Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

11) Hadith Al-Ada, the Report of Zayd B. Yathi’

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H) classifies Hadith al-Ada as “a lie”. Of course, it is actually hasan, as explicitly declared by both Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H) and ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H). Moreover, concerning reports of how the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihiwa alihi, implemented Hadith al-Ada in the case of Abu Bakr, the Shaykh further states:

وقال الخطابي في كتاب شعار الدين وقوله لا يؤدي عني إلا رجل من أهل بيتي هو شيء جاء به أهل الكوفة عن زيد بن يثيع وهو متهم في الرواية منسوب إلى الرفض

Al-Khattabi said in Kitab Shi’ar al-Din: “And his statement ‘None can discharge on my behalf except except a man from my Ahl al-Bayt’, it is something brought by the people of Kufa from Zayd b. Yathi’, and he is accused in narrations. He is attributed to al-rafdh (hardline anti-Abu Bakr Shi’ism).”1

Ibn Taymiyyah has approvingly quoted, and has relied upon and adopted, al-Khattabi’s opinion. Therefore, he is bound by its consequences.

Our Shaykh suggests that the reports of the Messenger’s implementation of Hadith al-Ada – in which the above-quoted phrase is mentioned – are narrated only by Kufans from a single man: Zayd b. Yathi’. This Zayd is accused in narrations – according to Ibn Taymiyyah – and has been attributed to al-rafdh. If what Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says were true, then the hadith would be mawdu’ (fabricated). However, is it so?

In the last chapter, we have presented different reliable chains of the reports (of the implementation), and none of them includes Zayd b. Yathi’. That alone exposes our dear Shaykh’s submission as a blatant distortion of reality. Zayd b. Yathi’ is not the only source of the reports!

But then, has Zayd b. Yathi’ really being accused in narrations? We will mention first the scholars of rijal who had commented about Zayd before Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H). Imam Muhammad b.Sa’d (d. 230 H) submits:

زيد بن يثيع :روى عن علي وحذيفة بن اليمان وكان قليل الحديث

Zayd b. Yathi’: He narrated from ‘Ali and Hudhayfah b.al-Yaman, and he narrated few ahadith.2

Imam al-‘Ijli (d. 261 H) also states:

زيد بن يثيع كوفي ثقة تابعي

Zayd b. Yathi’: A Kufan, thiqah (trustworthy), a Tabi’i.3

Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327 H) makes a mistake in the surname:

زيد بن نفيع الهمداني الكوفي روى عن علي وأبي ذر وحذيفة روى عنه أبو إسحاق الهمداني سمعت أبي يقول ذلك

Zayd b. Nafi’ al-Hamadani al-Kufi: He narrated from ‘Ali, Abu Dharr and Hudhayfah, and Abu Ishaq al-Hamadani narrated from him. I heard this from my father.4

Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H) has also included him in his book of thiqah (trustworthy) narrators:

زيد بن يثيع الهمداني كوفي يروى عن علي روى عنه أبو إسحاق السبيعي

Zayd b. Yathi’ al-Hamadani: A Kufan, he narrated from ‘Ali, and Abu Ishaq al-Sabi’i narrated from him.5

In addition to al-‘Ijli and Ibn Hibban, Imam al-Hakim (d. 403 H) too considers Zayd b. Yathi’ to be thiqah (trustworthy). He mentions this chain in his book:

حدثنا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب ثنا الحسن بن علي بن عفان وأخبرني محمد بن عبد الله الجوهري ثنا محمد بن إسحاق بن خزيمة ثنا الحسن بن علي بن عفان العامري ثنا فضيل بن مرزوق الرواسي ثنا أبو إسحاق عن زيد بن يثيع عن علي رضي الله عنه

Abu al-‘Abbas Muhammad b. Ya’qub – al-Hasan b. ‘Ali b. ‘Affan – Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Jawhari – Muhammad b. Ishaq b. Khuzaymah – al-Hasan b. ‘Ali b. ‘Affan al-‘Amiri – Fudhayl b. Marzuq al-Ruwasi – Abu Ishaq – Zayd b. Yathi’ – ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him.6

Commenting on the sanad, al-Hakim says:

هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد

This hadith has a sahih chain.7

It is noteworthy that NONE of the classical Sunni muhadithun ever accused Zayd b. Yathi’ of anything – whether lying, fabrication or al-rafdh. Rather, three of them called him thiqah (trustworthy). This reveals yet another disturbing foul play by our dear Shaykh, Ibn Taymiyyah.

What about the rijal scholars after Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H)? Al-Hakim further records this chain in his al-Mustadrak:

أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الصفار ثنا محمد بن إبراهيم الأصفهاني ثنا الحسين بن حفص عن سفيان عن أبي إسحاق عن زيد بن يثيع عن حذيفة رضي الله عنه

Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Saffar – Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Isfahani – al-Husayn b. Hafs – Sufyan – Abu Ishaq – Zayd b. Yathi’ – Hudhayfah, may Allah be pleased with him.8

Al-Hakim says:

هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيخين

This hadith is sahih upon the standardof the two Shaykhs.9

Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) confirms:

على شرط البخاري ومسلم

(Sahih) upon the standard of al-Bukhari and Muslim.10

We do not know on what ground both al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi have placed Zayd on the standard of the two Shaykhs, since neither of them has relied upon him in his Sahih. However, their main message – that he is thiqah (trustworthy) is unmistakable from their respective verdicts. Elsewhere, the same al-Dhahabi also says:

زيد بن يثيع عن أبي بكر وأبي ذر وعنه أبو إسحاق فقط وثق

Zayd b. Yathi’: He narrated from Abu Bakr and Abu Dharr, and only Abu Ishaq narrated from him. He has been graded thiqah (trustworthy).11

Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) also states:

زيد بن يثيع … الهمداني الكوفي ثقة مخضرم

Zayd b. Yathi’.... al-Hamadani al-Kufi: Thiqah (trustworthy). He witnessed both the Jahiliyyah and the Islamic era.12

In simple summary, these are the conclusions so far from our investigations in this chapter:

1. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s suggestion that reports of the Prophet’s implementation of Hadith al-Ada has been narrated by only Zayd b. Yathi’ is nothing but a complete fallacy.

2. His claims that Zayd b. Yathi’ was accused in narrations and that he was attributed to al-rafdh are both patent untruths, with absolutely no basis. Rather, Zayd b. Yathi’ in reality narrated ahadith from Abu Bakr, and is thiqah (trustworthy) according to several top-ranking Sunni muhadithun!

The most interesting part, however, is that Zayd b. Yathi’ actually also narrated about the Messenger’s implementation of Hadith al-Ada from two grand Sahabis - Abu Bakr and ‘Ali – with reliable chains! It is noteworthy that even without any report from Zayd b. Yathi’, the incident is reliably transmitted nonetheless, through other routes.Therefore, its authenticity is not dependent in any way upon Zayd b. Yathi’ or his reports. But, the ahadith of Zayd b. Yathi’ provide additional grounds of authenticity for that crucial episode in Islamic history.

Zayd b. Yathi’s hadith from Abu Bakr is documented by Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241 H):

حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثني أبي قال ثنا وكيع قال قال إسرائيل قال أبو إسحاق عن زيد بن يثيع عن أبي بكر: أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم بعثه ببراءة لأهل مكة فسار بها ثلاثا ثم قال لعلي رضي الله تعالى عنه ألحقه فرد علي أبا بكر وبلغها أنت قال ففعل قال فلما قدم على النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم أبو بكر بكى قال يا رسول الله حدث في شيء قال ما حدث فيك إلا خير ولكن أمرت أن لا يبلغه إلا أنا أو رجل مني

‘Abd Allah – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Waki’ – Israil – Abu Ishaq – Zayd b. Yathi’ – Abu Bakr:

The Prophet, peacebe upon him, sent me with Barat to the people of Makkah.... I journeyed with it for three days. Then, he (the Prophet) said to ‘Ali, may Allah the Almighty be pleased with him, “Meet him, and ask Abu Bakr to return to me, and convey it yourself”. So, he did so. When I got to the Prophet, peacebe upon him, I wept and said, “O Messenger of Allah, has something happened about me”? He replied, “Nothing happened about you except a good thing. However, I HAVE BEEN COMMANDED that none can convey it (i.e. Barat) exceptmyself or a man from me.”13

Shaykh al-Arnaut comments:

إسناده ضعيف رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين غير زيد بن يثيع

Its chain is dha’if. Its narrators are thiqah (trustworthy), narrators of the two Shaykhs, except Zayd b. Yathi’.14

Of course, Zayd b. Yathi’ is thiqah (trustworthy) too, as we have proved. Al-Arnaut’s submission is surprising – considering his calibre - since it has absolutely no basis! It is obvious that he only seeks – in line with his custom – to salvage the face of his beloved spiritual father, Ibn Taymiyyah, by boosting the latter’s ranks in his distortions. That, however, does both of them no good.

The above sahih report of Zayd b. Yathi’ confirms that the order to replace Abu Bakr came directly from Allah. Moreover, it was a command that must be obeyed by the Messenger and his entire Ummah, and not merely a piece of advice or a recommendation.

The same report is also recorded by Imam Abu Ya’la al-Mawsili (d. 307 H) his Musnad:

حدثنا إسحاق بن إسماعيل حدثنا وكيع حدثنا إسرائيل عن أبي إسحاق عن زيد بن يثيع عن أبي بكر الصديق أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم بعثه ببراءة إلى أهل مكة ....فسار بها ثلاثا ثم قال لعلي الحقه فرد علي أبا بكر وبلغها قال ففعل قال : فلما قدم على النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم أبو بكر بكى وقال : يا رسول الله أحدث في شيء ؟ قال ثم قال : ما حدث فيك إلا خير إلا أني أمرت بذلك : أن لا يبلغ إلا أنا أو رجل مني

Ishaq b. Isma’il – Waki’ – Israil – Abu Ishaq – Zayd b. Yathi’ – Abu Bakr al-Siddiq:

The Prophet, peacebe upon him, sent me with Barat to the people of Makkah.... I journeyed with it for three days. Then, he (the Prophet) said to ‘Ali, “Meet him, and ask Abu Bakr to return to me, and convey it”. So, he did. When I got to the Prophet, peacebe upon him, I wept and said, “O Messenger of Allah, has something happened about me”? He replied, “Nothing happened about you except a good thing. However, I HAVE BEEN COMMANDED with it, that none can convey it (i.e. Barat) exceptmyself or a man from me.”15

Shaykh Dr. Husayn Asad Salim, the annotator, says:

رجاله ثقات

Its narrators are thiqah (trustworthy).16

Zayd b. Yathi’s report from Amir al-Muminin, ‘alaihi al-salam, is documented by Imam al-Nasai (d. 303 H). He records:

أخبرنا العباس بن محمد قال حدثنا أبو نوح واسمه عبد الرحمن بن غزوان قراد عن يونس بن أبي إسحاق عن أبي إسحاق عن زيد بن يثيع عن علي: أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم بعث ببراءة إلى أهل مكة مع أبي بكر ثم اتبعه بعلي فقال له خذ الكتاب فامض به إلى أهل مكة قال فلحقته فأخذت الكتاب منه فانصرف أبو بكر وهو كئيب فقال يا رسول الله أنزل في شيء قال لا إني أمرت أن أبلغه أنا أو رجل من أهل بيتي

Al-‘Abbas b. Muhammad – Abu Nuh, his name is ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Ghazwan Qurad – Yunus b. Abi Ishaq – Abu Ishaq – Zayd b. Yathi’ – ‘Ali:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, sent Barat to the people of Makkah with Abu Bakr. Then he sent me after him, and said to me, “Take the document and go with it to the people of Makkah.” I met him and took the document from him. So, Abu Bakr headed back, weeping. Then he said, “O Messenger of Allah, has something (bad) been revealed (from heaven) about me?” He replied, “No. (But) I have been COMMANDED to either convey it myself or a man from my Ahl al-Bayt should convey it.”17

Al-Hafiz says about the first narrator:

عباس بن محمد بن حاتم الدوري أبو الفضل البغدادي خوارزمي الأصل ثقة حافظ

‘Abbas b. Muhammad b. Hatim al-Dawri Abu al-Fadhl al-Baghdadi, originally from Khawarazm: Thiqah (trustworthy), hafiz (the hadith scientist).18

The second narrator is like that too, according to al-Hafiz:

عبد الرحمن بن غزوان …. أبو نوح المعروف بقراد …. ثقة

‘Abd al-Rahman b. Ghazwan Abu Nuh, better known as Qurad ....: Thiqah (trustworthy).19

What of the third narrator? Al-Hafiz states:

يونس بن أبي إسحاق السبيعي أبو إسرائيل الكوفي صدوق يهم قليلا

Yunus b. Abi Ishaq al-Sabi’i, Abu Israil al-Kufi: Saduq (very truthful), hallucinates a little.20

The status of Abu Ishaq and Zayd b. Yathi’ is already known. Both are thiqah (trustworthy). Abu Ishaq in particular is a narrator of both Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, as further confirmed by Shaykh al-Arnaut. As such, the above hadith is hasan due to Yunus b. Abu Ishaq.

With the undeniable authenticity of Zayd b. Yathi’s reports, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah loses completely, and is shamed on all fronts concerning Hadith al-Ada.

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. 63

2. Muhammad b.Sa’d , al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (Beirut: Dar al-Sadir), vol. 6, p. 222

3. Abu al-Hasan Ahmad b. ‘Abd Allah b. Salih al-‘Ijli al-Kufi, Ma’rifat al-Thiqat (Madinah: Maktabah al-Dar; 1st edition, 1405 H), vol. 1, p. 380, # 535

4. Abu Muhammad ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Hatim Muhamamd b. Idris b. al-Munzir al-Tamimi al-Hanzali al-Razi, al-Jarhwa al-Ta’dil (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1371 H), vol. 3, p. 573, # 2598

5. Abu Hatim Muhammad b. Hibban b. Ahmad al-Tamimi al-Busti, Kitab al-Thiqat (Hyderabad: Majlis Dairat al-Ma’arif al-‘Uthmaniyyah; 1st edition, 1398 H), vol. 4, p. 251

6. 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. 73, # 4434

7. Ibid

8. Ibid, vol. 4, p. 521, # 8462

9. Ibid

10. Ibid

11. Shams al-Din Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Ahmad b. al-Dhahabi al-Dimashqi, al-Kashif fi Ma’rifat Man Lahu Riwayat fi al-Kutub al-Sittah (Jeddah: Dar al-Qiblah li al-Thaqafat al-Islamiyyah; 1st edition, 1413 H), vol. 1, p. 419, # 1759

12. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Mustafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Ata], vol. 1, p. 332, # 2166

13. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 1, p. 3, # 4

14. Ibid

15. Abu Ya’la Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Muthanna al-Mawsili al-Tamimi, Musnad (Damascus: Dar al-Mamun li al-Turath; 1st edition, 1404 H) [annotator: Dr. Husayn Salim Asad], vol. 1, p. 100, # 104

16. Ibid

17. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Ahmad b. Shu’ayb al-Nasai, Sunan al-Kubra (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Dr. ‘Abd al-Ghaffar Sulayman al-Bandari and Sayyid Kasrawi Hasan], vol. 5, p. 128, # 8461

18. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Mustafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Ata], vol. 1, p. 475, # 3200

19. Ibid, vol. 1, p. 586, # 3991

20. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 348, # 7928

12) Hadith Al-Ada, Revealing Ibn Taymiyyah’s Fears

Hadith al-Ada – in its theoretical and practical forms - has been authentically transmitted from the following Sahabah – in line with our preceding research:

1. Habashi b. Junadah

2. Anas b. Malik

3. Ibn ‘Abbas, radhiyallahu ‘anhu

4. Abu Bakr

5. Imam ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam

Meanwhile, it has equally been narrated by a sixth Sahabi, as documented by Imam Ibn Asakir (d. 571 H):

أخبرنا أبو الفضيل الفضيلي أنا أبو القاسم الخليلي أنا أبو القاسم الخزاعي أنا الهيثم بن كليب الشاشي نا أحمد بن شداد الترمذي نا علي بن فادم نا إسرائيل عن عبد الله بن شريك عن الحارث بن مالك قال أتيت مكة فلقيت سعد بن أبي وقاص فقلت هل سمعت لعلي منقية قال قد شهدت له أربعا لأن تكون لي واحدة منهن أحب إلي من الدنيا أعمر فيها مثل عمر نوح عليه السلام إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث أبا بكر ببراءة إلى مشركي قريش فسار بها يوما وليلة ثم قال لعلي اتبع أبا بكر فخذها فبلغها ورد علي أبا بكر فرجع أبو بكر فقال يا رسول الله أنزل بي شئ قال لا إلا خير إلا أنه ليس يبلغ عني إلا أنا أو رجل مني أو قال من أهل بيتي

Abu al-Fudhayl al-Fudhayli – Abu al-Qasim al-Khalili – Abu al-Qasim al-Khuza’i – al-Haytham b. Kulayb al-Shashi – Ahmad b. Shaddad al-Tirmidhi – ‘Ali b. Fadim – Israil – ‘Abd Allah b. Sharik – al-Harith b. Malik:

I metSa’d b. Abi Waqqas in Makkah and said, “Did you hear any merit of ‘Ali?” He replied, “I have witnessed four merits of his. If I had just one of them, it would more beloved to me than the world in which I would last like the lifetime of Nuh, peace be upon him (i.e. 950 years). Verily, the Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, sent Abu Bakr with Barat to the polytheists of Quraysh (in Makkah). So, he journeyed with it for one day and one night. Then, he (the Prophet) said to ‘Ali, “Pursue Abu Bakr and take it and convey it, and tell Abu Bakr to return.” So, Abu Bakr returned and said, “O Messenger of Allah, has something (bad) been revealed about me (from heaven)?” He (the Prophet) replied, “No, except what is good. But, none can convey on my behalf except myself or a man from me” or he said, “from my Ahl al-Bayt”.1

This gives us six Sahabah in total (and five for the practicalized version of Hadith al-Ada), and almost all the chains are either sahih or hasan. Although there are slight discrepancies among them, all the reports agree on the main facts: that the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, first sent Abu Bakr, then sent Amir al-Muminin, ‘alaihi al-salam, in his stead, and then announced and applied Hadith al-Ada. These ahadith are the most authentic reports on that incident, due to their sihat (reliable chains) and mutual corroboration.

The hadith proves a fundamental point: there are certain roles and functions in this Ummah that only the Prophet of Allah can discharge. This is by Allah’s Decree. Moreover, there are others that can be discharged either by him or any other Muslim. When Surah al-Tawbah was first revealed, it was of the “general” class. However, Allah abrogated that status and placed it on the exclusive list of His Messenger. As a result, it technically became illegal for any creature to convey it to the people except the Prophet.

However, Allah also makes a very special exception to this rule. In any case that His Messenger is unable to discharge his exclusive function for any reason,then the job falls on a male member of his Ahl al-Bayt. But, it is not just any male relative of his. The man must be from him (i.e. the Prophet), and he too must be from the man. Other than such a man, no one else has any right or legitimate authority to act on behalf of the Messenger in any matter on his divinely-designed exclusive list. He also specifically named ‘Ali. Therefore, as long as ‘Ali was alive, no one else could fulfil that role.

It is further noteworthy that the Prophet mentioned “discharge” without qualifying it. If he had said “discharge my duties”, then his liabilities would have been excluded and vice versa. By leaving it unrestricted, the Messenger of Allah – in his great wisdom – includes anything and everything that he could discharge exclusively. As such, all his exclusive duties, responsibilities, liabilities and so on are fully covered by Hadith al-Ada.

Duties, responsibilities and liabilities that have been limited exclusively to the Messenger of Allah – in the Qur’an and Sunnah – are several. However, we will focus on one of them here.

Is judicial sovereignty over the believers an exclusive title of the Prophet? Or, is it a shared authority? The Qur’an provides an explicit answer:

فلا وربك لا يؤمنون حتى يحكموك فيما شجر بينهم ثم لا يجدوا في أنفسهم حرجا مما قضيت ويسلموا تسليما

But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make YOU (Muhammad) the judge in WHATSOEVER dispute there is between them, and find in themselves no resistance against WHATSOEVER judgement you give, and submit with absolute submission.2

This verse is about all believers till the Day of Resurrection. None can be a true believer unless he makes the Messenger of Allah his judge in absolutely all matters of dispute – no matter the nature – between him and any other Muslim. Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H) further explains:

يقسم تعالى بنفسه الكريمة المقدسة : أنه لا يؤمن أحد حتى يُحَكم الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم في جميع الأمور ، فما حكم به فهو الحق الذي يجب الانقياد له باطنا وظاهرا

Allah swears by His Holy Self: that none can be a believer until he makes the Messenger, peace be upon him, the judge IN ALL MATTERS, and whatever he (the Prophet) judges is the truth that must be submitted to, inwardly and outwardly.3

A key fact in the above verse is that this authority is absolutely limited to the Prophet. None whatsoever shares it with him. It also remains with him, and exclusive to him, till the Hour. Moreover, the authority binds every single Muslim, whatsoever his rank, status or office. It is a condition of faith. Without it, there is no iman. So, if one must be a believer (and he must), then he must also adopt the Prophet as his judge in every instance of dispute between him and another Muslim.

Many contemporary Muslims would think that making the Messenger of Allah our judge only means adopting his Sunnah to resolve our disputes. Their reasoning would be that his Sunnah has taken his place since he is no longer physically present among us. However, such a thought is nothing but a misconstruction of the noble verse. The Sunnah mostly concerns jurisprudential and judicial matters. Meanwhile, the Prophet’s judicial sovereignty extends into even completely secular, personal matters. Moreover, each case must be decided on the basis of its special circumstances. Therefore, there are instances where the judge must exercise personal discretion and flexibility in Shari’i issues, and equally in matters of no religious significance – something that is sometimes impossible with the rigid, non-secular Sunnah. A quick look at the circumstance of descent of the noble verse reveals the correctness of our submissions. Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) records:

حدثنا محمد أخبرنا مخلد قال أخبرني ابن جريج قال حدثني

ابن شهاب عن عروة بن الزبير أنه حدثه :

أن رجلا من الأنصار خاصم الزبير في شراج من الحرة يسقي بها النخل فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم اسق يا زبير - فأمره بالمعروف - ثم أرسل إلى جارك. فقال الأنصاري آن كان ابن عمتك ؟ فتلون وجه رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ثم قال اسق ثم احبس حتى يرجع الماء إلى الجدر .واستوعى له حقه فقال الزبير والله إن هذه الآية أنزلت في ذلك {فلا وربك لا يؤمنون حتى يحكموك فيما شجر بينهم .{

Narrated ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr:

An Ansari man quarrelled with al-Zubayr about a canal in the Harrah which was used for irrigating date-palms. So, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, ordering him to be considerate, said, “O Zubayr! Irrigate (your land) first and then leave the water for your neighbour.” As a result, the Ansari said, “Is it because he is your aunt’s son?” On that the colour of the face of the Messenger of Allah changed and he said, “(O Zubayr!) Irrigate (your land) and withhold the water till it reaches the walls that are between the pits around the trees.” So, the Messenger of Allah gave him his full right. Al-Zubayr said, “By Allah, the following verse was revealed in that connection: ‘But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith until they make you the judge in whatsoever dispute there is between them.’”4

Look at what this man from the Ansar uttered to the Prophet and compare it with Sunni claims about the Sahabah!

Anyway, the following points are obvious from the narration:

1. The dispute was between two Muslims, rather two Sahabis – one a Muhajir and the other an Ansari.

2. The dispute was about the use of water flowing through a canal – a secular matter.

3. The canal passed through al-Zubayr’s land, and he used to withhold its flow into the Ansari’s land. Al-Zubayr would irrigate his own land with all its water – a personal matter.

4. The Messenger gave two different judgements on the case, both of them involving the use of personal discretion and flexibility. He first ordered al-Zubayr to allow the water flow to get to the Ansari’s land too. But, due to the insolence of the latter, he changed the verdict right then and there.

Obviously, in order to exercise the judicial sovereignty of the Prophet of Allah, his Sunnah alone is not enough. He must be personally present to determine each case according to its merit, and to exercise personal discretion and flexibility wherever necessary.

Another point to further highlight is that even some punishments within the Shari’ah are also deferred to the personal discretion of the judge. For instance, Imam al-Tirmidhi records:

حدثنا قتيبة حدثنا الليث عن يزيد بن أبي حبيب عن بكير بن عبد الله بن الأشج عن سليمان بن يسار عن عبد الرحمن بن جابر بن عبد الله عن ابي بردة بن دينار قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لا يجلد فوق عشر جلدات الا في حد من حدود الله

Qutaybah – al-Layth – Yazid b. Abi Habib – Bukayr b. ‘Abd Allah b. al-Ashja’ – Sulayman b. Yasar – ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah – Abu Bardah b. Dinar:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said: “None is to be given more than ten strokes of the cane (in punishment) except in the case of punishments immutably fixed by Allah.”5

Al-Tirmidhi comments:

هذا حديث حسن غريب لا نعرفه إلا من حديث بكير بن الأشج وقد اختلف أهل العلم في التعزير وأحسن شيء روي في التعزيز هذا الحديث

This hadith is hasan gharib (i.e. has a hasan chain). We do not know it except through the hadith of Bukayr b. al-Ashja’. The scholars have differed about al-ta’zir (i.e. the use of personal discretion in awarding penalties). The best thing narrated about ta’zir is this hadith.6

‘Allamah al-Albani, on his part, only says:

صحيح

Sahih7

The hadith establishes two crucial points:

1. There are some crimes whose penalties Allah has immutably fixed. In such cases, the judge must abide by the fixed penalities set by Allah.

2. There are also crimes whose penalties Allah has NOT fixed. In such cases, the judge has the discretion to award up to ten strokes of the cane against the convict.

As such, in many secular and Shari’i issues, the Messenger has an obligation to apply personal discretion - considering the unique circumstances of each case - in making his judgements. Doesn’t this require his physical presence to fulfill, rather than merely records of his Sunnah?

This takes us back to the time of Abu Bakr! Who was the sovereign judge of the believers immediately after the demise of the Prophet? After all, the latter was no longer available to exercise his authority. Therefore, someone must take over his responsibility in his name. So, to whom must all Muslims all over the world refer all their disputes for judgment in lieu of the Messenger of Allah? The hadith is clear: it was Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali b. Abi Talib! The Prophet never left his Ummah in disarray. If ‘Ali was alive, then no one else could be sovereign judge:

علي مني وأنا من علي ولا يؤدي عني إلا أنا أو علي

Ali is from me and I am from ‘Ali, and none can discharge on my behalf except myself or ‘Ali.

If he was dead, then another male from the Ahl al-Bayt must fill the post:

لا يؤدّي عنّي إلا رجل من أهل بيتي

None can discharge on my behalf except a man from my Ahl al-Bayt.

But, what happened? Even though he was fully aware of these ahadith (as they involved his case), Abu Bakr seized the reins of the Prophet’s role as the sovereign judge of the Ummah!Then, matters of dispute – including those involving ‘Ali – must be referred to him for judgment! Things turned really upside down!

There are only two explanations here:

1. Abu Bakr assumed that the Messenger’s juridical sovereignty over his Ummah had ceased. So, Abu Bakr was only discharging the role in Abu Bakr’s name and on Abu Bakr’s independent authority.

2. Abu Bakr believed that the Prophet’s jurisdiction remained, and that he (Abu Bakr) was only exercising the latter’s authority on his behalf over his Ummah.

Neither of the options offers any good news to Abu Bakr and his followers.

The most interesting side to all of this is that whosoever holds the Prophet’s judicial sovereignty on his behalf is necessarily the true khalifah. Only a khalifah can legitimately exercise such a level of authority, apart from a prophet:

يا داوود إنا جعلناك خليفة في الأرض فاحكم بين الناس بالحق

O Dawud! We have appointed you a khalifah over the earth. Therefore, judge between mankind with the truth.8

Notes

1. Abu al-Qasim ‘Ali b. al-Hasan b. Habat Allah b. ‘Abd Allah, Ibn Asakir al-Shafi’i, Tarikh Madinah Dimashq (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Shiri], vol. 42, p. 117

2. Qur’an 4:65

3. 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. 2, p. 349

4. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Ibrahim b. Mughirah al-Bukhari al-Ju’fi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Mustafa Dib al-Bagha], vol. 2, p. 832, # 2233

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. 4, p. 63, # 1463

6. Ibid

7. Ibid

8. Qur’an 38:26. Prophet Dawud was both a prophet and a khalifah. In the above verse, Allah is only making reference to his khilafah, and not to his nubuwwah.

13) Hadith Al-Qital, Ibn Taymiyyah Charges Imam ‘AliWith Mass Murder

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H) states:

والمقصود هنا أن ما يعتذر به عن علي فيما أنكر عليه يعتذر بأقوى منه عن عثمان فإن عليا قاتل على الولاية وقتل بسبب ذلك خلق كثير عظيم ولم يحصل في ولايته لا قتال للكفار ولا فتح لبلادهم ولا كان المسلمون في زيادة خير

The intention here is that whatever is used to excuse ‘Ali from the criticisms against him, such also exonerate ‘Uthman at an even greater level. This is because ‘Ali fought for power, and murdered an extremely large number of people to achieve that. And he did not achieve during his government – he did not fight the pagans, nor did he conquer their (pagans’) land. Moreover, the Muslims did not experience any increase in goodness.1

He adds:

ونحن لا ننكر أن عثمان رضي الله عنه كان يحب بني أمية وكان يواليهم ويعطيهم أموالا كثيرة وما فعله من مسائل الاجتهاد التي تكلم فيها العلماء الذين ليس لهم غرض كما أننا لا ننكر أن عليا ولى أقاربه وقاتل وقتل خلقا كثيرا من المسلمين الذين يقيمون الصلاة ويؤتون الزكاة ويصومون

We do not deny that ‘Uthman,may Allah be pleased with him, used to love Banu Umayyah, and used to befriend them and gave them lots of money. What he did was from matters of ijtihad (personal opinions) which the unbiased scholars criticize, just as we do not deny that ‘Ali put his relatives in power, and fought, and murdered a lot of Muslims who used to perform Salat, and used to give Zakat, and used to fast.2

These are terribly disturbing accusations. Considering that our Sunni brothers always claim all the Sahabah were saints, one wonders where in their theology the above allegations fit in. If ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam, was indeed a power-hungry mass murderer – as the Shaykh has alleged – then how exactly was he a saint at all in their madhhab?

But, our Shaykh has not finished yet. In his view, the defensive battles of Amir al-Muminin against the insurgents - led by Mu’awiyah and ‘Aishah - who rose in bloody armed rebellion against him, had nothing to do with Islam:

فإن جاز أن يطعن في الصديق والفاروق أنهما قاتلا لأخذ المال فالطعن في غيرهما أوجه فإذا وجب الذب عن عثمان وعلي فهو عن أبي بكر وعمر أوجب وعلي يقاتل ليطاع ويتصرف في النفوس والأموال فكيف يجعل هذا قتالا على الدين

If it is permissible to criticize (Abu Bakr) al-Siddiq and (‘Umar) al-Faruq on the basis that they both fought in order to collect wealth, then criticism of others apart from them both is even more correct.If it is necessary to defend ‘Uthman and ‘Ali, then defence of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar is even more necessary. ‘Ali used to fight to make people obey him and to have control over souls and wealth. How can this be categorized as fighting for the religion?3

In fact, our Shaykh thinks that the evidence suggesting that ‘Ali had become a pagan through his fighting and killings are strong and supported by sahih ahadith:

ثم يقال لهؤلاء الرافضة لو قالت لكم النواصب علي قد استحل دماء المسلمين وقاتلهم بغير أمر الله ورسوله على رياسته وقد قال النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم سباب المسلم فسوق وقتاله كفر وقال ولا ترجعوا بعدي كفارا يضرب بعضكم رقاب بعض فيكون علي كافرا لذلك لم تكن حجتكم أقوى من حجتهم لأن الأحاديث التي احتجوا بها صحيحة وأيضا فيقولون قتل النفوس فساد فمن قتل النفوس على طاعته كان مريدا للعلو في الأرض والفساد وهذا حال فرعون والله تعالى يقول تلك الدار الاخرة نجعلها للذين لا يريدون علوا في الأرض ولا فسادا والعاقبة للمتقين فمن أراد العلو في الأرض والفساد لم يكن من أهل السعادة في الاخرة وليس هذا كقتال الصديق للمرتدين ولمانعي الزكاة فإن الصديق إنما قاتلهم على طاعة الله ورسوله لا على كاعته فإن الزكاة فرض عليهم فقاتلهم عللا الإقرار بها وعلى أدائها بخلاف من قاتل ليطاع هو

Then it is said to the Rafidhah (i.e. Shi’is). If the Nawasib (i.e. haters of ‘Ali) said to you (i.e. Shi’is): ‘Ali made it permissible to shed the blood of Muslims and fought them, without the order of Allah and His Messenger, to enforce his rule, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, had said, “Cursing a Muslim is an evil deed, and fighting him is disbelief” and he (the Prophet) also said, “Do not become pagans after me by killing one another”, and thereby ‘Ali became a pagan, your (i.e. Shi’i) argument is NOT stronger than their (i.e. Nasibi) argument because the ahadith which they use as proof are sahih.

Moreover, they say that murder is mischief, and that whoever murders in order to enforce obedience tohimself , he is someone who wants to be exalted in the earth. This mischief was the condition of Fir’awn, and Allah the Most High says, “That home of the Hereafter, We shall assign to those who do not seek to be exalted in the earth, nor commit mischief, and the good end is for the pious.” (28:83) Therefore, anyone who seeks to be exalted in the earth, and to do mischief, is not from the successful ones in the Hereafter.

This was not like the fight of Abu Bakr against the apostates and those who refused to pay Zakat. This was because al-Siddiq only fought them to enforce the obedience of Allah and His Messenger, and not to enforce his own obedience. Zakat was compulsory upon them, and fighting them was to the reason for its recognition (by the rebels) and payment, as opposed to the one who fought to enforce his own obedience.4

This is a simple summary of the claims of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah against Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali:

1. His wars were not for Islam. He was only fighting for power and control of people’s wealth.

2. He murdered a very large number of righteous Muslims in pursuit of his power struggle.

3. Any Muslim who fights another Muslim is a pagan. Therefore, those who claim that ‘Ali had become a pagan through his wars have a strong point, backed by sahih ahadith.

So, why does our Shaykh still consider ‘Ali to have been a “righteous” Muslim? He makes a further claim:

وعلي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه ندم على أمور فعلها من القتال وغيره

‘Ali b. Abi Talib,may Allah be pleased with him, regretted things he did, such as fighting and others.5

Without that, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah would have declared him a pagan war criminal like the Nawasib did. But, what is the truth of all these allegations, accusations and claims?Is any of them based upon reliable sources? Did ‘Ali truly fight only for power? Did he really murder Muslims? Did he ever regret his defensive wars against the insurgents?

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. 6, p. 191

2. Ibid, vol. 6, p. 356

3. Ibid, vol. 8, pp. 329-330

4. Ibid, vol. 4, pp. 499-500

5. Ibid, vol. 6, p. 209