Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

30. Hadith Al-Tashbih, Establishing Its Authenticity

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H) states:

بل حمله على ذلك ممتنع لان أحدا لا يساوي رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لا عليا ولا غيره

Rather, interpreting it like that is impossible, because there is none who is equal to the Messenger of Allah, neither ‘Ali nor any other person.465

We agree with our Shaykh that neither Abu Bakr nor ‘Umar was like, similar or equal to, the Messenger of Allah,sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi , in absolutely any way or form. However, it seems that the Shaykh has not properly understood the Shi’i position. We never claim total equality between the Prophet and the Amir.

What we profess, instead, is that ‘Ali,‘alaihi al-salam , reached the level of the Messenger in many of his merits. In other words, in a lot of qualities, ranks and statuses, both the Prophet and the Amir were, and are, equal. However, in all others, the Messenger of Allah was, and is, infinitely superior to ‘Ali. Overall, the Prophet was, and is, the master, teacher and saviour of ‘Ali in both this world and the next.

Imam al-Nasai (d. 303 H) records an authentichadith that confirms just that:

أخبرنا العباس بن محمد قال حدثنا الأحوص بن جواب قال حدثنا يونس بن أبي إسحاق عن أبي إسحاق عن زيد بن يثيع عن أبي ذر قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لينتهين بنو وليعة أو لأبعثن إليهم رجلا كنفسي ينفذ فيهم أمري فيقتل المقاتلة ويسبي الذرية فما راعني إلا وكف عمر في حجزتي من خلفي من يعني فقلت ما إياك يعني ولا صاحبك قال فمن يعني قلت خاصف النعل قال وعلي يخصف نعلا

Al-‘Abbas b. Muhammad – al-Ahwas b. Jawab – Yunus b. Abi Ishaq – Abu Ishaq – Zayd b. Yathi’ – Abu Dharr:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “If the Banu Wali’ah do not desist, I will appoint over thema man who is exactly like myself to implement my command among them. So, he will execute the combatants and take the offspring as war captives.”

I had not even moved when ‘Umar held my cloth and asked, “Who is he referring to?” I replied, “He is not referring to you or your companion (i.e. Abu Bakr).” He said, “In that case, who is he referring to?” So, I said, “(He is) referring to the one repairing the shoe.” And ‘Ali was repairing a shoe.466

‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) says about this report:

قلت: وهذا إسناد رجاله ثقات؛ لكن أبا إسحاق - وهو السبيعي - مدلس، وكان اختلط، وابنه يونس روى عنه بعد اختلاطه.

I say:This chain, all its narrators are trustworthy . However, Abu Ishaq – and he is al-Sabi’i – was a mudalis, and he became confused, and his son Yunus narrated from him after he had become confused.467

So, all the narrators are trustworthy. However, Abu Ishaq was a mudalis, and has narrated in an‘an-‘an manner. Moreover, his son, Yunus, allegedly narrated from him only after he (Abu Ishaq) had become confused. These are ‘Allamah al-Albani’s only objections to the authenticity of thehadith .

The arguments of our ‘Allamah are a bit disappointing. While it is true that Abu Ishaq was a mudalis, histadlis was largely of the harmless grade. Therefore, his‘an-‘an reports are accepted without objection. Let us briefly examine how themuhadithun of the Ahl al-Sunnah have treated a well-known, strictly‘an-‘an narration of Abu Ishaq. Imam Muslim (d. 261 H) records:

حدثنا عبدالله بن مسلمة بن قعنب حدثنا معتمر بن سليمان عن أبيه عن رقبة بن مسقلة عن أبي إسحاق عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس عن أبي بن كعب قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إن الغلام الذي قتله الخضر طبع كافرا ولو عاش لأرهق أبويه طغيانا وكفرا

‘Abd Allah b. Musalamah b. Qa’nab – Mu’tamir b. Sulayman – his father – Raqabah b. Masqalah –Abu Ishaq – Sa’id b. Jubayr – Ibn ‘Abbas – Ubayy b. Ka’b:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “Verily, the boy killed by al-Khidhr was created an unbeliever. If he had lived, he would have grieved his parents with his obstinate rebellion (against Allah) and disbelief (in Allah)”.468

Abu Ishaq has narrated it‘an-‘an , and Imam Muslim has nonetheless accepted thehadith assahih . Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241 H) has also included the sameriwayah with the same‘an-‘an chain in hisMusnad 469 . Shaykh al-Arnauṭ comments about it this way:

إسناده صحيح على شرط الشيخين

Its chain issahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs.470

Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H) has equally documented it with Abu Ishaq’s‘an-‘an narration471 . Al-Tirmidhi says:

هذا حديث حسن صحيح غريب

Thishadith ishasan sahih gharib .472

Interestingly, even ‘Allamah al-Albani accepts its authenticity:

صحيح

Sahih 473

Elsewhere, the ‘Allamah explains his decision:

ثنا محمد بن أبي بكر المقدمي ثنا معتمر بن سليمان عن أبيه عن رقبة بن مسقلة عن أبي إسحاق عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس ‏عن أبي بن كعب عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال‏:‏ الغلام الذي قتله الخضر طبع كافرا‏.‏

إسناده صحيح على شرط الشيخين مع ما في النفس من عنعنة أبي إسحاق وهو عمرو ابن عبد الله السبيعي فإني لم أجد تصريحه بالتحديث في شيء من الروايات عنه مع أنه كان اختلط لكن لعل رقبة بن مسقلة سمعه منه قبل الاختلاط فإنه قديم الوفاة فقد مات سنة 129 وهي السنة التي مات فيها ابو إسحاق نفسه فهو من أقرانه.

Muhammad b. Abi Bakr al-Muqaddami – Mu’tamir b. Sulayman – his father – Raqabah b. Masqalah –Abu Ishaq – Sa’id b. Jubayr – Ibn ‘Abbas – Ubayy b. Ka’b – the Prophet, peace be upon him:

“The boy killed by al-Khidhr was created an unbeliever.”

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs , despite what is in the heart concerning its‘an-‘an narration by Abu Ishaq, and his real name was ‘Amr b. ‘Abd Allah al-Sabi’i.I have NOT found any explicit tahdith (i.e. non-’an-‘an transmission) of it by him in the reports , despite that he also became confused. However, maybe Raqabah b. Masqalah heard it from him before he became confused because he (Raqabah) died early (in history). His (i.e. Raqabah’s) death was in 129 H, and it was the year of Abu Ishaq’s death too. Therefore, they both were contemporaries.474

So, the‘an-‘an report of Abu Ishaq is accepted assahih upon the standard of both al-Bukhari and Muslim by the leadingmuhadithun of the Ahl al-Sunnah, including ‘Allamah al-Albani himself. But then, al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) documents a rather interesting dissenting viewpoint concerning Abu Ishaq’s‘an-‘an reports:

قال شعبة وكان أبو إسحاق إذا أخبرني عن رجل قلت له هذا أكبر منك فإن قال نعم علمت أنه لقى وإن قال انا أكبر منه تركته.

Shu’bah said: “Whenever Abu Ishaq narrated to me in an‘an-‘an form from any person, I used to say to him, ‘Is he older than you?’ If he answered, ‘Yes’, then I would know that he met (the narrator) [i.e. there was notadlis in the report]. But, if he said, ‘I am older than him’, I would abandon him.”475

In other words, Shu’bah assured us that whenever Abu Ishaq transmitted from people older than him, he never didtadlis , even if he narrated in an‘an-‘an manner from them. This is very crucial. Shu’bah was of an ultra-strict attitude towards Abu Ishaq’stadlis . So, he would not accept even the abovehadith of the boy, since Sa’id b. Jubayr was far younger than Abu Ishaq476 . Yet, despite this,Hadith al-Tashbih passes his ultra-strict standards and is covered by his expert assurance. Zayd b. Yathi’ was much older than Abu Ishaq. Al-Hafiz 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 .477

Therefore, Zayd b. Yathi’ was born even before any verse of the Qur’an was revealed! This means that he was even older than a lot of the Sahabah. Meanwhile, al-Hafiz further records this about Abu Ishaq:

وعن أبي بكر بن عياش قال مات أبو إسحاق وهو ابن مائة سنة أو نحوها

Abu Bakr b. ‘Ayyash said: Abu Ishaq died while he was 100 years old or thereabout.478

Since he died in 129 AH, that means he was born in 29 AH. As such, Zayd b. Yathi’ was decades older than him. Based upon the testimony of Shu’bah, the‘an-‘an reports of Abu Ishaq from him were, without doubt, free fromtadlis . But, even if we ignored Shu’bah’s assurance,Hadith al-Tashbih would still pass through, considering the lenient attitude of Sunnimuhadithun to Abu Ishaq’s patently‘an-‘an reports generally. With these facts, the first leg of ‘Allamah al-Albani’s criticism againstHadith al-Tashbih is cut off from its root completely.

The ‘Allamah further asserts that Yunus heard from his father, Abu Ishaq, only after the latter had become confused due to memory loss. The question is: where is the evidence? There is none! In fact, this submission of our ‘Allamah is more farfetched statement than the other. Yunus was largely contemporaneous with his father. He even met Anas, one of the senior Sahabah! Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) states about him:

يونس بن أبي إسحاق عمرو بن عبد الله الهمداني السبيعي الكوفي. عن أنس قلت: مات يونس سنة تسع وخمسين ومائة، وهو في عشر التسعين، إن لم يكن تجاوزها.

Yunus b. Abi Ishaq ‘Amr b. ‘Abd Allah al-Hamdani al-Sabi’i al-Kufi:He narrated from Anas I say: Yunus died in 159 AH, and he was close to 90, if not older.479

So, when Abu Ishaq died in 129 AH, Yunus was already about 60 years old. Does it make sense to claim that such a person narrated from Abu Ishaq only during the latter’s last days when his memory deteriorated?480 He even narrated from Anas who apparently died decades before his father!481 Al-Hafiz tells us more why ‘Allamah al-Albani’s submission was completely out-of-touch with reality, while writing about Abu Ishaq:

وعنه ابنه يونس وابن ابنه إسرائيل بن يونس وابن ابنه الآخر يوسف بن إسحاق

His son (Yunus) narrated from him,as well as his grandson Israil b. Yunus and his other grandson Yusuf b. Ishaq.482

If Yunus could not hear anyahadith from his father until the latter’s last period on earth, when exactly did the grandsons take from Abu Ishaq? Obviously, Yunus heardahadith from Abu Ishaq long before the latter lost his memory. No wonder, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah has included a chain in which Yunus has narrated‘an-‘an from Abu Ishaq, who in turn has also transmitted‘an-‘an from the Sahabi, in hisSahih 483 while Shaykh Dr. al-A’zami further declares thatsanad to besahih .484

Shaykh Dr. Asad has equally graded an exactly similar chain assahih .485 Meanwhile, Shaykh al-Arnauṭ prefers to class an identicalsanad only as hasan.486 Basically, ‘Allamah al-Albani has no valid objection to Hadith al-Tashbih. It has asahih chain. The narration (including‘an-‘an ) of Yunus from his father, Abu Ishaq, issahih . Furthermore, the‘an-‘an transmission of Abu Ishaq from Zayd b. Yathi’ is equally of the perfectlysahih grade, in any circumstance.

Hadith al-Tashbih, as narrated by Abu Dharr, is supported by this shahid documented by Imam ‘Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211 H):

أخبرنا عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن ابن طاووس عن أبيه عن المطلب بن عبد الله بن حنطب قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لوفد ثقيف حين جاءوا: لتسلمن أو لنبعثن رجلا مني - أو قال: مثل نفسي فليضربن أعناقكم، وليسبين ذراريكم، وليأخذن أموالكم، فقال عمر: فوالله ما تمنيت الامارة إلا يومئذ، جعلت أنصب صدري رجاء أن يقول: هو هذا، قال: فالتفت إلي علي، فأخذ بيده ثم قال: هو هذا، هو هذا.

‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ma’mar – Ibn Tawus – his father – al-Muṭalib b. ‘Abd Allah b. Hanṭab:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, when the delegation of (Banu) Thaqif came (to him), said (to them), “You either submit orI appoint a man from me or who is my similarity , and he will hit your necks and take your offspring as war prisoners, and will confiscate your properties.” So, ‘Umar said, “I swear by Allah, I never wished for power except on that day. I volunteered for it, wishing that he would say, “This is the one”. But, he instead looked towards ‘Ali, and held his hand and said, “This is the one. This is the one.”487

‘Allamah al-Albani comments about this report:

قلت: وهذا إسناد صحيح؛ ولكنه مرسل.

I say:This chain is sahih . However, it is mursal.488

There is no doubt that this is an effective strengthening shahid for the report of Abu Dharr. So, even if, for the sake of argument, the invalid submissions of ‘Allamah al-Albani concerning Abu Dharr’shadith are accepted, the above narration of al-Muṭalib nonetheless raises its grade to at leasthasan .

31. Hadith Al-Tashbih, Instances Of Equality

When the Prophet,sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi , describedAmir al-Muminin ,‘alaihi al-salam , as being “exactly like” himself, or his own “similarity”, what was he saying? Was he talking about physical identicalness? Or, was it about triba l affiliations? What was it exactly?

Basically, those statements have deliberately been made general and left open by the Messenger of Allah. As such, everything is the same between them both except whatever has been excluded as exceptions. In other words, the only differences between the Nabi and the Amir are those that have been proved through the Qur’an or authenticahadith . In everything else, they were, and are, the same.

Meanwhile, it would not be inappropriate to cite a few examples of equality between the Messenger of Allah and Imam ‘Ali. ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H), for instance, records that the Prophet said:

من أحب عليا فقد أحبني ومن أبغض عليا فقد أبغضني

Whosoever loves ‘Ali has loved me, and whosoever hates ‘Ali has hated me.489

The ‘Allamah says:

صحيح

Sahih 490

In simple terms, the obligations to love the Messenger, and to loveAmir al-Muminin , are the same. Love or hatred of either of them attracts the same recognition, reward or punishment from Allah the Almighty. Interestingly, Imam ‘Ali was not the only one with this status. Imam Abu Ya’la (d. 307 H) further records:

حدثنا أبو هشام الرفاعي حدثنا ابن فضيل حدثنا سالم بن أبي حفصة عن أبي حازم عن أبي هريرة قال : قال رسول الله ـ صلى الله عليه و سلم :من أحب الحسن والحسين فقد أحبني ومن أبغضهما فقد أبغضني

Abu Hisham al-Rufa’i – Ibn Fudhayl – Salim b. Abi Hafsah – Abu Hazim – Abu Hurayrah:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “Whosoever loves al-Hasan and al-Husayn has loved me, and whosoever hates them has hated me.”491

Shaykh Dr. Asad says:

إسناده حسن

Its chain ishasan .492

Imam Ibn Majah (d. 273 H) has also recorded thehadith through a different ṭariq (route):

حدثنا علي بن محمد حدثنا وكيع عن سفيان عن داود بن أبي عوف أبي الجحاف وكان مرضيا عن أبي حازم عن أبي هريرة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من أحب الحسن والحسين فقد أحبني ومن أبغضهما فقد أبغضني

‘Ali b. Muhammad – Waki’ – Sufyan – Dawud b. Abi ‘Awf Abi al-Jihaf – Abu Hazim – Abu Hurayrah:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “Whosoever loves al-Hasan and al-Husayn has loved me, and whosoever hates them has hated me.”493

‘Abd al-Baqi states:

إسناده صحيح، رجاله ثقات.

Its chain issahih . Its narrators are trustworthy.494

‘Allamah al-Albani also comments:

حسن

Hasan495

So, the Prophet,Amir al-Muminin , Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn,‘alaihim al-salam , were, and are, all equal in terms of love and hatred from any others among the creation. Moreover, their love has been umbilically fused by Allah. Therefore, just as there can never be an excuse – including even ignorance or mistake - for hating the Prophet, there can be none either with regards to any other among them. Their love is one indivisible entity, and so is their hatred.

The significance of the above reports is better reflected in thishadith , copied by ‘Allamah al-Albani:

من أحب عليا فقد أحبني ومن أحبني فقد أحب الله عز وجل ومن أبغض عليا فقد أبغضني ومن أبغضني فقد أبغض الله عز وجل.

Whosoever loves ‘Ali has loved me. And whosoever loves me has loved Allah the Almighty. Moreover, whosoever hates ‘Ali has hated me.And whosoever hates me has hated Allah the Almighty .496

The ‘Allamah comments:

رواه المخلص في " الفوائد المنتقاة " (10 / 5 / 1) بسند صحيح

Al-Mukhlis recorded it in al-Fawaid al-Muntaqat (10/5/1)with a sahih chain from Umm Salamah.497

In other words:

1. Love of Muhammad is love of Allah, and hatred of Muhammad is hatred of Allah.

2. Love of ‘Ali is love of Allah, and hatred of ‘Ali is hatred of Allah.

3. Love of al-Hasan is love of Allah, and hatred of al-Hasan is hatred of Allah.

7. Love of al-Husayn is love of Allah, and hatred of al-Husayn is hatred of Allah.

So,Amir al-Muminin , Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn are equal with the Messenger of Allah in terms of the love or hatred of any of them. Our focus at this point, of course, is onlyAmir al-Muminin .

Another area of equality between the Prophet of Allah and Imam ‘Ali is indicated in thishadith documented by Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H):

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبى ثنا يحيى بن أبى بكير قال ثنا إسرائيل عن أبى إسحاق عن أبي عبد الله الجدلي قال دخلت على أم سلمة فقالت لي أيسب رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فيكم قلت معاذ الله أو سبحان الله أو كلمة نحوها قالت سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول من سب عليا فقد سبني

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Yahya b. Abi Bukayr – Israil – Abu Ishaq – Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Jadali:

I entered upon Umm Salamah and she said to me, “Is the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, being cursed among you?” I said, “Allah forbid!” or “Glory to Allah!” or a similar statement. She said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah saying:‘Whosoever curses ‘Ali has cursed me.’ ”498

Shaykh al-Arnauṭ comments:

إسناده صحيح

Its chain issahih .499

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

رواه أحمد ورجاله رجال الصحيح غير أبي عبد الله الجدلي وهو ثقة

Ahmad recorded it, and its narrators are narrators of theSahih , apart from Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Jadali and he wastrustworthy .500

Imam al-Hakim (d. 403 H) too has this verdict upon the exact samehadith :

هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد

Thishadith has asahih chain501

And Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) agrees with him:

صحيح

Sahih 502

It is natural logic, anyway. Cursing is an act of hatred. So, whosoever curses ‘Ali apparently hates him. By that very token, such a person is guilty of hating Allah. Looking further, there is yet another point of equality between the Nabi and the Amir. ‘Allamah al-Albani documents thishadith :

من آذى عليا فقد آذاني

Whosoever hurts ‘Ali has hurt me.503

The ‘Allamah states:

صحيح

Sahih 504

Imam al-Hakim also comments:

هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد

Thishadith has asahih chain.505

Imam al-Dhahabi affirms the verdict:

صحيح

Sahih 506

Imam al-Haythami also declares about thishadith :

رواه أحمد ورجال أحمد ثقات

Ahmad recorded and the narrators of Ahmad are trustworthy.507

In Islam, to hurt someone means to do anything that causes physical or emotional discomfort to them. For example, notice what Allah has said here:

واللذان يأتيانها منكم فآذوهما

And the two persons among you who commit it (i.e. fornication), hurt them both.508

This is clearly about physical hurt. Let us compare that with this noble verse:

يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تكونوا كالذين آذوا موسى فبرأه الله مما قالوا وكان عند الله وجيها

O you who believe! Do not be like those who hurt Musa, but Allah cleared him of that which they said, and he was honourable before Allah.509

They made incorrect statements about Musa,‘alaihi al-salam . Such statements apparently hurt the feelings and image of this noble prophet. Therefore, to Allah, they had thereby hurt him. Another example is given in thishadith documented by Imam al-Hakim:

أخبرني محمد بن أحمد بن تميم القنطري ثنا أبو قلابة الرقاشي ثنا أبو عاصم عن عبد الله بن المؤمل حدثني أبو بكر بن عبيد الله بن أبي ملكية عن أبيه قال جاء رجل من أهل الشام فسب عليا عند ابن عباس فحصبه ابن عباس فقال : يا عدو الله آذيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إن الذين يؤذون الله ورسوله لعنهم الله في الدنيا والآخرة وأعد لهم عذايا مهينا لو كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حيا لآذيته

Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Tamim al-Qanṭari – Abu Qilabah al-Raqashi – Abu ‘Asim – ‘Abd Allah b. al-Mu-mal – Abu Bakr b. ‘Ubayd Allah b. Abi Malikah – his father:

A Syrian man came and cursed ‘Ali in the presence of Ibn ‘Abbas. So, Ibn ‘Abbas threw pebbles at him and said, “O enemy of Allah! You have hurt the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. Verily, those who hurt Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment. If the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, had been alive, you would have hurt him.”510

Al-Hakim declares:

هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد

Thishadith has asahih chain.511

Imam al-Dhahabi also states:

صحيح

Sahih 512

There is a lot of fawaid in thishadith . Some of them are listed below:

1. Cursing ‘Ali b. Abi Talib falls under the act of hurting him.

2. Whoever hurts ‘Ali is an enemy of Allah.

3. Whoever hurts ‘Ali falls under Qur’an 33:57

4. ‘Ali b. Abi Talib does not need to be physically present before the hurt is done. As long as the act would have hurt him had he been present or would have hurt his name, the crime is completed.

5. Whatsoever hurts ‘Ali also hurts the Messenger of Allah, and by extension Allah.

6. Therefore, whoever hurts ‘Ali has hurt Allah and His Messenger.

There is no doubt that ifAmir al-Muminin had been physically present when the Syrian man was cursing him, his feelings would have been hurt. Since whatsoever hurts ‘Ali also hurts the Prophet, it is then the case that the feelings of the latter too would have been hurt. This is what matters in the Sight of Allah. Would the feelings of ‘Ali have been hurt if he were present? If the answer were positive, then indeed the treason is committed.

Ibn ‘Abbas,radhiyallahu ‘anhu , quoted this verse as applying to all cases where ‘Ali has been hurt:

إن الذين يؤذون الله ورسوله لعنهم الله في الدنيا والآخرة وأعد لهم عذابا مهينا

Verily, those who hurt Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment.513

This is the case with ‘Ali. Whoever hurts the Prophet has hurt Allah. Therefore, Allah will curse such a person in both this world and the next, and will throw him into Hellfire. The same is exactly the case with ‘Ali. Whosoever hurtsAmir al-Muminin has hurt Allah too. As such, the same punishments that apply in the case of the Messenger also apply in the case of the Amir.

By contrast, if any believer - other than ‘Ali - had been hurt, the applicable laws are different! Our Creator states:

والذين يؤذون المؤمنين والمؤمنات بغير ما اكتسبوا فقد احتملوا بهتانا وإثما مبينا

And those who hurt the believing men and women undeservedly bear on themselves the crime of slander and plain sin.514

This verse proves the absolute superiority ofAmir al-Muminin over the entireUmmah . If any Muslim is hurt – whether physically or emotionally – the first question to ask is: did he deserve the hurt? In other words, there are cases when the body or feelings of a believer can be deservedly hurt. In such cases, there is no retribution against the person causing the hurt. Even then, where the hurt was undeserved, the offender is only guilty of slander and sin. Therefore, the punishment is different from what is applicable in the cases of the Messenger of Allah andAmir al-Muminin . Allah has conjoined hurt of Himself with hurt of His Messenger with waw al-musharikah – the conjunction of partnership. In other words, whatsoever applies for Allah, in any case that He is hurt, also applies for His Messenger in any similar circumstance. So, since Allah never deserves to be hurt, then His Messenger too is of the same status. By extension,Amir al-Muminin as well can never be justifiably hurt. Allah has protected both the Nabi and the Amir from ever deserving to be hurt, either physically or emotionally.