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
 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
1
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

2
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

3
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

4
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

5
 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.

6
 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.
7
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:
8
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

9
 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 ‫ب ـه‬: ‟authentic in itself”; without support of other hadiths, or other factors to lend
it strength, e.g. multiple chains of transmitters.

 Binaĥwihi ‫ب نحوه‬: ‟by its example”; the extracted hadith by the succeeding reporter
has some addition (a supplement) either in the matn or sanad with the wording is
similar.

 Gharīb ‫ب‬ ‫غري‬: strange; one in which there is at least in one layer only one narrator.
 Al-Hafiz (Al-Ĥāfiź) ‫الحافظ‬: Hadith master: a memoriser of one hundred thousand
hadith by matn and sanad with comprehension.

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

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

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

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

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.

10
 Matn ‫م تن‬: text; the import as produced by the originator to where the chain of
transmitters ends.

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

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

missing.
 Mursal ‫مر سل‬: Lit. unrestricted; the narrator between the successor and prophet is
missing or omitted from the sanad.

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

narrators above three.

 Mutābiʾāt ‫ال م تاب عات‬: the concurrence and compliance of a certain narrator with
another narrator on a specific hadith.

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

11
 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)

12
13
 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”
14
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.

15
 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
16
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)
17
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
18
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
19
(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

20
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.

21
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.

22
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

23
 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
24
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.

25
 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.
26
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.

27
 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)
28
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

29
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)
30
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)

31
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.
32
 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

33
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.
34
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)

35
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.
36
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

37
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)

38
 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)
39
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)

40
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
41
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.

42
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:
43
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.
44
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

45
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.
46
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.
47
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.
48
49
 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.

50
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’,

51
‘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.
52
 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
53
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”
54
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).
55
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 Ủtbah 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-Jāmỉ 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.
56
 ‘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
57
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-Ỉtiśām", 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.”
58
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.
59
 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)

60
 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
61
 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
62
 • Second Account: Narrated by Al-Muqdām Bin Mảdī 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.
63
(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.”
64
‟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.

65
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!?

66
67
 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!!

68
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)
69
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.

70
 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.

71
 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)

72
 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.

73
 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)
74
 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.

As-Siyūţī, Imam Al-Hafiz Jalalul Dīn Abdul Raĥmān Bin Abu Bakr, “Tārīkh Al-Khulāfā’”, al-
64

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
75
 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
76
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
77
 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)
68Ibn Ĥajar Al-Haitami, Ahmed Bin Ali Al-Asqalānī, “Fatĥ Al-Bārī Sharĥ Sahih Al-Bukhārī”,
Dar al-Marifa, 1379 A.H, vol. 7, 71.
78
 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
79
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.
80
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
81
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)”

82
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

83
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.
84
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.
85
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.

86
 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.
76Al-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.
87
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

77Abu 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.
78Ibn 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.
88
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.
89
 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.
90
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.
91
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.
92
‟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)

93
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

94
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

95
 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

Al-Albānī, Muhammad Naṡirul Dīn, “Silisilat Al-Aĥādīth Aṡ-Ṡaĥiĥah”, ibid: same source, vol.3,
92

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
96
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)
97
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”.
98
 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.
99
 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.
100
 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

104Ibn 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.
101
 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.
102
 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.

See: Al-Albānī, Mohammed Nāśirul Dīn, “Silisilat Al-Aĥādith Aś-Śaĥīĥah”, ibid, vol.1, S.1,
113

p.319, at the bottom of hadith no.166.

103
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).

104
 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:

105
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
106
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.

107
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

108
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
109
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.

110
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.

111
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.

112
 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.

113
 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.

114
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.

115
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)

116
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)

117
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)

118
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)
119
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)
120
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)
121
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)
122
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)
123
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)
124
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

149Al-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
125
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.
126
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)
127
'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.
128
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.
129
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)

130
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.
131
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
132
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.
133
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.
134
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.
135
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.
136
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.
137
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

138
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.
139
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

140
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.
141
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.
142
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.
143
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

144
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.
145
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.

146
 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

147
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

148
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.

149
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
150
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.

151
 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.

152
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.
153
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).

154
 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
155
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.
156
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’.

157
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.
158
 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,

159
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

193Al-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.
160
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-
161
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.
162
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

163
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

Aţ-Ţabarī, Abu Jaʾfar Muhammad Bin Jarīr, "Tārīkh Ar-Rusul wal Mulūk", reviewed by:
198

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.
164
 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 [...].
165
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.

166
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.
167
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.
168
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.
169
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.
170
 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

171
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.
172
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
173
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.
174
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.
175
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.
216
Ad-Dhahabī described 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.
176
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.
177
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.
178
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.

179
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.

180
 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

181
 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)

182
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)
183
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.

184
 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:
185
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
186
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.
187
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.
188
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.
189
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
234Ibn 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.
235Al-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,
190
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.
191
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.
192
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)
193
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.

194
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.
195
 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) ‫غري ب‬
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.
196
 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.
197
 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.
198
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)
199
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.
200
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
201
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

202
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
203
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).
204
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)
205
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).
206
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.
207
  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;

See his original statement and the associated context in "Minhāj Al-Karamah fī Maʾrifat Al-
269

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.
208
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
209
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.
210
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.
211
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"...
212
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.
213
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.

214
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)
215
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-
283
Jāhiliyyah". 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.
216
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)

217
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)

218
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).
219
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.

220
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.
221
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. [...]"

222
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.

223
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.

224
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.

225
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.
226
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."

227
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.
228
"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.
229
 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

230
 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

231
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
232
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.
233
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.
234
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.

235
 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.

236
"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.
237
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).

238
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.

239
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.
240
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

241
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.
242
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.
243
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.
244
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.
245
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.
246
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.
247
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.
248
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
249
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.
250
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.
251
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
252
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.
253
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.
254
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
255
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,
256
 357
The School attitude have developed still further 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).
257
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".
258
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.
259
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.
260
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.
261
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

As-Siyūţī, Jalālul Dīn Bin Abu Bakr "Tārikh Al-Khulafā", Dar Ibn Hazm, Beirut, pub.1, 1324
371

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.
262
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.
Abu Al-Fidā', ʾImādul Dīn Bin Ali, "Al-Mukhtaśar fī Tārikh Al-Bashar", reviewed by:
375

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.
263
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.
264
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.
265
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.
266
'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
267
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.

268
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 [...].

269
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.
270
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.

271
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.
272
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,
273
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.
274
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.

275
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.

276
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.
277
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

278
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
‫ ]رأى الحق‬. So, whatever can be missing of his features, interpretation will put it
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.

279
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
280
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.
281
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.
282
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

‫ال‬said: 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."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.

283
(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.
284
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.
285
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.
286
"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.
287
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.
288
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.
289
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.
290
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.
291
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.
292
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.
293
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.
294
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.
295
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.
296
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?
297
 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.

298
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.

299
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.

300
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.

301
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.

302
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]

303
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.

304
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.

305
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.

306
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.

307
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.
308
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.

309
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.
310
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.

311
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.

312
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.

313
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 ‘‫ ’سيك‬which has two readings phonetically: kīs & kayyis, successively:
pouch, quick-witted. Therefore some traditionists take it as from his pouch, and others as from his

314
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).

Circumspection denotes Taqiyyah: a practice and concept for the Shiʾa)

xviii
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

Grammatical terms for appositive forms.

xxiii
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.

315
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.

316