Neglecting the Sacred Texts of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah
By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani
Mr. Khālid Muhammad Khālid says,
“`Umar ibn al-Khattāb neglected the sacred texts of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah when the advantage (maslahah) imposed him to do so. While the Holy Qur'ān ordains that the party called ‘al-Mu’allafah Qulūbuhum (those whose hearts have been reconciled to the Truth)’ must have a share in the Zakāt, `Umar canceled this share saying, ‘We will not give anything for the sake of being Muslim. Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve’ although the Holy Prophet and Abū-Bakr did observe this share. Similarly, while Abū-Bakr permitted selling the bondmaids who have given birth of children to their masters, `Umar forbade it. Also, the Holy Sunnah and the consensus of the Muslims have decided to treat the three statements of divorce that are uttered on one occasion as one only, but `Umar violated the Holy Sunnah and infringed the consensus.”
Ibn Qudāmah says,
“It is impermissible to ignore the rulings of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah unless there is an abrogation. Yet, abrogation is not subjected to probabilities; rather it must be issued during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet because it must be included by a sacred text; and sacred texts stopped after the demise of the Holy Prophet and the termination of the age of Revelation. In addition, a Qur'ānic law cannot be abrogated by any text other than the Qur'ān itself. How was it then possible for them to neglect the judgments of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah and, instead, invent others out of their personal opinions? Or how was it possible for them to neglect texts from the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah and adopt a personal view said by one of the Sahābah although the personal views of the Sahābah are preceded to the so-called ‘Qiyās’?”
Rashīd Ridā, the author of Tafsīr al-Manār,says,
“Nowadays, the imperialist powers that work for enslaving all the Muslims through keeping them away from their religion are dedicating a part of their budgets to the Muslims whom are inclined to other religions. Such efforts of inclination have taken several forms, such as protecting them or seducing them to disturb the Islamic countries or disunite the Islamic unity. The Muslim authorities should have exerted similar efforts for encouraging others to be Muslims.”
According to the expression of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, it seems that he understood that the share of the al-Mu’allafah Qulūbuhum was given as bribe for Islam or was restricted to those who had actually converted to Islam. In other words, his speech is another picture of the speech of the missionaries who rest upon the policy of supplying people with food and medicine so as to make them convert to Christianity. He should have understood that the Holy Prophet, through dedicating a share of the zakāt to that party, did not want to seduce them to convert to Islam by money; rather he aimed at preparing their hearts to receive the invitation to Islam so that they would believe by heart. The Holy Prophet’s ways for achieving this aim were various; he once appointed one of them as the commander of a Muslim campaign, consulted with them about some affairs of the Muslims and so on. The question had nothing to do with the power or weakness of Islam; the Holy Prophet only wanted them to be faithful believers.
The following citation of Dr. Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb disproves the justification of `Umar as regards the deprivation of the al-Mu’allafah Qulūbuhum of their shares from the zakāt:
“On the Makakh Conquest day, the Holy Prophet ordered his companions and army to uncover their shoulders and trot so that the polytheists would notice their power and toleration that would express the power of Islam. During his reign, `Umar thought that the purpose of this act had been no more existent. Yet, he said: For which reason are we now uncovering our shoulders and trotting? Allah has fortified Islam and defeated atheism and its people. Nevertheless, we must never neglect anything that we used to do during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah.”
This is irony! According to this text, `Umar complied with the sacred texts; therefore, he can be added to the group of those who followed the sacred texts completely. According to the previously cited narrations and discussions, he was at the top of those who followed Ijtihād, adopted personal opinions in the issuance of religious verdicts, and identified the advantages that were unknown for the sacred texts! Had he abided by the sacred text, he would have certainly followed the Holy Prophet as regards the share of the al-Mu’allafah Qulūbuhum; and had he been a mujtahid, he should have pointed out the matters upon which he rested in preferring a ruling to another!
It is worth mentioning that Dr. Nādiah al-`Umariy, in her book of Ijtihād al-Rasūl, has thoroughly discussed the issue of the three-time divorce in the course of citing examples on the scholars’ disagreement about the Ijtihād. In this regard, she says:
Originally, the validity of divorce is materialized when it is said on three different occasions. In this respect, the Holy Qur'ān reads,
‘Divorce must be pronounced twice and then (a woman) must be retained in honor or released in kindness.’ [Holy Qur’ān: 2/229]
The purpose beyond the separation of the divorce is that a husband will be given an opportunity to think deeply over the marital bond that the Almighty has confirmed the significance of its continuity. After the two times of divorce, Almighty Allah says,
‘And if he hath divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she hath wedded another husband.’ [Holy Qur’ān: 2/230]
This is the divorce as has been explained in the Holy Qur'ān; it is valid only when it is separated (i.e. repeated on different occasions).
What should the ruling be if a husband wastes the opportunity and pronounces the form of divorce three times on one occasion? As a matter of fact, you cannot find in the Holy Qur'ān any text that treats this question; yet, the Holy Sunnah has something about it. It has been narrated that after Rukānah ibn `Abd had pronounced the form of divorce in his wife’s face three times on the same situation, he was deeply grieved; he therefore referred the question to the Holy Prophet. ‘How did you divorce her?’ asked the Holy Prophet.
‘I pronounced the form of divorce three times,’ answered Rukānah.
‘Were the three times on the same situation?’ asked the Holy Prophet.
‘Yes, they were,’ answered Rukānah.
‘Well,’ said the Holy Prophet, ‘These three utterances are regarded as one. You thus can take your wife back.’ Rukānah therefore take his wife back.
Nevertheless, the people, during the reign of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, underrated the divorce that most of them pronounced the form of divorce three times on the same situation. `Umar therefore considered what was advantageous for them and decided to regard the three-time divorce that was said on the same occasion as valid.
However, have the Muslim jurisprudents, throughout ages, agreed to what `Umar had done? The majority have agreed to `Umar while others have not! In my conception, the judgment in this matter relies upon the people’s advantages; if the men in authority consider, as `Umar did, that the advantage requires deciding the three-time divorce as valid, they should then do; but if they consider that the public advantage requires regarding it as one only, they should also do it. Yet, up to two years after the reign of `Umar, the three-time divorce was regarded as one. On this account, Ibn al-Qayyim has decided that to regard such divorce as one (i.e. not final) is more corresponding to the public advantage in the late ages as it will block the path before any social corruption.
Ibn al-Qayyim then makes a comparison among the various ages and the difference in the public advantages that is the result of the public’s circumstances.
Undoubtedly, the Ijtihād of `Umar has influenced the Muslim jurisprudence. The Mālikiyyah School and the Hanbaliyyah School have decided him who pronounces divorce three times on the same situation as sinful because he has wasted the opportunity granted to him by the Islamic Legislation. The Shāfi`iyyah School, as well as Ibn Hazm, have decided it as opposite to the most preferred; yet it is not banned because the text appertained is general. The Hanafiyyah School have decided it as heretic when its utterance is the same or when it is said in the same interval between two periods of menstruation of the wife.
Dr. Mustafā al-Baghā, after quoting `Umar’s opinion about the divorce, says,
“This matter is one of these whose rulings have changed according to the change of the time. As they recognized `Umar’s excellent policy of disciplining his subjects, the Muslim jurisprudents have agreed to him on this point and carried out his decision.”
As a matter of fact, there is a number of questions that must be provided in this respect: How did `Umar identify the advantage and understand the spirit of the Islamic legislation in the question of the shares of the al-Mu’allafah Qulūbuhum? Yet, the refutations of Ibn Qudāmah and the Rashīd Ridā have been previously cited.
Is it acceptable that `Umar, alone, recognized what is good for the publics while neither the Holy Prophet nor did Abū-Bakr recognize it?
Is it rational that Abū-Bakr and the Holy Prophet, who is connected to the Divine Revelation, might ignore what is good for the publics? If it is allowable for mortals, save the divinely commissioned leaders of the ummah (namely, the holy Infallibles), to change the religious laws according to the change of time and place, what are the extents of such permission?
It is possible that some of the secondary rulings may be changed when they compete with matters that are more important, or when their titles are, in a general manner changed; but how can we accept the claims of those who violate the religious rulings claiming the change of their titles although we do realize that the principles and purposes of the religious rulings are originated by Almighty Allah and are known by the Infallibles only?
In case one of the Infallibles informs us about the change of a religious ruling, we must then accede to him because the Infallibles are the divinely commissioned leaders of this ummah whose mission is to convey the instructions and ordains of Almighty Allah. However, when such a change is made on bases of guesswork and conjecture, it cannot be acceptable. The same thing can be applied to the purposes beyond the religious rulings; in most cases, they involve wisdoms rather than causes. For instance, it is said that the purpose beyond the forbiddingness of adultery is that the semen of two, or more, men will not be confused and then a baby may be ascribed to a man by mistake.
This is in fact the wisdom, not the purpose, of forbidding adultery. According to many narrations, the decision of defining a term of waiting for divorcees and widows has been made for the very aforesaid wisdom. Yet, if the womb of a woman is removed by a surgical operation or if a woman is decisively recognized as barren, will it be obligatory upon such women to observe the terms of waiting defined by the Islamic legislation? The answer is yes; because Almighty Allah has imposed such periods on women for an advantage recorded in the Preserved Tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfūdh) and not allowed for people to see. Hence, it is impulsive to exclude such women from observing the term of waiting decided by the code of the religious law on the claim of the nonexistence of the cause of the decision. In any event, some of the religious rulings are dependent upon definite causes. For instance, wine is forbidden so long as it intoxicates; and when intoxication is absent, it is legal to have it. On this account, the rule that “the much amount of a drink the little of which is intoxicating is forbidden” has been decided.
However, the case is very different with the rulings invented by Abū-Bakr and `Umar; they contrived rulings that are nonexistent in the Islamic legislation or are opposite to rulings that are openly mentioned in the sacred texts. Besides, they stretched and shrank rulings as they claimed advantage while it is known for everybody that unless all-inclusive knowledge with the principles and purposes of the religious laws is attained and unless there is a divine commission, none is permitted to act freely with the religious rulings. For the abovementioned discussion, Abū-Bakr and `Umar did not enjoy such knowledge and were not commissioned for such positions. Besides, as he decided the three-time divorce as final, canceled the share of the al-Mu’allafah Qulūbuhum, and prohibited the temporary marriage, `Umar wanted for his decisions to be perpetual, not subject to the advantage. Thus, he blocked the way in the face of anyone who would claim that `Umar’s decisions were secondary or subject to his authorities as caliph.
Even if we yieldingly accept the change of the religious laws according to the change of advantages; what was the advantage of canceling those religious rulings? Who is authorized to identify such advantages? Were the substitute rulings based upon personal passions and opinions or upon observance of the religious laws and proofs? If there were a proof and a sacred text; what are they?
Alluding to the stipulations of the satisfactory advantages, Shaykh Khallāf says,
“There are three stipulations for the achievement of advantage;
(1) an advantage must be actual, not illusory. In plain words, it must be confident that the issuance of a verdict will truly achieve advantage and prohibits damage. In case it is only conjectured that an advantage can possibly be achieved without comparing it to the damage that can possibly be drawn, advantage is thus not actual rather illusory.
(2) An advantage must be general, not specific or personal. It must be confident that the issuance of a verdict will achieve advantage to or deter damage from the largest number of people, not an individual or a small group of individuals. Thus, when the issuance of a verdict achieves a personal advantage apart from the publics, it will not be acceptable.
(3) The issuance of such a verdict must not be contradictory to a religious ruling or principle that is openly mentioned in a sacred text.”
On the light of the aforementioned stipulations, let us ask whether `Umar’s decisions have achieved advantage to or deterred damage from the largest number of the publics taking into consideration the problems and confusions of life along with all of its pressures that make it difficult to go against one’s habit. For instance, if a husband wastes the opportunity of returning his wife, through pronouncing the utterance of divorce three times on the same occasion, will it be obligatory upon him to succumb to `Umar’s ruling and lose his wife? In the word of Dr. Nādiah, “the wisdom of separating the utterances of divorce is to give the husband the opportunity to think deeply about the matter. This is the divorce as has been explained in the Holy Qur'ān; it is valid only when it is separated (i.e. repeated on different occasions).”
What can we say to those who confess that the wisdom of specifying the pronouncing of the utterances of divorce on different occasions as the stipulation of its validity is to give the husband the opportunity to think deeply about the matter and then, falling in irony, they themselves claim that it was the public advantage that made `Umar decide the three-time divorce that is said on one occasion as final? Undoubtedly, it is fanaticism that has made them fall in such irony! It is definitely irrational to say that it is advantageous to regard the three-time divorce as one but the breaking of this issue was based upon advantage! Unfortunately, Dr. Nādiah has said such while she was fully aware that it was `Umar, neither the Holy Qur'ān nor the Sunnah, who violated the law and decided its opposite.
It is now absolutely impossible to accept the claim that `Umar’s decisions were derived from the Holy Qur'ān or that his decisions were not in violation of the sacred texts although the advantage that he adopted was completely opposite to the Holy Qur'ān.
Of course, uttering the word ‘three’ after the form of the divorce does not validate it. It is as same as saying ‘Allāhu Akbar five times’ instead of repeating the statement five times or saying ‘SubhānAllāh one hundred times’ instead of repeating it one hundred times! Many of the scholars have decided divorce twice is enough for the materialization of divorce. Going over the holy verse,
“Divorce must be pronounced twice,” [Holy Qur’ān: 2/229]
al-Jassās says that a two-time divorce definitely validates the divorce, because one who utters the form of divorce twice cannot be regarded as two divorces. In the same manner, one who pays two dirhams cannot be regarded as paying twice unless each dirham is given on a definite occasion. The same thing is applicable to the divorce; therefore, the verse indicates that in order to validate the divorce, it must be said on two different occasions. In addition, the verse carries warning against gathering the two divorces on the same occasion.
`Umar’s personal jurisprudence has affected the religious rulings; and it is known to everybody that he subjugated the religious laws to the advantage that he, personally, considered or supposed to be the perfect cause upon which a ruling must rest. He therefore modified the rulings according to what he would consider as suitable or advantageous and canceled the actual advantages that are realized by none save Almighty Allah.
About the proof of seeking the advantage, Dr. Mustafā al-Baghā says,
“The Sahābah, as is indicated by too many incidents, decided definite rulings for the incidents according to their personal consideration of the advantages that bring about benefit and prohibit damage depending upon their own thoughts. They then regarded such considerations as sufficient for the issuance of religious rulings.”
Hinting at the same point, al-Wāfi al-Mahdiy says,
“When the Islamic conquests continued incessantly, especially during the reign of `Umar, various nations of various civilizations were included to the Islamic authority. As a result, the Muslims had to encounter complicated problems, whether in the military, financial, personal, or penal affairs, that they had not known before. They therefore had to use analogy when they could not find related texts neither in the Holy Qur'ān nor in the Holy Sunnah. Before that, they used to rest upon Ijtihād through the Holy Qur'ān and then the Holy Sunnah. When they could not find anything in these two sources, they would consult the experienced Sahābah. When they also could not find anything with those, they would use personal opinions. `Umar, for instance, used to ask whether the involved issue had been treated by Abū-Bakr or not. Analogy (Qiyās), Equitable Preference (Istihsān), advantage (Maslahah), and blockade of excuses (Sadd al-Dharā’i`)—all these matters were well-organized in the opinions on which they depended. In this age, consensus (Ijmā`), which is a new source of the Islamic Legislation since it was not present in the first age of Islam, has emerged. When he could not find a solution neither in the Holy Qur'ān nor in the Sunnah, Abū-Bakr would refer the matter to a legislative body. `Umar did the same thing, too. Any decision that was made by that legislative body would be regarded as issued by all of them…
To sum it up, when the Holy Prophet was among them, the Sahābah used to refer to him in the religious questions in most cases. Yet, when he departed life, they lost their religious authority. Therefore, their Ijtihād entered upon a more serious stage. In the words of Mr. Mustafā al-Zarqā’, the Sahābah’s custom, during the Holy Prophet’s lifetime, was to listen to and follow him and to refer to him in any question that would face them. In other words, they depended totally upon him in the understanding and guidance as regards each and every matter. By his demise, they suddenly moved to the stage of Ijtihād since the authority had left them and his constitutional heritage, namely the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah, replaced his oral elucidations. Since then, it has been unavoidable to resort to Ijtihād, in an unlimited way, for solving the emergent questions.”
Ijtihād was thus the shield of the first generations and, at the same time, has been the justification of the next generations for their ancestor’s deeds. A deep investigation of the so-called acceptable advantages (al-Masālih al-Mursalah) proves that they all were invented for correcting the Sahābah’s deeds. They have regarded Abū-Bakr’s nominating `Umar as his successor—while they have claimed that the Holy Prophet did not nominate any successor—as acting upon the advantage of the ummah and the protection of the Muslims’ unity. Similarly, they have justified `Uthmān ibn `Affān’s setting the copies of the Holy Qur'ān to fire as he had only intended to make all the people follow the same copy so as to save them from disagreement. For fear of lengthiness, the other innumerable examples on such justifications will be avoided.
To have a look at the general fundamentals of the Islamic jurisprudence proves that the so-called al-Masālih al-Mursalah have not been among the subjective fundamentals as is confirmed by all the Muslim schools of law except that of Mālik ibn Anas who regard them as independent fundament. The advantages have been classified as canceled, acceptable, and considerable and the latter has been further classified into necessary, exigent, and preferable. Resting upon these classes, the rulings and branches of the Islamic jurisprudence have been defined.
Items Of Ijtihād
Let us throw more light on `Umar’s situation about the religious rulings to see whether his personal judgments stopped at this level or pushed their way to include other religious affairs. Although we can dispense with the details of this topic, our elucidation of the issue of prohibiting reporting and recording the Hadīth forces us to give a thorough idea about the jurisprudential side of `Umar’s personality and the items and major issues of the Islamic jurisprudence form which he benefited in the formation of his personal opinions and judgments.
`Umar ibn al-Khattāb legislated the Salāt al-Tarāwīh (the recommended nightly prayers during Ramadān) describing it as “the best heresy.”As he liked the statement of “al-Salātu Khayrun mina’l-Nawm (Prayer is better than sleeping)” after he had heard it from a Sahābiy, `Umar added it to the adhān (declaratory call to prayers) of the Fajr (morning) Prayer and canceled the statement of “Hayya `Alā Khayr al-`Amal (Come to the best of deeds)” which was used during the Holy Prophet’s lifetime claiming that such a statement would prevent the Muslims from jihad!He also prohibited the weeping for the dead, decided that the sign of attaining maturity is to be six spans tall while it has been authentically narrated that the Holy Prophet said, “Maturity is attained when wet dreams occur.” `Umar decided to deprive the non-Arabs of any share of the legacies and excluded those whom are born in the Arab lands while the Holy Prophet is authentically reported to have said, “Except by means of piety, no Arab individual should be preferred to a non-Arab,” and, likewise, Almighty Allah says in the Holy Qur'ān, “Verily, the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you.” [Holy Qur’ān: 49/13]  Regarding the doctrinal provision (Hadd) of the drinkers of intoxicants, `Umar issued various rulings; he once decided to sentence them to eighty-lash punishment and, at other times, made them sixty only. He also ordered to omit twenty lashes of the sentence for fear of pain. It has been also narrated that `Umar, while leading a congregational prayer, omitted the Reciting in the Maghrib (Sundown) Prayer. After he had finished the prayer, he was reminded that he had omitted the Reciting. “Were the Genuflection and Prostration good?” asked he. “Yes, they were,” he was answered. “Well, it does not matter!” answered he. Yet, it has been authentically narrated that the Holy Prophet said,
“The prayer of him who neglects reciting the Sūrah of al-Fātihah (The Opening Chapter; No. 1) is invalid.”
`Umar is also reported to have whipped his two sons because they had the surnames “Abū-`Īsā (father of Jesus)” and “Abū-Yahyā (father of Jonah)” claiming that Prophet Jesus and Prophet Jonah had no fathers!
Hushām ibn `Urwah has narrated on the authority of his father that `Umar, one Friday, recited the Sūrah of al-Sajdah (Prostration; No. 32) and after reciting the Verse of Prostration, he descended the minbar and prostrated himself. People, of course, followed him. On another occasion, he recited the same verse, but when people prepared themselves to prostrate, he said, “Calm down! It is not obligatory upon us to prostrate ourselves at the reciting of these verses; rather it is optional.” He therefore prevented people from prostration.
This violation of the religious rulings has left its effects on the schools of Islamic law causing the Muslim jurisprudents to give different rulings regarding the obligatoriness or optionality of the prostration after reciting the Verses of Prostration. Thus, the Mālikiyyah scholars, the Shāfi`iyyah scholars,and the Hanbaliyyah scholars  have decided such prostrations as Sunnah (a norm that has been done by the Holy Prophet) while the Hanafiyyahhave decided them as obligatory. Explaining Mālik’s al-Muwatta’, al-Zarqāniy says, “The most famous jurisprudential opinions as regards the prostration after reciting the Verses of Prostration are that they are Sunnah and highly recommended (Fadhīlah).”
Yet, it has been narrated on the authority of Abū-Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah, while reciting the Sūrah of al-Najm (the Star; No. 53), prostrated himself and thus all the attendants prostrated except two men.
Zayd ibn Thābit yet narrated that the Messenger of Allah, while reciting the Sūrah of al-Najm, did not prostrate. It has been further narrated that the Holy Prophet said,
“Prostration is obligatory upon him who hears and recites the Verses of Prostration.”
Many similar narrations have been fabricated for the sake of justifying `Umar’s decision and the opinions of the various Sunnite jurisprudential schools. The matter will be more obviously understood if an investigation is made to the effects of the Sahābah’s personal opinions on the Islamic law. For instance, Mālik ibn Anas, the founder of the Mālikiyyah jurisprudential school, argues that because `Umar neglected prostrating himself in the presence of the Sahābah none of whom objected to him or was reported to have opposed, his act can be taken as valid. On this account, Mālik decided the prostration as recommended since the Sahābah, in his conception, were the most knowledgeable with the religious laws!
Referring to the narrations that report the permissibility of Ijtihād during the Holy Prophet’s lifetime, Dr. Madkūr says,
“As a matter of fact, none of these narrations can ever prove that anyone other than the Holy Prophet, who received directly the Divine Revelation, did ever enjoy any legislative authority in that age. These narrations have discussed partial issues some of which were adopted only after it had been impossible to refer to the Holy Prophet directly owning to long distance or fear of missing the opportunity; others were issued practically not legislatively. We thus can argue that the Holy Prophet did not require Ijtihād in this very sense. After the departure of the Holy Prophet and, more precisely, during the age of the Sahābah that ends with the elapse of the first century after the Hijrah, the Sahābah, because of the expansion of the Islamic State and the conquests, had to encounter new questions that they had never known before. They therefore had to experience the jurisprudential questions, especially after the cessation of the Divine Revelations, so as to find solutions for the first-time issues that occurred to their cursorily incremental state that comprised miscellaneous countries and races.”
From the above, we can conclude that `Umar rested upon pure personal opinions in issuing religious laws without referring to the Holy Qur'ān or the Holy Prophet’s practices and confirmations. Moreover, he, on several occasions, violated the clear-cut texts of the Holy Qur'ān -such as in the case of the divorce- and the Holy Sunnah -such as in the case of killing the man who was engaged in offering prayers and the case of the Disastrous Thursday, which is preventing from carrying out the Holy Prophet’s order of bringing him a pen and a paper so as to record his final will- because he thought that the advantage would be achieved on the violation of these orders.
Even if we consider the personal opinions of the Sahābah as sources of the Islamic legislation and even if we consider all the Sahābah as ultimately decent, it is still unfeasible to violate the clear-cut texts of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah. The Sahābah who violated the sacred texts should have at least freed the others from following their personal opinions and, such being the case, they would possibly be excused. Although Ijtihād is defined as doing one’s utmost and exerting all efforts for the sake of deducing a religious ruling from the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah, `Umar used to issue verdicts before he would skim through the pages of the Holy Qur'ān or review the Holy Sunnah. A little ponderation over the question of the woman who was pregnant only six months after marriage would have made `Umar deduce the possibility that her pregnancy was illegal. Yet, he immediately sentenced her to the doctrinal provisions (Hudūd) that must be undergone by the fornicatresses! Likewise, had he weighed up the question of depriving the Holy Ka`bah of its share, he would not have decided to seize that share. Without the intrusion of Shaybah ibn `Uthmān and Ubayy ibn Ka`b who told him that the Holy Prophet and Abū-Bakr did not seize the fortunes of the Holy Ka`bah although they needed these fortunes more than he did, `Umar would have proceeded in his decision. Similarly, all the aforementioned issues prove that `Umar used to issue religious verdicts without any ponderation over the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah. Nevertheless, he wanted the Sahābah to follow his personal opinions and violate what they had personally seen and heard from the Holy Prophet!
Had the Sahābah’s opinions been added to the sources of the Islamic law, it should have been obligatory upon `Umar himself to adopt the Sahābah’s opinions, especially in the questions that they had directly heard from the Holy Prophet. Similarly, it should have been obligatory upon him to accept their verdicts and opinions for they acted as arguments against him and he, thus, should not have forced them to follow his personal opinions.
It is now permissible to wonder how it was possible for `Umar to threaten `Ammār, Ubayy ibn Ka`b, Abū-Mūsā al-Ash`ariy, and others. In this respect, he said to Abū-Mūsā, “You must prove your claim or I will hurt you.” To Ubayy, `Umar said, “You must retreat what you have said,” he then pulled him to the Masjid… etc. To `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, `Umar said, “You are reporting too much from the Messenger of Allah.” To Abū-Hurayrah, he said, “If you do not stop reporting from the Messenger of Allah, I will banish you to Dūs.” `Umar also whipped Tamīm al-Dāriy for the same reason.
In order to find excuses for `Umar and belittle the influence of the Sahābah’s objections to him, Sunnite scholars have decided that the foremost Sahābah are not bound to follow each other!
In view of the abovementioned narrations, it seems that the decision that the foremost Sahābah are not bound to follow each other is effective only on the Sahābah who objected to `Umar; yet Sunnite scholars have projected sanctity on the Sahābah who agreed to him and criticized any objection to the caliphs and their fans. They have even regarded the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar as an indisputable source of the Islamic law although they have not decided the inerrancy of those Sahābah.
As he concentrated on analogy, `Umar only wanted to fix his personal opinions; and as he insisted on resting upon personal views, he only wanted to find himself a higher standing in the Islamic State. He therefore used to behave as if he was the legislator whose decisions must not be broken. Yet, when he was objected by a deep-seated intellectual trend depending upon a unanimous proof cited from the Holy Qur'ān or Sunnah, `Umar would have to submit and retreat. Hence, the arguments that the Sahābah’s opinions are regarded as sources of the Islamic legislation and that the caliph has the right to issue verdicts depending upon his consideration of the advantage—these two arguments were the base and purpose of the Caliphate School of Jurisprudence.
So far, our conclusions can be defined in the following points:
1) Abū-Bakr and `Umar were not characterized by any feature that would distinguish them from the others.
2) The Muslims separated into two intellectual trends after the departure of the Holy Prophet.
3) `Umar ibn al-Khattāb worked painstakingly for forcing the others to accept and act upon his personal opinions.
4) The Sahābah’s opinions cannot be taken as sources of the Islamic law because they violated `Umar’s opinions and he violated theirs in numerous issues.
5) The conception of the Sahābah’s ultimate decency is proved as unfounded since `Umar often belied and distrusted the Sahābah’s claims and vice versa.
6) The arguments that it is possible for the Sahābah to dispute with each other but it is impermissible to refute their opinions—these arguments were fabricated for the purpose of justifying their disagreements in issuing religious verdicts in the first age of Islam. Sarcastically, such disagreement has been decided as constructive!
7) The fundamentals of Ijtihād, such as analogy, Equitable Preference, and advantage, have been proven untrue because they were founded later on owing to temporal necessities and because they are found neither in the Holy Qur'ān nor in the Holy Sunnah.
Such being the case, the Sahābah escalated their objections to the adoption of personal views and Ijtihād through means of reporting from the Holy Prophet since much reporting of the Holy Prophet’s heritage would naturally prove the disagreement between the Holy Prophet’s school and the school of Ijtihād. Moreover, the Holy Prophet’s school comprises edificatory truths that are opposite to the intents of the Ijtihādists. These truths can be manifestly shown through any investigation to the books of Hadīth and Islamic history. In this manner, a group of the Sahābah objected to the adoption of personal views and Ijtihād, called for the derivation of the religious laws from the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah only and rejected the baseless opinions and conducts of the Sahābah in general and Abū-Bakr and `Umar in particular. The other group of the Sahābah argued the legitimacy of `Umar’s opinions regarding them as sources of the Islamic law that must be followed.
In brief, reporters and recorders of the Hadīth lined themselves with the group of the pure compliance with the sacred texts and thus corresponded to the spirit of the Islamic law, which encourages learning, and to the instructions of the Holy Prophet who concentrated on recording the items of knowledge. Thus, they reported and recorded the Hadīth as much as they could. On the other side, those who prohibited reporting and recording the Hadīth lined themselves with the group of Ijtihād and personal opinions, following the ruling authorities. Unfortunately, reporters and records of the Hadīth had to suffer humiliation and disparagement during the ages of the caliphs to the degree that al-Hajjāj ibn Yūsuf al-Thaqafiy, the governor of Iraq during the regin of `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān the Umayyad ruler, stamped on the hand of Jābir ibn `Abdullāh al-Ansāriy and the necks of Sahl ibn Sa`d al-Sā`idiy and Anas ibn Mālik so as to mark them as unwelcomed persons and ordered the people to leave them and not to listen from them.
 Khālid Muhammad Khālid: al-Dīmuqrātiyyatu Abada (Democracy forever) 155.
 Ibn Qudāmah: al-Mughni 2:526.
 Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb: al-Sunnah qabl al-Tadwīn 86 as quoted from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:297 H. 317 with authentic series of narrators. Also, Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 2:178 H. 1887.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:265 H. 2387; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 7:339 H. 14764; Ibn Rushd al-Qurtubiy: Bidāyat al-Mujtahid 2:50; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyyah: A’lām al-Muwaqqi’īn 3:32; al-Shawkāniy: Nayl al-Awtār 7:16-20.
 Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 240.
 Al-Qurtubiy: Tafsīr 3:129.
 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyyah: A’lām al-Muwaqqi’īn 3:48.
 Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 242.
 One of the four major Sunnite jurisprudential schools founded by Mālik ibn Anas.
 One of the four major Sunnite jurisprudential schools founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
 One of the four major Sunnite jurisprudential schools founded by Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi`iy.
 One of the four major Sunnite jurisprudential schools founded by Abū-Hanīfah.
 Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fi’l-Islām 177.
 Dr. Mustafā Dīb al-Baghā: Athar al-Adillati’l-Mukhtalafi fīhā fi’l-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 277. The majority of the Sunni jurisprudents have accepted `Umar’s decision in this regard.
 `Abd al-Wahhāb Khallāf: `Ilm Usūl al-Fiqh 86-9.
 Al-Jassās: Ahkām al-Qur'ān 1:378.
 Dr. Mustafā Dīb al-Baghā: Athar al-Adillati’l-Mukhtalafi fīhā fi’l-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 54.
 See Al-Wāfī al-Mahdiy: al-Ijtihād fi’l-Sharī’ah al-Islāmiyyah 46. As a matter of fact, `Umar used to join Abū-Bakr with the Holy Prophet as being one of the sources of the Islamic legislation. He thus said to the one who warned him against seizing the money paid to the Holy Ka`bah because neither the Holy Prophet nor did Abū-Bakr do such, “These two men must be followed.” See Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 6:2655 H. 6847; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:410; Usd al-Ghābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 3:8 (Biography of Shaybah ibn `Uthmān al-`Abdariy). Apparently, it was `Umar ibn al-Khattāb who was the first to give a value to the opinions of Abū-Bakr after his death. This was in fact the first step that he took in order to guarantee that his personal opinions would be given a value after his death. From such a step and its likes, the so-called ‘Sīrat al-Shaykhayn (Conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar)’ was invented as a substitute for the Holy Prophet’s traditions (Sunnah) that `Umar prohibited.
 Al-Wāfī al-Mahdiy: al-Ijtihād fi’l-Sharī’ah al-Islāmiyyah 69-70. The words of Dr. Mustafā al-Zarqā’ have been quoted from al-Fiqh al-Islāmi fī Thawbihi’l-Jadīd 1:167.
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:353; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3:200; Ibn al-Jawziy: al-Mutadham 4:126.
 Ibn al-Athīr: al-Kāmil fī’l-Tārīkh 3:7-8; Abū-Bakr al-Māliqiy: al-Tamhīd wa’l-Bayān 1:62-63; Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 7:218.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 2:707 H. 1906; Mālik ibn Anas: al-Muwatta' 1:114 H. 250; Ibn Shibbah: Tārīkh al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah 2:713; al-Tabariy: al-Riyād al-Nadirah 1:309; al-Ya`qūbiy: Tārīkh 2:140; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 5:59.
 Of course, there are other reasons and motives that made `Umar add this statement to the adhān and to cancel the original statement. In an independent survey, I, the author of the book, have explained all these aspects under the title of “al-Adhān Bayna al-Asālah wa’l-Tahrīf (The Adhān Between Genuineness and Distortion).” This study has taken three volumes the first of which has been published under the title of “Hayya `Alā Khayt al-`Amal al-Shar`iyyah wa’l-Shi`āriyyah.”
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:432 H. 1226 (In this reference book of Hadīth, it is written that `Ā'ishah condemned for his having narrated such a Hadīth, saying, “By Allah I swear, the Messenger of Allah has never said that Almighty Allah would torture the dead believer when his family weep for him! Rather, the Messenger of Allah said that Almighty Allah would increase His torture upon the disbelievers even if their family members weep them.” `Ā'ishah then said, “(In order to prove the falsity of `Umar’s claim) you may listen to the Holy Qur'ān that reads, ‘And no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another.”) Sahīh Muslim 2:238; Sunan al-Nassā'iy (al-Mujtabā) 4:18 H. 1858); Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:237 H. 2127, 1:335 H. 3103 (In this book, it is written that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb beat the women who wept for the demise of Ruqayyah, the Holy Prophet’s daughter, but the Holy Prophet warned him against so.) al-Zarkashiy: al-Ijābah… 67; Ibn Shabbah: Tārīkh al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah 2:676, 3:905.
 Al-Amīniy: al-Ghadīr 6:171 as quoted from al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl (on the authority of Ibn Abi-Shaybah, `Abd al-Razzāq, Musaddad and Ibn al-Mundhir as is recorded in al-Tabarāniy’s al-Mu’jam al-Awsat.)
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 6:100-101; al-Hākim: al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn 2:59.
 Malīk ibn Anas: al-Muwatta’ 2:502 H. 14; al-Mudawwanah al-Kubrā 8:338.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 5:411.
 Al-Haythamiy: Majma’ al-Zawā’id 3:273.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:318-319 as quoted from Ibn Hazm: al-Muhallā; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 11:42.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:317-318; Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 12:137; al-Fā’iq 3:229.
 The Reciting (of the Sūrah of al-Fātihah and another optional one) is one of the chief parts of the obligatory prayers. All Muslim jurisprudents have decided that any omission of the Reciting invalidates a prayer.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 2:347-381.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:241 H. 7289, 2:478 H. 10201; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 1:217 H. 822; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 1:194 H. 247; Sunan al-Nassā’iy 2:137 H. 38; Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:63 H. 723; Sahīh Muslim 1:297 H. 395; Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:213 H. 1242.
 `Abd al-Razzāq: al-Musannaf 11:42; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 4:291 H. 2963; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 9:310; al-Shaybāniy: Taysīr al-Wusūl 1:47 H. 7; Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 12:44. The following narration is quoted from Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 5:69:
`Umar ibn al-Khattāb, once, summoned all the boys who carried the names of the Prophets and detained them in a room so as to change their names. Yet, the boys’ fathers could prove that most of those boys were named by the Holy Prophet himself. `Umar therefore had to release them.
 According to Islamic jurisprudence, it is obligatory to prostrate oneself after reciting the Four Verses of Sajdah (namely, 32:15, 41:37, 53:62 and 96:19). Hence, there are other verses of prostration at the reciting of which prostration is optional.
 Dr. Turkiy: Munādharāt if Usūl al-Sharī’ah bayna Ibn Hazm wa’l-Bājiy 297; Mālik ibn Anas: al-Muwatta' 1:206 H. 484; Sharh Ma`ānī al-Āthār 1:354; al-Bayhariy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 2:321 H. 3574, 3:312 H. 5587; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Tamhīd 19:128.
 Ibn Qudāmah: al-Mughni 1:688 and al-Sharh al-Kabīr 1:816; al-Nawawiy: al-Majmū’ 4:61.
 Al-Shāfi`iy: Kitāb al-Umm 1:119; al-Shāshiy: Hilyat al-`Ulamā' 2:122; al-Nawawiy: al-Majmū` 4:69.
 Al-Nawawiy: al-Majmū’ 4:61.
 Al-Nawawiy: al-Majmū’ 4:61; al-Sarakhsiy: al-Mabsūt 2:4; Nūr al-Īdāh 1:80; al-Hidayah fī Sharh al-Bidāyah 1:87.
 Sharh al-Zarqāniy 2:27.
 Dr. Mustafā Dīb al-Baghā: Athar al-Adillati’l-Mukhtalafi fīhā fi’l-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 355; Sunan al-Dārimiy 1: 342; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 2:59 H. 1406; Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:363 H. 1017 (In this reference book, it is written that `Abdullāh said that the Holy Prophet recited Sūrah of al-Najm in Makkah and, on reciting the Verse of Prostration therein, prostrated himself. Following him, the others also prostrated themselves except one old man who took a sum of stones in his hand and raised it to his forehead claiming that it was sufficient to do such. Yet, this man was then killed as infidel.”) Similar narrations are recorded in Sahīh Muslim 1:405 H. 576, Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:407 H. 1465, al-Shāfi`iy: Kitāb al-Umm 1:135; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 2:321 H. 3572.
 Sunan al-Nassā’iy 2:160; Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:343; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 2:58 H. 1404; Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:364 H. 1022.
 Dr. Mustafā Dīb al-Baghā: Athar al-Adillati’l-Mukhtalafi fīhā fi’l-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 355; al-Sarakhsiy: al-Mabsūt 2:4; Badā'i` al-Sanā’i` 1:180; Nasb al-Rāyah 2:178.
 For instance, see Dr. Mustafā Dīb al-Baghā: Athar al-Adillati’l-Mukhtalafi fīhā fi’l-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 353-433.
 Dr. Mustafā Dīb al-Baghā: Athar al-Adillati’l-Mukhtalafi fīhā fi’l-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 355 as quoted from Ibn Qudāmah: al-Mughni 1:446; Ibn Rushd al-Qurtubiy: Bidāyat al-Mujtahid 1:214; al-Zarqāniy: Sharh al-Muwatta’ 2:194-196.
 Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fi’l-Islam 43-44.
 Sahīh Muslim 3:130 H. 1417. It has been narrated that `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās said, “During the age of the Holy Prophet, the reign of Abū-Bakr, and the first two years of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s reign, the three-time divorce was decided as one. Yet, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb said, ‘People are rushing in a matter for which they have been given respite; therefore, we will oblige them to this decision.’ He thus did.” See al-Durr al-Manthūr 1:668.
Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 484; Abū-Na`īm: Hilyat al-Awliyā' 3:227; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:15.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:54 H. 114, 6:2680 H. 6932; Sahīh Muslim 3:1259 H. 1637; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:324 H. 2992, 1:336 H. 3111.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 5:2305 H. 5891; Sahīh Muslim 3:1694 H. 1203; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:339; Ibn Hajar: al-Wuqūf `Alā’l-Mawqūf 1:114 H. 148.
 Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 4:21; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 26:371; Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūtiy: al-Durr al-Manthūr 5:231.
 Al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 3:378 H. 3449; al-Haythamiy: Majma` al-Zawā'id 1:149; al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’ 7:206, 11:555.
 Al-Sarakhsiy: al-Usūl 1:341; al-Muhaddith al-Fāsil 1:554; al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’2:601; Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 8:106; Ibn Shabbah: Tārīkh al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah 3:800.
 Bughyat al-Bāhith `An Zawā'id Musnad al-Hārith 1:328 H. 214; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 8:49 H. 21810; Al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’ 2:248.
 Dr. Mustafā Dīb al-Baghā: Athar al-Adillati’l-Mukhtalafi fīhā fi’l-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 339.
 All the points that the have lately presented as proofs on the legality of Qiyās, Istihsān, and the like invented principles are refutable and baseless.
 Ibn al-Athīr: Usd al-Ghābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 2:336 (Biography of Sahl ibn Sa`d al-Sā`idiy); Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb 2:664 No. 1089; al-Muzziy: Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 12:189.
Models of the Perpetuity of the Two Trends
Let us cite some examples on the continuity of the two trends for the purpose of making the matter more obvious:
Ibn Sa`d has recorded that `Abdullāh ibn al-`Alā’ asked al-Qāsim to dictate to him some of the Hadīths. Al-Qāsim said,
During the age of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, the records of Hadīth increased vastly that `Umar ordered people to bring any record they had kept. When all the records were brought before him, `Umar set them to fire and said, “This is a Mishna just like that of the Christians and the Jews.”
In view of such incidents, many questions that search for convincing answers jump to the mind of the readers: Why did the records of the Hadīth increase in the reign of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, not any other caliph? What is the significance of such an occurrence? Why did `Umar set them to fire, instead of erasing them with water of burying them? Why did `Umar do in hurry without investigation or thorough examination? Why did both Abū-Bakr and `Umar select the same method of annihilating the records of the Hadīth, which is setting them to fire? Although the intellectual trend of the majority of the Sahābah was against wiping out the records of the Hadīth, the other trend of Ijtihād, having been the executive authority, insisted on its opinion and hence wiped out these records. What for was such belittlement and indifference to the Sahābah’s opinions that were congruent to the Holy Prophet’s Hadīth and conducts as well as the spirit of the Islamic legislation?
The gentle readers will certainly conclude the answers of these questions from the previous as well as the coming narrations. First of all, let us cite the following narration:
Sa`īd ibn Jubayr narrated that `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās said that the Holy Prophet permitted the temporary marriage. Yet, `Urwah ibn al-Zubayr intruded to say that Abū-Bakr and `Umar prohibited it. Having been very resentful of `Urwah’s answer, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās said,
“I see coming that you shall certainly perish! While I say to you that it was the Messenger of Allah who deemed it lawful, you answer me that Abū-Bakr and `Umar prohibited it!”
According to another narration narrated by `Abd al-Barr and Ibn Hazm, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās said,
“I am sure that you will not stop such things until you are chastised by Allah! I am reporting to you from the Prophet and you are reporting to me from Abū-Bakr and `Umar!”
According to a third narration, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās said,
“I am reporting to you from the Prophet and you are bringing to me what was said by Abū-Bakr and `Umar!”
According to a fourth narration, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās said,
“I see coming that you shall be inflicted by stones from the heavens!”
Yet, `Urwah answered, “I swear by Allah that Abū-Bakr and `Umar were more knowledgeable than you are as regards the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah.”
On this statement, al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy commented,
“`Urwah was right. Yet it is unacceptable to follow anybody in violating what has been authentically proven as said by the Messenger of Allah.”
It has been also narrated that `Abdullāh, son of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, learnt people that Almighty Allah has revealed the temporary marriage and the Holy Prophet passed it. Some objected to him that he was disagreeing with his father. His answer was “You should have followed the Holy Prophet’s Sunnah, not `Umar’s!”
According to another narration, he answered, “Whose commandment should I follow? The Holy Prophet’s or my father’s? Indeed, the Holy Prophet did it.”
It has been narrated on the authority of `Abd al-A`lā that Zayd ibn Arqam, while leading a Deceased Prayer, repeated the Takbīr (the statement of Allāhu Akbar) five times. Hence, Abū-`Īsā `Abd al-Rahmān ibn Abī-Laylā, the official jurisprudent of the State, hurried towards Zayd, took him from the hand, and said, “Have you forgotten (the number of the Takbīr)?” “No, I have not,” answered Zayd, “I personally followed my dear, the Holy Prophet, in such a prayer when he repeated the Takbīr five times only. I therefore shall never leave it.”
A similar narration has been narrated from `Īsā, the manumitted slave of Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān, who confirmed that his master reported to him that the Holy Prophet repeated the Takbīr five times only while he was offering a Deceased Prayer.
Wabrah ibn `Abd al-Rahmān narrated that a man came to `Abdullāh ibn `Umar and asked whether it is valid to circumambulate the Holy Ka`bah while being Muhrim (entering into Ihrām: putting the pilgrimage uniform and entering the state of being performing the obligatory rites of the ritual Hajj). “Nothing prevents you from it,” answered `Abdullāh ibn `Umar. The man added, “We have been told by so-and-so that it is unlawful to do so before the pilgrims’ return to the Mawqif. Yet, I do not like that man since you seem to be more pious than he is.” Giving details of the question, `Abdullāh ibn `Umar answered, “The Messenger of Allah, while being Muhrim, performed a pilgrimage, circumambulated the Holy Ka`bah and roamed between the Safā and Marwā. If you are truthful, you should then follow the practice of Messenger of Allah rather than so-and-so.”
He is also reported to have said that the Messenger of Allah instructed not to prevent the bondmaids from offering their prayers in mosques. Yet, one of his sons expressed that they were preventing them from such. This statement made `Abdullāh ibn `Umar very angry that he said, “I am reporting to you from the Messenger of Allah and you say that you are preventing!”
According to another narration, `Abdullāh ibn `Umar chided him saying, “I have said that the Messenger of Allah instructed and you insist on violating him!”
It has been narrated that `Umar hit Tamīm with his rod because he was offering a two-Rak`ah supererogatory prayer although `Umar had warned them against such. Tamīm, as having been in the prayer, pointed to `Umar to sit down and `Umar did. When he finished his prayer, Tamīm asked `Umar why he had hit him. “You know that I have prohibited you from offering such a prayer,” answered `Umar. But Tamīm said, “I offered such a prayer while I was with the Messenger of Allah who is certainly superior than you are.” `Umar commented, “Well, I have not meant you and your likes; but I anticipate that the coming generations will offer prayers in the period between the `Asr (afternoon) Prayer and the Maghrib (sundown) Prayer passing by the very hour during which the Holy Prophet warned against offering any prayer; hence, they will connect the two obligatory prayers in the same way as they have connected the Dhuhr (noon) and `Asr Prayers.”
It has been also narrated that Abū-Ayyūb al-Ansāriy, after the demise of `Umar, returned to offering a supererogatory prayer between the `Asr and Maghrib Prayers after he had stopped during the reign of `Umar. When he was asked about the reason, he answered, “`Umar used to hit with his rod anyone who would offer such a prayer.”
It has been narrated on the authority of Zayd ibn Thābit that Abū-Bakr, after his campaign against the people of Yamāmah, ordered him to allow the alive to inherit their shares from the deads’ legacies and to cancel the shares of the deads. `Umar also ordered Zayd to do the same thing with the individuals of the `Amwās tribe whom were plagued.
The abovementioned narrations hint at the points of disagreement among the Sahābah. The majority of such disagreements were in the issues of the Islamic jurisprudence and the secondary rulings of the religion. By the application of his new policy, `Umar wanted all the Sahābah to follow his opinions without dispute. They therefore rejected that because his opinions were contradictory to what they had witnessed from the Holy Prophet, such as in the case of the Takbīr of the Deceased Prayer, the supererogatory prayer between the `Asr and Maghrib Prayers, the temporary marriage… etc. Nevertheless, `Umar, after he had not been able to impose his opinions on them, justified that he did not mean them; rather he meant the coming generations!
The obligation of acting upon the personal verdicts of `Umar was one of the fundamentals of the his new policy; as a result, `Ammār ibn Yāsir said to him, “If you wish, I will not tell it to anyone else.” Similarly, Ubayy ibn Ka`b loathingly said, “If you want me to confine myself to my house, I will do it and will then never say anything more in this respect.”
All such narrations confirm the existence of pressure and threat, which has been manifestly presented in abovementioned narrations, such as `Umar’s threatening `Ammār and Abū-Mūsā with whipping as well as his actual hitting Tamīm and Abū-Hurayrah. This threat, too, proves that a clash between the two trends actually occurred during that period.
It is now unfeasible for anyone to deny that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb did prohibit reporting and recording the Hadīth. Similarly, any attempt to arouse doubts around the narrations that reported `Umar’s prohibiting the spread of the Hadīth and detaining some of the grand Sahābah is refuted by the clear-cut historical events and reports about `Umar’s practical and conceptual issues. All such historical texts have supported and confirmed the prohibition of the recordation and reporting of the Hadīth and, at the same time, decided as worthless all the justification of Ibn Hazm, al-Dhahbiy, and their likes who claimed that the decision of the prohibition and the detainment of the Sahābah were not compatible to `Umar’s psychology and standing!
For more confirmation, let us cite the following example concerning the distribution of the lands in Iraq and Egypt that were conquered by the Muslim warriors by force during the reign of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb. As has been confirmed by the Holy Qur'ān, one-fifth of such spoils of war must be deposited in the public treasury and then expended on the categories defined by the holy verse,
“And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer.” [Holy Qur’ān: 8/41]
The other four-fifths must be distributed among the warriors as is declared in the holy verse and was practiced by the Holy Prophet in Khaybar.
As usual, the warriors came to `Umar asking for distributing the one-fifth and giving them their shares. Yet, `Umar said, “What shall we say to the other Muslims who will find these lands distributed, inherited, and seized? This is indeed not accurate!”
`Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf asked, “What is the accurate opinion, then? The lands and the non-Muslims therein are within the spoils of war that Almighty Allah has given exclusively to the warriors.”
“This is true, but I do not think so,” answered `Umar.
The warriors then talked very much with `Umar about the matter showing that it would not be fair to give the lands that they could occupy by their own swords to others who neither participated nor even saw these lands. Whatever they said, `Umar answered with “This is my opinion!”
Finally, they had to succumb and say, “It is up to you.”
Of course, such a furious clash between the Sahābah, about one of the simplest jurisprudential terms, would have never occurred during the Holy Prophet’s lifetime where there was an authority to whom all the Muslims would refer as regards any issue. Hence, because the Muslims did not gather around the divinely commissioned authority, their personal opinions and disagreements in the religious affairs increased causing dispute and even fighting. Immediately after the departure of the Holy Prophet, the negative consequences of the Muslims’ negligence of the divinely commissioned authorities appeared although the Holy Prophet had warned them against such in many traditions, such as the famous Hadīth of Arīkah and the other Hadīths of the warning against personal opinions. Imam `Alī and the honest Sahābah not only were depressed for the seizure of the political leadership of the Muslims but also they felt greater pains for the occurrence of such disagreements, separation, and violations of the unity and religious authority of the Muslims. For this very reason, the complaints of Imam `Alī, Anas, `Ammār, and many other Sahābah increased during that period. Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān, the keeper of the secret regarding the names of the hypocrites among the companions of the Holy Prophet, warned so sorrowfully against disagreements and contradictions of opinions that occurred after the waste of the actual authority of Islam and the foundation of ungrounded leaderships. In this respect, it has been narrated on the authority of al-Barrā’ ibn `Āzib immediately after the departure of the Holy Prophet, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān, in the presence of al-Miqdād ibn al-Aswad, `Abādah ibn al-Sāmit, Salmān al-Fārisiy, Abū-Dharr, and Abu’l-Haytham ibn al-Tayhān, said,
“I swear by Allah that my prediction shall take place. I have not told lies and I will not be belied. Those people are intending to restrict the matter (of the leadership) to the Muhājirūn. You can ask Ubayy ibn Ka`b about it. He has also have knowledge of this.”
They therefore went towards Ubayy’s house. As they knocked the door, Ubayy stood behind the door and asked whom it was. Al-Miqdād talked to him, but Ubayy asked him why he had come.
“Open the door! The matter for which I am here is more serious than being discussed through closed doors,” said al-Miqdād.
Yet, Ubayy said, “I will not open my door. Now, I know exactly why you are here. You have come asking about the matter of the Meeting (in Saqīfah). Have you not?”
“Yes, we have,” answered they.
“Is Hudhayfah with you?” asked Ubayy.
“Yes, he is,” answered they.
Here, Ubayy said,
“The matter is as exactly as informed by Hudhayfah. I therefore will never open the door of my house until the predicted thing will occur. What will come next will be more catastrophic! I have nothing to do other than complaining about it to Almighty Allah!”
It has been also narrated that Ubayy ibn Ka`b said,
“The parties of that Meeting (of Saqīfah) have destroyed themselves. I swear it by the Lord of the Ka`bah. Yet, I am not lamenting over them; rather I lament over the Muslims who shall perish for such.”
A third narration reads that Hudhayfah said,
“I will say such a great word about it that I do not care whether you will keep me alive or kill me.”
Hence, the following names can be added to the list of the Sahābah who disagreed with `Umar as regards jurisprudential issues:
16) Zayd ibn Arqam,
17) Al-Barrā ibn `Āzib,
18) `Abdullāh ibn `Umar,
19) Salmān al-Fārisiy,
21) Tamīm al-Dāriy,
22) Al-Miqdād ibn al-Aswad,
23) Abū-Dharr al-Ghifāriy, and
24) The warriors to whom Almighty Allah has restored among the Sahābah and others.
The Sahābah Objecting To Opinionism
To be surer about our claim and discussions, more investigation in the situations of the forecited Sahābah is required since it is insufficient to mention a single incident or situation; rather it is necessary to study the general features of those Sahābah’s religious and jurisprudential trends. As I examined thoroughly the personalities of those Sahābah, I found that most of them had compiled books or, in other words, the majority of the authors of the first age of Islam disagreed with the Opinionists and the adopters of Ijtihād. In fact, the compilations of those Sahābah acted as frank objections against the policies of `Umar. Let us now refer to those Sahābah in brief:
(1) Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib (martyred in AH 40)
None can ever deny the fact that Imam `Alī used to write down the Divine Revelations and the dictations of the Holy Prophet. Ummu-Salamah, the Holy Prophet’s wife, narrated that Imam `Alī, once, was with the Holy Prophet when the latter asked for a piece of leather (to write on). He then dictated to Imam `Alī who filled the face, back, and even edges of that leather with the Holy Prophet’s dictations. As has been confirmed by more than ten of his disciples, Imam `Alī used to keep a paper comprising dictations of the Holy Prophet in the sheath of his sword. Previously, many situations of Imam `Alī’s disagreement with the opinions of `Umar have been cited.
(2) Ubayy ibn Ka`b al-Ansāriy (died in AH 22)
Abu’l-`Āliyah narrated that Ubayy ibn Ka`b had compiled a big book about the exegesis of the Holy Qur'ān.It has been previously proven that Ubayy disagreed with `Umar and declared that he did not enjoy a distinctive knowledgeability of the religious affairs and that he did not agree to his decision of prohibiting reporting and recording the Hadīth.
(3) Mu`ādh ibn Jabal (died in AH 18)
When the Holy Prophet sent Mu`ādh to the Yemen, he gave him a book in which he dictated the rulings of the alms as well as many Hadīths. Mūsā ibn Talhah kept that book or a copy of it. In addition, Ibn `Ā’idh kept copies of Mu`ādh’s books. All these reports prove that Mu`ādh ibn Jabal recorded many books that could survive in spite of `Umar’s decision of setting all the records to fire after he had prohibited and threatened Mu`ādh. Yet, examples on Mu`ādh’s situations against `Umar have been previously cited.
(4) Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān (died in AH 36)
Examples on Hudhayfah’s situations with `Umar have been previously cited, especially his words with `Umar ibn al-Khattāb in which he said that he hated the right, liked the seductions... etc. Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān used to write down the Holy Prophet’s dictations about the alms of dates, the taxes of Hijāz, and the taxes on date-palm trees. Al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwām was the Holy Prophet’s clerk of the alms, but when he would be absent, Jahm ibn al-Salt and Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān would replace him according to the order of the Holy Prophet himself.
(5) `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd al-Hudhaliy (died in AH 32)
Juwaybir has narrated on the authority of al-Dahhāk that `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd said: “During the age of the Messenger of Allah, we used to record nothing of the Hadīth except those appertained to the Tashahhud (a major section of the obligatory prayer) and Istikhārah (Seeking goodness from Almighty Allah). It has been also narrated on the authority of Ma`an that `Abd al-Rahmān, son of `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, showed him a book and swore that it had been written by his father personally.
Yet, it has been narrated that `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd prohibited the recordation of the Hadīth. This is in reality a fabrication and is refuted by the aforesaid reports, as well as many others, and by the fact that he was detained by `Umar for his having violated the decision of prohibiting reporting and recording the Hadīth. Other narrations have affirmed that `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd erased the contents of some papers that comprised narrations. On the assumption that these narrations are authentic, it is possible that these papers comprised narrations of the Jews and Christians, as has been previously proven.
It has been also narrated that `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd disagreed with `Umar on many issues or, as is quoted from Ibn al-Qayyim, on one hundred questions.This fact proves that he joined the group of the thorough compliance with the sacred texts and proves the falsehood of the narration reporting his having said,
“If all the people enter upon a certain path but `Umar enters upon another, I will surely take the path of `Umar!”
(6) `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf (died in AH 31)
Later on, we will discuss in details the role that `Abd al-Rahmān played in sketching the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar and his standing in the view of `Umar in particular. Yet, nothing has been reported from him concerning the recordation of the Hadīth.
(7) Abū-`Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrāh
This man died before the caliphate of `Umar and did not record any book.
(8) Zayd ibn Thābit (died in AH 45)
It has been narrated that Zayd was the first to compile a book about the rulings of inheritance. Ja`far ibn Burqān narrated that he had heard al-Zuhriy saying,
“Unless Zayd ibn Thābit compiled a book on the rulings of heritage, they would be unknown by the people.”
Zayd, however, disagreed with `Umar on the issues of the share of grandmothers (from the heritage), the retaliation of Muslims who kill Dhimmis, and other issues.
(9) `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās (died in AH 68)
It has been reported from Salmā that she saw `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās carrying tablets that comprised the writings of Ibn Abī-Rāfi’ about some of the Holy Prophet’s deeds. It has been also narrated that he left numerous books after his demise. Many narrations have been reported from him confirming the necessity of recording knowledge. Yet, the narration of Tāwūs that `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās disliked recording the knowledge requires thorough investigation because it opposes many other narrations. Previously, we have cited his disagreement with `Umar regarding the issue of the lady that became pregnant only six months after her marriage.
(10) Al-Dahhāk ibn Sufyān al-Kilābiy
The Holy Prophet wrote a message to al-Dahhāk instructing him to give the widow of Ashyam al-Dibābiy her due from the legacy of her husband. Al-Dahhāk, then, sent a message to `Umar telling him about the contents of that message.
(11) Shaybah ibn `Uthmān al-`Abdariy (died in AH 57)
Al-Muzziy, in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 12:604, has written the biography of Shaybah without mentioning that he had compiled a book. Yet, he referred to the aforementioned narration concerning his disagreement with `Umar on the issue of the fortune of the Holy Ka`bah.
(12) A woman that found fault with `Umar
It is probable that this woman was Fātimah bint Qays, al-Dahhāk’s elder sister, about whom Abū-Salamah reported some narrations. Muhammad ibn `Amr narrated that Abū-Salamah reported that Fātimah bint Qays compiled a book in which she related her story… According to one of her narrations, `Umar said to her, “We should not neglect the Book of our Lord and the Sunnah of our Prophet because of a statement said by a woman whom we cannot tell whether she is honest or not!”
(13) `Ammār ibn Yāsir (martyred during the Battle of Siffīn)
`Ammār is one of the excellent and grand Sahābah. Having been one of the adherents to Imam `Alī, he was martyred during the Battle of Siffīn. The Holy Prophet predicted his martyrdom at the hands of the despotic party.
Although any compilation of `Ammār cannot be found, he joined the school of reporting the Hadīth since he, in the issuance of religious verdicts, thoroughly complied with the sacred texts, he objected to the caliphs’ adoptions of personal views and imitated the jurisprudential course of Imam `Alī.
(14) Abū-Mūsā al-Ash`ariy (died in AH 42)
It has been narrated that Abū-Mūsā al-Ash`ariy, replying to the message of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, wrote that the Holy Prophet used to… etc. Abū-Zayd Bakr ibn `Abdullāh said, “The Shahīd `Alī Library in Turkey keeps a manuscript compiled by Abū-Mūsā al-Ash`ariy.” It has been also narrated that he defended the recordation of the Holy Sunnah. Later on, we will discuss in details the jurisprudential course of Abū-Mūsā to prove whether he backed the Opinionists or the compliers with the sacred texts.
(15) Sa`d ibn Mālik; Abū-Sa`īd al-Khidriy (died in AH 74)
Abū-Sa`īd is reported as saying, “Except the Holy Qur'ān and Hadīths concerning the Tashahhud, we used not to record anything.” Al-A`dhamiy says: “It is probable that Abū-Sa`īd wrote down some of the Hadīths for `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās.” Yet, these reports are contradictory to the narration that Abū-Sa`īd reported the Holy Prophet’s saying: “Do not record anything of my words and deeds. Now, anyone who has recorded anything other than the Qur'ān must erase it.”
(16) Zayd ibn Arqam (died in AH 66)
Zayd recorded some of the Hadīth and sent them to Anas ibn Mālik, such as the Holy Prophet’s praying to Almighty Allah to forgive the Ansār and their descendants.He also objected to some of `Umar’s verdicts and narrated too much about the merits of Imam `Alī.
(17) Al-Barrā ibn `Āzib (died in AH 72)
Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb has recorded that al-Barrā ibn `Āzib used to report and record the Hadīth. It has been also narrated from Wakī` on the authority of his father that `Abdullāh ibn Hanash said that he had seen them (seekers of knowledge) recording al-Barrā'’s lectures on the palms of their hands using canes. Besides, al-Barrā' narrated numerous traditions about the merits of Imam `Alī. Yet, his situation concerning the meeting of Saqīfah has been previously cited.
(18) `Abdullāh ibn `Umar ibn al-Khattāb (died in AH 74)
It has been narrated that `Abdullāh used to record the Hadīth. Ibrāhīm al-Sā'igh narrated on the authority of Nāfī` that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar kept many books which he used to read. Later on, we will discuss `Abdullāh’s situation against his father and arguments about the necessity of the thorough compliance with the sacred texts, although he himself violated this trend on definite occasions.
(19) Salmān al-Fārisiy (died in AH 32)
Ibn Shahrāshūb has recorded that Imam `Alī followed by Salmān al-Fārisiy were the first to compile books in Islam.About Salmān, Sayyid Hasan al-Sadr says, “He recorded the conversation the Roman Catholicos whom were sent by Caesar after the Holy Prophet’s departure.” Al-A`dhamiy has also recorded that Salmān seemed to write some of the Hadīths for Abu’l-Dardā’. Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in al-Musnad, has recorded a number of narrations reported by Salmān indicating that he followed the trend of the thorough compliance with the sacred texts. As a matter of fact, a deep look in the life account of Salmān demonstrates that he was one of the chief adopters of the School of Through Compliance with the Sacred Texts. This is not strange, since he was, in the words of the Holy Prophet, one of the Ahl al-Bayt in honor, not reality.
(20) Abū-Hurayrah al-Dūsiy (died in AH 59)
Al-Fadl ibn Hasan ibn `Umar ibn Umayyah al-Dumayri has narrated that his father said that Abū-Hurayrah denied a Hadīth after he had heard from him. Yet, his father said, “I have heard this Hadīth from you personally!” Abū-Hurayrah replied, “If you have heard this Hadīth from me, this means that it is written with me.”Generally, some of Abū-Hurayrah’s statements indicate that he followed the trend of the thorough compliance with the sacred texts and others indicate that he supported the Opinionists.
(21) Tamīm al-Dāriy
Previously, Tamīm’s objection to `Umar’s having prohibited him to offer a prayer after the `Asr (obligatory) Prayer has been cited.
(22) Al-Miqdād ibn al-Aswad
Al-Miqdād has not been reported as having compiled or recorded the religious knowledge. Yet, he is well-known for his following Imam `Alī in everything. He must thus have been following the trend of the thorough compliance with the sacred texts.
(23) Abū-Dharr al-Ghifāriy
Ibn Shahrāshūb has added Abū-Dharr’s name to the list of the foremost compilers in Islam.It is also well-known for everybody that Abū-Dharr disagreed with the Opinionists and the ruling authorities in general and `Uthmān ibn `Affān in particular. Besides, he was one of the sincere disciples of Imam `Alī.
On the strength of the previous simple inventory, we conclude that the Sahābah who objected to the Opinionists were either the compilers of the Islamic knowledge or the disciples of Imam `Alī who participated in his campaigns. As regards the earlier, the compilers of books on the Islamic knowledge are those who thoroughly complied with the sacred texts. They are also not reported to have narrated any item revealing the prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth. Rather, the Sahābah who thoroughly complied with the sacred texts encouraged on reporting and recording the Hadīth. They thus disagreed with the other party whose members practiced Ijtihād and prohibited the reporting, writing down, and recording of the Holy Sunnah. In other words, there is inherence between the recording of the Hadīth and the thorough compliance with the sacred texts. Similarly, there is inherence between the prohibition from recording the Hadīth and the practice of Ijtihād and Opinionism. For instance, `Ammār ibn Yāsir followed the School of Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts, as will be proven in the coming chapters, although he did not write down any book in the field of the religious knowledge. On the other side, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb and Zayd ibn Thābit followed the School of Ijtihād and Opinionism although they did write down some books. However, ponderation over their books proves that these books comprised nothing more than their personal views and opinions and that all the narration mentioned therein supported their trend. As a result, the compilers of books on Islamic knowledge are those who followed the School of Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts.
The following points can also be concluded in this respect:
1) The claim that the Holy Prophet had prohibited from recording his traditions is unsubstantiated.
2) The recordation of the items of knowledge started during the Holy Prophet’s lifetime and under his commandment. This trend then extended with the Sahābah who believed in the sacredness of the texts of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah.
3) During the reign of `Umar, there were records comprising the Holy Prophet’s Hadīth. From this cause, he ordered such records to be brought to him.
4) The prohibition of recording the Hadīth was issued during the reigns of Abū-Bakr and `Umar and under their commandment. Thus, the decision did not acquire any legitimacy from the Holy Prophet’s texts.
In this regard, al-Mu`allimiy says:
“Had the Holy Prophet prohibited the recordation of the Hadīth, Abū-Bakr would not have recorded some Hadīths and, likewise, `Umar would not have had the intention to record, too.”
Since the records of the Hadīth were available, why did `Umar have an aversion to spread them and why did he declare that the Book of Allah was sufficient? Similarly, why have Ibn Hazm and his likes found it improbable for `Umar to detain some of the Sahābah?
To answer these questions, we say that the reporting and recordation of the Hadīth were the basic barriers against the acceptability of the personal opinions of Abū-Bakr and `Umar. Hence, the first step on their course of the adoption of personal opinions was directing the people to depend upon the Holy Qur'ān alone, reduce reporting the Hadīth, and stop recording it. Such directions created a huge gap between ordinary people and their Prophet’s traditions and paved the way for the new substitute, which was the Ijtihād of the Sahābah. The following step was therefore the presentation of the Ijtihād as the substitute of the Hadīth.
As a matter of fact, the Holy Prophet anticipated openly the imminent happening of such and declared his displeasure with it as he confirmed that his words are as sacred as Almighty Allah’s Words.
In the conception of `Umar, the prohibition of spreading the Hadīth was a social necessity imposed upon him by the surrounding circumstances. It was tantamount to the reaction of his ignorance with the Holy Prophet’s traditions as well as the reminiscence that he had kept in his mind when the Holy Prophet prohibited him from recording the distorted heritage of the Christians and Jews when he had written sections from the distorted Torah.
By the prohibition of recording the Hadīth, `Umar only wanted to apply the Holy Prophet’s prohibition from recording the heritage of the Ahl al-Kitāb. Yet, the difference between the two is totally clear. Finally, had Abū-Bakr and `Umar recognized the instructions of the Holy Prophet, they would not have violated his orders and invented contradictory courses.
Detainment of the Reporters of Hadīth
It has been narrated on the authority of Sa`d ibn Ibrāhīm on the authority of his father that `Umar detained three individuals in the charge of much reporting from the Holy Prophet. These three were `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, Abu’l-Dardā' and Abū-Mas`ūd al-Ansāriy.
Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy, in Sharaf Ashāb al-Hadīth, has recorded that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, once, summoned `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, Abu’l-Dardā' and Abū-Mas`ūd and said to them, “Why are you reporting so much from the Messenger of Allah?” He then detained then in al-Madīnah.
It has been narrated on the authority of Sa`d ibn Ibrāhīm on the authority of his father that `Umar reproached `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, Abu’l-Dardā', and Abū-Dharr for they have reported too much from the Holy Prophet. He then detained them in al-Madīnah until his death.
`Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf is reported as saying, Before his death, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb ordered the companions of the Messenger of Allah, namely `Abdullāh (ibn Mas`ūd), Hudhayfah, Abu’l-Dardā', Abū-Dharr, and `Uqbah ibn `Āmir, to be present before him although they lived in remote countries. He then reproached them for having spread the traditions of the Messenger of Allah in these countries.
“Are you now preventing us from such?” asked they.
“No, I do not,” answered `Umar. “Yet, you will reside here, and you will never depart me so long as I am alive. I am more knowledgeable. I will hear from you and reply.” Hence, they could not leave the capital until the death of `Umar.
In `Umar’s statements of reproach, he used the words ‘too much reporting’ and ‘spread of the Hadīth’. This obviously indicates that the ‘too much’ reporting from the Holy Prophet would create comprehension of the Muslims and embarrassment of `Umar on definite circumstances. Yet, `Umar did not accuse them of fabrication or forgery; rather they were accused of too much reporting and spreading of the Hadīth since spreading of the Hadīth was harmonious to the finding faults with `Umar’s decisions and verdicts, especially when the Hadīth carries a clear-cut statements of the Holy Prophet. This fact can be much more understood through the following narration:
When `Umar summoned Ubayy ibn Ka`b and ordered him to reduce reporting from the Holy Prophet, Ubayy answered, “Does this mean that you are accusing me of forgery against the Messenger of Allah?”
“No, it does not,” answered `Umar. “Yet, I dislike seeing the reporting from the Messenger of Allah such expansive.”
On other occasions, `Umar ordered the Sahābah to reduce reporting from the Holy Prophet except in common questions.
The purpose beyond the prevention in the earlier narration is too clear to require explanation; `Umar disliked seeing the Hadīth expansively widespread so that the errors and jurisprudential defects of his government and him would not be known to everybody. In the latter narration, `Umar permitted reporting the Hadīths that discuss common questions that are known to all Muslims. Alternatively, it is impermissible to report Hadīths unknown for the people and, perhaps, for `Umar himself since such Hadīths would possibly be contrary to his personal opinions and Ijtihād and thus a problem would occur to the ruling system, which is seen as the religious authority of the Islamic community. From this cause, `Umar ordered the Sahābah to reside near him and never depart so long as he would be alive for he was more knowledgeable… etc.
The aforesaid discussions prove that `Umar disliked reporting from the Holy Prophet and the Sahābah disliked such. This is of course opposite to the claims that `Umar prohibited only the recordation of the Hadīth!
It is now possible to add other names to the list of those who objected to `Umar. These are Abu’l-Dardā', Abū-Mas`ūd al-Ansāriy, and `Uqbah ibn `Āmir.
Details about the personalities, manners, and courses of those Sahābah will be postponed to other occasions;yet the point to be aroused hereby is that the Sahābah who objected to `Umar were not only thirteen, as has been claimed by Ibn Hajar, or only seven, as has been claimed by Mūsā Jārullāh; rather they were more and more. It is thus sufficient to mention that too many were the Sahābah whose jurisprudential opinions were congruous with the Ahl al-Bayt’s jurisprudence.
It has been narrated that a man, once, asked (`Abdullāh) Ibn `Abbās about the legal share of a daughter from her father’s legacy when there is also his full sister. Ibn `Abbās answered, “The share of the testator’s sister is nothing. The whole inheritance must be given to the daughter who receives a half of it in the form of her legal share and the other half in the form of the nonexistence of other heirs.”
“But `Umar decided something else,” said the asker.
“Are you more knowledgeable that Allah?” answered Ibn `Abbās with annoyance.
The asker then went to Ibn Tāwūs al-Yamāniy because he could not understand Ibn `Abbās’s statement. Explaining the question, Ibn Tāwūs said to the asker, “My father has told me that he had heard Ibn `Abbās saying, Almighty Allah says (in the Holy Qur'ān),
“If it is a man that dies leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance.” [Holy Qur’ān: 4/176];
while you are deciding that such a sister shall have half the inheritance even if she has children!”
In the aforesaid question, `Umar distributed equally the inheritance between the testator’s daughter and full sister. In his opinion, daughters are not included when the word ‘son’ is used. This is in fact a concept that was used in the pre-Islamic era. Yet, this opinion is obviously opposite to the Holy Qur'ān that reads,
“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's Inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females. [Holy Qur’ān: 4/11]”
Accordingly, the word ‘children’ in the holy verse indicates both sons and daughters. Hence, the children’s testator prevent the brothers and sisters (i.e. their uncles and aunts) from receiving anything from the inheritance. In this respect, the Holy Qur'ān reads,
“If it is a man that dies leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If such a deceased was a woman, who left no child, her brother takes her inheritance. If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance between them. If there are brothers and sisters, they share the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His law lest ye err; and Allah hath knowledge of all things.” [Holy Qur’ān: 4/176]
Ibn `Abbās also objected to another decision of `Umar as regards the shares of inheritances. When he was asked to distribute an inheritance, `Umar did not recognize how the shares should be distributed; he therefore had to confess, saying, “In fact, I do not know which category of you (the heirs) has been preferred according to the law of Allah. The best solution that I can see is that to distribute the inheritance among you in equal shares.” Objecting to this opinion, Ibn `Abbās said, “I swear by Allah that if you had followed the instructions of Allah in this regard, the shares of the inheritances would never have been imperfect.”
On a third occasion, `Umar issued two different verdicts for the same question. About the shares of the inheritance of a lady who had a husband, mother, two half (maternal) brothers, and two full brothers, `Umar decided to give the husband half the inheritance, the mother the sixth, and the two half brothers the remainder, which is the one third. Hence, the two full brothers were given nothing because no shares remained.
A similar question was provided before `Umar and he decided to follow the same previous distribution. But one of the full brothers objected to him saying, “We share with the testator in the father while they only share with a mother. Hence, if you will deprive us of shares because of our father, you should give us a share through our mother in the same way as you have decided a share for these half brothers through their mother. Even if our father was a donkey, we and they lived in the same womb!” Having been convinced of their pleading, `Umar decided to make them partners in the remainder, which is the one-third of the inheritance. When he was reminded that his decision about a similar case had not been this one, `Umar said, “Well, that decision was for that case and this decision is for this!”
Al-Shāfi`iy, in al-Risālah, Abū-Dāwūd and al-Bayhaqiy have recorded on the authority of Tāwūs that `Umar, once, asked the attendants whether they had heard anything from the Holy Prophet about the blood money for fetuses. Haml ibn Mālik ibn al-Nābighah stood up and said, “One of my bondmaids, once, hit another pregnant one on the abdomen that she aborted her fetus. In this case, the Holy Prophet decided a coot as the blood money for the fetus.” `Umar thus said, “If I have not heard this story from you, I would decide another thing. In fact, I was about to depend upon my own opinion in this question.”
`Ubaydah al-Salmāniy is reported as saying, “I have memorized one hundred different rulings that `Umar had decided as regards the share of grandfathers from inheritances!”
Dr. Muhammad Madkūr, commenting on `Umar’s various opinions about the share of grandfathers from inheritances, says,
“`Umar insisted on making grandfathers precede brothers as regards the shares of inheritance. He used to say, ‘If I have the right to decide, I will give the whole inheritance to the grandfather.’ He then changed his mind and said, ‘I am afraid that I will disappoint them. They all may be right.’ He then again changed his mind and decided to distribute it among them provided that the share will not be less than one-sixth. Again, he changed his mind and decided to distribute it among them provided that the share will not be less than one-third. Such contradiction and instability occurred only because the question was not explained by any sacred text at all; therefore, personal opinions must have been the judge. From the dialogue between Zayd ibn Thābit and `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, we can conclude that Zayd used a style of simile making his opinion logic and acceptable.”
After citing the statement of `Ubaydah al-Salmāniy and the holy verse,
“For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third.” [Holy Qur’ān: 4/11]
Dr. Qal`achiy says,
“From this verse, we can conclude that the remainder is the share of the grandfather. In fact, `Umar noticed his instability as regards the share of the grandfather with the existence of brothers of the testator; he therefore consulted the Sahābah more than once. Yet, he could not reach at a decisive resolution. A little time before his death, `Umar wanted to find a positive solution for the question so that the matter would not be left unsettled. He consequently wrote an epistle in this regard and prayed to Almighty Allah saying: ‘O Allah! If this matter is correct, I please you to bring it to an end.’ When he was stabbed, he erased that epistle so that none would realize what had been written therein. He then declared: ‘I have written a book about the share of the grandfather and the Kalālah and I have prayed to Almighty Allah to guide me in this matter. Yet, I think that I would better leave you in the state in which you were.”
Al-Suyūtiy, in al-Ashbāh wa’l-Nadhā'ir, commenting on `Umar’s various opinions about the question of the grandfathers’ share of inheritances, says,
“The reason of such variation is that the second Ijtihād was not better than the first. This means that he could not determine anything. This of course would bring about intense hardship since if a decision is canceled, the other will be canceled and so on.”
The following issue proves unfalteringly that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb used to practice Ijtihād in questions the rulings of which have been previously decided by the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah:
The Holy Prophet, once, told him that he would never understand the ruling regarding the share of grandfathers from inheritances. Nevertheless, `Umar exceeded that prediction and acted upon his personal opinions in this issue. In this connection, it has been narrated on the authority of Sa`īd ibn al-Musayyab that `Umar, once, asked the Holy Prophet, “How are the shares of grandfathers from inheritances counted?”
The Holy Prophet answered, “Why are you asking about this, `Umar? I see coming that you will die before you understand this issue.”
Truly, `Umar departed life before he could understand that question.
Al-Sālihiy al-Dimashqiy, in Subul al-Hudā wa’l-Rashād 9:287, has recorded that Ibn Rāhawayh and Ibn Mardawayh narrated on the authority of Sa`īd ibn al-Musayyab that `Umar asked the Holy Prophet about the shares of the Kalālah from inheritances.
“Has Almighty Allah, in the Holy Qur'ān, not explained it (saying,
And if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring, and he (or she) has a brother or a sister, then each of them two shall have the sixth, but if they are more than that, they shall be sharers in the third after (payment of) any bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt that does not harm (others); this is an ordinance from Allah: and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing [Holy Qur’ān: 4/12])?”
`Umar yet did not understand the verse; therefore, Almighty Allah revealed his Saying,
“They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things. [Holy Qur’ān: 4/176]”
Again, `Umar did not yet understand the verse. He thus asked his daughter Hafsah, one of the Holy Prophet wives, to ask the Holy Prophet to explain the question for her when she would find him relaxed and pleased. When she did, the Holy Prophet said, “It was your father who asked you to do such. I see that your father shall never understand this question.” As a result, `Umar used to say, “I shall never understand this question. It was the Messenger of Allah who said so.”
In conclusion, it is not improbable to say that Imam `Alī’s famous saying, ‘One who likes throwing oneself in the depths of Hell may issue a verdict about the grandfather’s share of inheritance,’arose from the innumerable contradictory verdicts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar, in particular, as regards the matter involved about which they openly violated the Holy Qur'ān.
The Claim Of The Holy Prophet’s Adoption Of Personal Opinions
In the light of the preceding discussion, the caliphs had to adopt Ijtihād as a starting point through which the difference between the Sahābah’s religious opinions, or the caliph for one side and the Sahābah for the other, can be justified since it is the shelter to which the Opinionists and their fans can resort for solving any opposition noticed in the Sahābah’s religious opinions. Yet, the subject must be investigated from its roots with rationality so that it will be proven whether the Holy Prophet used his personal views in the issuance of religious rulings or this claim has been fabricated against him for the sake of giving good reason for the Sahābah’s Ijtihād.
At the outset, it is illogic that the Messenger of Allah whose divine mission is to convey the laws of Almighty Allah to all the peoples on this planet could betake personal views as method of identifying the divine laws. Had he been allowed to use his personal outlooks, he would not have waited for the Divine Revelation so as to judge in the questions of the li`ān (oath of condemnation between spouses), the shares of maternal and paternal aunts from inheritance, and others. Since the Holy Prophet was able to obtain certainty through waiting for the Divine commandments, it should be illogic for him to depend upon hypothetical decisions that are the natural outcomes of Ijtihād. Furthermore, the Holy Qur'ān has confirmed the necessity of the commitment to the Holy Prophet’s words, such as in the holy verses:
“And whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back. [Holy Qur’ān: 59/7]”
“But no, by the Lord, they can have no real faith until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction. [Holy Qur’ān: 4/65]”
It is thus impossible for Almighty Allah to order us to commit to words that are grounded upon conjectures and are mistakable, while He, the Almighty, has taught us that
“conjecture avails nothing against Truth. [Holy Qur’ān: 53/28]”
It is now obvious that the insistence on the argument that the Holy Prophet rested upon his personal views in the issuance of religious rulings has been invented in order to find acceptable excuses for the Sahābah’s Ijtihād in general and the personal opinions of Abū-Bakr and `Umar in particular and to grant such Ijtihād and opinions a legal mark. A thorough, yet impartial, investigation of history and Hadīth proves this fact. Again a thorough investigation of the proofs on the Holy Prophet’s supposed Ijtihād that the Opinionists have provided shows that their one and only purpose has been the meaning that he made mistakes in the field of issuing religious rulings. They therefore attempted to find solution for this complicated problem through the invention of Ijtihād and Opinionism.
Even if we succumb to the idea that the Holy Prophet’s words and deeds were originated from his personal opinions that are, according to the Opinionists’ supposition, allowable, why do most of their statements and intimations suggest that he broke the commandments of Almighty Allah on many occasions, such as the famous narration of offering prayer for a hypocrite, and also failed to meet the humanitarian restraints, such as in the story of the blind when he frowned and turned away, to the degree that al-Zamakhshariy has been so impolite that he claimed that Almighty Allah’s saying “Allah pardon you” stands for the happening of a felony since pardon is always associated with felonies; therefore the interpretation of the verse is that ‘you have made a mistake and very bad was your deed!’It is extremely impudent to dare say such a thing about the Holy Prophet.
The Opinionists who prohibited the recording and reporting of the Hadīth have dared to say such things about the Holy Prophet while they have confirmed that the Divine Revelation agreed to `Umar in all the questions in which the Holy Prophet was wrong! Then, the Holy Prophet submitted to `Umar!
The gentle reader is now dispensing with further explanation and can easily understand the mystery beyond such contradiction and the secret beyond their ascribing mistakes to the Holy Prophet while `Umar’s situation was always so accurate that even the Divine Revelation testified for him!
Again, even if we yieldingly accept that the Holy Prophet was no more than an ordinary mortal who enjoyed divine talents; most of his worldly affairs and decisions had nothing to do with the Divine Revelation; even in military affairs he used to consult the Sahābah, such as in the truce with the Ghatafān tribe during the Battle of al-Ahzāb, the decision of fighting during the Battle of Uhud, the adoption of Salmān al-Fārisiy’s opinion about the digging of a trench around the city of al-Madīnah during the Battle of al-Ahzāb, the adoption of Habbāb’s opinion about choosing the place of residence just before the Battle of Badr, and the adoption of Sa`d ibn Mu`ādh’s opinion concerning the establishment of an arbor and many other occasions. Even if we overlook the fact that all the words and deeds of the Holy Prophet, throughout his holy lifetime, were on the instructions of Almighty Allah and that he consulted his companions only to appease them and teach them experience and management since his final decisions were all received from the Heavens—even if we overlook all theses fact, still the Holy Prophet’s issues were unlike `Umar’s Ijtihād and adoption of personal views all of which were in the field of the religious rulings, not in worldly affairs. Besides, even if we accept to them as regards the personal opinions of the Holy Prophet, he (the Holy Prophet) is still unlike others, for his opinions were based upon sound grounds since he had full acquaintance with the actual advantages, disadvantages, overtures, and results of all subjects. On this account, his supposed Ijtihād is not like the others’ Ijtihād.
Back to the main topic, the Opinionists have just intended, by the invention of the conception of the Holy Prophet’s having rested upon his personal views, to argue that the Sahābah were only imitating the Holy Prophet; hence, they must not be blamed for such.
To rest upon the explicit circumstances of an issue does not denote the Ijtihād as a term. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said,
“My judgments are based upon the explicit circumstances of an issue that is filed before me. While you are making me the judge in your disputes, some of you may err in providing his case or his evidences.”
This statement denotes that a judge must give a verdict on the light of the presented proofs and claims, not the actuality that may be hidden or unknown unless awareness of the unseen is obtained. Although the Prophets, Messengers, and their Successors can be acquainted with the unseen, they have been ordered to judge according to the explicit claims and proofs except in special cases, such as the story of al-Khidr with Prophet Moses.
It has been also familiar that the Holy Prophet used to judge according to the regulations and laws known to everybody so that the human regulations and legal laws will not be infringed. On account of his connection with the Divine Revelation, the Holy Prophet recognized the actuality of each issue because he has been full acquainted with the Preserved Tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfūdh). In this regard, all Muslims agree unanimously that the Holy Qur'ān was revealed twice; the first complete revelation occurred on the Grand Night (Laylat al-Qadr) and in the second time, the Qur'ān was revealed in sections on definite involved occasions. It is now not unacceptable to claim that some of the Holy Prophet’s judgments were issued on the grounds of his previous knowledge of the unseen -of course, only when the situation requires such- before the second partial revelation of a verse in this regard.
Another example that supports our discussion is the Holy Prophet’s having wished had the Kiblah been turned to the Sacred Masjid. Had he been permitted to rest upon his personal views, he would certainly have decided the Sacred Mosque as the new Kiblah and would not have turned his face towards the holy Mosque of Jerusalem (for prayer) for more than six months. Only when the holy verse,
“We see the turning of thy face for guidance to the heavens: now Shall We turn thee to a Kiblah that shall please thee. Turn then Thy face in the direction of the Sacred Masjid. [Holy Qur’ān: 2/144]”
was revealed, he turned his face towards the new Kiblah. This is of course a clear-cut proof that the Holy Prophet waited for and firmly observed the commandments of Almighty Allah, unlike the claim that he might have rested upon personal opinions as regards the religious issues.
Then, the Opinionists have argued that the following holy verse encourages Ijtihād and deems legal for the Holy Prophet to rest upon it:
“We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, that thou mightest judge between men, as guided by Allah: so be not (used) as an advocate by those who betray their trust. [Holy Qur’ān: 4/105]”
The statement ‘as guided by Allah’ comprised by the holy verse has been interpreted into ‘by means of your view and personal efforts in the field of deducing the religious rulings’. This is indeed contrary to the actual meaning of the verse, since in its first part, Almighty Allah tells that ‘Book’ must be the reference in the deduction of rulings.
The fans of the School of Opinionism has intended to validate their personal views even in the field of the religious schools. During the Holy Prophet’s lifetime, they used to prefer the rulings to be derived from the Holy Qur'ān and the words of the Holy Prophet who prohibited them to rest upon their opinions since he was the authority that protected against committing mistakes. Yet, as soon as he departed this world, they applied their personal views to all the issues, whether there were sacred texts in this respect or not.
During the reign of `Umar, this trend attained its climax after the Opinionists and the ordinary people had been influenced by this trend.
The Sahābah’s reference to and receipt from the Holy Prophet indicated that their opinions might have been acceptable due to the approval of the Holy Prophet, not the personality of the owner of the opinion.
Incidents prove that resting upon personal opinions in the issuance of religious rulings was definitely rejected during the Holy Prophet’s lifetime: It has been narrated that when Usāmah ibn Zayd was the commander of a brigade, he ordered to raid on a group of people among whom was Mirdās who had already converted to Islam. Having seen the attacking horsemen of Usāmah’s brigade, Mirdās drove his sheep towards a corner in the mountain so as to save them. When the horsemen caught him, he received them with statements of Allāhu Akbar and the two creeds of Islam; but Usāmah ibn Zayd killed him and took his sheep. When the Holy Prophet heard of this incident, he was terribly depressed. He then said to them, “You have killed him only because you wanted to seize his sheep!” He then recited Almighty Allah’s saying,
“And do not say to any one who offers you peace: You are not a believer. Do you seek goods of this world's life! [Holy Qur’ān: 4:94]”
The Holy Prophet then ordered Usāmah to undergo the blood money for the man.
Because Usāmah rested upon his personal view in the issue, the Holy Prophet reproached him and regarded his decision as invalid. Accordingly, he ordered Usāmah to undergo the blood money. Similarly, the Holy Prophet said about the crime of Khālid ibn al-Walīd, “O Allah! I am releasing myself before You from the deed of Khālid.”
For shedding more light on the subject, let us re-quote Dr. Madkūr as saying: “We thus can argue that the Holy Prophet did not require Ijtihād in this very sense. After the departure of him and, more precisely, during the age of the Sahābah that ends with the elapse of the first century after the Hijrah, the Sahābah, because of the expansion of the Islamic State and the conquests, had to encounter new questions that they had never known before. They therefore had to experience the jurisprudential questions, especially after the cessation of the Divine Revelations, so as to find solutions for the first-time issues that occurred to their cursorily incremental state that comprised miscellaneous countries and races.”
Dr. al-Dawālībiy also says,
“During the Holy Prophet’s lifetime, the Ijtihād did not play any considerable role; rather it was restricted to certain issues.”
Dr. Nādiah al-`Umariy says,
“Even during the Holy Prophet’s lifetime, `Umar used to suggest verdicts that he considered in agreement with virtue, right, and advantage.”
All the aforecited quotations support our confirmation that Ijtihād, as a current term, was not regarded as valid during the Holy Prophet’s lifetime; rather it became a meaningful term at the hands of Abū-Bakr and `Umar and their fans because they required the issuance of ruling verdicts with which they had not had acquaintance.
Back to the main topic, which is `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s situation with the Sahābah and their opinions about him, we have previously cited his situation with a Sahābiy, namely `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, about him he said to the people of al-Kūfah when he decided to send him there along with `Ammār ibn Yāsir to teach them religious affairs: “These two are among the most excellent companions of the Holy Prophet and among the warriors of the Battle of Badr. You should thus follow and listen to them. Be it known to you that I have preferred you to myself as I sent to you `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd.” Despite such praise and appreciation, `Umar detained and settled an account with `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd because he had spread and reported very much of the Hadīth. Because of this very situation, `Uthmān, later on, durst prevent `Abdullāh from reporting the Hadīth and reciting his own copy of the Holy Qur'ān although the Holy Prophet has been reported as instructing his people to rest upon `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd’s copy of the Holy Qur'ān, and durst lash him forty whips causing some of his ribs to be broken and forcing him to emigrate and die away from his hometown.
`Umar had to resort to violence as having dealt with the Sahābah because he knew that they had been unsatisfactory with his jurisprudential opinions and had objected to his views that were against the Holy Sunnah. Nevertheless, the Sahābah did not change their situations; they insisted on following what they had received from the Holy Prophet to the degree that one of them directed embarrassing questions to `Umar, in the presence of people, in order to inform that his personal views had been always inaccurate and far away from the Sunnah.
The Sahābah’s Frequent Inquiries To The Caliph
The following citations are sufficient for proving such questionings: Al-Hārith narrated that `Abdullāh ibn Aws came to `Umar and asked him about the ruling appertained to a lady who menstruates during circumambulating the Holy Ka`bah.
“Such a lady must postpone the Circumambulation to be the last of her rituals,” answered `Umar.
“This is true,” said al-Hārith, “The Holy Prophet also said the same answer.”
As he heard this statement, `Umar said to the man, “Damn you! You have asked me a question that you had put before the Holy Prophet so that I would contradict him.”
Hushām ibn Yahyā al-Makhzūmiy narrated that a man came to `Umar and asked about the ruling concerning a lady that, during the season of the ritual Hajj, menstruated on the Nahr (Immolation) Day.
`Umar answered, “It is impermissible for such a lady to continue unless she is clean.”
The man objected saying, “The Holy Prophet gave me a ruling other than this.”
`Umar immediately hit the man with the rod he had in his hand and reproached, “Why do you ask me about a matter that the Holy Prophet had already decided?”
It is worth mentioning that there is a big difference between the decisions of the Holy Prophet as regards religious questions and the verdicts of `Umar. The Holy Prophet’s decisions are unrepealable since their source is the Divine Revelation, while `Umar’s verdicts, like any other verdict, can be generally repealed. `Umar thus aimed at canceling any difference that could be cited between the Holy Prophet’s decisions and his verdicts so that he would be able to find a legal feature to his personal views to take them to the level of the Holy Prophet’s words. Yet, he had to pass by many stages before he could attain such a rank. He therefore claimed that the Holy Prophet rested upon his personal opinions in some religious rulings and thus his words might descend to the rank of the ordinary Opinionists and might be compared to any other verdict and then rejected! This is of course one of the most anomalous opinions!
A thorough investigation in the Sahābah’s objections to `Umar’s opinions proves obviously that the Sahābah doubted the accuracy of `Umar’s views. Yet, presentation of the aforesaid narrations does not authorize testing the capacities of a Muslim since this matter has been largely condemned through many traditions. Imam `Alī is reported as saying,
“When you ask, you must intend for learning something, not for embarrassing the addressee, for an ignorant is similar to a knowledgeable and, thus, an arbitrary scholar is similar to an obstinate ignorant.”
He has also said,
“People are generally imperfect and self-important. The asker is obstinate and the answerer is conceited.”
The Sahābah, although they were acquainted with the abomination of putting question for the purpose of test and obstinacy, tended to ask `Umar in order to embarrass him since they thought that such embarrassment would save them from their troubles and would make the others understand that `Umar’s opinions were not always compatible to the religious instructions and the Holy Prophet’s jurisprudential questions most of which were ignored by `Umar. They also intended to inform the Muslims that `Umar had not possessed a distinctive capacity of inferring the religious rules from the sources (namely, the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah).
In my conception, the Sahābah, by presenting such issues before `Umar in order to embarrass him, did not mean to criticize the personality of `Umar; rather they only intended to defend the Islamic legislation and to prevent the personal views from finding a place in the sacred field of the issuance of religious issues. Many are the narrations that prove that the Sahābah did not belittle or criticize the personalities of Abū-Bakr and `Umar, even when they disagreed with them, since the two held the leadership of the Islamic nation. The ordinary Sahābah who were not experts in the religious issues, however, adopted the opinions of Abū-Bakr and `Umar because they used to refer to the supreme leader in these questions.
It is now clear that the Sahābah disagreed with `Umar on various questions and he himself gave different opinions on the same question and such disagreements would affect the religious laws in the coming ages. On this account, a big number of Muslim jurisprudents, in order to evade confusion between the Holy Prophet’s decisions and the personal opinions that were issued after his noble lifetime, have made great efforts in the field of differentiating between the two since the Holy Prophet’s decisions rested upon the Divine Revelations; therefore the Holy Prophet’s decisions were called ‘Sunnah’ while the personal opinions were called ‘Ijtihād’. In this respect, Dr. Madkūr says,
“Naturally, the Ijtihād of the Sahābah created disagreement in viewpoints and contradiction in religious verdicts. Having not stopped at analogy, the Ijtihād of the Sahābah included all the aspects of opinions on bases of intuition, sound nature, and the spirit of Islamic legislation in addition to full awareness of the rational ground on which opinions were founded and its role in issuing religious questions.”
Influence Of Opinionism On Muslim Jurisprudence
Some authors have argued that the reason beyond the Sahābah’s having issued disagreeing religious rulings was the difference in their intellects, awareness, and courses. Yet, those authors have absolutely pretended to forget the actual motives that made `Umar and his fans, who rested upon their personal opinions since the Holy Prophet’s lifetime, adopt Opinionism in addition to the requirements of the general situation of the Islamic State. Everybody knows that the Muslims’ disagreements were not about whether the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah can be accepted as sources of the Islamic legislation or not; rather they disagreed about the point whether the words that were reported from Holy Prophet were actually said by him so that they would be included with the Sunnah or they were only fabricated for personal interests.
It seems that discrepancy in the reports from the Sahābah as regards the religious laws had a conception other than the claim of its having been a natural result of resting upon Ijtihād. This is because such discrepancy signifies disagreement about the intellectual trends that ruled at that time in addition to the fact that not every discrepancy can be justified as being personal Ijtihād.
Let us take the Basmalah (the phrase Bism-illāhir-rahmānir-rahīm:In the Name of Allah; the All-compassionate, the All-merciful) as an example: reference books of Hadīth and biography of the Holy Prophet comprises a variety of opinions regarding this statement even in the opinions of a definite Sahābiy. In a narration, Anas ibn Mālik is narrated as having recited the Basmalah, during the obligatory prayers, in audible voice; and in another narration he is narrated as having instructed not to recite it audibly since Abū-Bakr and `Umar, when he had followed them in congregational prayers, did not recite it audibly; and in a third narration he is narrated as having issued another ruling about this very issue.
Referring to the four discrepant opinions of Anas ibn Mālik as regards the Basmalah, al-Fakhr al-Rāziy says,
“Three reports from Anas support the opinion of the Hanafiyyah School and three others contradict it: First, it has been narrated from Anas that when Mu`āwiyah neglected the Basmalah in a prayer, the Muhājirūn and Ansār objected to him. This narration proves that reciting the Basmalah in the obligatory prayers was such a ordinary thing that all the Sahābah knew and practiced. Second, Abū-Qulābah narrated on the authority of Anas that the Holy Prophet, Abū-Bakr, and `Umar recited the Basmalah during the prayers. Third, when he was asked whether it is obligatory to recite the Basmalah audibly or not, Anas answered that he did not know. Hence, reports from Anas as regards this question have been immensely confusing and contradictory. It is thus imperative to investigate the other indications. There is also another accusation concerning the same question; it has been narrated that `Alī used to recite the Basmalah in audible voice during the prayers and he also emphasized on it; yet when the Umayyad dynasty came to power, they emphasized on neglecting it so that they would cancel all the traditions of `Alī. Anas might have feared the Umayyad ruling authorities and therefore his verdicts became contradictory and confusing. In my conception, whatever contradiction occurs between the verdicts of Anas and Ibn al-Mughaffah from one side and `Alī from the other, we will certainly accept `Alī’s verdict, which is more acceptable under all circumstances. This is in fact a decisive solution for the question.”
The aforesaid discussion of al-Fakhr al-Rāziy proves the intrusion of the ruling authorities in the religious laws. `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās is also reported as saying,
“Have the people comprehended a verse that was not given to any Prophet other than our Holy Prophet and Prophet Solomon, son of David? This Verse is Bism-illāhir-rahmānir-rahīm (In the Name of Allah; the All-compassionate, the All-merciful).”
It has been also narrated that Muhammad ibn Mansūr said,
“I have heard Ja`far saying that people have neglected one of the grandest Names (of Almighty Allah). This is Bism-illāhir-rahmānir-rahīm.”
Although many religious laws have been exposed to such discrepancy and contradiction, let us cite another example on the ruling regarding extending the arms during the prayers (instead of folding them). Some narrators have reported that the Holy Prophet used to extend his hands during prayers and accordingly Mālik ibn Anas decided this method as the Sunnah (the Holy Prophet’s actual deed) while others reported the opposite. A third group of narrators have reported that he put one hand on the other without specifying the very place and a fourth group reported that he put his hands above the navel and so on. Al-Qāsim ibn Muhammad was reported as saying,
“If I neglect the audible reciting in the prayers, some men of authority did neglect it, and if I do it, also some men of authority did do it.”
This narration proves that the two trends were followed by two groups of grand Sahābah each of which was followed by people.
It is now obvious that the expansive reports of the Sahābah, especially in the questions were the Ahl al-Bayt’s opinions were opposed, establish the existence of two trends as regards the Islamic law: The first trend included the Ahl al-Bayt and a few of the Sahābah who confirmed the Basmalah being a part of the Sūrahs and thus it is obligatory to recite it audibly in prayers. The second trend included others who opposed this ruling. The same thing is applicable to the question whether it is obligatory to extend one’s arms in prayers or to put them one on the other. Hence, discrepancy among the Sahābah was deep-rooted and based upon adopted fundamentals. A group rested upon the authentic traditions of the Holy Prophet while another group depended upon the verdicts of grand Sahābah who decided their personal views, according to definite criteria, even if such would oppose the Holy Prophet’s words and deeds. In other words, one who decided the impermissibility of adding ‘Amen’ to the Sūrah of al-Fātihah had depended upon a fundamental of the Muslim jurisprudence while he who decided the Basmalah as being a part of the Sūrahs had also depended upon a fundamental in which he believed. The same thing can be said about all the religious laws that were opposite to the words of the Ahl al-Bayt. From this cause, it can be confirmed that the discrepancies of the Sahābah were originated from their personal tendencies and trends that they had decided as fundamental pillars of the code of Islamic law; therefore, not all of them were pure Ijtihād, especially in the questions in which they have agreed with the Ahl al-Bayt that prove that some of the Sahābah observed certain fundamentals despite everything. It is thus quite inaccurate to claim that such narrations are doubtful because they were added by the miscreants to the Muslim jurisprudence as well as other unfounded claims.
As they inferred the religious rulings from the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah, the Sahābah wanted to attract people’s attention to the existence of some people who issued personal views in the questions about which there were sacred texts just because those people were not full acquainted with all the indications of such sacred texts. Hence, people should follow either those who rested upon their personal opinions or those who committed themselves to the sacred texts.
Let us have another look at the aforementioned narration about the ruling appertained to a lady who menstruates during circumambulating the Holy Ka`bah. According to `Umar’s verdict, such a lady must postpone the Circumambulation until she would be pure and only then she would be permitted to perform the Circumambulation. It is yet well-known that Zayd ibn Thābit and `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, having been influenced by `Umar’s verdict, also decided the same thing. However, both Zayd and `Abdullāh changed their verdicts later on. It has been also narrated that `Umar himself retreated perhaps after he had been informed about `Ā’ishah’s famous report that when Safiyyah menstruated after she had performed the Ifādah (one of the rituals of the Hajj), the Holy Prophet permitted her to continue.
It has been also narrated that `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, answering the message of Zayd ibn Thābit in which he confessed of his inaccuracy in the question involved, said,
“I know better what the Holy Prophet said about (the rulings concerning) women. Yet, I desired to provide the proof on my claim from the Holy Qur'ān that reads:
‘Then let them complete the rites prescribed for them, perform their vows, and (again) circumambulate the Ancient House. [Holy Qur’ān: 22/29]’
Such a lady did complete the rites, perform the vows, and circumambulated the House. Nothing thus remained.”
The previous words of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās demonstrate that the Holy Prophet’s decision was based upon the Holy Qur'ān to which `Umar himself invited people by his famous saying, “Sufficient for us is the Book of Allah.” Hence, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, after Zayd ibn Thābit had informed him that `Umar contradicted the Holy Qur'ān, wanted to bind `Umar with his own claim.
Imam `Alī and `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās presented the Holy Qur'ān’s texts, conceptions, and indications as their evidences on the actual rulings of the Islamic law in face of the personal views of the other Sahābah. Such presentations occurred so repeatedly that they undoubtedly indicate the following points:
First, they intended to prove to the Muslims that the majority, if not all, of the religious rulings can be deduced from the Holy Qur'ān though the matter requires a little investigation, ponderation, inference, and sound rationality. Hence, it is unnecessary to resort to innovated sources of deduction, such as analogy and its likes, establishment of new fundamentals, and thorough dependence on Ijtihād and personal opinions.
Second, because scandalous discrepancies and contradictions occurred in the reports of the Sahābah, and even in the reports of a single Sahābiy, in addition to the imperfect conveyances from the Holy Prophet that they, in many cases, did not receive directly from him—these matters and others would make it unfeasible to rest upon the Sunnah in the issuance of religious rulings. Besides, not all the reporters have understood the very signification of the Holy Prophet’s words. If we add to the previous the ruling authorities’ having prohibited the reporting and recording of the Hadīth and the Sahābah’s having been afraid of breaking this decision, we conclude that thorough resting upon the Sunnah would be unconvincing except in a few cases when reports support each other in a definite matter. Hence, reference to the Holy Qur'ān would be inevitable taking into consideration the fact that an inference from the Holy Qur'ān cannot be denied or refuted.
Third, Imam `Alī and `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās aimed at binding those who claimed the sufficiency of the Holy Qur'ān in solving all the problems with their claim. Such binding would show clearly the inconsistency between those Sahābah’s claim and their theoretical and practical failure in the deduction of rulings from the Holy Qur'ān. On the other hand, the Sahābah who complied with the sacred texts comprehensively and who believed in the necessity of joining the Holy Sunnah to the Holy Qur'ān were proven as the most experienced in deducing the religious rulings from these two sources.
To sum it up, the Islamic jurisprudence has unfortunately been influenced by the personal opinions of `Umar and thus the religious rulings have been affected by the discrepant and contradictory opinions of the Sahābah. This is because `Umar exerted all efforts in binding people with his decisions making them as sacred as the Holy Sunnah. Similarly, some of the Sahābah pursued him in this regard causing discrepancy to the Islamic law. For instance, Abū-Hanīfah, his two disciples, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Zufar, and Ibn Abī-Laylā—all these master scholars of Sunnite jurisprudence have decided that full brothers must be deprived of the heritage of their sister who had a husband, a mother, and two half (maternal) brothers in addition to these two full brothers as has been decided by `Umar in an earlier issue. Mālik and al-Shāfi`iy, however, have decided shares to those full brothers as has been decided by `Umar on another occasion.
Yet, the most astonishing matter in this respect is that those master scholars have decided the accuracy of `Umar’s both decisions although the question was the same! Moreover, they have decided that `Umar was not inerrant; that he might have committed mistakes! To support their claims, each has searched for other ‘evidences’. As a consequence, none should ever blame one who wonders whether Almighty Allah has decided the earlier or the later opinions of `Umar in this very issue! If the earlier decision was the correct, why did `Umar give the two full brothers shares of the heritage on the second occasion despite the fact that he knew that heritage is a financial right; and if such a right is violated, one will be responsible for the shortage in the shares of the others? Correspondingly, if those two full brothers should have enjoyed certain shares from their sister’s legacy, why did `Umar deprive them of their shares in the earlier case?
Because of their intense emphasis on following the manners of Abū-Bakr and `Umar, the Holy Sunnah has been overlooked in such cases and none has recognized it save its real people. Unfortunately, such Ijtihād that violated the sacred texts found a large area in the field of the Muslim jurisprudence and thus became the ruler. Hence, in that age, the fabricated reports that claimed the prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth were the prevalent. In plain words, the manners of Abū-Bakr and `Umar became the dominant over the code of the Islamic law; and the Sahābah’s questions that were directed to the caliphs became a common feature of their relationship with the ruling authorities. It has been narrated that when Sa`īd ibn Sufyān asked him about a religious question, `Uthmān ibn `Affān interrogated him whether he had asked anyone else about the same question. When Sa`īd answered negatively, `Uthmān said: “Well, I will certainly behead him whom you ask about the very question and give you an answer dissimilar to mine!”Commentary on this incident is left for the gentle readers.
 Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā: 5:188; Al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’ 5 :59.
 Al-Jawziy: Zād al-Ma’ād 1:212-213; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:327; al-San’āniy: Irshād al-Nuqqād Ila Taysīr al-Ijtihād 24-25.
 Al-Jawziy: Zād al-Ma’ād 1:213; Ibn Hazm al-Andalusiy: Hijjat al-Wadā` 1:353; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Tamhīd 8:208.
 Ibn al-Athīr, in al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 5:141, has recorded that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, when some people objected to him because he had violated the opinion of his father as regards the temporary marriage, said, “I fear lest a stone from the heavens will inflict you.”
 Al-Jawziy: Zād al-Ma’ād 2:206; Ibn Hazm al-Andalusiy: Hijjat al-Wadā` 1:353-354.
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm.
 Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 2:159 H. 823; al-San`āniy: Irshād al-Nuqqād 25; Sunan Ibn Mājah 1:214 H. 2978.
 Al-San’āniy: Irshād al-Nuqqād 25.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:370; Al-Tahāwiy: Sharh Ma’āni al-Āthār 1:494 H. 2827.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:406 H. 23495; al-Tahāwiy: Sharh Ma’āni al-Āthār 1:494 H. 2828; al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Tārīkh Baghdād 11:142 No. 5840; al-Haythamiy: Majma` al-Zawā'id 3:34.
 Sahīh Muslim 2:905 H. 1233; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:56 H. 5194; al-Musnad al-Mustakhraj `Alā Sahīh Muslim 3:331 H. 2863; Sunan al-Dārimiy 5:224; Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb: al-Sunnah qabl al-Tadwīn 90; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 5:75 H. 9028; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 3:478.
 Sahīh Muslim 1:327 H. 442; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 3:147 H. 5107; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:151; Sunan Ibn Mājah 1:8 H. 16; Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb: al-Sunnah qabl al-Tadwīn 88.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:127; Ibn `Abd al-Rabb al-Qurtubiy: Jāmi`u Bayān al-`Ilm wa-Fadlih(i) 2:195.
 Al-Haythamiy: Majma’ al-Zawā'id 2:222-223; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 8:296 H. 8684; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 2:58 H. 1281.
 `Abd al-Razzāq: al-Musannaf 2:433; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 11:23 H. 30468; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:222 H. 12030; Ibn Hazm: al-Muhallā 3:3; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Tamhīd 13:37.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 11:25 H. 30479; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:222 H. 12031; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 10:288.
 Al-Wāfi al-Mahdiy: al-Ijtihād fi’l-Shari’ah al-Islāmiyyah 111; Sayid Murtadā al-`Askariy: Ma`ālim al-Madrasatayn 2:286; al-Madkhal Ilā `Ilm al-Usūl 90-95.
 Ahmad ibn `Abd al-Azīz al-Jawhariy: al-Saqīfah wa Fadak 46-47; Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 2:51-2.
 Abū-Na`īm: Hilyat al-Awliyā' as quoted from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 5:140 H. 21301; Musnad al-Tayālīsiy 1:75 H. 555; Musnad Abu’l-Ju`d 1:197 H. 1291; Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 7:468 H. 37295. All these reference books have recorded this narration on the authority of Ubayy ibn Ka`b; but Mu`ammar ibn Rāshid, in his book of al-Jāmi` 11:322, has alone recorded it on the authority of Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān.
 Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3:501; al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn 2:229, 303; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Dimashq 7:340; al-Muzziy: Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 2:270; al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A`lām al-Nubalā' 1:399.
 This is an indication to the holy verse that reads, “Whatever Allah has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich of you, and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is severe in retribution (evil). 59/7”
 Al-Sam’āniy: al-Imlā’ wa’l-Istimlā’ 21 (Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fi’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy 127); al-Muhaddith al-Fāsil 601.
 Abū-Bakr ibn `Abdullāh: Ma`rifat al-Nusakh wa’l-Suhuf al-Hadīthiyyah 207.
 Muhammad Husayn al-Dhahbiy: al-Tafsīr wa’l-Mufassirūn 1:115 (Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fi’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy 100).
 Ibn Hushām: al-Sīrah al-Halabiyyah 8862, 956; Abū-Na`īm: Hilyat al-Awliyā’ 1:240; Abū-‘Ubayd: al-Amwāl 27, 37.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 5:228 H. 22041; Sunan al-Dārqutniy 2:96 H. 8.
 Dr. Imtiyāz Ahmad: Dalā’il al-Tawthīq al-Mubakkir li’l-Kitāb wa’l-Sunnah (Evidences on the early documentation of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah) 418; al-Muhaddith al-Fāsil 498.
 Al-Tarātīb al-Idāriyyah 1:398.
 Al-Tanbīh wa’l-Ishrāf 245; Ibn `Abd-Rabbih: al-`Iqd al-Farīd 4:147.
 Al-Tarātīb al-Idāriyyah 1:124; Subh al-A`shā 1:125.
 Makātīb al-Rasūl 1:177 as quoted from Ibn Hazm’s Jawāmi` al-Siyar.
 Subul al-Hudā wa’l-Rashād 11:381. The administrative structure of the Holy Prophet’s governmental system reveals that it was the Holy Prophet, not `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, who founded the offices (Dīwāns).
 Ahmad ibn Hanbal: al-‘Ilal wa Ma`rifat al-Rijāl 1:323; Ibn Abi-Shaybah: al-Musannaf 45.
Ibn `Abd al-Barr al-Qurtubiy: Jāmi` Bayān al-`Ilm wa Fadlih 1:72.
 It seems that `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd erased the al-Sahīfah al-Yamaniyyah out fear of the ruling authorities and because he believed that dispute is evil. He had done the very same thing when he offered the prayer at Minā.
 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyyah: A’lām al-Muwaqqi’īn 2:218.
 Ibn Abi-Shaybah: al-Musannaf 1:100; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyyah: A’lām al-Muwaqqi’īn 1:20.
 Al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’ 2:312; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 5:448; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:21 H. 11966.
 Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 2:123 (Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fi’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy 116).
 Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 5:216; al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 136 (Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fi’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy 116).
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 92; Ahmad ibn Hanbal: al-‘Ilal wa Ma`rifat al-Rijāl 1:42; Abū-Khaythamah: al-‘Ilm 124 (Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fi’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy 117).
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:452; al-Shāfi`iy: al-Risālah; Jamāl al-Dīn al-Muzziy: Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 13:262.
 Sunan Ibn Mājah 12 H. 2642; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd H. 2927; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy H. 1415.
 Sahīh Muslim 39:1114, 21:1; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 6:413; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 8:200.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:396 H. 414; Jāmi’ al-Usūl 8:47; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 1:93; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 1:1 H. 3.
 Abū-Bakr ibn `Abdullāh: Ma`rifat al-Nusakh wa’l-Suhuf al-Hadīthiyyah 182.
 Sahīh Muslim, Kitāb al-Imārah (Leadership) 10, Kitāb al-Fadā’il (Merits) 45; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 5:89.
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 29-32; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:12-21; Sahīh Muslim, Kitāb al-Zuhd (Asceticism) 72; Ahmad ibn Hanbal: al-‘Ilal wa Ma`rifat al-Rijāl (Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fi’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy).
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:370-374; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 2:230; Jamāl al-Dīn al-Muzziy: Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, 3:394 (Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fi’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy 107).
 Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb: al-Sunnah qabl al-Tadwīn 320.
 Ibn `Abd al-Rabb al-Qurtubiy: Jāmi`u Bayān al-`Ilm wa-Fadlih(i) 1:73; al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 105; Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:128; Abū-Khaythamah: al-‘Ilm; Ahmad ibn Hanbal: al-‘Ilal wa Ma`rifat al-Rijāl 1:42.
 Al-Bukhāriy: al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr 1:3201; al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’ 3:160 (Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fi’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy 120).
 Ibn Shahrāshīb: Ma'ālim al-'Ulamā' as quoted from Sayyid Sharafuddīn: al-Murāja'āt No. 110.
 Sayyid Hasan al-Sadr: Ta’sīs al-Shī’ah li-‘Ulūm al-Islām (The Shī`ah: the Founders of the Islamic Sciences) 280 as quoted from Shaykh al-Tūsiy: al-Fihrist.
 Ibn `Abd al-Rabb al-Qurtubiy: Jāmi`u Bayān al-`Ilm wa-Fadlih(i) 1:74; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bārī fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:215; al-Hākim: al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn 3:511; Ibn Wahab: al-Musnad 66; Ahmad ibn Hanbal: al-‘Ilal wa Ma`rifat al-Rijāl 120 (Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fi’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy 96).
 It has been narrated that the Holy Prophet said, “Salmān (al-Fārisiy) is one of us; the Ahl al-Bayt.” This Hadīth is too famous to need documentation.
 Ibn `Abd al-Rabb al-Qurtubiy: Jāmi`u Bayān al-`Ilm wa-Fadlih(i) 1:74; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bārī fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:215; al-Hākim: al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn 3:511.
 Ibn Shahrāshīb: Ma'ālim al-'Ulamā' 1.
 Later on, we will add the jurisprudence of the Ansār to prove that the trend of the thorough compliance to the sacred texts included these three categories in general.
 Sayyid Muhammad Ridā al-Jalāliy: Tadwīn al-Sunnah al-Sharīfah 264, 273 as quoted from al-Mu`allimiy: al-Anwār al-Kāshifah 38.
 Al-Dhahbiy: Tadhkirat al-Huffādh 1:7; `Abd al-Ghaniy `Abd al-Khāliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 395; al-Muhaddith al-Fāsil 1:553.
 Al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn 1: 110; al-Dhahbiy: al-Talkhīs; Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 5:294 H. 26229; al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A`lām al-Nubalā' 2:345.
 Ibn Mandhūr: Mukhtasar Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 17:101; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 10:293 H. 29479.
 Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fi’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy as quoted from Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 4:21-22.
 Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 8:107; Mu`ammar ibn Rāshid: al-Jāmi` 11:262.
 The author promises the readers to present further details about the Sahābah who objected to `Umar in a study entitled ‘al-Sunnah Ba`d al-Rasūl (The Sunnah after the Messenger).
 Al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn 4: 339; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:233; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 11:44 H. 30588.
 To explain it, the Holy Qur'ān, in the verse involved, judges that a testator’s full sister will have half the inheritance in case the testator does not have a ‘walad’ (son). In Arabic, the word ‘walad’ is mainly denoting boys, not girls. `Umr therefore understood that when a testator does not have a boy (walad), half the inheritance will be the legal share of his full sister. Yet, by ‘walad’, the Holy Qur'ān means both sons and daughters.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:253 H. 12237; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 4:378 H. 7985.
 Al-Jassās: Ahkām al-Qur'ān 2:111.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 11:25 H. 30481; Al-Jassās: Ahkām al-Qur'ān 2:111.
 `Abd al-Ghaniy `Abd al-Khāliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 344-347; Al-Wāfī al-Mahdiy: Ma’l-Ijtihād fi’l-Sharī’ah al-Islāmiyyah 451.
 `Abd al-Razzāq: al-Musannaf 10:262 H. 19043-5; Muhammad Rawwās Qal`achiy: Mawsū'at Fiqh `Umar ibn al-Khattāb (Encyclopedia of `Umar’s jurisprudence) 53.
 Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fi’l-Islām 172.
 Muhammad Rawwās Qal`achiy: Mawsū'at Fiqh `Umar ibn al-Khattāb 53-54.
 Al-Wāfī al-Mahdiy: Ma’l-Ijtihād fi’l-Sharī’ah al-Islāmiyyah 452 as quoted from al-Suyūtiy: al-Ashbāh wa’l-Nadhā'ir 101.
 This narration has been recorded by al-Tabarāniy, in his al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 4:295 H. 4245. The series of narrators has been also decided as authentic. See also Tabaqāt al-Muhaddithīn bi-Isbahān 3:564; al-Haythamiy: Majma` al-Zawā'id 4:227; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 11:58 H. 30611.
 Al-Jassās: Ahkām al-Qur'ān 3:18; Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 1:595; Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūtiy: al-Durr al-Manthūr 2:754.
 Sunan al-Dārimiy 2:450 H. 2902; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:245 H. 12196; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 10:262; Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 6:268.
 Tafsīr al-Tabariy 18:83; Musnad Ahmad 1:238 H. 2131; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 2:277 H. 2256; al-Wāhidiy: Asbāb al-Nuzūl 213; al-Suyūtiy: Lubāb al-Nuqūl fī Asbāb al-Nuzūl 153.
 This incident has been narrated by Abū-Dāwūd, in al-Sunan, al-Nassā’iy, in al-Sunan (on the authority of Zayd ibn Aslam), al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy, in al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn, and al-Tabarāniy, in al-Mu’jam al-Saghīr.
 Al-Zamakhshariy: Tafsīr al-Kashshāf 2:274.
 Ibn Hushām: al-Sīrah; Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 95.
 Ibn Hushām: al-Sīrah 3:64. (Al-Bukhāriy, Muslim, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Nassā’iy and other historians have also referred to this event.)
 Ibn Hushām: al-Sīrah 3:235.
 Ibn Hushām: al-Sīrah 2:271. For more details about the aforesaid events, refer to Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 83-146.
 Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 97.
 The Holy Qur'ān Sūrah of al-Qadr (No. 97).
 Kiblah is the direction towards which Muslims must turn their faces during prayers (in the past, the holy Mosque of Jerusalem; and now the Holy Ka’bah).
 Of course, the matter will be more obvious in the origin text of the holy verse.
 Tafsīr al-Fakhr al-Rāziy 11:3, Al-Zamakhshariy: Tafsīr al-Kashshāf 1:552 and Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 1:851-2.
 Al-Jassās: Ahkām al-Qur'ān 3:223.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 4:1577 H. 4084; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:150 H. 6382; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 2:148; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb 2:428.
 Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fi’l-Islam 43-44.
 Al-Wāfī al-Mahdiy: Ma’l-Ijtihād fi’l-Sharī’ah al-Islāmiyyah 32 as quoted from al-Dawālībiy, in al-Madkhal ilā ‘Ilm Usūl al-Fiqh 78.
 Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 259.
 Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 6:13; al-Dhahbiy: Tadhkirat al-Huffādh 1:41; Abu’l-Mahāsin: Mu`tasar al-Mukhtasar 2:314.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:416; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 2:208 H. 2004; al-Āhād wa’l-Mathānī 3:228 H. 1589; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 3:262 H. 3353; `Abd al-Ghaniy `Abd al-Khāliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 358. A similar narration is recorded by Sayyid Muhsin al-Amīniy, in al-Ghadīr 6:112.
 Al-Madkhal Ilā’l-Sunan al-Kubrā 1:104 H. 34; al-Suyūtiy: Miftāh al-Jannah 1:44; Īqādh al-Himam 1:8; `Abd al-Ghaniy `Abd al-Khāliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 372 as quoted from Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyyah: A’lām al-Muwaqqi’īn; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd.
 Refer to Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 352-353.
 Nahj al-Balāghah 3:320.
 Nahj al-Balāghah 3:234.
 Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fi’l-Islām 80.
 Tafsīr al-Fakhr al-Rāziy al-Kashshāf 1:206.
 Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūtiy: al-Durr al-Manthūr 1:7; al-Itqān 1: 268 as quoted from al-Bayhaqiy: Shi’ab al-Īmān.
 Ra’b al-Sad’ 1:255 H. 353.
 Badā’i al-Sanā’i` 1-2:201.
 Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fi’l-Islām 128.
 Muhammad Rawwās Qal`achiy: Mawsū'at Fiqh Zayd ibn Thābit 107 as quoted from Ibn Qudāmah: al-Mughni 3:461 and al-Majmū’ 8:229.
 Muhammad Rawwās Qal`achiy: Mawsū'at Fiqh Zayd ibn Thābit 107.
 Muhammad Rawwās Qal`achiy: Mawsū'at `Abdullāh ibn `Umar 285.
 Muhammad Rawwās Qal`achiy: Mawsū'at Fiqh `Umar ibn al-Khattāb 333 as quoted from Ibn Hazm: al-Muhallā 7:170.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan 5:163 as is written in Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fi’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy, 136.
 Tahdhīb Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 1:54; Hayāt al-Sahābah 2:390-391 as is in al-'Āmiliy: al-Sahīh 1:89.
Acquiescence With `Umar On The Justification Of The Prohibition
The fans of `Umar undertook the mission of conveying `Umar’s justifications for his decision of the prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth as extensively as they could. Thus, `Umar’s justifications could not be distinguished from the justifications of the other Sahābah who followed him. This manifestly demonstrates an undeniable political fact that was invented by `Umar and his fans.
`Umar ibn al-Khattāb ordered people to neglect the Holy Sunnah because he feared that it would be confused with the Holy Qur'ān or that people would adhere to the Sunnah and disregard the Qur'ān. Abū-Hurayrah also repeated the same justifications on more than one occasion. According to al-Mahkiy, `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, Abū-Sa`īd al-Khidriy, and Abū-Mūsā al-Ash`ariy, too, repeated the same justifications. It has been narrated on the authority of `Abd al-Rahmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam on the authority of his fathers on the authority of `Atā' ibn Yasār that Abū-Hurayrah reported,
One day, the Messenger of Allah came to us while we were recording the Hadīth. He asked, “What are writing down?”
“These are Hadīths that we have heard from you,” answered we.
“Do you want to depend upon a book other than the Book of Allah (the Holy Qur'ān)?” reproached the Messenger of Allah. “The nationswho came before you were misled only when they recorded books besides the Book of Allah.”
Then I (Abū-Hurayrah) asked him, “O Allah’s Messenger: May we report your words?”
“Yes, you may,” answered the Messenger of Allah. “Anyone who forges lies against me deliberately must find himself a place in Hellfire.”
It has been also narrated from Ibrāhīm al-Tamīmiy that when `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd was informed about the existence of a book that they had with them, he came to them and insisted on seeing that book. They finally brought it to him. He then erased it and said,
“The peoples of the Divine Books who existed before you perished only because they attended to their scholars’ books and neglected the Book of Allah.”
According to another narration, `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd said,
“The past nations attended to the books of their scholars and monks and neglected the Torah and Gospel so casually that they and the knowledge therein were lost.”
Abū-Nadrah narrated that when Abū-Sa`īd al-Khidriy was asked to dictate the Hadīth, he said,
“We must not dictate for you! You must take it from us in the same way as we took from our Prophet.”
According to their narrations, Abū-Sa`īd said,
“Do you intend to betake such books as Qur'ān? When your Prophet was talking to us, we memorized.”
Abū-Nadrah also narrated that he once said to Abū-Sa`īd al-Khidriy, “You are reporting to us from the Holy Prophet astounding things and we fear lest we will not memorize them as exactly as they are.”
Abū-Sa`īd answered, “So, you want to make it as Qur'ān! No, you must receive from us in the same way as we have received from the Messenger of Allah.’
It has been also narrated that Abū-Mūsā al-Ash`ariy said,
“When they wrote down a book with their own hands, the Israelites followed that book and neglected the Torah.”
All these texts have a common justification, which is that the Israelites followed their scholars’ books and neglected the Torah. The same justification was presented by `Umar. Moreover, the same justification has been ascribed to Imam `Alī and `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās. Again, all these prove that there has been a trend confirming and supporting `Umar’s opinion although we have previously discussed in details the inaccuracy of `Umar’s justifications for his decision. As a conclusion, such contradiction between the Hadīths that confirmed the Holy Prophet’s permission to write down his traditions and the Hadīth that confirmed his warning against so is meaningless unless a comparison will be made between the two. Yet, the comparison involved has acted as supporter for my own conception about the issue because the claim that the recordation of the Hadīth was permitted only for the acquainted Sahābah while the ordinary people were not permitted to record—this claim is contrary to the deeds of `Umar with the grand Sahābah as regards this issue when he ordered them, without exception, to bring to him all their records of the Hadīth and none has ever narrated that he accepted a single record.
Likewise, it has been argued that the prohibition of recording the Hadīth was issued in the first Islamic age when the Qur'ān was still revealed and thus the purpose behind such prohibition is to evade any confusion that would occur between the Holy Qur'ān and the Hadīth. Yet, when the Holy Qur'ān was completed and fully recognized by the Sahābah, only then were they permitted to write down the Hadīth. This argument proves that the Holy Prophet, in the last of his holy lifetime, permitted the recordation of the Hadīth and such permission was thus active. Again, this proves my discussion that the decision of the prohibition was based upon a personal view of `Umar himself, not a religious ground. Even if we accept the contention that the Holy Prophet ordered not to write down his words and to erase anything that they had recorded as regards his traditions,the Sahābah would have certainly known these orders and applied it; and these orders should have been the main justification adopted by Abū-Bakr and `Umar for the issuance of their decision of prohibiting the recordation of the Hadīth. The clear-cut conclusion that can be inferred here is that the Holy Prophet never warnws against recording the Hadīth.
If we suppose that the Holy Prophet did prohibit recording the Hadīth, then why did Abū-Bakr record these five hundred Hadīths and thus break the Holy Prophet’s order? Why did `Umar consult the Sahābah about this issue? Moreover, why did he pass over their advice of permitting the recordation of the Hadīth? Finally, how come that they advised him to permit the recordation of the Hadīth while they had heard the Holy Prophet prohibiting it?
In addition, `Umar’s orders of erasing all records of Hadīth and bringing to him all such records prove the existence of many records and books that had been written down before his reign.
Besides, their justification cannot support their claim; this is because the past nations went astray after they had tended to the books of their monks and rabbis and neglected the Torah and the Gospel but they did not tend to the records of their Prophets. The difference between the words of the monks and rabbis from one side and the Holy Prophet’s words from the other is too large to be ever compared. The Muslims recorded the words, deeds, and confirmations of the Holy Prophet and nothing else, while the past nations went astray when they distorted the words of their Prophets and the concepts of the Divine Books. On the contrary, the scholars of the Muslim nation maintained the religion and explained the Holy Qur'ān and the Holy Prophet’s traditions and laws.
Such a justification can be acceptable only when such records comprised personal opinions and inferences. The prohibition of recording such items would be reasonably satisfactory since personal opinions are exposed to errancy and inaccuracy and books of such opinions could be authored by nonbelievers or deviants who might cause confusion in the religious rulings for the coming generation. Conversely, the prohibition from recording the traditions of the Holy Prophet can never be justified through such ill excuses.
Some of those who regarded the prohibition of recording personal opinions of the scholars as same as the prohibition of recording the Holy Sunnah might have accepted `Umar’s decision from this angle after they had not understood the big difference between the scholars’ personal judgments and the Holy Prophet’s traditions. In consequence, such prohibition was accepted by the next generations until it was canceled during the reign of `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz, the Umayyad ruler.
In any event, all proofs confirm that the recordation of the Hadīth was permitted during the Holy Prophet’s age and the prohibition was invented afterwards under certain circumstances. It has been also confirmed that some of the Sahābah attempted to consolidate `Umar’s prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth in the Muslims’ mentalities for nothing other than `Umar’s disliking it. Yet, when `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz canceled the prohibition and decided the recordation of the Hadīth as commendable matter, those individuals changed their minds and liked the matter. Al-Zuhriy says,
“We disliked the recordation of the knowledge until we were forced by those rulers. We thus decided not to prevent any of the Muslims from it.”
According to another narration, al-Zuhriy said,
“… until the ruler compelled us to do it.”
According to a third narration, he said,
“The kings ordered me to write down these items of knowledge; I therefore wrote them down. Then I saw it is shameful to write down for the kings and deprive the people of these items. So, I decided to write them down for the people.”
Abū-Malīh was reported as saying,
“We despaired of writing down any item of knowledge from al-Zuhriy. But when Hushām, the Umayyad ruler, compelled him to write down for his sons and al-Zuhriy did, people could record.”
In my book entitled Wudū’ al-Nabiy (The Ablution of the Prophet) the Introduction, I have set forth in details the influence of the rulers on the recordation of the Holy Sunnah and the secrets behind their showing interest in this respect. I also established that the scientific shortage from which they suffered pushed them to prohibit the recordation of the Hadīth and then for the same reason to make it public since the Sahābah used to object to them through Hadīths; they therefore had to lock this door in order to fill this gap and not to expose their educational weakness in face of a strong trend that refuted the ruling authorities’ decisions through traditions of the Holy Prophet. The matter then expanded so largely that the trend of Ijtihād invented the law of considering consensus as source of the Islamic legislation so that they will bind the publics with the decisions of the caliph that would naturally take the quality of the ummah’s consensus. They thus decided that the verdicts of the Private Committee that was founded by `Umar would replace all the Sahābah and would be considered as consensus that nobody is allowed to transgress or breach.
About the age of the Sahābah, al-Wāfi al-Mahdiy says,
“In this age, consensus, which is a new source of the Islamic Legislation since it was not present in the first age of Islam, has emerged. When he could not find a solution neither in the Holy Qur'ān nor in the Sunnah, Abū-Bakr would refer the matter to a legislative body. `Umar did the same thing, too. Any decision that was made by that legislative body would be regarded as issued by all of them…”
In practice, `Umar formed a committee for administrating the affairs of the Muslims and meeting their legislative requirements and appointed some individuals whom he had trusted as issuers of verdicts so that he would be able to administrate other affairs. It has been narrated on the authority of `Alī ibn Rabāh al-Lakhmiy that `Umar delivered to the people the following address,
“One who has a question about the Qur'ān must refer to Ubayy ibn Ka`b. one who has a question about what is lawful and what is not must refer to Mu`ādh ibn Jabal. One who has a question about the legal shares of inheritances must refer to Zayd ibn Thābit. One who has a financial question must refer to me, for I am the treasurer.”
This text corroborates that `Umar needed to establish a foundation for protecting himself from danger and for rooting his personal inventions, such as Ra’y (Opinionism) and Istihsān (Equitable Preference).
It is worth mentioning that it was not `Umar who betook personal opinions as a course for the issuance of religious verdicts; rather Abū-Bakr preceded him in this respect when he neglected carrying out the Holy Prophet’s order to kill that pious man who was offering prayers and also when he declared openly the principle of adoption of personal views and Ijtihād in his first speech to people when he said,
“I have been chosen for your leadership while I am not the best of you. Hence, if I am right, you should then help me; and if I am wrong, you thus lead me to the right.”
In addition, Abū-Bakr said about Khālid ibn al-Walīd who had killed a Muslim individual deliberately and married his widow on the same night,
“As Khālid tried to infer the ruling (i.e. use Ta’wīl: interpretation), he missed the right.”
This very statement was used by Khālid himself when he wanted to find an excuse for his deed.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:12-13; al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 33; al-Haythamiy: Majma` al-Zawā'id 1:151.
 Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:122; Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 56, 53, 55.
 Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 12:101-102 Sermon No. 223; Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 56.
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 36-37.
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 37.
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 38.
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 56.
 Such a comparison has been made by many scholars, such as Dr. Subhiy al-Sālih, in ‘Ulūm al-HAdīth 11, Dr. 'Ajjāj al-Khatīb, in al-Sunnah qabl al-Tadwīn 306-309, 316, and Sayyid Muhammad Ridā al-Jalāliy, in Tadwīn al-Sunnah al-Sharīfah 302-314 as well as many other scholars.
 Sahīh Muslim 4:2298 H. 3004; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:12 H. 11100; Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:130 H. 450.
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 107; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 2:389; Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 9:341; Mu`ammar ibn Rāshid: al-Jāmi` 11:258; al-Madkhal Ilā’l-Sunan al-Kubrā 1:409 H. 739.
 Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:110.
 Ibn `Abd al-Rabb al-Qurtubiy: Jāmi`u Bayān al-`Ilm wa-Fadlih(i) 1:77.
 Abū-Na`īm: Hilyat al-Awliyā’ 3:363; Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 9:345 [as quoted from al-Riwāyah al-Tārīkhiyyah 107.].
 Al-Wāfī al-Mahdiy: al-Ijtihād fi’l-Sharī’ah al-Islāmiyyah 46.
 Al-Hākim: al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn 3:272.
 Ibn Habbān: al-Thuqāt 2:157; Tārīkh al-Ya`qūbiy 2:127; al-Iktifā’ bi-mā Tadammanahū Maghāzī Rasūli’llāh 2:446; Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 5:248, 6:301; Takhrīj al-Dalālāt al-Sam`iyyah 1:43; al-Sīrah al-Halabiyyah 3:483.
 Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 3:357; Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:273.
 For more details, refer to Tārīkh al-Tabariy, Tārīkh al-Ya`qūbiy 2:132, and many other reference books of Islamic history.
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