Violation of the Hadith by Sahabah
By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani
Dr. `Abd al-Karīm ibn `Alī ibn Muhammad al-Namlah, in his book entitled Mukhālafat al-Sahābiy li’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy al-Sharīf Dirāsah Nadhariyyah Tatbīqiyyah (The Sahābiy’s Violation of the Holy Hadīth of the Prophet; A theoretical and practical study) which has been published in Riyadh, AH 1415, al-Rushd Library, has cited some practical examples on the Sahābah’s violation of the Holy Prophet’s traditions and instructions. Before that, the author has defined the Arabic word “Mukhālafah (violation)” as opposition, disobedience, disagreement, and distortion. He has also defined the verbal and terminological meanings of Sahābah. In this respect, he has cited the opinions of the Muslim scholars which can be mainly classified into two beliefs:
1) A group of scholars have argued that a Hadīth keeps its provability even if it is violated by an opinion of a Sahābiy no matter how strong that violation be. Accordingly, it is impracticable to stop acting upon a Hadīth that is violated by an opinion of a Sahābiy.
2) The other group have argued that an opinion of a Sahābiy must be assumed when it violates a Hadīth. Accordingly, the sayings of the Holy Prophet must be thrown away when they are opposed by an opinion of a Sahābiy.
Referring to practical examples on the Sahābah’s thorough violation of the Hadīth that they themselves had reported from the Holy Prophet and the effects of such violation, Dr. al-Namlah says,
After the demonstration of the scholars’ opposing opinions about this question, which belongs to the principles of the Muslim jurisprudence, and the demonstration of each group’s evidences, it seems necessary to mention, seeking the guidance of Almighty Allah, some practical examples on the Sahābah’s absolute violation of the Hadīth that they themselves reported from the Holy Prophet in order that the question will be clearer and that the dear readers will comprehend the question more obviously:
Al-Bukhāriy, in (his book entitled) al-Sahīh; Muslim, in al-Sahīh; Abū-Dāwūd, in al-Sunan; al-Tirmidhiy, in al-Sunan; al-Nassā'iy, in al-Sunan; Ibn Mājah, in al-Sunan; al-Dārimiy, in al-Sunan; Mālik ibn Anas, in al-Muwatta', Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in al-Musnad—all these have recorded on the authority of Abū-Hurayrah that the Prophet said, “If a dog licks a vessel, you should wash that vessel seven times and in the eighth time it should be smeared with dust.”
As has been mentioned, although this Hadīth has been narrated by Abū-Hurayrah, he did not act upon it; rather he violated it and washed a vessel that had been licked by a dog three times only! Al-Tahāwiy, in Sharh Ma`ānī al-Āthār; al-Dārqutniy, in al-Sunan; ibn al-Jawziy, in al-`Ilal al-Mutanāhiyah—all these have recorded that Abū-Hurayrah used to wash a vessel that had been licked by a dog three times only.
Thus, this Sahābiy violated the Hadīth that he himself reported from the Prophet.
The adopters of the first belief, who are the majority, have believed that a vessel that is licked by a dog must be washed seven times. They have thus provided the Hadīth as their evidence and neglected Abū-Hurayrah’s violation of it.
The adopters of the second belief have clung to their belief that entails that when a Hadīth is violated by an act of a Sahābiy, the Hadīth should be neglected and the act of the Sahābiy should be adopted as true. They therefore decided that a vessel that is licked by a dog must be washed three, not seven, times. In other words, they have assumed the act of Abū-Hurayrah and rejected that which he had reported from the Prophet.
Furthermore, the adopters of the second belief of the rejection of a Hadīth that is violated by a Sahābiy’s act and the acceptance of that Sahābiy’s act as true have disagreed about the point whether such a violated Hadīth should be considered repealed or should be interpreted that to wash a vessel seven times is only recommended. In this regard, they have had three different opinions:
The first opinion has decided that such a Hadīth must have been repealed. This opinion has been firstly said by al-Kamāl ibn al-Humām in his book of al-Tahrīr and then adopted by Amīr Bādshāh in his book of Taysīr al-Tahrīr and Ibn Amīr al-Hājj in his book of al-Taqrīr wa’l-Tahbīr.
The second opinion has decided that such a Hadīth was not repealed; rather its connotation must be regarded as recommendation rather than obligation. In plain words, the washing of a vessel that is licked by a dog should be washed three times obligatorily, but it is recommended to wash it seven times. This opinion has been first adopted by al-Samarqandiy, in Badhl al-Nadhar and al-Samarqandiy, in al-Mīzān.
The third opinion has decided that it is probable that such a Hadīth was repealed and it is probable that it meant recommendation, not obligation. This opinion has been first adopted by al-Sarakhsiy, in al-Usūl and al-Nasfiy, in Kashf al-Asrār.
At any rate, the most acceptable opinion, Dr. al-Namlah goes on, is the first one, which entails that the Hadīth, not the act of the Sahābiy who reported that Hadīth, must be accepted. This argument can be proven by the following discussions:
First Discussion: The aforesaid Hadīth that is reported by Abū-Hurayrah has been proven as authentic. Moreover, nothing else can stand against it.
Second Discussion: The obligation of washing a vessel in which a dog licks seven times has been proven to be said by the Holy Prophet from another way of narration. Muslim, in al-Sahīh; Abū-Dāwūd, in al-Sunan; al-Nassā'iy, in al-Sunan; Ibn Mājah, in al-Sunan; al-Dārimiy, in al-Sunan; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in al-Musnad—all these have recorded on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn Mughaffal that the Messenger of Allah said, “If a dog licks a vessel, you must wash that vessel seven times and then smear it with dust.”
Even if we polemically accept that an act of a Sahābiy affects the Hadīth that he himself has reported from the Prophet, such an act will not affect the Hadīth that is reported by another one.
Third Discussion: The adopters of the second belief have argued that a vessel that is licked by a dog must be washed three times only because Abū-Hurayrah was reported to have washed such vessels three times only. This justification cannot stand as a reliable proof because reports from him in this respect have been different. Some have narrated that Abū-Hurayrah issued the verdict that such a vessel must be washed seven times, while others have reported that he himself washed such vessels three times only… etc.
Abū-Dāwūd, in al-Sunan; al-Tirmidhiy, in al-Sunan; al-Dārimiy, in al-Sunan; al-Dārqutniy, in al-Sunan; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy, in al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in al-Musnad; al-Tahāwiy, in Sharh Ma`ānī al-Āthār—all these have recorded on the authority of `Ā'ishah that the Prophet said, “Any matrimonial contract that is made by a woman before obtaining the permission of her guardian is invalid.”
Although `Ā'ishah reported this Hadīth from the Holy Prophet, she did not act upon it; rather she violated it when she gave in marriage her niece, Hafsah bint `Abd al-Rahmān ibn Abī-Bakr, to al-Mundhir ibn al-Zubayr, `Ā'ishah’s nephew, while the father of the woman, `Abd al-Rahmān, was absolutely absent from the matter since he was in Syria.
Thus, scholars have disagreed about the interpretation of this violation. The adopters of the first belief, namely those who act upon the Hadīth and reject the Sahābah’s violation of it, have decided that it is obligatory to act upon the connotation of the Hadīth and have neglected `Ā'ishah’s violation of it. They thus have decided that it is impermissible for women to give themselves in marriage before they obtain the permission of their guardians. The adopters of this belief are the majority of the Muslims.
On the other hand, the adopters of the second belief have accepted `Ā'ishah’s violation of the Hadīth and neglected the connotation of the Hadīth and they have thus decided the permissibility of women’s giving themselves in marriage without need for obtaining their guardians’ permission.
Expressing the Hanafiyyah scholars’ viewpoint about this question, `Abd al-`Azīz al-Bukhāriy, in his book of Kashf al-Asrār, says, “As `Ā'ishah believed that to give her niece in marriage without seeking the permission of her father was permissible and believed that such a matrimonial contract is valid that she even gave the right of possession, which cannot be given unless a contract is valid, it is impossible that she did so while she believed in the authenticity of the Hadīth that she had reported from the Prophet.”
The author then mentioned another denotation to the question, saying, “As `Ā'ishah gave her niece in marriage, she did permit women’s giving themselves in marriage without obtaining their guardians’ permission. If a matrimonial contracts were decided as valid due to the statement of unmarried women, it would be better that such contracts are validated due to the statement of `Ā'ishah herself and, thus, this is opposite to that which she had reported from the Prophet.”
Adding another denotation to the question, the author further says, “As `Ā'ishah gave her niece in marriage, she must have believed in the permissibility of giving women in marriage before obtaining their guardians’ permissions as a preferable manner… etc.”
However, some Hanafiyyah scholars, such as al-Sarakhsiy in al-Usūl and al-Nasfiy in Kashf al-Asrār have argued that the Hadīth must have been repealed, because its reporter, namely `Ā'ishah, had violated and opposed it.
In addition, Ahmad ibn Hanbal believed that the Hadīth must have been repealed. On the authority of Harb ibn Ismā`īl, Ahmad ibn Hanbal is reported to have said, “The ascription of this Hadīth to `Ā'ishah is unacceptable, because `Ā'ishah herself gave in marriage her nieces.”
According to the narration of al-Marūziy, Ahmad ibn Hanbal further said, “This Hadīth is inauthentic, because `Ā'ishah had violated it.”
The most preferable opinion in this respect, Dr. al-Namlah comments, is the one adopted by the majority. This is because of the following two reasons:
First Reason: Al-Bukhāriy, in al-Sahīh; Abū-Dāwūd, in al-Sunan; al-Tirmidhiy, in al-Sunan; Ibn Mājah, in al-Sunan; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in al-Musnad—all these have recorded on the authority of `Ā'ishah that the Prophet said, “Any matrimonial contract is invalid unless the guardian (of the woman) is present.” Moreover, the same Hadīth was reported by `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās and Abū-Mūsā al-Ash`ariy. The Hadīth is authentic. In this regard, al-Marūziy says, “When I asked them about the authenticity of this Hadīth, Ahmad and Yahyā assured its authenticity.” The abovementioned texts corroborate the question.
Second Reason: `Ā'ishah’s violation of the Hadīth is not manifest. Even if we claim so, the act of `Ā'ishah or any other one should never invalidate a Hadīth after it has been proven as authentic. Moreover, no reliable master Hadīthist has ever doubted the Hadīth.
Al-Bukhāriy, in al-Sahīh; Muslim, in al-Sahīh; Abū-Dāwūd, in al-Sunan; al-Tirmidhiy, in al-Sunan; al-Nassā'iy, in al-Sunan; Ibn Mājah, in al-Sunan; Mālik ibn Anas, in al-Muwatta', Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in al-Musnad—all these have recorded on the authority of al-Zuhriy on the authority of Salīm that his father, `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, reported that he witnessed the Messenger of Allah, whenever he commenced the ritual prayer, raising his hands until they extend parallel to his shoulders. He used to do the same thing and whenever he wanted to genuflect and whenever he stood erect after genuflection (Rukū`). Nevertheless, the Messenger of Allah did not do this when he would be in the prostration (Sujūd).
Although this Hadīth was reported by him, `Abdullāh ibn `Umar did not practice it; rather he violated it since he never raised his hands at the commencement of the prayers. In his book of al-Musannaf, Ibn Abī-Shaybah has narrated that Mujāhid said, “I have never seen `Abdullāh ibn `Umar raising his hands (in the ritual prayers) except when he begins his prayer.” This very narration has been also recorded by al-Tahāwiy, in Sharh Ma`ānī al-Āthār, with a reliable series of narrators.
As this Sahābiy, namely `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, violated a Hadīth that he himself had reported, scholars have had disagreeing opinions about it. The adopters of the first belief, namely those who act upon the Hadīth and reject the Sahābah’s violation of it, have decided that hands must be raised at the commencement of the prayer, at the genuflection and at the standing erect after the genuflection. This has been however the opinion of the majority.
The adopters of the second belief, namely those who have clung to their belief that entails that when a Hadīth is violated by an act of a Sahābiy the Hadīth should be neglected and the act of the Sahābiy should be adopted as true, have imitated the act of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, which is raising the hands at the beginning of the prayers only, and neglected acting upon the Hadīth. This has been the opinion of the majority of the Hanafiyyah scholars.
In his book entitled al-Fusūl al-Muhimmah, Abū-Bakr al-Jassās says, “As `Abdullāh ibn `Umar neglected raising his hands during the prayers although he himself had reported that the Prophet had done so, this means that he had known the cancellation of the Hadīth otherwise he would not have violated it. It is impermissible to believe that a Sahābiy, like `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, would violate an act of the Prophet while he himself was its reporter. Hence, there must have been another interpretation of this act.”
The majority of the Hanafiyyah scholars have also positively concluded the same result said by Abū-Bakr al-Jassās—which entails that so long as `Abdullāh ibn `Umar violated acting upon the Hadīth that he himself had reported, the Hadīth is proven to be repealed—such as Abū-Zayd al-Dabbūsiy in his book of al-Asrār fī’l-Usūl wa’l-Furū`, al-Sajistāniy in his book of al-Ghunyah fī’l-Usūl, al-Sarakhsiy in his book of al-Usūl, al-Kamāl ibn al-Humām in his book of al-Tahrīr, `Abd al-`Azīz al-Bukhāriy in his book of Kashf al-Asrār, Amīr Bādshāh in his book of Taysīr al-Tahrīr, Ibn Amīr al-Hājj in his book of al-Taqrīr wa’l-Tahbīr, al-Nasfiy in his book of Kashf al-Asrār and Mullājeūn in his book of Nūr al-Anwār fī Sharh al-Manār.
On the other hand, other Hanafiyyah scholars—such as al-Buzdawiy in his book of al-Usūl and al-Khabbāziy in his book of al-Mughnī—have argued that the Hadīth that is narrated by `Abdullāh ibn `Umar cannot stand as evidence because its narrator violated it. Yet, those scholars have not argued that the Hadīth must have been repealed.
For the following reasons, Dr. al-Namlah comments, the most preferable and acceptable opinion in this regard is that adopted by the majority of the scholars, which is that the hands must be raised at the Takbīrat al-Ihrām (the statement of Allāhu-Akbar that indicates the commencement of a ritual prayer), at the genuflection and at the standing erect after the genuflection:
First Reason: The matter that must be followed is the act of the Prophet, not the act of any of the Sahābah, be it `Abdullāh ibn `Umar or anyone else.
Second Reason: The Hadīth intended was practiced by the other companions of the Prophet. In this regard, al-Hasan (al-Basriy) says, “I saw the companions of the Prophet raising their hands whenever they commenced their prayers, genuflected, and stood erect after the genuflection.”
Al-Bukhāriy also says, “Ibn al-Madīniy, the most knowledgeable scholar of his age, says that according to this Hadīth, it is obligatory upon all the Muslims to raise their hands (in the ritual prayers at these positions).”
Third Reason: Mujāhid has narrated that he did not notice `Abdullāh ibn `Umar raising his hands (during the prayer) except when he would begin the prayer. This saying opposes the narration of Tāwūs who reported that he had seen `Abdullāh ibn `Umar acting upon the very Hadīth that he had reported from the Prophet. Similarly, when he was asked about the raising of the hands during the prayers, Ahmad ibn Hanbal is reported to have answered, “I swear that raising the hands
is a part of the prayers. Who can ever doubt it! Whenever he noticed that a performer of a prayer had not raised his hands, `Abdullāh ibn `Umar would reproach and order to raise the hands.”
I prefer the reports of Tāwūs and Ahmad ibn Hanbal to that of Mujāhid since these two reports agree with the narration of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar; and reason and good sense support the matter that a reporter of a commission should act upon it.
In his book of Kashf al-Asrār, `Abd al-`Azīz al-Bukhāriy says that it is probable that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar used to raise his hands at the commencement of the prayer, the genuflection, and at standing erect after the genuflection before he knew that the Hadīth that he reported had been repealed, but when he knew of that, he neglected acting upon the Hadīth and thus began to raise his hands only at the beginning of the prayers.
The aforesaid wording of `Abd al-`Azīz al-Bukhāriy is no more than a probability that wants evidence and proof; and so long as it is unfounded, we should not discuss it. On the other hand, we should act upon the certain wording, which is the Messenger of Allah’s Hadīth and the act of the majority of the Sahābah who are reported to have raised their hands at the Takbīrat al-Ihrām, the genuflection, and the standing erect after the genuflection. Finally, Almighty Allah is the most knowledgeable.
The aforesaid presentations have been some practical examples on the Sahābah’s violation of the Hadīths that they reported. For further details in this regard, the readers are recommended to refer to the books specialized in the Muslim jurisprudence.
The presentation of these examples has been aimed at confirming the fact that the rulers’ concern is in most cases to grant their personal opinions a legal color more than to commit themselves to the commissions of Almighty Allah or to comply thoroughly with the texts of the Divine Revelation. To have a discerning look into the innovated opinions of `Uthmān ibn `Affān and Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān proves that their method was no more than an extension to the method invented by `Umar ibn al-Khattāb. Even if they on certain occasions violated the method of Abū-Bakr and `Umar—such as `Uthmān ibn `Affān’s having offered the prayers in the complete form at Minā and preceded the khutbah (the ritual sermon) and Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān’s having decided that the adhān would be declared and the khutbah of the Salāt al-`Īd (The Feast Prayer) would be preceded—this did not mean that they had violated the opinions of Abū-Bakr and `Umar in everything; rather this meant that they had adopted new opinions according to the rules defined by Abū-Bakr and `Umar that reads that a ruler (i.e. caliph) has the right to enact in the Islamic legislation a law that he personally sees beneficial and preferable. Naturally, their own opinions must have been considered preferable to the opinions of the rulers who preceded them. Generally, `Uthmān ibn `Affān and Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān imitated the course of those who preceded them. In this course, they adopted Opinionism and Ijtihād as an extension of the method of Abū-Bakr and `Umar who had invented Opinionism and Ijtihād.
By that means, the Muslims have followed one of two trends; the first adopts the sacred texts and accepts not substitute for the commission of Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet. Even the Holy Prophet himself was the servant and messenger of Almighty Allah from Whom he received the laws directly without subjecting the issues to personal judgments or analogy. In this regard the Holy Qur'ān reads,
“We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, that you might judge between men as guided by Allah.” [Holy Qur’ān: 4/105]
“Nor does he say aught of his own desire. It is no less than revelation that is revealed to him.” [Holy Qur’ān: 53/3-4]
These holy verses indicate that the Holy Prophet complied thoroughly with the revelation that was revealed to him without any inclination to his own judgments. The Holy Imams have also concentrated on this denotation of the thorough compliance with the sacred texts. They all have confirmed that their sayings will never be issued out of their own judgments; rather they are the laws that they have inherited from one another up to the Holy Prophet.
On the other side there emerged another trend that we have called Opinionism and Ijtihād. The basic roots of this trend was in fact adopted by some of the Sahābah during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet as has been proven through the situations of Abū-Bakr and `Umar as regards the incident of the pious man whom they did not kill, although the Holy Prophet had ordered them to do so, because they had seen him in states of piety and religiousness. Similarly, the trend was followed by other Sahābah who observed continuous fasting although the Holy Prophet prohibited such a kind of fasting. As those Sahābah and their fans demanded with the legality of Opinionism, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, during his reign, responded to them after he had realized that he lacked acquaintance with the religious laws. Hence, Opinionism and Ijtihād were allowed, and `Umar ibn al-Khattāb frequently objected, publicly, to the Sahābah who had disagreed about the religious laws. These two incidents mean that Abū-Bakr and `Umar intended to restrict the issuance of personal opinions and the reliance upon Ijtihād to them only while the other Sahābah would follow all their opinions without any disputation. Yet, Abū-Bakr and `Umar could not achieve so because the adoption of the legality of Opinionism and Ijtihād is too extensive, flexible, and streamlined to be dedicated to an individual or a certain group.
Because of the adoption of the legality of Opinionism, the Muslim community has been engaged in such discrepancies. Referring to this fact, Abū-Bakr himself said, “People who will come after you will be more discrepant that you are.” `Umar ibn al-Khattāb also said a similar thing, as has been cited within the aforementioned narration of al-Bayhaqiy.
As for Imam `Alī, he has clarified the matter very obviously through his famous sermon of al-Shaqshaqiyyah wherein he says,
“This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein, the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose, he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation. Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial… etc.”
On the famous Disastrous Thursday, the Holy Prophet ordered the attendants to bring him a pen and an inkpot so that he would write down for them a document that would save them from going astray forever. Similarly, in the famous Hadīth of Thaqalayn (the two weighty things), the Holy Prophet says,
“If you adhere to these two (namely the Holy Qur'ān and the Ahl al-Bayt), you will never go astray after me.”
In addition to the many Hadīths of the Holy Imams wherein they prohibit the adoption of Opinionism in the issuance of religious laws since such opinions are nothing more than turning away from the Holy Sunnah, the two aforesaid texts of the Holy Prophet, if considered thoroughly, prove that the reporting and the recordation of the Hadīth were related to the Islamic legislation, but the rulers of the Islamic State, especially Abū-Bakr and `Umar, used them for achieving their personal interests and validating their unfounded judgments; the rulers therefore issued the decision of the prohibition from recording and reporting the Hadīth when they realized that it was necessary to issue such a decision and they then opened wide the reporting of the Hadīth when it was necessary to do such.
As a matter of fact, as long as the Muslims go away from the Ahl al-Bayt, they go away from the right and miss the Right Path. This fact disturbed the Holy Prophet as he anticipated the Muslims’ turning away from the Ahl al-Bayt. In other words, when the Muslims turn away from the Ahl al-Bayt politically through the forbearance from giving them a share in the affairs of the leadership of the Muslim community, the Muslims will certainly go away from the true Sunnah of the Holy Prophet and thus they will miss the right course. This truth can be strikingly concluded from the Holy Prophet’s saying, “If you adhere to these two (namely the Holy Qur'ān and the Ahl al-Bayt), you will never go astray after me.” This means that the Muslims are ordered to followe and adhere to the Ahl al-Bayt and if they do not abide by the sayings of those Holy Imams as regards the religious laws, they will certainly miss the right course and depart the Holy Sunnah. Moreover, if the Muslims do not select the Ahl al-Bayt as their leaders, this will not cancel the Holy Prophet’s commission of the adherence to them.
Too many were the occasions on which the Holy Prophet declared to the Muslims that the Ahl al-Bayt are the guides of the ummah and the explainers of any matter about which the Muslims would disagree after him. In this regard, he is reported to have said,
“I am the one who warns, and `Alī is the one who guides. O `Alī: only through you will those who are guided to the right path be guided after me.”
“He who is pleased to live the like of my life and to die on the same principles on which I die and to be entered the paradise of eternity of which my Lord has promised me, must be loyal to `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib, for he will never take you out of the door of right guidance and will never take you to a door of deviation.”
According to many other texts, the Holy Prophet ensured on referring to the Ahl al-Bayt, and none else, in the religious laws. For instance, he is reported to have said,
“The nations who existed before you were annihilated just because they created a contradiction in the Book of Almighty Allah, while it was revealed confirming each other, not opposing each other. If you know something about the Book of Almighty Allah, you should declare, but if you know not, you should refer it to those who know it best.”
“Slow down! The nations who existed before you were annihilated for the same reason you are now in; it is their discrepancies about their prophets and creating contradiction in the Holy Books. Verily, the Holy Qur'ān was revealed not to oppose each other, but to confirm each other. Hence, if you know something about it, you should act upon it, but if you know not, you should refer it to those who best know it.”
It has been also narrated that when the people disagreed about the mutiny and assassination of `Uthmān ibn `Affān, they asked Ubayy ibn Ka`b about the solution. He answered,
“The solution is the Book of Almighty Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet. You should thus act upon the matters that are clear for you and should refer the matters that are ambiguous to those who know them best.”
In al-`Ayyāshiy’s book of Tafsīr, it has been narrated that Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq said,
“Those people thought that they were so experienced in the religious affairs that they comprehended anything needed by the ummah. Yet, they did not learn all the instructions of the Holy Prophet nor did he convey to them his knowledge. When issues of the religious rulings were referred to them, they would not have its knowledge or the Holy Prophet’s instructions in that respect. Moreover, they would be embarrassed if people would accuse them of ignorance or if they could not find answers for the people’s questions and, as a result, the people would refer their issues to the sources of knowledge. They therefore used opinions and analogy in the religion of Almighty Allah, abandoned the Holy Prophet’s knowledge, and adhered to heresies about which the Holy Prophet said, ‘All innovated things are heresies.’ Had they referred the questions that they ignored to Almighty Allah, His Messenger, and those of authority among them, those of authority among them who can search out the knowledge of it, namely the Household of Muhammad, would have certainly known it.”
The abstention from carrying out the Holy Prophet’s order of bringing him a paper and an inkpot so as to write down a document that would save the Muslims for deviation forever; the prohibition from recording the Holy Sunnah; the prohibition from reporting the Holy Prophet’s traditions; the raising of the slogan of “The Book of Allah is sufficient for us!”; the adoption of the legality of Opinionism and analogy in the issuance of religious laws; the permissibility of the multiplicity of opinions in a certain religious law; the decision that the word of a Sahābiy incapacitates the Holy Qur'ān and the Holy Sunnah—all these were stages by which the Muslim community had passed and due to the acceptance of which the Muslims have missed the right path and turned away from the commissions of the Divine Revelation.
The aforementioned presentation has been an expression of the total ordeal of the Holy Prophet’s texts as well as the predominance of Opinionism on the Islamic legislation. Any further discussion may take us away from our aim; therefore, it seems suitable to stop at this point.
The ruling authorities deemed true all the opinions and adopted all the words of all the Sahābah except the words and laws said by `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib and his adherents who complied thoroughly to the sacred texts and recorded the Holy Sunnah and Hadīth. In this regard, the ruling authorities regarded the words of Imam `Alī as alien that must be removed from the Muslims’ jurisprudence.
A little ponderation over our jurisprudential and Hadīthic heritage will demonstrate obviously the predominance of the spirit of sectarianism on it. The Hadīths that are reported from Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib in the most comprehensive and most reliable Sunnite reference books of Hadīth have been no more than a few tens. Nevertheless, the Sunnite jurisprudents have not depended upon these few Hadīths in the issuance of a religious law except when they have had to. Moreover, they are too fearful and too negligent to report all the narrations that Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib received directly from the Holy Prophet. On the other side, the Hadīths that are reported by Abū-Hurayrah, `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, and `Ā'ishah are innumerable that upon which the religious laws rest and are founded. Let us now put the following questions:
What was the purpose beyond such irony? Is it because Abū-Hurayrah, `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, and `Ā'ishah preceded Imam `Alī in embracing Islam or in abundance of religious knowledge or in precedence to the Holy Prophet… etc.?
Why has Mālik ibn Anas not recorded any Hadīth reported from Imam `Alī?
Why can we not see any item referring to the jurisprudence of the Ahl al-Bayt in the reference books of Sunnite jurisprudence whereas these books have comprised even the deviant opinions of the extinct factions?
What do all these facts mean?
Why can the remnants of sectarian ideology be seen clearly in the Muslim heritage while the researchers and seekers of knowledge are prevented from looking into matters the study of which will clarify many facts; and even if a researcher has the courage to uncover such matters, he will be accused of dispersing discrepancy among the Muslims?
It is extremely surprising to regard the elucidation and the discovering of the unknown facts as dispersion of discrepancy and seditious matters!
The method of the rulers in the issuance of the religious laws can be shown in the following narration: In his book of Tuhfat al-Ahwadhiy fī Sharh Jāmi` al-Tirmidhiy, al-Mubārakfūriy has recorded that Shu`ayb ibn Jarīr, once, asked Sufyān al-Thawriy to summarize for him the Holy Sunnah. Hence, Sufyān dictated: “In the Name of Allah, the All-beneficent, the All-merciful; the Qur'ān is the words that are not created… Listen Shu`ayb! All that which you have written down will not do good to you unless you believe in the legality of the rubbing on the sandals (in the ritual ablution), and you believe in the verdict that to recite Bism-illāhir-rahmānir-rahīm (during the prayers) inaudibly is preferred to reciting it audibly, and you believe that everything (including our acts) is predestined, and you believe that it is lawful to follow in a congregation prayer any individual whether righteous or wicked, and you believe that it is obligatory to act upon patience under the pennon of any ruler whether unjust or fair.”
Shu`ayb asked, “Does this ruling of following any leader of a congregational prayer include all the ritual prayers?”
Sufyān answered, “No, it does not. It only includes the Friday Prayer and the Feast Prayers. In the performance of two prayers, you may follow anyone, but in the other (obligatory) prayers, you have the right to choose the one whom you follow. Hence, you should follow only him whom you trust and whom you know as being Sunnite.”
The inaudible recitation of the Basmalah, rubbing the sandals in the ritual ablution, and the permissibility to follow any imam in the congregational prayers—all these are within the laws that were enacted by the ruling authorities in order to serve their interests. On the other hand, it goes without saying that the Ahl al-Bayt decided that the Basmalah should be recited audibly during the prayers and thus it is one of the indications to faithfulness. This situation has been supported by a big number of the Sahābah who are too many to be listed in this discussion for fear of lengthiness. However, the most important point in this regard is that the dear readers should know that all these questions have been opposite to the jurisprudence of Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib and `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās as well as the grand Sahābah and have been congruent with the jurisprudence of the pro-rulers scholars. This is of course a sufficient indication and proof on the rulers’ having deliberately opposed the Ahl al-Bayt.
As some of the principles of the policy adopted by the rulers of the Islamic State have been previously cited, let us now refer to the secret of the concentration on the conducts of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb who threatened people with punishment if they would report any of the traditions of the Holy Prophet.
One of the texts that have been forged against the Holy Prophet is the saying, “Follow those who will come after me; Abū-Bakr and `Umar.”This text demonstrates that it was fabricated in the first days of `Uthmān ibn `Affān’s reign. This is because `Umar ibn al-Khattāb and `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf had mainly feared the happening of two things; first, they feared that one who rejects the personal views of Abū-Bakr and `Umar that took the form of religious laws would come to power, and, second, they feared that Ijtihād would spread uncontrollably.
If the multiplicity in the centers of the issuance of religious laws and the acceptability of the personal opinions of the all were given free ways, especially during that period of the history of Islam, none would be able to stand against them. From this cause, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf objected to `Uthmān ibn `Affān for having invented matters that were not known during the reigns of Abū-Bakr and `Umar and demanded him not to exceed the opinions that they had issued. Yet, `Uthmān ibn `Affān neither responded to that demand nor did he accept `Abd al-Rahmān’s claims because `Uthmān had regarded himself no less than Abū-Bakr and `Umar in position and prestige; hence, it would not be practical for him to imitate them and follow their methods in Ijtihād. Furthermore, Abū-Bakr and `Umar did not enjoy any unique characteristic due to which their opinions and decisions would be preferred to `Uthmān’s. If both Abū-Bakr and `Umar were connected to the Holy Prophet by means of marriage affiliation since they both gave their daughters in marriage to him, `Uthmān were connected to him in a stronger link, since he married two daughters of the Holy Prophet and thus he was called “Dhu’l-Nūrayn (the one with two lights).”
Naturally, `Uthmān ibn `Affān asked himself why he would not practice Ijtihād so long as Ijtihād had been validated for everybody! He must have also asked himself why those people compelled him to follow the opinions of and imitate Abū-Bakr and `Umar while these two had not complied with the commissions of the Holy Prophet; rather they rested upon and practiced their personal views in front of him. Similarly, `Uthmān must have asked himself if Ijtihād was forbidden, why these two had been allowed to practice it while it was regarded as forbidden for him.
This very ‘double-dealing’ was subject to various viewpoints; `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf and his likes believed that it was possible to dedicate the circle of Ijtihād and Opinionism to the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar; as a result, they demanded `Uthmān ibn `Affān to fulfill his pledges. On the other hand, Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib had realized the inaccuracy of such ‘double-dealing’. He believed that the ‘door’ of Ijtihād is always open and thus this right must not be given to certain individuals and forbidden to others. For that reason, Imam `Alī said to `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf, “Almighty Allah may disperse enmity among you.” Although Imam `Alī said this statement in the form of supplication, he in reality had anticipated the end result of their plot; and his prediction came true.
Nevertheless, the Umayyad rulers added the name of `Uthmān ibn `Affān to the list of the rulers (i.e. caliphs) whom must be obeyed and whose conducts must be imitated. Through their campaigns, the Umayyad rulers paid very much for fabricating “Hadīths” comprising the names of Abū-Bakr, ``Umar, and `Uthmān as the three “caliphs” whom had been predicted by the Holy Prophet. Yet, the name of Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib was added to the list at the beginning of the `Abbāsid dynasty when they were in need for any opposition to the Umayyad rulers, and since Imam `Alī was one of the Hāshimites, they needed his name to achieve victory over their enemies.
In the same way, the “Hadīths” of “The Rāshidite Caliphs after me” were invented during that period of the Islamic history, while the “Hadīths” of “Follow those who will come after me” and their likes were invented during the period after the establishment of the Shūrā Committee when the ruling authorities needed concentration on the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar.
`Umar Ibn `Abd Al-`Azīz And The Prohibition Of Recording The Hadīth
It was the politicians who played the greatest role in the fabrication of many “Hadīths” like “the ten individuals of Paradise” and “the ultimate decency of all the Sahābah”—the Hadīths that shed light on the course of the legality of the multiplicity of opinions that was originated by Abū-Bakr and `Umar when they prohibited the reporting and recordation of the Hadīth.
The circulation of the events of the adoption of the Hadīths by some of the Sahābah and the acting upon the personal opinions by another group and the mixture of the two trends by a third group—these events caused the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet to be confused with the traditions of the Sahābah. Accordingly, confusion covered everything; the authentic was confused with the suspicious and the Sunnah with the general traditions. However, when `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz came to power, he methodized the traditions of Abū-Bakr and `Umar in the form of an undiscussable law imposed upon the Muslims.
It has been narrated that `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz wrote a missive to Abū-Bakr ibn `Amr ibn Hazm ordering him to write down all the Hadīths of the Messenger of Allah as well as any active tradition and all the narrations recorded by `Amārah (daughter of `Abd al-Rahmān), for he anticipated that knowledge would be wiped out and the scholars would be extinct.
According to another narration, `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz added the traditions of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb to the materials that should be written down, and according to a third narration, he ordered Abū-Bakr ibn `Amr ibn Hazm to write down the items of knowledge and collect them from `Amarah bint `Abd al-Rahmān and al-Qāsim ibn Muhammad.
It has been narrated on the authority of Hātib ibn Khalīfah al-Burjumiy that `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz, having been the caliph, said in a speech, “Surely, All that which the Messenger of Allah and his two companions (i.e. Abū-Bakr and `Umar) decided should be a law that we will follow and at which we stop; rather anything that was enacted by anyone else will be adjourned by me.”
It has been also narrated that he, once, wrote a missive to the people of al-Madīnah ordering them to write down the Hadīths of the Messenger of Allah since he anticipated their loss.
According to another form of the narration as reported by `Affān, `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz added that he anticipated that the knowledge would be wiped out and the scholars would be extinct.
It has been also narrated that he, in one of his missives to his officials, wrote down, “The Sunnah was in fact enacted by Him Who knows that error, flaw, idiocy, and exaggeration is the result of any violation of it. Hence, you should satisfy yourself with matters with which those people satisfied themselves, for they have for sure had knowledge and deep discerning. Additionally, they were better than you are in the exposition of the matters and thus it is more preferable to adopt the consequences that they have adopted. If the truth is that upon which you are acting, then you have surely preceded them to it, but if you claim that the unfavorable matters occurred after them, then these matters must have been done by those who followed a way other than theirs and shunned their course. In fact, they were the foremost and they discussed these matters adequately and described them effectively. They thus were neither negligent nor exaggerators. When some peoples else neglected, they became ruthless, and when other peoples exaggerated, they became extremists. Hence, those people followed the right guidance… etc.”
It has been also narrated that `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz said, “The Messenger of Allah and the men in authority who came after him enacted certain laws. To adopt these laws is to believe in the Book of Almighty Allah, to be at His service, and to have power for the sake of the religion of Allah. None is ever allowed to change, distort, or consider the opinions that violate these laws. Furthermore, he who works upon these laws will have been guided (to the right) and one who uses them for achieving victory will surely have been given victory, but he who violates them and follows a way other than that of the believers… etc.”
`Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz then issued the order that these collections would be followed by all the provinces of the Islamic State as religious laws. However, these collections comprised the personal opinions of the rulers as well as all that which `Amarah bint `Abd al-Rahmān and al-Qāsim ibn Muhammad reported from `Ā'ishah and the others while all these reports were within the jurisprudence that the ruling authorities had desired to impose on the people as a substitute of the original religious laws that have been carried by the Ahl al-Bayt.
In this regard, It has been narrated that Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhriy said, “When `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz ordered us to record the traditions, we compiled them in books. He then sent a copy to each province that was under his predominance.”
We have earlier proved that the recordation of the traditions and the Holy Sunnah was on the commissions of the rulers. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that the `Abbāsid rulers played the biggest role in the consolidation of the four major Sunnite schools of law.
It is now clear that `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz did not collect the Holy Sunnah and the traditions of the Holy Prophet only, but he also founded and consolidated the personal opinions and decisions that were issued by the rulers who preceded him, especially Abū-Bakr and `Umar. In plain words, `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz established the origins of the trend of Opinionism and Ijtihād, which is the trend of the ruling authorities and their fans, although the religious laws that are adopted by these rulers and their fans had been separated from the genuine origins and principles of the Muslim jurisprudence causing the religious knowledge to be lost by the Muslim community for a century or even more.
It goes without saying that it is impracticable to trust the recordation of the Hadīth under circumstances the distinctive feature of which is sectarianism and tribalism, especially after the forging of lies against the Holy Prophet was very common. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that the existence of some Hadīths that are unaccepted by the general trend of the ruling authorities does not mean that the rulers were sincere in the recording and reporting of the Hadīth or in the ambition to safeguard the Islamic legislation; rather this is an indication to the extension of the both trends of Opinionism and Ijtihād and of the thorough compliance with the sacred texts to the reigns of these rulers as well as the existence of individuals who defended the Holy Sunnah. The governmental distortion cannot stand against the genuine intellectual trend because the stumbling of the trend of the ruling authorities and its confusion can be easily exposed by the other authentic narrations and the Holy Qur'ān and is opposed by the pious Sahābah and the sound logic.
For that reason, the hugeness and genuineness of the trend of thorough compliance with the sacred texts can obviously be noticed in the reference books of Hadīth and the most reliable series of narrators that are supported by the rulers and their fans. In spite of all circumstances and confusables, these narrations have found their way to the jurisprudence of all the Muslims. Moreover, as these reference books are characterized by expansion and comprehensiveness of all the jurisprudential sections, this predicts the existence of two intellectual trends the first of which calls for Opinionism and issues verdicts that are compatible to the personal opinions and Ijtihād of the Sahābah while the other trend acts upon the sacred texts and whatever has been mentioned in the Holy Qur'ān and the Sunnah only.
It has been narrated that Sālih ibn Kaysān said, “I, once, met with al-Zuhriy for seeking religious knowledge and then we both decided to write down the traditions. We therefore wrote down whatever was reported from the Prophet. When he suggested that he would write down the traditions of the Sahābah considering them with the Sunnah, I objected and declared the Sahābah’s traditions having been not within the Sunnah. Hence, al-Zuhriy wrote down the traditions of the Sahābah while I did not and thus I lost.”
Shaykh Muhammad Abū-Zuhrah says, “We found Mālik ibn Anas depending upon the verdicts of the Sahābah as if they were part of the Sunnah.”
Mūsā Jārullāh says, “We, the Sunnite master jurisprudents, consider the traditions of Abū-Bakr and `Umar sources of the Islamic legislation that are as significant as the Sunnah of the Prophet. In addition, we consider them sources in the provability of the religious laws that are appertained to the life of the ummah and the administration of the Islamic state. We also confirm that the Rāshidite Caliphate is as sinless as the Divine Mission (of the Holy Prophet).”
It is natural that the adorers of Abū-Bakr and `Umar regard their governments as sacred as the government of the Holy Prophet since these governments were the founders of the trend of Opinionism and Ijtihād which was followed by all the rulers and thus the heads of these governments, namely Abū-Bakr and `Umar, decided laws that they desired and canceled the religious laws that they did not like since these laws would violate their personal interests. As a confirmation of this fact, read the following narration:
Abū-Bakr al-San`āniy narrated that he, accompanied by a group, visited Mālik ibn Anas who began talking about Rabī`ah, Mālik’s mentor and instructor. As he frequently talked about his mentor, we used to ask him for more.
One day, he said to us, “What do you want from Rabī`ah while he is sleeping under that arch?”
We therefore hurried toward Rabī`ah and wondered how Mālik had knew everything about him while he himself did not know.
Rabī`ah answered, “You should have known that a ‘gram’ of a governmental authority is better than a ‘ton’ of knowledge!”
This narration reveals that the two trends extended to cover both the Umayyad and the `Abbāsid ages causing a complicated confusion to the traditions that it became so difficult to discriminate the authentic from the fabricated. This very result was intended by the rulers of the Islamic state to occur to the next generations.
Wonderments And Irony
The declaration of the names of ten individuals among the Sahābah as being within the inhabitants of Paradise is contradictory to the practical behaviors of these individuals. For instance, it is ironic to decide this Hadīth as authentic while Talhah and al-Zubayr, who are within the list of those whom were given the good tidings of entering Paradise, fought against Imam `Alī who was the legal ruler of the Islamic State at that time and who was also within the same list. It goes without saying that the right is indivisibly one; if Imam `Alī was the right party, then Talhah and al-Zubayr would be the wrong and vice versa.
Secondly, if we accept the Hadīth of “The Ten Individuals of Paradise” we should then reject the following Hadīth that has been recorded by al-Bukhāriy, in his al-Sahīh, and reported from the Holy Prophet, “When two Muslims face each other with swords, both the killer and the killed will be in Hellfire.” When he was asked why the killed would also be in Hellfire, the Holy Prophet answered, “This is because the killed would kill the other if he could.”
This irony and its likes confuse the researchers who attempt to study these topics since it arouses the wonderments whether these two will be included with the inhabitants of Paradise or Hellfire; and whether a Sahābiy should have fought against the transgressing party until it complies with the command of Almighty Allah or he should follow the party that would triumph, as has been decided by `Abdullāh ibn `Umar.
If those ten individuals of Paradise could have done anything they desired in view of the decision that they would be included with the inhabitants of Paradise, then why would not they themselves have realized this truth and thus left each other without quarrel or lived without enmity due to which hundreds of Muslims were killed? If such logic is true, why are we now rejecting intellectual anarchism? As a matter of fact, this very logic stands for underestimating the souls, fortunes, and honors of the Muslims.
In his command to Abū-Bakr `Amr ibn Hazm, `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz asked him to collect and write down the Hadīth of the Holy Prophet and the traditions of Abū-Bakr and `Umar ibn al-Khattāb in addition to the collections of `Amarah or the reports from `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, as has been decided in other narrations. This fact motivates us to arouse the question: What did `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz mean by such? Why did he decide the traditions of Abū-Bakr and `Umar as the religion that should be adopted and to which it should be referred, while he decided the traditions of anyone else as must be subjected to discussion? Why did `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz suspend the traditions of `Uthmān ibn `Affān and Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib? Does this mean that he had not decided them with the Rāshidite Caliphs about whom the Messenger of Allah was reported to have said, “Adhere to my Sunnah as well as the Sunnah of the Rāshidite Caliphs who will come after me”? Accordingly, is the “Sunnah” that is currently circulated the ver Sunnah of the Holy Prophet or that of the Sahābah? All these questions, if not ironies, must be studied and investigated within the Muslim jurisprudence and history and thus their texts must never be accepted as they are.
The principles of the assessment of the narrators and Hadīths were in fact established, after the departure of the Holy Prophet, at the hands of the ruling authorities and under the supervision of the rulers taking into consideration the fact that the spirit of tribalism and sectarianism in the establishment of these principles overcame the spirit of seriousness and sincerity.
The ascriptions of deviation, doctrinal corruption, fabrication, and the like vices to the adherents of Imam `Alī were the distinctive features of the principles of the assessment of the narrators of Hadīths. As a result, the ruling authorities and their fans spared no effort in fabricating “Hadīths” that would be contradictory to the reports of the adherents of Imam `Alī. Unfortunately, these unfounded principles have left sorrowful inconveniences on our conducts and behaviors to such a degree that it has become very difficult to get rid of or go away from them. On the strength of this fact, it has become very imperative to investigate and study thoroughly the historical and jurisprudential roots of these principles since it is unquestionable that such investigations and studies will open new horizons of knowledge whose honesty and accuracy have not been tasted so far. Throughout my studies and theses, I always concentrate on this point and invite the dear researchers and specialists to study these topics and their likes thoroughly.
In this topic, as well as my study entitled al-Sunnah Ba`d al-Rasūl (the Sunnah after the Holy Messenger), I have proven that the “Sunnah” that is currently circulated is not the actual traditions of the Holy Prophet; rather it is the traditions of certain men in a huge quantity of its sections and topics.
 Dr. `Abd al-Karīm ibn `Alī ibn Muhammad al-Namlah: Mukhālafat al-Sahābiy li’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy al-Sharīf Dirāsah Nadhariyyah Tatbīqiyyah 22-29.
 Dr. `Abd al-Karīm ibn `Alī ibn Muhammad al-Namlah: Mukhālafat al-Sahābiy li’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy al-Sharīf Dirāsah Nadhariyyah Tatbīqiyyah 30-86.
 Dr. `Abd al-Karīm ibn `Alī ibn Muhammad al-Namlah: Mukhālafat al-Sahābiy li’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy al-Sharīf Dirāsah Nadhariyyah Tatbīqiyyah 87-105.
 Dr. `Abd al-Karīm ibn `Alī ibn Muhammad al-Namlah: Mukhālafat al-Sahābiy li’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy al-Sharīf Dirāsah Nadhariyyah Tatbīqiyyah 106-123.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:75 H. 170; Sahīh Muslim 1:234 H. 279; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 1:19 H. 71; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 1:151 H. 91; Sunan al-Nassā'iy 1:52 H. 63, 64; Sunan Ibn Mājah 1:130 H. 363, 364; Mālik ibn Anas: al-Muwatta' 1:52 H. 65; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:460 H. 9931.
 Sharh Ma`ānī al-Āthār 1:23; Sunan al-Dārqutniy 1:66 H. 17; al-`Ilal al-Mutanāhiyah 1:333 H. 544.
 For instance, refer to Tuhfat al-Ahwadhiy 2:78.
 Sahīh Muslim 1:235 H. 280; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 1:19 H. 74; Sunan al-Nassā'iy 1:177 H. 337; Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:104 H. 737; Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 1:59 H. 1831; Sunan Ibn Mājah 1:30 H. 366; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 12:365 H. 13307.
 Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 2:229 H. 2083; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 3:407 H. 1102; Sunan al-Dārimiy 2:185 H. 2184; Sunan al-Dārqutniy 3:221 H. 10; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 2:182 H. 2706; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 6:47 H. 24251, 6:66 H. 24417; Sharh Ma`ānī al-Āthār 3:7.
 Al-Muhallā 9:455; Badā'i` al-Sanā'i` 2 :249; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 9:225.
 Al-Sarakhsiy: al-Usūl 2:6.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 5:197; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 2:229 H. 2085; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 3:307 H. 1101, 1102; Sunan Ibn Mājah 1:605 H. 1880; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:250 H. 2261.
 Al-Mughni 6:7, Kashf al-Qinā` 5:48.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:257 H. 702; Sahīh Muslim 1:292 H. 390; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 1:191 H. 721; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 2:35 H. 255; Sunan al-Nassā'iy 2:182 H. 1025; Sunan Ibn Mājah 1:279 H. 858; Mālik ibn Anas: al-Muwatta' 1:75 H. 163; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:8 H. 4540.
 Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 1:214 H. 2452; Sharh Ma`ānī al-Āthār 1:227; al-Dirāyah fī Takhrīj Ahādīth al-Hidāyah 1:149.
 Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Tamhīd 9:217; al-Mughni 1:295; al-Dirāyah fī Takhrīj Ahādīth al-Hidāyah 1:155; Nasb al-Rāyah 1:416.
 Al-Tahqīq fī Ahādīth al-Khilāf 1:331, H. 419; al-Mughni 1:295; Tuhfat al-Ahwadhiy 2:88 S. 77.
 Dr. `Abd al-Karīm ibn `Alī ibn Muhammad al-Namlah: Mukhālafat al-Sahābiy li’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy al-Sharīf Dirāsah Nadhariyyah Tatbīqiyyah 124-145.
 Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah Sermon No. 3.
 Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:130; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Lisān al-Mizān 2:199 H. 904; Abū-Na`īm: Hilyat al-Awliyā’ 1:64; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 2:417 H. 915-916; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 11:612; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb fī Ma`rifat al-Ashāb Part III 1114 H. 1855.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 11:611; al-Kulayniy: al-Kāfī 1:209 H. 5; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 5:194 H. 5067; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:139 H. 4642.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 11:192 H. 970; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:185 H. 6741; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 3:227 H. 2995; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Madkhal Ilā’l-Sunan al-Kubrā 1:429 H. 790; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:343 H. 5321.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 11:193 H. 978; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:181 H. 6702, 2:300 H. 7976; Sahīh Ibn Habbān 1:275; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 8:307 H. 8715; I`tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah 1:117 H. 183.
 `Abd al-Ghaniy `Abd al-Khāliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 358; al-Bukhāriy: Khalq Af`āl al-`Ibād 63; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:343 H. 5321; al-Suyūtiy: Miftāh al-Jannah 70.
 Al-`Ayyāshiy: Tafsīr 2:331-2; al-Hurr al-'Āmiliy: Wasāi’l al-Shī’ah 27:61; al-Burhān 2:476 H. 6; al-Majlisiy: Bihār al-Anwār 5:297. Nu’mān the judge, in Ikhtilāf Usūl al-Madhhab, Dar al-Andalus Press, 1973, records the same narration.
 The number of the Hadīths that Mālik ibn Anas, in his book of al-Muwatta',narrated on the authority of Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib is eight only! While he narrated on the authority of Abū-Hurayrah about one hundred and seventy Hadīths.
 One of the beliefs that the rulers of the Islamic States imposed upon the publics is that it is forbidden to mutiny or revolt against any ruler even if that ruler is unjust, miscreant, irreligious… etc.
 Al-Mubārakfūriy: Tuhfat al-Ahwadhiy fī Sharh Jāmi` al-Tirmidhiy Introduction 352. See also I`tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah 1:52-153 (where the compiler has replaced the statement ‘The Qur'ān is not created’ with the statement ‘The Qur'ān is created’); Tadhkirat al-Huffādh 1:206.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 5:382 H. 23293; Sunan Ibn Mājah 1:37 H. 97; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 5:609, 610 H. 3662, 3663; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:80 H. 4455.
 Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 1:188, 9:55.
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 105-106; Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:126; Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:36 and al-Tārīkh al-Saghīr 105.
 Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:126.
 Al-Rāziy: al-Jarh wa’l-Ta`dīl 1:21.
 Al-Suyūtiy: Tārīkh al-Khulafā' 241; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 1:332; Sayyid Ja`far Murtadā: al-Sahīh 8:11.
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 106; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 3:175.
 Al-Ghāmidiy: Haqīqat al-Bid`ah wa-Ahkāmuhā (The Reality and Rulings of Innovations)’ 1:74 as quoted from Abū-Dāwūd: al-Sunnah, Kitāb al-Sunnah and Muhammad ibn Waddāh: al-Bida` wa’l-Nahy `Anhā 30.
 Al-Ājury: al-Sharī`ah 48; `Abdullāh ibn Ahmad: Kitāb al-Sunnah 1:357 as has been cited in Al-Ghāmidiy’s Haqīqat al-Bid`ah wa-Ahkāmuhā.
 Ibn `Abd al-Rabb al-Qurtubiy: Jāmi`u Bayān al-`Ilm wa-Fadlih(i) 1:76.
 Ibn `Abd al-Rabb al-Qurtubiy: Jāmi`u Bayān al-`Ilm wa-Fadlih(i) 1:76-77; al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 106-107.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 251; Mālik ibn Anas: al-Muwatta' 290.
 Mūsā Jārullāh: al-Washī`ah fī Naqd `Aqā`id al-Shī`ah 77.
 Abū-Ishāq: Tabaqāt al-Fuqahā’ 67; al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Tārīkh Baghdad 8:424. For further details, refer to Ibn Hazm: al-Ihkām fi Usūl al-Ahkām 1:246 and on.
 One of the famous traditions that have been falsely ascribed to the Holy Prophet is that he had nominated ten individuals as having been given the good tidings of entering Paradise. Those individuals are thus called ‘al-`Asharah al-Mubashsharah (the ten individuals of Paradise)’ and they are Abū-Bakr, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, `Uthmān ibn `Affān, Imam `Alī, Sa`d ibn Abī-Waqqās, Talhah ibn Ubaydullah, al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwām, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf, Abū-`Ubayday ibn al-Jarrāh and Sa`īd ibn al-Nufayl.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:13, Dār al-Fikr – Beirut.
 This is an indication to the following verse of the Holy Qur'ān: “And if two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace between them; but if one of them acts wrongfully towards the other, fight that which acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah's command; then if it returns, make peace between them with justice and act equitably; surely Allah loves those who act equitably. 49/9”
 `Abdūs ibn Mālik al-`Attār, one of the Sunnite master scholars and trditionists, is reported to have said, “If anyone, be it righteous or licentious, overcomes the Muslim community and declares himself the caliph (ruler) and is thus given the title ‘Amīr al-Mu’minīn’, it will be then obligatory upon anyone who believes in Allah and the Hereafter to regard such a person as the imam (the legal supreme authority).” This ‘ruling’ has been derived from the deed of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar during the campaign of al-Harrah when he had been neutral, but when a party overcame, he declared his loyalty to the prevalent party.
The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith, Causes and Effects
A Glance at the Methodologies and Principles of the two Muslims Schools of Hadith
By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani