Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Notes

* The author would like to thank Michael Cook, Hassan Ansari and an anonymous reader for their comments which substantively improved the quality of this article. In 2013, this research was also presented at the annual conferences of the American Academy of Religion and Middle East Studies Association.

1 W. Montgomery Watt writes “K̲h̲adīd̲j̲a is said to have died three days after Abū Ṭālib in the year 619 CE (sc. three years before the Hid̲j̲ra).” See EI2, s.v. “K̲h̲adīd̲j̲a” (W. Montgomery Watt).

2 For a brief introduction to Abū Ṭālib’s opposing images, see Rubin, Eye of the Beholder, pp. 149-55. Shīʿī proof-texts and arguments are discussed below. For representative Sunnī responses to Shīʿī arguments about the faith of Abū Ṭālib, see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Iṣāba, vol. 7, pp. 199-203; al-Ṣāliḥī, Subul, vol. 2, pp. 428-32.

3 EI2, s.v. “Nūr Muḥammadī” (L. Massignon); Ho, Graves of Tarim; Katz, Birth of the Prophet Muhammad; Morimoto, Sayyids and Sharifs; Rubin, “Pre-Existence”; Shoshan, Popular Culture.

4 For relevant excerpts from this text, see al-Ījī, Faḍāʾil, pp. 146-48.

5 Ibid. The motif of early ʿAlids rebuking those who doubted the faith of Abū Ṭālib appeared in many Shīʿī ḥadīth collections, see al-Kulaynī, Uṣūl, vol. 1, pp. 447-49. See also al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, pp. 380, 386-401.

6 EI2, s.v. “Abū l-Fidāʾ” (H.A.R. Gibb); Abū l-Fidāʾ, Mukhtaṣar, vol. 1, p. 120.

7 Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 104; al-Ījī, Faḍāʾil, pp. 146-48; al-Shaʿrānī, Mukhtaṣar, p. 7; al-Suḥaymī, Mazīd, ff. 314a-b. For the opinions of Aḥmad b. Yūnus and Ibn Ṭulūn, see Ibn Ṭūlūn, “al-Rawḍ”.

8 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005); Daḥlān, Asnā (2007); al-Azharī, Bulūgh (2001); al-Mālikī, “Sīrat al-Imām ʿAlī”. For the works of al-Tatawī, al-Jannūn al-Ṣaghīr, and others see al-Muntafikī, “Muʿjam”.

9 For examples, see Ibn ʿAsākir, Ta ʾrīkh, vol. 66, pp. 314-21; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, vol. 3, pp. 55f. For a general sketch of Abū Ṭālib’s portrayal in sīra literature, see also EI3, s.v. “Abū Ṭālib” (U. Rubin).

10 Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, vol. 2, pp. 139f.; Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 1, pp. 208-10.

11 Shiʿb usually describes a mountain path. The Hāshimids possessed a well named Badhar near the mountain of Khandama. According to Yāqūt, the path leading to Khandama was previously known as the shiʿb of Abū Yūsuf and considered the property of ʿAbd al-Muttalib b. Hāshim. He divided the land amongst his children and Abū Ṭālib received a share. The homes of the Hāshimid clan were presumably in this area. See Yāqūt, Muʿjam, vol. 1, p. 361; vol. 3, p. 347.

12 Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, vol. 13, p. 112; al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ, vol. 1, p. 45; al-Ṭabrisī, Majmaʿ al-bayān, vol. 1, p. 53. The earliest reference I could find for the phrase ʿām al-ḥuzn, was the citation of Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Shahrāshūb (d. 588/1192) of Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī’s (d. 277/890) Kitāb al-Maʿrifa wa l-ta ʾrīkh. Unfortunately, extant copies do not include al-Fasawī’s historical narrative of the first Islamic century. However, fragments from the recension of the philologist ʿAbd Allāh b. Jaʿfar b. Durustawayhi (d. 347/958) are scattered throughout different works, see Ibn Shahrāshūb, Manāqib, vol. 1, p. 150.

13 Abū Ṭālib is narrated to have loved him more than his own children, see Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 1, p. 119. The Prophet’s love and respect for Abū Ṭālib led him to magnify his love for ʿAqīl, see al-Ḥākim, Mustadrak, vol. 3, p. 576; al-Ṣadūq, ʿIlal, vol. 1, p. 134. As a proof that Abū Ṭālib was a believer, al-Amīnī argues that Muḥammad would not care for an unbeliever’s love of other things and people, see al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 386.

14 Qurʾān, 28:56, a verse that is discussed below.

15 See R1-R8 (reports 1-8) below.

16 For his resurrection and conversion see Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 104; al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), ff. 12a; al-Shaʿrānī, Mukhtaṣar, p. 7.

17 The various types of reports are discussed below. For an example of a text that includes reports that testify to his faith and his conversion as well as his refusal to convert, see al-Bayhaqī, Sunan, vol. 1, pp. 89, 161; vol. 2, pp. 29, 187f., 312-14 (for his faith), 346, 349 (for his conversion), vol. 2, pp. 163, 341-350 (for his unbelief).

18 A thorough analysis of ḥadīth transmitters who apparently circulated reports about the damnation of Abū Ṭālib is left for future research, although the work of F. Donner and Ḥ. al-Saqqāf on this subject is briefly discussed below.

19 See Verses 1, 2, 3, discussed below.

20 Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/922), Ibn Ḥazm (d. 456/1064), Aḥmad b. Ḥusayn al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066), Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463/1071), Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209), Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449), Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), and many others have all cited ḥadīth in the ṣaḥīḥayn as the source of their belief in the damnation of Abū Ṭālib, see al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 236-37, 272-73; al-Bayhaqī, Sunan, vol. 2, pp. 163, 341-50; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Istīʿāb, vol. 1, p. 39; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ, vol. 7, p. 148; idem, Iṣāba, vol. 7, pp. 199-203; Ibn Ḥazm, Muḥallā, vol. 11, p. 210; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. 3, p. 406; Ibn Taymiyya, Minhāj, vol. 4, pp. 350-53; al-Rāzī, Tafsīr, vol. 16, p. 157; al-Suyūṭī, Masālik, pp. 35, 81, 82; al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, vol. 11, p. 57; vol. 20, pp. 112-14. However, before the rise of the canonical collections, proto- Sunnī scholars active in the second century also assumed Abū Ṭālib’s rejection of Islam. ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 211/827) and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) cited ḥadīth about Abū Ṭālib’s punishment in hell, see ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, Muṣannaf, vol. 6, p. 41; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, pp. 50, 55. Al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820) lists rulings that are predicated upon Abū Ṭālib dying as an unbeliever, see al-Shāfiʿī, Umm, vol. 1, p. 303; vol. 4, p. 75. The Medinese jurist Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795) cites a report that states ʿAlī did not inherit from his father in a section on the impermissibility of inheritance between relatives of different faiths, see Mālik, Muwaṭṭāʾ, vol. 2, p. 519.

21 Perhaps Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī’s biographical entry on Abū Ṭālib is an exception, see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Iṣāba, vol. 7, pp. 199-203.

22 For example, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, vol. 5, p. 433; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. 4, p. 247; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ, vol. 7, p. 148; Muslim, al-Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, p. 40; al-Nasāʾī, Sunan, vol. 4, p. 90; al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, vol. 11, pp. 57f.

23 For example, the scholars mentioned above (fn. 4-7) explained the reasons for which they upheld Abū Ṭālib’s salvation in only a few sentences. However, al-Barzanjī devoted dozens of pages to fully responding to the arguments of his interlocutors.

24 Some apparently claimed such a consensus, see Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 105.

25 See the colophon, al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 488.

26 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 370; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 112.

27 Al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273) narrates that he heard “Abū Ṭālib was also raised and he believed in him (Muḥammad)- but God knows best.” See al-Qurṭubī, Tadhkira, p. 140. Al-Shaʿrānī narrates that God wished to honor the Prophet by raising Abū Ṭālib back to life, who then converted, see al-Shaʿrānī, Mukhtaṣar, p. 7.

28 I would like to thank Ḥasan al-Saqqāf for discovering that the manuscript attributed to al-Suyūṭī actually belonged to al-Barzanjī, see Daḥlān, Asnā (2007), p. 27 (for his assessment). In cases where I have relied upon al-Saqqāf’s 2007 edition of Asnā al-maṭālib, I have noted its publication year, otherwise, I refer to the 1999 edition.

29 Al-Suyūṭī, Masālik, pp. 85-87; al-Qurṭubī, Tadhkira, pp. 140-42.

30 Al-Suḥaymī, who believed in the salvation of Abū Ṭālib, claims al-Qurṭubī and al-Subkī considered reports about Abū Ṭālib’s conversion to be correct, see al-Suḥaymī, Mazīd, f. 314a. Mīrghanī and Daḥlān, on the authority of al-Suḥaymī, included al-Subkī in their list of Sunnī scholars who affirmed Abū Ṭālib’s salvation, see Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 104, 112.

31 Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 1, pp. 87-91.

32 Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 1, pp. 87-91.

33 All of the writers in this study disagree with al-Subkī and argue that the poetry of Abū Ṭālib is sufficient proof not only of faith in the heart, but of his conversion, see the section below, Sunnī Treatises.

34 Al-Qarāfī, Sharḥ, p. 163. In his view, Abū Ṭālib was not a Muslim because he rejected the legal commandments of the Prophet.

35 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ, vol. 7, p. 149; Daḥlān, Asnā (2007), p. 26.

36 Ibn Ṭāwūs, Faraj, p. 126. On the other hand, “al-Subkī and Ibn Taghrībardī follow al-Dhahabī in seeing him only as a Muʿtazilī,” see EI2, s.v. “al-Masʿūdī” (Ch. Pellat).

37 Al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), f. 36a; al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 344; al-Masʿūdī, Murūj, vol. 2, pp. 108f.; al-Suhaylī, Rawḍ, pp. 170f.

38 Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, vol. 4, pp. 222f.

39 For biographical entries on al-Barzanjī, see al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 1, p. 141; al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām, vol. 6, pp. 203f.; al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 25-28.

40 Al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām, vol. 1, pp. 129f.

41 The author writes that he was saddened by the prevalent belief in the damnation of Abū Ṭālib, until “God aided me in 1165 with the Mukhtaṣar Tadhkirat al-Qurṭubī by the saintly guide ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Shaʿrānī,” see al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), f. 3b. Al-Azharī writes that he found al-Barzanjī’s work later that year (f. 4a).

42 The colophon has al-Sayyid Sulaymān al-Azharī without the nisba “al-Lādhiqī,”al-Azharī, Bulūgh, p. 29 (for a reproduction of the colophon). One copy of the manuscript is in the ḥadīth section of the Taymuriyya collection of Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya in Cairo (no. 333). The catalogue information mentions that Sulaymān al-Lādhiqī al-Azharī was listed on the cover, see also al-Munajjid, Muʿjam, p. 51. The other copy is in Princeton University’s Rare Books section, no. 2845y.

43 Al-Azharī, Bulūgh (2001), pp. 26f.

44 Al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām, vol. 3, p. 131.

45 Al-Jamal, Ḥāshiya, vol. 2, pp. 337f.; vol. 3, p. 374.

46 Al-Ṣūfī al-Ḥusaynī, “al-ʿĀʾilāt”.

47 A descendant of Sulaymān, Muḥammad Saʿīd b. Khālid b. Khalīl b. Ibrāhīm b. Sulaymān al-Azharī (d. 1318/1900) also held the office of naqīb al-ashrāf and was the imam of a mosque in the city. Muḥammad Saʿīd wrote a history of the city, which would obviously include additional information about his family. One source states that the al-Azharī al-Lādhiqī family library includes over two thousand manuscripts and books. For information regarding Muḥammad Saʿīd, see Bayṭār, Lādhiqiyya, vol. 1, p. 213. According to another historian, Muḥammad Saʿīd, his father Khālid, and their ancestor Sulaymān all studied at al-Azhar University and became marshals of the ashrāf of Latākia, see al-Ṣūfī al-Ḥusaynī, “al-ʿĀʾilāt”.

48 Sulaymān was responsible for governing the affairs and disputes of Hāshimids in his jurisdiction as the naqīb al-ashrāf and perhaps for many of Latakia’s residents as Imam of the central mosque there. Al-Barzanjī was the leading Shāfiʿī mufti of Medina, while Zaynī Daḥlān became the leading muftī of Mecca, both esteemed positions in the Sunnī community. For al-Azharī, Barzanjī and Daḥlān respectively, see Ibid.; al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 27; al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām, vol. 3, pp. 129f.

49 Al-Muntafikī, “Muʿjam”.

50 For example al-Suyūṭī is included in the list when he in fact believed in Abū Ṭālib’s punishment in hell, see the previous section.

51 Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays al-Hilālī, p. 313.

52 Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays al-Hilālī, p. 377.

53 Al-Ṭabrisī, Majmaʿ al-bayān, vol. 5, pp. 37f.; al-Ṭūsī, al-Tibyān, vol. 5, pp. 200f.

54 Al-Kulaynī, Uṣūl, vol. 1, pp. 447-49.

55 Al-Ṣadūq, al-Amālī, p. 712.

56 For these two authors, see al-Najāshī, Rijāl, p. 95; al-Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, p. 75. On the other hand, Sahl b. Aḥmad was a secretive individual who only began displaying his [knowledge and belief in] Shīʿism at the end of his life, see al-Najāshī, Rijāl, p. 186. The works of these two authors are no longer extant.

57 In addition to his Īmān Abī Ṭālib, al-Mufīd argues in favor of Abū Ṭālib’s status as a faithful Muslim elsewhere, see al-Mufīd, Fuṣūl, pp. 282-86. The decision of the compiler of al-Fuṣūl al-mukhtāra, al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 436/1044), to include al-Mufīd’s assessment of the faith of Abū Ṭālib reflects his own support for his teacher’s views.

58 See McDermott, Theology.

59 Al-Mufīd, Ḥikāyāt, p. 85.

60 Perhaps al-Mufīd is referring to Sahl in his introduction when he writes, “May God lengthen the life of the exalted teacher and preserve honor and support for him . .” al-Mufīd, Īmān, p. 17. If this is the case, then it is possible that al-Najāshī’s sources mistook this book dedicated to Sahl for one authored by him. Both of their books share the simple title Īmān Abī Ṭālib (“The Faith of Abū Ṭālib”). Sahl has no other books attributed to him and al-Najāshī never found the alleged work despite the relative proximity between the authors both geographically and temporally. The absence of any fragments of Sahl’s alleged work prohibits one from ascertaining whether or not it was actually the one al-Mufīd had written at his behest.

61 Al-Ṭūsī, al-Amālī, pp. 265f., 567. Unlike many of his Imāmī peers, al-Ṭūsī seems to rely upon R2 reports, which hinted at Abū Ṭālib’s deathbed conversion rather than a lifelong commitment to dissimulation, see below, “The Proof-texts”. Nonetheless, al-Ṭūsī notes that there is a consensus among Imāmīs that Abū Ṭālib died a Muslim, see al-Ṭūsī, al-Tibyān, vol. 8, p. 164.

62 Al-Amīnī’s treatise is from his encyclopedia al-Ghadīr, see al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, pp. 330-409; vol. 8, pp. 3-29.

63 Al-Amīn, Aʿyān al-Shīʿa, vol. 8, pp. 393f.

64 Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ, vol. 14, p. 83.

65 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Iṣāba, vol. 7, pp. 198-203.

66 Encyclopaedia Iranica, London 1982-, art. “Amīnī, Shaikh ʿAbd-Al-Ḥosayn” (H. Algar); “al-ʿAllāma al-Amīnī wa-Mawsūʿat al-Ghadīr” al-Mishkāt. Web. http://www.al-meshkah .com/maaref_detail.php?id=4234. (accessed Sep. 25 2013).

67 Ibn Ḥazm, Fiṣal, vol. 4, p. 116; Ibn Taymiyya, Minhāj, vol. 7, pp. 320f., 354f.; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Iṣāba, vol. 7, pp. 198-203.

68 Al-Amīnī’s Shīʿī sensibilities lead him to cite and authenticate reports that later Sunnī ḥadīth specialists would reject as unreliable despite their appearance in the work of a Sunnī scholar. Nonetheless, the citation of such texts is important for Al-Amīnī because the original transmitters of such reports, if not the compiler, believed such reports to be true. By identifying early (apparently non-Imāmī) Muslims who validated Shīʿī beliefs, al-Amīnī refutes the more extreme claims of his interlocutors that no proof-texts ever existed in (proto-) Sunnī circles of learning.

69 For example, see al-Naṣībī, Maṭālib, pp. 28-31. For a survey of the spectrum of pro-ʿAlid sentiment, see also Husayn, Memory, chs 1-2.

70 “You will not find a people who [truly] believe in God and the Last Day and [at the same time] love a person who contends against God and His Messenger even though they be their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or [others of] their kindred . .”

71 Does the case of Abū Lahab represent a contradiction of this principle? It seems the Prophet and his uncle mutually disassociated from each other and thus it poses no contradiction. The Prophet’s uncle Abū Lahab b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib is portrayed in the literature as siding with the chiefs of Quraysh and severing his familial ties during the infamous boycott against his clan. The Qurʾān’s unequivocal condemnation of him in Sūra 111 would suggest that the Prophet similarly disavowed any relationship with him. Abū Lahab’s rejection of the Prophet and public disassociation from his clan thus conveniently removes him from Muḥammad’s circle of relatives and associates. If the case of Abū Lahab posed theological problems to those who believed Muḥammad’s kin to be generally saved from Hell, it remains a topic for further investigation. The Muslim community may have learned that kinship never saved the relatives of other prophets guilty of kufr through accounts in the Qurʾān, for example, in the case of an unbelieving son (Qurʾān, 11:42-47) and spouses (Qurʾān, 66:10). Uri Rubin discovered that Abū Lahab’s mother was previously married to a man from the tribe of Liḥyān and he is ridiculed for not actually descending from the loins of Hāshim in some poetry. If this is true, it may help explain Abū Lahab’s disassociation from the clan of Hāshim, see Rubin, “Abū Lahab and Sura CXI,” pp. 14f. Perhaps Abū Lahab’s entrance into the Hāshimid clan would then fall under the category of mā kasaba (Qurʾān, 111:2).

72 See EI2, s.v. “Nūr Muḥammadī” (L. Massignon). The reports that describe the transmission of the prophetic light from the loins of Adam to Muḥammad note that the light was transferred from ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib to ʿAbd Allāh and Abū Ṭālib. Thus, neither Abū Lahab nor the Prophet’s other uncles seem to have shared in this divine grace and their paganism is not seen as contradictory to these reports.

73 Ibn Kathīr cites the relevant ḥadīth in the ṣaḥīḥayn that suggest this meaning, see Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, vol. 2, pp. 314f.

74 In Shīʿism, the infallibility and immaculateness of the prophets and imams is predicated upon their birth from individuals who were not unbelievers. The light imagery used to describe the Prophet and his chain of spiritual successors pervades Sufi hagiographies.

75 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīh, vol. 4, p. 247; Muslim, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, pp. 40, 133; vol. 3, p. 65.

76 For example, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī states that he hopes all of the Prophet’s Household and ancestors enter Heaven, which includes his parents and grandfather. Abū Ṭālib, however, is doomed because he lived during the period of revelation and did not convert. Ibn Ḥajar is sure of this because the reports appear in the collection of Muslim, see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Iṣāba, vol. 7, pp. 201-3.

77 Al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ, vol. 19, pp. 137f.; Bayjūrī, Ḥāshiya, pp. 68-70; Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, Minaḥ, pp. 100-4; al-Suyūṭī, Masālik, pp. 39-85.

78 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2006), pp. 29f., 86f. One could believe in the salvation of the Prophet’s parents even if one considered them pagans. A number of Sunnīs argued that their deaths before the appearance of any prophet warranted their salvation, while others believed the Prophet’s parents were resurrected by God and became Muslims before being laid to rest again. In both cases the dilemma of believing in Abū Ṭālib’s allegiance to paganism and subsequent punishment, while maintaining the salvation of the Prophet’s pagan ancestors would not arise.

79 Although one report identifies Abū Ṭālib’s ancestral religion as monotheism (ḥanīfiyya), see Ibn ʿAsākir, Ta ʾrīkh, vol. 66, pp. 328f.; al-Thaʿlabī, Kashf, vol. 5, pp. 99f.; al-Wāḥidī, Asbāb al-nuzūl, p. 178.

80 All translations are my own.

81 I have not translated jaḥīm as hell because some of the later Sunnī theologians will later discuss its relevance in polemics regarding Abū Ṭālib.

82 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, vol. 5, p. 433; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. 4, p. 247; Muslim, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, p. 40; al-Nasāʾī, Sunan, vol. 4, p. 90; al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, vol. 11, pp. 57f. Various reports have Abū Ṭālib cite different reasons for his refusal, see al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 390-92.

83 I have named these reports 1S, because their common link is Saʿīd and they appear in the ṣaḥīḥayn, see al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. 4, p. 247; Muslim, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, p. 40.

84 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, pp. 370f.; al-Bayhaqī, Sunan, vol. 2, p. 346; Ibn ʿAsākir, Ta ʾrīkh, vol. 66, p. 331; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Iṣāba, vol. 7, p. 198; Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, vol. 4, p. 223; al-Ṭūsī, al-Amālī, pp. 265f.

85 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, pp. 206, 207, 210; vol. 3, pp. 9, 50, 55; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. 4, p. 247; vol. 7, pp. 121, 203; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 54; Muslim, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, p. 135.

86 Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 1, pp. 124f. See also al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, pp. 373f. (where further references are listed).

87 Ibid., 7:380, 386-401 (for forty ḥadīth narrated through the Household regarding the merits of Abū Ṭālib).

88 The fourth is sometimes “a brother from pre-Islamic times” or “the house which helped you.” One report lists six who are saved. For different recensions, see Ibid., vol. 7, p. 378; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 57; al-Yaʿqūbī, Ta ʾrīkh, vol. 2, p. 36.

89 Ibn Maʿadd al-Mūsawī, Īmān Abī Ṭālib, p. 265; al-Mufīd, Īmān, pp. 25f. For all the medieval sources, see al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 3, p. 372.

90 Al-Bayhaqī, Sunan, vol. 2, pp. 304f.; Ibn al-Jawzī, Muntaẓam, vol. 3, p. 10; Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 1, p. 124.

91 Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 8, pp. 10-15.

92 Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 40f.

93 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 367 (the author cites al-Bayhaqī, Sibṭ ibn al-Jawzī, and others); Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 39-41; Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 1, p. 123.

94 Al-Baḥrānī, Madīna al-Maʿājiz, vol. 7, p. 535. The different recensions disagree on the identity of the Imam who makes this statement. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī (al-Bāqir), ʿAlī b. Muḥammad (al-Hādī), and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq are all named as the source. Hāshim al-Baḥrānī (d. 1107/1695-6 or 1109/1697-8), who cites his own copy of al-Hidāya al-Kubrā, written by al-Ḥusayn b. Ḥamdān al-Khaṣībī (d. 334/945-6), includes the full narration, names al-Mutawakkil as the interlocutor, and secures the anecdote as one from the life of ʿAlī al-Hādī. The published edition of al-Hidāya al-Kubrā cites a different conversation between al-Mutawakkil and al-Hādī, see al-Khaṣībī, Hidāya, p. 322. On the other hand, al-Majlisī and al-Amīnī quote Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd and attribute the ḥadīth to Imam Muḥammad al-Bāqir. However, in his text, Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd actually writes “ʿAlī b. Muḥammad” not Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, in agreement with al-Khaṣībī’s text, as al-Baḥrānī quotes it. See al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 380; Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ, vol. 14, p. 68; al-Majlisī, Biḥār, vol. 35, p. 156. For a similar recension attributed to Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, see al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 390; al-Majlisī, Biḥār, vol. 35, p. 112.

95 Manuscript copies of al-Mūsawī’s treatise are more than one hundred twenty pages in length, while al-Mufīd’s treatise is only nine pages. Excluding the annotations, al-Amīnī’s published text also exceeds one hundred pages.

96 For a monograph study, see Dakake, Charismatic Community.

97 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, pp. 331-42; al-Mufīd, Īmān, p. 19. A number of Sunnīs partially concede this point, see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Iṣāba, vol. 7, p. 200; al-Qarāfī, Sharḥ, p. 163; al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 1, pp. 87f. However, according to most of them, Abū Ṭālib’s faith was not accompanied by a formal conversion and therefore insufficient.

98 Al-Amīnī transmits accounts from Sunnī texts in which Abū Ṭālib tells his son ʿAlī that he will only find khayr in following the Prophet. In one report, ʿAlī seeks his advice regarding the issue of conversion and he states, “O my son, you know that Muḥammad is the trusted man of God: go to him and follow him, you will be guided and succeed.” al-Amīnī also cites non-Shīʿī authorities regarding another occasion in which Abū Ṭālib tells Jaʿfar to join ʿAlī and Muḥammad in prayer, see al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, pp. 355-57; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 36.

99 Al-Mufīd, Īmān, p. 20.

100 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 385; Ibn Ṭāwūs, Ṭarāʾif, p. 307. Al-Amīnī similarly argues that if only a fraction of Abū Ṭālib’s poetry were gathered for any other companion of Muḥammad, s/he would be celebrated, but in the case of Abū Ṭālib such evidence is ignored, al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 372.

101 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 386; Ibn Maʿadd, Īmān Abī Ṭālib, p. 265; al-Mufīd, Īmān, pp. 25f. The phrase seems to acknowledge the prevailing opinion that Abū Ṭālib is an inhabitant of hell, hence, the surprise on the Day of Judgment when mankind witnesses his salvation.

102 Al-Mufīd, Īmān, p. 26.

103 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 331.

104 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 332.; Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ, vol. 3, p. 313.

105 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, pp. 331-42, 355; Ibn Maʿadd, Īmān Abī Ṭālib, pp. 201, 241, 258, 284. Cf. Abū l-Fidāʾ, Ta ʾrīkh, 1:120; al-Bayhaqī, Dalāʾil, vol. 2, p. 188; al-Dhahabī, Ta ʾrīkh, vol. 1, p. 150; Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, vol. 4, p. 204; al-Thaʿlabī, Tafsīr, vol. 4, pp. 141f.; al-Wāḥidī, Asbāb al-nuzūl, p. 144. Al-Amīnī and al-Mūsawī cite a number of Sunnī sources that transmit Abū Ṭālib’s poetry in praise of Muḥammad as a prophet. However, in Sunnī sources, such praise usually (but not always) ends with a final line in which Abū Ṭālib explains that he is still unwilling to convert. Daḥlān considers those final lines to either have been an example of dissimulation or interpolation from later Muslims who believed Abū Ṭālib to have never been a Muslim, Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 47.

106 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 346; vol. 8, p. 17.

107 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 145, 200-6, 241, 243, 344, 384, 400-402. He quotes the relevant medieval sources.

108 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 368; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 33; Ibn Maʿadd, Īmān Abī Ṭālib, pp. 133-37. Although Ibn Ḥajar did not consider Abū Ṭālib a believer, he includes a ḥadīth from him, see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Iṣāba, vol. 7, p. 198.

109 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 380; Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ, vol. 14, p. 68.

110 Al-Amīnī cites a few Sunnī authorities, see al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, pp. 380f. See also Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 102, 106, 108 (for additional Sunnī scholars who believed as such).

111 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 388; Ibn Maʿadd, Īmān Abī Ṭālib, pp. 122, 363.

112 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 8, p. 9. Shīʿī biographical sources, however, do not entirely portray Saʿīd as anti-Hāshimid. Some have recognized the existence of contradictory evidence regarding Saʿīd’s pro-ʿAlid and anti-ʿAlid tendencies. Some reports even portray him as a student of the fourth Twelver Imam, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, see Ardabīlī al-Gharawī al-Ḥa ʾirī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, pp. 362f; al-Ṭūsī, Rijāl al-Kashshī, vol. 1, pp. 332-35.

113 Al-Dhahabī, Ta ʾrīkh, vol. 3, p. 378; Ibn ʿAsākir, Ta ʾrīkh, vol. 26, p. 374; See also al-Mamdūḥ, Ghāyat al-tabjīl, p. 95.

114 For more on ʿAbbāsid propaganda, see El-Hibri, Parable and Politics, pp. 17-23; Haider, “The waṣiyya”.

115 Goldziher, Muslim Studies, vol 1, pp. 45-47 (for the inheritance of virtue and vice). For the social capital of Ḥasanids and Ḥusaynids, see Morimoto, Sayyids and Sharifs.

116 For ʿAbbāsid claims to the right of uncle (ḥaqq al-ʿumūma), see De Gifis, Theory, pp. 99, 168.

117 In this context, polemicists utilized family law to argue in the realms of election law and political theory. A sole surviving daughter does in fact inherit from a deceased father in Islamic law, but Sunnī scholarship made an exception in the case of Fāṭima due to ḥadīth that stated that prophets left no inheritance. For a comparative study of Sunnī and Shīʿī laws of inheritance, see Coulson, Succession, pp. 33-38, 114-34. For the case of Fāṭima, see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ, vol. 6, pp. 139-41; vol. 12, p. 3. See also Madelung, Succession, pp. 50f.; al-Ṣadr, Fadak, pp. 159-62.

118 Goldziher, Muslim Studies, vol. 2, p. 105; Donner, “Death,” pp. 237f.

119 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 8, p. 10.

120 For example, al-Amīnī mentions Q3:28, Q4:139, Q4:144, Q9:23, and Q58:22.

121 The Sunnī authors ultimately argue upon these lines, see their responses below.

122 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 8, pp. 10-15. He cites a report that appears in: Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, pp. 99, 130f.; al-Ḥākim, Mustadrak, vol. 2, p. 335; al-Nasāʾī, Sunan, vol. 4, p. 91; al-Tirmidhī, Sunan, vol. 4, pp. 344f.

123 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 8, p. 20. Generally, mursal chains are not utilized as unequivocal evidence in legal argumentation, see EI2, s.v. “Mursal” (G. Juynboll). Al-Amīnī, however, criticizes individuals that are usually held in high esteem by Sunnī ḥadīth specialists, like Abū Hurayra, Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab and Sufyān al-Thawrī. For Sufyān, see al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 8, pp. 23f.

124 Al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 8, pp. 23f. For a critique of the trustworthiness of Abū Hurayra’s ḥadīth, see Abū Rayya, Aḍwāʾ, pp. 194-224.

125 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 350-55; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 19 n. 1, 22, 23. The writers (including the editor of Asnā, Ṣāliḥ al-Wardānī) cite Aḥmad b. al-Rāwandī (d. ca 3rd/9th century), al-Ḥusayn b. al-Faḍl al-Bajalī (d. 282/895), al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321/933), Abū l-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (d. 324/935), al-Mātūrīdī (d. 333/944), Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013), Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāʾīnī (d. 418/1027), Imam al-Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī (d. 478/1085), al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), Ibrāhīm al-Safāqisī (d. 742/1342), ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī (d. 756/1355), Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī (d. 855/1451), Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (d. 1101/1690) and the “more authentic” opinion of Abū Hanīfa. Sunnī scholars with a stricter definition of faith would obviously find the claim contentious that many of the scholars al-Barzanjī lists agreed with him. However, al-Barzanjī seems to have faithfully transmitted the opinions of these authorities from previous texts or directly from them, see Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʿ, vol. 7, pp. 119f., 543-45, 582-86; al-Ījī, Mawāqif, vol. 3, pp. 527-42; al-Ījī and others, al-Mawāqif . bi-sharḥihi, vol. 8, pp. 322-24; al-Shahrastānī, Milal, vol. 1, p. 101. Ḥadīth to the same effect are also mentioned, see Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 24.

126 Lit. “the two testimonies” [of faith], i.e. that there is no deity but God and Muḥammad is his Messenger.

127 Daḥlān, Asnā (1999),pp. 20, 21.

128 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 355; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 21. They cite the Qurʾān 16:106 as a proof-text: “Anyone who, after accepting faith in God, utters unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith . .”

129 Of course, Shīʿī theologians argued along these lines centuries before, see al-Ṣadūq, Kamāl al-dīn, p. 174. See also Kohlberg, “Taqiyya,” pp. 364f.

130 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2006), pp. 314f.; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 22.

131 In some cases it is enough for one to say, “I believe in God” or “Aḥmad is a prophet.” See al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 355; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 26. For the full quotation of al-Ḥalīmī, see al-Nawawī, Rawḍa, vol. 7, pp. 302-4.

132 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 355; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 29.

133 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 356; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 29. A verse similar to it is also found in a multitude of sources, including Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, vol. 2, p. 138; al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 391; al-Kulaynī, Uṣūl, vol. 1, p. 449; al-Mufīd, Īmān, p. 33.

134 Abū l-Fidāʾ, Ta ʾrīkh, vol. 1, p. 120; al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 356; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 29; al-Samʿānī, Tafsīr, vol. 1, p. 46; al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt, vol. 1, p. 88; al-Amīnī cites a dozen sources within the Sunnī intellectual tradition, see also al-Amīnī, Ghadīr, vol. 7, p. 334.

135 Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 46.

136 In some reports the audience is his children, the clan of Hāshim, or the tribe of Quraysh, see al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), f. 52b; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 40f., 111.

137 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 384. In addition to curing Abū Ṭālib of an illness, the Prophet is the source of food multiplication and rain in a time of drought, see Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 37f.

138 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2006), p. 306; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 34.

139 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 384 (the report about the dream is summarized); Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 31, 34f.

140 Al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), ff. 39b, 50a, 52b; al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 384ff; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 34, 36.

141 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 391f.; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 50.

142 Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 61.

143 Al-Suyūṭī, Masālik, pp. 145-58. Since no prophet came to ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, Ibn Ḥajar hopes for his salvation, even if it appears he was not a monotheist, see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Iṣāba, vol. 7, p. 201.

144 Al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), p. 37a; al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 345f.; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 61.

145 It would be illogical for an unbeliever to narrate numerous ḥadīth about the revelation and teachings of the Prophet as Abū Ṭālib narrates them, see al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), f. 49a; Daḥlān, Asnā al-maṭālib, p. 33. Al-Amīnī’s discussion was previously noted.

146 Al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), ff. 40b, 47a-b; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 54. In fact, according to al-Barzanjī, the only proof of those who believe intercession may encompass unbelievers is the “unbelief” of Abū Ṭālib. He issues a challenge to those who believe in such a theological principle to offer other proofs, see Daḥlān, Asnā al-maṭālib, p. 71.

147 Daḥlān, Asnā (2007), pp. 14-25; al-Mālikī, “Sīrat al-Imām ʿAlī”.

148 Al-Saqqāf is a student of the al-Ghumārī family of Mālikī jurists and ḥadīth specialists from Morocco. In spite of their contempt for Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī and the hegemonic culture of Saudi-backed Salafism (or Wahhābism), the al-Ghumārī family and their students essentially utilize a similar methodology of ḥadīth criticism in order to defend their own pro-ʿAlid and pro-Sufi proclivities. Both factions rely upon the Sunnī biographical tradition to discredit the authority of ḥadīth that disagree with their theological and legal views and authenticate those that agree with their sensibilities. Although ḥadīth in the ṣaḥīḥayn are largely accepted as authoritative, both Salafīs and their pro-ʿAlid detractors have criticized the contents of a number of reports in those collections. Although trained by Salafī thinkers in Riyadh, Ḥasan al-Mālikī is an idiosyncratic thinker, with pro-ʿAlid and pluralist sentiments. He believes that al-Bukhārī’s compilation contains reports that are not authentic (ṣaḥīḥ) since they promote predeterminism, anti-ʿAlid sentiment, anthropomorphism and contradict the Qurʾān, see Brown, Rethinking; Brown, Canonization, p. 326ff.; Idem, “Even If It’s Not True”; idem, Hadith; Husayn, “Contempt”; al-Mālikī, “Fī ʼl-Bukhārī”. For al-Saqqāf’s views on ḥadīth, see Ibn al-Jawzī, Dafʿ, pp. 114-37; al-Saqqāf, Ṣaḥīḥ, pp. 26-45.

149 Q2:162, Q3:88, Q35:36, 43:74-75, al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), f. 40a; Daḥlān, Asnā (2007), pp. 23f.

150 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 357; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 54f.

151 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 359ff; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 55.

152 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 361; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 59.

153 Al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), f. 55b; al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 391f.; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 61.

154 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 365f.; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 72f. al-Barzanjī quotes at least a dozen sources from ʿAlī stating that the reason for the revelation of V2 was the prayer of Companions for their dead relatives.

155 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 365f. Al-Amīnī also argued this point, see the previous discussion of R1S in his treatise. Al-Barzanjī also notes that it is unlikely Abū Ṭālib’s death prompted the revelation of V2 since a period of approximately twelve years separated the two incidents, see al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), f. 45b; al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 367; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 75.

156 Al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), f. 40a; al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 355. Ibn Ḥajar also notes this chronological problem, see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ, vol. 8, p. 390.

157 In these reports the Muslims witness the Prophet praying for Abū Ṭālib and cite it as a precedent to begin praying for their own relatives, whereupon the verse is revealed expressly to stop their actions, not those of the Prophet, see al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 366f.; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 75.

158 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 379; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 79f. Daḥlān dismisses the alleged statement of the Prophet “Your father and mine are in the fire” as the statement of a mistaken narrator despite its appearance in the collection of Muslim.

159 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2006), pp. 71-76.

160 Al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), pp. 376-79.

161 Daḥlān, Asnā (2007), pp. 15-25.

162 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, pp. 103, 129f.; al-Bayhaqī, Sunan, vol. 1, p. 304; Daḥlān, Asnā (2007), p. 84 n. 87.

163 Due to the prohibition of unbelievers and Muslims inheriting from each other in the legal tradition.

164 Al-Azharī, Bulūgh (MS Princeton), ff. 42b-43a; al-Barzanjī, Sadād al-dīn (2005), p. 363; Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), p. 93.

165 Daḥlān, Asnā (1999), pp. 92, 106.

166 Ibn al-Athīr, Kāmil, vol. 3, p. 143; al-Ṭabarī, Ta ʾrīkh, vol. 3, p. 366. For a recension through Madāʾinī, see Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ, vol. 2, pp. 131f.