Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

18) Hadith Al-Siyadah, Exploring the Scope of ‘Ali’s Superiority

The Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, identified Amir al-Muminin, ‘alaihi al-salam, as a sayyid in both this world and the next. This, without doubt, falls within the spiritual context. Of particular interest therefore is that the Prophet had described him as a sayyid in absolute terms. As such, he is superior – in the Sight of Allah - to all mankind, except whoever has been excluded through other irrefutable proofs. The Messenger stated the same thing about al-Hasan, ‘alaihi al-salam,the first son of ‘Ali. Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا سفيان عن أبي موسى ويقال له إسرائيل قال سمعت الحسن قال سمعت أبا بكرة وقال سفيان مرة عن أبي بكرة رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم على المنبر وحسن عليه السلام معه وهو يقبل على الناس مرة وعليه مرة ويقول أن ابني هذا سيد

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Sufyan – Abu Musa, also called Israil – al-Hasan – Abu Bakrah; and Sufyan also narrated directly from Abu Bakrah at another time:

I saw the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, upon the pulpit, and Hasan, ‘alaihi salam, was with him. He was turning to the people at one time and turning to him (i.e. al-Hasan) at another, and he was saying: “Verily, this son of mine is a sayyid.”1

Shaykh al-Arnaut comments:

إسناده صحيح على شرط البخاري

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of al-Bukhari.2

Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H) also states about the same hadith:

هذا حديث حسن صحيح

This hadith is hasan sahih.3

And ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) agrees:

صحيح

Sahih4

In another report, our Prophet explains what this means. ‘Allamah al-Albani copies this hadith:

ابناي هذان: الحسن والحسين: سيدا شباب أهل الجنة وأبوهما خير منهما

These two sons of mine, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, are the two sayyids of the youth of the people of Paradise, and their father is better than them both.5

The ‘Allamah comments:

صحيح

Sahih6

Imam al-Hakim (d. 403 H) also documents a similar report:

حدثنا أبو سعيد عمرو بن محمد بن منصور العدل ثنا السري بن خزيمة ثنا عثمان بن سعيد المري ثنا علي بن صالح عن عاصم عن زر عن عبد الله رضي الله عنه قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الحسن والحسين سيدا شباب أهل الجنة وأبوهما خير منهما

Abu Sa’id ‘Amr b. Muhammad b. Mansur al-‘Adl – al-Sirri b. Khuzaymah – ‘Uthman b. Sa’id al-Mirri – ‘Ali b. Salih – ‘Asim – Zirr – ‘Abd Allah, may Allah be pleased with him:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said: “Al-Hasan and al-Husayn are the two sayyids of the youth of the people of Paradise, and their father is better than them both.”7

Al-Hakim states:

هذا حديث صحيح بهذه الزيادة

This hadith is sahih with this ziyadah.8

And Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) concurs:

صحيح

Sahih9

In other words,both al -Hasan and al-Husayn, ‘alaihima al-salam, are superior in the Sight of Allah to anyone who will be a youth in Paradise. Of course, everyone in Paradise will be young. Imam al-Darimi (d. 255 H) records:

أخبرنا محمد بن يزيد الرفاعي ثنا معاذ يعني بن هشام عن أبيه عن عامر الأحول عن شهر بن حوشب عن أبي هريرة عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال أهل الجنة شباب جرد مرد كحل لا تبلى ثيابهم ولا يفنى شبابهم

Muhammad b. Yazid al-Rufa’i – Mu’adh b. Hisham – his father – ‘Amir al-Ahwal – Shahr b. Hawshab – Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet, peacebe upon him, said: “The people of Paradise will be hairless, beardless youth, with their eyes anointed with kohl. Their cloths will never become worn and their youth will never end.”10

Shaykh Dr. Asad comments:

إسناده حسن

Its chain is hasan.11

So, Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn are the best of all the people of Paradise, from Adam till the last human being to die. The only exceptions are the Prophet himself – being the sayyid of mankind – and Amir al-Muminin,who has been explicitly excluded. The direct implication of this is that Imam ‘Ali is the sayyid of all inhabitants of Paradise with the sole exception of the Messenger of Allah. Expectedly, the Ahl al-Sunnahwa al-Jama’ah are troubled by the possibility of ‘Ali, al-Hasan or al-Husayn being superior to either Abu Bakr or ‘Umar. Its implication is severe on the legitimacy of the Sunni khilafah system. Imam al-Mubarakfuri (d. 1282 H) therefore posits the various Sunni diversions of the hadith:

قوله الحسن والحسين سيدا شباب أهل الجنة قال المظهر يعني هما أفضل من مات شابا في سبيل الله من أصحاب الجنة ولم يرد به سن الشباب لأنهما ماتا وقد كهلا أو أنهما سيدا أهل الجنة سوى الأنبياء والخلفاء الراشدين وذلك لأن أهل الجنة كلهم في سن واحد وهو الشباب وليس فيهم شيخ ولا كهل قال الطيبي ويمكن أن يراد هما الان سيدا شباب من هم من أهل الجنة من شبان هذا الزمان

His statement “al-Hasan and al-Husayn are the two sayyids of the youth of the people of Paradise” Al-Muzaffar said: “It means that both of them are the best and most superior of whoever died young on the Path of Allah among the inhabitants of Paradise. He (the Prophet) did not intend by it the age of youth, because both of them died at elderly ages Or both of them are sayyids of the people of Paradise except the prophets and the khulafa al-rashidin. And this is because the people of Paradise will all be of the same age, and that is youth, and there will not be any old or elderly person among them.”

Al-Tayyibi said, “It is possible the intended meaning is that both of them (i.e. al-Hasan and al-Husayn) were at that moment sayyids of those youth who were from the people of Paradise from that era.”12

All these acrobatics are obviously aimed at propping up Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah explains why:

فقال بل نبايعك أنت فأنت سيدنا وخيرنا وأحبنا إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ليبين بذلك أن المأمور به تولية الأفضل وأنت أفضلنا فنبايعك

So, he (‘Umar) said, “Rather, we will follow you because you are our sayyid.... He wanted to make clear through it that: What is ORDAINED is to give authority to the best, and you are the best of us. So, we will follow you.13

In simpler words, if it were confirmed that both al-Hasan and al-Husayn were superior to Abu Bakr,then the latter’s khilafah would be illegitimate! It was, and is always, obligatory in the religion of Muhammad to give authority and leadership to the best only. The direct implication of this is that khilafah was the exclusive right of Amir al-Muminin, after the Messenger of Allah. After all, he was, and still is, the sayyid of all Muslims after their Prophet.

Meanwhile, do the Sunni acrobatics really help their cause? There is a Sunni-only version of the riwayah, which puts a complete end to the debate. ‘Allamah al-Albani copies this hadith:

الحسن والحسين سيدا شباب أهل الجنة إلا ابني الخالة عيسى بن مريم ويحيى بن زكريا وفاطمة سيدة نساء أهل الجنة إلا ما كان من مريم بنت عمران

Al-Hasan and al-Husayn are the two sayyids of the people of Paradise, except the two maternal cousins: ‘Isa b. Maryam and Yahya b. Zakariyah. And Fatimah is the sayyidah of the women of the people of Paradise except Maryam bint ‘Imran.14

The ‘Allamah says:

صحيح

Sahih15

So, after the Messenger of Allah and Amir al-Muminin, the only other creatures who will not be under the superiority of al-Hasan and al-Husayn in Paradise are Prophet ‘Isa, ‘alaihi al-salam, and Prophet Yahya, ‘alaihi al-salam. Now, how exactly can our Sunni brothers explain away this one to save their first two khalifahs?

Notes

1. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 5, p. 37, # 20408

2. Ibid

3. Abu ‘Isa Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Sulami al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 5, p. 658, # 3773

4. Ibid

5. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Sahih al-Jami’ al-Saghirwa Ziyadatuhu (Al-Maktab al-Islami), vol. 1, p. 70, # 47

6. Ibid

7. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Mustafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Ata], vol. 3, p. 182, # 4779

8. Ibid

9. Ibid

10. Abu Muhammad ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Darimi, Sunan (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Husayn Salim Asad], vol. 2, p. 431, # 2826

11. Ibid

12. Abu al-‘Ala Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwazi bi Sharh Jami’ al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1410 H), vol. 10, p. 186

13. Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halim b. Taymiyyah al-Harrani, Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (Muasassat Qurtubah; 1st edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad Rashad Salim], vol. 8, p. 565

14. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Sahih al-Jami’ al-Saghirwa Ziyadatuhu (Al-Maktab al-Islami), vol. 1, p. 607, # 3181

15. Ibid

19) Hadith Sadd Al-Abwab,A Tale of Two Hadiths

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H) states:

وكذلك قوله وسد الأبواب كلها إلا باب علي فإن هذا مما وضعته الشيعة على طريق المقابلة فإن الذي في الصحيح عن أبي سعيد عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم أنه قال في مرضه الذي مات فيه إن أمن الناس علي في ماله وصحبته أبو بكر ولو كنت متخذا خليلا غير ربي لاتخذت أبا بكر خليلا ولكن أخوة الإسلام ومودته لا يبقين في المسجد خوخة إلا سدت إلا خوخة أبي بكر

And likewise, his statement “and close all doors except the door of ‘Ali”, verily, this is part of what was fabricated by the Shi’ah in order to oppose. This is because that which is recorded in the Sahih from Abu Sa’id from the Prophet, peace be upon him, is that he said during his fatal illness: “The one among mankind who has conferred upon me the most FAVOURS with his money and his company is Abu Bakr. If I were to choose a friend (khalil) other than my Lord, I would have chosen Abu Bakr as a friend (khalil).However, the Islamic brotherhood and his kindness (are enough). Close all the wickets in the mosque except the wicket of Abu Bakr.”1

There are a number of quick points from the above:

1. There are two irreconciliably contradictory reports – one of them in favour of ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam, and the other in favour of Abu Bakr.

2. Both hadiths have the same contents.

3. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah thinks that the Shi’ah fabricated the report in favour of ‘Ali in order to oppose that in favour of Abu Bakr.

The hadith in favour of Abu Bakr, which our dear Shaykh has quoted, however has some fatal problems. For instance, Imam Muslim (d. 261 H) records that the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihiwa alihi, had said:

لا تبقين في المسجد خوخة إلا خوخة أبي بكر

No WICKET shall remain in the mosque except the WICKET of Abu Bakr.2

This calls for the destruction or removal – and not closure - of all wickets in the mosque. Meanwhile, it directly contradicts another “sahih” version quoted by our Shaykh:

لا يبقين في المسجد خوخة إلا سدت إلا خوخة أبي بكر

Close all the WICKETS in the mosque except the WICKET of Abu Bakr.

Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) also documents that the Messenger of Allah had said:

ان أمن الناس على في صحبته وماله أبو بكر ولو كنت متخذا من الناس خليلا غير ربي لاتخذت أبا بكر ولكن إخوة الإسلام أو مودته لا يبقى باب في المسجد الا سد الا باب أبي بكر

The one among mankind who has conferred upon me the most FAVOURS with his company and his money is Abu Bakr. If I were to choose from mankind a friend (khalil) other than my Lord, I would have chosen Abu Bakr as a friend (khalil). However, the Islamic brotherhood or his kindness is enough. Close all the DOORS in the mosque except the DOOR of Abu Bakr.3

Shaykh al-Arnaut comments:

صحيح وهذا إسناد حسن

It is sahih, and this chain is hasan.4

Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H) seals it:

حدثنا محمد بن حميد حدثنا إبراهيم بن المختار عن إسحق بن راشد عن الزهري عن عروة عن عائشة أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم أمر بسد الأبواب إلا باب أبي بكر

Muhammad b. Hamid – Ibrahim b. al-Mukhtar – Ishaq b. Rashid – al-Zuhri – ‘Urwah – ‘Aishah:

The Prophet, peace be upon him, ordered the closure of the doors except the DOOR of Abu Bakr.5

‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) says:

صحيح

Sahih6

Of course, a “wicket” is an entirely different thing from a “door”! So, what exactly did the Prophet mention? Was it a wicket or a door? Moreover, what instruction did he give exactly?Destruction or removal of wickets? Closure of wickets? Or, closure of doors? These are fundamental inconsistencies in these reports of the same hadith, and this only suggests that they were mere “rushed” polemical arts.

Worse still, the hadith assumes that people used to do “favours” to the Messenger of Allah with their company and their wealth. But, what is a favour? It is an act of kindness that is performed beyond what is due or normal, to which the beneficiary is NOT entitled at all by right. If the beneficiary is entitled to it by right, then it is no longer a “favour”. So, if we accepted the hadith cited by our Shaykh, we must conclude that the Prophet had no right to the company of his Sahabah! Rather, they only kept him company out of their magnanimity to him. As such, it was something he should be thanking them all for, especially Abu Bakr who supposedly did the most “favours” in this regard! The Qur’an, however, has directly refuted all that:

يمنون عليك أن أسلموا قل لا تمنوا علي إسلامكم بل الله يمن عليكم أن هداكم للإيمان إن كنتم صادقين

They regard as a favour upon you (O Muhammad) that they have embraced Islam. Say: “Count NOT your Islam as a favour upon me. Rather, Allah has conferred a favour upon you, that He has guided you to the Faith, if you are truthful”.7

So, the Islam of Abu Bakr – the obligations of which [if genuine] would certainly have included his spendings in the Way of Allah and his companionship – was never a favour upon the Messenger of Allah! By contrast, it was the Prophet who had done favour to him by giving him guidance and his own blessed company. This is further indicated in this verse:

لقد من الله على المؤمنين إذ بعث فيهم رسولا من أنفسهم يتلو عليهم آياته ويزكيهم ويعلمهم الكتاب والحكمة وإن كانوا من قبل لفي ضلال مبين

Indeed, Allah has conferred a favour upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, reciting unto them His Verses, and purifying them, and teaching them the Book and wisdom, while before that they had been in manifest misguidance.8

Therefore, there is no doubt about it. The Prophet of Allah was the one doing the favour, on behalf of Him, to Abu Bakr and the other Sahabah. It was never the other way round. No Muslim ever did a single favour to the Messenger. The Qur’an is very explicit about this.

Honestly, it is also a grave insult to the office of nubuwwah to suggest that Abu Bakr was doing a “favour” to the Prophet by keeping him company! There is even an element of blasphemy in it. If Abu Bakr was the one conferring a “favour” upon the Prophet – and not the other way round – through his company, does this not suppose that the former was the superior party? The “favour” of companionship is conferred only by masters. Subordinates serve their superiors through their companionship, while friends exercise it as a duty of their bond, and never as a “favour”.

The third fatal problem with the report of Abu Sa’id – which is far more serious - is that it presupposes that the Prophet did not have any khalil (friend) among his followers – not even a single one! That indeed is extremely weird! A khalil is a friend or companion whom you love and who loves you! So, the Messenger of Allah did not have a single friend or companion among the Muslims whom he loved, and who loved him?! Is that not a very reckless submission?

The truth however is that all pious people are akhilla (plural of khalil) of one another. Each loves all the others, and is loved by them. Allah says:

الأخلاء يومئذ بعضهم لبعض عدو إلا المتقين

Friends (akhilla, plural of khalil) on that Day will be foes one to another, except the pious.9

Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H) comments:

وقوله: {الأخلاء يومئذ بعضهم لبعض عدو إلا المتقين} أي: كل صداقة وصحابة لغير الله فإنها تنقلب يوم القيامة عداوة إلا ما كان لله، عز وجل، فإنه دائم بدوامه

His Statement {Friends on that Day will be foes one to another, except the pious}, means: every friendship or companionship that is not for the sake of Allah will turn on the Day of Resurrection into enmity, except what was for the sake of Allah the Almighty the Most Glorious, which will survive forever.10

Imam al-Baghwi (d. 516 H) also submits:

{الأخلاء} على المعصية في الدنيا، {يومئذ} يوم القيامة، {بعضهم لبعض عدو إلا المتقين} إلا المتحابين في الله عز وجل على طاعة الله عز وجل

{Friends} upon sin in this world, {on that Day} the Day of Resurrection, {will be foes one to another, except the pious} except those who love one another for the sake of Allah the Almighty the Most Glorious, upon obedience to Allah the Almighty, the Most Glorious.11

Imam Abu Sa’ud (d. 951 H) further states under the verse:

} الأخلاء }المتحابون

{Friends [akhilla]} [means ] people who love one another.12

So, we ask: did the Prophet not have any friend or companion who loved him and whom he loved? If he did, then such a friend or companion was his khalil! If there none, there could be only one possible explanation: none of the Sahabah was pious! ‘Allamah al-Albani has copied a hadith proving such a conclusion:

إن أوثق عرى الإسلام: أن تحب في الله و تبغض في الله

Verily, the strongest handhold of Islam is that you love for the sake of Allah and hate for the sake of Allah.13

The ‘Allamah states:

حسن

Hasan14

Since the Messenger loved and hated only for the sake of Allah, then he certainly loved all the pious ones among his Sahabah, at the least due to this verse:

إن الله يحب المتقين

Surely, Allah loves the pious.15

Of course, it is completely unthinkable that any Muslim could be pious without loving the Messenger of Allah! As such, we affirm that the Prophet did have akhilla – friends and companions who loved him for the sake of Allah and whom He too loved for His sake. There, in fact, were many of them! The most noticeable of them, of course, in the ahadith of the Messenger is none other than Amir al-Muminin. Imam Muslim records:

حدثنا قتيبة بن سعيد ومحمد بن عباد (وتقاربا في اللفظ) قالا حدثنا حاتم (وهو ابن إسماعيل) عن بكير بن مسمار عن عامر بن سعد بن أبي وقاص عن أبيه قال أمر معاوية بن أبي سفيان سعدا فقال ما منعك أن تسب أبا التراب؟ فقال أما ذكرت ثلاثا قالهن له رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فلن أسبه ...سمعته يقول يوم خيبر لأعطين الراية رجلا يحب الله ورسوله ويحبه الله ورسوله قال فتطاولنا لها فقال ادعوا لي عليا فأتى به أرمد فبصق في عينه ودفع الراية إليه ففتح الله عليه

Qutaybah b. Sa’id and Muhammad b. ‘Abbad – Hatim b. Isma’il – Bukayr b. Musmar – ‘Amir b. Sa’id b. Abi Waqqas – his father (Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas):

Mu’awiyah commandedSa’d , and therefore said, “What prevented you from cursing Abu al-Turab (i.e. ‘Ali)?” So, he (Sa’d) replied, “As long as I remember three things which the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said about him, I will never curse him I heard him saying on the Day of Khaybar, “I will give the flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and Allah and His Messenger too love him.” So, we longed for it (i.e. the flag). Then he said, “Call ‘Ali for me”, and he was brought to him. He was sore-eyed. He applied saliva to his eye and gave the flag to him, and Allah granted him victory.”16

This leaves absolutely no questions. Amir al-Muminin was a confirmed khalil of both Allah and His Messenger. Interestingly, the report quoted by Ibn Taymiyyah claims that Abu Bakr was NEVER a khalil of the Prophet! Rather, there was only a wish that he was! So, that hadith – apart from its serious defects – actually undermines, rather than promote, the cause of Abu Bakr! It, among others, shows that there was no reciprocated love between him and the Messenger of Allah. This, in turn, casts grave doubts upon a number of claims made about Abu Bakr, especially those concerning his piety.

Perhaps, the greatest threat against the hadith about Abu Bakr is the version about ‘Ali itself! Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) writes about it at length:

منها حديث سعد بن أبي وقاص قال أمرنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بسد الأبواب الشارعة في المسجد وترك باب علي أخرجه أحمد والنسائي وإسناده قوي

وفي رواية للطبراني في الأوسط رجالها ثقات من الزيادة فقالوا يا رسول الله سددت أبوابنا فقال ما انا سددتها ولكن الله سدها

وعن زيد بن أرقم قال كان لنفر من الصحابة أبواب شارعة في المسجد فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سدوا هذه الأبواب الا باب علي فتكلم ناس في ذلك فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اني والله ما سددت شيئا ولا فتحته ولكن أمرت بشئ فاتبعته أخرجه أحمد والنسائي والحاكم ورجاله ثقات

وعن ابن عباس قال أمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بأبواب المسجد فسدت الا باب علي وفي رواية وأمر بسد الأبواب غير باب علي فكان يدخل المسجد وهو جنب ليس له طريق غيره أخرجهما أحمد والنسائي ورجالهما ثقات

وعن جابر بن سمرة قال أمرنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بسد الأبواب كلها غير باب علي فربما مر فيه وهو جنب أخرجه الطبراني

وعن ابن عمر قال كنا نقول في زمن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خير الناس ثم أبو بكر ثم عمر ولقد أعطى علي بن أبي طالب ثلاث خصال لان يكون لي واحدة منهن أحب إلي من حمر النعم زوجه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ابنته وولدت له وسد الأبواب الا بابه في المسجد وأعطاه الراية يوم خيبر أخرجه أحمد وإسناده حسن

واخرج النسائي من طريق العلاء بن عرار بمهملات قال فقلت لابن عمر أخبرني عن علي وعثمان فذكر الحديث وفيه وأما علي فلا تسأل عنه أحدا وانظر إلى منزلته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قد سد أبوابنا في المسجد وأقر بابه ورجاله رجال الصحيح الا العلاء وقد وثقه يحيى بن معين وغيره

وهذه الأحاديث يقوي بعضها بعضا وكل طريق منها صالح للاحتجاج فضلا عن مجموعها

Among them is the hadith ofSa’d b. Abi Waqqas: “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, ORDERED us to close all the doors opening into the mosque, and he left (open) the door of ‘Ali.” Ahmad and al-Nasai recorded it and its chain is qawi (strong).

And in the report of al-Tabarani in al-Awsat, whose narrators are trustworthy, there is the addition: “So they said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! You have closed our doors.’ He replied, ‘I have not closed it. Rather, Allah has closed it.’”

Zayd b. Arqam also narrated: “Some of the Sahabah had doors opening into the mosque. So, the Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said, ‘Close all these doors except the door of ‘Ali.’ Then, some people criticized that (order). As a result, the Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said, ‘I swear by Allah, I have not closed anything or open it. Rather, I was ordered (by Allah) to do something, and I followed it (i.e. the order).’” Ahmad, al-Nasai and al-Hakim recorded it and its narrators are trustworthy.

Ibn ‘Abbas further narrated: “The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, commanded that the doors of the mosque be closed except the door of ‘Ali.” In another report (he said): “He ordered the closure of the doors other than the door of ‘Ali. So, he used to enter the mosque after having a seminal discharge before performing his purification bath. He had no other path except it (i.e. the mosque)”. Ahmad and Nasai recorded it and their narrators are trustworthy.

Jabir b. Samurah also narrated: “The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him ordered us to close all the doors except the door of ‘Ali. So, perhaps, he would pass through it (i.e. the mosque) after having a seminal discharge before performing his purification bath.” Al-Tabarani recorded it.

Ibn ‘Umar narrated: “We used to say during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, is the best of mankind, then Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar. ‘Ali b. Abi Talib has been given three qualities, if I had just one of them, it would be more beloved to me than a red camel. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, married his daughter to him, and she gave birth to his children. He (the Prophet) also closed the doors in the mosque except his door. And he gave him the flag on the Day of Khaybar.” Ahmad recorded it and its chain is hasan.

And al-Nasai recorded through the route of al-‘Ala b. ‘Arar: “I said to Ibn ‘Umar: ‘Tell me about ‘Ali and ‘Uthman’.” Then he (al-Nasai) mentioned the hadith (as above), and added (that Ibn ‘Umar said), “As for ‘Ali, do not ask anyone about him. Just look at his status from the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. He had closed our doors in the mosques and left his door open.” Its narrators are narrators of the Sahih except al-‘Ala, and Yahya b. Ma’in and others have declared him thiqah (trustworthy).

These ahadith strengthen one another, and each of the chains is qualified to be used as a hujjah, much less their combination.17

Imam al-Tirmidhi further records:

حدثنا محمد بن حميد الرازي حدثنا إبراهيم بن المختار عن شعبة عن أبي بلج عن عمرو بن ميمون عن ابن عباس أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أمر بسد الأبواب إلا باب علي

Muhammad b. Hamid al-Razi – Ibrahim b. al-Mukhtar – Shu’bah – Abu Balj – ‘Amr b. Maymun – Ibn ‘Abbas:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, ORDERED that all doors be closed except the door of ‘Ali.18

And ‘Allamah al-Albani comments:

صحيح

Sahih19

Imam al-Haythami (d. 807 H) also documents:

وعن عبد الله بن الرقيم الكناني قال : خرجنا إلى المدينة زمن الجمل فلقينا سعد بن مالك بها فقال: أمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم بسد الأبواب الشارعة في المسجد وترك باب علي

Narrated ‘Abd Allah b. al-Raqim al-Kanani:

We went to Madinah during the time of (the Battle of) al-Jamal (between ‘Ali and ‘Aishah) and we metSa’d b. Malik there (i.e. in Madinah), and he said, “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, ORDERED that all the doors opening into the mosque must be closed, and he left (open) the door of ‘Ali.”20

Then, he says:

رواه أحمد وإسناد أحمد حسن

Ahmad narrated it and the chain of Ahmad is hasan.21

Meanwhile, ‘Allamah al-Albani has some additional comments:

قلت: ولعله يشير إلى حديث أبي بلج: حدثنا عمرو بن ميمون عن ابن عباس مرفوعا مختصرا بلفظ :" سدوا أبواب المسجد غير باب علي". قال: " فيدخل المسجد جنبا وهو طريقه، ليس له طريق غيره ".

أخرجه أحمد (1/330 - 331 و 331) عن أبي عوانة، والترمذي (2/301) ، والنسائي في " الخصائص " (63/42) عن شعبة عنه نحوه؛ دون دخول المسجد وقال: "حديث غريب ".

قلت: وإسناده جيد، رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين؛ غير أبي بلج - وهو الفزاري الكوفي - وهو صدوق ربما أخطأ كما في "التقريب ".

وهذا القدر من الحديث صحيح له شواهد كثيرة يقطع الواقف عليها بصحته

I say: Perhaps he is referring to the hadith of Abu Balj – ‘Amr b. Maymun – Ibn ‘Abbas from the Prophet in a summarized manner with this wording, “Close the doors of the mosque except the door of ‘Ali.” He said, “So he (‘Ali) used to enter the mosque after having a seminal discharge before performing the purification bath. It (i.e. the mosque) was his pathway, and he had no other pathway except it.”

Ahmad (1/330-331 and 331) recorded it from Abu ‘Awanah, and al-Tirmidhi (2/301), and al-Nasai in al-Khasais (42/63) from Shu’bah from him, without (mentioning) the entrance into the mosque and he (al-Tirmidhi) said, “a gharib (strange) hadith.”

I say: Its chain is jayyid (good). Its narrators are trustworthy, narrators of the two Shaykhs, apart from Abu Balj – and he is al-Fazari al-Kufi – and he is saduq (very truthful), maybe he made mistakes, as stated in al-Taqrib.

This part of the hadith is sahih. It has a lot of shawahid (witnesses), which absolutely necessitate accepting it as sahih.22

These reports basically cancel out those about Abu Bakr, and leave no room for reconciliation or harmonization. If we assumed – for the sake of argument - that both events might haved occurred, then one of them must at least have preceded the other. So, which was it? The highly interesting part is that whichever of them is placed earlier cancels out the possibility of the other. Apparently baffled by the huge clash between the two hadiths – one in favour of Abu Bakr and the other in favour of ‘Ali – al-Hafiz makes a desperate attempt to find a middle ground:

الجمع بينهما بما دل عليه حديث أبي سعيد الخدري يعني الذي أخرجه الترمذي ان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لا يحل لاحد ان يطرق هذا المسجد جنبا غيري وغيرك والمعنى ان باب علي كان إلى جهة المسجد ولم يكن لبيته باب غيره فلذلك لم يؤمر بسده ويؤيد ذلك ما أخرجه إسماعيل القاضي في احكام القران من طريق المطلب بن عبد الله بن حنطب ان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يأذن لاحد ان يمر في المسجد وهو جنب الا لعلي بن أبي طالب لان بيته كان في المسجد

ومحصل الجمع ان الامر بسد الأبواب وقع مرتين ففي الأولى استثنى علي لما ذكره وفي الأخرى استثنى أبو بكر ولكن لا يتم ذلك الا بان يحمل ما في قصة علي على الباب الحقيقي وما في قصة أبي بكر على الباب المجازي والمراد به الخوخة كما صرح به في بعض طرقه وكأنهم لما أمروا بسد الأبواب سدوها وأحدثوا خوخا يستقربون الدخول إلى المسجد منها فأمروا بعد ذلك بسدها فهذه طريقة لا بأس بها في الجمع بين الحديثين

Hamonization between the two (hadiths) is through what is proved by the hadith of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, that is the one recorded by al-Tirmidhi, that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said (to ‘Ali), “It is not permissible for anyone to pass through this mosque after having a seminal discharge before performing his purification bath except me and you (i.e. ‘Ali).” The meaning is that the door of ‘Ali opens into the mosque and his house had no other door. This was why he was not commanded to close it.

This is confirmed by what Isma’il al-Qadhi recorded in Ahkam al-Qur’an from the route of al-Mutalib b. ‘Abd Allah b. Hantab that the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not permit anyone to pass through the mosque after having a seminal discharge, before performing his purification bath, except ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, because his house was in the mosque.”

The outcome of the harmonization is that the command to close the doors occurred twice. In the first instance, only ‘Ali was exempted due to the reason mentioned. In the other instance, only Abu Bakr was exempted. However, that will not be fully correct except by interpreting what is (mentioned) in the story of ‘Ali (i.e. the door) literally, and what is (mentioned) in the story of Abu Bakr (i.e. the door) metaphorically. What is meant by it (i.e. the door in Abu Bakr’s story) is his wicket, as explicitly stated through some of its chains. It is as though he (the Prophet) ordered that the doors be closed. They (the Sahabah) closed them but made wickets instead through which they entered into the mosque. Then he (the Prophet) ordered that they too be closed. There is no problem with this method of harmonizingthe two hadiths.23

Through this submission, al-Hafiz seeks to kill three birds with a single stone:

1. Remove the inconsistencies in the hadith about Abu Bakr by re-interpreting “wicket” to mean “door”.

2. Explain away the reason for allowing ‘Ali to leave his door open.

3. Placing the story of ‘Ali ahead in time before that of Abu Bakr.

However, this in fact only creates even more severe problems! Our Hafiz submits that the house of ‘Ali had no other door except that in the masjid. Therefore, if his only door had been closed, he would have had no way of accessing his house any longer, and his family would have been caged inside it.

As such, he was excused and exempted the first time. But then, why would the Messenger of Allah have nonetheless gone ahead later to issue a new order against ‘Ali to seal his sole door? After all, no evidence is led to show that Amir al-Muminin had later built a second exit from his house! Did the Prophet really intend to siege Imam ‘Ali and his family in, or banish them from, their house, as al-Hafiz suggests?!

Besides, the Sunninarrative of the two incidents do not place their Sahabah in a good light. Al-Hafiz states:

والمراد به الخوخة كما صرح به في بعض طرقه وكأنهم لما أمروا بسد الأبواب سدوها وأحدثوا خوخا يستقربون الدخول إلى المسجد منها فأمروا بعد ذلك بسدها فهذه طريقة لا بأس بها في الجمع بين الحديثين

What is meant by it (i.e. the door in Abu Bakr’s story) is his wicket, as explicitly stated through some of its chains. It is as though he (the Prophet) ordered that the doors be closed. They (the Sahabah) closed them but made wickets instead through which they entered into the mosque. Then he (the Prophet) ordered that they too be closed. There is no problem with this method of harmonizing the two hadiths.

Simply put, the Messenger ordered his companions to “close” their doors which had opened into his mosque. The order to close meant that the doors were NOT to be removed or replaced. Rather, they were to be left intact, but under lock.

However, what did the Sahabah do instead? They disobeyed the order by removing the doors and replacing them with wickets! One of these rebellious companions was Abu Bakr. What Sunni Islam wants us to believe, however, is that the Prophet later legitimized their disobedience and recognized their wickets! Worse still, he even proceeded to refer to those illegal wickets as “doors”!

Meanwhile, we consider it utterly unthinkable that the Messenger of Allah would have referred to “wickets” as “doors” in any circumstance! It is like designating a kitchen knife as a sword! The Prophet was the master of language, knowledge and wisdom on the earth. It would be highly blasphemous to suggest that he did not know the difference between wickets and doors, or that he equated the two!

Moreover, disobedience to Allah and His Messenger is neverokayed or rewarded in Islam. It is instead condemned and sanctioned appropriately. Abu Bakr’s wicket – in line with the theory of al-Hafiz – was installed, in clear disobedience to Allah and His Messenger. The order to him was to keep his door intact, but closed. However, he replaced it instead with his wicket. As such, it was nothing but an illegal entity. Obviously, the Prophet of Allah would never have applauded such rebellion or its symbols!

Notes

1. Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halim b. Taymiyyah al-Harrani, Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (Muasassat Qurtubah; 1st edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad Rashad Salim], vol. 5, p. 35

2. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 4, p. 1854, # 2382 (2)

3. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 3, p. 18, # 11150

4. Ibid

5. Abu ‘Isa Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Sulami al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 5, p. 616, # 3678

6. Ibid

7. Qur’an 49:17

8. Qur’an 3:164

9. Qur’an 43:67. This verse, among others, brings down a notion which is very widespread among common Sunnis that the word khalil refers to the person most beloved to another. If such were the case, then the Prophet would have been the sole khalil of every pious Muslim. However, each pious Muslim is a khalil of the other, in this world and in the Hereafter, and this is very explicit from the verse.

10. Abu al-Fida Isma’il b. ‘Umar b. Kathir al-Qurshi al-Dimashqi, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim (Dar al-Taybah li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 2nd edition, 1420 H) [annotator: Sami b. Muhammad Salamah], vol. 7, p. 237

11. Abu Muhammad al-Husayn b. Mas’ud al-Baghwi, Mu’alim al-Tanzil (Dar Tayyibah; 4th edition, 1417 H), vol. 7, p. 221

12. Abu Sa’ud Muhammad b. Muhammad al-‘Imadi, Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salimila Mizaya al-Qur’an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi), vol. 8, p. 54

13. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Sahih al-Jami’ al-Saghirwa Ziyadatuhu (Al-Maktab al-Islami), vol. 1, p. 342, # 883 (2009)

14. Ibid

15. Qur’an 9:4

16. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 4, p. 1870, # 2404 (32)

17. Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Taba’ahwa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 7, pp. 12-13

18. Abu ‘Isa Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Sulami al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 5, p. 641, # 3732

19. Ibid

20. Nur al-Din ‘Ali b. Abi Bakr al-Haythami, Majma’ al-Zawaid (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr; 1412 H), vol. 9, p. 149, # 14672

21. Ibid

22. Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Dha’ifahwa al-Mawdhu’ah wa Atharihah al-Sayyiah fi al-Ummah (Riyadh: Dar al-Ma’arif; 1st edition, 1412 H), vol. 6, pp. 481-482, # 2929

23. Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Taba’ahwa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 7, p. 13

4) Hadith Al-Wilayah, What Does Wali Mean?

The word wali has a range of different meanings. Hans Wehr lists its various definitions:

Helper, supporter, benefactor, sponsor; friend, close associate; relative; patron, protector; legal guardian, curator, tutor; a man close to God, holy man, saint (in the popular religion of Islam); master, proprietor, possessor, owner.1

Usually, its exact definition in any given situation is dictated by its context. ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) records that the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihiwa alihi, said:

ما تريدون من علي؟ ما تريدون من علي؟ ما تريدون من علي؟ إن عليا مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي .(صحيح)

“What do you want from ‘Ali? What do you want from ‘Ali? Verily, ‘Ali is from me and I am from him, and he is the wali of every believer after me.” (Sahih)2

But, despite weirdly denouncing the authenticity of this hadith, which is graded sahih above by ‘Allamah al-Albani, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H) also attacks the word wali in it:

و كذلك قوله هو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي كذب على رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم بل هو في حياته و بعد مماته ولي كل مؤمن و كل مؤمن وليه في المحيا و الممات فالولاية التي هي ضد العداوة لا تختص بزمان وأما الولاية التي هي الإمارة فيقال فيها والي كل مؤمن بعدي

And similarly his statement “he is the wali of every believer after me”, it is a lie upon the Messenger of Allah. Rather he (the Prophet), during his life and after his death, was the wali of every believer, and every believer is his wali in life and death. The walayah which means the opposite of enmity (i.e. friendship) is not restricted by time. As for the wilayah that means authority,then it is said concerning it: wali of every believer after me.3

In other words, wali (ولي ) only means “friend”. It cannot refer to anyone with authority. Rather, the only related word that means “master” is wali (والي ).So, if the Messenger of Allah had intended ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam, to be the ruler of the Muslims after him (as the Shi’ah assert), he would have used the second word, and not the first.

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah also proposes another word:

فقول القائل علي ولي كل مؤمن بعدي كلام يمتنع نسبته إلى النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فإنه إن أراد الموالاة لم يحتج ان يقول بعدي و إن أراد الإمارة كان ينبغي أن يقول وال على كل مؤمن

Therefore, the statement of the speaker “’Ali is the wali of every believer after me”, it is a statement that cannot be attributed to the Prophet, peace be upon him. This is because if he had intended friendship, he did not need to say “after me”, and if he intended authority, he was supposed to say: walin over every believer.4

According to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, the use of wali (ولي ) to mean “master” is a serious linguistic blunder. Rather, the correct word is wali (والي ). Alternatively, the word walin (وال ) should be used, but immediately coupled with “over”.

Interestingly, Shaykh al-Albani agrees with him:

فالحديث ليس فيه دليل البتة على أن عليا رضي الله عنه هو الأحق بالخلافة من الشيخين كما تزعم الشيعة لأن الموالاة غير الولاية التي هي بمعنى الإمارة، فإنما يقال فيها: والي كل مؤمن. هذا كله من بيان شيخ الإسلام وهو قوي متين كما ترى

There is no proof at all in the hadith that ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was more deserving of the khilafah (succession to the Prophet) than the two Shaykhs (i.e. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) as the Shi’ah claim. This is because friendship is different from the wilayah which means authority. In the latter, one only says: wali of every believer. All of this is from the explanations of Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyyah), and it is extremely strong as you can see.5

But, how can it be strong at all when it is only a fallacious submission? As indicated by Hans Wehr – a neutral party – wali (ولي ) also means “master”! Moreover, ‘Allamah al-Albani has misrepresented the Shi’ah position. Rather, they assert that Imam ‘Ali was the only legitimate ruler of the Muslim world immediately after the death of the Messenger of Allah, on the strength of this hadith! This is different from saying that he was more deserving of the succession than others. In the view of the Shi’ah, others do not deserve it at all; and it was not open for competition. So, the question of comparison does not even arise!

Contrary to the absurd claims of both Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and ‘Allamah al-Albani, the word wali (ولي ) is actually the most common – of the three words – in references to authority and power. In fact, it has been used in that sense in several places in the Qur’an! The Shi’i mufassir, Shaykh al-Tabarsi (d. 548 H), for instance, says:

) والذين كفروا أولياؤهم الطاغوت) أي :متولي أمورهم وأنصارهم

(And those who disbelieve, their awliya [plural of wali] are the evil ones) [2:257], meaning: their rulers and helpers.6

Al-Kashani (d. 1091 H) supports him:

) الله ولي الذين آمنوا) متولي أمورهم

(Allah is the Wali of those who believe) [2:257] their Ruler.7

‘Allamah al-Majlisi (d. 1111 H) also says:

والولي المتولي للأمور والناصر والمحب

The wali is the ruler, and the helper, and the lover.8

The Sunni position is the same as well. Imam Ibn Jawzi (d. 597 H) submits:

قوله تعالى) :الله ولي الذين آمنوا (أي: متولي أمورهم، يهديهم، وينصرهم، ويعينهم

Allah the Most High’s Statement: (Allah is the Wali of those who believe) [2:257] meaning: their Ruler, Who guides them, and helps them, and supports them.9

Imam al-Baydhawi (d. 685 H) supports him:

) الله ولي الذين آمنوا) محبهم أو متولي أمورهم

(Allah is the Wali of those who believe) [2:257] their Lover or their Ruler.10

Al-Tha’labi (d. 427 H) says something similar too:

) الله ولي الذين آمنوا) أي ناصرهم ومعينهم وقيل محبهم وقيل متولي أمرهم

(Allah is the Wali of those who believe)[257], meaning their Helper and Supporter. It is said: their Lover. And it is said: their Ruler.11

The same submission was made by al-Khazan (d. 725 H):

(والله ولي الذين آمنوا) أي ناصرهم ومعينهم وقيل محبم ومتولي أمورهم

(Allah is the Wali of those who believe), meaning: their Helper and Supporter. It is said: their Lover and Ruler.12

Al-Mahalli (d. 864 H) and al-Suyuti (d. 911 H) in their Tafsir al-Jalalayn, mince no words about this:

{أنت ولينا} متولي أمورنا

(You are our Wali) our Ruler.13

They also say:

{إن وليي الله} متولي أموري

{My Wali is Allah) [7:196] my Ruler.14

And:

{فهو وليهم} متولي أمورهم

{he is their wali} [16:63] their ruler.15

Imam al-Nasafi (d. 710 H) confirms them as well:

{الله ولي الذين آمنوا} [البقرة : 257] أي ناصرهم ومتولي أمورهم

{Allah is the Wali of those who believe} [Baqarah:257 ] meaning, their Helper and Ruler.16

Shaykh Ibn ‘Ashur, in turn, corroborates al-Nasafi:

) فهو وليهم اليوم....) والمعنى : فالشيطان وليّ المشركين اليوم ، أي متولّي أمرهم

(he is their wali today) [16:63].... the meaning is: “Shaytan is the wali of the pagans today”, meaning their ruler.17

‘Allamah Rashid Ridha (d. 1354 H), a Salafi scholar, says too:

(وهو وليهم بما كانوا يعملون) و{وليهم} متولي أمورهم

(And He will be their Wali because of what they used to do) [6:127].... And {their Wali} is their Ruler.18

He also says:

) والله وليهما) أي متولي أمورهما

(And Allah is their Wali) [3:122] meaning, their Ruler.19

As such, due to dishonesty or ignorance, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (supported by ‘Allamah al-Albani) effectively attributes linguistic incompetence to Allah, His Messenger and the mostly Sunni Muslim scholars! We have reasons to believe that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah deliberately misrepresents the truth about the word wali, but does not intend the blasphemous implications. He only seeks to undermine the Shi’i claims by all means, including by crook. We say this because Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah himself has said these words in the same Minhaj al-Sunnah:

وكل هؤلاء العلماء الذين ذكرناهم يعلمون أن عدل عمر كان أتم من عدل من ولي بعده وعلمه كان أتم من علم من ولى بعده

All of these ‘ulama that we have mentioned knew that the fairness of ‘Umar is more perfect that the fairness of anyone who became the wali after him, and his knowledge was more perfect than the knowledge of anyone who became the wali after him.20

He also writes:

و وجدنا عليا إذ ولي قد استعمل أقاربه

And we found that when ‘Ali became the wali, he appointed his relatives as governors.21

Is there any possibility that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is only discussing about friendship above?

An even more surprising stunt pulled by Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is in these words:

الفرق بين الولاية بالفتح و الولاية بالكسر معروف فالولاية ضد العداوة و هي المذكوره في هذه النصوص ليست هي الولاية بالكسر التي هي الإمارة و هؤلاء الجهال يجعلون الولي هو الأمير و لم يفرقوا بين الولاية و الولاية و الأمير يسمى الوالي لا يسمى الولي و لكن قد يقال هو ولي الأمر كما يقال وليت أمركم و يقال أولو الأمر و أما إطلاق القول بالمولى وإراده الوالي فهذا لا يعرف بل يقال في الولي المولى و لا يقال الوالي

The difference between walayah and wilayah is well-known. The walayah which is the opposite of enmity is what is mentioned in these texts, not wilayah which is authority. But these ignorant people make wali the ruler, and do not differentiate between walayah and wilayah. The ruler is called the wali and not the wali. However, the ruler is also called wali al-amr as it is said, “I am the wali of your amr (affairs)”. The rulers are further called ulu al-amr. As for the use of the word mawla, with the meaning of wali, this is not known (to be applied in relation to rulers). Rather, the wali is called mawla, and he is not called wali.22

In simpler terms:

1. The words walayah and wilayah are different.

2. Walayah applies only to friendship, and is related with wali (ولي ).

3. Wilayah means authority, and is related with wali (والي ).

4. Every hadith about ‘Ali only uses wali (ولي ), and not wali (والي ).

5. Therefore, ‘Ali has only friendship (walayah) through those ahadith, and not wilayah.

6. Both mawla (مولى ) and wali (ولي ) are synonymous, and are related to walayah only.

7. A ruler is never called a mawla (مولى ) or a wali (ولي ).

8. Rather, a ruler is only called wali (والي ), or wali al-amr (ولي الأمر ).

9. The wali al-amr (ولي الأمر ) is the one who is the wali (ولي ) of the amr (affairs) of the people.

10. For wali (ولي ) to mean ruler, it must be conjoined with amr.

None of these submissions is true! Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah himself has used the word wali (ولي ) above, without conjoining it with amr, to mean ruler! Elsewhere, he has also employed the same word, in the same form, along with amr:

وكان أبو بكر معلما للصبيان في الجاهلية وفي الإسلام كان خياطا ولما ولي أمر المسلمين منعه الناس عن الخياطة فقال إني محتاج إلى القوت فجعلوا له كل يوم ثلاثة دراهم من بيت المال

Abu Bakr was a teacher of children during the Jahiliyyah. But, during the Islamic era, he was a tailor. When he became the wali of the amr of the Muslims, the people forbade him from tailoring. So he said, “I need food”. Therefore, they gave to him three dirhams from the Public Treasury every day.23

Nobody is a better refuter of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah than himself! He says somewhere:

و وجدنا عليا إذ ولي قد استعمل أقاربه

And we found that when ‘Ali became the wali, he appointed his relatives as governors.24

Elsewhere, he states:

ولما ولي أمر المسلمين منعه الناس عن الخياطة

When he (Abu Bakr) became the wali of the amr of the Muslims, the people forbade him from tailoring.25

It is very apparent from these words that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, in truth, accepts that wali (ولي ), wali (والي ) and wali al-amr (ولي الأمر ) mean the same thing! But, he wants to defeat the Shi’ah, whatever it takes! What it has taken, of course, is this disturbing linguistic acrobatics! He is distorting the meaning of wali (ولي ) simply because it is the term used by the Prophet to describe Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali. Otherwise, if the Messenger of Allah had said that Imam ‘Ali would be the wali (والي ) or wali al-amr (ولي الأمر ) of every believer after him, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah would certainly have turned his own arguments inside out! In any case, the top lexicographers of both the Shi’ah and the Ahl al-Sunnah also agree that wali (ولي ) and (ولي الأمر ) are synonyms.

For instance, al-Jawhari (d. 393 H), who came more than 300 years before Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H), states:

وكل من ولى أمر واحد فهو وليه

Every person who is the wali of the amr of anyone, he is thereby the latter’s wali.26

He is corroborated by Ibn Faris (d. 395 H), another highly recognized Sunni lexicographer:

وكل من ولى أمر آخر فهو وليه

Every person who is the wali of the amr of anyone, he is thereby the latter’s wali.27

The most well-known and highest-regarded classical Sunni lexicographer, Ibn Manzur (d. 711 H), also submits:

كل من ولي أمر واحد فهو وليه

Every person who is the wali of the amr of anyone, he is thereby the latter’s wali.28

Finally, the highly authoritative Shi’ah lexicographer, al-Turayhi (d. 1085 H) caps it all:

والولي: الوالي، وكل من ولي أمر أحد فهو وليه

The wali is the wali, and every person who is the wali of the amr of anyone, he is thereby the latter’s wali.29

The wali of the amr (or simply wali al-amr) of anyone is his ruler. This is why Abu Bakr is referred to as the wali al-amr of the Muslims after the death of the Prophet. He was in charge, and had full control. In the same manner, the king of Saudi Arabia is the wali al-amr of Saudis while the British Prime Minister is the wali al-amr of Britons. The standard linguistic principle, of course, is that a synonym for wali al-amr is wali.

With that, Abu Bakr became the wali of the Muslims after the Prophet – according to Sunni Islam. The Saudi king is the wali of Saudis, and the British Prime Minister is the wali of Britons. This is a solid, undeniable reality that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah struggles so desperately to deny, conceal and distort. This, apparently, is because it poses a direct fatal threat to the survival of Sunni Islam as a whole!

At this point, the fallacy of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s weird claim that wali relates to walayah (friendship) only, and not to wilayah (authority) is very obvious. Wali can denote either walayah or wilayah, depending on its meaning within the specific context of each case. If, as the Shi’ah claim, it really means “ruler” in the case of Hadith al-Wilayah, then it is indeed wilayah!

A rarer meaning of wali is heir. We will be discussing this definition in detail at its place.

Notes

1. Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J. Milton Cowan (Ithaca, New York: Spoken Languages Services; 3rd edition, 1976 CE), p. 1100

2. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Sahih al-Jami’ al-Saghirwa Ziyadatuhu (Al-Maktab al-Islami), vol. 2, p. 980, # 1803

3. Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halim b. Taymiyyah al-Harrani, Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (Muasassat Qurtubah; 1st edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad Rashad Salim], vol. 7, p. 391

4. Ibid

5. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihahwa Shayhun min Fiqhihah wa Fawaidihah (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma’arif li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1415 H), vol. 5, p. 264, # 2223

6. Abu ‘Ali al-Fadhl b. al-Hasan al-Tabarsi, Majma’ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an (Beirut: Muasassat al-A’lami li al-Matbu’at; 1st edition, 1415 H), vol. 2, p. 165

7. Mullah Muhsin al-Faydh al-Kashani, Tafsir al-Safi (Tehran: Maktabah al-Sadr; 2nd edition, 1416 H) [annotator: Shaykh Husayn A’lami], vol. 1, p. 284

8. Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar al-Jami’ah li Durar Akhbar al-Aimah al-Athar (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi; 3rd edition, 1403 H), vol. 83, p. 184

9. Abu al-Faraj Jamal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Ali b. Muhammad al-Jawzi al-Qurshi al-Baghdadi, Zad al-Masir fi ‘Ilm al-Tafsir (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr; 1st edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman ‘Abd Allah], vol. 1, p. 268

10. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar al-Baydhawi, Tafsir (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr), vol. 1, p. 558

11. Abu Ishaq Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Tha’labi al-Naysaburi, al-Kashfwa al-Bayan (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1422 H) [annotator: Abu Muhammad b. ‘Ashur], vol. 1, P. 237

12. ‘Ala al-Din ‘Ali b. Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Khazan al-Baghdadi, Lubab al-Tawil fi Ma’ani al-Tanzil (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr; 1399 H), vol. 1, p. 272

13. Jalal al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Mahalli and Jalal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abu Bakr al-Suyuti, Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Cairo: Dar al-Hadith; 1st edition), p. 216

14. Ibid, p. 225

15. Ibid, p. 354

16. Abu Barakat ‘Abd Allah b. Ahmad b. Mahmud al-Nasafi, Tafsir al-Nasafi (Beirut: Dar al-Nafais; 2005 CE) [annotator: Marwan Muhammad al-Shi’ar], vol. 1, p. 199

17. Muhammad Tahir b. ‘Ashur, al-Tahrirwa al-Tanwir (Tunis: Dar al-Sahnun li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1997 CE), vol. 14, p. 194

18. Muhammad Rashid b. ‘Ali Ridha, Tafsir Qur’an al-Hakim (Egypt: al-Hay-ah al-Masriyyah al-‘Amma li al-Kitab; 1990 CE), vol. 8, p. 54

19. Ibid, Vol. 4, p. 90

20. Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halim b. Taymiyyah al-Harrani, Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (Muasassat Qurtubah; 1st edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad Rashad Salim], vol. 6, p. 54

21. Ibid, vol. 7, p. 485

22. Ibid, vol. 7, pp. 28-29

23. Ibid, vol. 8, pp. 540-541

24. Ibid, vol. 7, p. 485

25. Ibid, vol. 8, pp. 540-541

26. Isma’il b. Hammad al-Jawhari, al-Sihah: Taj al-Lughahwa Sihah al-‘Arabiyyah (Beirut: Dar al’-Ilm li al-Malayin; 4th edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Ahmad ‘Abd al-Ghafur ‘Atar], vol. 6, p. 2529

27. Abu al-Husayn Ahmad b. Faris b. Zakariyyah, Mu’jam Maqayis al-Lughah (Qum: Maktab al-A’lam al-Islami; 1404 H) [annotator: ‘Abd Salam Muhammad Harun], vol. 6, p. 141

28. Abu al-Fadhl Jamal al-Din Muhammad b. Mukram b. Manzur al-Afriqi al-Misri, Lisan al-‘Arab (Qum: Nashr Adab al-Hawzah; 1405 H), vol. 15, p. 410

29. Fakhr al-Din al-Turayhi, Majma’ al-Bahrayn (2nd edition, 1408 H) [annotator: Sayyid Ahmad al-Husayni], vol. 4, p. 554