The Extension of the Trend of Opinionism after Umar Ibn Al-Khattab
By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani
Al-Dārimiy has narrated on the authority of Marwān ibn al-Hakam that after he had been stabbed, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb sought the Sahābah’s opinion about the question of the grandfather’s share of an inheritance, saying, “I have had an opinion about the share of grandfathers; you may accept it if you want.”
`Uthmān answered, “If we follow your opinion, it is surely the true guidance; and if we follow the opinion of the Shaykh (i.e. Abū-Bakr) who was before you, it will be excellent!”
In Ibn Sa`d’s al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā and Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s al-Musnad, it is recorded that Mahmūd ibn Labīd said that he heard `Uthmān ibn `Affān saying from the minbar, “It is impermissible for anyone to report a tradition from the Messenger of Allah unless this tradition was known during the reigns of Abū-Bakr and `Umar.”
It has been also narrated that Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān (during his reign) said, “O People: reduce reporting from Messenger of Allah; and when you do, you must report traditions that were known during the reign of `Umar.”
Recording the same incident, Ibn `Asākir narrated that Mu`āwiyah said, “Beware of reporting the Hadīth of the Messenger of Allah except a tradition that is known during the reign of `Umar.”
Joining The Hajj To The `Umrah
In Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s al-Musnad, it is recorded that `Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr said, By Allah I swear that I was with `Uthmān ibn `Affān at al-Juhafah (a place) while he was accompanied by some people of Syria among whom was Habīb ibn Salamah. As the subject was the joining (Tamattu`) of Hajj to `Umrah, `Uthmān said, “The most perfect way of joining the Hajj with the `Umrah is that they should not be performed in the months of the ritual Hajj. Thus, it is preferred to delay the `Umrah until you visit this House (the Holy Ka`bah) twice. Almighty Allah has expanded good deeds.”
Meanwhile, (Imam) `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib was down the hill feeding his camel; when he was informed about what `Uthmān had said, he came towards him.
When he approached, (Imam) `Alī said to `Uthmān, “You have certainly violated the tradition of the Messenger of Allah and the permission that Almighty Allah has decided for His servants in His Book as you have restricted and warned against such. This law of Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet has been issued for those who do not have enough time to perform both the Hajj and the `Umrah on separate times and for those who come from remote countries.”
(Imam) `Alī started to join the Hajj and the `Umrah.
After that, `Uthmān directed towards the people and said, “Have I warned you against so? I have not, indeed. I only said my own opinion, and you are free to accept or refuse.”
In Mālik ibn Anas’s book of al-Muwatta', it is recorded that (Imam) Ja`far ibn Muhammad (al-Sādiq) has narrated on the authority of his father that al-Miqdād ibn al-Aswad, once, visited (Imam) `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib, while he was kneading flour as food for his camels, and told him that `Uthmān ibn `Affān had warned people against joining the Hajj with the `Umrah.
Immediately, (Imam) `Alī went out, without washing his hands from that flour, towards `Uthmān ibn `Affān and said to him, “Have you really prevented people from joining the Hajj with the `Umrah?”
“It has been only my own opinion,” answered `Uthmān.
Then, (Imam) `Alī went out angrily and shouted out, “Labbayka Allāhumma labbayk” as an indication of joining the Hajj with `Umrah.
In al-Nassā'iy’s al-Sunan, it has been narrated that (Imam) `Alī and `Uthmān ibn `Affān once performed the ritual Hajj on the same season. On their way to Makkah, `Uthmān warned against joining the Hajj to the `Umrah. During the rituals, (Imam `Alī) ordered his companions to declare joining the Hajj to the `Umrah once they would see `Uthmān starting the rituals of the Hajj. When they did so, `Uthmān did not prevent them.
Hence, (Imam) `Alī said, “I have been informed that you prevented joining the Hajj to the `Umrah (Tamattu`).”
“Yes, I did,” answered `Uthmān.
(Imam) `Alī asked him, “Have you not heard that the Messenger of Allah joined the two?”
“Yes, I have,” answered `Uthmān.
Commenting on the previous narration, al-Sindiy, as an annotation on al-Nassā'iy’s al-Sunan 5:152, says,
“Imam `Alī ordered his companions to join the Hajj to the `Umrah so that `Uthmān would realize that they preceded the Holy Prophet’s Sunnah to his personal judgment and that none would obey him so long as he violated the Holy Sunnah.”
According to another form of the narration, Imam `Alī declared joining the Hajj to the `Umrah when he knew that `Uthmān prohibited so.
Thus, `Uthmān asked him, “You have done it while you knew that I prohibited it.”
Imam `Alī answered, “I would never neglect the Sunnah of the Holy Messenger because of a judgment that was issued by an ordinary person.”
Commenting on this form too, al-Sindiy says,
“`Uthmān wanted to say to Imam `Alī that everybody is included in the prohibition of that act in the same way as `Umar used to issue personal verdicts; hence, Imam `Alī, by doing so, violated the decision of the caliph. Yet, Imam `Alī answered him that none should be obeyed in a matter that is in violation of the Holy Prophet’s decision.
According to a third form of the narration, Imam `Alī answered `Uthmān, “What do you mean by prohibiting a matter that had been done by the Messenger of Allah?”
`Uthmān answered him, “Leave this matter!”
Imam `Alī replied, “I would never leave it.”
Hence, Imam `Alī declared joining the Hajj and the `Umrah.
The aforementioned examples indicate manifestly that the trend of Opinionism and Ijtihād, which was founded by Abū-Bakr and `Umar and corroborated by the latter, continued after them. It is also noteworthy that `Uthmān, Mu`āwiyah, and `Amr ibn al-`Ās laid emphasis on following and carrying out the conducts of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, which means that their course was the same. It is also clear that the rulers and their fans violated the course of Imam `Alī and his followers, such as `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās and others, who complied thoroughly with the sacred texts. For instance, Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān ordered the publics to curse Imam `Alī and `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās; and al-Mansūr, the `Abbāsid caliph, ordered to assume the opinions of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar even if they would violate the sayings of Imam `Alī and `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās. Al-Hajjāj ibn Yūsuf al-Thaqafiy, the ruler of Iraq, sealed on the hands of the writers of the Holy Prophet’s traditions, such as Sahl ibn Sa`d al-Sā`idiy and his companions. All these acts prove that the course of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb was extended and confirmed. Let us now cite other examples that substantiate this fact:
Neglect Of Qirā’ah
It has been narrated, in Badā’i` al-Sanā’i` 1:111, that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, once, neglected the Qirā’ah (Recital of the Sūrah of al-Fātihah, No. 1, and another optional Sūrah during the first two Rak`ahs of the obligatory prayer) in one of the first two Rak`ahs of the obligatory Maghrib (sunset) Prayer. He then settled it in the last Rak`ah with loud voice. Likewise, `Uthmān ibn `Affān neglected the Qirā’ah in one of the first two Rak`ahs of the obligatory `Ishā (Evening) Prayer. He then settled it in one of the last two Rak`ahs with loud voice. Later in his book, the author of Badā’i al-Sanā’i` cited a Hadīth confirming the permissibility of neglecting the Qirā’ah in obligatory prayers!
Ruling Of Wives Of The Lost
Ibn Shihāb has narrated on the authority of Sa`īd ibn al-Musayyab that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, once, issued the verdict that if a lost husband returns and finds that his wife has been married to another one, he has the right either to take his wife back or to receive the dowry that he had paid for her! If he chooses the dowry, the other husband should pay it for him, but if he chooses to take his wife back, she will have to practice the term of waiting (`Iddah) and then return to her first husband and also the dowry that the second husband has paid will be hers. (Ibn Shihāb added that) this verdict was also followed by `Uthmān ibn `Affān.
The One-Sixth Share Of Mothers
Al-Tabariy, in his book of Tafsīr 4:188, has narrated on the authority of Shu`bah that `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās once visited `Uthmān ibn `Affān and asked him about the verdict that when there are two brothers among the heirs, the mother’s share would be one-sixth of an inheritance while Almighty Allah, in the Holy Qur'ān, says,
“But if he has brothers, then his mother shall have the sixth.” [Holy Qur’ān: 5:11]
“Brothers” in the holy verse does not indicate two brothers only. `Uthmān replied, “How can I repeal a matter that has been issued before me and has been spread throughout the countries?”
Narrating the same report, al-Bayhaqiy and al-Hākim has recorded that `Uthmān said, “I cannot repeal what has been issued before me and has been accepted by people who spread it out in the countries.”
Zakāt Of Horses
In Ansāb al-Ashrāf 5:26, al-Bulādhiriy has recorded on the authority of al-Zuhriy that `Uthmān ibn `Affān used to collect the Zakāt on horses. This act was denied by people who, as evidence, quoted the Holy Prophet as having said, “I have freed you from defraying the Zakāt of horses and slaves.”
Probably, `Uthmān followed `Umar ibn al-Khattāb in this question. Ibn Hazm, in al-Muhallā 5:277, has narrated on the authority of Ibn Shihāb that al-Sā'ib said that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb used to impose taxes on horses.
It has been also narrated on the authority of Hārithah that a group of Syrian people came to `Umar and offered to purify their properties and defray the Zakāt of the money, horses, and slaves that they had gained. `Umar expressed that he would follow in this issue what had been decided by the two who were before him. He therefore consulted (Imam) `Alī who said to him, “This is preferable unless this would be taken as law after you.”
In this narration, Imam `Alī invited the attentions to the religious ruling that it is impermissible to prevent the Muslims from purifying their properties when they desire to do so; rather it is preferable. But if this act is anticipated to be taken as religious law, it will be impermissible. Hence, Imam `Alī accepted the receipt of the Zakāt on horses, not as religious law; since it is unlawful to force the Muslims to defray taxes on their horses. In plain words, Imam `Alī issued that it is lawful to accept the Zakāt on horses but he confirmed that this acceptance should not be taken as religious law. This course of inviting the attentions to the actual act of the Muslim authority was followed by the Holy Prophet who, once in Minā, invited the Muslims’ attention to the fact that the obligatory prayer had been performed in the shortened form (Qasr) because they were on a journey; rather the prayers must be performed in the perfect form (Tamām) in one’s hometown.
The aforementioned discussion has proven that `Uthmān ibn `Affān followed the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar in some religious rulings and followed his own judgments in other rulings. His personal opinions violated the others’ because the course of personal opinions could not closed by anyone after it has been opened wide. Imam `Alī has referred to this fact by saying,
“One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein, the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose, he would be thrown.”
One of the stipulations of the caliphs’ trend was that a caliph must follow the conducts of the rulers who preceded him and, meanwhile, the opinions of a caliph are beyond criticism even if they contradict the sacred texts of Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet.
It has been narrated on the authority of al-Shi`biy that Abū-Bakr said, “I will say my own opinion in this question. If it is true, this will be the guidance of Allah; but if it is not, this will be my fault as well as the whisper of Satan. Yet, Allah and His Messenger are released from my misinterpretation. The Kalālah, in my conception, is anything other than the father and the son.”
When `Umar ibn al-Khattāb became the caliph, he declared that he would be too shy to reject anything decided by Abū-Bakr!
Commenting on this saying of `Umar Ibrāhīm ibn al-Sayyār, as has been recorded in the book of al-Fityā by al-Jāhidh -a famous Arab man of letters-, says,
“This saying of `Umar is extremely strange! Although `Umar believed that it is impermissible to violate the judgments of Abū-Bakr because he saw that the right was always in the side of him, he (`Umar) in reality violated his decisions hundred times; as was in the cases of the rulings of the shares of grandfathers from inheritances, the fighting against the apostates, and the shares of the al-Mu’allafah Qulūbuhum as well numerous questions.”
The best example on the fact that the religious rulings were submitted to external factors and temporary policies, which were later on expanded to take the form of general policy followed by the caliphs as a principle, is the famous issue of Fadakand the Khums tax.
Abū-Bakr claimed Fadak, a garden in al-Madīnah, having been the right of the ummah, not Lady Fātimah al-Zahrā'’s alone. Had this claim been true, `Uthmān ibn `Affān should not have donated it to Marwān ibn al-Hakam within the taxes of Africa. Lady Fātimah, the Holy Prophet’s daughter, claimed that Fadak had been donated exclusively to her by her father; yet, the ruling authorities confiscated it and abstained from giving it to its owner. To shed more light on this question, read the following text:
In al-Sunan al-Kubrā, al-Bayhaqiy has narrated on the authority of al-Mughīrah the whole story of the confiscation of Fadak. Within this narration, he had written down that when `Umar ibn al-Khattāb departed life, `Uthmān ibn `Affān donated Fadak to Marwān ibn al-Hakam. It seems that `Uthmān ibn `Affān interpreted the narration that was reported from the Holy Prophet that, “Any morsel that Almighty Allah gives to His Prophet must be under the supervision of him who holds the position of leadership after him.” Because `Uthmān ibn `Affān was not in need for Fadak, he gifted it to his relatives as a king of keeping good relations with the kin.
This is an odd contradiction and a strange irony! Whose claim is the most accurate? Is it the claim of Abū-Bakr who said that Fadak was possessed by the Muslims generally? Or is it the claim of `Umar who said that the outcomes of Fadak were needed by the Muslims in order to enlist armies and expand the area of Islam? Or is it `Uthmān’s who claimed his having enjoyed the same authorities of the Holy Prophet?
Apart from the accurate answer, it is noticeable that all the claims were aimed at depriving Lady Fātimah al-Zahrā' of Fadak through various personal judgments and interpretations. The matter did not stop at that extent; rather it continued when each ruler had his own opinion in the issue. This fact confirms the well-planned continuity of the trend of Opinionism and Ijtihād as opposite to the trend of thorough compliance with the sacred texts in general and the Holy Sunnah in particular.
It is also noticeable that the prohibition of the recordation and reporting of the Hadīth perpetuated up to the reign of `Umar ibn `Abd al-Azīz who canceled this decision and allowed the recordation of the Hadīth. In addition, he gave back Fadak to its original owners, namely the descendants of Lady Fātimah al-Zahrā'. It can be understood that there is a firm connection between the two matters, since the permission of the reporting of the Hadīth, despite its problems, benefited the Muslims and revealed many facts although it, from another side, aimed at impacting the principles of the School of Ijtihād and enabling it to defend itself against the School of reporting and recording the Hadīth.
The revelation of these facts, in addition to the well-known course of fairness by which `Umar ibn `Abd al-Azīz was characterized, gave excellent fruits. The actuality in the issue of Fadak was shown for `Umar ibn al-Azīz through the reporting of the Hadīth and through the unanimous agreement among the historians and traditionists on the incident that Lady Fātimah al-Zahrā' demanded with Fadak probatively after it had been possessed by her when her father, the Holy Prophet, donated it to her.
Such obviousness in the issue made `Umar ibn `Abd al-Azīz to ponder deeply over the question and as a result, he gave back Fadak to the descendants of Lady Fātimah al-Zahrā' causing the trend of through compliance with the sacred texts to triumph over the trend of Opinionism and Ijtihād.
It has been narrated that `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās said, “After the departure of the Holy Prophet, Abū-Bakr canceled the share of the relatives from the Khums and used it for military affairs.”
Answering the question of Najdah al-Harūriy about the share of the relatives from the Khums, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās is also reported to have said, “We are those ‘relatives’ (to whom a share of the Khums must be given), but our people (i.e. the ruling authorities) rejected to deliver us this share claiming that all people of Quraysh are included with the ‘relatives’.”
Al-Bayhaqiy has also narrated that `Abd al-Rahmān ibn Abī-Ya`liy said: Once, I met (Imam) `Alī at Ahjār al-Zayt and said to him, “May Allah accept my parents as ransoms for you! What did Abū-Bakr and `Umar do as regards the right of the Ahl al-Bayt from the Khums?”
(Imam) `Alī answered, “As `Umar claimed that he had not known for sure the actual share of our right (from the Khums) and thus he would give us a part of it that he would decide according to his own view, we rejected this suggestion and insisted on receiving our share wholly. Yet, he refused to give our share wholly.”
When `Umar ibn al-Khattāb said the same words to him, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās answered him with the same reply of Imam `Alī.
If the Khums was the right of all the Muslims, how was it acceptable for `Uthmān ibn `Affān to give it to `Abdullāh ibn Sarh and to Marwān ibn al-Hakam exclusively on different occasions?
If `Uthmān’s decision was a personal judgment that should be rejected by the Muslims, what for are the majority of the Sunnite jurisprudents not deciding this share from the Khums to the “relatives” of the Holy Prophet?
Manifestly, the fact is something other than what had been decided to be filled in the mentalities of the extremists who sanctified the past generations of the Muslims excessively. Yet, it cannot be discussed now, because such extremists have banned any sort of debate as regards the situations and opinions of the past personalities of Islam. Moreover, they may decide such debates as apostasy!
 Al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 4:340; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 10:263; Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:159 H. 631, 2:452 H. 2916; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:246 H. 12201.
 Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 2:336; Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb: al-Sunnah qabl al-Tadwīn 97; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 39:180; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 10:295 H. 29490.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 1:291 H. 29473; al-Tabarāniy: Musnad al-Shāmiyyīn 3:251; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 26:382.
 Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 3:160; Sahīh Muslim 2:718 H. 1037; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:99; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 19:370 H. 869.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:92 H. 707; Ibn Hazm: al-Ihkām fī Usūl al-Ahkām 6:219.
 Mālik ibn Anas: al-Muwatta' 1:336 H. 40.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:57; Sunan al-Nassā’iy 5:152; al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 1:472; Sunan al-Dārqutniy 2:287 H. 231.
 Hāshiyat al-Sindiy `Alā’l-Nassā'iy 5:152.
 Sunan al-Nassā’iy 5:148.
 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyyah: Zād al-Ma`ād 1:181.
 `Amr ibn `Āsim: Kitāb al-Sunnah 2:602 H. 1350; Tārīkh al-Ya`qūbiy 2:223; Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 4:56; Jawāhir al-Matālib 2:227.
 Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubra 4 :147.
 Moreover, when he entered the holy city of al-Madīnah, al-Hajjāj belittled the companions of the Holy Prophet; he sealed on the hand of Jābir ibn `Abdullāh and on the necks of Anas ibn Mālik and Sahl ibn Sa`d with lead so as to humiliate them. See Tārīkh al-Tabariy 3:543; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb 2:664 No. 1089; Usd al-Ghābah 2:366; al-Muzziy: Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 12:189.
 Qirā’ah is conditional in the validity of prayers, including the obligatory.
Badā’i al-Sanā’i` 1:111; al-Sarakhsiy: al-Mabsūt 1:18, 221.
 Badā’i al-Sanā’i` 1:172.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 7:446.
 Tafsīr al-Tabariy 4:278.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:227; al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 4:335.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Muhallā 5:277 and 229.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal; Al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 1:400-401; al-Haythamiy: Majma` al-Zawā'id 3:69.
 Sunan al-Dārimiy 2:365-366; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:223.
 Kashf al-Ishtibāh 5:27 as quoted from al-`Uyūn wa’l-Mahāsin 2:15 (from al-Jāhidh’s al-Fityā).
 For further details about the issue of Fadak, refer to Fadak in History by Shaheed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, translated by `Abdullāh al-Shahin, Ansariyan Publications – Qum; 1423.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:301, H. 12516.
 In the words of Lady Fātimah al-Zahrā', Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib, and the Holy Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt, there are many indications to this meaning. For instance, Lady Fātimah al-Zahrā', addressing to the ladies of the Muhājirūn and Ansār, said, “The followers know for certain the consequences of that which had been established by the foremost ones.” She is also reported as saying, “You were always waiting the befalling of calamities to us and expecting our bad news.”
 Al-Balādhiriy: Futūh al-Buldān 1:38; Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 16:278; Yāqūt al-Hamawiy: Mu`jam al-Buldān 4:239; Ibn al-Athīr: al-Kāmil fī’l-Tārīkh 2:104-105.
 Musnad Abī-Ya`liy 2:334 H. 1075, 1409; Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 16:268; al-Durr al-Manthūr 5:273-274.
 Al-Tabariy: al-Tafsīr 10:6; al-Jassās: Ahkām al-Qur'ān Chapter: The Distribution of the Khums 3: 60.
 Al-Tabariy: al-Tafsīr 10:5; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:248-249; al-Jassās: Ahkām al-Qur'ān 3:62; Abū-`Ubayd: al-Amwāl.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:344; Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi'iy: al-Musnad Chapter: Spoils of War.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:320; Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:344; Sunan al-Nassā’iy; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd.
 Ibn al-Athīr: al-Kāmil fī’l-Tārīkh 3:91; Tārīkh al-Tabariy as well as many other reference books of Islamic history.
The Perpetuity Of Opinionism And Ijtihād During The Reign Of Mu`āwiyah
Let us now pursue the perpetuity of the trend of Opinionism and Ijtihād—the trend invented by Abū-Bakr and `Umar—during the reigns of Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān and the rulers who came after him. We have previously cited, as has been recorded in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, that it has been narrated that Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān (during his reign) said, “O People: reduce reporting from Messenger of Allah; and when you do, you must report traditions that were known during the reign of `Umar.”
It has been also narrated that al-Yahsubiy said that he once heard Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān saying to the publics, “Beware of spreading the Hadīth except those that were known during the reign of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb for this man used to threaten people for the sake of Almighty Allah.”
Similarly, it has been narrated on the authority of Ibn `Adiy that Ismā`īl ibn `Ubaydullāh confirmed that Mu`āwiyah (ibn Abī-Sufyān) warned people against circulating any tradition that is reported from the Holy Prophet excluding these which were known during the reign of `Umar and admitted by him.
It has been narrated on the authority of Muhammad ibn `Abdullāh that during the season of the Hajj attended by Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān, Sa`d ibn Abī-Waqqās, and al-Dahhāk ibn Qays discussed the issue of connecting the Hajj to the `Umrah. Al-Dahhāk said, “Only those who have no knowledge in the rulings of Almighty Allah will connect the Hajj to the `Umrah.”
Answering him, Sa`d said, “You are totally wrong, brother.”
Al-Dahhāk replied, “Indeed, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb prevented such!”
Sa`d said, “But the Messenger of Allah did it, and we followed him on it.”
Narrating the same report, al-Dārimiy confirmed that Sa`d ibn Abī-Waqqās answered al-Dahhāk ibn Qays by saying, “`Umar is better than I am; but the Holy Prophet did it; and certainly he is better than `Umar ibn al-Khattāb.”
Al-Dahhāk ibn Qays al-Fihiry al-Qirashiy, the tyrant, imitated `Uthmān ibn `Affān in the prevention from the temporary marriage, and `Uthmān had imitated `Umar ibn al-Khattāb. Exceeding them, Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān insisted on the cancellation of this matter so importunely since he believed in the necessity of founding an independent code of law that would be characterized by independent dimensions and foundations in order to be contradictory to the religious laws adopted and followed by the descendants of Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib and the other Sahābah who followed them.
The code of law enacted by Abū-Bakr and `Umar was the ground on which Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān rested in the enactment of his independent code of law. Having been extremely cunning, Mu`āwiyah could understand the necessity of locking the door to the circulation of the Holy Prophet’s Hadīth. He therefore strengthened the personal decisions of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb so that he would be able to construct the substitutive code of law. In my book entitled Wudū' al-Nabiy, I have focused much light on the fact that the Muslim rulers, whether the Umayyads or the `Abbāsids, feared the descendants and followers of `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib very much; they therefore planned to eradicate them; they therefore decided to sketch for the people a code of law opposite to that of `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib so that they would realize the followers of `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib and discriminate them.
Hence, those rulers, in the admission of the religious laws, once followed the opinions of `Umar, and at other times they followed the opinions of `Ā'ishah and then the opinions of Abū-Hurayrah and then the opinions of `Uthmān and so on. The most important aim that they worked for attaining it was to oppose the sayings of Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib and only then would they be able to force all the peoples to follow their decisions. Whenever they intended to eradicate any of the followers of Imam `Alī, they would declare that he had mutinied against the will of the ummah since the laws that he practiced had been opposite to these issued by the ruling authorities and the methods that he followed in the practice of the religious duties had been different from these practiced by the publics. For instance, he rubbed, not washed, his feet in the ritual ablutions, or he extended his hands rather than crossing them in the ritual prayers, and he recited the verses audibly instead of quietly… etc.
As he prohibited the recording and reporting of the Hadīth, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb granted Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān the best opportunity to establish the substitute code of law in the same way as he strengthened the role of the storytellers and the dishonest reporters and encouraged them to fabricate narrations corroborating Mu`āwiyah’s personal opinions and attacking the positions of his enemies. Hence, he ordered those dishonest reporters to fabricate narrations concentrating on the “unfounded” merits of Abū-Bakr, `Umar, and `Uthmān.
For example, it has been narrated that `Amr ibn al-`Ās swore before people that he heard the Messenger of Allah saying, “You should recite (the Holy Qur'ān) in the same way suggested by `Umar (ibn al-Khattāb) and should carry out any command that he would issue!”
Instructing his officials, Mu`āwiyah wrote the following message, “Try to find the followers, fans, and adherents of `Uthmān (ibn `Affān) as well as those who circulate narrations about his merits and virtues. If you find them, you should show favor to them, approach, and honor them. Write back to me the narrations that they report in this regard as well their names and the names of their fathers and their tribes.”
When fabricated narrations about the merits of `Uthmān circulated among people terribly, Mu`āwiyah wrote to his officials, “Narrations about `Uthmān have spread out so excessively that it cover each and every province, city, and down. Hence, after you read this message, I order you to call people to circulate narrations about the merits of the other Sahābah and the first two caliphs (namely Abū-Bakr and `Umar). About all the reports that the Muslims narrate about the merits of Abū-Turāb (i.e. Imam `Alī), you are ordered to contradict all these reports by fabricating opposing ones about the Sahābah.”
This narration has demonstrated the policy of Mu`āwiyah who accepted all the Sahābah except Abū-Turāb—Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib. The matter did not stop at the fabrication of Hadīth in the field of the Sahābah’s merit; rather it crept into the field of the jurisprudence. The following narration, reported by al-Bayhaqiy and Abū-Dāwūd, proves this matter:
Once, Mu`āwiyah said to a group of the Sahābah, “Did the Messenger of Allah prohibited riding on saddles made of skins of tigers?”
“Yes, he did,” answered they.
“I also testify it,” commented Mu`āwiyah who further asked, “Do you know that the Prophet prohibited putting golden things (for men only)?”
“Yes, we know,” answered they.
He then asked, “Do you know that the Prophet prohibited joining the `Umrah to the Hajj?”
“No, we do not,” said they.
He commented, “By Allah, this is indeed with the prohibited matters.”
This is Mu`āwiyah’s method in inducement and depending upon the familiar rulings in sticking fabricated ones to them for purpose of deluding the others.
As he comments on this narration, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said,
“We swear by Almighty Allah that this is a delusion fabricated by Mu`āwiyah or might have been fabricated against him since the Holy Prophet had never prohibited the joining of the `Umrah with the Hajj.”
As a matter of fact, Ibn al-Qayyim has been also mistaken. Like the majority of the Muslims, Ibn al-Qayyim had a favorable idea about Mu`āwiyah and though of him as having been deluded, while delusion is impracticable in such a clear-cut ruling that had been practiced by the Holy Prophet and the Muslims before disagreement about it took place during the reign of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb who prohibited the Muslims to join the `Umrah to the ritual Hajj. It is therefore far-fetched to believe that Mu`āwiyah did not know the actual rulings.
Secondly, instead of claiming that the matter was fabricated against Mu`āwiyah, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah should have decided it as having been fabricated against the Holy Prophet and should have expected it to be a preplanned plot the purpose of which is to found a new code of law opposite to that of Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet. Mu`āwiyah conspired for enlivening the method of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb in issuing personal opinions in the religious questions and repealing other laws commissioned by Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet, but he did not expect that days would expose his lies and reveal his trickeries. In this respect, al-Bukhāriy and Muslim have narrated on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās that Mu`āwiyah once asked him, “Do you know that I have cut the hair of the Holy Prophet (during the Hajj) with an arrowhead?”
`Abdullāh ibn `Abbās answered, “Although I do not know this piece of information, it acts as an argument against you!”
As he fabricated that incident, Mu`āwiyah wanted to prove that he was so close to the Holy Prophet that he shaved his head personally, yet he forgot that his claim had been contradictory to his decision of the prohibition of joining the `Umrah to the Hajj.
In Sahīh Muslim, it has been narrated that Sa`d ibn Abī-Waqqās, when was asked about the legality of the temporary marriage, said, “We practiced the temporary marriage when this one had no faith in the Lord of the Divine Throne (`Arsh) (or: this one was faithless in Makkah).”The narrator of this report mentioned that Sa`d, by saying “this one” meant the house of Makkah, but another reporter confirmed that he meant Mu`āwiyah.
The fans of Mu`āwiyah distorted the pronunciation of the word “`arsh” into “`urush” so that it would mean “houses of Makkah” instead of “the Divine Throne.”
Sa`d ibn Abī-Waqqās—the grand Sahābiy, the conqueror of Iraq, and one of the members of the Shūrā Committee whom were nominated by `Umar ibn al-Khattāb for the caliphate—opposed Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān on more than once occasion. This Sahābiy and those who enjoyed the like of his position could object to Mu`āwiyah’s personal opinions, while the other people could not stand in his face. Yet, even those grand Sahābah, such as `Imrān ibn al-Husayn, and `Abādah ibn al-Sāmit, feared the oppression of the rulers, like `Umar ibn al-Khattāb and `Uthmān ibn `Affān, in general and Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān, the well-known of his cunning and trickeries, in particular whenever they objected to them.
It has been narrated that `Imrān ibn al-Husayn had to expose a secret that suppressed him during the reigns of Abū-Bakr, `Umar, and `Uthmān. When he was in the last sparks of his life, he conveyed that secret to Mutrif. Let us now present the whole story as has been narrated by Muslim and other Hadīthists on the authority of Mutrif:
As he was in his final ailment, `Imrān ibn Husayn summoned me. When I was present before him, he said to me, “I will convey to you some facts hoping that Almighty Allah will make you benefit by them after me. If I live, I want you to keep them secret, but I will die, you may circulate them. Be it known to you that the Prophet of Allah joined the `Umrah to the Hajj and this act has not been repealed in the Holy Qur'ān, and the Holy Prophet did not prohibit it at all. Yet, someone expressed his personal opinion in this regard.”
According to another form of the narrative, Mutrif said that `Imrān ibn al-Husayn said to him, “I will convey to you a matter hoping that Almighty Allah will make you benefit by it in the future. Be it known to you that the Messenger of Allah performed the `Umrah during the season of the Hajj, and this act has not been repealed by a verse from the Holy Qur'ān and the Messenger of Allah himself did not prohibit it. Yet, when he passed away, some men followed their personal opinions in the question.”
`Imrān ibn al-Husayn conveyed this matter while he was afraid of the inconvenience of this conveyance; he therefore asked Mutrif to retain the matter so that it may help him in the next days. He also ordered Mutrif to keep it secret if he (`Imrān) would recover. This state of fear and suspect proves manifestly that most of the Sahābah did not admit the deeds of Abū-Bakr, `Umar, `Uthmān, and Mu`āwiyah.
Discourse Of Ibn Qayyim About Temporary Marriage
Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah has attempted to bring into agreement the contradictory narrations about the temporary marriage. He says,
Some people argue the legality of the temporary marriage through citing the following two reports as their evidence:
(First) Muslim (al-Nīsāpūriy), in al-Sahīh, has recorded that Jābir ibn `Abdullāh al-Ansāriy said, “During the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah and the reign of Abū-Bakr, we used to practice the temporary marriage and the dowries were even a handful of dates and a handful of flour. This lasted until `Umar (ibn al-Khattāb) prohibited the temporary marriage in the issue of `Amr ibn Hurayth.”
(Second) It has been authentically narrated that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb said, “The temporary marriage and the performance of the `Umrah during the Hajj season (Mut`at al-Hajj) are two permissions that were practiced during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah, but I now declare them as prohibited!”
Answering this argument, people have had two replies: (First) Some people argue that it is true that it was `Umar ibn al-Khattāb who prohibited these two legal matters, but the Messenger of Allah ordered us to follow the sunnah of the Rāshidite Caliphs! Nevertheless, this group of people have not decided the authenticity of the report of Sabarah ibn Mu`īn entailing that the temporary marriage was prohibited in the year of the Conquest of Makkah, because it has been reported by `Abd al-Malik ibn al-Rabī` ibn Sabarah on the authority of his father on the authority of his grandfather. Ibn Mu`īn, a biographer, has criticized this reporter. Besides, although al-Bukhāriy was in need for the report of `Abd al-Malik, he has evaded recording it in his book. This means that had al-Bukhāriy deemed authentic this report, he would have certainly recorded it and used it as his proof. It has been also said that had the report of Sabarah been true, it would have been known by `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd who narrated that the Muslims during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet practiced the temporary marriage and provided the holy verse as the proof on his claim. In addition, had the report of Sabarah been authentic, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb would have said, in the declaration of his prohibition of the temporary marriage, that the Holy Prophet prohibited and warned against it; rather he said that these two practices (i.e. the temporary marriage and the Mut`at al-Hajj) were legally practiced during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet but he, `Umar, would prohibit them and sentence to punishment those who would practice them. It has been also said that had the report of Sabarah been authentic, the temporary marriage would not have been practiced legally during the reign of Abū-Bakr which is considered the continuity of the reign of the Messenger of Allah.
(Second) Another group of people have deemed authentic the report of Sabarah for it is supported by the report of (Imam) `Alī that reads, “The Messenger of Allah has prohibited the temporary marriage.” Accordingly, we have to decide that Jābir ibn `Abdullāh al-Ansāriy did not know about the prohibition because this decision was not circulated among the people up to the reign of `Umar when disputations about the temporary marriage floated noticeably. The previous discussion has thus removed any contradiction in the reports regarding the prohibition of the temporary marriage.
The previous discussion of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah must be exposed to some notices. He should have informed us how the prohibition of the temporary marriage has been declared by the Holy Prophet and reported by Imam `Alī. Only then would it be acceptable for Ibn Qayyim to cite Imam `Alī’s report as his proof on the prohibition of the temporary marriage. It is well-known for everybody that Imam `Alī and his cousin, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, were on the top of those who encouraged the temporary marriage; and the Holy Imams defended it all over history.
Hence, it is completely ironic that while Imam `Alī is reported to have prohibited the temporary marriage, the rulers disputed with his sons and asked for proofs on the legality of the temporary marriage as well as many other religious issues.
Besides, the adherents of Imam `Alī are being criticized fiercely because they argue the legality of the temporary marriage and, similarly, the Shī`ite Muslims are being attacked for this point in particular.
On the other side, the reference books of Hadīth of both the Sunnite and Shī`ite Muslims have reported from Imam `Alī various narrations about the legality of the temporary marriage through miscellaneous ways of narration. The followers of the trend of the thorough compliance with the sacred texts have unanimously agreed upon this fact, while the aforementioned report of the prohibition and its likes have been reported by the fans of the School of Opinionism and Ijtihād only.
As has been previously confirmed, the ruling authorities and their fans exerted all possible efforts in ascribing the decisions that they personally issued and favored to the grand Sahābah who objected to the caliphs openly in order that the baseless judgments of the caliphs would be corroborated, yet falsely, by the sayings of great personalities like Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib, `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, Sa`d ibn Abī-Waqqās, and others. This is the explanation of one of the phenomena of the contradiction in the reports of the Opinionists from a Sahābiy, especially those who opposed the Ijtihād and personal judgments of Abū-Bakr and `Umar. Such contradiction is the reporting from a Sahābiy indicates to the existence of an extension of another course as regards the Islamic laws. From this cause, I have more than once concentrated on the necessity of investigating the confusables in the reporting of the Hadīth since such investigations will acquaint us with the rulers (i.e. caliphs) who adopted these opinions and the personalities whom were given the biggest role in the enactment of Islamic laws, such as `Ā'ishah and whether those were objected by the Sahābah or not. Such being the case, it will be possible to be on familiar terms with the hidden threads of the enactment of the religious laws as well as the place and time of the issuance of these laws and the confusables of verdicts and opinions.
If the issue of the temporary marriage is taken for instance, the extension of the two trends will manifest itself. `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, Sa`d ibn Abī-Waqqās, Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib, Abū-Mūsā al-Ash`ariy, and many other Sahābah—all these did not accept `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s decision of the prohibition of the temporary marriage that was based upon nothing other than that `Umar did not like it!
It is thus natural that the fans of `Umar, in order to strengthen the trend of the ruling authorities, have ascribed the prohibition of the temporary marriage to `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, Imam `Alī, and even `Abdullāh son of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb. As a result, a researcher has to investigate methodically all the sayings as regard the rulings of the temporary marriage especially after studying `Umar’s decision of the prohibition of the temporary marriage. A researcher is also required to study whether the law of the legality of the temporary marriage was actually repealed or Imam `Alī and `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās did really prohibit it in addition to the other matters that were fabricated for purpose of backing the opinion and decision of the ruler.
All the historical, traditional, Sunnite, and Shī`ite texts have manifestly proven the falsehood of such reports. For instance, let us cite the following narration:
It has been narrated that `Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, once, came to `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās and asked him, “You have very frequently misled the people!”
“How is that, `Urwah?” asked Ibn `Abbās.
“You claim that a man who enters into the state of Ihrām will have it accomplished after he performs the ritual circumambulation of the Ka`bah. Abū-Bakr and `Umar prohibited this.”
Ibn `Abbās answered, “Woe is you! Do you regard Abū-Bakr and `Umar as preferred to the texts of the Book of Allah and the Holy Prophet’s instructions to the Sahābah and the Muslims?”
`Urwah replied, “Abū-Bakr and `Umar were more knowledgeable in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet than you are and I am.”
It has been also narrated on the authority of Ayyūb that `Urwah said to `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, “Will you not fear Allah as you are deciding the legality of the temporary marriage?”
`Abdullāh ibn `Abbās answered, “You may ask you mother about this!”
`Urwah said, “Abū-Bakr and `Umar did not allow it.”
`Abdullāh ibn `Abbās commented, “By Allah I swear that you will not stop this until Almighty Allah will chastise you! I convey to you the decision of the Holy Prophet and you say that Abū-Bakr and `Umar did so-and-so!”
In the aforementioned narration, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās asked `Urwah to ask his mother, Asmā' daughter of Abū-Bakr, about the legality of the temporary marriage because al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwām, `Urwah’s father, had married her the temporary marriage and thus she gave birth of `Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr. This matter is recorded by al-Rāghib in his famous book of Muhādarāt al-Udabā'.
It has been also narrated on the authority of Abū-Nadrah that one day a man came to Jābir ibn `Abdullāh al-Ansāriy and asked him why `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās and `Urwah ibn al-Zubayr had disagreed about the ruling appertained to the temporary marriage.
Replying him, Jābir said, “When we were with the Holy Prophet, we practiced the temporary marriage, but when it was prohibited by `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, we stopped.”
The presentation of the aforementioned narrations of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās is aimed at acquainting the gentle readers with the fact that the narrations ascribed to `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās and the other grand Sahābah about the illegality of the temporary marriage have been fabricated, since such narrations would support the trend of the caliphs and contradict the opinions of those who objected to the caliphs and their trend of Opinionism and Ijtihād.
It has been well known that Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān was the first to nourish the spirit of malice against the Ahl al-Bayt since he publicly and formally decided that Imam `Alī and `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās would be cursed during the sermons of the Friday Prayers as well as the other religious occasions. In the same course, Mu`āwiyah exerted all efforts in distorting the religious laws because `Alī called for and followed the genuine religious laws as exactly as have been revealed from Almighty Allah. In plain words, Mu`āwiyah changed the Islamic laws out of his malice against Imam `Alī. Accordingly, it is natural that the opinions of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās and `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib are opposite to those decided by the ruling authorities since all the rulers of the Islamic State, such as the Umayyad and the `Abbāsid dynasties, adopted the opinions of Abū-Bakr, `Umar, `Uthmān, and `Ā'ishah as well as the opinions of anyone who would violate the true religious laws that were adopted by Imam `Alī so long as the descendants and adherents of Imam `Alī were the opposition.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 1:291.
 Sahīh Muslim 2:718 H. 98.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:99; al-Dhahbiy: Tadhkirat al-Huffādh 1:7; Ibn `Adiy: al-Kāmil.
 Al-Dahhāk ibn Qays al-Fihiry al-Qirashiy was the commander of the constabularies of Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān. He was born seven years before the demise of the Holy Prophet. As he was chosen for this office, he participated in the campaigns led by Mu`āwiyah. He therefore attacked Iraq and the caravans of the Hājjis and robbed their luggage. He performed the funeral of Mu`āwiyah. He then swore allegiance to `Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr after he had sworn allegiance to Yazīd, son of Mu`āwiyah. As he fought against Marwān ibn al-Hakam, he was killed in Marj-Rāhit in AH 64.
 al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 5:17; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyyah: Zād al-Ma`ād 1:179.
 Sunan al-Dārimiy 2:35-36.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 12: 593 H. 35844.
 Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 1:44.
 Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Nahj al-Balāghah 11:44-45.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubra 5:20; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 2:913 H. 209.
 Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah: Zād al-Ma`ād 1:189.
 Among the rituals of the Hajj is the having one’s hair cut. In this regard, the Holy Qur'ān reads: “And complete the Hajj or `Umrah in the service of Allah. But if ye are prevented from completing it, send an offering for sacrifice, such as ye may find, and do not shave your heads until the offering reaches the place of sacrifice. 2/196”
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 2:214; Sahīh Muslim 2:913 H. 209.
 Sahīh Muslim 2:898 H. 1225.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:181 H. 1568; al-Musnad al-Mustakhraj `Alā Sahīh Muslim 3:324 H. 2841; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 3:566.
 Among those fans are al-Khattābiy, in Islāh Ghalat al-Muhaddithīn 338, and al-Suyūtiy, in al-Tatrīf fī al-Tashīf 31. For further details, refer to Abū-`Ubayd: Gharīb al-Hadīth 4:20-21; al-Mashāriq 2:79; al-Nawawiy: Sharh Sahīh Muslim 8:204 and Ibn al-Jaqziy: al-Gharīb 2:81.
 Sahīh Muslim 2:899; al-Nawawiy: Sharh Sahīh Muslim 7:456.
 Al-Nawawiy: Sharh Sahīh Muslim 8:455.
 This holy verse is: “And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content by marrying them, give unto them their portions as a duty. 4/24”
 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah: Zād al-Ma`ād 2:184.
 For instance, see Shaykh al-Sadūq: `Uyūn Akhbār al-Ridā 1:132.
 Al-Haythamiy: Majma` al-Zawā'id 3:234; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 1:11 H. 21.
 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah: Zād al-Ma`ād 1:213; Ibn Hazm al-Andalusiy: Hijjat al-Wadā` 353 H. 391; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Tamhīd 8:208.
 Al-Rāghib al-Isfahāniy: Muhādarāt al-Udabā' 3:213; Ibn `Abd-Rabbih al-Andalusiy: al-`Iqd al-Farīd 2:139.
 Sahīh Muslim 2:914 H. 1249, 2:1023 H. 1405; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 7:206 H. 13947; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 9:174.
The Rulers and the Jurisprudential Normalization
Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi`iy, in his book of Kitāb al-Umm, has recorded on the authority of `Ubayd ibn Rafā`ah that when Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān, the ruler, came to al-Madīnah, he led the congregational prayer in which he neither recited “Bism-illāhir-rahmānir-rahīm (In the Name of Allah, the All-compassionate the All-merciful)” nor said “Allāhu-Akbar” whenever he prostrated himself or stood up.
When he finished the prayer, the Muhājirūn and Ansār shouted at him, “Mu`āwiyah! Have you stolen your prayer? Where is the Basmalah and the Takbīr?”
He therefore led another prayer in which he performed the things that he had missed in his first prayer.
He then said, “Now, this prayer comprises the things for the missing of which they have criticized me!”
It has been also narrated on the authority of Anas ibn Mālik that when Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān visited the holy city of al-Madīnah, he led a congregational prayer in which he recited the Basmalah for the Sūrah of al-Fātihah but did not recite it for the other Sūrah. He also did not recite Takbīr when he prostrated himself and when he stood for the other Rak`ahs. When he finished, all the Muhājirūn shouted from everywhere, “Mu`āwiyah! Have you stolen the prayer or you forgotten it?” Hence, when he led another prayer, he recited the Basmalah and the Takbīr.
It has been narrated that al-Zuhriy, a grand Sunnite jurisprudent and a founder of a school of Sunnite jurisprudence, said, “`Amr ibn Sa`īd ibn al-`Ās was the first to recite the Basmalah with inaudible voice (during the ritual congregational prayers) in al-Madīnah.”
Commenting on al-Zuhriy’s previous narration, al-Fakhr al-Rāziy says,
`Amr ibn Sa`īd ibn al-`Ās became the governor of al-Madīnah during the reign of Yazīd ibn Mu`āwiyah. Hence, many people followed him in the matter of canceling the Basmalah in the ritual prayers. In this respect, Yahyā ibn Ju`dah, referring to the cancellation of the Basmalah, says, “Satan could steal a verse from the leaders of the congregational prayers.” Al-Zuhriy has also said about the same matter, “The people have neglected a verse from the Holy Book of Almighty Allah.” Mujāhid has also said about the same matter, “The people have forgotten the actual matter that was followed in the past. All the matters that were innovated after the age when the act of Mu`āwiyah was denied by the Muslims are worthless. Because people have no longer denied them, the innovated things have become circulating and become commonly acceptable. Hence, one must depend upon the deeds of the scholars, not the rulers and their officials.”
It may be said that had this matter been baseless, the scholars would have denied it. To answer this, the scholars did deny this matter when it was practiced by Mu`āwiyah who, as a consequence, retreated. But when the authority became in the hands of other tyrannical governors who presided over the holy city of al-Madīnah—such as al-Ashdaq, al-Hajjāj, Hubaysh ibn Dalajah, and their likes—the scholars could no longer object to them for fear of their persecution, or other scholars might have objected to such matters but nobody listened to them. As a result, the others accepted the matter as they though of it as permissible. Although such matters are considered negligence of the Holy Prophet’s instructions, it is lawful to neglect them. Hence, the scholars accepted it in order to avoid sedition.
Commenting on the following words of `Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr, “Nothing but arrogance has prevented the governors of al-Madīnah from reciting the Basmalah in the prayers,” al-Fakhr al-Rāziy further said,
`Amr ibn Sa`īd ibn al-Ashdaq, the first ruler of al-Madīnah who canceled the Basmalah in the congregational prayers, did that because he wanted to violate Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr, who decided it, in everything including this act. Having imitated al-Ashdaq, all the rulers of al-Madīnah whom were appointed by the Marwānids canceled the Basmalah.
It is thus not unacceptable that `Amr ibn Sa`īd al-Ashdaq who besieged Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr in Makkah and negotiated with him through messengers wanted to violate him in everything including the cancellation of the Basmalah in the congregational prayers. The same thing is applicable to al-Hajjāj who also besieged him in Makkah after he had demolished the Holy Ka`bah and taken out the sacred Black Stone from there. Moreover, the question of reading the Basmalah audibly or inaudibly is argumentative. In this respect, it has been narrated that Bakr ibn `Abdullāh al-Muzaniy said, “As I followed `Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr in a congregational prayer, he recited the Basmalah audibly.” According to another narration, “`Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr used to recite the Basmalah in the congregational prayers audibly and used to say that nothing but arrogance has prevented you from reciting it audibly.”
Before the aforesaid presentation, al-Fakhr al-Rāziy has cited the following narration: It has been narrated on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ishāq al-Musayyabiy that his father, once, recited the Basmalah audibly in a prayer that he had offered in al-Madīnah. Immediately, al-A`shā Abū-Bakr, the nephew of Mālik ibn Anas, came to him and said, “Mālik ibn Anas sends his compliments to you and say that you have been the last one that he expects to violate the religious rituals followed by the people of al-Madīnah.”
Ishāq al-Musayyabiy asked, “What for has he said this to me?”
Al-A`shā answered, “This is because you have recited the Basmalah audibly in the prayer.”
Ishāq answered, “Well, send my compliments to Mālik in the same way as he has done and say to him that I have very frequently heard him ordering us not to follow the scholars of Iraq as regards the religious laws since he claimed that none of our master scholars have ever followed them. Yet, it is Hamīd al-Tawīl, the Iraqi scholar, who canceled the audible recitation of the Basmalah in prayers. Hence, if he (i.e. Mālik ibn Anas) wants us to follow the scholars of Iraq, we will follow them in this question as well as others, otherwise we will neglect this very question and the others. Hence, Mālik’s claim against me is rejected. Besides, I have very frequently heard him ordering us to take a field of knowledge from its people. Depending upon this instruction, I have asked Ibn Abī-Nu`aym, the most experienced in the knowledge of the Holy Qur'ān in al-Madīnah, about the question and he ordered me to recite the Basmalah audibly in the prayers, saying, ‘I swear that the Basmalah is one of the verses of the Sūrah of al-Fātihah and I swear that Almighty Allah has revealed it. Nāfi`, the manumitted slave of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, narrated to me that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar used to recite the Basmalah at the beginning of each Sūrah.’”
From the aforecited narration, we conclude that the trend of Opinionism and Ijtihād and the trend of thorough compliance with the sacred texts both influenced the jurisprudents of the other ages. Mālik ibn Anas, the jurisprudent of the ruling authorities, did not recite the Basmalah before reciting the verses of the Holy Qur'ān while Ishāq al-Musayyabiy believed that the Holy Prophet and the Sahābah did recite it before the recitation of any Sūrah.
It is worth mentioning in this respect that the majority of the jurisprudents of al-Madīnah violated the Ahl al-Bayt in the issuance of religious rulings, while the majority of the jurisprudents of Iraq agreed with them. It is also well-known that Mālik ibn Anas was, once, summoned by al-Mansūr, the `Abbāsid ruler, who ordered him, saying, “Write down your knowledge of the religious laws in a book and to avoid the ‘improper’ opinions of `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd and the ‘permissions’ of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās and the ‘rigid’ verdicts of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar. You must also follow the middle opinion in each issue as well as the opinions that were proven by the master jurisprudents and the Sahābah so that we will order the people to follow and act upon your knowledge and books, to distribute them in the provinces of the state, and to order them not to violate your verdicts and not to issue anything else.”
Answering the ruler, Mālik said, “The people of Iraq do not accept my knowledge and do not accept my opinions.”
According to another narration, Mālik ibn Anas was summoned and asked by al-Mansūr to unify ‘one’ (i.e. unified) knowledge. Mālik answered, “Because the companions of the Messenger of Allah scattered in various countries, each one issued judgments out of his own personal deduction. Consequently, the people of Makkah have had their own laws, the people of al-Madīnah have had their own laws and so have the people of Iraq.”
Al-Mansūr commented, “As for the people of Iraq, I do not accept any item from them, while the actual knowledge is found with the people of al-Madīnah. Accordingly, you must now begin founding the ‘knowledge’ (that would be imposed upon people to follow)!”
As has been previously mentioned and proven by many words said by the Holy Imams, the jurisprudence of the people of al-Madīnah is generally opposite to the jurisprudence of the Ahl al-Bayt, whereas the jurisprudence of the people of Iraq is generally agreeing with the Ahl al-Bayt although the people of Iraq accepted personal opinions in the issuance of religious laws and were influenced by the reports that were fabricated and circulated by the ruling authorities. From this cause, al-Mansūr, the `Abbāsid ruler, said the aforementioned words about them.
In his missive to Layth ibn Sa`d the master jurisconsult of Egypt, Mālik ibn Anas said,
“May Allah have mercy upon you! Be it known to you that I have been informed that you are issuing verdicts opposite to the laws followed by the people in our country. Although we trust you and confess of your virtuousness… etc.”
Undoubtedly, the ruling authorities, both the Umayyads and the `Abbāsids, exerted all efforts for opposing the jurisprudence of the Ahl al-Bayt. The aforesaid narrations are clear-cut proofs on this fact. However, not all the situations of the Umayyad and the `Abbāsid rulers about the rulings appertained to the Basmalah were quoted from Abū-Bakr and `Umar; rather some of these situations were quoted from Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān, `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān, al-Mansūr, and others. This matter and its likes must be recognized by the researchers in this field.
It has been narrated that Ja`far ibn Muhammad (Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq) has said,
“The Household of Prophet Muhammad agreed unanimously on the reciting of the Basmalah audibly in prayers.”
Similarly, Abū-Ja`far Muhammad ibn `Alī (Imam Muhammad al-Bāqir) has said,
“It is improper to follow in a congregational prayer an imam who does not recite the Basmalah audibly.”
Imam `Alī al-Ridā is reported to have said,
“All the descendants of Prophet Muhammad have agreed unanimously on the ruling that the Basmalah must be recited audibly (in prayers).”
Imam al-Sajjād is reported to have said,
“We, the descendants of (Lady) Fātimah, have agreed unanimously on the ruling that the Basmalah must be recited audibly (in prayers).”
It has been also narrated that the Holy Messenger of Allah, Imam `Alī, Imam al-Hasan, Imam al-Husayn, Imam `Alī ibn al-Husayn, Imam Muhammad ibn `Alī, and Imam Ja`far ibn Muhammad—all recited the Basmalah audibly during the prayers in the beginning of the Sūrah of al-Fātihah and the other one that comes next at each Rak`ah.
Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq is reported as saying,
“Taqiyyah is the religion of my fathers and me. Yet, I do not use it in three matters… in the audible recitation of the Basmalah.”
It has been narrated on the authority of Abū-Hurayrah that the Holy Prophet used to recite the Basmalah audibly, but people neglected that after him.
Al-Tabarāniy and Ahmad ibn Hanbal have recorded on the authority of `Abbād ibn `Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr that `Uthmān ibn `Affān used to offer the Dhuhr (midday), `Asr (afternoon), and `Ishā' (evening) obligatory Prayers in the complete form (i.e. four Rak`ahs for each). Only when he would be at Minā and on Mount `Arafāt, he would offer the prayers in the shortened form. Then, when he would accomplish the Hajj rituals and reside in Minā, he would again offer the prayers in the complete form until he would leave Makkah.
When Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān, having been the ruler, visited Makkah, he led the Dhuhr congregational Prayer therein and offered it in the shortened form (i.e. in two Rak`ahs only). When he finished, Marwān ibn al-Hakam and `Amr ibn `Uthmān said to him, “None has ever dishonored your cousin (`Uthmān ibn `Affān) in a way more disgraceful than what you have just done!”
“How is that?” asked Mu`āwiyah.
They said, “You should have known that `Uthmān used to offer the prayers in the complete form at Makkah.”
Mu`āwiyah replied, “Woe to you! I have done the correct thing! When I followed the Messenger of Allah, Abū-Bakr, and `Umar in the congregational prayers like this one, they offered them in the complete, not shortened, form.”
They answered, “Nevertheless, your cousin offered the like of this prayer in this place in the complete form; and to violate him is dishonor!”
Accordingly, Mu`āwiyah led the `Asr congregational Prayer in the complete form!”
At all times, the ruling authorities followed this very policy. They always retreated from doing what they had known from the Holy Prophet and followed their own caprices whenever the compliance with the instructions of the Holy Prophet would oppose their sectarian or tribal regulations!
It has been narrated on the authority of al-Hasan (al-Basriy) that while he was in Damascus, `Abādah ibn al-Sāmit, one of the companions of the Holy Prophet, saw the people of Syria sell silver vessels in a usurious manner. He therefore went towards those sellers and shouted, “O People: I introduce myself to those who do not know me. I am `Abādah ibn al-Sāmit. I heard the Messenger of Allah once saying, while he was sitting with a group of the Ansār on a Thursday night that was just before the beginning of the holy month of Ramadān: Gold is for gold in everything, be it in measure or in barter, and whatever addition is made, it will be usury.” As a result, people scattered.
When Mu`āwiyah was informed about this incident, he summoned `Abādah ibn al-Sāmit and said to him, “If you actually accompanied and heard from the Messenger of Allah, we also accompanied and heard from him.”
`Abādah answered, “I did accompany and hear from him.”
Mu`āwiyah said, “Keep this Hadīth secret and do not mention it any more.”
`Abādah replied, “I will not. I will keep spreading this Hadīth in defiance of Mu`āwiyah.” He then left.
Mu`āwiyah commented, “As for the companions of Muhammad, I cannot find anything better than pardoning them.”
A little ponderation over this narration demonstrates that `Abādah ibn al-Sāmit enjoyed remarkable perspicacity. As he had recognized the unfounded justifications of the Opinionists and the adopters of Ijtihād who claimed the cancellation of any religious law that they would violate, he assured that he had heard the Holy Prophet directly and in the last of his holy lifetime deciding such deals as forbidden since they are usurious. Accordingly, the claim that such ruling was repealed would be impracticable because the laws that were decided in the last of the Holy Prophet’s lifetime are final and not subjected to cancellation. From this cause, `Abādah ibn al-Sāmit mentioned the very day on which the Holy Prophet declared the ruling.
Recording the same report, al-Bayhaqiy and al-Qurtubiy have narrated that when Mu`āwiyah was informed of `Abādah’s report, he summoned the people and delivered a speech in which he said,
“What is the matter with some people who are spreading reports from the Messenger of Allah that we have not heard from him although we were accompanying him and witnessing his actions?”
On hearing this, `Abādah ibn al-Sāmit stood up and repeated the same story, saying,
“I will most certainly report all that which I have heard from the Messenger of Allah even if Mu`āwiyah will not like this, and I do not care if this will cause me to accompany his policemen at a gloomy night.”
Hence, Mu`āwiyah could not accuse `Abādah ibn al-Sāmit of telling lies directly because the latter mentioned the very time and place when and where the Holy Prophet declared that ruling. Rather, Mu`āwiyah claimed that he had not heard this report and its likes from the Holy Prophet after he had been unable to claim that the report was repealed and could not belie the reporter.
In the same respect, al-Wāfī al-Mahdi, quoting Mālik ibn Anas in al-Muwatta', has narrated that Marwān ibn al-Hakam decided the three-time divorce that was said on the same occasion as valid. Likewise, al-Zarqāniy has narrated that the Holy Prophet decided the invalidity of the divorce that is said one time only and also decided the invalidity of the divorce that is said three times on the same occasion. Rather, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb decided the three-time divorce that was said on the same occasion as valid.
It has been also narrated that Marwān ibn al-Hakam, once, summoned `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās and said to him, “How do you issue the verdict that the blood money for the fingers is ten dirhams for each, while you know that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb had issued the verdict that the blood money for the thumb is fifteen (or thirteen) dirhams, and for the index finger is twelve (or ten) dirhams, and for the middle finger is ten dirhams, and for the ring finger is nine dirhams and for the little finger is six dirhams?”
Answering him, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās said, “May Allah have mercy upon `Umar! Whose verdict should I follow; the Holy Prophet or `Umar?”
In the same way as Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān imitated `Uthmān ibn `Affān in the question of the performance of the `Asr Prayer, Marwān ibn al-Hakam imitated `Umar ibn al-Khattāb in the validity of the three-time divorce that is said on the same occasion and the blood money for the fingers.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal has narrated on the authority of Abu’l-Natāj on the authority of Hamrān ibn Abān that Mu`āwiyah once saw some people offering supererogatory prayers after the `Asr Prayer; he therefore said to them, “You are offering a prayer that we have never seen the Prophet offering it throughout our company with him; rather he prohibited this two-Rak`ah prayer that is offered after the `Asr Prayer.”
Earlier in this book, we have cited narrations about `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s prohibiting the offering of such a prayer.
This was the method of the ruling authorities. The majority of the narrations that they ascribed to the Holy Prophet was fabricated to suit their own opinions, especially those adopted by Abū-Bakr and `Umar, in the various religious and political fields.
This was the general policy of the social life and the administrative system of the Islamic caliphate beginning with the Salāt al-Tarāwīh and continuing to include other personal judgments.
Discussing the Salāt al-Tarāwīh, Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy says that narrations have confirmed that it was invented in AH 14. On the same year, `Umar, through missives, ordered the Muslims in the various countries to perform it and ordered that two leaders—one for men and other for women—must be appointed for leading this congregational prayer.
Similarly, Dr. Mustafā al-A`dhamiy, quoting the words of some Pakistani scholars who have criticized and denied the adherence to the Holy Sunnah completely and as a source of the Islamic legislation, says,
Those scholars have claimed that the basic error in which the Muslims have fallen since the Rāshidite Caliphate and up to now is that they did not understand Islam and its spirit. Islam is in reality a social system based upon consultancy (Shūrā). The Qur'ān orders us of general matters leaving its details to the Muslims’ Consultative Council whose mission is to decide the way of performing the prayer and the rate of the Zakāt according to spatio-temporal circumstances. As they understood this very meaning, Abū-Bakr, ``Umar, and the other Rāshidite Caliphs used to seek advice from the Sahābah; whenever they realized that the (divine) commission, any commission, required an addition, they would decide that addition, and whenever they realized that change would not be necessary, they would keep the (divine) commission as it is. Had the Sunnah of the Prophet been perpetual, the Prophet would have given us a written form of it. The verse that reads,
“Obey Allah and obey the Messenger,” [Holy Qur’ān: 4/59]
does not mean that we should obey the Sunnah of the Messenger since his Sunnah does not carry the elements of perpetuity and survival; rather the verse means that we should obey the system to which the Qur'ān referred and which was represented by the Messenger during his lifetime. This system is the establishment of the Caliphate according to the Prophethood. This system continued during the reigns of the Rāshidite Caliphs; but when the Umayyad dynasty emerged as the rulers and politicians, the situation was changed, because those rulers put a separating boundary between the religion and policy.
In as much as people did not understand the actual meaning of the obedience to the Messenger, they went towards the Hadīths because the Qur'ān comprised a few laws only while the necessities of life increased to a great extent. Hence, one of the duties of the caliphate that followed the method of the Prophethood was the meeting of all the social necessities in the innovated issues. However, the nonexistence of a state in this very concept made people depend upon the Hadīths, and when the Hadīths were insufficient, the situation became increasingly more complicated!
It is probable that the motivation of the utterance of such words has been the prohibition of recording the Hadīth that was issued by Abū-Bakr and `Umar and then their calls for the practice of Ijtihād and the stopping at the Book of Almighty Allah –“Sufficient unto us is the Book of Allah”- and the like personal decisions that are too much to be covered in this book.
Had the rulers (i.e. the caliphs) submitted to the right and avoided intruding themselves in the Islamic legislation, this would have certainly saved the Muslims from discrepancies about the Hadīth and the religious laws and they would not have required Ra’y (Opinionism), Qiyās (analogy) and their likes which caused, in some causes, the changing of the lawful into unlawful and the unlawful into lawful. Moreover, Islam would have been stable and saved from multiplicity in trends and notions.
The one and only purpose of those caliphs was to prevent the Ahl al-Bayt from practicing their divinely commissioned role in the issuance of religious laws and the elucidation of Almighty Allah’s rulings. This is because those caliphs thought that such functions, if practiced by the Ahl al-Bayt, would pave the way for taking them (i.e. the caliphs) away from their positions.
If some of the Muslims have pretended, for achieving political interests, to neglect the Hadīths appertained to the divinely commissioned leadership of the Holy Imams and their succeeding of the Holy Prophet, they will not be able to pretend that they have not heard of the Holy Prophet’s famous saying about Imam `Alī:
“I am the city of knowledge, and `Alī is the door to that city.”
Similarly, they cannot deny the unparalleled relationship of Imam `Alī to the Holy Prophet and they cannot deny Imam `Alī’s unprecedented truthfulness in conveying the sayings of the Holy Prophet about whom Imam `Alī has said,
“The Messenger of Allah taught me one thousand fields of knowledge; and each field takes to other one thousand fields of knowledge.”
If truth be told, the Muslims should have referred to Imam `Alī and the other grand Sahābah who retained, safeguarded, and recorded the Holy Sunnah in private comprehensive books so that they would refer to them in the religious questions. Everybody knows for sure that Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib, after the departure of the Holy Prophet, dedicated all his time and efforts to the study of the religious knowledge. He therefore recorded the Holy Qur'ān and the traditions of the Holy Prophet in the tablets that he kept for recording whatever was revealed to the Holy Prophet and whatever the Holy Prophet had said about the explanation of these revelations.
 Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfī`iy: Kitāb al-Umm 1:108; al-Rāfi`iy: al-Tadwīn fī Akhbār Qazwīn 1:154; Sunan al-Dāraqutniy 1:311; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 1:233; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan 2:50.
 Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfī`iy: Kitāb al-Umm 1:108; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 2:49; al-Suyūtiy: Tārīkh al-Khulafā' 200; al-Shawkāniy: Nayl al-Awtār 2:266. (According to this reference book, Sa`īd ibn al-Musayyab, a grand Sahābiy, said, ‘Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān was the first to violate the Takbīr in the ritual prayers.’)
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 2:50 H. 2240; Siyar A`lām al-Nubalā' 5:434.
 Al-Fakhr al-Rāziy: Ahkām al-Basmalah 76.
 `Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr led a mutiny against the Umayyad rulers in Makkah and then he was murdered therein.
 Al-Fakhr al-Rāziy: Ahkām al-Basmalah 76; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 2:49.
 Al-Fakhr al-Rāziy: Ahkām al-Basmalah 74-75; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 2:48.
 Sayyid `Alī al-Shahristāniy: Wudū' al-Nabiy 354 as quoted from Mālik ibn Anas: al-Muwatta' 133 and al-Qādī `Ayyād: Tartīb al-Madārik 30-33.
 Dr. Mustafā Dīb al-Baghā: Athar al-Adillati’l-Mukhtalafi fīhā fi’l-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 1:36 as quoted from
 Al-Fakhr al-Rāziy: Ahkām al-Basmalah 40 as quoted from al-Bayhaqiy: al-Khilāfiyyāt.
 Abu’l-Futūh al-Rāziy: Tafsīr 1:20 as quoted from al-Mīrzā al-Nūriy: Mustadrak al-Wasā’il wa-Mustanbat al-Masā’il 4:189 H. 15.
 Al-Qādī al-Nu`mān al-Maghribiy: Da`ā'im al-Islām 1:160.
 Al-Qādī al-Nu`mān al-Maghribiy: Da`ā'im al-Islām 1:160.
Al-Qādī al-Nu`mān al-Maghribiy: Da`ā'im al-Islām 1:110, 2:132; Yahyā ibn al-Husayn al-Zaydiy: Usūl al-Ahkām fī’l-Halāl wa’l-Harām 2:410.
 Al-Fakhr al-Rāziy: Ahkām al-Basmalah 45 as quoted from Sunan al-Dāraqutniy and al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 1:232-233.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:94; Fath al-Bārī fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 2:457; al-Shawkāniy: Nayl al-Awtār 3:240-241.
 Ibn Asakir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 26:199.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 5:277; al-Qurtubiy: Tafsīr 3:350.
 Al-Wāfī al-Mahdī: al-Ijtihād fī’l-Sharī`ah al-Islāmiyyah 191.
 Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi`iy: Kitāb al-Umm 1:58 & 134, Ikhtilāf al-Hadīth and al-Risālah 113; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:93.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:100.
 Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 285.
 Dr. Mustafā al-A`dhamiy: Dirāsātun fī’l-Hadīth al-Nubawiy 33-34.
 Al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 11:65 H. 11061; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:137 H. 4637, 3:138 H. 4639; al-Firdaws bi-Ma’thūr al-Khitāb 1:44 H. 106; Fayd al-Qadīr 1:36.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 13:114 H. 36372; Rawdāt al-Wā`idhīn 75; Jawāhir al-Matālib 75; Nudhum Durar al-Simtayn 113; Yanābī` al-Mawaddah 1:231.
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