī Al-Ikhbārī. In his biography in "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubala'"

Ad-Dhahabī recorded:

"He is the Allama, the memoriser, the truthful, Abu Al-Hassan Ali Bin

Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin Abu Saif Al-Madā'inī Al-Ikhbārī. He resided in

Baghdad and compiled books. He was the marvel of his age with expertise

on areas like biographies, battles, archives of Arabs and line-tracing of the

ancestry. Deemed authentic in his transfers, with high chain of transmitters

(see glossary: high Isnad) [...].

Heard and related from: Qurrah Bin Khālid, his preeminent master,

Shuʾbah, Juwairiyyah Bin Asmā', ʾAwanah Bin Al-Ĥakam, Ibn Abu Dhi'b,

Mubārak Bin Faźālah, Ĥammad Bin Salamah, Salām Bin Miskīn and others

from this layer [...].

166

Related from him: Khalīfah Bin Khayyāţ, Az-Zubair Bin Bakkār, Al-Ĥārith Bin

Abu Usāmah, Ahmed Bin Abu Khaithamah, Al-Hassan Bin Ali Bin Al-

Mutawakkil and others.

Ahmed Bin Abu Khaithamah said: my father, Musʾab Az-Zubairī, and Yaĥya

Bin Maʾīn were clustering at the doorstep of Musʾab in the evenings, and

once a man with elegant garment passed by on a lavish donkey. He said his

greeting, and turned for his query to Yaĥya Bin Maʾīn from all others.

So Yaĥya said to him: O Abu Al-Hassan, whereto? He said: to this generous

one who fills my pockets with coins and notes, Isĥāq Bin Ibrahim Al-Mawśilī,

and as he departed, Yaĥya said: trustworthy (three times), and I asked my

father: "who is this"? "it is Al-Madā'inī" he said."200

Let us preview Al-Madā'inī account on the aftermath of the Umayyad

indoctrination of the Syrian society to take a loathing and earn enmity for

Imam Ali and his household (as). It was so overwhelmingly dominant that

when the native Syrians name their children after the names of Ahlul Bait

(as), it is just to have the liberty to abuse and curse them!!

Ad-Dhahabī said: "Al-Madā'inī related: he was let into Al-Ma'mūn, and started

to relate accounts on Ali, and cursed Banu Umayyah saying:

I said: Al-Muthannah Bin Abdullah Al-Anśārī said:

"I was in Syria and there I neither heard the name of Ali nor Al-Hassan; and

no more than Muʾāwiyah, Yazīd and Al-Walīd names reached my ears, then I

passed by a man at his door who cried out: water him O Hassan, so I asked:

you named him Hassan?

He said: my children are Hassan, Hussein and Jaʾfar, the Syrian people

name their children by the names of the successors of Allah so that the father

would curse his child and abuse him.

200 Ad-Dhahabī, "Siyer A'lām An-Nubalā'", ibid, vol.10, pp.400-401.

167

I said: I thought you are the best of the Syrians, when it appeared not even in

Hellfire there is someone more evil than you."201

Second Figure: the jurist Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Abd Rabbah Al-

Andalusī (d.328 A.H.) whereby he said in his famous book "Al-ʾAqd Al-

Farīd":

"As Al-Hassan Bin Ali died, Muʾāwiyah went to Hajj. He entered Al-Medina

and wanted to curse Ali on the pulpit of the Messenger (saw-a), so it was said

to him: with Saʾad Bin Abu Waqqaś in this locality, we do not think he would

let this pass, therefore, send him an envoy to see what he says. As he

summoned him and mentioned it to him, Saʾad said: "if you do that I will

depart from the mosque and never be back."

So Muʾāwiyah ceased to curse Ali until Saʾad died. After his death he cursed

him on the pulpit and wrote to his appointed rulers to do the same and so

they did.

So Um Salamah, the prophet's wife (saw-a), wrote to him with this content:

you are cursing Allah and His Messenger on your pulpits so long as you

curse Ali Bin Abu Ţālib and whoever loves him, and I bear witness that Allah

and His Messenger do love him.

But he paid no heed to her sayings."202

Third Figure: Sheikh Abdullah Al-ʾAlāilī, the writer of "Imam Al-Hussein"

book, who before other scholars, discerned the formidable features of the

Umayyad face, their real intentions and attitude towards Islam and Moslems.

He said:

"The Umayyad party plotted for the prophet (sawa) and the call for Islam. We

knew how Abu Sufiān, chief of the Umayyad family, entered Islam and how

the Umayyad prestigious standing dissolved in an Islamic setting with the

advent of Islam that triumphed for the Hāshimī family. So they carried out

201 Ibid: same source, vol.10, p.401.

202 Ibn Abd Rabbah, Abu Umar Ahmed Bin Muhammad Al-Andalusī, "Al-ʾAqd Al-Farīd",

reviewed by: Abdul ʾAziz At-Tarĥīnī, Dar Al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, pub.1, 1404 A.H -1983 A.D,

vol.5, p.114.

168

their plans under the shade of religion to set the scene for an autocratic

authority, finding in the reign of Muʾāwiyah Bin Abu Sufiān and subsequently

Yazīd the onset for consolidating their position further onward."203

He also said under the title: "The Umayyad Coup or Revolution against the

Caliphs Government":

"Many may dismiss the possibility that this coup d'état is led by the Umayyad

squad, and that it was premeditated by them, but we have at hand narratives

and hard evidences that leave no room for opposition or dispute. I would

instruct anyone who is investigating the status quo of that historical term or

period to use as a main source Taqiyul Dīn Al-Maqrīzī book: "An-Nizāʾ wa

At-Takhāśum fī ma baina Banu Umayyah and Banu Hāshim". The book

unveils some vague points, which no research can be complemented

optimally or minimally without reviewing them. Al-Maqrīzī after all is the critical

historian from whom nothing may slip, or he is the unique peerless historical

critic in all the heritage of Arabic literature after his tutor Ibn Khaldūn [...]

All in all, since the death of the prophet, the first pursuit of this party was the

reign-reach of the Umayyad family and the illegal seizure of the high authority

by every measure."204

Fourth Figure: the Allama and great historian Taqiyūl Dīn Al-Maqrīzī who

composed a treatise titled: "The Contention and Wrangle between Banu

Umayyah and Banu Hāshim" (for Arabic title see above) in which he delineated

some of the dimensions of the Umayyad policy. Ahead, we introduced him

through the Allama Al-ʾAlāilī who praised him and directed the reader to the

significance of his book. Despite our reservations on some viewpoints,

analysis and citations, finding them defective and invalid, we concur with Al-

ʾAlāilī advice on the worthiness of the book. Anyhow, because it is a small

203 Al-ʾAlāilī, Abdullah, "Al-Imam Al-Hussein" (1st episode: The Loftiness of Meaning in a

Lofty Ego, or A Ray from the Life of Al-Hussein", Dar Maktabat al-Tarbiya, Beirut, new edition,

1986 A.D, p.31.

204 Ibid: pp.55-56.

169

treatise and its reading will not be time-consuming, we will only select some

relevant excerpts from the introduction and leave the rest for the reader:

Al-Maqrīzī says in the introduction:

"Henceforward, more often than not it amazes me how they were

encroaching upon the caliphate (reign) despite their non-blood kinship with

the Messenger and the blood ties of Banu Hāshim with him, and wonder how

they entertained hopes in that respect? How can the children of Umayyah

and children of Marwan Bin Al-Ĥakam fit in that hadith when the latter was

expelled and cursed by the Messenger of Allah (saw-a), and when enmity

prevailed over Banu Umayyah and Banu Hāshim in Jāhiliyyah time. Hence,

there is the intense antagonism of Banu Umayyah for the Messenger of Allah

(saw-a), the excessive harm they inflicted on him, and relentless stand

in denying what he imparts from the Revelation since he was shouldered the

mission of Guidance and the religion of truth until he conquered Mecca

(honoured be it by Allah Taʾala), when only then entered Islam of whom did

enter, as it has become quite well-known. I hereby resonate the poetic verse:

How many a distant from the house (outsider) won his pursuit,

and another close-by the house (with affinity) remained distant.

By my life, there can be no distance farthest than that between Banu

Umayyah and this issue. They literally had no excuse of any kind for the

caliphate, no affinity exists between the two..."205

Afterwards, he lists some of the atrocities of Banu Umayyah against the

family of the Messenger (sawa) saying: "we knew how Abu Sufiān was

behaving with his enmity towards the prophet (sawa), his fight with him,

invasions and the uproar he provoked. We knew how he came to Islam, and

how his life was saved. He but entered Islam at the hand of Al-Abbas (R.A),

and it was Al-Abbas who restrained people from killing him, brought him to

the prophet (saw-a) convoyed, and asked him to honour, dignify and speak

highly of him, and that was a generous hand, an honourable grace, privileged

205 Al-Maqrīzī, Abu Al-Abbas Taqiyūl Dīn Ahmed Bin Ali Bin Abdul Qādir, "An-Nizāʾ wa At-

Takhāśum fī ma baina Banu Umayyah and Banu Hāshim" (appended by: The Treatise of the

Allama: Muhammed Bin 'Aqīl Al-'Alawī: “Faśl Al-Ĥākim fī An-Nizāʾ wa At-Takhāśum",

compiled and annotated by: Śāliĥ Al-Wardānī, al-Hadaf for media and printing press, 1999 A.D,

p.31.

170

status whose news is undeniable. Yet, the prize-giving of his children was

that they fought Ali, poisoned Al-Hassan, killed Al-Hussein, led the women on

the cavalcades unveiled, and tried to expose the organ of Ali Bin Al-Hussein

to see if he reached the age of maturity when they were unclear about it, as

they used to do with the progeny of the polytheist when they storm into their

houses..." 206

206 Ibid: same source, p. 32.

171

Percussions of the Umayyad Policy on the Science of

Aspersion and Acclamation

Firstly: Slander and Ill-Speaking on the Loyalists to Ahlul Bait

There might be some opinions which correspond with ours on the ominous

nature of the Umayyad policy towards the progeny of the Messenger (sawa),

seeing it fraught with spite and hostility, with countless crimes and atrocities

perpetrated against them (as) to such a degree that disbands them from

Islam. Yet at the same time they might think that this episode of history is

outdated, and the aftereffects of the Umayyad policy melt away or ceased to

exist in the present world, and therefore it is better not to exhaust time and

effort drifting into these subjects, and still better is to engage in more

purposive pragmatic researches.

To me, this sounds flimsy view, neither envisages the truth nor does it reflect

the magnitude of percussions that afflicted the whole structure of Islamic

thought, especially as regards the second principal source for Islam after the

holy Qur'an, i.e. the honourable prophetic Sunnah, as well as our conception

towards the genuine face of our history, the proceedings and events that date

back to the Mission Society of the prophet era, and the artifice of fakery

perpetrated by then.

We pointed out earlier that the scholars of Aspersion and Acclamation from

the Umayyad trend have founded a highly detrimental rule, that is, a narrator

cannot be rightly placed among Ahlul Sunnah unless he implores Allah's

pleasure for the opponents of Imam Ali, and just to take the side of Imam Ali

and his household is enough to discredit, incriminate and put him under

suspicion. Of those who set the theoretical groundwork of this rule is Ibn

Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī in his preface in "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", entitled: "The Guidance

of the Marcher - Hadiy As-Sārī" in the chapter where he marks out the

grounds for aspersion. He says: "Chapter: the grounds for discrediting the

aforesaid reporters, throughout which we know who is eligible or ineligible to

stand as an authoritative source. The chapter is divided into two categories:

Firstly: a reporter weakened on account of his belief. We advanced the ruling

in this respect earlier showing in each one's biography that this is valid to the

exclusion of someone who is not a callerxxvi or he were so hence repented, or

172

his reports were reinforced by a subsequent reporter, and this is an outline of

the charges filed against them.."207

Then he proceeds to illustrate the grounds for aspersion that include among

other things 'embracing Schism' and says in definition:

‟Schism is ultimately the love Ali and seeing him presiding over the

companions; whosoever rates him above Abu Bakr and Umar, he is a radical

Shiʾite to be called: Rāfiđī, or else a Shiʾite. If on top of that, he adds

swearing and open grudge against them, he is extremist in his Rafđ, while if

he believes in Rajʾah in this World, he is even a greater extremist.”208

In his record on Abu Nuʾaim Al-Kufi Al-Fađl Bin Dukain Bin Ĥammād Al-

Mullā'ī who was discredited for his Schism, it appears that his aspersion was

the charge of swearing at Muʾāwiyah. Ibn Ĥajar says:

"Al-Fađl Bin Dukain Abu Nuʾaim Al-Kufi is one of the veracious characters.

He was associated by Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal with Abdul Raĥmān Bin Mahdi in

terms of veracity, saying: he was more knowledgeable on the Sheikhs from

Wakīʾ, and once said: he was less susceptible to mistakes than Wakīʾ. Lavish

praise was heaped upon him for his memorisation and veracity, but some

people engaged on a talk over him due to his Schism. Despite that he had a

saying proved to be sound: 'the memorisers have not ever recorded that I

had offensively abused Muʾāwiyah', and this saying was used for argument

by Ahlul Sunnah."209

Along this line, they vilified a big number of scholars, memorisers and clerical

leaders for no reason save for defaming Muʾāwiyah; not even believing in the

precedence of the two Sheikhs over Ali availed them. One of the pioneers

who vigorously implemented this rule in his books and compilations is Al-

Hafiz Shamsul Dīn Ad-Dhahabī. Yet, to scroll down names of his black list

207 Ibn Ĥajar Abu Al-Fađl Shahābul Dīn Ahmed Bin Al-'Asqalānī, "Hadiy As-Sārī Fatĥ Al-Bārī",

reviewed and annotated Abdul Qādir Shaibah Al-Ĥamd, Riyadh, pub.1, 1421 A.H - 2001 A.D,

p.483.

208 Ibid: same source.

209 Ibid: same source, p.456.

173

based on that rule, we will require an independent chapter beyond the

capacity of this research. Therefore, we will only exemplify by names of some

figures who are indisputably deemed to belong to the Sunni doctrine, and

who acknowledge the legitimacy of the caliphate (of caliphs in succession before

Imam Ali) after the prophet, respect the companions, and adhere to their

archetype of religion according to what has been verified from their legacy.

1. Among those personalities: Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin

Muhammad Ibn Al-Bayyiʾ Al-Ĥākim An-Naisābūrī.

We already knew what Ad-Dhahbī said about him: "he is one who engaged in

hadith collection and extraction, aspersion and acclimation, authentication

and diagnosis of hadiths with flaws; he was one of the oceans of knowledge",

nevertheless, he vilified him due to "a residue of Schism in him"210. Scanning

Ad-Dhahabī words, we locate two grounds for this vilification:

Firstly: authenticating a number of hadiths incorporating the virtues of Imam

Ali (as) that Ad-Dhahabī failed to digest, or it hit him hard the fact they revolve

around Imam Ali (as), such as the hadith known as the 'Hadith of the Bird'.211

210 Ad-Dhahabī "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā'', ibid, vol.17, p.165.

211 Ad-Dhahabī expresses his surprise that Al-Ĥākim had extracted it, though the latter announces -

as transferred by Ad-Dhahabī himself here and in "Tadhkirat Al-Ĥuffāź"- that "if this hadith has

been proved sound, it follows that no one should be better than Ali after the Messenger". Strikingly,

Ad-Dhahabī by this remark seems to authenticate the hadith himself (see “Siyer Aʾlām”, vol.17,

pp.168-169), whereas in his book "Tadhkirat Al-Huffāź" he says: "as for the hadith of the Bird, it

has plenty of routes I had them collected in one compilation, and the total of these routes necessitate

it is genuine" (see: "Tadhkirat Al-Ĥuffāź", Dar Al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, pub.1, 1419 A.H -

1998 A.D, vol.3, p.164), despite all that he still describes what is said by Al-Ĥākim on the hadith as

"a well-knit tale!" (“Siyer Aʾlām”, vol.17, p.169).

Ironically, while Ad-Dhahabī reviews the hadiths authenticated by Al-Ĥākim on the merits of Ali

(as),and condemns him for that, he turns to hadith: "no one but a believer would love him, and no

one but a hypocrite would bear grudge against you" and says: "this hadith is the most

problematic amongst the three hadiths (the other two: hadith of the Bird and the Master hadith), as

whoever loved Ali are people who have no streak of luck, and whoever loathed him are folk of

Nāśibī, solely out of ignorance of him, Allah is best Knowing" (“Siyer Aʾlām”, vol.17, p.169)

whereas for a matching hadith on Umar and Abu Bakr with the sand marfuʾ from Jābir Bin

Abdullah Al-Anśārī (see glossary) stating: "no one can be a believer while loathing Umar and Abu

Bakr, and no one can be a hypocrite while loving them", Ad-Dhahabī comments no more than

saying: the matn of the hadith is sound, but being marfuʾ is not verified", not finding its content

174

Secondly: being aberrant from Muʾāwiyah and his household as Ad-Dhahabī

transfers from Ibn Ţāhir who said:

"Inwardly he was extremely prejudiced to the Shiʾa; he exhibits a Sunni

visage only as far as the two issues of 'caliphate and precedence' are

concerned. He was exceedingly aberrant from Mu`āwaiyeh, wandering

away from him and his household, displaying that attitude disdainfully and

unregretfully. Then I heard Abu Al-Fatĥ Samkawaih from the province of

Herat, I heard Abdul Wāĥid Al-Mulaiĥī, I heard Abu Abdul Raĥmān As-Salamī

saying: I called on Al-Ĥākim when he was housebound, being daunted by

Abu Abdullah Bin Kirām escorts and thus unable to go to the mosque. They

knocked down his pulpit and detained him. So I said to him: 'if you walk out

and utter one hadith on that man merits, you would have relieved yourself

from this ordeal', 'I cannot lose my heart to that, I do not have the heart for

this', he said."212

2. Al-Hafiz Imam Abu Abdul Rahmān Ahmed Bin Shuʾib Bin Ali Bin Sinān Bin

Baĥr Al-Khurasānī An-Nasā'ī.

Ad-Dhahabī said about him: "he was one of the oceans of knowledge, with

perception, proficiency, shrewdness and mastery in the critique of reporters

and good writing. He wandered around Khurasan, Hejaz, Egypt, Iraq, the

Arab Peninsula, Syria and the borderline cities, then he resided in Egypt for a

homeland, and the memorisers were journeying to him, for he was peerless

in this domain."213

Ad-Dhahabī afterwards transfers the sayings of the memorisers and masters

of Aspersion and Acclamation discipline in respect of An-Nasʾ'ī. From Al-Hafiz

Abu Ali An-Naisābūrī, he quoted: "he is uncontested leading figure in

problematic! While we find Akram Al-Būshī, the reviewer of volume one of the book "Siyer

A'lām" commenting on the hadith saying: "the critics have unanimously agreed on the falsehood of

this hadith as purported by Al-Hafiz in "Taqrīb" (see: “Siyer Aʾlām”, vol.16, p.216).

212 Ad-Dhahabī, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā'", ibid, vol.17, pp.174-175.

213 Ibid: same source, vol.14, p.127.

175

hadith", and from Al-Hafiz Bin Ţāhir From Saʾad Bin Ali Az-Zinjānī: "Abu

Abdul Raĥmān puts conditions for the reporters more strict than those

of Al-Bukhārī and Muslim", and from Abdullah Bin Mandah: "of those who

extracted sound hadiths and distinguished the tenacious hadiths from

the defective, wrong from right are four: Al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abu Dāwūd

and Abu Andul Raĥmān An-Nasā'ī". Moreover, Ad-Dhahabī himself said

about him: "no one at the top list of year three hundred has been a better

memoriser than An-Nasʾ'ī, he is more competent than Muslim, Abu

Dāwūd and Abu ʾIsā in the field of hadith, the flaws (in hadiths) and

reporters biography. He is on a par with Al-Bukhārī and Abu Zurʾah."

Against all these testimonies, he was still vilified for Schism! While they

meant by Schism, not that he refused acknowledge the first three caliphs as

official successors, or he vilified the caliphs and companions, or preferred

Imam Ali to the two Sheikhs, but simply that he related the merits of Imam Ali

and fended off Muʾāwiyah.

Ad-Dhahabī transferred from Al-Wazīr Bin Ĥinzābah that he heard from

Muhammad Bin Mūsā Al-Ma'mūnī, An-Nasā'ī associate, that a folk reproved

him for compiling a book on the "Characteristics of Ali" rather than the two

Sheikhs, and even when he later produced another respective book, it was

said to him: "are you not compiling on the virtues of Muʾāwiyah?", so he said:

"what to extract about him, is it hadith: 'O Allah let not his belly be satisfied

from food", which silenced the inquirer.214

But if the inquirer in this incident fell silent, others have had escalated the

situation and resorted to violence cold-heartedly, and those so-called merits

of Muʾāwiyah were fatal causing An-Nasa'ī martyrdom, as announced by Al-

Hafiz Muhammad Bin Al-Muźaffar, Abu Abdullah Bin Mandah and Ad-Dār

Qutnī, etc.

214 Ibid: same source, vol.14, p.129.

176

Ad-Dhahabī said: "narrated Abu Abdullah Bin Mandah from Ĥamza Al-ʾUqbī

Al-Maśrī and others that An-Nasa'ī, at the final stage of his life, left Egypt

heading towards Damascus where he was asked about Muʾāwiyah and what

has been narrated on his merits. He said: ‟so he (Muʾāwiyah) does not

accept to be head-to-head with him (Imam Ali), and rather he wants to

preside over him”. He added (the narrator): they started to prick him on his

testis, until he was evacuated from the Mosque and was carried to Ar-Ramlah

province where he died."215

As a consequence, Ad-Dhahabī said in respect of An-Nasā’ī: "surely he has a

residue of Schism and a deflection from the opponents of Imam Ali, such as

Muʾāwiyeh and Umru, may Allah condone him for that."

3. Al-Hafiz Imam Abu Ubaidullah Bin Mūsā Bin Abu Mukhtār Al-ʾAbsī, their

Kufi servant.

Ad-Dhahabī 216described him saying: "he was the first in Kufa who compiled

Al-Musnadxxvii based on index of the companions", "he was a worshiping

man, wakeful through night", "he was hadith memoriser and Qur'an reciter, he

used to be in the lead of tutoring and hadith propagation."

Then he transferred some quotes from the Aspersion and Acclamation

scholars regarding his reliability, such as Ibn Maʾīn, Abu Ĥātem, Abu Nuʾaim

and others, and said: "Ahmed Bin Abdullah Al-ʾAjalī said: he is trustworthy,

reached the pinnacle of Qur'an, well-versed with it; and I have not sighted him

with his head held high, he also was never sighted laughing."

Though Al-Hafiz Al-ʾAbsī had narrated on the authority of An-Nasā’ī from Ali

(as): "the best of us after the prophet are Abu Bakr and Umar", a narrative

which indicates -just as Ad-Dhahabī proclaimed and he was certainly right-

that he gives precedence to the two Sheikhs over Ali, yet that did not save

him from the stigma of being Rāfiđī. The Rafđ in the sense that he rejects

215 Ibid: same source, vol.14, p.132. Ad-Dhahabī had corrected the place of death saying: "he headed

towards Ar-Ramlah.”

216 Ibid: same source, vol.9, p.553-557, biography no.215.

177

Muʾāwiyah and the opponents of Imam Ali (as), and not in the least the

caliphs who preceded Ali (as)!

Ibn Mandah reports: he was not letting anyone called Muʾāwiyah into his

house. It is said: once Muʾāwiyah Bin Śāliĥ Al-Ash'arī had called in on him,

and as he asked him: "what is your name?", "Muʾāwiyah", he answered. "By

Allah, I would not pass hadith to you neither to a folk you are among them.’'

he said.

That said, we find Ad-Dhahabī saying: "he kept the company of Hamza Bin

Ĥabīb Abu ʾImārah At-Taimī Al-Kufi Az-Zayyat (80-156), and acquired his

goodly manners apart from the sinister Schism, which he assumed from his

native people who dwell on heresy", "he used to assail the opponents of

Ali."217

Secondly: Authentication and Praise

Of the Grudge-Holding to Ahlul Bait

What is equipped of samples from Ad-Dhahabī renowned book "Siyer Aʾlām

An-Nubalā'" is a swift and preliminary demonstration of the first portrait of the

Umayyad Islam, that is, the aspersion of reporters who love Ali (as), not

engage in his abuse, and assail his antagonists. There is a big host of other

demonstration samples from a wide range of historical biographical

compilations of other scholars, which we overlooked at this point. We do not

seek to exhaustively comprise these samples as much as to acquaint the

reader with an elementary side-view about critical junctures in the history of

Islamic thought, which embody from our perspective vital clues for the

appraisal and analytical reading of this history. The reader can find more

samples if he decides to navigate this crucial phenomenon in our intellectual

history.

It is noteworthy that the abovementioned rule has a counterpole, i.e. in the

same way that agents of the Umayyad Islam tend to vilify the pro-Ali and anti-

217 Ibid: same source, vol.9, pp.555-556.

178

Muʾāwiyah reporters and stigmatise their accounts and narrations or what

they display of attitudes and orientations, they at the other side of the coin,

authenticate the pro-Muʾāwiyah and anti-Ali reporters, taking no offence in a

accepting what they narrate or propagate of reports and attitudes.

Furthermore, they put them in advantageous position compared to the ones

who love and circle around Ali (as), seeing them more reliable and extra

vigilant to the ethos of religion than the latter!

It is explicitly implemented all over the famous book of Ibn Taimiyyah: "The

Pathway of the Prophetic Sunnah" which is designed in pattern with the

precepts of the Umayyad Islam. Ibn Taimiyyah maintains in one context:

"politics was subjugated to Muʾāwiyah unlike the way it failed for Ali, and thus

the public subjects of Muʾāwiyah should be deemed better than those of Ali.

As a matter of fact, the subjects of Muʾāwiyah are themselves the loyalists of

Uthman among whom there are the Nāśibī who loathe Ali, which entails that

the loyalists of Uthman and the Nāśibī are by corollary better than the

loyalists of Ali."218

He said too: "the Shiʾite are more daring in lying than the Nāśibī."219

Reviewing the book-introduction, one can see how studded with bargaining

phrases and explanations to win legitimacy for this rule, along with views of

spiritual leaders and knowledgeable people from various Islamic sects, all

paraphrased and construed in terms of this rule.

The names involved with this artifice are great in number220, but we are not

after a display list of specimens, thus we refer the reader to some

218

"Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.5, p.466.

219 Ibid: same source, vol.7, p.442.

220 We cite examples but not exhaustively: Umar Bin Saʾad Bin Abu Waqqaś, ʾUrwah Bin Az-Zubair and

his son Hishām Bin ʾUrwah, ʾAwānah Bin Al-Ĥakam Al-Kalbī, Ĥuraiz Bin Uthman Ar-Raĥbī Al-Ĥimśī,

Azhar Bin Abdullah Bin Jamīʾ Al-Ĥarāzī, Lamāzah Bin Zabār Al-Asadī Al-Jahđamī, ʾĀmir Bin Qais Al-

Ashʾarī, Qais Bin Abu Ĥāzim Al-Bajalī Al-Kufi, ʾImrān Bin Ĥaţţān As-Sidūsī, Abdullah Bin Shaqīq Al-

ʾUqailī, Mughīrah Bin Miqsam Aź-Źabī and many others. The reader can check the biography books to see

how these personalities are praised and authenticated.

179

contemporary reviewers who compiled weighty books in this regard teeming

with many specimens, e.g. "Al-ʾAtab Al-Jamīl ʾalā Ahlul Jarĥ wa Taʾdīl" for

the Allama Muhammad Bin ʾAqīl Bin Abdullah Al-ʾAlawī (d.1350 A.H) &

"AlIfśāh ʾAn Aĥwāl Ruwāt Aś-Śiĥāĥ" for the Allama Muhammad Hassan Al-

Muźaffar (d.1375 A.H) who also wrote "Rijāl As-Sunnah fī Al-Mizān".

It delights me to conclude this study with an excerpt from Al-ʾAlawī preface of

"Al-ʾAtab - A Friendly Reproach" in which he gives a briefing on the

motives for writing his book, and effectively illustrates the dilemma into which

the Umayyad Islam agents were tangled, he says:

"I have read a fragment from the people of Aspersion and Acclamation, and

sighted that which evokes severe reproach [...] Even worse I sighted some

people who impassively disparage the pure Imams in a way that no just man

of Aspersion would warrant it, or make speculations against them far more

drastic than what can be attributed to the Kharijites and banished Nāśibī

groups. I witnessed that when they deal with the biographies of Ahlul Bait

masters or whoever relates to them, they often downsize and shorten, and

when they deal with biographies of their adversaries or the inferior servants

from their enemies, they elaborate, furnish excuses for them and foreground

their rationale. We are certainly aware what sense this shortening may

suggest, and what the elaboration and digression may convey. I witnessed

them authenticating the Nāśibī more often than not while attenuating the

Shiʾite altogether, I witnessed more and more.

He but beholds my forsakers with contented eye

He ostensibly counsels me and feigns himself affectionate.

Yet with my envious ones he fraternised

I would that this affection and counselling not existing,

and he were openly a foe and antagonistic.

180

This so-called favour filled me with a foreboding sense of dread; and these

verdicts terrified me, I found them totally bizarre and this will certainly cause

our disintegration."221

221

Al-ʾAlawī, Muhammad Bin ʾAqīl Al-Hussainī Al-Ĥađramī, "Al-ʾAtab Al-Jamīl ʾalā Ahlul Jarĥ wa

Taʾdīl", compiled and annotated by: Śālih Al-Wardānī, Al-Hadaf for Media and publication, pp.13-14.

181

Chapter IV

The First Portrait

Defiling the Immaculate Progeny of the Prophet

(3)

The Chief Lady of the Worlds: Az-Zahra Al-Batul

Ibn Taimiyyah Debasement of her Character

Preface

The First Axis: The Grade of Siddiqah Az-Zahra in the

Prophetic Accounts

The First Cluster: Best of all the Women of the people of Paradise

The Second Cluster: Sufficing for you: the Mistresses of the

Worlds

Precedence of Az-Zahra over Others

The Significance of the Mastery Ascribed to Fatimah Az-Zahra

(as)

Axis Two: The Attitude of Ibn Taimiyyah from the Mistress of

the Women of the Worlds (as)

Vilifying Ahlul Bait a Systematic Step by Ibn Taimiyyah

Fatimah (as): A Seeker of Worldly Matters

Fatimah (as) Action Resembles the Hypocrites' Actions

Fatimah Desertion and Breaking off with the First Caliph A

Slander to her

The Will of Fatimah to Bury her at Night and not to do her Funeral

Prayer an Act to be censured for

Fatimah Split Asunder the Federation of Moslems, Declined Allah

Command and Incurred His Wrath for this Transgression

Her Desperation (as) for the Elapsing Lower World and Grief for a

Fleeting Matter

What is Narrated on Fatimah of Slanderous Acts Abundant

182

Preface

We evinced every now and then that the topic of this study: "A Portrait of the

Umayyad Islam" in its first side view is to shed light on the low profile given to

Ahlul Bait (as) by this morbid formula of Islam, notably in the way its

theoreticians dealt with the ʾItrah of the prophet (sawa), and the practices of

abasement, degradation, profaning, torture and slaughter they were

subjected to by the representatives, thinkers and political leaders of the trend.

We also clarified that we meant by Ahlul Bait exclusively the five members of

the Cloak: the prophet (sawa), Imam Ali, Siddiqah Az-Zahra Imam Al-Hassan

and Al-Hussein (as), who were endowed high stations by the Qur'anic verse:

"Allah only wishes to remove abomination from you, O members of the

prophet's household, and to purify you completely"222, and also the object

of the mutawātir prophetic hadith, renowned as the two weighs hadith: ‟I

leave behind the two weighty things: the Book of Allah and my ʾItrah;

verily they will not part until they happen to meet me on the Fount”,

considering that a slight variation is deciphered in the wording of the hadith

among narrators.

Apparently, Moslems' views concur on the exclusiveness of the above

honourable Qur'anic verse and prophetic hadith to the five protagonists of the

Cloak, with the exclusion of the prophet's wives or cousins. It is also

consensual that the latter -the wives and cousins- have not been subjugated

to any barbaric treatment by the Umayyad trend e.g. abasement, libel and

massacre. Over here, Az-Zahra topic protrudes as an indispensable part of

this axis whose bases are too distinct to explain, but before that it is essential

to illustrate two items:

Item One: outline the plan of this part of the study.

Item Two: show some essential grounds that underpin the research, which

the reader must fully comprehend and bear in mind before he starts reading

this joint of the research.

Item One: the Plan:

Our discussion of this part of the study relies on two axes:

222

Al-Aĥzāb (33)

183

First Axis: includes the most salient texts on the virtues, merits and grades

of Az-Zahra Al-Batūl (as) according to the most authentic and sound sources

of the Companion School.

Second Axis: includes the attitude of Ibn Taimiyyah Al-Ĥarrānī, the big

theoretician and pioneer of the Umayyad Islam, from Az-Zahra (as), how he

approaches her character, and treats her merits and virtues; weather he

received them with approval or he opted to treat her on equal terms with

Amīrul Mu'minīn (as), expressly by rejection, repudiation and delusive

interpretation?

Item Two: the Grounds and Premises:

Before running deeper into the research, the prestigious reader must bring to

mind two crucial points without which the research will be scientifically

inadequate. They underpin the main grounds on which these researches and

their methods are based, and though they were sparsely highlighted

throughout the study, by repetition, we put special emphasis on their

significance:

First Ground: It is a Qur'anic premise pertaining to the inner character of the

Messenger (sawa), the basis on which it rests and revolves, in relevance to

the truth or the celestial sphere of Heaven. In this premise lies the whole

Islamic faith, legislation and the entire prophetic legacy, whether it were in the

form of (utterances, acts or tacit approval or disapproval on someone's act).

As a matter of fact, Qur'an has been decisive in this regard portraying the

prophet's character as: "nor does he speak out of his desire, this is

nothing but a revelation that is conveyed to him"223, and this very

Qur'anic verse along with other respective ones have decided precisely and

firmly the root from which the prophetic Sunnah derives its authority, and

pinpointed the joint which connects it to the stronghold of Heaven. Without

faith in this premise, the hadiths in respect of Az-Zahra (as) or the rest of

companions and other holy personalities, will be valueless and insignificant,

and the interpretation of all what the prophet (sawa) has introduced would be

governed by the logic of passion, desires and subjective views, in isolation

from the logic of Heaven and the Divine Revelation.

223 An-Najm (3-4)

184

Second Ground: it is a premise related to the method with which we conduct

our researches, and what we convey of narratives and use of references in

authenticating the concepts we propose, noting that we committed ourselves

to solely use references from the Companion School on two conditions:

First Condition: these hadiths and narratives are sound or good or simply

accepted by the scholars of Aspersion and Acclamation belonging to this

school.

Second Condition: these hadiths and narratives are approved by our

school, that is, they are deemed sound by Ahlul Bait School. This leaves no

room for any protest that the sources we use from Ahlul Sunnah School of

thought to convey the merits of Ahlul Bait (as) do simultaneously contain

merits of other characters, so by the same token we accept one set of virtues,

we must accept the other set invariably, or else if these books are not

recognised for their greater part as authoritative by us, and segmented into

sections, then the total content should rather be rejected and not to be

altogether utilised as a tool for authority.

We say, this objection is unsustainable, as what we use for testimony from

these sources is compatible with our own heritage from the ʾItrah (as).

Equally true, we are but utilising the others' heritage just to be consistent with

the binding rule: 'bind them with what you bound yourselves', and this never

indicates that we may admit the authenticity of the overall heritage

irrespective of these two considerations.

185

The First Axis

The Grade of Siddiqah Az-Zahra in the Prophetic Accounts

With the abundance of prophetic accounts on the laudable traits of Az-Zahra

(as) and due to our intention that these researches be geared at

corroborating the lofty eminence of this great lady, and reveal facts on the

libel campaigns launched against her (as) by the Umayyad House, we will

simply cite a particular number of accounts in two clusters with a broad title

for each cluster which can be concentric, rather than conducting a whole

collection of respective reports,.

Important Notification: The Diversity of the Transmission Routes

Denotes the Multiplicity of the Hadith

A reader who is unspecialised in this research-area may have noticed that

narratives with similar import are recurrently repeated, and thus he might

reckon that all these narratives are at heart 'one and the same', and

wonder: what is the point of rewinding the story when a single narrative

speaks for the rest?

In the Science of Hadith, a relevant rule states that the diversity of the hadith

routes results from the multiplicity of the hadith itself. More plainly, if the chain

of transmitters for the body of the hadith matn is diversified and multiplied in

each layer of the network of transmitters, it entails the hadith (i.e. matn) is not

one and the same per each, no matter how close the contents might be, but it

should be mutawātir, mustafiđ or other categories of hadith.

In other words, the term 'one report' has 'a special lexical meaning', for the

researchers of the Sciences of Transmission and Text-Hadith and the

Fundamentals of Jurisprudence, which is irrelevant to 'the content of the

report', but linked to the routes of relaying the content. In fact, to have

multiple transmitters for a single report from all layers in such a way as they

cannot rationally intrigue to lie or congregate on falsehood, the report is

labelled as 'mutawātir', otherwise with the possibility for a communal lie, it is

labelled as 'āĥād'.

It is true the 'mutawātir report' takes two divisions according to the unity or

disunity of the content in the form it is written with. If the content and matn of

the report are united in their form, it is called formally mutawātir 'in the

wording', but if the content and matn are disunited in the form, it is called:

186

semantically mutawātir 'in the meaning', which means that the

message and import of the report are mutawātir despite the difference in the

form.

To label a specific report as 'āĥād' is not simply a matter of singularity in

number. That is to say, it is not only the 'score' of hadith transmitters in every

layer which can be functional to render the report as mutawātir, but there are

extra factors more 'qualitative', pertinent to the character of the transmitter,

the level of accuracy or the essence of the message, besides all the factors

which have hampered its propagation such as the political or social stands

etc. Consequently, the bigger the number of transmitters from a background

of inhibitions, the stronger is the credibility, soundness and rigidity of the

report.

What is advanced here on the correlation between the number of

transmitters, their characters and surrounding circumstances with the way we

interpret the report as āĥād or mutawātir is the latest and most recent theory

in this respect in the Imami Science of Fundamentals of Jurisprudence, which

relies on the 'calculation of probability'. This theory has been established

by the great fundamentalist school of the martyred Imam Muhammad Bāqir

Aś-Śadr (May Allah be pleased with him) (more details are due on coming researches

within the Science of Fundamentals of Jurisprudence).

Accordingly, the prestigious reader should realise that the transfer of a cluster

of reports with matching content but from different routes does not constitute

'Āĥād report', as the scholars of Transmission and Text-Hadith science

would determine on whether the report is Āĥād or mutawātir according to the

routes of the rendition, rather than the literal content in isolation from these

routes.

However, the sanad of reports will be indexed in full at the end part, no matter

how prolonged they can be. By this, we help the reader explore how

multifarious and varied these routes are, and figure out that what may sound

unified import at first glance is not truly so.

The First Cluster: Best of all the Women of the people of Paradise

187

Under this title, several reports have been delivered on the person of

Siddiqah Fatimah Az-Zahra (as) stating that she among other women

(explicitly specified in number and name) is the best of all women of the

people of Paradise.

Herein some of these reports and narratives:

1. What is adduced in ‟Musnad” Imam Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal (d.241 A.H)

whereby he said: "related to us Yῡnus, related to us Dāwūd Bin Abu Al-Furāt,

from ʾAlbā', from ʾIkrimah from Ibn Abbas who said: the Messenger (saw-a)

drew four lines on the ground and said: "do you know you what this is?",

"Allah and His Messenger only know", they said, "the best women of the

people of Paradise are Khadījah Bint Khuwailid, Fatimah Bint

Muhammad, Āsia Bint Muzāĥim and Maryam Bint ʾImrān", the Messenger

(saw-a) said.224

Commented on this hadith the two reviewers of this part of the book: Shuʾaib

Al-Arnā’ūƫ and ʾĀdil Murshid saying: "its chain of transmission is authentic; its

reporters are reliable and among those authenticated by the Sahih"225

2. What is given likewise in ‟Musnad” Ahmed, whereby he said: "related to us

Abu Abdul Raĥmān, related to us Dāwūd, from ʾAlbā', from ʾIkrimah, from Ibn

Abbas who said: the Messenger (saw-a) drew four lines on the ground and

said: "do you know you what this is?" "Allah and His Messenger only know",

they said, "the best women of the people of Paradise are Khadījah Bint

Khuwailid, Fatimah Bint Muhammad, Maryam Bint ʾImrān and Āsia Bint

Muzāĥim, the wife of Pharaoh", the Messenger (saw-a) said.226

224 Ibn Ĥanbal, Abu Abdullah Ahmed Bin Muhammad, "Musnad Al-Imam Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal"

(d.241 A.H), Mussasat al-Risala, Beirut, pub.1, 1416 A.H - 1995 A.D, CL. 4. This volume

reviewed, commented and its hadiths extracted by: Shuʾaib Al-Atnā'ūţ and ʾĀdil Murshid, p.409,

hadith no.2668.

225 Ibid: same source.

226 Ibid, CL.5, p.77, hadith no. 2901.

188

Likewise, Shuʾaib Al-Arnā’ūt and ʾĀdil Murshid commented saying: "its chain

of transmission is authentic; its reporters are reliable and among those

authenticated by the Sahih."227

3. What is given in Musnad Ahmed, whereby he said: "related to us Abdul

Śamad, related to us Dāwūd who said: related to us ʾAlbā' Bin Aĥmer from

ʾIkrimah, from Ibn Abbas: the Messenger (saw-a) drew four lines and said:

"know you why I drew these lines?", "no" they said, "the best of the

women of Paradise are four: Maryam Bint ʾImrān, Khadījah Bint

Khuwailid, Fatimah Bint Muhammad and Āsia Bin Muzāĥim", he said. 228

Again, Shuʾaib Al-Arnā’ūt and ʾĀdil Murshid commented on this saying: "its

chain of transmission is authentic; its reporters are reliable and among those

authenticated by the Sahih."229

4. What is adduced in "Musnad" Abī Yaʾlā Al-Mawśilī (d.307 A.H), who said:

"related to us Zuhair, related to us Yūnus Bin Muhammad, related to us

Dāwūd Bin Abu Al- Furāt from ʾAlbā', from ʾIkrimah from Ibn Abbas who said:

the Messenger (saw-a) drew four lines on the ground and said: "do you

know you what this is?" "Allah and His Messenger only know", they said,

"best women of the people of Paradise are Khadījah Bint Khuwailid,

Fatimah Bint Muhammed, Maryam Bint ʾImrān and Āsia Bint Muzāĥim,

the wife of Pharaoh."230

Hussein Salīm Asad, the book reviewer, commented on this narrative saying:

its chain of transmission is authentic [...]. Extracted by Ahmed from the route

of Yūnus Bin Muhammad Al-Mu'addab with this chain of transmission, and

227 Ibid: same source

228 Ibid: p.113, hadith no.2957.

229 Ibid: same source.

230 Abu Yaʾlā Al-Mawśilī, Ahmed Bin Ali Bin Al-Muthanna Al-Timimī, "Musnad Abu Yaʾlā Al-

Mūśulī", reviewed and hadith extracted by: Hussein Salīm Asad, Dar al-Thaqafa P. Press al-

Arabia, Damascus, vol.5, p.110, hadith no.2722.

189

authenticated by Al-Ĥākim while endorsed by Ad-Dhahabī. Similarly,

extracted by Ahmed from the route of Dāwūd Bin Abu Al-Furāt in itself with no

other corroborating hadiths, and mentioned by Al- Haithamī in "Majmaʾ Az-

Zawā'id" and "Al-Manāqib" in "chapter: the Grace of Khadījah Bint

Khuwailid", saying: it was narrated by Ahmed, Abu Yaʾla, Aƫ-Ţabarānī, and

their reporters are among those authenticated by the Sahih."231

5. What is adduced in "Sharĥ Mushkil Al-Āthār" for Abu Jaʾfar Ahmed Bin

Muhammad At-Taĥāwī (d.321 A.H) who said: "what may be related to us by

Ibrahim Bin Abu Dāwūd, related to us Ali Bin Uthman Al-Lāĥiqī Al-Baśrī,

related to us by Dāwūd Bin Abu Al-Furāt, from ʾAlbā' Bin Aĥmer, from

ʾIkrimah, from Ibn Abbas who said: the prophet (PBUH) drew four lines on the

ground then he said: "do you know what this is?", "Allah and His

Messenger only know", they said, "the best women of the people of

Paradise are Khadījah Bint Khuwailid, Fatimah Bint Muhammad, Maryam

Bint ʾImrān and Āsia Bint Muzāĥim, the wife of Pharaoh."232

The book reviewer, Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt said: "its chain of transmission is

authentic. Ali Bin Uthman Al-Lāĥiqī has been verified by Abu Ĥātem, as

transferred by his son in the literature of 'Aspersion and Acclamation', and

been mentioned by Ibn Ĥabbān in "At-Thuqqat", who has the remainder of his

reporters among those authenticated by the Sahih. The hadith is narrated as

well by Ahmed, Aƫ-Ţabarānī and Al-Ĥākim from the route of Dāwūd with this

231 Ibid: same source

232 Aƫ-Țaĥāwī, Abu Jaʾfar Bin Salāmah, "Sharĥ Mushkil Al-Āthār", reviewed, annotated and

hadith extracted by: Shuʾaib Al-Atnā'ūt, Mussassat al-Risala, Beirut, pub.1, 1415 A.H- 1994 A.D,

vol.1, pp.140-141, hadith no.148.

190

chain of transmission. Al-Ĥākim said: its chain of transmission is authentic,

and Ad-Dhahabī coincided with him."233

The Second Cluster: Sufficing for you: the Mistresses of the Worlds

The second attribute we detect in the prophetic accounts and narratives in

respect of Siddiqah Az-Zahra comes under the title: "Sufficing: the Mistresses

of the Worlds", from which we cite the following:

1. What is adduced in "Fađā’il Aṡ-Ṡaĥabah” by Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal who said:

‟related to us Abdul Razzāq saying: reported to us by Maʾmar, from Qatādah

from Anas that the prophet (saw-a) said:

"Sufficing for you: the Mistresses of the Worlds are Maryam Bint ʾImrān,

Khadījah Khuwailid, Fatimah Bint Muhammad and Āsia, the wife of

Pharaoh."234

The book reviewer, Waśiyullah Bin Muhammad Abbas said: "its chain of

transmission is authentic [...] but otherwise via other corroborating reports/

hadiths [...]"

2. Adduced in "Sahih Sunan At-Tirmidhī" for Muhammad Nāśirul Dīn Al-

Albānī (d.1999 A.D): related to us Abu Bkr Bin Zanjawaih, related to us Abdul

Razzāq, reported to us Maʾmer from Qatādah from Anas (R.A): the prophet

(saw-a) said:

"Sufficing for you: the Mistresses of the Worlds are Maryam Bint ʾImrān,

Khadījah Khuwailid, Fatimah Bint Muhammad and Āsia, the wife of

Pharaoh."235

233 Ibid: same source

234 Ibn Ĥanbal, Abu Abdullah Ahmed Bin Muhammad, "Fađāil Aṡ-Ṡaĥābah", reviewed and

hadith extracted by: Waśiyūllah Abbass, Dar Al-Jawzi, pub.2, 1420 A.H - 1999 A.D, vol.1, pp.196-

197, hadith no. 1325.

235 Al-Albānī, Muhammad Nāśirul Dīn, "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Sunan At-Tirmdhī", Maktabat al-Maarif

for publishing and distribution, Riyadh, 2nd edition of the new impression, 1422 A.H - 2002 A.D,

191

Al-Albānī said: "it is authentic, and Abu ʾĪsā At-Tirmidhī said too: this is an

authentic hadith."

3. What is adduced in "Musnad Abu Yaʾlā Al- Mawṡilī" (d.307 A.H) who

said: related to us Muhammad Bin Mahdī, related to us Abdul Razzāq,

reported to us Maʾmer from Qatādah from Anas: the prophet (saw-a) said:

"Sufficing for you: the Mistresses of the Worlds are Maryam Bint ʾImrān,

Khadījah Bint Khuwailid, Fatimah Bint Muhammad, Āsia, the wife of

Pharaoh."236

This hadith has been authenticated by the book reviewer, Muhammad Sālim

Asad.237

4. What is adduced in "Sharĥ Mushkil Al-Āthār" for Aƫ-Ţaĥāwī (d.321 A.H),

whereby he said: "related to us Ali Bin Abdul Raĥmān Bin Al-Mughīrah Abu

Al-Hassan who said, related to us Yĥayā Bin Maʾīn, related to us Abdul

Razzāq, reported to us Maʾmer from Qatādah from Anas: the prophet (saw-a)

said: "Sufficing for you: the Mistress of the two Worlds are Maryam Bint

ʾImrān, Khadījah Khuwailid, Fatimah Bint Muhammad, Āsia, the wife of

Pharaoh."238

The book reviewer Suʾaib Al-Arnā’ūt said: "its chain of transmission is

authentic in line with the two Sheikhs provisions. It is included in ‟Al-

vol.3, p.573, hadith no.3878. It must be noted that the authentication here is not via other

corroborating hadiths to lend it strength but in itself, unlike the case with the route of the "Fađāil

Aṡ-Ṡaĥābah" as above.

236 Abu Yaʾlā Al- Mawṡilī, "Al-Musnad", ibid, vol.5, p.380, hadith no.2722

237 The reviewer did not declare its authentication explicitly, but this can be figured out from his

statement. After his hesitance in verifying Muhammad Bin Mahdī who appeared in this chain of

transmission, he authenticated the hadith by recourse to other routes (e.g. his route in Muśannaf

Abdul Razzāq), and he cited another hadith with the same import from sanad of another narrator,

taken from the two Sahih books. Accordingly, this very hadith may be authentic for him otherwise

by corroboration of another hadith.

238 Aƫ-Țaĥāwī, "Sharĥ Mushkil Al-Āthār", ibid, vol.1, p.140, hadith no.147.

192

Muśannaf”. It is also narrated by At-Tirmidhī, Ibn Ĥabbān, Ahmed and Al-

Ĥākim from the routes of Abdul Razzāq with this very chain of transmission,

whereby At-Tirmdhī said: this is an authentic hadith."239

5. What is adduced in "Musnad" Ahmed who said: "related to us Abdul

Razzāq saying: reported to us Maʾmer from Qatādah from Anas: the prophet

(saw-a) said: "Sufficing for you: the Mistress of the Worlds are Maryam

Bint ʾImrān, Khadījah Bint Khuwailid, Fatimah Bint Muhammad, Āsia, the

wife of Pharaoh."240

Shuʾaib Al-Arnā’ūt, the book reviewer, has made an important commentary

note on this hadith, from which we quote a big portion for extra benefit:

"Its chain of transmission is authentic in line with the two Sheikhs provisions.

It is included in the "Muśannaf" and "Tafsīr " of Abdul Razzāq, and from his

route, it has been extracted by Al-Muśannaf in ‟Fađāil Aṡ-Ṡaĥābah”, and

also by At-Tirmidhī, Ibn Abī ʾAśim in "Al-Āĥād wal Al-Mathānī", Abu Yaʾlā,

Aƫ-Ţaĥāwī in "Shrĥ Mushkil Al-Āthār", Ibn Ĥabbān, As-Sirāj in his "Musnad"

as well as in "Al-Istīʾāb", Aţ-Ţabarānī in "Al-Muʾjam Al-Kabīr", Al-Ĥākim, Abu

Naʾīm in "Al-Ĥiliah", Al-Baghāwī in "Sharĥ As-Sunnah" and in "At-Tafsīr".

Extracted by Al-Muśannaf in ‟Fađāil Aṡ-Ṡaĥābah”, and from his route

extracted by Al-Ĥākim from Abdul Razzāq from Maʾmer from Az-Zuhrī from

Anas.

Extracted by Ibn Abī ʾĀśim in "Al-Āĥād", Aƫ-Ţabarī, Ibn ʾAdiy, Aƫ-Țabarānī in

"Al-Kabīr", Al-Khaƫīb in "Tārīkh Baghdad", Ibn Abdul Bir in "Al-Istīʾāb", Ibn

Al-Athīr in "Usdul Ghābah" from the route of Abu Jaʾfar Ar-Rāzī, from Thābit,

from Anas, noting that Abu Jaʾfar is an incompetent memoriser, yet his

239 Ibid: same source.

240 Ibn Ĥanbal "Al-Musnad", ibid, CL.19, p.383, hadith no.12391.

193

narration is deemed good in the Mutābʾāt which applies to this particular

narrative [...]241.

The Difference between the two Clusters

Regarding Precedence

Apparently, the prophetic expression differs from the first cluster to the

second, but does this variation in the wording constitute a difference between

the two feats in every cluster?

In fact, the determinant factors of individuals’ precedence over others vary

according to their whereabouts. The factors of this Earthly World have long

been subject to certain rational considerations, which are conventionalised by

the societies and approved by the collective consciousness. More often than

not, these considerations spring from what people attach upon them of areas

of interests and social benefits. People can have hierarchal differentiation

according to wealth, authority, beauty and social position etc. and obviously,

the criteria for these differentiations are purely secular deriving their merit

from this worldly existence.

As for the Hereafter, the criteria of hierarchal differentiation hinge on the

degree of nearness from Allah (Taʾala): {verily the most honoured in the

sight of Allah is the most God-fearing of you}242, and this celestial honour

and bond with Allah (Taʾala) represents the core vision of religion towards the

human value and the individuals’ precedence over others. The social secular

dimension is completely ruled out in this equation, and one's value lies wholly

in pure faith, unblemished soul, sound belief and good deeds directed right

up at Allah (Taʾala).

In point of fact, the difference in expression between the two clusters

originates from varying altitudes of divinity, dignity and esteem that these four

women possess in relation to Heaven. The text in the first cluster 'the best of

the women of Paradise' which is linked to the Hereafter throws light on the

import of the second cluster 'Sufficing: the Mistress of the Worlds' which is

linked to this World, and this means that this precedence 'being best' is

241 Ibid: same source

242 Al-Ĥujurāt (13)

194

subservient to this particular provision, that is, to mount the scales of

perfection in this World.

In other words, the first cluster indicates superiority in the Hereafter, while at

the same time it exposes another shade of superiority in this worldly life,

portrayed by the second cluster. And while the latter superiority is bound to

our physical existence on earth, it is still governed by the criterion of Heaven,

throughout proximity to Allah (Taʾala) and what He endows of graces to

humans, thus it is completely irrelevant to the secular criterion that people

standardise and embrace. From this perspective, these women have been

identified as the best of all women of Paradise.

Precedence of Az-Zahra over Others

As for the differentiation between the four women, we need to delineate two

vital points:

Point One: the list order of the women names has nothing to do with the

supremacy of each one over the other243 due to the apparent disparity

between the names order from one hadith to another. This becomes clear to

sight once reviewing the samples above.

Point Two: the four women do not possess the same rank of precedence.

They have natural differentiation and disparity, and this is a matter of faith,

prescribed by the holy Qur'an and narrations, which has become 'in itself' a

subject of controversy among Moslem scholars. By 'in itself' I mean it is

running aside from the doctrinal conventional attack against Ahlul Bait

School, for it has been a heated dispute inside the milieus of the Companion

243 Contrary to what Nūrul Dīn Ali Bin Sulƫān Al-Harawī Al-Qārrī (d.1014 A.H) opined to. He

elicited this view from the narrative of Anas. Then he stopped discussing each one's superiority and

redressed the matter conjoining Aisha with them and justifying that: "there is no conclusive

evidence on the issue, and as assumptions are normally inconsistent, they are pointless for firm

beliefs which are based on certainties". The invalidity of this reasoning will be revealed shortly (see

his book: "Murqāt Al-Mafātīh Sharĥ Mishkāt Al- Maśābīh", Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, pub.1, 1422

A.H- 2002 A.D, vol.9, p.3994. Also see the attitude of Ibn Ĥajar who is anti this order: in Ibn Ĥajar

Ahmed Bin Ali Al-ʾAsqalānī "Fatĥ Al-Bārī bi Sharĥ Śaĥīĥ Al-Bukhārī", reviewed,

authenticated and compared the printed copy with manuscript by: Abdul ʾAzīz Bin Bāz, books,

chapters and hadiths numbered by: Muhammad Fu'ād Abdul Bāqī, extracted and authenticated by:

Muĥibul Dīn Al-Khaƫīb, Dar al-Marifa, Beirut, 1379, vol.7, p.136.

195

School by first-level scholars, regardless of the attitude towards Ahlul Bait

School. In conclusion, after they concurred on these names as the elite of

the entire women of the worlds244, and the fact that other than them no

women can be better, they differed on whom to recognise as the best among

them.245

Evidencing Texts on the Superiority of Az-Zahra (as)

According to the prophetic legacy handed down in respect of Az-Zahra (as),

we believe she presides over others. There are several accounts from which

we can deduce this notion, and from which we select the following:

1. What is adduced in ‟Sahih Al-Bukhārī” in the chapter dedicated to the

commendable traits of Fatimah Az-Zahra (as), his saying: "Fatimah is the

mistress of all women of Paradise."246

I note hereby that this unconditional statement he makes on her status

entails that she is unrivalled in her position as the mistress of all women of

Paradise.

2. What is adduced in "Sahih Sunan At-Tirmidhī" (vol.3, hadith no.3781)

saying: related to us Abdullah Bin Abdul Raĥmān and Isĥāq Bin Manśūr,

whereby they said: reported to us Muhammad Bin Yūsuf from Isrā'īl from

Maysarah Bin Ĥabīb from Al-Minhāl Bin ʾAmrū from Zir Bin Ĥubaish, from

244 This runs counter to the groundless presumption which confines the generalisation of these

particular accounts and others* by restricting them to women who reached maturity at their own

eras -the presumption was imparted by Ibn Ĥajar from Ibn At-Tīn, but he labelled it as weak

afterwards (see "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", vol.7, p.135), or restricting them to a stage “prior to Aishah

reaching perfection, and attaining the Honour of communion*" as stated by Mulla Ali Al-Qārī (see

for the author: "Murqāt Al-Maśābīh", ibid, vol.9, p.3994).

* Confine a generalisation: shed light on an unspecified aspect by a generalised statement, e.g.

some detail marked out by the Sunnah specifying a general import in a Quranic verse.

* The honour of communion: becoming the spouse of the prophet (sawa) in virtue of which

towering to the scale of moral and spiritual perfection.

245 See Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī, "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", ibid, vol.9, p.109.

246 Al-Bukhārī, "Sahih Al-Bukhārī", edited by: Abu Śuhaib Al-Karmī, Bayt al-Afkr al-Dawliya

publishing house, Beirut, 1419 A.H - 1998 A.D, p.717.

196

Ĥudhaifah, saying: my mother had asked me once: 'since when you have

seen him?' -referring to the prophet (saw-a) - 'I have not seen him since

up to..' I said. She censured me and I said: 'well, let me go to the prophet

(saw-a), perform Al-Maghrib prayer with him and beseech him to ask

Allah's forgiveness for me and you. Then I called on the prophet (saw-a),

performed Al-Maghrib prayer, and he carried on until he did Al-Isha,

hence left, and I followed him. He heard my voice and said: 'who is this?

Ĥudhaifah?', 'yes' I said, 'what is your urgent want? May Allah forgive your

and your mother's sins’! Then he said: 'this is an angel that had never

treaded earth before this night, he asked the permission of his Lord to

salute me and bring me glad tidings that Fatimah is the mistress of all

women of Paradise, and that Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein are the masters

of the youth in Paradise."247

He said (i.e. At-Tirmidhī): "this hadith is ĥasan but gharīb (see glossary) ب غري

from this facet; unknown to us only from the narration of Isrā'īl, while Al-Albānī

said: it is authentic."248

3. What is adduced in "Musnad Ahmed" his saying: related to us Hussein

Bin Muhammad, related to us Isrā'īl from Maysarah Bin Ĥabīb from Al-

Minhāl Bin ʾAmrū from Zir Bin Ĥubaish, from Ĥudhaifah, saying: my

mother had asked me once: 'since when you have seen him?' -denoting

the prophet (saw-a)- I said: 'I have not seen him since up to..'. She

censured me with offensive words. He said: I said to her 'let me go, I will

call on the prophet (saw-a), perform Al-Maghrib prayer with him, then I will

not depart from him until otherwise he asks Allah forgiveness for me and

you’. He said: then I went to the whereabouts of the prophet (saw-a),

performed Al-Maghrib prayer, and he carried on until he did Al-Isha,

hence left. So I followed him, then a seizure induced him and he was

absorbed in a confidential talk. And as he started to move forward, he

heard my voice and said: 'who is this?', 'Ĥudhaifah', I said, 'what is the

matter with you?', so I told him the matter, and he said: 'may Allah forgive

your sins and your mother's'. Then he said: 'have you not seen the seizure

247 Al-Albānī, "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Sunan At-Tirmidhī", ibid, vol.3, p.541, hadith no.3781.

248 Ibid: same source, pp.541-542.

197

that induced me a short while ago?' I said: 'yes', 'this is an angel that had

never treaded earth before this night, he asked the permission of his Lord

to salute me and bring me glad tidings that Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein are

the masters of the youth of Paradise, and that Fatimah is the mistress of

all women of Paradise.", he said.249

I note here that this hadith is rendered every so often with a variable form;

either prolonged as seen above, or abridged and reduced to the names of Al-

Hassan and Al-Hussein (as)250, or at other times containing no names

altogether.251

4. What is adduced in "Sahih Al-Jāmiʾ Aś-Śaghīr and Ziyādātih": "an angel

came to me and greeted me; he descended from Heaven and he has

never been to earth before. He brought me glad tidings that Al-Hassan

and Al-Hussein are the masters of the youth of Paradise, and that

Fatimah is the mistress of all women of Paradise."252

5. In "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā": Maysarah Bin Ĥabib: from Al-Minhāl Bin

ʾAmrū from Zir, from Ĥudhaifah: "he heard the prophet (saw-a) saying:

'this is an angel that had never treaded earth before this night, he asked

the permission of his Lord to salute me and bring me glad tidings that Al-

Hassan and Al-Hussein are the masters of the youth of Paradise, and that

Fatimah is the mistress of all women of Paradise.' At-Tirmidhī found it

ĥasan."253

249 Ibn Ĥanbal, "Al-Musnad", Mussassat al-Risala, Beirut, pub.1, 1421 A.H - 2001 A.D, vol. 38,

volume reviewed, annotated and hadiths extracted by: Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt et al, pp.353-354, hadith

no. 23329. Note: the book reviewers enlisted several sources for this hadith, the reader can review

himself.

250 Ibid, vol.38, p.355, hadith no.23333.

251 Ibid, vol.38, p.429, hadith no.23436.

252 Al-Albānī, "Sahih Al-Jāmiʾ Aś-Śaghīr wa Ziyādātih", al-Maktab al-Islami, Beirut, pub.3,

1408 A.H- 1988 A.D, vol.1, p.77&69, hadiths no.79, 1382, 2257.

253 Ad-Dhahabī, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā", supervised the book review and hadith extraction:

Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt, Mussassat al-Risala, Beirut, pub.3, 1405 A.H - 1985 A.D, vol.3, volume

reviewed by: Muhammad Naʾīm Al-ʾArqasūsī et al, p.252.

198

The book reviewer, Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt commented on Ad-Dhahabī

statement: "it is so, just as he said (i.e. At-Tirmidhī seeing the hadith as

ĥasan]" [...]. The hadith is extracted by Ahmed and Al-Khaţīb; its chain of

transmission is authentic. Also authenticated by Al-Ĥākim and Ad-

Dhahabī coincided with him, and Ibn Ĥabbān had it authenticated but in

the short form."

6. A statement of Abu Thanā' Shahābul Dīn Al-Ĥusseinī Al-Ālūsī (d.1270 A.H

- 1854 A.D) in his book "Rūĥ Al-Maʾānī fī Tafsīr Al-Qur’an wal Sabʾ Al-

Mathānī" at the end of verse 42, Surah Āl ʾImrān: "behold! The angels

said: "O Mary! Allah has chosen you, and made you pure and exalted

you above all the women in the worlds", he said:

"As for what is meant by the women of the worlds, it is said: they are all the

women across ages, and it is inferred duly that she has supremacy over

Fatimah, Khadījah and Aisha [...]. It is also said: they are the women of her

contemporary world, from which it follows she cannot hold precedence over

Fatima (as). Abu Jaʾfar Imam Al-Bāqir (as) headed towards this opinion; and

this is what the other Imams of Ahlul Bait (as) became reputed for. What I am

prone to accept is that Fatimah Al-Batūl is the best of the foregoing and

succeeding women, for being a fraction from the Messenger (saw-a), and for

other grounds. This notion cannot be deranged by past reports owing to the

possibility that others’ precedence over her is only in some respects or from a

certain angle, and this way we can accept the reports conjointly. This is also

plausible in relation to saying Maryam being a prophet, as Fatima compared

to her, is a fraction from the one who is the soul of the entire existence, and

the master of every entity. To me, she cannot thus have an equivalent

anywhere. How do we compare the star to a hand stretching out to reach

it?"254

254 Al-Ālūsī, Abu At-Thanā' Al-Husseinī Al-Baghdadī, "Rūĥ Al-Maʾānī fī Tafsīr Al-Qur'an Al-

'Ažīm wa Sabʾ Al-Mathānī", Dar Ihia al-Turath al-Arabi, vol.3, p.155.

199

The Significance of the Mastery Ascribed to Fatima Az-Zahra (as)

It matters greatly that the prestigious reader takes notice of especially vital

point, that is, the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (sawa) attributing

precedence to Az-Zahra (as) are not the outcome of personal or emotional

attachment.255 The Messenger (sawa) is far greater than to let his verdicts

and sayings be tainted by passion and subjective tendency, as the holy

Qur'an defines him: "nor does he speak out of his desire. This is nothing

but a revelation that is conveyed to him"256. They simply engender from

objective motives contingent on one’s traits and character, nearness to Allah

(Taʾala), firmness of bond with Allah (Taʾala), purity of intentions and inward

thoughts, and this is the Qur'anic criteria in assessing humans and their

deeds: {every soul will be held in pledge for its deeds}257, {that man can

have nothing but what he strives for, that the fruit of his striving will

soon come in sight, then he will be rewarded with a reward complete}258,

{And all are assigned degrees according to the deeds which they have

done.}259

It is a 'mastery' that varies from the standards of everyday life and the

conventional relationships of people in this worldly existence according to

which they call each other: 'master' and 'mistress', i.e. upon some passing

fads and social measures taken for granted, like wealth, authority etc. It is a

mastery that arises from the momentum of a spiritual disposition possessed

by the human, and embodied by the gradations and scales of nearness from

Allah (Taʾala).

In point of fact, the scales of a human in the Hereafter are linked to his scales

in this World, while the former is subsidiary to the latter and a disclosure

stage for it. Moreover, should Az-Zahra be the mistress of the women of

Paradise, she will be subsequently the mistress of the worlds on earth. This is

255 This is the thesis that some endeavour to enforce when dealing with these hadiths justifying Az-

Zahrā eminence on account to her natural extension from the prophet (sawa), covering it up under

the title: "The Honourable Descent". See the Exegesis of Ibn Al-Qayyim as transferred by Ibn

Ĥajar in "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", vol.7, p.109.

256 An-Najm (3-4)

257 Al-Muddathir (38)

258 An-Najm (39-41)

259 Al-Aĥqāf (19)

200

however, a sense which has been announced overtly and directly by reports

under different titles, such as his saying (sawa): "she is the mistress of the

women of this Ummah", also: "the mistress of the women of the

believers...." and so forth.260

Axis Two

The Attitude of Ibn Taimiyyah from the Mistress of the Women

of the Worlds (as)

Prelude: Vilifying Ahlul Bait a Systematic Step by Ibn Taimiyyah

The exposition of Ibn Taimiyyah attitude towards Az-Zahra Al-Batūl (as) will

be as follows:

Firstly: index every attitude he exhibits with an appropriate keyword to

denote his view.

Secondly: quote from his texts fully-fledged statements, clear enough to

highlight his views.

Thirdly: make comments proportionally to the volume of this study in a way

that elucidates his views and discloses the spectrums of contradictions and

equivocation in his attitude towards Az-Zahra (as). However in most cases,

his views are straightly understood due to his outspoken manner and clear

meaning.

At the beginning of this study, we traced the systematic steps carried out by

Sheikh Ibn Taimiyyah in dealing with the merits and virtues of Ahlul Bait (as),

while here, we delineate one of the frequent methods he uses in discussing

Ahlul Bait prerogatives, roles and positions as ranked by the prophet (sawa)

or as history bears witness to.

It is axiomatic that to have two debating parties, each party needs to start

from common grounds and shared points on which both would base their

argument and reflect their own spectacles. With the absence of this principle,

chances for proper discussion will be nil, so it turns into vicious circle.

260 For details of the hadith extraction, see in: Al-Albānī, “Silsilat Al-Aĥādīth Aś-Śaĥīĥah”,

Maktabat al-Maarif for publication and distribution, Riyadh, pub.1, 1416 A.H - 1996 A.D, vol.6,

p.1085, hadith no.2948.

201

This holds true for discussions with Islamic spectacle. No two dialoguers can

initiate a debate unless they define beforehand the School they belong to, the

trend they embrace or simply the principles and attitudes they personally

believe in. If the other party agrees on these premises, they both take the

debate forward to the next step, that is, what precipitates of outcomes from

such premises or what diversifies of the queries and complexities. However, if

the other party disagrees, he should underline his point of reservation before

progressing into the discussion, and from that point onward they can carry

on.

As for Sheikh Ibn Taimiyyah, he is supposed to set out from the premises of

Ahlul hadith School 'the people of hadith', whom he describes as Ahlul

Sunnah and Jamaʾah and presents them as the sole legitimate

representatives of Islam among other existing schools of thought. But we do

not find him faithful to these outsets in his polemics, and most of the time he

binds his adversaries with proofs and findings from other Islamic schools, in

which he himself has no belief (according to his own precept) neither do his

adversaries who debate their soundness.

Let us throw more light on this paradox by this mock scene:

A Muʾtazilī versus an Ashʾarī dialoguer: Debate running, and the latter started

to flout and refute the former views exploiting for that the conceptual assets

and convictions of a third party who is Shiʾite Imami. At this point, the

Muʾtazilī will have the right to object: "O you Ashʾarī, you deflected from the

right course of debate, if I were in a front with a Shiite, my discussion would

have taken another venue from the start, and my grounds would have

differed from those I forwarded for you. You cannot thus base your argument

on these sub-principles in so far as I have no faith in their foundational

principles, and their soundness has not been established to me prior to this

discussion.

This paradoxical conduct, into which the Ashʾarī lapsed as above, is precisely

what Ibn Taimiyyah exercises in his discussions on Ahlul Bait thought, but

how does he do that? It is not concealed for the reader that Ibn Taimiyyah

instead of bearing responsibility for the content of his discussions, hence

taking upon himself the outcomes that follow, we find him utilising these

discussions in his favour on the one hand and renouncing responsibility for

the findings on the other hand. We find him attaching his own views to others

202

saying for example: "should someone opposes this", "this is opposing

someone’s saying", "that is against what someone says", "if someone would

say" or "the Nāśibī may say", and so forth in a way he would utilise others'

sayings to oppose and argue against his adversaries, and yet tries at the

same time to suggest to the reader that he does not accept their notions and

proposals.

It may ostensibly sound that this method is the same tactic that the Islamic

compilations replete with based on hypotheticals made by authors and

compilers for some potential challenge or objection, with phrases like: "if it

were said so .... I would say so" or "it should not be said ... as we already

said", therefore this is not an innovative method individually applied by Ibn

Taimiyyah.

But the matter is not so, as Ibn Taimiyyah does not presume there is some

potential objection against which he needs to give a counter response. He but

makes these interjections and objections so as to use them as pretexts to

subvert opportunities for the adversaries' counter-views. He would let pass

his own views on the matter leading them through the argument and not

wanting in the meantime to be bound by the findings that transpire thereby,

under the pretense that they are not his own convictions in the first place, but

made by some controversialist or somebody here and there. This is a

counterfeit he relies on even though he is aware that the vast majority of

Moslems barely believe in what he says, seeing it as a void idle talk that no

one ventures to utter but an intruder into religion, with mistrusted faith. This is

especially true when realising -as the reader will come to- that the sole

reservoir from which Ibn Taimiyyah would back his controversy in these

contexts is the Nāśibī or hate-based logic for Ahlul Bait (as) and so forth.

Moreover, the reader will observe that not only does Ibn Taimiyyah exploit

certain sayings and views to raise objections and challenges, but clings to

them in every sinew to use as testament for his argument, continually

elaborating and elucidating their contents, rendering them more lucid and

cohesive, hence reinforcing them with Qur'anic evidences. This way, he

becomes more than simply argumentative, forwarding objections and

challenges, but someone who must have reached the frontier of conviction

with these views.

This feedback is ultimately what we elicit from Ibn Taimiyyah's manners of

discussion, but the question is: are we vis-a-vis a situation where we need to

203

meet Ibn Taimiyyah's assumptions and speculations with counter ones?

Actually, the forthcoming texts from Ibn Taimiyyah can mirror how profound

the matter is and that it is far beyond counter responses, and that our

proposals are not unsupported by evidences that make them solid facts.

Presently, I would like to lay down at the hand of the prestigious reader this

excerpt which resolves the dispute on the accuracy of our proposal. This is a

text of extreme importance owing to the unequivocal declaration made by Ibn

Taimiyyah that one of his premises in retaliating for the Rāfiđī thought (i.e. the

loyalists of Ahlul Bait) is to encounter the vilification of the three caliphs

before Ali (as) with an equivalent vilification of Ali (as) or even with a "greater

one"!!

This text is part of his book "Al-Jawāb Aṡ-Ṡaĥīĥ Liman Baddalah Dīn Al-

Masīĥ” within the explanation for the reason why Christians made no

recourse to the tradition of our prophet Muhammad (sawa) or of any other

prophet (as) for protesting against points from Islam disparate with their

religion. After a prolific account, he cites the objective provisions to comply

with so as to render any argument based on the prophets’ tradition sound and

acceptable. Then he says that the manner we should use to respond for a

Christian or a Jew who protests with an intellectual authoritative proof in

defense for matters in his religion contradicted by what is established by the

prophet of Islam, rests in three steps:

1. To show that this authoritative proof would bind the rest of prophets, as

they all came up with the same testament or even greater.

2. To show that this authoritative proof is inappropriate for contradicting and

protesting against what the prophets have come up with.

3. To show the ineffectiveness of that intellectual authoritative proof.

We do not differ with Ibn Taimiyyah as regards the three systematic steps,

which have been implemented by Moslems at length in twofold type of

discussion: the internal between two Moslem parties or the external with the

second party non-Moslem. But we only remind that the famous formula of the

'binding' rule states: "bind them with what they bound themselves with' rather

than: "bind them with what associates with their statements". The difference

between the two formulas is that the discussion with an opponent in the

former directly hits upon what the he obligates himself with, which makes it

fully geared at exposing the inner contradictions in his discourse, whereas the

204

second hits upon the prerequisites of what he adheres to, so the discourse

will be vehemently geared at obligational points which have resulted from

other contexts with matching topics, and all what breeds of contradictory

points in the opponent’s discourse. This deviation from the centre to the outer

in the discussion may engender void obligations, especially with respect to

religious subjects. What we are truly concerned with here is how Ibn

Taimiyyah interprets the first step, particularly in its application to the first type

of discussion: the 'internal' between Moslems.

Ibn Taimiyyah says on that:

"No one would vilify Muhammad (saw-a) leaning on some intellectual

authoritative proof without having other prophets initially engulfed with all the

more so. This is a like case of what we outlined in retaliation for the Rāfiđī

groups: that no one would vilify the three caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar and

Uthman, but would not lead to vilify Ali in like manner or even greater, to the

degree that it becomes hardly possible for Ali to be neat from any libel during

his spiritual leadership, all but the other three are neater than him in the libel

they received during their spiritual leadership."261

In point of fact, when Ibn Taimiyyah answers back for his Shiʾite opponent as

he did in his book "Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah fī Naqʾ Kalām As-

Shiʾa Al-Qadariyyah", in which he retorted to Abu Manśūr Al-Hassan Bin

Yūsuf Ibn Al-Muƫƫahar Al-Asadī Al-Ĥillī, the author of "Minhāj Al-Karamah fī

Maʾrifat Al-Imamah", the very book which became the centre of Ibn

Taimiyyah polemic, he uses a tactic and method based on analogy (as he

states himself) by meeting the criticism of Ibn Al-Muƫƫahar for the caliphs with

analogous criticism to Imam Ali (as) or with greater one, and extensively to

the other Imams of Ahlul Bait (as). Even more, (as it will come soon) he

meets the virtues by denial, the feats by disbelief, commendation by

aspersion, mindless of the fact that these virtues, feats and commendations

of Ahlul Bait are unanimously admitted by Moslems. Then he intensifies his

slander, defilement and defamation, as if he is trying to say: "hereby I am

261 Ibn Taimiyyah Al-Ĥarrānī, "Al-Jawāb As-Sahih Liman Baddalah Dīn Al-Masīĥ", reviewed

by: Ali Bin Hassan Bin Nāśir et al, Dar al-Asima, Saudi Arabia, pub.2, 1419 A.H- 1999 A.D, vol.5,

p.128. See also: “Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah”, vol.2, p.55 (the Fourth Facet: To Say:

Ahlul Sunnah with the Rāfiđah is A Case like the Moslems with the Christians).

205

returning back one measure by its double, a tit for a double tat", ignoring the

fact that he by this action disrupts the unity of Moslems and untie their

stronghold, causing to cast doubts on the first axioms and maxims which

underpin the Islamic intellect, whereby he tangled himself into a fatal

predicament.

Attitude One: Fatimah (as): A Seeker of Worldly Matters

Ibn Taimiyyah says: "after all, it is recognised by every sane discerning

person that if a woman demands a sum of money from a guardian who,

seeing her ineligible, denied her the sum, and simultaneously he neither took

it for his own use, nor he gave it to a family member or friends, but merited it

to the Moslems' welfare, and yet it is said, the claimant got indignant against

the ruler, it means that her anger was sheerly because the latter held back

the money, and said to her: 'it is not yours; it is someone's else', so where

from do we draw praise in the claimant’s anger? Even if she were truly

wronged, her anger will be no more than fretting for this World. How can this

be, when the charge against the ruler who does not take for his own use is

less likely than the charge against the claimant who takes for her own use?

Incidentally, how can a charge be placed against the one who does not claim

the money for himself, rather than the one who lays the claim for himself?

Although, that ruler was saying: I am banning it for Allah sake, as I do not

have the right to take the money from the one who falls due to payment to

give it to a person with no right, the claimant was saying: I am but expressing

displeasure for my little share of money."262

He said too: ‟they transfer likewise that Ali and Fatimah exposed scenes of

despair and sorrow for the loss of Fadak and other assets of inheritance

which implicates they were grieving for elapsed matters of this World, while

Allah (Taʾala) says: {so that you may not grieve over the loss you suffer,

nor exult over what He gave you. Allah does not love the vainglorious,

the boastful}263, where people are urged not to pine for losses of this World.

Undeniably, grief for this worldly existence must be prioritised in the

262 Ibn Taimiyyah, "Minhāj As-Sunnah" reviewed by: Muhammad Rashād Sālim, the Islamic

university of Imam Muhammad Bin Saud, Saudi Arabia, pub.1, 1406 A.H - 1986 A.D, vol.4,

pp.244-245.

263 Al-Ĥadīd (23)

206

prohibition than the grief for religion. If it were ordained that a human grieves

for this World, his fear from the threat of killing should be more deservingly

excusable than grief for riches he failed to attain."264

According to the above text, the Mistress of the worlds’ women appears in the

scene concerned with an earthly pursuit that is unwarranted to her, grieving

for what she missed in the lower World, whereas the first caliph act denying

her right is addressed for Allah sake.

Ibn Taimiyyah in this specific context abandons the logic of faulty inference

he commonly applies to similar contexts. The least to expect of him is to

interpret the attitude of Az-Zahra (as) in pattern with his theories, according to

which he must say: "Az-Zahra (as) was at fault, but her fault is upon doing

juristic inference and interpretation, for which she should be recompensed".

This very logic has been readily implemented for Muʾāwiyah Bin Abu Sufiān

and other insurgents against Imam Ali (as) to lessen the blame and justify

their actions. So what made him fail to treat the First Lady of the worlds with

the same logic he treated Muʾāwiyah?! And strikingly, why would he refrain

from topics revolving around conflicts among the companions, reckoning the

exposure to these issues like a taboo for Moslems, while at the same time he

has not shown the slightest hesitation in considering the chief women of the

worlds (as) as to demand what is undue to her, and grieve for petty gains in

this World?!

Attitude Two: Fatimah (as) Action Resembles the Hypocrites' Actions

Ibn Taimiyyah says: "has not Allah censured the hypocrites in His saying: {O

prophet, there are some among them who slander you concerning the

distribution of the alms; if something is given to them thereof, they are

well pleased and if they are not given anything thereof they become

angry. If only they were content with what Allah and His Messenger had

given them and would say, "Allah suffices us: He will provide for us in

abundance out of His own bounty, and His Messenger will also be

264 Ibid: same source, vol.8, pp.260-261. He is saying this in the way of comparison between the

grief of Siddiqah Az-Zahra (as) for her father departure (sawa) and the grief of the first caliph as

narrated in the holy Qur'an through a spokesman who is the person of the prophet (sawa): {when he

was saying to his companion, "be not distressed, indeed Allah is with us"} (At-Tawbah: 40).

207

kindly disposed towards us. Indeed we look to Allah alone."265, whereby

Allah makes reference to the folk who are pleased when given, angered

when not given, and thus they were censured. So whoever praises Fatimah

on points in common with theirs, would he not cause to slander her by

that?"266

It is obvious that to compare the act of Siddiqah Az-Zahra (as) simply for

claiming Fadak and expressing displeasure for denying her right, with the

hypocrites acts who are not pacified only by having subsidies and without

which they remain outraged against the prophet (sawa), is something that no

Moslem would dare to utter, a Moslem who is aware of the prophet's saying

in respect of Az-Zahra (as):"the mistress of the women of the worlds";

and he is the prophet on whom Quran said: {nor does he bespeak out of

his desire. This is nothing but a revelation that is conveyed to him.}267

Some might grip to the segment that states "So whoever praises Fatimah on

points in common with theirs, would not he cause to slander her by that?" to

conjure that Ibn Taimiyyah meant to negate she was indignant with the first

caliph, and the real motive for his phrase is his concern lest he should ascribe

to her (as) what might defame her, hence it can be concluded that it is an

affectionate gesture to Az-Zahra (as), and vigilance to keep her taintless.

But the reality is not so:

Ibn Taimiyyah is not illiterate of what is reported in "Sahih Al-

Bukhārī", and other sources on the authority of Aisha that Az-Zahra (as)

"had grievance"268 against the first caliph, (to have grievance against

someone is to be angry with him, to have the heart hardened against

him hence to detest him).

265 At-Tawbah (58-59)

266 Ibid: same source, vol.4, pp.245-246.

267 An-Najm (3-4)

268 See "Sahih Al-Bukhārī", ibid: p.803, hadith no.4240. He said: "...Abu Bakr refused to allocate

to Fatimah any slice of it (Fadak), and thus Fatimah had grievance against him for that, broke off

with him, and stopped talking to him until she died". Also p.591, hadith no.3093: "so Fatimah,

daughter of the Messenger of Allah, got indignant and parted company with Abu Bakr, and went on

that until she died". See also: Al-Qushairī, Muslim Bin Ĥajjāj An-Naisābūrī, "Sahih Muslim",

edited by: Abu Śuhaib Al-Karmī, Bait al-Afkar Adawliya, 1419 A.H - 1998 A.D, p.729, Kitab “Al-

Jihad wal Siyer - The Book of Jihad and Biographies", Ch. “The Prophet Saying: "We do not

bequeath what we left behind as it is Sadaqah", hadith no.1759.

208

Furthermore, the reference to Az-Zahra attitudes, as regards her

claim for Fadak, her indignation and boycott for the first caliph, her will

to bury her in the dark, not to have mourners attending her funeral and

other events respectively, is made with the intention to discredit the first

caliph, triumph for her (as) and prove her right in her claim and acts;

and it is completely irrelevant to praise and compliment. In other words,

there is a difference between saying "your anger is a righteous cause"

and "your anger is appreciable"; the last phrase falls into the category

of praise whereas the above one is a sheer assertion.

In point of fact, Ibn Taimiyyah in the above excerpt did two things with which

his opponent the Allama Ibn Al-Muƫƫhar Al-Ĥillī contends:

Firstly: he interpreted the discourse of Al-Ĥillī269 as praise for Az-Zahra (as),

though it was no more than an affirmation statement on her right to take this

action.

Secondly: he interpreted her act in terms of the hypocrites' acts, while

Al-Ĥillī sees the matter differently in that the hypocrites were demanding what

is not their right, and it is for this they were censured by Allah (Taʾala), not for

the 'demand initiative' itself, even if their demand was righteous one.

Therefore the ayah introduces firstly the reason why their act is deemed

erroneous: {there are some among them who slander you concerning the

distribution of the alms}, that is, they blemish and defame 'you', and

afterwards against that they were invited to submit to Allah and His

Messenger and stop the offence they make against him (sawa), saying: {If

only they were content with what Allah and His Messenger had given

them}.

It appears that it is exclusively Ibn Taimiyyah who deserves the epithet of a

"slanderer" for the mistress of the women of the worlds (as), not any other

one who is aware that her anger is directed to Allah and for Allah alone, and

believes in the Messenger's saying: "Fatimah is a fraction from of me;

269 See his original statement and the associated context in "Minhāj Al-Karamah fī Maʾrifat Al-

Imamah", Ibn Al-Muƫƫahr, Abu Manśūr Jamalul Dīn Al-Asadī Al-Ĥillī, reviewed by: Abdul Raĥīm

Mubarak, Tasua publisher, Mashhad, Iran, pub.1, 1379 SH (Solar Hijri), pp.71-72.

209

whoever angers her would anger me", while to anger the Messenger of

Allah (sawa) would incur Allah (Taʾala) anger.270

270 Ibn Taimiyyah commented on Al-Ĥillī assertion that Ahlul Sunnah narrated the prophetic hadith:

"O Fatimah indeed Allah is angered for your anger, and is satisfied for your satisfaction"

saying: it is a lie on his part; they have not narrated that from the prophet (saw-a), and not in the

least there is something of this in the renowned hadith books, nor it has a renowned chain of

transmitters traceable to the prophet (saw-a) that can be sound or good."

On my part, I would say: what Ibn Taimiyyah states is false, as it has been reported by a number of

the Sunni hadith books, and it was authenticated and deemed good by some Sunni prominent

figures, and hereby some names:

1. Narrated by Al-Hafiz Nūrul Dīn Ali Bin Abu Bakr Al-Haithamī As-Shāfiʾī (d.807 A.H) in

"Majmaʾ Az-Zawā'id", reviewed by: Abdullah Muhammad Ad-Darwīsh, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut,

1414 A.H - 1994 A.D, vol.9, p.328, hadith no.15204, in which he said: it was narrated by Aţ-Ţabarī

and its chain of transmission is good.

2. Abu Al-Qāsim Bin Ahmed Aţ-Ţabarānī in "Al-Muʾjam Al-Kabīr", reviewed by: Ĥamdī Bin

Abdul Majīd As-Salafi, Maktabat Ibn Taimiyyah, Cairo, vol.1, p.108, hadith no.182 & vol.22,

p.401, hadith no.1001. The book reviewer annotated in respect of the first hadith that the following

phrase was found in the footnote of the original manuscript: "this is hadith which has authentic

chain of transmission, and it is narrated from several routes from Ali (as). Narrated by Al-Ĥārith

from Ali, and narrated mursal as well, and this hadith is the best I ever saw and it has the soundest

chain of transmission I ever read."

3. Also mentioned by the Hafiz Jamalul Dīn Al-Mazī (d.742 A.H) in "Tahdhīb Al-Kamāl fī

Asmā' Al-Rijāl", reviewed by: Dr. Bashār ʾAwād, Muassasat al-Risala, Beirut, pub.4, 1406 A.H -

1985 A.D, vol.35, p.250. It was neither weakened by the author nor by the reviewer, noting that the

latter has announced in the prelude of the book that his main concern is to cite the supplements of

scholars who deal with the authentication and aspersion in "Tahdhīb Al-Kamāl.

4. Also authenticated by Al-Ĥākim in his "Mustadrak", Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, reviewed by:

Mustafa Abdul Qādir Aƫƫa, pub.1, 1411A.H - 1990 A.D, vol.3, p.167, hadith no.4730. But Ad-

Dhahabī weakened it from the narration of Al-Hussein Bin Zaid Bin Ali saying: "his hadith is

munkar (GG see glossary: ‘munkar’ is denounced being reported by weak narrator), and he is not

referred to as authoritative source", but during revision it appeared to us that his categorisation as

weak is not totally agreed on and only disputed. Ibn Abu Ĥātem Ar-Rāzī (d.327 A.H) said: "I said

to my father: what do you say about him? He moved his hand and turned it upside down, hinting:

“renowned but denounced”, (“Al-Jarĥ wa Taʾdīl”, Dar Ihia al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, pub.1, 1952

A.D, vol.3, p.53, bio.237). Al-Hafiz Ibn ʾAdiy Al-Jurjānī (d.365) said after transferring some

hadiths on his authority: “I hope he is sensible, yet I found some of his hadiths denounced)” (“Al-

Kāmil fī Đuʾafā’ Ar-Rijāl”, reviewed by ʾĀdil Ahmed et al, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, pub.1, 1997

A.D, vol.3, p.218). This is what is transferred from him by Ad-Dhahabī in "Al-Kāshif fī Maʾrifat

man lahū Riwāyah fī Al-Kutub As-Sittah" (Dar Al-Qiblah for Islamic culture & Muassasat Ilum

Al-Qur'an, Jeddah, reviewed by: Muhammad ʾAwwamah et al, pub.1, 1413 AH - 1992 AD, vol.1,

p.333, hadith no.1088). Ad-Dhahabī classified it in compliance with Abu Ĥātem, whereby the

210

Attitude Three: Fatimah Desertion and Breaking off with the First Caliph

A Slander to her

He said: "whoever wanted to be issued a ruling other than the ruling of Allah

and His Messenger, hence he expressed anger and swore not to talk to the

ruler or the ruler's companion, he is not to be praised for this, neither the ruler

to be censured; or rather his act is more libelous than commendable."271

Upon this statement, the mistress of the worlds’ women (as) ends up, from

the perspective of Ibn Taimiyyah as one of the libeled companions, and the

hadith involving her grievance against Abu Bakr, as reported by Al-Bukhārī,

ends up as calumny against her. At this point we recollect the fact that Ibn

Taimiyyah himself states in his book "Aś-Śārim Al-Maslūl ʾalā Shātim Ar-

Rasūl" that anyone who speaks insultingly against the companions of the

Messenger (sawa) without inflicting slander on their rightfulness or

religiousness, it surely serves him right to have disciplinary penalty and a

rebuke notice! He declares: "whoever speaks insultingly against them without

inflicting slander on their rightfulness or religiousness in descriptions such as

miserliness, cowardice, humble knowledge, lack of austerity and so forth, he

certainly must be forfeited by disciplinary action and a rebuke notice. But as

for the one who curses, condemns and reproves them on the total, he is in a

position subject to dispute. As for the one who goes over to allege that they

apostatised after the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) save for a small faction

reviewer of "Al-Kāshif" said in the study of Ad-Dhahabī glossary in the Aspersion and

Acclamation that “compliance” for Ad-Dhahabī in his assessment of Ibn ʾAdiy indicates mostly

"slight authentication" and noted: an instance of that is what he said on Al-Hussein Bin Zaid. Also

authenticated by Ad-Dār Quƫnī “Mawsῡʾat Aqwāl Ad-Dār Quƫnī”, complied and collated by:

Muhammad Mahdi Al-Muslimī et al, Alam al-Kotob for publishing, Beirut, pub.1, 1422 A.H –

2001 A.D, vol.1, p.213, no.1006). Ibn Ĥajar said about him: “unfailingly reliable but he might have

miscalculated” (“Taqrīb At-Tahdhīb”, study and review by: Mustafa Abdul Qādir ʾAƫƫā, Dar Al-

Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, pub.2, 1415 A.H – 1995 A.D, vol.1, p.215, no.1326).

In accordance with that we realise that categorising al-Hussein Bin zaid as a weak narrator is a

matter of dispute, and he has been authenticated by some, which makes the narration from him

sound as Al-Ĥākim An-Naisābῡrī propounded.

This equally shows that what Ibn Taimiyyah said that this hadith is not included in the first degree

books of Ahlul Sunnah and its chain of narrators is false and unfounded.

271 "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.4, p.243.

211

below fourteen, or that they went astray altogether, he is one whose infidelity

is certain and undoubted."272

Eventually, upon Ibn Taimiyyah criteria, the minimal forfeit he should receive

for his above statement and for other sectarian notions in respect of Az-Zahra

(as) (see attitude one and three) is "discipline and rebuke". Alternatively, he

could have been a silent spectator not engaging in vain talk over such

matters, outweighing one party over the other, just as he habitually does

when the antagonists and enemies of Ahlul Bait (as) are concerned.

Attitude Four: The Will of Fatimah to Bury her at Night and not to do her

Funeral Prayer an Act to be censured for

He said: "besides, as for what he mentioned273 on her request in her death-

will to be buried at night and not to have any of them doing her funeral prayer,

if proved to be true274, it would have been an act closer to a forgiven sin than

being an appreciable effort. A Moslem prayer on others is a bonus and

increase in grace that is carried through to him, and it does not do harm for

the best of creatures to receive prayers from the worst of creatures. Over

here, we have the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) receiving prayers from the

pious and sinful as well as the hypocrite, and if this were of no avail for him it

will still not harm him. Despite knowing that among the Moslem Ummah,

there exist some hypocrites, he never forbade anyone from praying for him,

and rather commanded all people, from the blend of believers and hypocrites

to do that and also to salute him. So how can he refer to this matter in the

sense of commendation and advocacy for her debating with such things that

no one but extravagantly ignorant would say or debate with. If however, a

Moslem makes a request in a will not to pray for him, his will shall not be

executed, as their prayers will be to his advantage at any rate.

It is well-known if someone had received injustice, and he made a will not to

let his wrongdoer perform funeral prayer on him, his act will not be

272 Ibn Taimiyyah, "Aś-Śārim Al-Maslūl Alā Shātim Ar-Rasūl", reviewed by: Muhammad Muĥīl

Dīn, Al-Haras Al-Watanī Publisher, Saudi Arabia, p.586.

273 The pronoun here signifies the Allama Al-Ĥillī, writer of “Minhāj Al-Karāmah” against whom

Ibn Taimiyyah retaliated in his book dedicated for this purpose.

274 This should be true indeed according to Ibn Taimiyyah doctrine, because as indicated above, it is

reported by Al-Bukhārī. Actually, Ibn Taimiyyah is well-versed with this fact but negligently he

sets it aside in order to cast doubtfulness on the matter and shake its foundation in the reader’s mind.

212

meritorious nor worthy of praise, and moreover it is not something enjoined

by Allah and His Messenger. So how can he who sought to praise and glorify

Fatimah mention such a thing far from praisable, and rather the praise lies in

the opposite extreme, as demonstrated by the Book, Sunnah and Moslem

consensus!?" 275

As a matter of fact, Ibn Taimiyyah conjectural point that the Allama Ibn Al-

Muƫƫahar Al-Ĥillī "refers to this matter in the sense of commendation and

advocacy for her debating .." is totally incorrect, as his debate has not been

intended to this effect, and this is a subject on which the Shiʾa have been

prolific in their writing in the past and present days, producing many

respective abridged and bulky compilations. Al-Ĥillī was addressing the

debate that 'the Imami doctrine is enjoined upon us to follow', and that

unlike the case with others, the Shiʾa have not been zealous for anything

other than the truth; they neither altered the Sharia rulings nor invented

heresies just to be opinionated stubbornly against others, whereas these

actions have been typical of their adversaries. Al-Ĥillī's debate is no more

sheer depiction of such truths, and the distortion of Ibn Taimiyyah for his

message diverting the context into an exotic subject, then describing him as

"no one but extravagantly ignorant would say or debate with" is but a

contemptible attempt to enforce fallacy and forgery. This is firstly.

And secondly, the implication of anger and fury in Az-Zahra's death-will

needs not be evidenced, and so is the fact that a Moslem's prayer for another

Moslem is a bonus for him, not solely the dead. It is true that "it does not do

harm for the best of creatures to receive prayers from the worst of creatures"

as Ibn Taimiyyah said, but it is equally true "the severest loss from Allah's

bounties and prizes is to be dispossessed of the right to pray for the best of

creatures as a particularised individual"276. Such loss and misfortune would

aggravate once we realise that the deprivation from this right was made by

the best creature himself on whom our prayer should be due, as a form of

protest and indignation. This is precisely the case at issue for the Allama Al-

Ĥillī in his debate, i.e. the banning from prayer and its indications, which Ibn

Taimiyyah tried to twist and wind. 275 "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.4, pp.247-248.

276 According to reports already exhibited with explicit content: "the mistress of the women of

Paradise" and "the mistress of the women of this Ummah"...

213

Thirdly: regardless of our belief in the high stations of Az-Zahra (as), her

infallibility and conversance with religious rules and principles, she by no

means needs the like of Ibn Taimiyyah to dictate on her behalf what is

permissible and impermissible of acts in Islam. Oddly enough, Ibn Taimiyyah

takes the liberty to record that Az-Zahra’s will is a 'sin' simply for excluding

specific group from praying on her, though he lacks even a single evidence

for deeming this kind of will as sinful! More oddly, he conjured by sheer

speculation that such a sin is a 'forgiven' one!!

Attitude Five: Fatimah Split Asunder the Federation of Moslems,

Declined Allah Command and Incurred His Wrath for this Transgression

Ibn Taimiyyah said: "then if someone objects saying: Umar and Abu Bakr are

both guardians, and Allah commanded to obey the guardians, it will ensue

that to obey them Allah is obeyed, and to rebel against them Allah is repelled.

So whoever transgressed their command and cultivated their anger, he

certainly transgressed Allah's command and incurred His wrath". Then he

starts to revile Ali and Fatimah (as) in that they "declined Allah's command,

and loathed what pleases Him, for Allah is but pleased at His obedience

akin to obedience to the guardians, so he who is averse to the obedience of

guardians, he surely rejects Allah good pleasure. Indeed Allah is angered for

His disobedience, while rebellion against the guardian is by the same token

rebellion against Him. So whoever opted the disobedience of the guardian in

charge, he surely opted what incurs Allah's wrath and dismisses His

gratification. This revilement of Ali and Fatimah (as) is but more plausible

than the Rāfiđah revilement of Abu Bakr and Umar, as the traditions handed

down from the prophet (saw-a) which dictate obeying the guardians,

fortification of the community oneness and perseverance on that are fairly

widespread and famous, so much so that we cannot dispense with what

might someone say that it is the prophet (saw-a) who enjoined obedience to

the ones in authority even if they were totalitarians, and meet their injustice

with patience, saying: 'you will be faced after me with totalitarianism, so

take that patiently until you happen to meet me at the Fount', also saying:

'give them their due right and ask Allah for your right' along with other

examples, which eventuates that if Abu Bakr and Umar were ordained to be

oppressive and wealth-monopolisers, it is nonetheless dutiful to obey them

and accept with patience their unfairness.

214

Henceforth if this very person proceeds vilifying Ali and Fatimah (R.A.) that

they were impatient and they have not maintained Moslems' unity; rather

they despaired and dispersed Moslems, and this is a great offence, this

atrocity he makes would have been more plausible than the Rāfiđah

revilement of Abu Bakr and Umar. There is absolutely no evidence that Abu

Bakr and Umar had dropped a duty or perpetrated an impermissible act,

unlike the case with others on whom there might exist evidences of some sort

of sins perpetrated, that neither Abu Bakr nor Umar made their similitudes. To

exalt Ali and Fatimah above such acts as quitting a duty or committing the

impermissible cannot hold unless counting that the exalting of Abu Bakr and

Umar above such acts is much more prioritised. There can be no dubiosity

they dropped a duty or violated a boundary but that dubiosity is stronger and

bigger with respect to Ali and Fatimah. So for someone to seek praise to Ali

and Fatimah for purity from sins or Allah's forgiveness for them, while vilifying

Abu Bakr and Umar for misdeeds and deprivation of forgiveness, he lapse

into the greatest ignorance and injustice, greater than trying to cultivate that

in respect of Ali and Muʾāwiyah... if he seeks to praise Muʾāwiyah and vilify Ali

(R.A.).277

This excerpt figures prominently and conspicuously the tactical method,

exercised by Ibn Taimiyyah in these contexts (see: preface of axis two). Although

lengthy, I had it conveyed in full to help the reader perceive a robust image of

the resentment and antagonism Ibn Taimiyyah harbours for the Itrah of the

prophet of Islam (sawa), and how a paragraph not exceeding a few lines

swarm with slanders, lies and violations of Allah sanctities that no one so-

called Moslem would venture into: Ali and Fatimah according to the

perception of Ibn Taimiyyah have declined the ruling of Allah, incurred His

wrath, detested what pleases Him, disrupted the unity of Moslems, infringed

the obedience of the guardians, despaired and exhibited no patience, quit

duties and obligations, committed impermissible acts and moreover they did

the most outrageous offence and the dubiosity that they dropped a duty and

transgressed a boundary is stronger and bigger in their respect.

In fact, this series of Nāśibī satirical pronouncements launched by Ibn

Taimiyyah in which he consciously exploits the Qur'anic text for twisted

tactical applications, poses a question for the reader to reflect on: who are

277 “Minhāj As-Sunnah", vol.4, pp.256-258.

215

those who {followed what angered Allah and have been averse to His

good pleasure}?278 They are the hypocrites no doubt; otherwise a good

believer is disposed to love belief and hate disbelief, wickedness and

rebellion, as the Qur'anic verse illustrates:

{Allah has endeared faith to you and has embellished it in your hearts,

and has made unbelief and evil-doing and disobedience abhorrent to

you. Such are those who are rightly guided.}279

Ibn Taimiyyah says elsewhere in his book "Minhāj As-Sunnah" identifying

those, who hated what Allah sent down saying: "the forerunners interpreted

those who {hated what Allah sent down} and led to the revelation of this

verse, as the hypocrites and Jews."

The reader can figure out this very conclusion himself by recourse to the

context of these Qur'anic verses: {indeed those who reverted back (to

disbelief) after guidance had become clear to them- Stan enticed them

and prolonged hope for them. That is because they say to thjose who

hate that which Allah has revealed: ‟we will obey you in some

respects”. And Allah knows their secret talks. So, how (wretched) they

will be when the angels will demand their souls, smite their faces and

their backs? That is because they followed that which has angered

Allah, and they disliked His His plkeadure; therefore He has nullified

their deeds. Do thjose having malady in their hearts think that Allah will

never expose their grudges (against Islam). Had we willed, We would

have shown them to you (by identifying each one of them) so as you

would definitely recognise them by their features. However, you will

recognise them by the tone of (their) speech. And Allah knows all your

deeds.}280

Consequently, by applying these attributes to Amīrul Mu'minīn, Ali, and the

chief woman of the worlds, Az-Zahra (as), does Ibn Taimiyyah try to say: they

were hypocrites? The paragraph replete with this sense, and there is nothing

that can otherwise expel this notion. The reader becomes in a critical juncture

to either trust in Ibn Taimiyyah or the prophet of Islam (sawa) with the

278 Muhammad (28)

279 Al-Ĥujurāt (7)

280 Muhammad (25-30)

216

mutawātir hadith he rendered in respect to them that furnish the entire

heritage of Moslems (part of which indicated above)! 281

As for Az-Zahra (as) having disrupted the Moslem community, (though Imam

Ali (as) is coupled with her in this action, we suspend his part to focus on Az-

Zahra (as) as the topic), the injunction given by the prophet (sawa) for this

misdeed: "there will be vile evils, so whoever wants to break the unity of

this Ummah when it is united, strike him with the sword no matter who

he were" 282, and in another hadith: "he who does not yield to obedience,

and breaks up from uniformity hence died, he dies like the deaths of Al-

Jāhiliyyah". 283 It follows the penalty of Az-Zahra (as), the mistress of the

worlds women, according to Ibn Taimiyyah, is to strike her with a sword! And

it was in virtue of the clemency and mercifulness of the first caliph she was

spared the sentence she earned to herself!! Not knowing what paradise is

that whose mistress would die in terms of the Jahiliyyah conventions! This is

a question that Ibn Taimiyyah had to account for and tell us the answer.

The relationship between the ruled and the ruler will be researched

elsewhere in our series "A Portrait of the Umayyad Islam", across which

we will witness that a principal pillar in this model of Islam is blind obedience

to authority and total submission to any form of politics it sustains regardless

of whether or not it can be immoral and unprincipled. What Ibn Taimiyyah

281 Al-Hafiz Ibn Ĥajar Al-Asqalānī said in "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", ibid, vol.8, p.477: "What is bizarre is

what Aţ-Ţabarī extracted with a good sanad, from the route of Saʾīd Bin Jubair from Ibn Abbas

whereby he said: when this Qur'anic verse was revealed {but you are truly a warner and to every

folk a guide} (Ar-Raʾad:7), the Messenger of Allah put his hand on his chest and said: 'I am the

admonisher', and signalled to Ali and said: 'you are the guider; throughout you the guided will

reach the right destination after me". This is how Ali is ranked by the Messenger of Allah

(sawa), whereas for Ibn Taimiyyah, the master of the Umayyad Islam, Ali is one of the hypocrites.

282 “Sahih Muslim”, ibid, p.773, Kitab “Al-Imārah – The Book of Rulership", Ch."The Ruling

on Whoever Disperse Moslems when they are United", hadith no.1852.

283 Al-Buśairī, Ahmed Bin Abu Bakr Bin Ismāʾīl, "Itĥāf Al-Khiyerah Al-Maharah bi Zawā'id

Al-Masānīd Al-ʾAsharah", reviewed by: Abu Abdul Raĥmān ʾĀdil Bin Saʾīd et al, Maktabat al-

Rushd, Riyadh, pub.1, 1419 A.H -1998 A.D, vol.6, Kitab: “Al-Imārah– The Book onfRulership",

Chapter: "He Who Quit Obedience and Dissociated with the Community", p.220, hadith

no.5793.

217

recorded here configures one of the fundamental columns of the Umayyad

Islam utilised as a legal cover.

Attitude Six: Her Desperation (as) for the Elapsing Lower World and

Grief for a Fleeting Matter

Ibn Taimiyyah said: "his grief (Abu Bakr) for the prophet (saw-a)

demonstrates the peak of love and loyalty, good counselling, concern to keep

him safe, afford protection and fend off harm for him, and this is the greatest

manifestation of faith, albeit with grief he becomes susceptible to sort of

weakness, which substantiates that to possess those traits and

simultaneously not to grieve is what has been enjoined on us. Sheer

sorrow is of no avail, but it does not signify a sin that invokes censure, as it is

common knowledge that grief for the Messenger is apt to be greater than

grief for one's child owing to the fact that loving him is more obligatory than

loving one's child.

[...]

Furthermore, those Shiʾa and others narrate on Fatimah episodes of

indescribable sorrow for the prophet (saw-a) so much so that she built the

house of sorrow, but they do not reckon that censurable, even though it is

fretting for a matter that lapsed and expelled, whereas Abu Bakr grief was an

expression of wariness for him lest he should be killed. Therefore he did not

react to his death beyond a sensible measure to indulge into bitter grief,

being fruitless and unavailing. Duly Abu Bakr grief is undeniably more

flawless than Fatimah's, so if he were in any event blameworthy, Fatimah is

more worthy of that blame, or else Abu Bakr is more rightfully not to be

censured for his grief for the prophet (saw-a) than others who grieved for him

after his death.

[...]

They transfer likewise that Ali and Fatimah exposed scenes of despair and

sorrow for the loss of Fadak and other assets of inheritance which implicates

they were grieving for elapsed matters of this World, while Allah (Taʾala)

says: {so that you may not grieve over the loss you suffer, nor exult over

what He gave you. Allah does not love the vainglorious, the boastful}284,

284 Al-Ĥadīd (23)

218

where people are urged not to pine for losses of this World. Undeniably, grief

for this worldly existence must be prioritised in the prohibition than the grief

for religion. If it were ordained that a human grieves for this World, his fear

from the threat of killing should be more deservingly excusable than grief for

riches he failed to attain."285

According to the Shiʾa on this matter and upon authentic reports with

unanimous consent, Az-Zahra mourning and grief for her father (sawa) was

under his sight during his lifetime soon as he (sawa) disclosed to her news of

his departure, and yet she received no formal censure for this exposure of

grief, nor he said to her: "this is weakness and it is grief for a fleeting and

futile matter" as Ibn Taimiyyah maintains, but he instead consoled her and

revealed to her glad tidings.

However, an impermissible sorrow, commonly called 'despondency', is a level

that is unattainable by simply displaying grief, but by concomitant heinous

conducts or repulsive language, e.g. despairing of Allah recompense or

unmindfulness of His covenants and so forth. Equally true, sorrow in itself is

not inconsistent with 'fair patience' enjoined on us. We find prophet Yaʾqūb

(Jacob) (as) saying to his children: {Nay! Your evil souls have made this

heinous act easy for you. I will however bear this patiently with god

grace. It is Allah alone Whose help can be sought}286, but despite his 'fair

patience' he withdrew and turned away from them: {then he turned his face

from them and cried: "Alas for Joseph!" He was sorely oppressed with

suppressed sorrow and his eyes have become white with grief}287,

oblivious to his loss of sight and the long stretch of time he persisted on that

position. The holy Qur'an depicts the scene: {the people of the house

answered: "by Allah, you are still suffering from your old illusion}288,

and he replied: {Then he said: "didn't I say to you that I know from Allah

what you do not know?}289, that is, he learnt: Yūsuf (Josef) is alive and

285 “Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.8, pp.459-461.

286 Yūsuf (18)

287 Yūsuf (84)

288 Yūsuf (95)

289 Yūsuf (96)

219

Allah (Taʾala) will re-unite them and still he grieves and laments, by which he

seems to contradict his fair patience. Hence, Qur'an narrates utterances from

the mouth of his children which are in the same vein of Ibn Taimiyyah's

interjection statements made on Az-Zahra (as) i.e. "unprofitability of bygone

lost matters and futility of tears" saying to their father: {"by Allah! You have

not ceased to think of Joseph and now things have come to such a pass

that you will ruin your health or kill yourself with grief for him"}290, that

is, you will be at the verge of death or be dead. Yet we find him hastening to

say: {"I complain to Allah alone of my sorrow and grief"}291, and this is

typically what every Moslem should do; to address his grievances to no one

but Allah (Taʾala). Moreover, we still need to take into account that no

analogy can be made between prophet Yūsuf (as) and the prophet of Islam

(sawa) neither in virtuousness nor significance, nor as concerns the severity

of affliction caused by their loss to their aggrieved people. So how can the

chief woman of the worlds be censured, as Ibn Taimiyyah expects the Shiʾa

to do, for actions much less fretful than the actions of that rightful prophet?

Besides, what afflicted her personally is the dire calamity of Moslems across

history because it marks out the end of Revelation and loss of their great

leader!?

As for what Ibn Taimiyyah said that the Shia "they They transfer likewise that

Ali and Fatimah exposed scenes of despair and sorrow for the loss of Fadak

and other assets of inheritance which implicates they were grieving for

elapsed matters of this World.", it is part of his falsities. It has never been

reported that any of them (as) had once exhibited despondency or sorrow for

evanescent matters of our World, save for bemoaning the prophet death

(sawa). It is true that reports from both the Shiʾa and Sunnah conjointly292

indicate they believed in their right to the ownership of Fadak and other

290 Yūsuf (85)

291 Yūsuf (86)

292 As for Az-Zahra own belief (as) in this respect, it has been conveyed earlier in the research from

Sahih Al-Bukhārī and Muslim. As for Imam Ali’s, it is adduced in these two sources that during the

rule of Umar he was demanding the inheritance of Az-Zahra; and he was making his intention clear

on this matter (see: "Sahih Al-Bukhārī", p.592, hadith no.3094 & "Sahih Muslim", pp.728-729,

hadith no.1757).

220

assets of inheritance and expressed grievance for inequity, but to claim one's

right cannot be calculated as "grief for elapsing matters of this World". A

preview of what Imam Ali (as) declares with regard to Fadak can help the

prestigious reader decide if any vestige of grief in the sense Ibn Taimiyyah

describes is traceable in his words. Amīrul Mu'minīn says (as):

"By Allah, I have hoarded not even a grain of gold and

silver from your lower World, neither amassed from its

prizes any riches, nor had prepared an extra rag for my

tattered clothes. Aye! We had at our custody Fadak, the

only possession from all what the sky shaded. But there

were fellows of some folk who had a grip on it tightwad,

whilst others were lavish about it and open-handed, how

Supreme is the Judge Allah. What would I do with Fadak

and other than Fadak when the soul's abode tomorrow is

the entombment, its trails severed in its darkness,

tidings about it cease to exist, and the hole-area if

stretched; and its gravedigger expanded it, stone and

clay would strain it, and heaped-up sand would fill its

crevices! It is but my soul I tame with piety to pass

secured the Day of Greatest Fear, stay firm on the

sideways of the abyss.

If I willed l would have procured this honey extract and

this finest whole wheat and these fabrics of silkworm.

Far be it that my lust would prevail over, and my avarice

lead me to pick out from favoured foods, when there might

be someone in Al-Hejaz and Al-Yamama (east of Najd) who

is not coveting this piece of bread, or he may be

unaccustomed to fullness (from hunger) or I may sleep the

night bellyful, while around me empty covetous bellies

and burning feverish livers, or I would be as the reciter

says:

‟Sufficing ailment for you to pass the night voracious

Whilst around you livers craving for codfish."293

293 Ar-Ražī, As-Sharīf Abu Al-Hassan Al-Mūsawī Al-Baghdādī, "Nahj Al-Balaghah", reviewed

by: Fāris Al-Ĥassūn, Centre for Dogmatic Researches, pub.1, 1419 A.H, pp. 677-679.

221

Would anyone who reflects such sentiments deplore and pine for the loss of

evanescent matters?! No way, it is but Ibn Taimiyyah self-deceit by which

continues his stormy lowly onslaught.

However, we find it necessary to indicate to the descriptive words of Ibn

Taimiyyah portraying sorrow as a "sort of weakness", wondering if this sorrow

for the prophet's death (sawa) which is said to be conducive to weakness

pertains solely to the mistress of the woman of the worlds (as), which typifies

it as a daughter's mourning for her father, as Ibn Taimiyyah hints at? Or was

it exhibited by other elite companions as well, whose conduct (acts and

sayings) are reckoned by Ibn Taimiyyah as an authoritative source for

knowing the Islamic laws?

It is reported in "Sunan Ibn Mājeh" from Anas: "Abu Bakr said after the

demise of the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) to Umar: make our way towards

Um Ayman as the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) used to do', he said: 'as we

settled there, she bursts into tears, and they said to her: 'what makes you cry!

What Allah holds for His Messenger is better indeed, she said: 'I do know

what Allah holds is better for His Messenger, but I am crying for the end of

the divine Revelation. Then he said: she moved them to tears and they

started to cry with her."294

This hadith faultlessly states that three of the prophet companions were

engrossed in a cry scene for his death (sawa), justifying that for the end of

the divine Revelation. Moreover these exposures were not exclusive to this

bunch of companions, but involved the Messenger of Allah (sawa) in person

when he cried for the death of his son Ibrahim, and thereby he must have

yielded to weakness, upon Ibn Taimiyyah perception. It is reported in

"Musnad Ahmed":

"From Anas, he said: the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) said: tonight, I had a

newborn baby boy, and named him after my father: Ibrahim. Then he handed

in the baby to Um Saif, a wife of a bondsman called Abu Saif in Al-Madinah.

He said further: henceforth the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) set out towards

him and I headed with him until he reached Abu Saif who was pumping his

bellow filling the house with smoke, then I made quicker paces before the

294 Al-Albānī, "Sahih Sunan Ibn Mājeh", Makatabat al-Maarif for publishing and distribution,

Riyadh, 1st edition of the new imprint, 1417 A.H - 1997 A.D, vol.2, p.55, hadith no.1334.

222

Messenger of Allah (saw-a) and said: O Abu Saif the Messenger of Allah

(saw-a) has come, so he stopped. Afterwards the Messenger of Allah (saw-a)

came, called for the boy and hugged him. Anas said: I have seen him in the

arms of the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) undergoing throes of death, so tears

went down from the Messenger’s eyes and he said: 'the eye shed tears, the

heart saddens, but we do not say only that pleases our Lord, by Allah

we are indeed sorrowful for you Ibrahim."295

With the objection Ibn Taimiyyah lodges regarding the absurdity of grief and

its embodiment of weakness, and according to the above hadiths and

analogous ones, his thesis becomes conflicting with the prophet’s acts as well

as disparaging. Does he accept that the one who is most perfected among

mankind and who embraced faith to the full be described in terms of

weakness? Will he be saying to the Messenger of Allah (sawa): "crying for a

son is useless, a token of weakness, and it would have been better to

assume perfection in a manner that you would not lapse into sorrow?!"

295 “Musnad Ahmed", ibid, vol.20, p.316, hadith no.13014. This hadith is reported by several

references, listed by Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ut whereby he said: its chain of transmission is authentic

according to the provisions of Muslim, its reporters are trustworthy; included by the two Sheikhs

apart from Sulaimān Bin Al-Mughīrah who is from the personalities of Muslim [...], and it was

extracted by Abu ʾAwānah in “Al-Manāqib” as well as in "Al-Itĥāf" from the route of ʾAffān and

Hāshim Bin Al-Qāsim with this chain of transmission. Extracted by Ibn Saʾad from the route of

ʾAffān Bin Muslim exclusively in itself without other corroborating hadiths (see glossary) [...].

Extracted as well by Al-Baihaqī in "As-Sunan" from the route of Abu An-Nažr Hāshim Bin Al-

Qāsim exclusively in itself without other corroborating hadiths (see glossary). Extracted as well by

Ibn Abu Shaibah, ʾAbd Bin Ĥamīd, Muslim, Abu Dāwūd, Abu Yaʾlā, Abu ʾAwānah, Ibn Ĥabbān,

Al-Baihaqī in "Ad-Dalā'il" and Ibn Ĥajar in "Taghlīq At-Taʾlīq" from routes from Sulaimān Ibn

Al-Mughīrah in itself without other corroborating hadiths, and Al-Bukhārī attached it immediately

after hadith no. 1303. He said: narrated by Mūsā from Sulaimān Bin Al-Mughīrah, from Thābit

from Anas by its example (binaĥwihi) i.e. with a new addition in the matn or sanad but the wording

unchanged (see glossary). Extracted by its example (binaĥwihi) by Al-Bukhārī, Al-Baihaqī in "As-

Shuʾab", Al-Baghawī from the route of Quraish Bin Ĥayyān, from Thābit from Anas. [...]"

223

Attitude Seven: What is Narrated on Fatimah of Slanderous Acts

Abundant

Ibn Taimiyyah says: "what is narrated on Fatimah and other companions of

slanderous acts is abundant, part of which is lying and the other part is their

recourse to interpretation. However if some of these doings were sinning, it is

because that folk of people are not impeccable; they are indeed devotees of

God and among the residents of Paradise, nonetheless they have sins which

are readily forgiven by Allah."296

This is especially menacing text recorded by Ibn Taimiyyah and most

problematic of all. Its harm lurks in the attribution of major wrongdoings to the

mistress of the women of the worlds, and its complexity stems from the great

diversity of proposals and explanations it can sustain. It can be said

according to this text, that Ibn Taimiyyah makes outright deviation from the

symmetry of the standard beliefs of Moslems, which leads inevitably to

revoke his faith and religion. At this juncture, we recommend that anyone who

shares us the view regarding Ibn Taimiyyah's stance towards Ahlul Bait to

make analytical reading for this very paragraph but differently from the

reading of his partisans and adherents. The scientific obligation that readers

of Ibn Taimiyyah or rather readers of every author need to observe is to

exhaustively and fully read the writings of the concerned author and to take

into account the spectrum of tactics and backgrounds dominating his

literature and distinguishing him from others.

The root of controversy in that paragraph originates from the word 'lies', on

whether it is associated in the context with: 'narrated on' to denote that what

have been recorded of libels are false narratives, or associated with

'slanderous acts' to denote that among what have been narrated of libels is

'lies-telling'?

There are two ways of analytical reading to be underlined here:

First Reading: the way of the adherents and partisans of Ibn Taimiyyah,

throughout which he is cleared of any libelous act himself, and alternatively

the libel of lying is ascribed to Az-Zahra (as) and other companions.

Second Reading: the way of the cognisant of Ibn Taimiyyah double-cross

strategy based on camouflage and cover-up, which he applies to every

context where Ahlul Bait merits, feats and attitudes are celebrated. As a

296 "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.4, pp.243-244.

224

matter of fact, the previous host of evidences and other forthcoming ones

justify this analytical reading, two of which are selected below:

First Evidence: Ibn Taimiyyah says: "should someone utter: it is unheard of

that the prophet (saw-a) somehow reprimanded Uthman, whereas he

reprimanded Ali on more than one occasion, that utterer is surely not far-

fetched", then he starts to quote incidences for that, such as: "in the domain

of fatwa, he gave a juristic verdict (i.e. Imam Ali) that a woman whose

husband died during her pregnancy should stick for the period of waiting to

the farthest of the two terms. This fatwa was given during the lifetime of the

prophet by Abu As-Sanābul Bin Biʾkek against which the prophet (saw-a)

said: Abu As-Sanābul lied."297

By quoting this tale, Ibn Taimiyyah relays the message that the prophet's act,

giving the lie to Abu As-Sanābul and abolishing his fatwa, applies by analogy

to Imam Ali298, and if Ibn Taimiyyah cherished the ascription of lies to Imam

Ali on account of Abu As-Sanābul story and the prophet's verdict, it will be

less strenuous for him to ascribe it to the mistress of the women of the

worlds.

Second Evidence: he said: "should someone say: Fatimah is but seeking

her right, that will not be more prioritised than to say: Abu Bakr does not hold

neither a Jew's nor a Christian's right, so how can he hold the right of the

chief woman of the worlds?! [...] And Fatimah (R.A.) has asked the prophet

(saw-a) money but he did not give her any. [...] So if it were possible that she

297 Ibid: same source, vol.4, pp.242-243.

298 This is clearly declared by Ibn Taimiyyah in his book "Al-Fatāwā Al-Kubrā", during his

discussion of the non-impeccability of any companion other than the prophet (sawa). After indicting

Ali (as) of doing fatwa against the prophetic Naś, acquitting the two Sheikhs from that, and giving

them precedence over him, he cites the tale of Abu As-Sanābul and the prophet (sawa) giving the

lie to him. Afterwards, he does not keep this 'lie-giving' to Abu As-Sanābul for his fatwa to this

particular incidence, but takes it farther to say: "the prophet gave the lie to whoever says this

fatwa" to hint to Imam Ali (as) as to be inferred from the contextual associations. See: "Al-Fatāwā

Al-Kubrā", reviewed by Abdul Raĥmān Bin Qāsim, King Fahad Complex for printing the Holy

Qur'an, Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah, 1416 A.H – 1995 A.D, vol.35, p.125.

225

asks the prophet (saw-a) what he forbade her and was not obliged to give

her, it is equally possible she asks that again from Abu Bakr, the successor of

the Messenger of Allah (saw-a), and knowing that she is not impeccable, she

can thus request what must not be given to her. So if he is not obliged to give

her, he cannot be censured for dropping that which is not a duty even though

it were admissible. Consequently, if we reckon that giving is an inadmissible

act, it entails he is praiseworthy for that forbiddance."299

To rephrase what Ibn Taimiyyah said with new order, we would say: 'so long

as Az-Zahra (as) is not impeccable, she is likely to request what is not hers

and that which is forbidden for her. So it becomes dutiful for Abu Bakr not to

concede to her, otherwise he will do the 'impermissible' and cause himself to

be censured'. It is obvious that to generalise the imputation that she sought a

forbidden matter, without applying to her one of his ample justifications that

he usually equips the enemies of Ahlul Bait (as) with, (a fact which we have

frequently noted earlier) i.e. saying her quest was dictated by a faulty

interpretational process, it means it is not improbable that the mistress of

women of the worlds can ask unrightfully what she does not merit and what is

forbidden for her.

Another element, that makes the second reading overriding, is the ambiguity

of Ibn Taimiyyah phrases as he shapes his structures with respect to a highly

critical matter without forethought or caution, subsuming the lying of Az-Zahra

(as). All such inklings induce the idea that this portion of liberty he takes from

his usual circumspection is intentional. He could have framed his words as

follows: "we are aware that what is narrated on Fatimah and some other

companions of slanderous acts is abundant, part of which is lying on their

behalf", so that he instantly resolves the dispute on what he tries to say, and

spells out his intentions. But as he is not doing that and making broad

generalised statements which remain floating like "part of which is lying", he

renders his phrases open to multiple interpretations and probabilities.

Part of those who leaned to the second reading is Dr. Maĥmūd As-Sayid

Śabīĥ in his book: "Akhƫā' Ibn Taimiyyah fī Ĥaq Rasūl Allah wa Ahlu

Baitih". After he selects a gravitating heading in retaliation to Ibn Taimiyyah

earlier statement: "Ibn Taimiyyah appeases the hearts of hypocrites and

the covert infidels by proving what none of the hypocrites would

299 Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.4, pp.246-247.

226

conceive of or dare say, that is, the daughter of the prophet (sawa) has

numerous slanderous acts", he says in comment:

"I do not know what are the numerous slanderous acts narrated on Lady

Fatimah Az-Zahra (R.A.), as weather they were the lying or the practice of

interpretation, would they mean that she made recourse to interpretation or

that she fell in guilt? Which wicked person would mention that? Does not Ibn

Taimiyyah perceive that Allah would cover up for the prophet (sawa) with

respect to his daughter (R.A.) so that she will not perpetrate libelous acts from

the start? I wonder, according to Ibn Taimiyyah tenet, how will Allah take

reckoning as far as what he ascribes to Lady Fatimah of libels is concerned?

His testimony will be recorded and he will be interrogated by the Almighty, the

Omnipotent."300

Now it is due time to put under the spotlight that anonymous tale of Ibn

Taimiyyah, and use our right to enquire: do the biographical accounts on Az-

Zahra (as) attribute to her lie-telling as he alleges, or contrary to that there

are vigorous unanimous testimonials by Moslems from the soundest reports

and accounts which tell otherwise? This question by no means includes the

tenet of Ahlul Bait School who besides the integrity of the chief woman of the

worlds, they recognise her impeccability and purification, and these are basic

axioms for them. But the challenge is addressed to the Companions School,

to the most authenticated hadith books which we are investigating below, not

forgetting to keep our pledge to adhere to that school for evidences.

I lay at the hand of the prestigious reader these accounts for clarification:

1. Reported in "Al-Mustadrak ʾalā Aś-Śaĥīĥain" from Aisha: "that if she

would ever make mention of Fatimah, daughter of the prophet (saw-a) she

says: "I have not seen someone with more integrity than her except for he

who brought her into being". Al-Ĥākim said: "this is an authentic hadith

according to the provision of Muslim, but not extracted by the two of them",

and Ad-Dhahabī coincided with him.301

300 Śabīĥ, Maĥmūd As-Sayid, "Akhƫā' Ibn Taimiyyah fī Ĥaq Rasūl Allah wa Ahlu Baitih",

Dar Zainul-ʾĀbidīn, 1431 A.H - 2010 A.D, p.63. What increases the value of Dr. Śabīĥ views and

confirms his objectivity is that he had not embarked on the commentary only when exceeded forty

thousand pages from of Ibn Taimiyyah works as he announces in the book introduction!!

301 "Al-Mustadrak ʾalā Aś-Śaĥīĥain", ibid, vol.3, p.175, hadith no.4756.

227

2. From Aisha too in "Itĥāf Al-Khiyerah Al-Maharah bi Zawā'id Al-Masānīd

Al-ʾAsharah" she said: "I have not seen someone more honest than Fatimah

save for her father", then the narrative adds: "there was something between

the two of them" i.e. dispute and wrangle and so forth, "so she said: 'O

Messenger of Allah, ask her, as she does not lie."302

3. From her too in "Sahih Al-Adab Al-Mufrad" she said: "I have not seen

someone amid people who bears more resemblance to the prophet (saw-a)

either in speech or colloquy or the sitting posture than Fatimah. She said:

when the prophet (saw-a) sees her coming towards him, he welcomes her,

then rises to her to kiss her, then he holds her hand to lead and seat her in

his place. She on her part welcomes the prophet (saw-a) when he comes to

her, then she rises to him, holds his hand and kisses him." 303 The report has

been authenticated by the Allama Al-Albānī.

4. From her too in "Sunan Abu Dāwūd", she says: "I have not seen

someone whose deportment bears more resemblance to the Messenger of

Allah (saw-a) than Fatimah (may Allah ennoble her face) by modesty, solemnity,

tenderness (noting that Al-Hassan mentioned: 'speech and colloquy', but not

the former features). If she calls on him, he would rise to her, grab her hand,

kiss it and seat her in his place, and if he calls on her, she would rise to him,

grab his hand, kiss it and seat him in her place."304

302 Al-Buśairī, "Itĥāf Al-Khiyerah Al-Maharah bi Zawā'id Al-Masānīd Al-ʾAsharah", vol.9,

p.314, hadith no. 9045.

303 Al-Albānī, "Sahih Al-Adab Al-Mufrad & annexed by: Đaʾīf Al-Adab Al-Mufrad" (the book:

"Al-Adab Al-Mufrad" is originally by Al-Bukhārī), Mussasat al-Rayyan & Dar al-Dalil El-

Athariya , Saudi Arabia, pub.4, 1428 A.H, p.256, hadith no.947.

304 As-Sājistānī, Abu Dāwūd Ibn Al-Ashʾath Al-Azdī, "Sunan Abu Dāwūd", edited by the team

of Bait al-Afkar al-Dawliya, (no date), p.560, hadith no.5217. The review team annotated: "Al-

Mundhirī said: it has been extracted by At-Tirmidhī and An-Nasā'ī, and At-Tirmidhī said: ĥasan but

gharīb from this respect."

228

It has been authenticated by Al-Albānī as well.305

Anyhow, weather to adhere to the first inferential reading or the second,

which is a matter of choice for the reader upon what he perceives of Ibn

Taimiyyah’s styles, strategies and attitudes towards Ahlul Bait (as), the

ascription of numerous major wrongdoings -upon Ibn Taimiyyah words- to the

chief woman of the worlds is in itself a grave matter and a blatant lie that

every Moslem condemns, and that is what inspired some of his critics this

satire: "which wicked person would say that?"

I conclude this research with a note made by one of the most proficient

memorisers of hadith and the flaws of hadith, from the Companions School.

The note delimits the status of those who debase the prophet's companions,

and throughout which, we hope that the reader is helped to judge on Ibn

Taimiyyah attitudes, especially with pertinence to the mistress of the world

women, Az-Zahra (as), who must in the least be recognised consensually as

a companion with grandeur and high rank. Ibn Ĥajar Al-Haithamī (d.974 A.H)

said in his famous book " Aś-Śawā'iq Al-Muĥriqah":

305 Arabic grammatical rules dictate that the 'kissing' in her saying: "grab her hand and kiss ..."

refers to her hand, and the pronoun denotes the latter not the former, i.e. the hand. This sense has

been admitted by Al-Albānī as contextually commanding and the first to occur to one’s mind, but he

overlooked it leaning to the sense that Fatimah was kissed by the Messenger of Allah (sawa) herself

not her hand specifically, conjuring this from the fact that the equivalence at the end of the effect

clause "she grabbed his hand hence kissed him", and by what is given in " Sahih Ibn Ĥabbān "

(see: "Sahih Ibn Ĥabbān bi Tartīb Ibn Balbān", reviewed by: Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt, Mussasat al-

Risala, pub.2, 1414 A.H - 1993 A.D, vol. 15, p.403, hadith no.6953), then he said: "Al-Ĥākim was

at odd with the circle of reporters from Ahlul Sunnah saying: 'she kissed his hand', and this could be

a slip from the scribe or the typist."

I say on my part, we can rule out the inconsistency between the two reports through several

suggestions, partly by saying: he (sawa) used to kiss her sometimes and kiss her hand at others. This

is strengthened when considering that in all the printed copies of "Al-Mustadrak" of Al-Ĥākim

with their different reviewers, it is established as "she kissed his hand" in the effect clause. This is

wholly concerning the heritage of the Companion School, whereas the heritage of Ahlul Bait

School (as) has narratives which are all sound and crystal-clear that each time the prophet (sawa)

accesses her, he would kiss her hand, and whenever she accesses him, he rises to her, kisses her

hand and seats her in his place.

229

"Abu Zarʾa Ar-Rāzī, imam of his age, and one of the most imposing reporters

in Sahih Muslim said: if you see a man debasing one of the companions of

the Messenger of Allah, just know he is Zindīqxxviii." 306

And that is virtually what has been imputed to Ibn Taimiyyah, from someone

almost contemporary to his age, Ibn Ĥajar Al-Asqalānī (d.852 A.H) in his book

"Ad-Durar", whereby he said:

"People diverged about him into factions; some had ascribed to him

anthropomorphism, as cited by the Ĥamawiyyah, Waśiƫiyyah tenets and

others, while others ascribed to him Zandaqah (abstract noun from Zindīq)

[...]."307

306 Ibn Ĥajar Al-Haitamī, Abu Al-Abbas Ahmed, "Aś-Śawāʾiq Al-Muĥriqah", reviewed by:

Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abdullah At-Turkī et al, Mussasat al-Risala, Beirut, pub.1, 1997 A.D, vol.2,

p.608.

307 Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī, Ahmed, "Ad-Durar Al-Kāminah fī Aʾyān Al-Mi'ah At-Thāminah",

proofreading and authentication: Abdul Wārith Muhammad Ali, Publisher: Muhammad Ali Baižūn

publications & Dar Al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, vol.1, p.63.

230

Chapter V

The Second Portrait

Desecrating the Immaculate ʾItrah of the Prophet

The Martyrdom of Imam Hussain: An Instance

Preface

First Axis: Legitimacy of the Umayyad Rule and Legitimacy

of the Murder of Imam Hussein (as)

Attitude of the Umayyad Islam Theorists from Yazīd

Second Sub-research: The Legitimacy of Slaying Al-Hussein (as)

and Acquitting Yazīd of Liability

Axis Two: Yazīd and the Sacredness of Al-Hussein Blood for

the Companions School

Yazīd Character for the Companions School

The Sanctity of Al-Hussein Blood and the Soil of Karbala for the

Scholars of Ahlul Sunnah

231

Preface

It is largely known that those concerned with the study of Islamic history

during the Umayyad period (a period of seven decades extended from the

fierce intense rivalry launched by the Umayyad House to hold the reins of

government, across the climax of power to the very end of downfall and

disintegration) disagree among themselves on the evaluation of that period

and the repercussions it had on Moslems reality. Undeniably, it is not seldom

event to have advocates from the preceding or succeeding historians who

reflect high-profile of that period, yet all the eulogies they declaim and

trumpet for are part of a discipline which deals with the description of some

life-aspects of a certain human-community in the field of architectural

construction, arts and patterns of production and what has come to be known

today as "cultural anthropology". Plainly speaking, the study of the

relationship of the Umayyad era with the matrix of the Islamic intellectual

thought, that they allege to represent and rule in its name, as well as the

degree of affiliation with that matrix on the dogmatic and legislative levels, is

irrelevant to this discipline, while it is at the heart of our research.

To reproduce all the aspects of corruption and aberration of that 'despotic

dominion' -as named by the prophetic tradition- our research will be

overloaded beyond its capacity. However, the reader knows that the crux of

our research is to deal with the general policy of that regime, and delineate

the main intellectual contours of this model of Islam, focusing at this stage on

a principal aspect which is the vilification of the immaculate prophetic

ʾItrah and banishing them from the arena of Islamic life weather

dogmatically, intellectually or physically by imprisonment, torture and

manslaughter. A full panorama which best depicts this policy is the event of

Karbala and what has befallen the grandchild of the Messenger of Allah

(sawa), the martyred Imam Hussein Bin Ali (as).

As a matter of fact, the Umayyad entity and the hatred mode for the prophet's

ʾItrah have become one organic whole that it cannot be denied or revoked. It

has been brought into daylight and discussed by numerous researchers and

prominent historians, including the theoretician of the Umayyad Islam, Ibn

Taimiyyah Al-Ĥarrānī himself, weather this animosity was on the personal

level by the icons of the Umayyad House, as envisaged in his statement: "the

232

biggest grudge that people had against Banu Umayyah is their talk on Ali"308,

or on the public level of the loyal subjects and masses, whose aid and

support helped the Umayyads to reach the state. For the public level, Ibn

Taimiyyah announced that from the range of heresies, the one that induced

the biggest grudge against the loyalists of Uthman was their aberration from

Imam Ali (as), while simultaneously he states elsewhere that the subjects of

Muʾāwiyah were themselves the loyalists of Uthman. 309

However, there are historians, disassociated with the Umayyad House, who

made clear declarations of this fact, from which two are selected below:

First declaration: what is said by Al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab Al-Baghdādī Al-Ĥanbalī

(d.795 A.H) in his book ‟Al-Farq baina An-Naśīhaha wat Taʾyīr" in the

chapter titled: "Exhibit Evilness and Broadcast it in the Name of a Counsel":

"Whoever exhibits a taunting attitude towards either a general or a specific

group, then he alleges he was propelled by the defects they have, while

inwardly he intends to taunt and assault, he certainly becomes brotherly with

the hypocrites."

Then he exemplifies for the one brotherly with the hypocrites saying:

"For instance, he openly defames someone in the form of counselling with the

intent to satisfy his whimsical fantasy and his crooked desire, e.g. what Bnu

Umayyah did seeking revenge for Uthman blood while tacitly they were after

demeaning Ali. And in like manner Banu Marwan and their followers plotted

and perpetrated gross injustice in that they induced people to love them and

detest Ali Bin Abu Ţālib, Al-Hassan, Al- Hussein and their progeny [...], and

the fact is that when Uthman was killed, the Ummah found no one more

meriting to rule than Ali, and thereby pledged him allegiance. So those who

succeeded to drive people away from him, they did that by aggravating the

issue of Uthman bloodshed [...]; yet some of them were confiding to their

confidential ones privately things that imply: 'no one has been more suited to

Uthman succession than Ali', against which it would be said to them: 'why do

you swear at him then?', so they say: 'because the dominion cannot hold out

only by that', that is to say: without plucking out the love of Ali and his children

308 Ibn Taimiyyah, "Minhāj As-Sunnah", vol.8, p.239.

309 Ibid: vol.5, p.236 & vol.5, p.466

233

from people's hearts, and ascribing injustice to them in respect of Uthman,

people's hearts would have been captured by them, due to what they

witnessed of their delightful and imposing traits, so they naturally hasten

towards them."310

Second Declaration: what is given in the book: "Imam Aś-Śādiq: Ĥayātuh

wa ʾAśruh- Āra’uh wa Fiqhuh" by the Allama Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra

who said while trying to find reasons for the rarity of narratives for Imam Ali

(as), compared to the long accompaniment he had with the prophet (sawa):

"If we were to identify the reason why some of the jurisprudence and

narratives of Ali have been screened from the Moslems of Ahlul Sunna, we

say: the Umayyad rule must have had a hand in the disappearance of a big

amount of Ali's relics in adjudication (judge office) and fatwa, as it is

insensible that Ali is cursed on the pulpits while the scholars are licensed to

propagate his sentiments and convey his fatwas and sayings to people,

particularly with relevance to the foundations of Islamic government." 311

However, the very fact that the Umayyad rule had nested on animosity and

antipathy towards the ʾItrah of the prophet, has been first and foremost

highlighted by the senior of the prophet’s household and the dignitary of the

ʾItrah, Amīrul Mu'minīn Ali in his talk on Mu'ʾāwiyah -as the majority of

researchers conceive he refers to him- whereby he said: "there will come

after me a man, with a gorging gluttonous throat and morbidly obese

belly, feasts upon what he finds and seeks what he cannot find, so kill

him , and in reality you will not kill him. Verily he shall command you to

swear at me and disown me, as for the swearing, you are licensed to; it

is cleansing for me and safekeeping for you, but as for disowning, do

310 Ibn Rajab, Abdul Al-Baghdādī, "Al-Farq baina An-Naśīĥa wal Taʾyīr". Reviewed, annotated,

and hadith extracted by: Najm Abdul Raĥmān Khalq, Dar al-Mamun for heritage, p.3, 1405 A.H,

p.42.

311 Abu Zahra Muhammad, "Al-Imam Aś-Śādiq: Ĥayātuh wa ʾAṡruh- Āra’uh wa Fiqhuh", Dar

al-Fikr al-Arabi, pp.126-127.

234

not do that as I was born on faith with natural disposition, and I was

antecedent in belief and migration."312

In former researches, we sketched out some of the procedures of intellectual

annihilation for the immaculate ʾItrah of the prophet, and in this part of

research we try to investigate another aspect of these procedures dwelling on

physical extermination, banishment, harassment, torture, massacre,

exemplifying for that by the event of Karbala and its protagonist Imam

Hussein (as), the grandchild and delight of the prophet (sawa), the master of

the youth of Paradise, and his household and companions (R.A. them) to stand

out a model for the this profile. For all this, the research diversifies into two

axes:

First Axis: to shed light on the Umayyad efforts to present themselves as the

rightfully legitimate caliphs, in which case the rebels against the ‘usurpers’ will

be deemed as ‘aggressors’, hence simulate the deaths of Jāhiliyyah people

as they die. To recapitulate, we will divide this axis into two sub-researches

surveying the physical annihilation for the immaculate ʾItrah under the rule of

Yazīd Bin Muʾāwiyah.

First Sub-research: explore the theoreticians’ appraisal on Yazīd, typically

from the Umayyad trend, regarding his status, character and role in the reality

of Moslems at that point in time.

Second Sub-research: touch upon the Umayyad endeavours to lend

legitimacy for the massacre of Imam Hussein (as) as well as to acquit

themselves of that atrocity, and the later traumas fell upon his ladies,

household, children and companions (R.A. them all).

312 Ar-Rađī, Abu Al-Hasan Al-Mūsawī Al-Baghdādī, "Nahj Al-Balaghah", reviewed by: Fāris Al-

Ĥasūn, Centre for Dogmatic Researches, Qum, pub.1, 1419 A.H, p.118. We have but quoted from

Nahj Al-Balaghah because some parties in the argument with the Shiʾa would use the whole content

inadvertently to what they deem sound and what they put under scrutiny. We demand that whoever

argues with us referring to “Nahj Al-Balaghah” to either take it wholly in which case he accepts the

majority of Shiʾite convictions such as the Naś, infallibility and the outlook towards history, or he

believes in one part not the other in which case he needs to listen to what we accept or what is

subject to scrutiny.

235

Second Axis: contemplate the attitude of Ahlul Sunnah scholars towards the

character of Yazīd and the bloodshed of Imam Hussein (as) on the one hand

and point out the sanctity of the blood spilt in Karbala and the soil saturated

with that blood -as dictated by prophetic accounts- on the other hand. Two

sub-researches are diversified from this axis:

First Sub-research: appraisal of Yazīd according to Ahlul Sunnah Scholars.

Second Sub-research: sanctity of Imam Hussein blood and Karbala soil

according to Ahlul Sunnah Scholars.

236

First Axis

Legitimacy of the Umayyad Rule and Legitimacy

Of the Murder of Imam Hussein (as)

First Sub-researcher: Attitude of the Umayyad Islam Theorists from

Yazīd:

There is a collective agreement among the theorists and masters of the

Umayyad Islam on Yazīd Bin Muʾāwiyah as to possess moral rectitude and to

deserve recognition and praise, being a devout Moslem, observing the

religious obligations, enjoining goodness and forbidding evil and fighting in

the way of Allah. The theory of this trend is explained in key points as follows:

Point one: Ibn Taimiyyah thinks Yazīd being a Moslem, who prays, fasts and

does a holy war against disbelievers, is established by tawātir (narrations with

complete authenticity). Amid his critique on the Shiʾa incapacity to

substantiate the faith and fairness of Ali unless they convert to Ahlul Sunnah

precept -allegedly by him- he says: "should they protest with mutawātir

narrations on his Islam, hijra (migration) and jihad, there are likewise

corresponding ones in favour of those [three caliphs], and further

mutawātir ones on the Islam of Muʾāwiyah, Yazīd, the Umayyad and the

Abbasid caliphs, their daily prayer, fasting and jihad against the

disbelievers."313

Point Two: Sheikh Ibn Taimiyyah thinks that Yazīd is one of the twelfth

vicegerents reported by the prophet (sawa), and a man with grandeur on

whom glad tidings revealed to Ismail (Ishmael) (as) in Torah, and by virtue of

whom Islam was dignified and solidified.

During his review of the Umayyad’s laudable deeds; the prominence of Islam

and creed when they were in power, the might and splendour of Moslems, he

says:

313 Ibn Taimiyyah, "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.2, p.62.

237

"This bears testament to what the prophet (saw-a) disclosed saying: 'this

religion will still be mighty so long as the twelfth vicegerents, all from

Quraish, take command'. Those twelve vicegerents are verily the ones

adduced in the Torah when revealing the glad tidings of Ismail: "there will be

born twelfth grand ones", and whoever presumes that those twelve grand

ones are the ones envisioned by Ar-Rʾfiđa as Imams, he must be far out

ignorant."314

The hadith that Ibn Taimiyyah alludes to is given in "Sahih Muslim" from the

authority of Jābir Bin Samarah from the Messenger of Allah (sawa), on which

he comments:

"It was in such a manner; there were the caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman,

Ali and next reigned he whom the public unanimously conceded on, and

who gained might and fortitude: Muʾāwiyeh, his son Yazīd, hence Abdul

Melik and his four sons including Umar Bin Abdul ʾAzīz. Subsequently, the

state of Islam had encountered a flaw that is still extant to date, whereas

Banu Umayyah had ruled all over the Islamic ground, and had the state well-

founded during their era." 315

Point Three: this point and the following are elaboration of the abbreviated

preceding points. Due to their grave content, and the urgency that the reader

lends them bigger attention, we set them apart. This is especially important

as Ibn Taimiyyah makes frequent returns to these points and tries continually

to throw light on their content.

Part of what Ibn Taimiyyah perceives on Yazīd is his belief in the legitimacy

and authenticity of the tribute paid to him, which makes his rule authoritative

through the medium of Islam. Not long ago, we witnessed how he enlists

Yazīd among the "caliphs" of Moslems and emblems of Islam, considering

him to have reached office by Moslems "unanimity". He eventually ventures

to say that it has been a granted matter deeming him the legitimate king and

caliph of Moslems at his age, and anyone who disputes that is unreasonably

obstinate, saying: "Yazīd has been pledged allegiance after the death of

314 Ibid: same source, vol.8, pp.240-241.

315 Ibid: same source, vol.8, p.238.

238

his father Muʾāwiyah, and he assumed power over Syria, Egypt, Iraq,

Khorasan and other Moslem's land."316

Point Four: Ibn Taimiyyah believes even with hypothesising that Yazīd is

oppressor and transgressor, such hypothesis cannot vilify him neither justify

cursing or disowning him. For him, there is always a probability of having a

potential outweighing counteragent, which is indisputable and which preclude

this outcome, such as repentance or reward for doing good, or expatriation

for sins throughout calamities. Moreover he goes far-fetched to determine

that Yazīd is "already forgiven" throughout the Messenger's (sawa)

supplication, saying:

"The prophetic Sunnah copiously related that a folk would be released from

Hellfire by intercession, alongside he who has a single particle of faith. In

point of fact, anyone who warrants the curse on Yazīd will need to establish

two premises: firstly he is one of the wicked oppressors on whom curse is

warranted, and secondly if cursing an assigned individual is permissible,

while the prospective contender (against Yazīd curse) will overrule the two

premises especially the first as follows: as for Allah saying: {lo! Allah curse

be upon the wrongdoers}, it is a general verse like other admonishing

verses on a par with His saying: {behold, those who wrongfully devour the

properties of orphans only fill their bellies with fire. Soon they will burn

in the Blazing Flame}, and this ordains that this guilt invokes curse and

chastisement, - but its cause might be lifted in effect to some outweighing

counteragent: either by repentance or reward for good deeds that wipe one's

iniquities, if not undergoing calamities to atone for his sin, so how may Allah

still not forgive him despite His saying Taʾala: {Allah does not forgive that a

partner be ascribed to Him, although He forgives any other sin for

whomever He wills}. Moreover, it has been proved in "Sahih Al-Bukhārī from

Ibn Umar from the prophet (saw-a) saying: 'forgiven are the sins of the first

army that invade Constantinople", whereby that first invading army was

316 Ibid, vol.4, p.522. It is striking that Ibn Taimiyyah make such a statement in respect of Yazīd,

while he winks maliciously at the rule of Imam Ali (as) stating that it was a period of commotion

and dissension among people, whereby the Ummah neither settled on him (Imam Ali) nor on

another!? (See: "Minhāj As-Sunnah", vol.2, p.62).

239

headed by the commander Yazīd. So knowing that the army count is fixed

and not open-ended, and the forgiveness to engulf every single one of them

is a stronger probability than the curse to engulf each and every wrongdoer, it

will ensue this state can be individualised to one person, since the army are

already specified in number."317

Second Sub-research: The Legitimacy of Slaying Al-Hussein (as)

And Acquitting Yazīd of Liability

Upon what has unraveled, the reader can predict the nature of the Umayyad

stand from the murder of Imam Hussein (as). The logical outcome of

legitimising Yazīd rule by the theorists of this School entails that any action of

defiance against him is interpreted in terms of insurgency, stripped of

legitimacy and fuelled by an aggressor who disrupts Moslems unity, wreaks

havoc and incites riot, and thereby to strike him back and shed his blood is

warranted by way of fighting perversion and uniting the Ummah.

Such forthright opinion and outspoken way in stating facts may be shocking

for the Moslem's conscience, yet we will substantiate for the reader that this

is not what we deduced through speculation but an existing truth. More

importantly, we believe that the keen preoccupation of the Umayyad Islam

theorists with advocating and rendering the Umayyads’ portrait totally

unblemished has made them carry the burden not only to theorise for the

legitimacy of their rulership and incumbency, but to lay the intellectual

foundation for an umbrella legitimacy for every despotic tyrannical regime

across centuries. As a result, they indoctrinate members of the Moslem

society to be domesticated, submissive and yielding to rulers regardless of

whether they were righteous or transgressors, and this is the theory that led

to a great extent to the deterioration and decomposition of the Islamic

civilisation.

Ibn Taimiyyah said: "tradition descending from the prophet (saw-a) enjoining

obedience of guardians, maintaining unity and exhibiting patience in that way

are abundant and renowned. Rather, it may be the case that someone can

say the prophet (saw-a) enjoined obedience of the guardians and patience in

317 "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.4, pp.571-572.

240

the face of their injustice even if they were totalitarians, and said: 'you will be

faced after me with totalitarianism, so take that patiently until you

happen to meet me at the Fount', also said: 'give them their due right and

ask Allah for your right' along with other examples."318

To provide evidence for Ibn Taimiyyah above notion, we take an example

from his legacy before we forward his statement on Imam Hussein (as)

uprising against Yazīd. He said commenting on Al-Ĥarrah battle in retaliation

to the Allama Al-Ĥillī who deduced the momentousness of the Imamate

throughout the prophetic hadith "whoever dies not knowing the Imam of

his time, he dies the death of Jāhiliyyah", the following:

"Verily the renowned hadith in the way that Muslim narrated in his "Sahih" on

the authority of Nāfiʾ who said: Abdullah Bin Umar came to Abdullah Bin Muţīʾ

when earlier on the event of Al-Ĥarrah took place during the age of Yazīd Bin

Muʾāwiyah, and said: 'lay a pillow for Abu Abdul Raĥmān' who said: 'I have

not been to you to be seated, I came to recount to you some hadith which I

heard the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) saying: "whoever renounces

obedience, he will meet Allah on the Doomsday with no covenant, and

whoever dies while he does not have on his neck a pledge of allegiance,

he dies the death of Jāhiliyyah."

This was recounted by Abdullah Bin Umar to Abdullah Bin Mutīʾ Bin Al-Aswad

during the time when they renounced obedience of the commander of their

age, Yazīd. But it turned out, despite what he had exposed of inequity as well

as the fight he entered with them and the enormities he perpetrated against

the people of Al-Ĥarrah, that this hadith and the rest of forthcoming hadiths

substantiate the illicitness of leading a mutiny through the medium of the

sword against the guardians of Moslems, and whoever has been disobedient

to the guardians, he would die the death of Jāhiliyyah."319

318 "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.4, p.257.

319 Ibid: same source, vol.1, p.111.

241

The key question that precipitates in this respect: what is the ruling

pronounced on the uprising of Imam Hussein (as) against the office of Yazīd?

Let us review the stands of prominent figures from the Umayyad legacy in

answer to this question, and it is up to the reader to work out what desired

conclusion those people are after, :

1. Ibn Taimiyyah Stand (d.726 A.H):

The logic with which Ibn Taimiyyah addresses the event of Al-Ĥarrah is

applied by the same token to Imam Hussein uprising against Yazīd. He

terminates his account on Al-Ĥarrah without revealing directly and clearly the

conclusion he is fishing for, that is, those who were slain by Yazīd have died

in the way of the Jāhiliyyah. But this wordless conclusion cannot go unnoticed

by anyone least acquainted with the rules and styles of Arabic, and it is

straightly inferable. Yet, what really matters here is to brood over the reason

which instigates Ibn Taimiyyah to adopt this view; the view that deems simply

renouncing obedience of the commander of the age conducive to Jāhiliyyah

death. For him, this is solely one good reason to justify what Yazīd did to

them, though he admits in a previous text that injustice has been inflicted by

Yazīd on them and enormities perpetrated against the people of Al-Ĥarrah.

The prestigious reader can detect this logic as applied to Imam Hussein

uprising in this excerpt. Ibn Taimiyyah says: "should he have [Ibn Al-

Muţahar Al-Ĥillī] intended to denote their belief [Ahlul Sunnah] in the

Imamate of Yazīd, they certainly think he is the Moslems' king, caliph of

his time and the sword-bearerxxix just as his examples of caliphs from

the Umayyads and the Abbasids were. This is a common knowledge for

everyone, and whoever contends that is unreasonably obstinate, as

Yazīd has been sworn the featly after his father Muʾāwiyah and reigned

over Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Khorasan and other Moslem provinces, while Al-

Hussein (R.A.) was martyred on Ashura Day, year sixty one, which was

242

the first year in Yazīd rule, and Al-Hussein had been martyred before he

had reined over any part of the country."320

What the reader needs to particularly scrutinise is the last sentence in which

he says: "and Al-Hussein had been martyred before he had reined over

any part of the country", which can be put differently as: the one who had

reign over all the Moslems provinces when Al-Hussein had been

martyred was Yazīd, from which it transpires: Al-Hussein had rebelled

against his guardian and the legitimate caliph of his time. As for the Sharia

ruling for committing that, it can be inferred from all his preceding contexts in

which he tried to implant the concept that any rebel against the guardian is

someone who wreaks havoc, disunites Moslems and rends them asunder,

and thereby he dies in the Jāhiliyyah terms.

Truly, Ibn Taimiyyah confesses that Al-Hussein (as) died a martyr and a

victim of injustice, but that does not purport his uprising was legitimate. He

conspicuously proclaims it brought no good in any proportion, neither for

religion nor for life of this World. Moreover, by rebellion he caused mischief

that could have been fended off if he stayed put and did not set in motion at

the start, henceforth could have spared Moslems the aftermath of boon

losses and advent of massive evil, "but judgment may hit the target at

times and mishit at others" as Ibn Taimiyyah states. So Imam Hussein (as),

upon Ibn Taimiyyah, made miscalculated judgment and failed to take counsel

with dignitaries from the people of virtue and knowledge who advised him not

to carry out his mission, like Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbas and others. Consequently,

his murder gave rise to commotion, and he has neither been exemplary in

fulfilling what the prophet ordered of endurance towards oppressive leaders,

and keeping the peace with them, which are more advantageous for people

in their livelihood and "the Afterworld", nor did he simulate his brother Imam

Al-Hassan (as) in what the prophet (sawa) commended him for i.e. affiliating

with the bigger community and not disassociating himself.

Hereunder, we present for the reader a well-supplied text with this data; it is

given in whole for its importance:

He said: "the chapter concerned with fighting the people of tyranny, enjoining

good and forbidding evil is confused for a turbulent fight [...]. And whoever

320 Ibid: same source, vol.4, p.522.

243

contemplates the sound rigid hadiths from the prophet (saw-a) under this

section and learns morals in line with the insightful people, he would realise

that what the prophetic tradition have rendered is the best in every respect.

Therefore, when Al-Hussein chose to head towards the people of Iraq for

uprising, after they wrote to him a plethora of letters, those high in knowledge

and virtue like Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbas, Abu Bakr Bin Abu Abdul Raĥmān Ibn Al-

Ĥārith advised him otherwise not to rise, as they reckoned he will most

probably be killed 321 to the extent that some of them had said to him: 'I bid

you farewell O you slain', and some others said: 'if it were not for intercession

(contextual meaning explained in footnote below by the author), I would have held and

stopped you'. By that, they intended to advise him and seek his own good

and the Moslems' own good. Anyhow, Allah and His Messenger command

righteousness, not otherwise mischievousness, but judgment may hit the

target at times and mishit at others.

Afterwards, it appeared the course of events went just as those have said322,

and there has been no good whether for religion or life in this World. Rather

those tyrannical oppressors323 vanquished the grandson of the Messenger of

Allah (saw-a) until they killed him, wronged and martyred. And in his rising

there was mischief that would not have happened if he abided in his territory,

for what he sought of attaining goodness and fending evil had not come to

pass, whilst evil increased with his rise and murder, and boons decreased

321 The prophetic accounts on his murder (as) are mutawātir, and they have been transferred by

numerous companions whose names partially appeared in Ibn Taimiyyah above excerpt, such as Ibn

Abbas. Others will be given later. All those did not merely have a strong assumption that he will be

killed (as); they knew about it as assured fact.

322 It is noticeable that part of "what is said" by the ones who were referred to by Ibn Taimiyyah as

'those' (as he transfers from some of them) is: "if it were not for intercession, I would have held and

stopped you". In other words, there will result a great sin from the rebellion of Imam Hussein, and

if those 'some' let him continue his movement without holding him, it is because they know about

the intercession of the prophet (sawa) for him, and on this Ibn Taimiyyah says: "Afterwards, it

appeared the course of events went just as those have said".

323 It is noticeable here that Ibn Taimiyyah keeps discreet the name of Yazīd in this context, unlike

the case when he comes upon Al-Ĥarrah battle, he makes clear reference to him, as seen earlier in:

"he fought with them afterwards and perpetrated enormities against the people of Al-Ĥarrah". Still

he does not content himself with this discretion over Yazīd, but goes far-fetched to deny the

atrocious acts he perpetrated after Al-Hussein (as) murder.

244

thereby, and that has become a cause for a greater evil. So with the killing of

Al-Hussein, turmoil erupted just as it did with the killing of Uthman.

And all this shows forth that what the prophet (saw-a) had commanded of

patience towards the injustice of leaders is for the best of mankind in

livelihood and the Afterworld324 and whoever stands against that intentionally

or mistakenly, there will be no advantage out of his move; no more than

mischief. Therefore the prophet (saw-a) applauded Al-Hassan 325 saying:

"this son of mine is a master throughout whom Allah will have two

grand Moslem factions reconciled' whereas no other one earned his

commendation neither for a turbulent fight nor for rebellion against leaders,

nor renouncement of obedience and detachment from the community."326

The abstention of Ibn Taimiyyah from naming Imam Al-Hussein (as) here

compared to the quick forwarding of Imam Al-Hassan (as) name does not

hinder a smart reader from realising that the successive pronouncements he

is setting a float are but allusions to Imam Hussein (as) no other. He is for him

a saboteur who led tumultuous action, rebelled against his legitimate leaders

and so on.

Yet does Ibn Taimiyyah bring to a halt this calumny to the grandson of the

Messenger of Allah (sawa), Imam Hussein (as), and his unabating attempts

to acquit Yazīd from his misdeeds? He carries on despite his impassioned

rhetorical declarations on the companions’ calibre, precedence and credibility

in every conduct, bearing in mind that Imam Hussein has not solely been a

companion, but from the elite of companions, and more importantly a

member of Ahlul Bait, the master of the youth of Paradise and the delight of

the prophet's (sawa) heart?

The Allama Ibn Al-Jawzī describes those who place Yazīd on the right track in

the equation and Al-Hussein (as) on the wrong track by his uprising as

324 It is worth noting that Ibn Taimiyyah implicates that Imam Hussein (as) uprising was not the

thing which would be most advantageous for him in his "Afterworld"!! This implication is in a way

tantamount to his other phrase: "Afterwards, it appeared the course of events went just as those

have said." (See our comment on the phrase above).

325 This is according to Ibn Taimiyyah: for him Imam Al-Hassan handed over the reign of power to

Muʾāwiyah, which put him in a position of praise by the prophet (sawa), whilst Imam Al-Hussein

was banned from praise for his rebellion against Yazīd.

326 "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.4, pp.530-531.

245

factions who ‟pose themselves as affiliate" with Ahlul Sunnah327. We

wonder therefore what he might have said if he came across Ibn Taimiyyah

assertions in this regard which are made officially in the name of Ahlul

Sunnah as a whole entity!?

Ibn Taimiyyah does not put a stop to his advocacy for Yazīd, but goes as far

as to deny what dozens of historical references ascribed to him of disesteem

to the divine sanctities of Allah and His Messenger by his atrocities against

Al-Hussein (as), his family and progeny.

Ibn Taimiyyah views are sketched in points:

Point one: Ibn Taimiyyah believes that Yazīd made no order towards the

killing of Imam Hussein (as), and his original intent was to honour him!

Therefore the news of his murder (as) distressed him and caused him to cry.

On that he reports: "what has been transferred from more than one

reference328 is that Yazīd has not ordered the killing of Al-Hussein and he had

no incentive for that. Rather he was more in favour of honouring and exalting

him just as he was ordered to do so by Muʾāwiyah, while the latter opted to

withhold his pledge to the reign and rebel against him. So, as Al-Hussein

reached his destination and realised that the people of Iraq will fail him and

hand him over, he asked to either return to Yazīd, or return to his homeland

or go to a bordering territory. But they deterred him in order to take him

captive, hence fought him until he was killed wronged and martyred (R.A.).

When news of his murder flied to Yazīd and his family, they were distressed

and cried for him, and Yazīd said: 'curse of Allah be on Ibn Marjanah' -

327 Transferred by Al-Ālūsī in his exegesis book: "Rūĥ Al-Maʾānī" from Ibn Al-Jawzī book: "As-

Sir Al-Maśūn". See Al -Ālūsī, Abu Al-Faźl Abdullah Al-Husseinī Al-Baghdādī, "Rūĥ Al-

Maʾānī", Dar Ihia al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, vol.26, p.73.

328 This is one of Ibn Taimiyyah tactical artifice, whereby he renders dubious statements without

identifying the utterers or the statuses of these utterers. It is repeatedly practiced and located in

many contexts, as in: 'stated by more than one source', 'headed towards that more than one', 'said

this more than one source', 'narrated by more than one', 'the saying of more than one', 'admitted that

more than one', 'discredited by more than one', 'used to protest with by more than one', 'expressed

by more than one', 'announced by more than', 'received attention of more than one', 'verdict given by

more than one', 'adduced by more than' and so on.

246

meaning Ubaidullah Bin Ziyād- 'indeed by Allah, if he had a kinship with Al-

Hussein, he would not have killed him', and also said: 'I would have assented

to this much of willing obedience from the people of Iraq, without having to kill

Al-Hussein'. Eventually, he equipped his family with the best provision and

sent them to Al-Madinah."329

Point two: he believes that Yazīd had not brought to his court Imam Hussein

head (as) nor did he hit his lips with the sceptre or rod, and that is a lie!

He said: "it is narrated with unanimous chain of transmission that this action

happened ahead of Yazīd in his attendance [i.e. lifting Imam Hussein head

and hitting his lips]. Nonetheless, beside the fact that it has not been

corroborated, there is something in the hadith 330 purporting it is a lie, and

those companions who were in the scene when he hit with the rod, were

physically not in Syria but in Iraq."331

Point Three: Ibn Taimiyyah believes that the captivity of his women and

progeny is a lie and totally unfounded.

He says: "as for what he mentioned [Ibn Al-Muţahar Al-Ĥillī] of bringing his

women and progeny into captivity, taking them around territories while

boarded on camels without saddlebacks, this is all a lie and falsity. Moslems

have never had in captivity any Hāshimī lady, neither have the Ummah of

Muhammad warranted themselves to take captive the descendants of

Hāshim."332

To discuss in detail the content of the above three points, we need to

undertake a wider research which is beyond the size and objectives of this

329 "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.4, pp.557-558.

330 Indicates a certain hadith from "Sahih Al-Bukhārī", which says: "from Anas Bin Mālik (R.A.)

narrated: 'head of Al-Hussein (as) was brought to Ubaidullah Bin Ziyād. It was put in a washbowl,

so Ibn Ziyād started to hit on it, and said a word on its grace. Anas proceeds: 'he was most

resembling to the Messenger of Allah (saw-a). And it was then dyed with Indigo Powder

‘Wasmah’". See "Sahih Al-Bukhārī", edited by: Abu Śuhaib Al-Karmī, Bayt al-Afkar Adawliya

for publishing, 1419 A.H -1998 A.D, p.715, hadith no.3748.

331 "Minhāj As-Sunnah", ibid, vol.4, p.557.

332 Ibid: same source, vol.4, p.558.

247

briefing. Yet, I find myself compelled to remind of some essential facts,

shaped as swift comments:

First Comment: the reader will shortly fathom how far sustainable are Ibn

Taimiyyah endeavours to absolve Yazīd from liability of the bloodshed of

Imam Hussein (as) under the pretext that he made no order for the action,

soon as he finds out that his thesis is a breach of what conclusively

deemed by the Moslem investigators and researchers as the most grievous

offence committed by Yazīd, a testimony which is inexplicable only in the

sense that they acknowledge Yazīd’s full and direct liability for this action.

This fact is also confirmed by collateral renditions of other Moslems historical

books which narrate that Yazīd's main preoccupation after his father death

and headship of the state was to obtain with all his vigour the tribute from

those who had renounced it to Muʾāwiyah in his lifetime, and Yazīd himself

wrote to Al-Walīd Bin ʾUtbah Bin Abu Sufiān who was the governor of Al-

Madinah by the time Muʾāwiyah died saying: "coercively take the tribute

from Al-Hussein, Abdullah Bin Umar and Abdullah Bin Az-Zubair with

no exemption until they yield to it"333. The phrase: "coercively take the

tribute from Al-Hussein" is tantamount to licensing Imam Hussein blood

shedding, and that was precisely what Marwan Bin Al-Ĥakam gathered from

his words and thereby insisted on Al-Walīd to seize Imam Hussein pledge on

the spot and not to let him (as) depart Al-Madinah or else kill him, an act that

Al-Walīd abstained from, and most probably his later removal from the rule of

Al-Madinah by Yazīd was in effect to that attitude. This is also what made

Sirjōn, the bond-servant of Yazīd, nominate a bloody character in his place,

333 See for instance: Aţ-Ţabarī, "Tārikh Ar-Rusul wal Mulūk", reviewed by: Muhammad

Ibrahim, Dar al-Maarif , Egypt, no date, pub.2, vol.5, p.338 & Ibn Kathīr, "Al-Bidāyah wal

Nihāyah", reviewed by: Abdullah Abul Muĥsin At-Turkī, al-Hijr for publishing, distribution,

advertising, vol.1, 1418 A.H - 1997 A.H, vol.11, p.467 & Ibn Al-Athīr "Al-Kāmil fī At-Tārikh",

reviewed by Abdullah Al-Qādhī, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilimiya, Beirut, pub.1, 1407 A.H- 1987 A.D,

vol.3, p.377.

248

who never shuns from any atrocious act, Ubaidullah Bin Ziyād to assume the

rule of Al-Kufa, henceforth to stifle Imam Hussein uprising.

We can sense the seriousness of the situation throughout his order to

Ubaidullah Bin Ziyād to kill Muslim Bin ʾAqīl 334, and even worse to "fight Al-

Hussein", as Ibn ʾAsākir adduced in his book "Tārīkh Dimashq"335. Also the

ascertainment of Abdullah Bin Mutīʾ and Abdullah Bin Abbas that he is

doomed die if he journeys to Iraq evinces that his death was at the hand of

Yazīd himself not any other.336

Second Comment: the claim that Imam Hussein (as) asked to either let him

proceed to Yazīd or be extradited to a bordering territory can be annulled by

the fact that he renounced allegiance to Yazīd in the first place before the

death of Muʾāwiyah. Aţ-Ţabarī narrated from ʾUqbah Bin Samʾān saying: "I

have accompanied Al-Hussein, starting with him from Al-Madinah to

Mecca and from Mecca to Iraq and have not parted from him until he

was murdered, and there had been no speech he delivered neither in Al-

Madinah nor in Mecca, neither along the way nor in Iraq nor in ʾAskar

334 See for instance: Aţ-Ţabarī "History", ibid, vol.5, p.348 & Ibn Al-Athīr "History", ibid, vol.3,

p.348 & Ibn Kathīr "History", ibid, vol.11, p.481 & Ibn Al-Jawzī "Al-Muntaźam fī Tārikh Al-

Milūk wal Umam", reviewed by Muhammad Aţţa et al, reviewed and verified by: Naʾīm Zarzūr,

Dar al-Kotob al-Ilimiya, Beirut, pub.1, 1412 A.H - 1993 A.D, vol.5, p.325.

335 Ibn ʾAsākir, Abu Al-Qāsim Ali Bin Al-Hassan,"Tārikh Dimashq", reviewed by: Umar Al-

ʾUmrawī, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1415 A.H - 1995 A.D, vol.14, p.213. However, Yazīd letter to

Ubaidullah Bin Ziyād (in another account), in which he notifies him that he will be enslaved upon

Al-Hussein advent to Kufa, indicates that he instigates him to kill the Imam (as). Therefore the

narrator of this account added: 'and so Ibn Ziyād killed him and sent him his head', (ibid: p.214).

336 Abdullah Bin Mutīʾ said: "may my parents be sacrificed for you, we want to be gratified by your

presence, do not march to Iraq. By Allah if this folk will kill you, they will take us bondservants

and slaves", and Ibn Abbas said: "by Allah, I believe you will be killed in the midst of your women

and daughters just as Uthman was killed"; taken from references comprising the two sayings. See

Ad-Dhahabī, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā", reviewed by: a number of researchers, supervised by:

Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūţ, Mussasat al-Risala, pub.3, 1405 A.H - 1985 A.D, vol.3, reviewed by: Ma'mūn

Aś-Śāgherjī, pp.296-297 & Ibn Kathīr "Al-Bidāyah wal Nihāyah”, ibid, vol.11, pp.502-506. For

more details on Yazīd accountability for the murder of Imam Hussein (as), see the letter of Ibn

Abbas to him (Yazīd) which states this: Ibn Al-Athīr "Al-Kāmil fī At-Tārikh", ibid, vol.3, p.466.

249

until the day of his murder but I had heard. Indeed by Allah, he had

never bestowed them what the people have been promulgating and

alleging that he put his hand in the hand of Yazīd Bin Muʾāwiyah, neither

he pleaded to be marched to one of the bordering territories; he only

said: let go off me so as to voyage across this vast land till we see what

the people turn into." 337

Third Comment: as regards transporting the honourable head of Imam

Hussein (as), hitting him with a rod on the lips (as) and taking captive his

children, it is said in one of the most salient sources: "Al-Muʾjam Al-Kabīr"

by Aţ-Ţabrānī:

"Related to us Abu Az-Zinbāʾ Rūh Bin Al-Faraj Al-Maśrī, related to us Yahya

Bin Bakīr, related to us Allaith saying: Al-Hussein Bin Ali has not willed to be

captured, so they fought him hence killed him and killed his two sons and

companions who fought with him in a spot named "Aţ-Ţaf". Then hexxx set out

by Ali Bin Hussein, Fatimah Bint Hussein and Sukainah Bint Hussein to

Ubaidullah Bin Ziyād -and Ali at that time just youthful at his adolescence.

And the latter sent them to Yazīd who ordered to have Sukainah at the back

of his bed so that she cannot see her father's head, while her related ones

and Ali Bin Al-Hussein (R.A.) were in chains. Hence he placed his head before

him and started to hit on the two lips of Al-Hussein (R.A) saying:

We cut open the forehead of men dearly loveable,

for they were more ungrateful and inequitable.338

This account has been transferred by Al-Hafiz Al-Haithamī in his book

"Majmaʾ Az-Zawā'id", on which he annotated: "it is narrated by Aţ-Ţabarānī,

and its reporters are trustworthy."339 337 Aţ-Ţabarī "Tārikh Ar-Rusul wal Mulūk", ibid, vol.5, pp.413-414.

338 Aţ-Ţabarānī, Abu Al-Qāsim Bin Ahmed, "Al-Muʾjam Al-Kabīr, reviewed by Ĥamdī As-

Salafī, Maktabat al-Iloom wal Hikam, Mosul, pub.2, 1404 A.H - 1983 A.D, vol.3, p.104, hadith

no.2806.

339 Al-Haithamī, Nūrul Al-Dīn Ali Abu Bakr, "Majmaʾ Az-Zawā'id", Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1412

A.H, vol.9, p.312, hadith no.15148

250

In "Shadhrāt Ad-Dhahab" by Ibn Al-ʾImād Al-Ĥanbalī Al-Dimashqī (1089

A.H) he said: "when he was killed, his head and harem of his family and

Zainul ʾĀbidīn were carried over to Damascus as captives. May Allah

confound the perpetrator and disgrace him along with those who ordered it

and consented to it."340

As for Ad-Dhahabī who is one of the signposts of this School, he transferred

in his two famous books: "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā" and "Tārikh Al-Islam"

more than one account that the head of Imam Hussein (as) and his progeny

were carried over to Yazīd and the latter hit the head at his lips or teeth (as)

by a sceptre he had at hand.341

What we advanced ahead is but a number of swift glimpses that can be

abridged into this study; we skipped the details so as not to amplify and

prolong the research. Therefore we refer the prestigious reader to a book

entitled "Ar-Rad ʾalā Al-Mutʾaśib Al-ʾAnīd" for the Allama Ibn Al-Jawzī

(d.597), reviewed by Dr. Haitham Abdul Salām Muhammad, which abounds

with hadiths and sayings of Moslem scholars evincing these very facts that

were denied by Ibn Taimiyyah.

2. Al-Qāđī Ibn Al-ʾArabī Stand (d.543 A.H):

If we followed a reverse chronological order in the presentation of the

theoreticians’ stands from the Umayyad trend, we would have placed Al-Qāđī

Abu Bakr Ibn Al-ʾArabī Al-Mālikī ahead of Ibn Taimiyyah. But we skipped this

order because we believe Ibn Taimiyyah personifies the chieftain of this trend

and its shining beacon, and what has been recorded before him does not fully

circumscribe its format and contours. On the other hand, Ibn Taimiyyah

340 Ibn Al-ʾImād, Abu Al-Falāĥ Al-ʾIkrimī Ad-Dimashqī, "Shadhrāt Ad-Dhahab", supervised the

review and hadith extraction: Abdul Qādir Al-Arnā'ūţ, reviewed and annotated: Muhammad Al-

Arnā'ūt, Dar Ibn Kathīr, Damascus, Beirut, pub.1, 1046 A.H -1986 A.D, vol.1, p.275.

341 See: "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā", ibid, vol.3, pp.309-314-320 & "Tārikh Al-Islam wa Wafiāt

Al-Mashāhīr wal Al-Aʾlām", reviewed by: Abdul Salām Tadmurī, Dar Al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut,

pub.1, 1410 A.H - 1990 A.D, vol.5, pp. 18-19-20.

251

products and compilations have reached us in majority and they almost

provide a comprehensive view of this intellectual trend. In fairness, it can be

said that Ibn Al-ʾArabī is no less influential than Ibn Taimiyyah owing to his

laborious unprecedented effort in compiling the jumble of views which pertain

to Yazīd and Imam Hussein (as) in a product unsurpassed by his

predecessors or successors in volume, audacity, meticulousness and method

of theorisation. Nonetheless the ministry of the trend is kept entirely to Ibn

Taimiyyah, and all the successive attitudes remain ultimately indebted to him

and inspired by his writings.

Eventually, Ibn Al-ʾArabī concerted effort towards the acquittal of Yazīd and

calumny of Imam Hussein (as) was culminated in his book: "Al-ʾAwāśim min

Al-Qawāśim fī Taĥqīq Mawāqif Aś-Śahābah baʾda Wafāt An-Nabī". After a

prolific memoir on Muʾāwiyah merits, good conduct, shrewd juristic

knowledge and eligibility of caliphate342, he turns to Yazīd to advocate the

legitimacy of allegiance paid to him, and how he is not less proficient for the

political and spiritual leadership in terms of age, rightfulness and knowledge.

Then he progresses to advise the body of Moslems to embrace that which

is most favourable for them in pursuit of security and salvation, abiding

by the companions and successors, and not to be like someone who

342 Ibn Al-ʾArabī says that 'wilayat Al-Amr' (guardianship and authority of Moslems) is composed

of levels, either graded by succession or by possession. The wilayah by possession was inaugurated

firstly with Muʾāwiyah whereas the wilayah by succession was characteristic of his predecessors.

Then he adds to set right what the reader may deem a defilement of Muʾāwiyah: "Allah said in

respect of Dāwūd (David) -who is better than Muʾāwiyah-: "Allah endowed him with kingship

and wisdom", whereby prophethood is turned into monarchy. Therefore, do not pay heed to

hadiths whose matn and sanad are deemed weak". By this he is saying: to describe Muʾāwiyah rule

simply as monarchy rather than caliphate does not taint him, as prophethood is identified in that

context with monarchy and thus what might appear to be a flaw is actually a merit. As for the

hadiths which were deemed weak, he refers to the following: "caliphate extends for thirty years, and

subsequent to that it is monarchy", and this is admitted by the book reviewer, Muĥīyul Dīn Al-

Khaţīb.

See: Ibn Al-Arabī, Muhammad Bin Abdullah Al-Muʾāfirī Al-Mālikī, "Al-ʾAwāśim min Al-

Qawāśim", introduced and annotated by: Muĥīyul Dīn Al-Khaţīb, Ministry of Islamic Affairs,

Endowment and Guidance, Saudi Arabia, pub.1, 1419 A.H, pp.207-210.

252

tucked his tongue into their blood to lick like a dog the residues

squirted on earth after the removal of the prey.343

He says: "Muʾāwiyah dropped out the more favourable, which is to convene

Shuraxxxi, and not to allocate it to some of his kin, let alone to a son, as well

as to take after what Abdullah Bin Az-Zubair had counselled with pertinence

to dropping or taking a certain act. So he made amendment inducting his son

into office and giving him an official capacity by oath of allegiance, hence the

people paid tribute on their part. And there were those who fell behind, yet

the oath of allegiance was concluded irrespective of them, as it can be

concluded with one person or two alternatively.

If it is said: it has to be pledged to one who satisfies the requisites of

Imamatexxxii, we say: age is not included, and it has not been corroborated

that Yazīd is underage.

If it is said: part of the requisites is rightfulness and knowledge, and Yazīd

was neither rightful nor scholarly, we say: by what means we determine he

was unknowledgeable and unrightful? If he were truly stripped of both, the

three praiseworthy ones344, who advised him not to do it (not to consign office to

343 "Al-Awāśim min Al-Qawāśim", ibid, p.225.

344 In view of what he said earlier, he denotes: Abdullah Bin Umar, Abdullah Bin Az-Zubair and

Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abu Bakr. At this point, the prestigious reader is required to contemplate this

sort of the deduction he makes, and assess the baseless hazy proposition that says: Imam Hussein

could have condoned Yazīd altogether, or else halt until he is well-equipped with the means of

power and only then he sets foot to revolt. The gravest aspect in that notion is how his condonation

will be understood as to confer legitimacy and endorse Yazīd office, for as we noticed even the

abstention of the above three characters from paying tribute has been interpreted as simply

objecting to the 'way' of passing the rule, and that they were in favour of ‘Shura’ not 'heirship', so

their objection was not directed to Yazīd as a person himself or his inadequacy!?

Such notions were echoed by the successors of Ibn Al-ʾArabī and extended to the latest generation

of successors from this School. Ibn Khaldūn said in his book in the chapter he designates for

"Heirship", while previewing how Muʾāwiyah passed rule to Yazīd:

"What Muʾāwiyah did with the aggregate of people with their varied inclinations has a justified end

and a logical argument in this regard, and what made him set Yazīd above others was but to observe

the public good when they are fused and their fancies are harmonised, as correspondingly acceded

by the lobbying public officials of the Umayyads at that time, who were not letting others infiltrate

them, and they were the league of Quraish and the main religious body, and the ones who exert

influence over others. So he set him above others; the others who reckon themselves more eligible

for the office, moving it from the more privileged to the less in order to be able to preserve the

253

Yazīd), would have alluded to that, but all they did was just imputing deficiency

to the arbitration, as they were in favour of the Shura.

If it is said: there are ones who are more eligible in terms of rightfulness and

knowledge; and their number mounts to one hundred and probably one

thousand, we say: the Imamate of the less privileged -as we advanced

earlier- is a controversial matter among scholars..."345

In point of fact, if that is how Ibn Al-ʾArabī presents Yazīd: eligible of the

Imamate and rule by means of age, rectitude and knowledge, and strongly

defends his virtue, adeptness and the tribute paid to him, what he is

anticipated to say in respect of Imam Hussein uprising (as) will not be

unheard by the reader who can also foresee the content of his next

statement: ‘an act of insurgency which ignites turmoil against the legitimate

leader’. And this is truly what Ibn Al-ʾArabī said, and moreover he went so far

as to depict the one who attempts to overthrow Yazīd and enters fight with

him as an embodiment of some hadith ascribed to the prophet (sawa): "there

will be installed for every betrayer a banner on the Doomsday", but as he

could not overtly declare that "a betrayer banner" will be installed for Imam

Hussein (as) on the Doomsday, he curbed himself, and left it for the reader to

withdraw the desired conclusion from the context! The farthest he went was

describing him and his revolt as to have sought something whose course of

action been concluded (i.e. featly already sworn to someone else), and

sought uprightness in a winding way, for he were prompted by levity and

impulsiveness of youth prime, notwithstanding that Imam Hussein (as) was

an old man by that time.

harmony and consistency of fancies, which are more weighty for the legislator. If something other

than this were thought of Muʾāwiyah, his rectitude and companionship should forbid anything

thought otherwise. The presence of the eminent companions in the scene and their attitude of

condonation is an evidence that makes him untainted beyond any shadow of doubt, for they are by

no means lenient about the truth, and it is unlike Muʾāwiyah to be seized by vanity when the truth is

concerned; they are all too elevated to do this and their rectitude makes them immune to that"

("Tārikh Ibn Khaldūn", vol.1, pp.210-211), and this is what the contemporary figures of this

School have echoed, as will be shown later.

The question here: how would it have been with Imam Hussein (as) if he truly acted in the way

those have proposed: the way of 'condonation'?! Would not his act be interpreted as to confer

legitimacy and endorse the validity of the whole Umayyad policy and pathway?

345 "Al-ʾAwāśim min Al-Qawāśim", ibid, pp. 222-223.

254

Ibn Al-ʾArabī says that Al-Hussein (as) had not listened to the "the biggest

erudite" of the era: Abdullah Bin Abbas, and had not called to mind what his

grandfather (sawa) "warned about" as not to venture into clamour, and what

he (sawa) said in respect of his brother Imam Al-Hassan (as) of: "praise and

glad tidings"346 for his deed handing over the reins of power to others and

quit fighting. Hence, he expresses his surprise enquiring: has not Al-Hussein,

seeing that the caliphate slipped from the hand of his brother who was aided

by the "armies of the entire earth and the elite of creatures", recognised

that it will not be restored with the aid of the "inferiors of Kufa", and

especially when "the eminent companions forbid others from him and

distance themselves remotely from him."

As for those who fought Imam Hussein (as), declared his bloodshed lawful

and violated the sanctity of his family and companions, they have not fought

him at the outset but upon an interpretation of some verdict, and they have

not flocked to his fight only to comply with what his grandfather enjoined

(sawa): "there will be vile evils, so whoever wants to break the unity of

this Ummah when it is united, strike him with the sword347 no matter

who he were". Even when the "masters and dignitaries of the Ummah"

withdrew their support from Imam Hussein, their act was justified by some

rationale in that they knew Allah (SWT) ousted the wilayah and rule from

Ahlul Bait (as) and believed that no one should venture into "clamour".

Below Ibn Al-ʾArabī in his own words:

"But he (R.A.) rejected the wise counsel of the most learned character of his

age, Abdullah Bin Abbas, and swayed away from the opinion of the master of

companions, Ibn Umar. He sought a beginning at a time of ending,

uprightness amid crookedness, the prime of youth in the wreckage of

agedness [...]. No one set in motion against him but pursuant to some

interpretational verdict, and no one set foot to fight him but upon what they

heard from his grandfather, the supreme lord of apostles, the foreteller of a

future state of disintegration, the warner against venture into clamour.

Actually, his sayings (saw-a) in this regard are multifold; part of which: "there 346 "Al-ʾAwāśim min Al-Qawāśim", ibid, p.201.

347 What Ibn Al-ʾArabī said and the hadith he quoted is probably the root for the saying ascribed to

him: "Al-Hussein has been killed by his grandfather sword". This sense is underpinned in his

debate, but as for the literal phrasing of that saying, I could not locate it in the collection of his

books I had at hand.

255

will be vile evils, so whoever wants to break the unity of this Ummah

when it is united, strike him with the sword no matter whom he were",

and people have not set in motion only upon this and the like of it. Should Al-

Hussein have contented himself with his house, manor and camels, and have

not paid heed to people -who made recourse to him to administer right, even

though included Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas-, and recalled what the prophet

(saw-a) had admonished as well as what he said in favour of his brother, that

would have been more befitting. Should he have understood it slipped from

the hand of his brother no matter how the armies of the entire earth and the

elite of creatures stood up for him, so how can it be restored to him with the

aid of the inferiors of Kufa, in so far as the eminent companions forbid others

from him and distance themselves remotely from him? And if it were not that

the masters and dignitaries of the Ummah knew by then it is a thing that has

been ousted by Allah from Ahlul Bait, and that his act is conducive to clamour

which is condemned for everyone, they would have never surrendered him at

all."348

The Contemporary Developments of the Umayyad Islam Stand

If we cast a look on the stand of Umayyad Islam from the murder of Imam

Hussein (as) and the sequence of events during and after that, hence a wider

look on the stand from the overall issues of the Umayyad despotic dominion,

the Umayyad iconic figures, policies and actions, we realise that these stands

are still extant up-to-date. They are also escalating day by day, such that

what the most adamant Nāśibī extremists were struggling to articulate of

thoughts one day in the past have become nowadays known facts that some

parties make every effort to implant, support with evidences, canonise in the

Moslems minds and circulate in their milieus.

Muʾāwiyah in his lifetime was vilified, defied and fought by the companions

from the Muhājirs and Al-Anśār, whereas according to nowadays

measurements of this School, he poses as the "venerable" companion, the

"righteous caliph" of Moslems, their "imam", the scholar, the just349, the

348 "Al-Awāśim min Al-Qawāśim", ibid, p.231-232.

349 "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī”, reviewed, extracted and annotated by: Muhammad Bin

Ţāhir Al-Barjanjī, supervised by: Muhammad Śubĥī Ĥallāq, Dar Ibn Kathir, Beirut, pub.1, 1428

A.H – 2007 A.D, vol.4, pp.41, 44, 55. All what we will transfer from the host of views and opinions

256

warrior in Allah way, the "well-versed" on religious juristic knowledge and

principles of Islamic politics 350, the fervent on enforcing jurisprudence in

Moslems life351, the one vested with powers by Allah for administrating the

Ummah affairs in an unparalleled manner352, the prophesied by the prophet

(sawa) in the hadith of the "twelfth vicegerents"353, and the jurisprudent

whose inferences can scarcely mishit.354

For inducting Yazīd into office, he was opposed and slandered by the most

prominent companions and successors, while nowadays this act is identified

as a token of fervency for keeping the Ummah unity and common good.355

The most exquisite aspect which obtruded from this outlook is the portrayal of

the companions and successors opposition for Yazīd induction as

"discussion" and "long dialogue" between factions anti-and-pro the

"inauguration of office by heirship", from which a "clear proof" is yielded

that Yazīd takeover was conducted in line with the legitimate principles of

"Shura", in an atmosphere of "respect of others-opinion" and honour of

the oppositionists.356

is little to be said compared to the bundle of products by these 'researchers'. For more details see the

reviewer's notes, pp.41-77.

350 "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī”, vol.4, p.60.

351 "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī”, vol.4, pp.47-48-49.

352 "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī”, vol.4, p.56.

353 "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī", vol.4, p.53.

354 "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī", vol.4, p.41.

355 "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī", vol.4, p.60.

356 "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī", vol.4, p.63. Within this utopian atmosphere, their senior

Ibn Kathīr conveyed from the route of As-Shiʾbī some proceedings from year fifty six: "it was the

year when Muʾāwiyah set about to arrange for the pledge of loyalty to Yazīd, invite people for that,

and take the public oath of allegiance to his son. He wrote to remote areas thereupon, and people

gave pledge duly all over the territories, save for Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abu Bakr, Abdullah Bin

Umar, Al-Hussein Bin Ali, Abdullah Bin Az-Zubair and Ibn Abbas. Upon that Muʾāwiyah rode to

Mecca for Umrah, and as he passed through Al-Madinah back from Mecca, he summoned each of

these five in person, warned and threatened each individually. The fiercest response and firmest

language was from the side of Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abu Bakr Aś-Śidīq, and the softest language was

from the side of Abdullah Bin Umar Bin Al- Khaţţāb. Afterwards Muʾāwiyah started to give a

speech while those three were attendant around his pulpit, and they were seated when people started

to pay homage to Yazīd. They neither showed approval nor disapproval for his threats and blusters,

257

The School attitude have developed still further 357 putting final touches on

Yazīd portrait, producing him as the best prospect among his contemporary

peers to this position, and his nomination was the most politically expedient

solution by then, even though no Shūrāaaaaaaa was convened in the first

place!!358 Moreover, the alteration made by his father from the Shura cannon

was in effect to his "apprehension" of imminent turbulences and bloodbaths,

and in honour of the public good359, whereby "he perceived that power,

obedience, order and stability were at the side where his son stood"360,

for his son shares with every other one what they possess of favours and

features and surpasses them with a prerogative that is most needed by the

state then i.e. "the military force to uphold him if he comes to power

which would vest Islam with sovereignty"361!! Still more, Yazīd has

become sagacious, multitalented362, observant of religious duties, toiling for

goodness, jurisprudent, well-informed of the Sunnah, the object of others

gratification or rather above their sheer gratification on account of what he

possesses of knowledge which makes his example well-suited and a good

prospect to the position of caliphate.363

Should the yardstick for rule eligibility be a matter of: "upright conduct all

through life-history, preserve the inviolability of religion, enforce its rulings,

administer justice among people, deliberate over their well-being needs,

combat their enemies, broaden horizons for their call (to Islam), exhibit

kindness towards them, individuals and groups , should that be the case it will

so the pledge of loyalty was co-ordinately obtained across the country, and delegations were

proceeding from all over the territories to Yazīd". See: Ibn Kathīr: "Al-Bidayah wal Nihāyah",

ibid, vol.11, p.307.

357 See annotations of Muĥīyul Dīn Al-Khaţīb on the above-mentioned book: "Al-ʾAwāśim min

Al-Qawāśim", with special focus on pages from 201 up to 232.

358 "Al-ʾAwāśim min Al-Qawāśim", p.215 (the annotation).

11 "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī", vol.4, p.45.

360 "Al-ʾAwāśim min Al-Qawāśim", ibid, p.222 & "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī", vol.4,

p.42.

361 "Al-ʾAwāśim min Al-Qawāśim", ibid, p.215 (the annotation).

362 "Al-ʾAwāśim min Al-Qawāśim", ibid, p.227 (the annotation).

363 "Al-ʾAwāśim min Al-Qawāśim", ibid, p.223 (first annotation).

258

appear from the uncovering of Yazīd news when being thoroughly filtered and

when his innermost reality during life being fathomed by people, that he was

not a bit below many figures whose honourable traits were eulogised by

history, and who were heaped with praise."364

However, tracking Imam Hussein (as) whereabouts in the literature of the

contemporary sprouts of this School, we find that the least said about him:

realising the soundness of the "the multitude of companions", he (as)

backed out of his intention but only when he was behind time365, which is far

less gruesome than some lavish misrepresenting epithets, such as: "sinister

uprising" to describe his revolt against Yazīd. Ibn Kathīr says:

"As for those who were tender-hearted, feeling fear for Al-Hussein from this

sinister uprising, they were all his loving ones, next of kin, counsellors, ones

who toil for the Sunna of Islam in a situation of this kind. All those had

discouraged him from embarking on his procession, and warned him of its

consequences [...], but no pleading had availed for distracting Al-Hussein

from this journey which was ominous for him, for Islam, for the Ummah of

Moslems up to date till the Day of the Hour."366

From where do these people derive their opinions? Who is the inspirational

source?

No researcher neither a spectator doubts that the sum of such opinions stem

from the three principal books of the three landmarks of this trend, of whom

two were dealt with: Ibn Taimiyyah in his book "Minhāj As-Sunnah", and Ibn

Al-ʾArabī in his book "Al-ʾAwāśim". We are dispensing with Ibn Kathīr in his

364 "Al-ʾAwāśim min Al-Qawāśim", ibid, p.214 (second annotations). It is obvious that they

created an allegory in this context, comparing the attitude of Muʾāwiyah from Imam Ali (as) with

the attitude of Imam Hussein (as) from Yazīd. What they said on the first two that Imam Ali holds

the legitimacy while Muʾāwiyah is one who 'made juristic inference but mishit', they had it replayed

in respect of the second two, that is, Yazīd holds the legitimacy and guardianship of Moslems and

Imam Hussein is someone who 'made juristic inference but mishit', so although he is rewarded for

his practice of inference, he remains someone who made a faulty judgement. This allegory is visible

all over the above contexts.

365 "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī", pp.69-70 (footnote)

366 "Al-ʾAwāśim min Al-Qawāśim", ibid, p.229 (the annotation). What he said is true; it was a

sinister uprising indeed, but its bad omen afflicts no more than the Umayyad State and every other

autocrat oppressive mischievous despotic totalitarian rulers worldwide "up to date till the Day of the

Hour".

259

history book "Al-Bidāyah wal Nihāyah" because what the covering

paragraphs from the above two references relay does equally traverse over

his views and attitudes and lead per se to one and the same conclusion,

which makes any browsing of his works unnecessary. In other words, what

he exhibits of thoughts is by and large a repercussion of Ibn Taimiyyah's own

words and views and a derivative from his books in general and the above

book: " Minhāj " in particular.367

Therefore, we will come to a standstill and conclude this draft on the

Umayyad Islam attitudes so as to shift to Ahlul Sunnah attitude from Yazīd

character, his incumbency, liability for Imam Hussein (as) slaughter and the

concomitant and consequent tragedies and offences.

Axis Two

Yazīd and the Sacredness of Al-Hussein Blood

For the Companions School

367 Below are some of his opinions and attitudes from his book "Al_Bidāyah wal Nihāyah" (ibid).

He construed the two hadiths: "this living soul from Quraish will bring my Ummah to

perdition" & "the disintegration of my Ummah will be at the hand of youngsters from the

fouls of Quraish" as some youngster lads from Banu Hāshim. This is understood from the title of

the chapter based on these accounts (p.230). As for the hadith that says: "the first who alters my

Sunnah will be a man from Banu Umayyah", he labels it as munqatiʾ (see glossary), pp.233-234.

He restates what Ibn Taimiyyah said on the schism that happened over Yazīd in (p.234). Yazīd

presented by him as one of the twelfth vicegerents who were foretold by the prophet (sawa) and

who can in no way be the ones that the Rāfiđah claim to be (the idea derived from Ibn Taimiyyah as

seen above) (pp.283-288). Yazīd is one of the twelfth grand ones from the progeny of Ismail on

whom the Torah gave the glad tidings (another idea borrowed from Ibn Taimiyyah) (p.289). Yazīd

led the army where everyone serving is said to be condoned “forgiven they are” upon the prophet’s

(sawa) saying (again an idea taken from Ibn Taimiyyah) (217 and in vol.11, p.180). As for Al-

Hussein, he made three demands, part of which is either to let him go free or he consolidates with

Yazīd (p.242). Moreover, what made Yazīd perpetrate reprehensible acts which are "condemned by

others" is in effect to some hadith ascribed to the prophet (sawa): "if you were not sinning, Allah

would have created some folk who sin hence forgiven them" (vol.11, p.253). Revising vol.9 &

vol.11 of his book, the reader will find many such views all over.

260

First Sub-research: Yazīd Character for the Companions School

We witnessed earlier how Ibn Taimiyyah attempted to monopolise the voice

of "Ahlul Sunnah" and assume a formal capacity under their cover as he

offers his appraisal of Yazīd Bin Muʾāwiyah. The question here: is it true that

the entirety of Ahlul Sunnah accord with Ibn Taimiyyah in opinion, or is it his

very own opinion and that of the trend he represents?

I will deal the second part of the question only as much as to demonstrate the

absurdity of Ibn Taimiyyah claim and make perfectly clear that it is solely an

aberrant incongruent group who align with the School of the Umayyad Islam

and embrace its views. For this, we will not need full coverage of every

available view and saying.

A selection of four excerpts is made from the most esteemed scholars of

Ahlul Sunnah. Presently only three are furnished for the reader, and the

fourth, being a good example of Ahlul Sunnah attitude, reflecting their whole

field of vision and clearly reproducing their sentiments, shall be kept for the

concluding part.

First Utterance: made by the Sheikh, the imam, the Allama, the Hafiz, the

exegete, the master of Islam, the pride of Iraq, the compiler of famous works

on diverse scientific disciplines, i.e. exegesis, Hadith, Jurisprudence,

sermons, asceticism, history, medicine and others368, Abu Al-Faraj Jamalul

Dīn Bin Ali Ibn Al-Jawzī Al-Baghdadī (d.597 A.H), to whom we alluded that he

wrote a whole book revolving around Yazīd, titled "Ar-Rad ʾalā Al-Mutʾśib Al-

ʾAnīd Al-Māniʾ min Thamm Yazīd”, whereby he says:

"Part of the general convictions that predominate a faction who affiliate

themselves with the Ahlul Sunnah is to say that Yazīd was right and Al-

Hussein (R.A) was erroneous in his rebellion against him. Should they have

looked into the biographies, they would have known how the pledge of loyalty

was obtained in the backdrop scene, and how they had people bound over

that pledge, and left no abominable act undone for its own sake. However, if

we deem such a pledge of loyalty appropriate, we need to bear in mind that

there has been some conducts exhibited by him which inevitably lead to

368 Ad-Dhahabī, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā'", ibid, vol.21, pp.365-366.

261

annul that pledge. Anyhow, no one inclines to accept this conviction save for

a lay ignorant person who assumes he can make the Rāfiđah offended."369

Second Utterance: the most outstanding saying made by Ahlul Sunnah

scholars with respect to Yazīd, by an illustrious intellectual personality, highly

distinct in the science of theology 'ʾilm Al-Kalām'xxxiii, Saʾadul Dīn At-Taftazānī

(d.793 A.H) who said in his book: "Sharĥ Al-ʾAqā'id An-Nasfiyyah" the

following:

"As a matter of fact, the approval of Yazīd of Imam Hussein murder seeing it

as auspicious omen as well as mortifying the household of the prophet (as)

are accounts whose import reached tawātir (complete authenticity), though

the particular details are āĥād (see glossary). Verily, we are not quizzical about

the inner reality of Yazīd but quizzical about his faith, may Allah's curse be

upon him, upon his supporters and assistants."370

Third Utterance: recorded by the Allama, the Hafiz Jalālul Dīn Aś-Siyūţī

(d.911 A.H) within the biography of Yazīd in his book "Tārikh Al-Khulafā” as

follows:

"When Al-Hussein and the sons of his father were murdered, Ibn Ziyād

dispatched their heads to Yazīd who was delighted at their death, and only

later felt regretful when Moslems abhorred him for it, and when people

developed aversion against him; and indeed they had the right for this

aversion [...]. And in year sixty three, news reached him that the people of Al-

Madinah rebelled and dethroned him there, so he sent an enormous army

with orders to fight them and afterwards to march to Mecca and fight Ibn Az-

Zubair. So the battle of Al-Ĥarrah took place at the gate of Ţībah, and what

369 Transferred by Al-Ālūsī from Ibn Al-Jawzī book: "As-Sir Al-Maśūn". See Al-Ālūsī, Abu Al-

Fađl Shahabul Dīn Al-Husseiī Al-Baghdādī, "Rūh Al-Maʾānī", Dar Iĥia al-Turath al-Arabi, (no

date), vol.26, p73.

370 At-Taftazānī, Saʾadul Dīn Bin Umar, "Sharĥ Al-ʾAqā’id An-Nasfiyysh", reviewed by: Ahmed

Hijāzī As-Saqā, Maktabat Al-Kulliat Al-Azhariya, pub.1, 1407 A.H - 1987 A.D, p.103.

262

do you know about Al-Ĥarrah?! Al-Hassan mentioned it once saying: almost

no one was saved from it. Myriads were killed from the companions (R.A with

them) and other Moslems, the city were looted, and a thousand virgins were

deflowered. To Allah we belong and to Allah is our return. The prophet (saw-

a) said: "whoever frightens the people of Al-Madinah, Allah will fill him

with fear, and on him be the curse of Allah, the angels, and people

around the globe", narrated by Muslim."371

He said too explaining some hadith in his book "Ad-Dībāj": "no one can

mean harm to the people of Al-Madinah and not be melted by Allah in fire just

as the lead dissolves or salt dissolves in water":

"Al-Qāđī said: this supplement, i.e. his saying: 'in fire' clears away the

equivocality of other hadiths where it has not been mentioned, and he

clarified that it is decreed for the Afterlife. He said: what may also be

implicated by it: "whoever has the intent to do it (harm Al-Madinah) in the

lifetime of the prophet (saw-a), Moslems will be saved from his pursuit, while

his schemes will fade away just as lead fades in fire. Or it may be implicated

that someone may have the intent to do it in this World, so Allah will not

reprieve him, neither vest sovereignty in him, but no sooner does he do that

than Allah would make him die, just as how those who fought it (Al-Madinah)

had been terminated, like Muslim Bin ʾUqbah, who perished promptly at his

departure from it, then Yazīd Bin Muʾāwiyah, his dispatcher, perished upon

that and others who did their same doings."372

Yazīd: Commander of the Forgiven Army

A highly vital issue aroused by Ibn Taimiyyah in concern with Yazīd is his

saying: Yazīd headed the army that invaded Constantinople, and on that very

army the prophet (saw-a) said: "forgiven is the first army that invades

371 As-Siyūţī, Jalālul Dīn Bin Abu Bakr "Tārikh Al-Khulafā", Dar Ibn Hazm, Beirut, pub.1, 1324

A.H - 2003 A.D, pp.166-167.

372 As-Siyūţī, Jalālul Dīn Bin Abu Bakr, "Ad-Dībāj ʾalā Sahih Muslim Bin Al-Ĥajjāj", reviewed

and annotated by: Abu Isĥāq Al-Ĥuwainī Al-Atharī, Dar Ibn Affan, Saudi Arabia, pub.1, 1416 A.H

- 1996 A.D, vol.3, p.407, hadith no. 1364.

263

Constantinople"373. He followed his saying by several grave conclusions,

part of which respectively: firstly: Yazīd is forgiven of sins, and to curse him is

thus impermissible, secondly: the companions serving in that army approved

of his leadership and fought under it, thirdly: Yazīd has embarked on invasion

only because he was prompted by this hadith.

Ibn Taimiyyah postulated all that unhesitantly as axiomatic facts with no

possibilities to exist otherwise. So, is the matter truly so plainly spoken and

agreed on by each and every one as he suggests? Do the celebrated

explainers from the range of imams and memorisers equally postulate it as

the naked truth, particularly those of "Sahih Al-Bukhārī" where this hadith

was adduced?

From this hadith, what we take interest in is the segment concerning Yazīd so

as to consider whether or not some virtue and feat are put to our sight inside

the hadith, as Ibn Taimiyyah tries to convince us?

What appears from the versions of the first layer of explainers of "Sahih Al-

Bukhārī" is the reverse, and more significantly the whole story is studded

with loopholes due to conflicting visions, which can be spotted in:

Firstly: the time of occurrence374: there are variable estimates of the year,

i.e. 48375 or 49376 or 50377 or 52378 A.H.

373 Ibn Taimiyyah, "Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah", ibid, vol.4, p.544 & p.572. This hadith

is not adduced originally with this phrasing, and this proves that Ibn Taimiyyah counts on his

memory in transferring his material, and therefore his judgment on the hadiths lack precision. The

original phrasing: "forgiven is the first army from my Ummah who invade the city of Caesar". See

Al-Bukhārī, "Sahih Al-Bukhārī", edited by: Abu Śuhaib Al-Karmī, Bayt al-Fkar Adawliya, 1419

A.H - 1998 A.D, Kitab: “The Holy War and Biographies – The Book of Aj-Jihād and As-

Siyer", Ch. "What is said on the Romans", hadith no. 2924, p.561.

374 It must be pointed out there is not even a slim chance that we cast doubt on the occurrence of the

Constantinople battle. But we only aim to say that this issue with all its contents including the time

of occurrence is a subject of dispute and contention, unlike what Ibn Taimiyyah words seem to

suggest that every minute detail of the proceedings has been granted and concurred on.

375 Abu Al-Fidā', ʾImādul Dīn Bin Ali, "Al-Mukhtaśar fī Tārikh Al-Bashar", reviewed by:

Muhammad Zeinhum et al. Dar al-Maarif, Cairo, vol.1, hadith no. [Dropped], vol.1, p.231.

376 Aţ-Ţabarī "Tārīkh Ar-Rusul wal Mulūk, ibid, vol.5, p.232.

377 Ibn Al-Athīr, "Al-Kāmil fī At-Tārikh", ibid, vol.3, p.314.

264

Secondly: army headship by Yazīd: Ibn Al-Athīr in "Al-Kāmil"379 and Abu

Al-Fidā' in "Al-Mukhtaśar"380 both opine that the army leader was Sufiān Bin

ʾAwf. Yet "Al-Mir'āt" writer, who chained the narration to a passive link, i.e. "it

was said", corrected them saying: the army headship was by Yazīd. This

opinion was reported by Al-ʾAinī in his book "ʾUmdat Al-Qāri'", yet, Al-ʾAinī in

the same book retorted to him ("Al-Mir'āt" writer) from the record of his

memory saying: "the masters of companions" were not with Yazīd because

he is not qualified to have those masters in his service.381

On the proceedings of year 49 A.H. Ibn Al-Athīr says: "on this year or as said

elsewhere year 50 A.H, Muʾāwiyah sent an enormous army to the Romans

land for invasion, and appointed Sufīan Bin ʾAwf as the army commander. In

the meantime, he ordered his son Yazīd to join the army, but the latter,

finding it too burdensome, fell ill, so his father withheld his order. During the

invasion, starvation and severe illness afflicted the people there, and by then

Yazīd started to chant poetic verses cheering that he is not amid these

tribulations and he cares not for what befallen them so long as he has Um

Kulthum nearby (Um Kulthum: his wife and daughter of Abdullah Bin ʾĀmir).

His verses flied to Muʾāwiyah, so he bound him by an oath to join Sufiān to

the Romans land to undergo what befallen people there, hence he marched

with huge supplementary troops mobilised by his father, and among them

was Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Ibn Az-Zubair and Abu Ayūb Al-Anśārī, Abdul Azīz

378 Ibn Ĥajar "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", vol.6, p.103.

379 Ibn Al-Athīr, "Al-Kāmil fī At-Tārikh", ibid, vol.3, p.314.

380 Abu Al-Fidā', "Al-Mukhtaśar fī Tārikh Al-Bashar", ibid, vol.1, p.231.

381 Al-ʾAinī, Abu Muhammad Bin Ahmed,"ʾUmdat Al-Qārī'", verified by: Abdullah Umar, Dar

Al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, pub.1, 1421 A.H - 2001 A.D, vol.14, pp.277-278.

265

Bin Zurārah Al-Kilābī and others. The troops infiltrated into the Romans land

until they reached Constantinople."382

Furthermore, Ibn Ĥajar himself transferred from Ibn At-Tīn his saying : "he

(Yazīd) possibly made no presence in the army at all", and Ibn Ĥajar

turned back this possibility saying it is "abolished" and added: "unless he

might mean that he had not engaged in a forefront fight, as he was the

army leader as correspondingly agreed"383. Strangely enough, after what

has been unraveled, he is saying: "correspondingly agreed".

Thirdly: on him being engrossed by forgiveness.

Any prospective investigator for the origin of this concept will find it traceable

to Abu Al-Qāsim Al-Muhallab Bin Abu Śufrah Al-Asadī Al-Andulusī (d.435

A.H)384 who opined in his explanation of "Sahih Al-Bukhārī" that the hadith

subsumes a "laudable deed" for Muʾāwiyah and his son Yazīd. Yet, his

contemporaneous native Ibn Baţţāl Al-Qurţubī (d.449 A.H) transferred this

very phrase of Al-Muhalab Al-Andulusī differently from the way Ibn Ĥajar did.

Both transfers are cited below for view:

382 Ibn Al-Athīr, "Al-Kāmil fī At-Tārikh", ibid, vol.3, p.314 & Ibn Khaldūn, Waliyul Dīn Bin

Muhammad, "Diwān Al-Mubtada' wal Khabar", reviewed by: Khalīl Shaĥādah, Dar al-Fikr,

Beirut, pub.2, 1408 A.H. - 1988 A.D, vol.3, p.12. In the book, it is said: "he (Muʾāwiyah) deputed

Yazīd to go with them, but as the latter found it too burdensome, he withheld his order. Then the

public heard news of hunger and illness stricken the invaders, and simultaneously news reached

Muʾāwiyah that Yazīd was chanting with regard to that ....."

383 Ibn Ĥajar "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", ibid, vol.6, pp.102-103.

384 See his biography in Ad-Dhahbī, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā'", ibid, vol.17, p.579.

266

Ibn Baţţāl: "Al-Muhallab said: "from this hadith, it is surmised there is a

laudable deed for Muʾāwiyah, as he was the first to invade the Romans. And

his son Yazīd had invaded the city of Caesar."385

Ibn Ĥajar: "Al-Muhallab said: in this hadith, there is a laudable deed for

Muʾāwiyah as he invaded the sea; and a laudable deed for his son Yazīd as

he was the first to invade the city of Caesar."386

The difference between the two phrases lies in the usage of 'and' in 'and his

son'. In Ibn Baţţāl version, it could be construed as a mere digression,

whereas Ibn Ĥajar version had the phrase 'and his son' coupled with the

previous clause.

This leads us to question the import of the hadith on whether this forgiveness

is 'sheer entitlement' or 'actual engrossment’. Even those who grant the

'engrossment' for the sake of argument, they exclude Yazīd from this

forgiveness because he is 'dismissed by specific evidence'. That is

basically what the masters from hadith explainers, especially those of "Sahih

Al-Bukhārī" have been opining, i.e. Ibn At-Tīn, Ibn Al-Munīr, Al-ʾAinī, and Al-

Manāwī, and that is what even Ibn Ĥajar seems to have opined when he

conveyed the forerunners' view without raising any objection or criticism.

Ibn Ĥajar said after quoting Al-Muhallab: "Ibn At-Tīn and Ibn Al-Munīr followed

up with what can be summed as follows: for him (Yazīd) to be included in that

'total', it does not entail he is unexcluded by 'specific evidence', as the people

of knowledge are not at variance on his saying (saw-a) that "forgiven”, i.e. to

be ultimately from the people of forgiveness is only on merit alone, in which

case should someone who partook in the invasion apostatise in later stages,

he will not be included among the 'total' randomly, which indicates that: a

385 Ibn Baţţāl, Abu Al-Hassan Bin Abdul Melik, "Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī", proofreading and

annotation: Abu Tamīm Bin Ibrahim, Maktabat al-Rashid, Riyadh, [dropped from record], vol.5,

p.107.

386 Ibn Ĥajar, "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", ibid, p.102.

267

'forgiven' one is only he who possesses the requisite of forgiveness among

them."387

Al-ʾAinī (d.855 A.H) said: "Al-Mir'āt" writer said: more accurately, Yazīd Bin

Muʾāwiyah invaded Constantinople on year fifty two, on which it is said:

Muʾāwiyah sent away an enormous army with Sufiān Bin ʾAwf to

Constantinople which infiltrated the Romans land. Among the army, there

were Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Ibn Az-Zubair and Abu Ayūb Al-Anśārī, and the

latter passed away during the siege period. I said: a higher probability is that

those masters of the companions were with Sufiān, not with Yazīd Bin

Muʾāwiyah as the latter was not qualified to have those masters in his

service. Al-Muhallab said: "in this hadith, there is a laudable deed for

Muʾāwiyah as he was the first to invade the sea, and a laudable deed for his

son as he was the first to invade the city of Caesar", and I say on my part:

‘what laudable deed Yazīd ever had, whose reality is already put in the public

eye’?! If you say: but he had said in respect of this army [the pronoun 'he'

signifies the prophet (sawa)]: "forgiven they are", I would say: for him (Yazīd)

to be included in the 'total', it does not entail he is unexcluded by 'specific

evidence', as the people of knowledge are not at variance on his saying (saw-

a) that "forgiven" is only on merit alone to be ultimately from the people of

forgiveness, in which case should someone who partook in the invasion

apostatise in later stages, he will not be included among the 'total', which

indicates that: a 'forgiven' one is only he who possesses the requisite of

forgiveness among them."388

Al- Manāwī (d.1031 A. H) said commenting on the fragment from the hadith

'forgiven they are':

"It does not constitute that Yazīd Bin Muʾāwiyah is forgiven, as condonation is

conditional on one's being from the people of forgiveness, while Yazīd is not

so, owing to his exclusion by a specific evidence. To stagnate on the concept

387 Ibn Ĥajar, "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", ibid, vol.6, pp.102-103.

388 Al-ʾAinī, Abu Muhammad Bin Ahmed,"ʾUmdat Al-Qārī", ibid, vol.14, pp.277-278

268

of the 'total', it will follow that the one who engaged in the invasion then

apostatised is still condoned, while we find a group of investigators who have

authorised the curse of Yazīd without reservation to the extent that At-

Taftazānī has said: "As a matter of fact, the approval of Yazīd on the murder

of Imam Hussein as well as mortifying the household of the prophet (as) are

all accounts whose import reached tawātir (complete authenticity), though the

particular details are āĥād (see glossary). Verily we are not questioning Yazīd

inner reality as much as his faith, may Allah's curse be upon him, upon his

supporters and assistants."389

As a result, it appears that Ibn Taimiyyah's perspective into this hadith

granting it as a self-evident truth is out of place. Apparently, the supreme and

majority of hadith explainers hold a reverse view altogether, to the degree

that some have raised the possibility (which can be deemed the fourth point

of contention about this hadith) that the city of Caesar indicated by the hadith

is but the one that Caesar dwelt in by the time that hadith was released, that

is, Ĥams in Syria, the main dwelling of his kingdom by then, rather than

Constantinople.390

We went through the above discussion postulating the soundness of what is

adduced in Al-Bukhārī, while literally there are no such notions in the legacy

of Ahlul Bait School. They are totally rejected by our School of thought.

Al-Ālūsī Sums up Ahlul Sunnah Attitude towards Yazīd

In the course of this sub-research, the fourth promised utterance has been

suspended with a view to keep it as a dramatic finale for our study, due to the

abridgement of important attitudes of Ahlul Sunnah towards the character of

Yazīd, and other key issues which were featured from the mind-frame of the

Umayyad Islam. The utterance embodies a full-scale unique illustration of

Ahlul Sunnah perspective, and reflects simultaneously the author's close

389 Al-Manāwī, Abdul Ra'ūf, "Fayđ Al-Qadīr", Dar al-Marifa, Beirut, pub.2, 1391 A.H - 1972

A.D, vol.3, p.84.

390 This was transferred by Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī. See: "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", ibid, vol.6, p.103.

269

acquaintance with the subject and his impressive objectivity, due to which I

would rather quote it as one whole despite its lengthiness. Additionally, some

readers may not have at hand the exegesis book of Al-Ālūsī "Rūĥ Al-Maʾānī"

and will miss the opportunity to read it to the core.

Al-Ālūsī at the closing lines of his explanation of Surat Muhammad (sawa),

ayah (23): {it is upon whom Allah has laid His curse; so He made them

deaf and deprived them of their sight}, said the following:

"It is also deduced from it (the ayah with the curse) that it is licensed to curse

Yazīd (may Allah Taʾala inflict upon him what he deserves). Al-Barazanji in "Al-

Ishāʾah" and Al-Haithamī in "Aś-Śawāʾiq" both transferred this narrative:

"when Imam Ahmed was asked by his son Abdullah on cursing Yazīd, he

said: how can he not be cursed whom Allah Taʾala cursed in His Book! So

Abdullah said: I read all through the Book of Allah (AZW) but found nothing

about the curse of Yazīd, so the imam replied that Allah Taʾala says: {then, is

it to be expected of you if you were put in authority that you will do

mischief in the land and break your ties of kith and kin}, where on earth

there could be a bigger mischief and severance of ties than what Yazīd did."

(Quotation from imam Ahmed is over)

This is based on licensing the curse of a certain designated transgressor

under a generic curse embodying a broader group cursed for their attributes.

On this, there is still a dispute which has been long-running, as the Jimhūr

(majority of scholars) disallow the curse of a designated one, whether an

immoral rebellious one or a non-Muslim citizen, alive or dead, so long as it

has not been divulged whether he died in disbelief or not, just for the

possibility that he may be ordained to conclude his life with Islam or he might

have concluded it with Islam, unlike the case with the one whose death in

disbelief is conclusively established like Abu Jahal.

Sheikhul Islam As-Sirāj A-Balqīnī inclines to accept licensing the curse of a

particular designated transgressor, according to hadith from the two Sahih

books [...].

270

And in "Az-Zawājir" it is stated: "if that (the licensing) were to be deduced

upon an account related by Muslim saying: 'he (saw-a) passed by a donkey,

branded on the face, so he said: may Allah curse he who did this', it would

have been more sustainable [...]”.

Accordingly, there can be no indecision or uncertainty about cursing Yazīd for

his manifold vicious traits, for grievous sins he perpetrated all through the

period of his service in power. Enough what he did when conquered Al-

Madinah and Mecca [...], and the big calamity is what he did to Ahlul Bait

and his approval of the murder of Imam Hussein (peace and prayer be upon

his grandfather and him), welcoming it as auspicious omen as well as

mortifying his household are all accounts whose import reached tawātir

(complete authenticity), though their particular details are āhād […].

A group of scholars affirmed his state of disbelief and openly execrated

him, such as the Hafiz Ibn Al-Jawzī (nicknamed: supporter of the Sunnah),

and preceded him Al-Qāđī Abu Yaʾlā, and the Allama At-Taftazānī said:

[...]391

Moreover of those, who openly execrated him, is Al-Jalāl As-Siyūtī (mercy be

upon him).392

Also adduced in "Tārikh Ibn Al-Wardī" and "Al-Wāfī bil Wafiāt": when the

captives reached from Iraq to Yazīd, he came out to meet the children and

women from the progeny of Ali and Al-Hussein (R.A. them), and the heads

were sticking out of the spears tips, until they arrived at the verge of mound

Jairūn, and soon as they were in his sight, a crow cawed, so he chanted

these verses:

When these freights showed up,

and those heads at the verge of Jairūn loomed up

391 His statement given earlier under the "second utterance", revise to avoid repetition.

392 His viewpoint and certain phrases transferred under the "third utterance", revise.

271

A craw cawed, so I said: heedless of whether you say or say not,

I have but redeemed my debts from the apostle, far out.

In other words: he killed in return to whom the Messenger (saw-a) had killed

on the Day of Badr, such as his grandfather ʾUtbah, his uncle and son of

ʾUtbah and others, and this is practically an outright disbelief. If this proves to

be true, he certainly must have disbelieved altogether, which can be

pinpointed in his mimicry of Abdullah Az-Zaʾbarī lines who said them before

entering Islam, as in:

I would that my bygone ancestry masters etc. ... 393 (See footnote)

Al-Ghazālī (may Allah grant him His pardon) gave a juristic verdict prohibiting the

practice of curse-laying on him. Al-Safārīnī, the Ĥanbalī, followed up the two

preceding transfers of Al-Barazanjī and Al-Haithamī from Ahmed (may mercy of

Allah be upon him) by his saying: 'what is memorised from imam Ahmed is the

reverse of what they both transferred', as it is stated in "Al-Firūʾ”: ‘from our

393 The poem of Abdullah Az-Zibaʾray Bin Qais As-Sahmī Al-Qarashī is so famous that it can be

located in almost every reference of Islamic heritage. He said it on the Day of Uĥud when he was

still polytheist. The lines are cited below, reminding that different versions have minor variations in

the rendering and sequence:

I would that, back from Badr, my ancestry masters

witnessed Al-Khazraj anguish from the strike of lancets

They would've hailed and elated with delightment.

Then they said: felicitous, ask not,

for we had killed a double of their noble ones

and we equilibrated the slope in the scale pan

and indeed it counterbalanced

Part of the references which cited the mimicry of Yazīd to these lines are:

"Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī", ibid, vol.8, p.96 & "Al-Muntaźim" of Ibn Al-Jawzī, ibid, vol.5, p.343 &

"Tārikh Ibn Kathīr", ibid, vol.11, p.557, 581, 631.

272

co-fellows, there were some who deemed Al-Ĥajjāj as dissident from Islam,

and thereby address this by the same token to Yazīd and the like of him’.

Against that, Ahmed gave a reverse statement, and so did his co-fellows. He

did not license designating a particular one for cursing, on the contrary to Abu

Al-Hussein, Ibn Al-Jawzī and others, while Sheikhul Islam said (signalling to Ibn

Taimiyyah -Allah is the most Knowing of what he signals to): from the outward it

seems Ahmed suggests it is disfavoured. I say on my part: that which is

outweighing is what Ibn Al-Jawzī and Abu Al-Hussein Al-Qāđī, and those

concurring with them, have opined", Al-Safārīnī text is over.

And Abu Bakr Ibn Al-ʾArabī Al-Mālikī (may he inflict upon himself what he

deserves from Allah Taʾala), for the greatest defamatory statement he made394;

whereby he alleged that Al-Hussein was killed by the sword of his grandfather

(saw-a), and strikingly there have been ignorant ones who concurred with

that, {it is a monstrous word that comes out of their mouths; they utter a

sheer lie} (Al-Kahaf: 5)

Ibn Al-Jawzī (mercy be upon him) said in his book "As-Sir Al-Maśūn": [...]395

Moreover, it turns up from all what is advanced that there is a dissension

among people about him. Some are saying he is Moslem but a disobedient

one for what he did with the immaculate ʾItrah, and yet his curse is

impermissible. Others are saying: he is truly so (disobedient Moslem), and to

curse him is permissible whether it can be disfavoured or not. Others are

saying: he is an accursed atheist, and some say: he has not turned into a

transgressor by this act and to curse him is impermissible, and surely

whoever says this, he must be pigeonholed with Yazīd partisans.396

394 His attitude explained earlier, revise.

395 His phrase conveyed under "first utterance", revise to avoid repetition

396 Manufacturers of this saying and the like of it, together with their intellectual backgrounds,

dogmatic religious guides and the grounds from which they construct their concepts and views are

referred to by us as "the Umayyad Islam trend", and this study is but an attempt to delineate the

contours of this trend.

273

And I say: the most likely assumption for me is that he, the vicious, had not

had a particle of belief in the Message of the prophet (saw-a) from the start,

and the totality of his doings with the residents of the sanctuary of Allah

Taʾala (Mecca) and the residents of the sanctuary of his prophet (saw-a) (al-

Madinah), and his immaculate virtuous progeny, during their lifetime and after

death, and all the disgraceful acts he committed, are not less strong in their

signification for us to believe than an act whereby he flung a page from

Qur'an into filth as not to believe. And by that time, I do not think his inner

reality was veiled from the high-calibre Moslems, but that they were

powerless and defenseless; had no choice but to endure pain until Allah

causes what has been destined to happen. If we assumed he, the vicious,

were truly Moslem, he is then a Moslem who piled up heaps from every

grievous sin that are incalculable and beyond words, and I personally incline

towards the permissibility of cursing the like of him by way of designating an

individual from a generic group, even if it were inconceivable he may have a

match for him somewhere among the immoral. And it looks like he had not

repented, and the possibility of his repentance is weaker than entering faith in

the first place. Akin to him in that are Ibn Ziyād, Ibn Saʾad and another squad,

may the curse of Allah be upon them all, on their partisans, supporters,

loyalists and whoever have liking for them to the Day of Religion so long as

any teardrops shed from any eye for Abu Abdullah Al-Hussein.

I am moved by the lines of the poet of the age, who is surely praiseworthy,

Abdul Bāqī A-Mawśilī, when he was asked about articulating curse on the

confounded Yazīd:

Despite my curse, Yazīd stamina is still expansive

I will evermore move onward laying curse above curse

Whoever fears declaring his curse on that misguiding one, lest he should be

an object of others tittle-tattle, let him say: "may Allah (AZW) curse he who

approved on the murder of Al-Hussein, he who harmed the progeny of the

prophet (saw-a) unrightfully and he who usurped and violated their rights".

This way, his curse will be articulated in view of the total, i.e. enrolment under

the body of a 'total' who are conjoined primarily in the same misdeed,

whereby no one has opposed a curse with this wording and similar ones,

274

save for the above-mentioned Ibn Al-ʾArabī and his advocates, as it sounds

from renderings about them, they do not license cursing those who approved

on the killing of Al-Hussein (RA), and that is by my life a far-fetched

aberrance that almost outweighs Yazīd aberrance."397

I say on my part: what would Al-Ālūsī say today if he witnesses what goes on

nowadays, the day when dozens of Ibn Al-ʾArabī School fans exceeded what

their grand master has reached of a "far-fetched aberrance" as he phrased

his words? The onset is prohibiting the curse of Yazīd and the endpoint is

celebrating his adeptness, superb flawless talents, his integrity,

administrating Sharia, implementing its ruling, establishing justice among

people, deliberating on their public good, leading holy war against their

enemies, broadening the horizon of their call to Islam, leniency with their

individuals and groups, etc.

397 Al-Ālūsī, Abu Al-Fađl Al-Baghdādī, "Rūĥ Al-Maʾānī", reviewed by: Ali Aţţiyah, Dar al-

Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, pub.1, 1415 A.H, vol.3, pp.227-229.

275

The Second Sub-Research:

The Sanctity of Al-Hussein Blood and the Soil of Karbala for the

Scholars of Ahlul Sunnah

Preface

Reviewing the literature written by the iconic figures of the Umayyad Islam on

the event of Karbala, we would be mesmerised by the rigorous efforts put to

underrate its pride and worth since the day of eruption up to date, due to

which we decided to stop over this subject. They do this by treating it as

insignificant and peripheral subject, stripping any value attached to the blood

of the grandchild of Allah’s Messenger, which was shed in the battle.

Accordingly, this would impinge on certain aspects: (firstly) on their

perception of the enormity of the affliction (secondly) the indictment of

perpetrators, and (thirdly) the legitimacy of the commemorators act for his

death anniversary.

Ibn Taimiyyah says:

"It is a well-known fact that Umar Bin Saʾad, commander of the army brigade

which undertook the killing of Imam Hussein, despite his inequity and his

prime concern with this World above religion, has not reached the climax of

grave sin that Al-Mukhtār Bin Abu ʾUbaidullah, who openly triumphed for

Imam Hussein and killed his killers, has reached. Moreover his sin is graver

and more pretentious than Umar's Bin Saʾad, and this Shiʾite individual is

more evil than that Nāśibī. Evenmore Al-Ĥajjāj Bin Yūsuf is better than Al-

Mukhtār Bin Abī ʾUbaid, since Al-Ĥajjāj was an annihilator who spills blood

needlessly and unrightfully, while Al-Mukhtār was a liar who alleged

prophethood and the receipt of Revelation from Jibrā'īl (Gabriel), and this guilt

is greater than ending lives, as it involves atheism. And if he had not repented

from that guilt, he surely became apostate, and to cause turmoil is severer

than murder."398

398 "Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah", vol.2, pp.70-71.

276

In reply I would say: we will know later the outcomes of minimising the

grimness of Umar Bin Saʾad crime. As for the ones who fought Imam Hussein

(as), they were not merely a single "brigade" as it pleases Ibn Taimiyyah to

say. They were a big army exceeding four thousand, added to the number of

people who joined from Al-Kufa as related by history399, and not to mention

the numerous sound prophetic hadiths which tell: "verily your Ummah will

kill him", (to come later).

He said too: "people were divided upon this: the Day of Ashura when Al-

Hussein was killed- into two parts: the Shiʾites who assumed it as a mourning

and grief day during which they perform outrageous acts of utmost ignorance

and erroneousness, and a folk who assumed it as a festive day during which

they do bountiful offerings: expenses, food and clothing, and they would

narrate on the Day some forged hadiths [...]. More heinous and graver than

what the Rāfiđah do in making a memorial gathering of the day is how they

recite a plaintive elegiac narrative on the murder, chant doleful eulogy poems,

willingly remain thirsty, slap in the face, tear clothes, take after the Jāhiliyyah

way in their modes of life."400

Ibn Kathīr said in this respect: "since the Shiʾites make out of the Day of

Ashura a commemorative memorial to demonstrate sorrow for Al-Hussein Bin

Ali, opposite to them there emerged another faction from the ignorant of Ahlul

399 Ibn Jarīr Aţ-Ţabarī said: "when it was the day after, Umar Bin Saʾad Bin Abu Waqqāś came

from Al-Kufa with four thousand. He said too: the reason why Ibn Saʾad headed to Al-Hussein (as)

was that Ubaidullah Bin Ziyād had sent him with four thousand from the people of Al-Kufa to

march to Dastabī, towards which the Daylam (a folk) had embarked hence conquered. So Ibn Ziyād

wrote to him about his covenant to govern Ray territory and ordered him to set in motion, and the

latter started his march and encamped with the people in Hammam Aʾyun. But as what Al-Hussein

came for already passed, and he arrived in Al-Kufa, Ibn Ziyād summoned Umar Bin Saʾad saying:

March to Al-Hussein, soon as we put an end to that is between us and him; you proceed with your

original pursuit.

See: "Tārikh At-Tabarī", vol.5, p.409 & "Tārikh Ibn Al-Athīr", vol.3, p.412 & "Tārikh Ibn

Kathīr", vol.9, p.242, and extra historical references.

400 Minhāj As-Sunnah", vol.8, pp.148-149, 151.

277

Sunnah, who claimed that on the eighteenth of Muharram, Muśʾab Bin Az-

Zubair was killed, hence conducted a memorial ceremony just as the Shiʾites

do for Al-Hussein. They visit his grave simulating the way Al-Hussein is

visited in his grave, and this is by way of meeting a heresy by a parallel

heresy, and nothing can abolish a heresy but the sound Sunnah."401

He also said: "every Moslem must grieve for that which occurred to him (R.A)

of killing, as he is one of the masters of Moslems and scholars of the

companions, son of the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) who is

the best of his daughters, and he has been a worshiper, brave and generous.

Nonetheless, what the Shiʾites do by manifesting grief and dejection, which is

perhaps in its greater part just pretense and feigning, is disagreeable.

However, his father was better than him, yet they do not turn his murder day

into a memorial gathering like the murder day of Al-Hussein."402

The forthcoming texts will shed light on several matters which we presumed

to be highly vital for a discreet Moslem seeking to gain immunity from the

aforesaid three devious ways. They outline the manner with which the

prophet (sawa) dealt firstly with the blood of Al-Hussein (as), secondly with

the soil that his noble blood was spilled on; the soil that became a destination

and veneration area for the followers of Ahlul Bait School.

Throughout these texts, the reader will come to know that the issue of Imam

Al-Hussein (as), his revolution, noble blood, the soil where it was spilled is not

a patchwork designed by the lovers of Ahlul Bait (as), but a central issue

which has been given prominence by the Divine Revelation, by the prophet

(sawa) and by the Imams of Ahlul Bait (as), and for it the glorious teardrops of

the prophet of Islam were shed. He will realise too that what has been

rendered by the prophet (saw-a) with regard to the blood of Imam Hussein

(as) is unprecedented by any prophet in respect of another prophet's blood,

let alone a certain legatee, vicegerent of God, or a rightly guided person, and

rather it is personal idiosyncrasy for the blood of Imam Hussein (as).

401 "Al-Bidāyah wan Nihāyah", vol.15, p.483.

402 Ibid, vol.11, p.569.

278

A Point for Contemplation:

Can we Rely on "Dream-Vision" in such Researches

At this point of the research, the prestigious reader will be faced with what

sounds like a dramatic change, such that his inner thoughts may entice him

to think we abandoned what we vowed to take of methodical obligations from

the outset, or that they are no more binding. This change is simply a new

gateway to the accounts we transfer, envisaged by dream-visions.

We reply to this confirming that there is no dramatic change in our method,

and we still adhere to the systematic norms which have been governing our

study. More importantly, the new accounts are treated on equal terms with

previous ones, and cited from the same references already in use. However, I

still feel obliged to answer the heading question of the title, bringing to the

attention of the reader these two remarks:

First Remark: it has been established in the domain of the Fundamentals of

Jurisprudence that to see the person of the Messenger of Allah (sawa) in

dream cannot be an authoritative source in elucidating the Sharia rulings and

laws for the Mukallafxxxiv, and that these rulings and laws cannot be sustained

only within the matrix of its own methodology which excludes 'dream-vision'.

(Details are due in upcoming researches)

Second Remark: apart from the aforementioned areas, 'dream-vision’ can be

deemed an authoritative source and proof within the Islamic methodology, but

only within strict boundaries that must be taken into account. The most

outstanding boundary is that the visionary person must have physically seen

the prophet (sawa) and recognised his noble person from a reality-based

knowledge, whereas to claim seeing him (sawa) in dream after his departure

by someone who at no time met with him -a fact which applies to everyone

late in time upon his demise (sawa)- this vision cannot be treated on equal

terms with the former in the eventual outcome that ensues thereby. It would

be just like any other vision, either true or false or merely some confused

dream.

Other boundaries of sound vision are: the precision of transfer or the integrity

of the visionary person, which are equally important for each and every type

of vision, and there is hardly any disagreement about that.

This whole thesis about dream-visions is presented by Al-Hafiz Ibn Ĥajar at

the bottom line of his explanation of the prophetic hadith: "whoever sees me

279

in a dream; it is as if he saw me in a state of wakefulness; for the

Shaitān cannot simulate me". He starts displaying the ongoing dispute

between scholars on this matter, hence says: "to reconcile between all what

is said on the matter, it appears to me that anyone who saw him with one

feature or more that characterise him, it means he truly saw him even if the

rest of features were inconsistent. Therefore the visions of people seeing him

may vary: some would see him with his whole physique, which is a truthful

vision requiring no oneiromancy, and which accords with his saying: "he

certainly must have seen the truth" [ EEEendnote: prophet's hadith: من رآني في المنام فقد

So, whatever can be missing of his features, interpretation will put it . [رأى الحق

together as needed, and this way it becomes feasible to generalise a

statement that anyone who sees him in any form, he must have truly seen

him."403

A relevant question was raised to Ibn Bāz for which he answered: whoever

sees him (sawa) with his common form known to many; it means he truly has

seen him, and this is part of Moslems beliefs. Below are the question and

answer quoted from the origin:

"Question: many of our scholars admit the possibility that we can see the

Messenger of Allah (saw-a) in our slumber, and it is his true self in the dream,

as devils cannot simulate the character of the Messenger (saw-a), is such a

belief polytheistic?

Answer: this saying is true, it is part of Moslems faith and it contains no

vestige of polytheism, because it has been verified that the prophet (saw-a)

said: "he who saw me in a dream, then surely he has seen me; for the

Shaitān cannot assume my physical likeness", (the hadith generally

accepted). This sound hadith demonstrates that he (saw-a) can be seen

during sleep, and whoever saw him with his common form, then no doubt he

has seen him, as the devil cannot assume his physical likeness. But that

does not necessarily entail he, the visionary, must be one of the rightly

guided, and it remains impermissible to count on his vision when it

403 Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī "Fatĥ Al-Bārī", verified and reviewed by: Abdul ʾAzīz Bin Bāz, books,

chapters and hadiths numbered by: Muhammad Fu'ād Abdul Bāqī, Dar al-Marifa, Beirut, 1379,

vol.12, 387.

280

contradicts what has been established of Sharia. Rather that which the

visionary have heard from the prophet (saw-a) of commands, prohibitions or

accounts and so forth of what might be heard or witnessed from the

Messenger (saw-a), should be put to the test by the Book and sound Sunnah,

so that what conforms to both or one of them would be accepted and what

clashes would be discarded."404

In point of fact, the accounts we will deliver which are vision-based opening

with the prophet (sawa) seen in a dream -majorly from Ibn Abbas who is

acquainted with the prophet's image- are generally acknowledged by the

different factions of Islam, whose contents comply with the above stated

conditions. This is best evidenced by the fact that they can be located in the

most important hadith books for Ahlul Sunnah faction. (To be elaborated

further)

Firstly: the Sanctity of Imam Hussein Blood

For Ahlul Sunnah Scholars

Many accounts illuminate this aspect, from which samples are selected

below:

1. What is given in "Musnad Imam Ahmed": "related to us Abdul Raĥmān,

related to us Ĥammād Bin Salamah from ʾAmmar Bin Abu ʾAmmar from Ibn

Abbas who said: I saw the prophet (saw-a) in a dream amid daytime, rough-

haired and coated in dust with a flask containing blood which he was

gathering in or tracking something inside it, I said: O Messenger of Allah,

what is this? He said: this is the blood of Al-Hussein and his companions

that I will continually track its trail from this day onward. ʾAmmar said:

we memorised the day to find out in the end he was killed on that day."405

404 Ibn Bāz, Bin Abdul ʾAzīz, "Majmūʾ Fatāwā wa Maqālāt Mutanawiʾah", compiled and

supervised by: Muhammad Bin Saʾīd As-Shuwaʾir, Dar al-Qasim, pub.1, 1420 A.H, vol.2, p.385.

405 Ibn Ĥanbal, Abu Abdullah Ahmed As-Shaibānī, "Musnad Al-Imam Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal",

supervised its review: Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt. Reviewed this volume, extracted its hadiths and

annotated: Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt et al, Mussasat al-Risala, pub.1, 1416 A.H - 1995 A.D, vol.4, p.59,

hadith no.2165, and p.336, hadith no.2553. What we cited above is the first hadith. As for the

second hadith, they both said about it: its chain of transmission is rigorous upon the condition of

281

The book reviewer said: "its chain of transmission is rigorous according to the

conditions of Muslim. Aţ-Ţabarānī and Al-Ĥākim extracted it from routes

traced to Ĥammād Bin Salamah with this chain of transmission. Al-Ĥākim

verified it upon the condition of Muslim, and Ad-Dhahabī coincided with

him."406

2. What is given in "Fađā'l Aś-Śaĥābah" for him too: "related to us Abdullah

who said: related to me my father: related to us Abdul Raĥmān, related to us

Ĥammād Bin Salamah, from ʾAmmar who is Ibn Abu ʾAmmār, from Ibn

Abbas who said: I saw the prophet (saw-a) in a dream amid daytime, rough-

haired and coated in dust with a flask containing blood which he was

gathering in or tracking something inside it, I said: O Messenger of Allah,

what is this? He said: this is the blood of Al-Hussein and his companions

that I will continually track its trail from this day onward. ʾAmmar said:

we memorised the day to find out in the end he was killed on that day (as)."407

The book reviewer, Waśiyullah Muhammad Abbas, annotated: "its chain of

transmission is authentic."

3. What is given in "Itĥāf Al-Khiyerah": "from ʾAmmar Bin Abu ʾAmmār, from

Ibn Abbas (p.b.u.them) who said: whilst asleep I saw in the course of dreams

the prophet (saw-a) standing upright amid daytime, rough-haired and coated

in dust with a flask containing blood. I said: O Messenger of Allah may my

parents be sacrificed for you, what is this? He said: this is the blood of Al-

Hussein and his companions that I will keep gathering from this day

Muslim. Let us consider this hadith and similar ones to compare with what we cited from Ibn Al-

ʾArabī in his book "Al-ʾAwāśim" which casts slurs on the companions of Imam Hussein (as).

406 Ibid: same source, p.60.

407 Ibn Ĥanbal, Abu Abdullah As-Shaibānī,"Fađā'l Aś-Śaĥābah", reviewed and hadith extracted

by: Waśiyullah Muhammad Abbas, Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, Saudi Arabia, pub.2, 1420 A.H -1999 A.D,

vol.2, p.977, hadith no.1380 & p.978, hadith no.1381, p.981, hadith no.1389, p.985, hadith no.1396.

282

onward. ʾAmmar said: we memorised that (day) to find out it was preceding

to that."408

Then Al-Buśairī, the author, annotated: "it is narrated by Abu Bakr Bin Abu

Shaibah, Ahmed Bin Ĥanbal, Ahmed Bin Manīʾ, Abd Bin Ĥamīd with an

authentic chain of transmission."

4. What is given in "Al-Bidāyah wan Nihāyah", whereby he said: "and

imam Ahmed said: ..." conveying the hadith we cited at first, then comments:

"its chain of transmission is rigorous."409

5. What is given in "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalah": "Ĥammād Bin Salamah, from

ʾAmmar Ibn Abu ʾAmmār, from Ibn Abbās who said: I saw the prophet (saw-

a) during sleep amid daytime rough-haired and coated in dust with a flask

containing blood, I said: O Messenger of Allah, what is this? He said: this is

the blood of Al-Hussein and his companions that I will keep gathering

from this day onward. When that day was calculated, they found out he was

killed on that exact day."410

Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt who extracted the book hadiths said: "extracted by Ahmed

and Aţ-Ţabarānī. Its chain of transmission is rigorous, as said by Al-Hafiz Ibn

Kathīr in "Al-Bidāyah", and it is so in "Tahdhīb" of Ibn ʾAsākir."

Secondly: The Sanctity of the Soil of Imam Hussein

For the Scholars of Ahlul Sunnah

This is equally elucidated by numerous accounts, from which we made these

selections:

408 Al-Buśairī, "Itĥāf Al-Khiyerah", reviewed by: Abu Abdul Raĥmān Bin Saʾad et al, Maktabat

al-Rashid, Riyadh, pub.1, 1419 A.H - 1998 A.D, p.318, hadith no.9054.

409 Ibn Kathīr, "Al-Bidāyah wan Nihāyah", ibid, vol.11, p.573.

410 Ad-Dhahabī, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalah", supervised its review and hadith extracted by:

Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt, reviewed this volume: Muhammad Naʾīm Al-ʾArqasūsī et al. Mussasat al-

Risala, pub.3, 1405 A.H - 1985 A.D, vol.3, p.315.

283

1. What is given in "Musnad Imam Ahmed": related to us by Wakīʾ: related

to me Abdullah Bin Saʾīd from his father, from Aisha or Um Salamah, that

Wakīʾ said: he doubted -referring to Abdullah Bin Saʾīd-xxxv that the prophet

(saw-a) said to either one: "entered unto my house an angel that had not

walked in here before, and said: 'this son of yours Hussein will be slain,

if you would like to, I will show you a specimen from the soil where he is

slain', he said: he took out a red soil."411

The book reviewers said: the hadith is ĥasan in its routes and its supporting

evidences."412

2. What is given in "Fađā'l Aś-Śaĥābah" for him too: "related to us Abdullah

saying: related to me my father saying: related to us Wakīʾ saying: related to

said: he doubted that the prophet (saw-a) said to either one: "entered untoال

my house an angel that had not walked in here before, and said: this

son of yours Hussein will be slain, if would like to, I will show you a

specimen from the soil where he is slain', he said: he took out for me a red

soil."413

The book reviewer, Waśiyullah Muhammad Abbas, annotated: "its chain of

transmission is authentic."

3. What is given in "Musnad Abu Yaʾlā Al-Mawślī": related to us Abu

Khathīmah, related to us Muhammad Bin ʾUbaid, reported to us Sharĥabīl Bin

Mudrik from Abdullah Bin Nujayy from his father: he was voyaging with Ali in

their destination to Śiffīn and he was in charge of the sanitary service. By the

time he (Imam Ali) was in near vicinity of Nineveh, he called: 'be patient O

Abu Abdullah, be patient O Abu Abdullah at the river of the Euphrates”,

I said: 'what is this call for: ‘O Abu Abdullah'? He said: I called on the prophet 411 Ibn Ĥanbal, "Musnad Imam Ahmed", reviewed this volume, annotated and extracted its

hadiths: Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt et al. Mussasat al-Risala, pub.1, 1412 A.H - 2001 A.D, vol.44, p.143,

hadith no.26524.

412 Ibid: same source, p.144. The book reviewers tend to reckon its chain of transmission as weak

because it is munqaţiʾ. Its reality will be unveiled in future researches.

413 Ibn Ĥanbal, "Fađā'l Aś-Śaĥābah", ibid, vol.2, pp.965-966, hadith no.1357.

284

(saw-a) one day and found his eyes overflowing with tears. I said: O prophet

of Allah, has anyone vexed you? What is the matter with your eyes to be filled

with tears? He said: 'no, but I have just been with Jibrā'īl before you

come, and he recounted to me that Al-Hussein will be slain at the

Euphrates river', and said: "would you rather I get you a portion from his

soil to smell?' I said: ‘Aye’. Then added: hence he stretched his hand and

grabbed a fistful of sand and gave it to me, so I could not help it, and my eyes

were filled with tears."414

The book reviewer, Hussein Salīm Asad, said: "its chain of transmission is

ĥasan [...] and it is extracted by Ahmed from the route of Muhammad Bin

ʾUbaid with this chain of transmission. It is also cited by Al-Haithamī in

"Majmaʾ Az-Zawā'id". Equally, he said: "it is related by Ahmed, Abu Yaʾlā

and Al-Bazzar; and its reporters are trustworthy."415

4. What is given in "Musnad Abu Yaʾlā Al-Mawśilī" as well: "related to us

Shaibān, related to us ʾImarah Bin Zadhān, related to us Thābit Al-Banānī,

from Anas Bin Mālik who said:

"The angel of rain asked the permission of his Lord to visit the prophet (saw-

a), which he was granted, and that was on the day of Um Salamahxxxvi. So the

prophet (saw-a) said to her: 'guard the door for us so that no one can make a

sudden entry'. He said: while she was at the door, Al-Hussein Bin Ali came

and forced his way opening the door and getting in, so the prophet began to

cuddle and kiss him. Hence the angel asked him: 'do you love him'? He said:

'aye'. He said: 'your Ummah will murder him, if you would like to, I will show

you the spot where they will have him slain. He said: 'aye'. So he grabbed a

fistful from there, showed it to him and it struck him immediately as granular

414 Abu Yaʾlā Al-Mawśilī, "Musnad Abu Yaʾlā", reviewed and hadith extracted by: Hussein

Salīm Asad, Dar al-Mamun for heritage, vol.1, p.298, hadith no.363.

415 Ibid: same source, vol.1, pp.298-299.

285

moist sand or as a red soil. Um Salamah took it to tuck into her dress. Thābit

said: we used to call it: Karbala."416

The book reviewer annotated: "its chain of transmission is good, as we

pointed out in hadith no.3398. Ibn Ĥabbān verified it under hadith number

2241, from the route of Al- Hassan Bin Sufiān, and Shaibān Bin Farrūkh

related it with this chain of transmission [...]"417

5. What is given in "Sahih Ibn Ĥabbān":

"Al-Hassan Bin Sufiān recounted to us saying: related to us Shaibān Bin

Farrūkh saying: related to us ʾImarah Bin Zadhān saying: related to us Thābit

from Anas Bin Mālik who said:

"The angel of rain asked the permission of his Lord to visit the prophet (saw-

a), which he was granted, and it was on the day of Um Salamah. So the

prophet (saw-a) said to her: 'guard the door for us so that no one can

make a sudden entry'. He said: while she was at the door, Al-Hussein Bin

Ali came and broke free from her outpacing and forcing his way. He opened

the door and entered, then he started to prance around the prophet's back,

and the prophet began to shower him with kisses. Hence, the angel asked

him: 'do you love him'? He said: 'aye'. He said: 'verily your Ummah will

murder him, if you would like to, I will show the spot where he is slain’. He

said: 'aye'. So he grabbed a fistful from there, showed it to him and handed it

over as granular moist sand or a red soil. Um Salamah took it to tuck into her

dress. Thābit said: we used to call it: Karbala."418

416 Ibid: same source. Damascus: Dar al-Thaqafa al-Arabia press, pub.2, 1412 A.H - 1992 A.D,

vol.6, p.129, hadith no.3402.

417 Ibid: same source, vol.6, p.130.

418 Ibn Balbān, ʾAlā' Al-Dīn Al-Fārisī, "Śahih Ibn Ĥabbān", reviewed, annotated and hadith

extracted: Shuʾaib Al-Rnā'ūt. Mussasat al-Risala, pub.2, 1414 A.H - 1993 A.D, vol.15, p.142,

hadith no.6742.

286

Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt, the book reviewer said: "it is a good hadith, its chain of

transmission is weak [...]", then he cited the sources and routes throughout

which he deemed it ĥasan.

6. What is given in "Majmaʾ Az-Zawā'id":

"From Anas Bin Mālik who said: the angel of rain asked the permission of [his

Lord] to come to the prophet (saw-a), which he was granted, so he said to

Um Salamah: 'watch over the door for us so that no one can make a

sudden entry'. He said: Al-Hussein Bin Ali came and she forbade him entry,

but he leapt through and made his way inside and started to mount on the

prophet's back, shoulders and neck (saw-a). Hence, the angel asked him: 'do

you love him'? He said: 'aye'. He said: ‘verily your Ummah will murder him, if

you want I will show you where he is slain'. He said: 'aye'. So he made a blow

with his hand to bring about a red lump of mud. Um Salamah took it to knot it

into her veil. Thābit said: we were informed it is Karbala."419

Al-Hafiz Al-Haithamī said: "it is narrated by Ahmed, Abu Yaʾlā, Al-Bazzāz and

Aţ-Ţabarānī with certain chains of transmission, which include ʾImārah Bin

Zadhān who is classified as reliable by some but deemed to have weakness

in some respects. And the rest of Abu Yaʾlā reporters [the fourth hadith in the

sequence we followed] are simultaneously the Sahih reporters."

Then he cites the third hadith in the sequence we followed under number

15112, saying: "narrated by Ahmed, Abu Yaʾlā, Al-Bazzāz and Aţ-Ţabarānī;

and its reporters are trustworthy. It has not been narrated by Najiyy alone."420

He also cites the first hadith in the sequence we followed under number

15113, then annotates: "narrated by Ahmed, and its reporters are

simultaneously those of the Sahih."421

7. What is given in "Tārikh Al-Islam and Wafiāt Al-Mashāhīr wal Aʾlām":

419 Al-Haithamī, Nūrul Dīn Bin Abu Bakr, "Majmaʾ Az-Zawā'id", reviewed by: Abdullah Ad-

Darwīsh, Dar al-Fikr, 1414 A.H - 1994 A.D, vol.9, p.300, hadith no.15111.

420 Ibid: same source, vol.9, p.301.

421 Ibid: same source, vol.9, p.301.

287

"Wakīʾ said: related to us Abdullah Bin Saʾīd from his father from Aisha or Um

Salamah, Abdullah doubted that the prophet (saw-a) said to her: "an angel

that had not set a foot here before called on me, and said: this son of

yours Hussein will be slain, if you would like to, I will show you

specimen from the soil where he is slain."422

Then he said: "narrated ‘like it’ (see glossary: Mithlihi) by Abdul Razzāq, from

Abdullah Bin Saʾīd Bin Abu Hind, but he said: it was narrated by Um

Salamah, with no doubt about her identity. Its chain of transmission is

authentic; narrated by Ahmed and the people."423

He cited it as well in his book "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā'"424

8. What is given in "Sahih Aj-Jāmiʾ Aś-Śaghiīr" this hadith: "Jibrā'īl came

and reported to me that my Ummah will kill this son of mine, denoting

Al-Hussein, and he brought me a red lump from his soil"425, and

commented: "it is authentic."

9. What is given in "Silsilat Al -Ahādīth" this hadith: "Jibrā'īl (as) came and

reported to me that my Ummah will kill this son of mine, denoting Al-

Hussein. I said: this one? He said: yes, and brought me a red lump from

his soil."

Then he said: "extracted by Al-Ĥākim, and from him extracted by Al-Baihaqī

in "Ad-Dalā'lil", from Muhammad Bin Muśʾab. Related to us by Al-Awzāʾī,

from Abu ʾAmmar Shaddād Bin Abullah, from Um Al-Faźl Bint Al-Ĥārith who

said: she called on the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) and said: O Messenger of

Allah, I saw a nuisance dream tonight", he said: what is it? She said: it is a

hard-hitting dream. He said: and what is it? She said: I saw as if part of your

422 Ad-Dhahabī, "Tārikh Al-Islam and Wafiāt Al-Mashāhīr wal Aʾlām", reviewed by: Umar

Abdul Salām Tadmurī, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut, pub.1, 1410 A.H - 1990 A.D, vol.5, pp.103-

104.

423 Ibid: same source, as above, p.104.

424 Ad-Dhahabī, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā", ibid, vol.3, p.290.

425 Al-Albānī, "Sahih Al-Jāmi' Aś-Śaghīr", al-Maktab al-Islami, pub.3, 1408 A.H - 1998 A.D,

vol.1, p.73, hadith no.61.

288

body was sliced and put into my lap. He said: what you saw is a good omen.

God Willing Fatimah will give birth for a baby boy and he will be in your lap,

hence truly Fatimah gave birth to Al-Hussein, and thereafter he ended into

my lap just as the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) said. One day I called on the

Messenger of Allah (saw-a) and put him on his lap, then suddenly turning my

face towards him, I saw his eyes flowing with tears. She said that I said: O

prophet of Allah, may my parents be sacrificed for you, what is the matter

with you?... 'then he cites it", that is, Al-Ĥākim cites the rest of the hadith at

issue.

Then he transfers what Ad-Dhahabī said that this hadith is munqaţiʾ and đaʾīf,

hence comments: "I say: but it has several supporting evidences which

corroborate its soundness [...]."426

10. What is given in "Silsilat Al-Aĥādīth" as well, whereby he cited the

hadith: "Jibrā'īl has just risen from my side before you came, and he

recounted to me that Al-Hussein will be slain at the Euphrates river."427

This is the third hadith in the sequence we followed, then he said commenting

on its sanad: "I say: this is a weak chain of transmission. Najiyy, the father of

Abdullah, is unknown in identity as Ad-Dhahabī said, and no one verified him

except Ibn Ĥabbān, and his son is more well-known than him, so whosoever

authenticates this chain of transmitters, he must be illusioned."428

But he comments on what Al-Haithamī said -given above- in respect of that

hadith and his statement: "its reporters are trustworthy" saying: I say: "it

means it has supporting evidences that enhance it, and it is truly so"429. Then

he began to show forth the routes until he took it up to six and said: "I said:

in sum the hadith given above whose transmitters’ biography included,

is sound from the side of these routes, even though certain parts of

426 Al-Albānī, "Silsilat Al -Aĥādīth", Maktabat al-Maarif, Riyadh, 1415 A.H - 1995 A.D, vol.2,

pp.464-465, hadith no.821.

427 Ibid: same source, as above, vol.3, p.159, hadith no.1171.

428 Ibid: same source.

429 Ibid: same source, p.160.

289

their contents have weakness; for it is a slight weakness, especially that

some of them were deemed good by Al-Haithamī."430

430 Ibid: same source, p.162.

290

Secondly: The Sanctity of the Soil of Imam Hussein

For the Scholars of Ahlul Sunnah

This is equally elucidated by numerous accounts, from which we made these

selections:

1. What is given in "Musnad Imam Ahmed": related to us by Wakīʾ: related

to me Abdullah Bin Saʾīd from his father, from Aisha or Um Salamah, that

Wakīʾ said: he doubted -referring to Abdullah Bin Saʾīd- (EEEEDEendnote:

meaning he was uncertain whether it were Aisha or Um Salamah), that the prophet

(saw-a) said to either one: "entered unto my house an angel that had not

walked in here before, and said: 'this son of yours Hussein will be slain,

if you would like to, I will show you a specimen from the soil where he is

slain', he said: he took out a red soil."431

The book reviewers said: the hadith is ĥasan in its routes and its supporting

evidences."432

2. What is given in "Fađā'l Aś-Śaĥābah" for him too: "related to us Abdullah

saying: related to me my father saying: related to us Wakīʾ saying: related to

me Abdullah Bin Saʾīd from his father, from Aisha or Um Salamah, that Wakīʾ

said: he doubted that the prophet (saw-a) said to either one: "entered unto

my house an angel that had not walked in here before, and said: this

son of yours Hussein will be slain, if would like to, I will show you a

specimen from the soil where he is slain', he said: he took out for me a red

soil."433

The book reviewer, Waśiyullah Muhammad Abbas, annotated: "its chain of

transmission is authentic."

431 Ibn Ĥanbal, "Musnad Imam Ahmed", reviewed this volume, annotated and extracted its

hadiths: Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt et al. Mussasat al-Risala, pub.1, 1412 A.H - 2001 A.D, vol.44, p.143,

hadith no.26524.

432 Ibid: same source, p.144. The book reviewers tend to reckon its chain of transmission as weak

because it is munqaţiʾ. Its reality will be unveiled in future researches.

433 Ibn Ĥanbal, "Fađā'l Aś-Śaĥābah", ibid, vol.2, pp.965-966, hadith no.1357.

291

3. What is given in "Musnad Abu Yaʾlā Al-Mawślī": related to us Abu

Khathīmah, related to us Muhammad Bin ʾUbaid, reported to us Sharĥabīl Bin

Mudrik from Abdullah Bin Nujayy from his father: he was voyaging with Ali in

their destination to Śiffīn and he was in charge of the sanitary service. By the

time he (Imam Ali) was in near vicinity of Nineveh, he called: 'be patient O

Abu Abdullah, be patient O Abu Abdullah at the river of the Euphrates”,

I said: 'what is this call for: ‘O Abu Abdullah'? He said: I called on the prophet

(saw-a) one day and found his eyes overflowing with tears. I said: O prophet

of Allah, has anyone vexed you? What is the matter with your eyes to be filled

with tears? He said: 'no, but I have just been with Jibrā'īl before you

come, and he recounted to me that Al-Hussein will be slain at the

Euphrates river', and said: "would you rather I get you a portion from his

soil to smell?' I said: ‘Aye’. Then added: hence he stretched his hand and

grabbed a fistful of sand and gave it to me, so I could not help it, and my eyes

were filled with tears."434

The book reviewer, Hussein Salīm Asad, said: "its chain of transmission is

ĥasan [...] and it is extracted by Ahmed from the route of Muhammad Bin

ʾUbaid with this chain of transmission. It is also cited by Al-Haithamī in

"Majmaʾ Az-Zawā'id". Equally, he said: "it is related by Ahmed, Abu Yaʾlā

and Al-Bazzar; and its reporters are trustworthy."435

4. What is given in "Musnad Abu Yaʾlā Al-Mawślī" as well: "related to us

Shaibān, related to us ʾImarah Bin Zadhān, related to us Thābit Al-Banānī,

from Anas Bin Mālik who said:

"The angel of rain asked the permission of his Lord to visit the prophet (saw-

a), which he was granted, and that was on the day of Um Salamah (endnote:

her turn to have the prophet (saw-a) at her house). So the prophet (saw-a) said to her:

'guard the door for us so that no one can make a sudden entry'. He said:

while she was at the door, Al-Hussein Bin Ali came and forced his way

434 Abu Yaʾlā Al-Mawśilī, "Musnad Abu Yaʾlā", reviewed and hadith extracted by: Hussein

Salīm Asad, Dar al-Mamun for heritage, vol.1, p.298, hadith no.363.

435 Ibid: same source, vol.1, pp.298-299.

292

opening the door and getting in, so the prophet began to cuddle and kiss him.

Hence the angel asked him: 'do you love him'? He said: 'aye'. He said: 'your

Ummah will murder him, if you would like to, I will show you the spot where

they will have him slain. He said: 'aye'. So he grabbed a fistful from there,

showed it to him and it struck him immediately as granular moist sand or as a

red soil. Um Salamah took it to tuck into her dress. Thābit said: we used to

call it: Karbala."436

The book reviewer annotated: "its chain of transmission is good, as we

pointed out in hadith no.3398. Ibn Ĥabbān verified it under hadith number

2241 from the route of Al- Hassan Bin Sufiān, and Shaibān Bin Farrūkh

related it with this chain of transmission [...]"437

5. What is given in "Sahih Ibn Ĥabbān":

"Al-Hassan Bin Sufiān recounted to us saying: related to us Shaibān Bin

Farrūkh saying: related to us ʾImarah Bin Zadhān saying: related to us Thābit

from Anas Bin Mālik who said:

"The angel of rain asked the permission of his Lord to visit the prophet (saw-

a), which he was granted, and it was on the day of Um Salamah. So the

prophet (saw-a) said to her: 'guard the door for us so that no one can

make a sudden entry'. He said: while she was at the door, Al-Hussein Bin

Ali came and broke free from her outpacing and forcing his way. He opened

the door and entered, then he started to prance around the prophet's back,

and the prophet began to shower him with kisses. Hence, the angel asked

him: 'do you love him'? He said: 'aye'. He said: 'verily your Ummah will

murder him, if you would like to, I will show the spot where he is slain’. He

said: 'aye'. So he grabbed a fistful from there, showed it to him and handed it

436 Ibid: same source, Dar al-Thaqafa al-Arabia press, pub.2, 1412 A.H - 1992 A.D, Vol.6, p.129,

hadith no.3402.

437 Ibid: same source, vol.6, p.130.

293

over as granular moist sand or a red soil. Um Salamah took it to tuck into her

dress. Thābit said: we used to call it: Karbala."438

Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt, the book reviewer said: "it is a good hadith, its chain of

transmission is weak [...]", then he cited the sources and routes throughout

which he deemed it ĥasan.

6. What is given in "Majmaʾ Az-Zawā'id":

"From Anas Bin Mālik who said: the angel of rain asked the permission of [his

Lord] to come to the prophet (saw-a), which he was granted, so he said to

Um Salamah: 'watch over the door for us so that no one can make a

sudden entry'. He said: Al-Hussein Bin Ali came and she forbade him entry,

but he leapt through and made his way inside and started to mount on the

prophet's back, shoulders and neck (saw-a). Hence, the angel asked him: 'do

you love him'? He said: 'aye'. He said: ‘verily your Ummah will murder him, if

you want I will show you where he is slain'. He said: 'aye'. So he made a blow

with his hand to bring about a red lump of mud. Um Salamah took it to knot it

into her veil. Thābit said: we were informed it is Karbala."439

Al-Hafiz Al-Haithamī said: "it is narrated by Ahmed, Abu Yaʾlā, Al-Bazzāz and

Aţ-Ţabarānī with certain chains of transmission, which include ʾImārah Bin

Zadhān who is classified as reliable by some but deemed to have weakness

in some respects. And the rest of Abu Yaʾlā reporters [the fourth hadith in the

sequence we followed] are simultaneously the Sahih reporters."

Then he cites the third hadith in the sequence we followed under number

15112, saying: "narrated by Ahmed, Abu Yaʾlā, Al-Bazzāz and Aţ-Ţabarānī;

and its reporters are trustworthy. It has not been narrated by Najiyy alone."440

438 Ibn Balbān, ʾAlā' Al-Dīn Al-Fārisī, "Śahih Ibn Ĥabbān", reviewed, annotated and hadith

extracted: Shuʾaib Al-Rnā'ūt. Mussasat al-Risala, pub.2, 1414 A.H - 1993 A.D, vol.15, p.142,

hadith no.6742.

439 Al-Haithamī, Nūrul Dīn Bin Abu Bakr, "Majmaʾ Az-Zawā'id", reviewed by: Abdullah Ad-

Darwīsh, Dar al-Fikr, 1414 A.H - 1994 A.D, vol.9, p.300, hadith no.15111.

440 Ibid: same source, vol.9, p.301.

294

He also cites the first hadith in the sequence we followed under number

15113, then annotates: "narrated by Ahmed, and its reporters are

simultaneously those of the Sahih."441

7. What is given in "Tārikh Al-Islam and Wafiāt Al-Mashāhīr wal Aʾlām":

"Wakīʾ said: related to us Abdullah Bin Saʾīd from his father from Aisha or Um

Salamah, Abdullah doubted that the prophet (saw-a) said to her: "an angel

that had not set a foot here before called on me, and said: this son of

yours Hussein will be slain, if you would like to, I will show you

specimen from the soil where he is slain."442

Then he said: "narrated ‘like it’ (see glossary) by Abdul Razzāq, from Abdullah

Bin Saʾīd Bin Abu Hind, but he said: it was narrated by Um Salamah, with no

doubt about her identity. Its chain of transmission is authentic; narrated by

Ahmed and the people."443

He cited it as well in his book "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā.'"444

8. What is given in "Sahih Aj-Jāmiʾ Aś-Śaghiīr" this hadith: "Jibrā'īl came

and reported to me that my Ummah will kill this son of mine, denoting

Al-Hussein, and he brought me a red lump from his soil"445, and

commented: "it is authentic."

9. What is given in "Silsilat Al -Ahādīth" this hadith: "Jibrā'īl (as) came and

reported to me that my Ummah will kill this son of mine, denoting Al-

Hussein. I said: this one? He said: yes, and brought me a red lump from

his soil."

441 Ibid: same source, vol.9, p.301.

442 Ad-Dhahabī, "Tārikh Al-Islam and Wafiāt Al-Mashāhīr wal Aʾlām", reviewed by: Umar

Abdul Salām Tadmurī, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut, pub.1, 1410 A.H - 1990 A.D, vol.5, pp.103-

104.

443 Ibid: same source, as above, p.104.

444 Ad-Dhahabī, "Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā", ibid, vol.3, p.290.

445 Al-Albānī, "Sahih Al-Jāmi' Aś-Śaghīr", al-Maktab al-Islami, pub.3, 1408 A.H - 1998 A.D,

vol.1, p.73, hadith no.61.

295

Then he said: "extracted by Al-Ĥākim, and from him extracted by Al-Baihaqī

in "Ad-Dalā'lil", from Muhammad Bin Muśʾab. Related to us by Al-Awzāʾī,

from Abu ʾAmmar Shaddād Bin Abullah, from Um Al-Faźl Bint Al-Ĥārith who

said: she called on the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) and said: O Messenger of

Allah, I saw a nuisance dream tonight", he said: what is it? She said: it is a

hard-hitting dream. He said: and what is it? She said: I saw as if part of your

body was sliced and put into my lap. He said: what you saw is a good omen.

God Willing Fatimah will give birth for a baby boy and he will be in your lap,

hence truly Fatimah gave birth to Al-Hussein, and thereafter he ended into

my lap just as the Messenger of Allah (saw-a) said. One day I called on the

Messenger of Allah (saw-a) and put him on his lap, then suddenly turning my

face towards him, I saw his eyes flowing with tears. She said that I said: O

prophet of Allah, may my parents be sacrificed for you, what is the matter

with you?... 'then he cites it", that is, Al-Ĥākim cites the rest of the hadith at

issue.

Then he transfers what Ad-Dhahabī said that this hadith is broken and weak,

hence comments: "I say: but it has several supporting evidences which

corroborate its soundness [...]."446

10. What is given in "Silsilat Al-Aĥādīth" as well, whereby he cited the

hadith: "Jibrā'īl has just risen from my side before you came, and he

recounted to me that Al-Hussein will be slain at the Euphrates river."447

This is the third hadith in the sequence we followed, then he said commenting

on its sanad: "I say: this is a weak chain of transmission. Najiyy, the father of

Abdullah, is unknown in identity as Ad-Dhahabī said, and no one verified him

except Ibn Ĥabbān, and his son is more well-known than him, so whosoever

authenticates this chain of transmitters, he must be illusioned."448

446 Al-Albānī, "Silsilat Al -Aĥādīth", Maktabat al-Maarif, Riyadh, 1415 A.H - 1995 A.D, vol.2,

pp.464-465, hadith no.821.

447 Ibid: same source, as above, vol.3, p.159, hadith no.1171.

448 Ibid: same source.

296

But he comments on what Al-Haithamī said -given above- in respect of that

hadith and his statement: "its reporters are trustworthy" saying: I say: "it

means it has supporting evidences that enhance it, and it is truly so"449. Then

he began to show forth the routes until he took it up to six and said: "I said:

in sum the hadith given above whose transmitters’ biography included,

is sound from the side of these routes, even though certain parts of

their contents have weakness; for it is a slight weakness, especially that

some of them were deemed good by Al-Haithamī."450

Summary

We have not cited all the references that mark out the sanctity of Karbala soil

on purpose, that is, to put some excerpts for viewing to evince this truth

rather than doing a comprehensive survey of the respective references. From

the sum of these excerpts, it appears that the accounts certifying the sanctity

of the soil, where the grandchild of the Messenger of Allah is slain, have

reached a level of complete authenticity and they are widely circulated.

Ibn Ĥazm in his book "Al-Muĥalla" opined that it is not made obligatory upon

us to buy water for utilities like ablution or wash, such that it is impermissible

to use this water when purchased, inferring this conclusion from an injunction

by the prophet (sawa) which forbids water selling. After citing four narrations

in this respect from four companions, he says: "there we have four

companions, entailing that it is hadith with tawātir (reached complete

authenticity), and thus we cannot contravene it."451

I say on my part, if what Ibn Ĥazm propounds that with four transfers from

four companions, the hadith is rendered mutawātir, (which I disagree with: details

coming on due time in our researches in the Fundamentals of Jurisprudence), so how

about the narrations handed down on our topic, mostly from Imam Ali, Imam

Hussein, Ibn Abbas, Anas Bin Mālik, Um Salamah, Aisha, Um Al-Faźl, and

449 Ibid: same source, p.160.

450 Ibid: same source, p.162.

451 Ibn Ĥazm, Abu Muhammed Bin Saʾīd, “Al-Muĥallā”, reviewed by: Ahmed Shākir, proofreading

and publishing: al-Muniriya Press administered by Munīr Ad-Dimishqī, 1348 A.H, vol.2, p.135,

problem: 241.

297

others, to the degree that Ad-Dhahabī said describing some of the hadith

routes: "it was narrated by Ahmed and the people." (See the seventh hadith

above)

Anyhow, we should rather focus on the import of these narrations and the

particularities subsumed for the blood soil of the grandchild of the prophet

(as), which we put in points:

Point One: the blood soil was brought by Jibrā'īl (as)

Point Two: the Messenger of Allah (sawa) cried bitterly (his eyes overflew

with tears or were all tearful or he could not help not to cry) when he was

brought the soil (a practical Sunnah which legitimises crying).

Point Three: the soil was transformed red upon his murder.

Point Four: the prophet (sawa) ‟expressed his willingness to see that soil

and smelled it”, and this is an authentic Sunnah practice.

Point Five: Um Salamah had that piece of soil in her possession and tucked

it into her dress or veil, doing that before the eyes of the Messenger of Allah

(sawa), so this is an explicit approval from his side (sawa).452

452 Narrated by a sound prophetic hadith:

Related to us Ibrahim Bin Al-Mundhir, related to us Anas Bin ʾIyāđ, from Ubaidullah from Nāfiʾ

that Abdullah Bin Umar told him: people boarded the land of Thamūd, Al-Ĥajar Valley, with the

company of Messenger of Allah (sawa). They had water drawn from its well, with which they

kneaded their flour, but the prophet (sawa) ordered them to spill that water and feed the dough to

their cattle, whereas he directed them to draw water from the well devoted to the camel” (“Sahih

Al-Bukhārī”, ibid, Book: “Aĥādīth Al-Anbiā’”, Chapter: Allah’s saying: {and to the people

Thamūd (We sent) their brother Śāliĥ}, p.648, hadith no. 3379).

It is obvious that the forbiddance of the Messenger from exploiting the first well water, and the

order to feed the dough to their cattle, and instead use the water of the second well, devoted to the

camel (the camel being the proof of Allah and his sighted sign according to the Qur’anic

expression) indicates clearly to the special value of the camel water, despite the distant past it dates

back to, and the desperate need of Moslems to this water, who were in the Battle of Tabūk which

was called the Battle of Difficulty for the hardships experienced by Moslems, {and those who

followed him in the hour of hardship} (At-Tawbah: 117).

In comment: if this were the state of a well-water from which a camel drank, how about a soil

saturated with Al-Hussein blood, the master of the youth of Paradise? Will the act of drawing

blessings form this soil and seeing it as sanctified be uncommon eccentric?

298

References

English Translation

1. Al-Aʾinī, Abu Muhammad Badrul Dīn Maĥmῡd Bin Ahmed Al-Ĥanafī, ‟ʾUmdat Al-Qārī Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī” - ‟The Mainstay of the Reader in the Explanation of the Canonical hadith Book of Al-Bukhārī ", reviewed by: Abdullah Mahmῡd Muhammad Umar, Ali Beiđῡn publications and Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, Pub.1, 1421 A.H- 2001 A.D.

2. Al-ʾAlāilī, Abdullah, "Al-Imam Al-Hussein" (episode 1: The Loftiness of Meaning in a

Lofty Ego, or A Ray from the Life of Al-Hussein", Dar Maktabat al-Tarbiya, Beirut, new

edition, 1986 A.D.

3. Al-ʾAlawī, Muhammad Bin ʾAqīl Al-Hussainī Al-Ĥađramī, "Al-ʾAtab Al-Jamīl ʾalā Ahlul

Jarĥ wat Taʾdīl" – ‟A Friendly Reproach for the People of Aspersion and

Acclamation”, compiled and annotated by: Śālih Al-Wardānī, Al-Hadaf for Media and

publication.

4. Al-Albānī, Muhammad Nāsirul Dīn, ‟Silisilat Al-Aĥādith Aś-Śaĥīĥah wa Shai’ min

Fiqhahā waf Fawā’idihā” – ‟The Series of Authentic Hadiths with a Segment from

their Jurisprudence and Benefits (intact and unimpaired hadith)”, Maktabat al-Maarif for

publication and distribution, Riyadh, 1415 A.H - 1995 A.D.

5. Al-Albānī, "Sahih Al-Adab Al-Mufrad & annexed by: Đaʾīf Al-Adab Al-Mufrad" (the book: "Al-Adab Al-Mufrad" originally by Al-Bukhārī) – ‟The Authentic Idiocyncratic Literature” vs. ‟The Weak Idiocyncratic Literature”, Mussasat al-Rayyan & Dar al-Dalil El-Athariya , Saudi Arabia, pub.4, 1428 A.H.

6. Al-Albānī, "Sahih Al-Jāmiʾ Aś-Śaghīr wa Ziyādātih" – ‟The Authentic of the Minor Compiler and its Appendices (The Big Victory)”, al-Maktab al-Islami, Beirut, pub.3, 1408 A.H- 1988 A.D.

7. Al-Albānī, Muhammad Nāśirul Dīn,"Sahih Sunan Ibn Mājeh" – ‟Sahih Sunan Ibn Mājeh: The Canonical Hadith Collection of Sunnan Ibn Mājeh (one of the canonical

hadith books)”, Makatabat al-Maarif for publishing and distribution, Riyadh, 1st edition of the new imprint, 1417 A.H - 1997 A.D.

299

8. Al-Albānī, Muhammad Nāśirul Dīn, ‟Sahih Sunan An-Nasā'ī” – ‟Sahih Sunan An-

Nasā’ī: The Canonical Hadith Collection of Sunnan An-Nasā’ī (one of the canonical

hadith books)”, Maktabat al-Maarif for publishing and distribution, Riyadh, pub.1 of the new

edition, 1419 A.H – 1998 A.D.

9. Al-Albānī, Muhammad Nāśirul Dīn, "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Sunan At-Tirmdhī" - ‟The Authentic and Weak of Sunan At-Tirmidhī”, Maktabat Al-Maarif for publishing and distribution, Riyadh, 2nd imprint of the new edition, 1422 A.H - 2002 A.D.

10. Al-Albānī, Mohammed Nāsīrul Dīn ‟Đaʾīf Sunan At-Tirmidhī” - ‟The Weak of Sunan At-Tirmidhī (Sunan At-Tirmidhī: one of the six hadith canonical books)”, Maktabat al-Maarif for publishing and distribution, Riyadh, 1st edition of the new impression, 1420 A.H - 2000 A.D.

11. Al-Ālūsī, Abu At-Thanā' Al-Husseinī Al-Baghdadī, "Rūĥ Al-Maʾānī fī Tafsīr Al-Qur'an

Al-‘Ažīm wa Sabʾ Al-Mathānī" – ‟The Essence of Meanings in the Exegesis of the

Exalted Quran and the Sabʾ Al-Mathānīxxxvii”, Dar Ihia al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut.

12. Al-Ālūsī, Abu At-Thanā' Al-Husseinī Al-Baghdādī, "Rūĥ Al-Maʾānī" – ‟The Essence of Meanings in the Exegesis of the Exalted Quran and the Sabʾ Al-Mathānī”, reviewed by: Ali Aţţiyah, Dar Al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, pub.1, 1415 A.H.

13. Abdul Khāliq, Abdul Ghanī, ‟Ĥujjiyat As-Sunnah” - ‟The Sunnah: An Authoritative Proof”, the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Washington, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1407 A.H.

14. Al-Bukhārī, "Al-Jāmi' As-Sahih" – ‟The Canonical Hadith Compiler”, explained and reviewed by: Muhibul Dīn Al-Khaţīb, volumes, parts and hadiths collected by: Mohammed Fu'ād Abdul Bāqī, published, revised, edited and supervised the printing: Quśai Muĥibul Dīn Al- Khaţīb, Maktaba as-Salafiya, Cairo, pub.1, 1400 A.H.

15. Al-Bhukhārī, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Ismail, ‟Al-Jāmiʾ Al-Musnad As-Sahih Al-Mukhtaṡar” – ‟The Abridged Collection of the Authentic Traceable Chain of Hadith on Matters Concerning the Apostle of Allah (sawa); his Sunnah and Days” reviewed by Muhammad Bin Zuhair Bin Nāṡir An-Nāṡir, Dar Tawk al-Najat, Beirut: pub.1, 1422 A.H.

300

16. Al-Bukhārī, "Sahih Al-Bukhārī" – ‟Sahih Al-Bukhārī: The Canonical Hadith

Collection of Al-Bukhārī (one of the six canonical hadith books), edited by: Abu Śuhaib Al-

Karmī, Bayt al-Afkar Adawliya publishing house, Beirut, 1419 A.H - 1998 A.D.

17. Abu Al-Fidā', ʾImādul Dīn Bin Ali, "Al-Mukhtaśar fī Tārikh Al-Bashar" – ‟Concise

History of Humanity”, reviewed by: Muhammad Zeinhum et al. Dar al-Maarif, Cairo,

vol.1, hadith no. [Dropped]

18. Abu Rayyah, Mahmῡd, ‟Ađwā’ ʾalā As-Sunnah Al-Muhammadiyyah” - ‟Lights on

the Mohammadan Sunnah”, 5th pub. offset: the Egyptian copy.

19. Al-Buśairī, Ahmed Bin Abu Bakr Bin Ismāʾīl, "Itĥāf Al-Khiyerah Al-Maharah bi

Zawā'id Al-Masānīd Al-ʾAsharah" – ‟Honouring the Adept Good-Doers with the

Appendices of the Ten Musnad Books”, reviewed by: Abu Abdul Raĥmān ʾĀdil Bin

Saʾīd etal, Maktabat al-Rushd, Riyadh, pub.1, 1419 A.H -1998 A.D.

20. Abu Shaibah Al-ʾAbsī Al-Kufi, Abu Bakr Abdullah Bin Muhammad (159-235), "Al-Muśannaf" - "A Compilation”, reviewed, rectified and hadiths extracted by: Muhammad ʾAwwāmah, Dar al-Qiblah.

21. Abu Zahra, Muhammad, "Imam Aś-Śādiq: Ĥayātuh wa ʾAṡruh: Āra’uh wa Fiqhuh” -

"Imam Aś-Śādiq: his Biography and Epoch: his Views and Jurisprudence", Dar al-

Fikr Al-Arabi.

22. Abu Yaʾla Al-Farrā' Al-Baghdādī Al-Ĥanbalī, Al-Qāđī Abu Al-Hussain Muhammad Bin Abu Yaʾl, "Tabaqāt Al-Ĥanābilah" – ‟Biographical Layers of the Ĥanbalis”, reviewed and introduced by: Abdul Raĥmān Bin Sulaimān Al-ʾUthaimīn, Riyadh, 1419 A.H – 1999 A.D.

23. Abu Yaʾla Al-Mawṡilī, Ahmed Bin Ali Bin Al-Muthannā At-Timīmī, ‟Musnad Abu Yaʾla

Al-Mawṡilī” – ‟The Collection of Abu Yaʾla Al-Mawṡilī of Authentic Hadiths with their

Sanad”, Damascus: Dar al-Thaqafa al-Arabia press, pub.2, 1412 A.H - 1992 A.D.

24. Abu Yaʾla Al-Mawṡilī, Ahmed Bin Ali Bin Al-Muthannā At-Timīmī, ‟Musnad Abu Yaʾla Al-Mawṡilī” – ‟The Collection of Abu Yaʾla Al-Mawṡilī of Authentic Hadiths with their Sanad”, reviewed and hadiths extracted by: Hussein Salīm Asad, Dar al-Mamun for Heritage, Beirut.

301

25. Ad-Dār Quƫnī ‟Mawsῡʾat Aqwāl Ad-Dār Quƫnī” – ‟Encyclopaedia of Ad-Dār Quƫnī

Statments”, complied and collated by: Muhammad Mahdi Al-Muslimī et al, Alam al-Kotob

for publishing, Beirut, pub.1, 1422 A.H – 2001 A.D.

26. Ad-Dhahabī, Abu Abdullah Shamsul Dīn Mohammed Bin Ahmed, "Tārikh Al-Islam wa

Wafiāt Al-Mashāhīr wal Al-Aʾlām" – ‟The History of Islam with pertinence to Deaths

of Famous Persons and Prominent Figures”, reviewed by: Abdul Salām Tadmurī, Dar

Al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut, pub.1, 1410 A.H - 1990 A.D.

27. Ad-Dhahabī, Abu Abdullah Shamsul Dīn Mohammed Bin Ahmed, "Tadhkirat Al-

Ĥuffāź" – ‟The Memorial of Hadith Memorisers”, Dar Al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, pub.1,

1419 A.H -1998 A.D.

28. Ad-Dhahabī, Abu Abdullah Shamsul Dīn Muhammad Bin Ahmed, ‟Siyer Aʾlām An-Nubalā’” - ‟Biographies of High-rank Personalities, reviewed by: co-reviewers under supervision of: Shuʾaib Al-Arna’ῡƫ, Mussasat al-Risala, vol.3, 1405 A.H - 1985 A.D.

29. Ad-Dhahabī, Abu Abdullah Shamsul Dīn Mohammed Bin Ahmed, ‟Al-Kāshif fī Maʾrifat man lahu Riwāyah fī Al-Kutub As-Sittah” - ‟A Projector on Narrators Included in the Six Canonical Hadith Collections”, reviewed by: Farīd Abdul ʾAziz, Dar al-Hadith, Cairo, 1429 A.H – 2008 A.D.

30. Ad-Dhahabī, Abu Abdullah Shamsul Dīn Mohammed Bin Ahmed, "Al-Kāshif fī

Maʾrifat man lahū Riwāyah fī Al-Kutub As-Sittah" - ‟A Projector on Narrators

Included in the Six Canonical Hadith Collections”, Dar Al-Qibla for Islamic culture &

Muassasat Ilum Al-Qur'an, Jeddah, reviewed by: Muhammad ʾAwwamah et al, pub.1,

1413 AH - 1992 AD.

31. Ad-Dhahabī, Shamsul Dīn Mohammed Ahmed Bin Uthman, ‟Al-Kāshif fī Maʾrifat

man lahū Riwāyah fī Al-Kutub As-Sittah” - ‟A Projector on Narrators Included in the

Six Canonical Hadith Collections”, Mussasat al-Risala, supervised the book the review

and hadith extraction: Shuʾaib Al-Arnā’ūţ, reviewed by: Akram Al-Būshī, pub.1, 1403-

1983.

33. Ad-Dhahabī, Shamsul Dīn Abu Abdullah Mohammed Bin Ahmed Bin Uthman, ‟Mīzān Al-Iʾitidāl fī Naqd Ar-Rijāl” – ‟The Scale of Moderation in the Criticism of (Biographeis of) Hadith Narrators”, reviewed by: Ali Muhammad Al-Bajāwī, Dar al-Marifah, Beirut, pub.1, 1382 A.H - 1963 A.D.

302

34. Al-Fārisī, ʾAla’ul Dīn Ali Bin Balbān, ‟Sahih Ibn Ĥabbān bi Taqrīb Ibn Balbān” –

‟Sahih Ibn Ĥabban Made Approachable by Ibn Balbān”, reviewed, annotated and the

hadiths extracted by: Shuʾaib Al-Arna’ūt, Mussasat al-Risala.

35. Al-Ghazālī, Muhammad Bin Muhammad, ‟Al-Mustaśfa fī Iśῡl Al-Fiqh” – ‟The

Extracted In the Science of the Foundation of jurisprudence”, reviewed by Hamzah

Bin Zuhair Hāfiz, Al-Madinah press, Jeddah, 1413 A.H, vol. 2, p. 450.

36. Al-Haithamī, Nūrul Dīn Ali Bin Abu Bakr, "Majmaʾ Az-Zawā'id wa Manbaʾ Al-

Fawā’id" ‟An Anthology of the Appendices (compilation of extracted hadith from earlier

compilations) and A Source of Benefits (of intact and unimpaired hadith)”, reviewed by:

Abdullah Muhammad Ad-Darwīsh, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1412 A.H. & 1414 A.H.

37. Al-Hākim An-Naisābūrī, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad (Ibn

Al-Bayyiʾ), "Al-Mustadrak ʾalā Aś-Śaĥiĥain" – ‟The Retrieved from the Two Canonical

Hadith Collections”, appended by: "At-Talkhīś" – ‟The Abridgement” Dar Al-Marifa,

Beirut, 1418 A.H, photocopied from the Indian imprint.

38. Al-Ĥākim A-Naisābūrī, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad, "Al-

Mustadrak ʾala Aś-Śaĥīĥain" - ‟The Retrieved from the Two Canonical Hadith

Collections”, the edition appended with Ad-Dhahabī critical notes, at the bottom "Tatabuʾ

Awhām Al-Ĥākim” - ‟Dtecting the Illusions of Al-Ĥākim” for Abdul Raĥmān Bin Muqbil

Bin Hādī Al- Wadiʾī, Dar al-Haramain bookshop for publishing and distribution, Cairo,

pub.1, 1417 A.H – 1997 A.D.

39. Al-Ĥākim, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad, "Mustadrak ʾala

Aś-Śaĥīĥain" - ‟The Retrieved from the Two Canonical Hadith Collections”, Dar al-

Kotob al-Ilmiya, reviewed by: Mustafa Abdul Q

ādir Aƫƫa, pub.1, 1411A.H - 1990 A.D.

40. Al-Ĥumairī, Abu Al-Hassan Ali Bin Muhammad Bin Hārūn Bin Ziyād, ‟Juzu’ Ali Bin Muhammad Al-Ĥumairī” - ‟The Part Concerning Ali Bin Muhammad Al-Ĥumairī”, reviewed, studied and extracted by: Abdul ʾAziz Bin Sulaimān Bin Ibrahim Al-Buʾaimī, Maktabat al-Rushd, Riyadh, pub.1, 1418 A.H.

41. Ibn Abu Al-Ĥadīd Al-Madā'inī, Abu Ĥāmid ʾIzzil Dīn Abdul Ĥamīd Bin Hibahtullah, "Sharĥ Nahj Al-Balaghah" – ‟Interpretaion of the Path of Eloquence”, reviewed by: Muhammad Abu Al-Fađl Ibrahim, Dar Ihia Al-Kotob Al-Arabiya, pub.1, 1379 A.H -1959 A.D.

303

42. Ibn Abu Ĥātem Ar-Rāzī ‟Al-Jarĥ wa Taʾdīl” – ‟Aspersion and Acclamation”, Dar Ihia al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, pub.1, 1952 A.D.

43. Ibn Abdul Barr, Abu Umar Yūsuf Bin Muhammed, "Al-Istīʾāb fī Maʾrifat Al-Aśĥāb" –

‟Exhaustive Knowledge on the Companions”, reviewed by: Ali Albijāwī, Dar al-Jil,

Beirut, pub.1, 1412 A.H.

44. Ibn Abdul Al-Barr, ‟Jāmiʾ Biān Al-ʾIlm wa Fađluh”- ‟A Compendium of the Virtues

Knowledge”, reviewed by Abu Al-Ashbāl Az-Zuhairī.

45. Ibn Abd Rabbah, Abu Umar Ahmed Bin Muhammad Al-Andalusī, "Al-ʾAqd Al-Farīd" –

‟The Unique Necklace”, reviewed by: Abdul ʾAziz At-Tarĥīnī, Dar Al-Kotob al-Ilmiya,

Beirut, pub.1, 1404 A.H -1983 A.D.

46. Ibn Al-Arabī, Muhammad Bin Abdullah Al-Muʾāfirī Al-Mālikī, "Al-ʾAwāśim min Al-Qawāśim fī Taĥqīq Mawāqif Aś-Śahābah baʾda Wafāt An-Nabī " - "A Defence against Disasters: Investigating the Companions Attitudes upon the Prophet’s Demise”, introduced and annotated by: Muĥīyul Dīn Al-Khaţīb, Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowment and Guidance, Saudi Arabia, pub.1, 1419 A.H.

47. Ibn ʾAsākir, Abu Al-Qāsim Ali Bin Al-Hassan,"Tārikh Dimashq” – ‟The History of Damascus", reviewed by: Umar Al-ʾUmrawī, Dar Al-Fikr, Beirut, 1415 A.H - 1995 A.D.

48. Ibn Al-Athīr, Abu Al-Hassan ʾIzzil Dīn Al-Jarzī, "Al-Kāmil fī At-Tārikh" – ‟The Complete History”, reviewed by Abdullah Al-Qādhī, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilimiya, Beirut, pub.1, 1407 A.H- 1987 A.D.

49. Ibn Bābawaih Al-Qummī, Abu Jaʾafar Mohammed Bin Ali Bin Al-Hussein, "ʾUyūn Akhbār Ar-Riđā" – ‟Sources of Ar-Riđa Traditions”, authenticated, introduced and annotated by: Hussein Al-Aʾlamī, Mussasat Al-Aʾlamī for publication, Beirut, pub.1, 1404 A.H -1984 A.D.

50. Ibn Baţţāl, Abu Al-Hassan Bin Abdul Melik, "Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī" – ‟Explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhārī”, proofreading and annotation: Abu Tamīm Bin Ibrahim, Maktabat al-Rashid, Riyadh, [dropped from record]

304

51. Ibn Bāz, Abdul ʾAzīz Bin Abdul ʾAzīz, "Majmūʾ Fatāwā wa Maqālāt Mutanawiʾah" – ‟Collection of Juristic verdicts and Miscellaneous Essays” -, compiled and supervised by: Muhammad Bin Saʾīd As-Shuwaʾir, Dar al-Qasim, pub.1, 1420 A.H.

52. Ibn Bāz, Abdul ʾAzīz Bin Abdul ʾAzīz,"Majmūʾ Fatāwā wa Maqālāt Mutanawiʾah" - ‟Collection of Juristic verdicts and Miscellaneous Essays”, edited and hadiths extracted by: ʾĀmir Al-Jazzar et al, Dar al-Wafa, pub.5, 1426 A.H-2005 A.D.

53. Ibn Ĥabbān Muhammed Bin Ĥabbān Bin Ahmed At-Timīmī, Sahih Ibn Ĥabbān: Tartīb

Ibn Balbān bi Tartīb Ibn Balbān” - "Sahih Ibn Ĥabbān: according to Ibn Balbān

Order”, reviewed by: Shuʾaib Al-Arnā'ūt, Mussasat al-Risala, pub.2, 1414 A.H - 1993 A.D.

54. Ibn Ĥajar Al-‘Asqalānī, Abu Al-Fađl Ahmed Bin Ali, ‟Taqrīb At-Tahdhīb” –

‟Approximate Approach for the Book of Rectification (a bridgement of the biographical

Book ‘Tahdhīb’: ‘The Rectification”, review, annotation, illustration and additions: Abu Al-

Ashbāl Saghīr Ahmed Shāghif Al-Pakistani, introduced by: Bakr Bin Abdullah Abu Zaid,

Dar al-Asima for publishing and distribution, 2nd edition, 1423 A.H.

55. Ibn Ĥajar Al-‘Asqalānī, Abu Al-Fađl Ahmed Bin Ali, ‟Taqrīb At-Tahdhīb” –

‟Approximate Approach for the Rectification (a bridgement of the biographical Book

‘Tahdhīb’: ‘The Rectification”, study and review by: Mustafa Abdul Qādir ʾAƫƫā, Dar Al-

Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, pub.2, 1415 A.H – 1995 A.D.

56. Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī, "Tahdhīb At-Tahdhīb" – ‟Rectification for the Rectified”,

edited by: Ibrahim Az-Zaibaq et al, Mu'ssasat al-Risala, Damascus, pub.1, 2008 A.D.

57. Ibn Ĥajar Al-Asqalānī, Ahmed, "Ad-Durar Al-Kāminah fī Aʾyān Al-Mi'ah At-

Thāminah" – ‘‘The Hidden Pearls”, proofreading and authentication: Abdul Wārith

Muhammad Ali, Publisher: Muhammad Ali Baižūn publications & Dar Al-Kotob al-Ilmiya,

Beirut.

58. Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī, Ahmed Bin Ali, ‟Fatĥ Al-Bārī Sharĥ Saĥiĥ Al-Bukhārī” –

‟The Creator Victory: Explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhārī (commentary book)” "Fatĥ Al-

Bārī", verified and reviewed by: Abdul ʾAzīz Bin Bāz, books, sections and hadiths

numbered by: Muhammad Fu'ād Abdul Bāqī, Dar al-Marifa, Beirut, 1379 A.H.

305

59. Ibn Ĥajar Al-Asqalānī, Ahmed Bin Ali, ‟Fatĥ Al-Bārī Sharĥ Saĥiĥ Al-Bukhārī” – ‟The Creator Victory: Explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhārī (commentary book)”, reviewed by: Abdul Aʾziz Bin Abdullah Ibn Bāz et al. Dar al-Salam: Riyadh, pub.1, 1421 A.H- 2001 A.D

60. Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalānī, "Lisān Al-Mizān" – ‟The Tongue of the Scale”, edited by:

Abdul Fattāĥ Abu Ghuddah, Maktab Al-Islami’s Published Books, Beirut, pub.1, 1423 A.H -

2002 A.D.

61. Ibn Ĥajar Al-'Asqalānī, Abu Al-Fađl Shahābul Dīn Ahmed Bin Ali, "Hadiy As-Sārī Fatĥ Al-Bārī: Muqadimat Fatĥ Al-Bārī: Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī " – ‟Guidance of the Marcher: An Introduction to Fatĥ Al-Bārī”, reviewed and annotated Abdul Qādir Shaibah Al-Ĥmd, Riyadh, pub.1, 1421 A.H – 2001 A.D.

62. Ibn Ĥajar Al-ʾAsqalani, Shahābul Dīn Abu Al-Fađl Ahmed Bin Ali Bin Mohammed,

‟Hadyi As-Sārī fī Muqaddamat Fatĥ Al-Bārī: Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī” – ‟Guidance of

the Marcher: An Introduction to Fatĥ Al-Bārī”, annotated by: Abdul Raĥmān Al-Barrāk,

reviewed by: Abu Qutaibah Naźar Al-Fariābī, Dar Ţaibah, Riyadh, pub.1, 1426 A.H-2005

A.D.

63. Ibn Ĥajar Al-Haitamī, Ahmed bin Mohammed Bin Ali As-Sa’di, ‟Aś-Śawaʾiq Al-Muhriqah” – ‟The Thunderbolts”, reviewed by: Abdul Raĥmān At-Turkī et al, Mussassat al-Risala, pub.1, 1997 A.D.

64. Ibn Ĥanbal, Abu Abdullah Ahmed As-Shaibānī,"Fađā'l Aś-Śaĥābah" – ‟The Virtues

of the Companions”, reviewed and hadith extracted by: Waśiyullah Muhammad Abbas,

Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, Saudi Arabia, pub.2, 1420 A.H -1999 A.D, new revised edition.

65. Ibn Ĥanbal, Abu Abdullah Ahmed Bin Muhammad, "Musnad Al-Imam Ahmed Bin

Ĥanbal", reviewed, annotated and hadiths extracted by: Shuʾaib Al-Atnā'ūţ et al Mussasat

al-Risala, Beirut, pub.1, 1416 A.H - 1995 A.D.

66. Ibn Ĥazm, Abu Muhammed Bin Saʾīd, ‟Al-Muĥallā” – ‟The Adorned / The

Sweatened”, reviewed by: Ahmed Shākir, proofreading and publishing: al-Muniriya Press

administered by Munīr Ad-Dimishqī, 1348 A.H.

67. Ibn Al-ʾImād, Abu Al-Falāĥ Al-ʾIkrimī Ad-Dimashqī, "Shadhrāt Ad-Dhahab" – ‟Nuggets of Gold”, supervised the review and hadith extraction: Abdul Qādir Al-Arnā'ūţ, reviewed and annotated: Muhammad Al-Arnā'ūt, Dar Ibn Kathīr, Damascus, Beirut, pub.1, 1046 A.H -1986 A.D.

306

68. Ibn Al-Jawzī, Abu Al-Faraj Abdul Raĥmān Bin Ali, "Al-Muntaźam fī Tārikh Al-Milūk wal Umam" – ‟Consistent Composite of the History of Kings and Nations”, reviewed by Muhammad Aţţa et al, reviewed and verified by: Naʾīm Zarzūr, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilimiya, Beirut, pub.1, 1412 A.H - 1993 A.D.

69. Ibn Kathīr, "Al-Bidāyah wal Nihāyah" – ‟The Beginning and the End”, reviewed by: Abdullah Abul Muĥsin At-Turkī, al-Hijr for publishing, distribution, advertising, vol.1, 1418 A.H - 1997 A.H.

70. Ibn Kathīr, ʾImādul Dīn Abu Al-Fidā’ Ismail Bin Umar Ad-Dimashqī, ‟Al-Bidāyah wal Nihāyah” – ‟The Beginning and the End”, reviewed by: Abdullah bin Abdul Muĥsin At-Turkī in collaboration with The Centre for Research and Arabic Islamic Studies, al-Hijr for publishing, distribution, advertising, pub.1, 1419 A.H - 1998 A.D.

71. Ibn Khaldūn, Waliyul Dīn Abu Zaid Bin Muhammad, "Diwān Al-Mubtada' wal Khabar

fī Tārīkh Al-Maghrib wal Bartbar wa man ʾĀśarahum" – ‟A Record of the Subject and

the Predicate of the History of Morocow, the Barbar and those Contemporaneous

with them”, reviewed by: Khalīl Shaĥādah, Dar Al-Fikr, Beirut, pub.2, 1408 A.H. - 1988

A.D.

72. Ibn Mājeh, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Yazīd Al-Qazwīnī, "Sunnan Ibn Mājeh", annotated by: Muhammed Nāśirul Dīn Al-Albānī, edited by: Abu ʾUbaidah Āl Salmān, Maktabat Al-Maarif, Riyadh, pub.1

73. Ibn Mājeh Al-Qazwīnī, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Yazīd, "As-Sunnan", reviewed, annotated and hadith extracted by: Shuʾaib Al- Arnā’ūţ et al, Risala Al-Alamiya publisher, Damascus, pub.1, 1430 A.H.

74. Ibn Al-Muƫƫahar, Abu Manśūr Al-Hassan Jamalul Dīn Bin Yūsuf Al-Asadī Al-Ĥillī "Minhāj Al-Karamah fī Maʾrifat Al-Imamah" - ‟The Pathway of Honour in the Cognition of the Imamate”, reviewed by: Abdul Raĥīm Mubarak, Tasua publisher, Mashhad, Iran, pub.1, 1379 SH (Solar Hijri) – 2000 A.D.

75. Ibn Rajab, Abdul Raĥmān Al-Baghdādī Al-Ĥanbalī, "Al-Farq baina An-Naśīĥa wal

Taʾyīr" - "The Difference between the Counsel and Taunt”, reviewed, annotated, and

hadith extracted by: Najm Abdul Raĥmān Khalq, Dar al-Mamun for heritage, p.3, 1405

A.H.

307

76. Ibn Taimiyyah Al-Ĥarrānī, Abu Al-Abbas Ahmed Bin Abdul Ĥalīm, "Al-Jawāb As-Sahih Liman Baddalah Dīn Al-Masīĥ" – ‟The Right Answer to he who Changed the Religion of the Messiah", reviewed by: Ali Bin Hassan Bin Nāśir et al, Dar al-Asima, Saudi Arabia, pub.2, 1419 A.H- 1999 A.D.

77. Ibn Taimiyyah Al-Ĥarrānī, "Aś-Śārim Al-Maslūl Alā Shātim Ar-Rasūl" – ‟The Unsheathed Sword against Verbal Abusers of the Apostle”, reviewed by: Muhammad Muĥīl Dīn, Al-Haras Al-Watanī Publisher, Saudi Arabia.

78. Ibn Taimiyyah Al-Ĥarrānī,"Al-Fatāwā Al-Kubrā" - "The Major Juristic Verdicts, reviewed by Abdul Raĥmān Bin Qāsim, King Fahad Complex for printing the Holy Qur'an, Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah, 1416 A.H – 1995 A.D.

79. Ibn Taimiyyah, "Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah fī Naqđ Kalām As-Shīʾa wal

Qadariyyah fī Naqđ Kalām As-Shīʾa wal Qadariyyah" – ‟The Pathway of the

Prophetic Sunnah in Abolishing the Discourse of the Shiʾa and the Qadariyyah”,

reviewed by: Muhammad Rshād Sālim, Mussasat Cordoba, pub.1, 1406 A.H-1986 A.D.

80. Ibn Taimiyyah, Abu Al-Abbas Taqiyyul Dīn Ahmed Bin Abdul Ĥalīm Al-Ĥarranī Al-

Ĥanbalī, ‟Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah fī Naqđ Kalām As-Shīʾa wal

Qadariyyah” – ‟The Pathway of the Prophet’s Sunnah in Abolishing the Discourse

of the Shiʾa and the Qadariyyah”, reviewed by: Mohammed Rashād Sālim, The Islamic

University of Imam Muhammad Bin Saud, Saudi Arabia, pub.1, 1406 A.H - 1986 A.D.

81. Al-Jurjānī, Al-Hafiz Ibn ʾAdiy, ‟Al-Kāmil fī Đuʾafā’ Ar-Rijāl” – ‟The Complete on the

Weak Hadith Reporters”, reviewed by ʾĀdil Ahmed et al, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, pub.1,

1997 A.D.

82. Al-Khaţīb Al-Baghdādī, Abu Bakr Bin Ahmed Bin Ali Bin Thābit, ‟Al-Faqīh wal Mutafaqqih” – ‟The Jurist and the Studier of Jurisprudence”, reviewed by: ʾĀdil Bin Yῡsuf Al-ʾAzzāzī: Dar Ibn Al-Jawzi, Saudi Arabia, pub. 1, 1417-1996 A.D.

83. Al-Khaţīb al-Baghdādī, Abu Ahmed Bin Ali, ‟Taqyīd Al-Iʾlm” – ‟Circumscribe the Limits of Knowledge”, reviewed by: Saʾīd Abdul Ghaffār Ali, Dar al-Istaqamah, Cairo, pub.1, 1429 A.H – 2008 A.D.

308

84. Al-Kittānī, Al-Hussein Al-Idrisī, Abu Al-Faiđ Jaʾfar, ‟Nuźm Al-Mutanāthir min Al-Hadith Al-Mutawātir” – ‟Gather the Scattered from the Mutawātir Hadith”, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, Beirut, 1400 A.H -1980 A.D.

85. Al-Kulainī, Abu Jaʾfar Bin Muhammad Bin Yaʾqūb Bin Isĥāq, "Al-Uśūl min Al-Kāfī" – ‟Adequate Fundamental Concepts (hadith collection book”, verified and annotated by: Ali Akbar Al-Ghafārī, Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya, Tehran, pub.3, 1388 A.H.

86. Lāshīn: Mūsā Shāhin, "Fatĥ Al-Munʾim Sharĥ Sahih Muslim" – ‟Victory of the

Giver-Allah: Explanation of Śaĥīĥ Muslim”, Dar al-Shuruq, pub.1, 1423 A.H - 2002 A.D.

87. Al-Manāwī, Mohammed, nicknamed as Abdul Ra'ūf Bin Tāj Al-ʾArifīn Bin Ali Al- Ĥaddādī Al-Qāhirī, "Faiđ Al-Qadīr Sharĥ Al-Jāmiʾ As-Saghīr min Ahādīth Al-Bashīr Al-Nadhīr" – ‟The Bounty of the Omnipotent :Explanation of Al-Jāmiʾ As-Saghīr (The Minor Hadith Compiler of the Bearer of Glad Tidings and the Admonisher)”, proofreading and verification by: Ahmed Abdul Salām, Muhammad Ali Baizun publications: Dar Al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 1422 A.H. 2001 A.D.

88. Al-Manāwī, Abdul Ra'ūf Bin Tāj Al-ʾArifīn Bin Ali Al- Ĥaddādī Al-Qāhirī, "Faiđ Al-Qadīr Sharĥ Al-Jāmiʾ As-Saghīr min Ahādīth Al-Bashīr Al-Nadhīr" – ‟The Bounty of the Omnipotent :Explanation of Al-Jāmiʾ As-Saghīr (The Minor Hadith Compiler of the Bearer of Glad Tidings and the Admonisher)”, Dar al-Marifa, Beirut, pub.2, 1391 A.H - 1972 A.D.

89. Al-Maqrīzī, Abu Al-Abbas Taqiyūl Dīn Ahmed Bin Ali Bin Abdul Qādir, "An-Nizāʾ wa At-Takhāśum fī ma baina Banu Umayyah and Banu Hāshim" - ‟The Contention and Wrangle between Banī Umayyah and Banu Hāshim" (appended by: The Treatise of the Allama: Muhammed Bin 'Aqīl Al-'Alawī: ‟Faśl Al-Ĥākim fī An-Nizāʾ wa At-Takhāśum", compiled and annotated by: Śāliĥ Al-Wardānī, al-Hadaf for media and printing press, 1999 A.D.

90. Al-Mazī, Hafiz Jamalul Dīn "Tahdhīb Al-Kamāl fī Asmā' Al-Rijāl" – ‟Rectification of the book of ‘The Perfect Biographical evaluation of Hadith Reporters”, reviewed by: Dr. Bashār ʾAwād, Muassasat al-Risala, Beirut, pub.4, 1406 A.H - 1985 A.D.

91. Al-Mubākafūrī, Abu Alʾūla Muhammad Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abdul Raĥīm, ‟Tuĥfat Al- Aĥwadhī bi Sharĥ Jāmiʾ At-Tirmidhī” – ‟The Robust Masterpiece: Explanation of At-Tirmidhī Compiler”, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilimiyah, Beirut, pub.1, 1410 A.H – 1990 A.D.

309

92. Al-Mubārakfūrī, Muhammad Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abdul Raĥīm, ‟Tuĥfat Al-Alhwadhī bi Sharĥ Jāmiʾ At-Tirmidhī” - ‟The Robust Masterpiece in the Explanation of At-Tirmidhī Compiler”, proofreading and verification by: Abdul Raĥmān Muhammad Uthman, Dar al-Fikr.

93. Najmī, Muhammad Śādiq, ‟Ađwā’ ʾalā Aś-Śaĥīĥain: Dirāsat wat Taĥlīl” – ‟Lights on the Two Sahih Books: A Critique of Sahih Al-Bukhārī and Muslim”, arabicized by: Yaĥyā Kamāl Al-Baĥrānī, Mussasat al-Maarif al-Islamiya, Qum, pub.1, 1419 A.H.

94. An-Nasā’ī, Abu Abdul Raĥmān Ahmed Bin Shuʾaib, ‟Khaṡā’iṡ Amīrūl Al-Mu’minīn Ali Bin Abu Ţālib” – ‟The Characteristics of the Commander of the Faithful”, reviewed by: Ad-Dānī Munīr Āl Zahawī, al-Maktaba al-Asriyya, Saida- Beirut.

95. An-Nasā’ī, Abu Abdul Raĥmān Ahmed Bin Shuʾaib, ‟Khaṡā’iṡ Amīrūl Al-Mu’minīn Ali Bin Abu Ţālib” – ‟The Characteristics of the Commander of the Faithful”, reviewed

by Sheikhs Muhammad Hādī Al-Amīnī, Najaf 1969 A.D.

96. An-Nasā’ī, Abu Abdul Raĥmān Ahmed Bin Shuʾaib, ‟Sunan An-Nasā'ī bi Sharĥ Jalālul Dīn As-Siyūtī” – ‟Sunan An-Nasā'ī as Explained by Jalālul Dīn As-Siyūtī”, annotated by: Nūrul Dīn As-Sindī, reviewed, indexed, numbered by: Islamic Heritage Investigation Office, Dar al-Marifa, Beirut.

97. An-Nasā’ī, Abu Abdul Raĥmān Ahmed Bin Shuʾaib, ‟Sunnan An-Nasā’ī”, reviewed by: Mashhῡr Bin Hassan Āl Salmān, commentary: Muhammad Nāṡirul Dīn Al-Albāni, Makatabat al-Maarif for publishing and distribution, Riyadh, pub.1.

98. An-Nawawī, Abu Zakariyyah Muĥīl Dīn Yaĥya Bin Sharaf Bin Marī, "Al-Minhāj Sharh Sahih Muslim Bin Al-Ĥajjāj" – ‟The Pathway in the Explanation of Sahih Muslim”, Al-Masriya Press, Al-Azhar, pub.1, 1347 A.H - 1929 A.D.

100. Nūrul Dīn Ali Bin Sulƫān Al-Harawī Al-Qārrī, "Murqāt Al-Mafātīh Sharĥ Mishkāt Al- Maśābīh" – ‟Escalating to the Keys of the Explanation (of the book) of the Lamp Niche”, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, pub.1, 1422 A.H- 2002 A.D.

310

101. Al-Qaśţalānī, Ahmed Bin Mohammed, ‟Irshād As-Sārī Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī” -‟Guiding the Stroller towards the Explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari”, Al-Amīriyyah Al-Kubra publishing house, Egypt, pub.7.

102. Al-Qushairī An-Naisābūrī, Abu Al-Husain Muslim Bin Al-Ĥajjāj, ‟Sahih Muslim” -

‟Sahih Muslim: The Canonical Hadith Collection of Muslim (one of the canonical hadith

books)”, reviewed and hadiths extracted by: Muslim Bin Mohammed Uthman As-Salafī Al-

Atharī, introduced and assessed: Mohammed Mustafa Al-Zuĥailī, Dar al-Khair.

103. Al-Qushairī An-Naisaburī, Muslim Ibn Al-Ĥajjāj, ‟Sahih Muslim” - ‟Sahih Muslim:

The Canonical Hadith Collection of Muslim (one of the six canonical hadith books)”,

elaborated by: Abu Ṡuha’ib Al-Karmī, Directed and executed by: the team of Bait al-Afkar

Adawliah for publishing and distribution, Riyadh, 1419 A.H – 1998 A.D.

104. Al-Qushairī An-Naisābūrī, Abu al-Hussein Muslim Bin Al-Ĥajjāj, ‟Sahih Muslim” -

‟Sahih Muslim: The Canonical Hadith Collection of Muslim (one of the canonical hadith

books)”, Dar Ihia al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, reviewed by Muhammad Fu’ād Abdul Bāqī.

105. Ar-Rađī, As-Sharīf Abu Al-Hassan Al-Mūsawī Al-Baghdādī, "Nahj Al-Balaghah" -

‟The Path of Eloquence”, reviewed by: Fāris Al-Ĥassūn, Centre for Dogmatic

Researches, pub.1, 1419 A.H.

106. Ar-Rađī, As-Sharīf Abu Al-Hassan Al-Mūsawī Al-Baghdādī, ‟Nahj Al-Balaghah,

Sharĥ Mohammed ʾAbdha” - ‟The Path of Eloquence as Explained by Mohammed

ʾAbdha”, Majmaʾ al-Dakha’ir al-Islamiyya for research and printing, Qum, pub.1, 1412

A.H.

107. Śabīĥ, Maĥmūd As-Sayid, "Akhƫā' Ibn Taimiyyah fī Ĥaq Rasūl Allah wa Ahlu

Baitih" – ‟Faults of Ibn Taimiyyah in Respect of Allah’s Apostle and his Household”

Dar Zainul-ʾĀbidīn, 1431 A.H - 2010 A.D.

108. As-Sājistānī, Abu Dāwūd Ibn Al-Ashʾath Al-Azdī, "Sunan Abu Dāwūd", edited by the

team of Bait al-Afkar al-Dawliya, (no date).

109. As-Sindī, Abu Al-Hasan Bin Abdul Hādī Al-Tatawī, "Sharĥ Sunan Ibn Mājeh” – ‟Explanation of Sunan Ibn Mājeh” & in the margins of the book: "Taʾlīqāt Muśbāh Az-Zujājeh fi Zawā'id Ibn Mājeh"- "Commentary on (the book of) the ‘Flask Lamp in the Appendices of Ibn Mājeh’", Imam Al-Buśairī, reviewed the origins according to the six Canonical Hadith Collections, hadiths extracted, book numbered by: Khalīl Ma'mūn Shaiĥā, Dar al-Marifa, Beirut, pub.3, 1420 A.H.

311

110. As-Shāţibī, Ibrahim Bin Musa Bin Mohammed Allakhmī Al-Ghurnāţī, ‟Al-Muwāfiqāt fī Uśῡl Al-Fiqh” - ‟The Conformities in the Foundations of Jurisprudence, reviewed by Mashhῡr Bin Hassan Āl Salmān, Dar Ibn Affan - Saudi, pub.1, 1417 A.H-1997 A.D.

111. As-Shāƫibī, Abu Isĥāq Ibrahim Bin Mūsā Bin Muhammad Allakhmī Al-Andalusī, ‟Al-Iʾtiṡām” – ‟Taking Refuge”, reviewed by: Mashhῡr Āl Salmān, Maktabat At-Tawĥīd, Manama, pub.1, 1421 A.H – 2000 A.D.

112. As-Siyῡtī, Imam Hafiz Jalalul Dīn Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abu Bakr: ‟Tarīkh Al-Khulafā’” - ‟The History of the Caliphs”, al-Maktaba al-Asriya, Saida, Beirut.

113. As-Siyῡƫī, Jalālul Dīn Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abu Bakr, ‟Tārīkh Al-Khulafā’” - ‟The

History of the Caliphs”, reviewed by: Ibrahim Śāliĥ, Dar Sadir, Beirut.

114. As-Siyūţī, Jalālul Dīn Bin Abu Bakr "Tārikh Al-Khulafā" - ‟The History of the

Caliphs”, Dar Ibn Hazm, Beirut, pub.1, 1324 A.H - 2003 A.D.

115. As-Siyῡƫī, ‟Al-Jāmiʾ Aṡ-Ṡaghīr min Hadīth Al-Bashīr wal Al-Nadhīr” - ‟The Minor Hadith Compiler of the Bearer of Good Tidings and the Admonisher”, reviewed by: Mahdi Ad-Damirdāsh Muhammad, Maktabat Nazr Mustafa Al-Bāz.

116. As-Siyūţī, Jalālul Dīn Bin Abu Bakr, "Ad-Dībāj ʾalā Sahih Muslim Bin Al-Ĥajjāj" –

‟The Silk Garment from Sahih Muslim”, reviewed and annotated by: Abu Isĥāq Al-

Ĥuwainī Al-Atharī, Dar Ibn Affan, Saudi Arabia, pub.1, 1416 A.H - 1996 A.D.

117. Aţ-Ţabābā’ī, Sayed Mohammed Hussein, ‟Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr Al-Qur’ān” – ‟The

Scale in the Exegesis of Qur’an”, Jamaʾat Al-Mudarisīn fī Al-Hawaza Al-Ilmiyyah

Publications, Qum.

118. Aţ-Ţabarānī, Abu Al-Qāsim Bin Ahmed, "Al-Muʾjam Al-Kabīr" – ‟The Major Lexicon”, reviewed by: Ĥamdī Bin Abdul Majīd As-Salafi, Maktabat Ibn Taimiyyah, Cairo.

312

119. Aţ-Ţabarānī, Abu Al-Qāsim Bin Ahmed, "Al-Muʾjam Al-Kabīr” – ‟The Major Lexicon”, reviewed by Ĥamdī As-Salafī, Maktabat al-Iloom wal Hikam, Mosul, pub.2, 1404 A.H - 1983 A.D.

120. Aƫ-Ţabaranī, Abu Al-Qāsim Sulaimān Bin Ahmed Al-Lakhmī, ‟Musnad As-Shāmiyīn” ‟Collectioin of Authentic Hadith and its Sanad of the People of Syria”- , reviewed by: Ĥamdi Abdul Majīd As-Salafi, Mussasat al-Risala, pub.1, 1409 A.H- 1989 A.D.

121. Aţ-Ţabarī, Abu Jaʾfar Muhammad Bin Jarīr,"Tārīkh Ar-Rusul wal Mulūk" – ‟The

History of Apostles and Kings”, reviewed by: Muhammad Ibrahim, Dar al-Maarif , Egypt,

no date, pub.2.

122. Aţ-Ţabarī, Abu Jaʾfar Muhammad Bin Jarīr, "Sahih wa Đaʾīf Tārikh Aţ-Ţabarī” –

‟The Authentic and Weak in the History Book of Aţ-Ţabatrī”, reviewed, extracted and

annotated by: Muhammad Bin Ţāhir Al-Barjanjī, supervised by: Muhammad Śubĥī Ĥallāq,

Dar Ibn Kathir, Beirut, pub.1, 1428 A.H – 2007 A.D.

123. At-Taftazānī, Saʾadul Dīn Bin Umar, "Sharĥ Al-ʾAqā’id An-Nasfiyysh" –

‟Explanation of the Beliefs of Imam An-Nasfi” reviewed by: Ahmed Ĥijāzī As-Saqā,

Maktabat Al-Kulliat Al-Azhariya, vol.1, 1407 A.H - 1987 A.D.

124. Aƫ-Țaĥāwī, Abu Jaʾfar Bin Salāmah, "Sharĥ Mushkil Al-Āthār" – ‟Explanation of

the Complications of the Classics”, reviewed, annotated and hadith extracted by:

Shuʾaib Al-Atnā'ūt, Mussassat al-Risala, Beirut, pub.1, 1415 A.H- 1994 A.D.

125. At-Talīdī, Abu Al-Fitūĥ Abdullah Bin Abdul Qādir "Al-Anwār Al-Bahirah bi Fađā'il

Ahlul Bait wal Dhuriyyah Aţ-Ţāhirah” – ‟The Glaring Lights of the Virtues of Ahlul

Bait and the Purified Progeny” , Maktabat al-Imam al-Shafiʾi and Dar Ibn Hazm, pub.1,

1417 A.H.

126. At-Tirmidhī, Abu ʾĪsa Mohammed Bin ‘Isa, ‟Al-Jāmiʾ Al-Mukhtaśar min As-Sunan”

– ‟Concise Compiler of the Sunnan” [he enlisted Al-Albānī’s Book ‟Al-Aĥkām”,

edited by: Fariq Bait al-Afkar Adawlia for publishing and distribution.

127. Al-Wādiʾī, "As-Sahih Al-Musnad Mimma Laisa fī Aś-Śaĥīĥain" – ‟Authentic

Hadith with the Sanad not Included in the Two Canonical Hadith Collections”, Dar al-

Athar, Sanaa.

313

128. Al-Wādiʾiyyah, Um Shuʾaib, ‟As-Sahih Al-Musnad fī Fađā’il Ahlul Bait An-Nubuwwah” ‟The Authentic Hadith Collectin with the Sanad of the Virtues of Ahlul Bait of the Prophet, supervised and introduced by: Abdul Raĥmān Muqbil Bin Hādī Al-Wadiʾī, Dar al-Athar for publishing and distribution, pub.12, 1421 A.H -2000 A.D.

314

i Ĥawza Ilmiyyah: a seminary academia referring to the Shiʾa Moslems traditional school for clerics. ii Takfīr: accusation for a Muslim of infidelity and apostasy. iii Rāfiđī & Rāfiđah & Rafđ: literally rejectors or rejection; a defiling epithet used for the Shiʾa. iv Rationalities & transferals: refer to two scientific disciplines: the former based on reason, e.g. philosophy and natural sciences, whereas the latter denotes the legacy of religious knowledge as handed down from ancestors e.g. hadith. v Taqlīd: to follow and imitate a specific cleric on his verdicts on religious laws. vi Allegories for false idols and Satan, evil and falsehood. vii The Egyptian Vulture known for its opportunistic nature and as a carrion feeding bird. It also uses pebbles for breaking the ostrich egg shell) viii Had a sword: a great warrior who entered battles and achieved victories. ix Caliphate: rulership by succession for the prophet. x Naś: text either from revealed Qur’an or the prophetic hadith. xi Pouch: original word ‘سيك’ which has two readings phonetically: kīs & kayyis, successively: pouch, quick-witted. Therefore some traditionists take it as from his pouch, and others as from his

315

intelligence and competence whereby he readily invents hadith on the spot. Both make no essential difference. xii Mutashayiʾ: the one who embraced Shiʾism as a precept. In this context it is used as a derogatory nickname to any traditionist who rightfully records merits of Ahlul Bait as to have turned into a Shiite affiliate. xiii Ummah and Moslem Nation and community are used alternatively. xiv Ounce of silver equal to 40 dirham granted at the prophet's age to certain recipients. xvxv Kharijites: the faction of Khawārij who revolted against Imam Ali. xvi Caliphate: strictly succession to the prophet (sawa). xvii Ar-Rajʾah is similar to Al-Maʾad in terms of resurrection, but it is not the awaited one on the

Judgement Day. It is the resurrection of individuals or groups for reward or retribution. They have

to be on one extreme, either of the upright or the perverts, e.g the Rajʾah of the Imams of Ahlul

Bait. There are indications in Qur’an for Raj’ah, and the Shia have evidences for this belief, such

as the Qur’anic verse: “They will say: Our Lord, twice You have caused us to die and twice

You have given us life. We have now confessed our sins. Is there, then, any way out”

(Ghafir: 11).

xviii Circumspection denotes Taqiyyah: a practice and concept for the Shiʾa) xix Dissimulation denotes Taqiyyah: a practice and concept for the Shiʾa based on concealment of one’s faith while at risk of persecution. xx Tadlīs: indirect transfer. i.e. a mediating source exists between the narrator and the original

source.

xxi Analogy: ‘Qiyas in the Islamic Jurisprudence Ilm Al-Mantiq: contains a premise, i.e some example or point subject for analogy: it has twofold premise: minor and major, all figured out by analogical reasoning. xxii It might be a common knowledge that the Muhājirīn stand as a term for the immigrants to Al-

Madinah. Therefore this note only intends to pinpoint that they are referred to elsewhere as

immigrants when dealing with the concept of immigration

xxiii Grammatical terms for appositive forms. xxiv The phrase means to add Imam Ali (as) to the list of atheists with Uthman according to the Kharijites. xxv A verse, quoted from the poet al-Mutalammis, said in respect of ʾAmru Ad-Dusī to describe him

as a man of forbearance, lenience and wisdom. The nocking stick is allegory derived from his life-

story. He was highly reputed judge in his tribe and had long longevity. As his folk people were not

willing to remove him from his post, they appointed his seventh son to knock a stick every moment

he may have oversight or lapse of memory.

xxvi Calling for Schism xxvii Al-Musnad: the collection of authentic hadiths with their sanad. xxviii Zindīq: can be an apostate, heretic, or covertly an infidel. In general it is to hold views inconsistent with the main Islamic dogmas. xxix Sword-bearer: highest military rank - commander in chief. xxx There is a shift of pronoun in the origin. xxxi Shura: a consultative Council; shūrā: Lit.consultation. xxxii Alternatively used as ‘spiritualand political leadership.

316

xxxiii ʾIlm Al-kalām: the discipline that seeks the theological knowledge through debate and argument. xxxiv Mukallaf: one reached maturity and inducted into religious duty. xxxv Meaning he was uncertain whether it were Aisha or Um Salamah. xxxvi Her turn to have the prophet (saw-a) in her house. xxxvii Sabʾ Al-Mathānī: Surat Al-Fātiĥah according to some narrations or the first seven long Suras according to others.