Umar Ibn Al-Khattāb and the Umayyads
By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani
In order to prove our abovementioned discussions, it seems necessary to disclose the role of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb in consolidating the opinions of the Umayyad rulers as regards the religious laws. As he nominated Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān as the ruler of Syria after Yazīd, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb fastened the steps of the Umayyads and helped them have control over the Muslim community. In the same way, he suggested to Abū-Bakr that he would allow Abū-Sufyān to keep the taxes that he had levied for himself and that he would appoint Yazīd ibn Abī-Sufyān as the commander-in-chief of the Muslim army of Syria.
Moreover, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb likened Mu`āwiyah to Khosrow, the emperor of Persia, and said in this regard, “How do you mention Khosrow while Mu`āwiyah is among you?”Furthermore, `Umar said about Mu`āwiyah, “Do not criticize the hero of Quraysh and the son of Quraysh’s master. Surely, he is one of those who smile at rage, and those who cannot be convinced unless when he is satisfied, and those who cannot be overcome.”
Other narrations have confirmed that when Mu`āwiyah was nominated by `Umar ibn al-Khattāb as the ruler of Syria, he received two messages from his parents. His father’s message reads, “O Son! In fact, these groups of the Muhājirūn preceded us while we lagged behind. Hence, their precedence has elevated them while our lagging behind has delayed us. They therefore have become the leaders and the masters while we have become only fellows. As they have nominated you for a great matter, you must not violate them, for this is the outset of a perpetual authority. You should thus compete on this matter, and if you attain it, you should dedicate your intellect to it.”
In her message, Mu`āwiyah’s mother said, “O Son! In fact, it is rarely that a free lady can give birth of one like you. As this man (namely `Umar ibn al-Khattāb) has chosen you for this matter, you must obey him in all matters, whether you like or dislike.”
It has been also narrated that when `Umar ibn al-Khattāb visited Syria, Mu`āwiyah said to him, “I will carry out any order that you make to me.” `Umar answered, “I will never order you to do or not to do anything.”
Through this policy of “I will carry out any order that you make to me,” Mu`āwiyah could occupy `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s heart. As a result, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb appointed other Umayyad individuals in other governmental offices; he appointed `Amr ibn al-`Ās as the governor of Palestine and Jordan, al-Walīd ibn `Aqabah, who was one his dearest men, as the tax collector of Banū-Taghlib, Ya`liy ibn Umayyah as the governor of a part of the Yemen, al-Mughīrah ibn Shu`bah as the governor of Kūfah, `Abdullāh ibn Abī-Sarh, `Uthmān ibn `Affān’s foster-brother, as the governor of Egypt, and so on.
Obviously, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, during his reign, depended upon the Umayyads in the distribution of the offices. Meantime, he opposed the Hāshimites absolutely. In this regard, it has been narrated that when `Umar ibn al-Khattāb wanted to appoint `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās as the governor of Hims, he said to him, “Listen, son of `Abbās! I am afraid that death will take me while you are still in this position, and then you will call people to follow you, the Hāshimites, and to leave the others.”
The same thing can be said about the stipulation that `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf imposed upon Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib when he said, “I will swear allegiance to you on the condition that you will not appoint anyone from the Hāshimites in a position of leadership”’ It goes without saying that `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf was no more than a practicer of the policy of Abū-Bakr and `Umar.
When objections to `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s decision of nominating Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān as the governor of Syria increased, `Umar said to the masses, “Do not mention Mu`āwiyah save in words of praise, for I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying about him: O Allah, guide him.”
I cannot tell whether this narration was fabricated by the Umayyads and their fans in order to justify the wrong policies of Mu`āwiyah when he was both governor and ruler or by `Umar ibn al-Khattāb in order to stop the people’s objections to his decision. Of course, the Holy Prophet’s “fabricated” supplication of guidance for Mu`āwiyah is absolutely contradictory to the many narrations that have authentically reported the Holy Prophet’s having cursed Mu`āwiyah, Abū-Sufyān, and Yazīd ibn Abī-Sufyān.
At any rate, Mu`āwiyah benefited very much by the support of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb. Supporting this, it has been narrated that Mu`āwiyah said to Sa`sa`ah ibn Sawhān, “I enjoy a priority to Islam although others have preceded me in this matter. However, none has been better than I am in holding this matter during my age. `Umar ibn al-Khattāb noticed this. Had any other individual been more powerful that I was in holding this position, `Umar would have certainly chosen him… etc.”
Correspondingly, Muhammad ibn Abī-Bakr wrote a message to Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān mentioning the unmatched merits and virtues of Imam `Alī, saying,
“Woe to you! How dare you compare yourself to `Alī who is the inheritor and successor of the Messenger of Allah and the father of his sons and the first to follow him and the closest to him… etc.”
Replying to this message, Mu`āwiyah wrote,
“You have advanced as an argument against me the merit of one other than you and you have taken pride in one other than you. I thus thank the Lord Who has taken this merit away from you and made it to someone esle. Your father and I, during the lifetime of our Prophet, knew that the right of son of Abī-Tālib (i.e. Imam `Alī) incumbent upon us and knew that he was distinguished from us. However, when Allah chose for His Prophet what He has in possession, and fulfilled His promise to him, and caused his promulgation to prevail, and proclaimed his argument and then took his soul to Him—when Allah did such to His Prophet, it was your father and his “fārūq” (i.e. `Umar ibn al-Khattāb) who preceded anyone else in usurping the right of `Alī and in violating him.
They had already agreed on and planned to do this... It was your father who paved the way for him and established this realm. If that which we are experiencing is proved as true, then it is your father who started it; but if it is injustice, then it is your father who overwhelmed it and we are only his partners, since we have followed his path and pursued his example. Had it not for the past deeds of your father, we would not have mutinied against the son of Abū-Tālib and we would have certainly submitted to him. But as we saw your father committing that before us, we followed his example and took his deed as pattern for us. You should thus disgrace your father as you like or stop it. Peace be upon him who regrets and repents from errors.”
Similar words have been comprised by the missive of Yazīd ibn Mu`āwiyah to `Abdullāh ibn `Umar who objected to him in the killing of Imam al-Husayn ibn `Alī. Yazīd, in this missive, said,
“Listen, idiot! We have come to upholstered houses, furnished fixtures, and stuffed pillows. We therefore fought for these. If we are right, then we will have fought for the sake of our rights; and if the other party is right, then it was your father who began such violation and usurped these people their due.”
All these materials confirm the considerable role of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb in the strengthening of the Umayyad jurisprudence through making a large room for `Uthmān ibn `Affān, Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān, and their likes to lead a course opposite to the trend of pure compliance with the sacred texts, and to establish a new jurisprudential trend with innovative principles in the Islamic legislation.
Acceptability of the Sahābah’s Sayings
In his book of al-Mustasfā, al-Ghazzāliy talks about the acceptability of the Sahābah’s sayings as proof and presents the various opinions in this regard. He says that some scholars have argued that the Sahābah’s sayings are generally and without any exception decided as acceptable proofs; other scholars have argued that they are decided as acceptable proofs even if they violate the principle of Qiyās; other scholars have argued that only can the sayings of Abū-Bakr and `Umar be decided as acceptable proofs because the Holy Prophet said, “Follow those who will come after me!”; other scholars have argued that only the sayings of the Rāshidite caliphs can be taken as acceptable proofs in the questions about which they agree. After the presentation of these arguments, al-Ghazzāliy refutes them all, saying that it is illogic to accept as irrefutable proofs the sayings of those who are exposed to erring and inadvertence, since their sinlessness has not been proven. Furthermore, it is illogic to claim the sinlessness of such individuals without resting upon any uninterrupted evidence and it is also illogic to believe in the sinlessness of people who are exposed to disagreement! The Sahābah agreed upon the permissibility of violating the Sahābah’s opinions. For instance, Abū-Bakr and `Umar did not criticize those who disagreed with them in matters of Ijtihād; rather they deemed obligatory upon each mujtahid to follow his personal conclusions. The absence of evidences on the sinlessness of the Sahābah, the incidences of disagreements among the Sahābah, and the Sahābah’s statements of the permissibility of violating them in opinions—these are three decisive evidences on the invalidity of deciding the Sahābah’s sayings as binding proof.
Mr. Abū-Zuhrah says,
If truth be told, it is untrue to decide the Sahābah’s sayings as binding proofs, for Almighty Allah has not sent in this ummah anyone except our Holy Prophet, Muhammad—peace be upon him and his family—, and we, the Muslims, have only one Messenger. The Sahābah, following the Holy Prophet, are in the same degree commissioned with following the law of Almighty Allah as found in the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah. Anyone who claims that a proof concerning a religious affair may be found in other than these two sources has in reality said an unproven thing about the religion of Almighty Allah and has also confirmed a matter that has not been decided by Almighty Allah.
Dr. Husayn al-Hājj Hasan has written down nice words in this respect,
The companions of the Holy Prophet are ordinary human beings just like the others. Some of them were seduced by this world and its pleasures. The social values left influences on their behaviors. Anyone who claims that the Sahābah are angels and sinless is in reality... It was nothing but bad luck that caused Abū-Jahl to be killed during the Battle of Badr while having been in the line of the polytheists. Had serendipity helped him, in the same way as it had helped others like him, and saved him from being killed during that battle to stay alive up to the day of the conquest of Makkah and to embrace Islam, he would certainly have been one of the grand Sahābah or the first-class Muslim leaders who claimed having raised the pennon of Islam. Thus, the question was no more than serendipity. Nothing but luck that played in the destinies of men so hugely. The examples of such serendipities are being openly experienced by us every day. We have very often seen how men belonging to the same class of Abū-Jahl are taken to the highest ranks by their lucks and are surrounded by reporters and traditionists who encompass them with haloes of greatness.
Ibn Hazm says after quoting the following verses of the Holy Qur'ān,
“And they say: We believe in Allah and the messenger, and we obey; then after that a faction of them turn away. Such are not believers. And when they appeal unto Allah and His messenger to judge between them, lo! a faction of them are averse. But if right had been with them they would have come unto him willingly. Is there in their hearts a disease, or have they doubts, or fear they lest Allah and His messenger should wrong them in judgment? Nay, but such are evil-doers. The saying of (all true) believers when they appeal unto Allah and His messenger to judge between them is only that they say: We hear and we obey. And such are the successful. He who obeyeth Allah and His messenger, and feareth Allah, and keepeth duty (unto Him): such indeed are the victorious. They swear by Allah solemnly that, if thou order them, they will go forth. Say: Swear not; known obedience (is better). Lo! Allah is informed of what ye do. Say: Obey Allah and obey the messenger. But if ye turn away, then (it is) for him (to do) only that wherewith he hath been charged, and for you (to do) only that wherewith ye have been charged. If ye obey him, ye will go aright. But the messenger hath no other charge than to convey (the message) plainly.” [Holy Qur’ān: 24/47-54]
`Alī said, “These decisive verses have not left any opportunity to anyone to riot about them. Through these verses, Allah has exposed the characteristics of the people of our time. They claim that they are the only believers in Allah and His Messenger and they are the only obedient to them, but a party of them violates this confession and opposes what has been revealed to them from Almighty Allah and His Messenger. In the words of the law of Almighty Allah, these are surely not believers. When they are called to apply to themselves verses from the Holy Qur'ān or a Hadīth from the Messenger that violate their accursed imitation, they will certainly loath it. Some of them will claim that they are not included with these verses, others will claim that these verses are dedicated to a certain occasion, others will claim that acting upon these verses has been decided as repealed, others will claim that so-and-so has not acceded to these, and others will claim that these verses violate Qiyās. But as soon as they find in the Hadīth or the Holy Qur'ān a matter that conforms to what they follow, they propagate it to all sides and come to it willingly, as has been exactly described. Woe to them! What has happened to them? Is their hearts full of disease and doubt? Or do they fear lest Almighty Allah and His Messenger would wrong them? Most certainly, these are the actual wrongdoers as has been described by Allah, Lord of the worlds. Away with those who do wrong!
However, Ibn Hazm then attempts to justify the deeds of the grand Sahābah who violated the Hadīth of the Holy Prophet and claims that lies have been fabricated against them as regards these deeds. This is because Ibn Hazm has carried for these Sahābah enormous haloes of greatness. He further says,
Abū-Muhammad says that some people argue that groups of the Sahābah and Tābi`ūn neglected carrying out many of the instructions that they had known from the Hadīth of the Holy Prophet; hence, they neglected these Hadīths either on account of having belittled them or because they had an amount of knowledge due to which they knew the actual purpose of these Hadīths. Of course, it is better to think of them excellently and choose for the second option. `Alī says that this argument is inaccurate for many reasons. First, if one claims that it is probable that the Hadīth whose instruction was neglected by the Sahābah has been forged or made-up, this can be answered that it is also probable that the narration, which reported the Sahābah having not carried out the instruction of a Hadīth has been made-up. Nothing gives preference to the claim that forgery occurred to the reporting from the Holy Prophet over the claim that the Sahābah neglected acting upon the contents of these Hadīths. Similarly, some of the Sahābah acted upon a Hadīth while others neglected. He also differentiated between those who claim that the Sahābah who neglected acting upon a Hadīth must have had knowledge due to which they neglected and those who claim that the Sahābah who acted upon a Hadīth must have had knowledge due to which they acted upon that Hadīth. In fact, any claim that is not supported by a proof is worthless. As has been previously cited, do not feel an aversion for him who neglects acting upon the right, whether his neglect has been due to an excused idea or to an act of disobedience; and do not care about him who carries out the right deed no matter who that person was and whether he carried out or did not carry out that deed. At any rate, it is obligatory upon anyone who hears about it to carry it out. Similarly, the Hadīths which have been reported that some of the past generation neglected acting upon them are, in most cases, not the same as those Hadīths neglected by those who objected to the Sahābah for having neglected acting upon them; rather these objectors neglected acting upon the Hadīths which had been adopted by those Sahābah and acted upon the Hadīths which had been neglected by those Sahābah. Hence, the previous Sahābah’s having neglected acting upon a certain Hadīth cannot be accepted as proof for these objectors, because they have been the first to violate the acts of these Sahābah and the first to decide the Sahābah’s negligence as unacceptable. Nothing is worse than presenting as a pretext that which does not materialize that pretext; rather it annuls it in the same way, or even tenser, of annulling the one who presents it as pretext.
Also, if their forgery that the Sahābah neglected carrying out the instructions mentioned in some Hadīths because they had had knowledge due to which they neglected acting upon that Hadīth; we seek Almighty Allah’s protection against such forgery and seek Him to protect all those who think well of Him against any response to such false ascriptions to the most virtuous people of this sacred ummah—if this forgery had been true, all those who hid such knowledge would have been accursed by Almighty Allah Who says:
“Those who conceal the clear Signs We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book,-on them shall be Allah's curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse.” [Holy Qur’ān: 2/159]
Our answer is that may Almighty Allah curse him whoever carries knowledge from Him and His Messenger but conceals it from people. Anyone who ascribes such a thing to the Sahābah—may Allah’s pleasure be with them—has in fact ascribed them to forging lies against the religion and planning plots against the Islamic legislation. Of course, such matter are more catastrophic than infidelity.
Using similar conception, I have objected to the words of al-Layth ibn Harfash al-`Abdiy in the session of `Abd al-Rahmān ibn Ahmad ibn Bishr—may Allah have mercy upon him—during a great celebration of the Mālikkiyyah jurisprudents; yet, none of them could answer me with any word; rather they all kept silent except a few number of them who showed acceptance to my argument. During that session, I said to al-Layth,
“You have ascribed to Mālik ibn Anas a matter that would make him the most wicked of all people if your words were true. You are claiming that Mālik presented to the people the doubtful, uncertain, and repealed narrations and concealed the authentic, sound, and repealing narrations and he departed life without telling anybody about these narrations. Of course, this thing can be done by none except those who intend for ruining Islam and cheating its people. Almighty Allah has protected Mālik against such. In our conception, he is surely one of the master scholars who guided this nation to the right path although he sometimes made mistakes in the same way as he had been right. Like the other scholars, he exerted his efforts in the conclusion of religious laws. Almighty Allah has imposed promulgation for Him upon all scholars. The Holy Prophet said, ‘Verily, one who conceals any item of (religious) knowledge about which he is asked shall be bridled with a rein of fire on the Resurrection Day.’...etc.”
The abovementioned discussion reveals that pluralism in opinions opposes the unity of doctrine. Similarly, the conception of the Sahābah’s ultimate decency opposed the deeds of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb with Sa`d ibn `Abādah when he shouted, “Kill Sa`d! May Allah kill Sa`d,” and with Tamīm al-Dāriy when he whipped him, and with `Amr ibn al-`Ās when he accused him of treason and of having stolen the spoils of war, and with Khālid ibn al-Walīd when he decided that he must be sentenced to stoning penalty. All these incidents prove that the conception of the Sahābah’s ultimate decency was not found during the reigns of Abū-Bakr and `Umar and even `Uthmān; rather it was invented afterwards. In fact, this conception is baseless and is not supported by any tradition. All the reports that were ascribed to the Holy Prophet in this respect are carrying more than one sense and can be easily refuted. The same thing is applicable to the unfounded haloes of sacredness that were given to the Sahābah in addition to their having been regarded as sinless experts of the Holy Qur'ān. If truth be told, all such things were invented by the rulers and their fans.
Elaborately, let us quote the following text from al-Taftazāniy’s Sharh al-Maqāsid: The disputes, disagreements, and arguments that occurred between the Sahābah, as is written in the books of history, indicate undoubtedly that some of them went astray and exceeded all limits in oppression and licentiousness whose motives must have been malice, stubbornness, envy, enmity, seeking of authorities and official positions, and tendency towards lusts and whims. Of course, not all the Sahābah are sinless and not all those who met the Holy Prophet are virtuous. Nevertheless, due to their good opinions about the companions of the Holy Prophet, the scholars have had to find excuses and justifications for them. They have also believed these Sahābah as having been divinely protected against deviation and wickedness so as to preserve the Muslims’ doctrines from deviation and movement away as regards the personalities of the grand Sahābah, especially the Muhājirūn and the Ansār as well as those predicted to be rewarded on the Resurrection Day. However, after the age of the Sahābah, the Household of Allah’s Messenger (i.e. the Ahl al-Bayt) were oppressed and persecuted so harshly that none can deny and none can find any justification. Even the inanimate and the deaf can witness the oppression that was inflicted upon the Ahl al-Bayt—such an insensitive oppression that even the heavens and the earth wept for them; and even the mountains and the rocks were about to split. The evil of these deeds shall incessantly chase those who committed it all over ages. May the curse of Almighty Allah be upon all those who practiced and participated in these crimes and those who accepted it.
“And certainly the chastisement of the hereafter is severer and more.” [Holy Qur’ān: 20/127]
In any case, it may be said that some master scholars have not permitted cursing Yazīd although they have known for sure that Yazīd deserved more than mere cursing. We answer that those scholars have decided so in order that the other Sahābah would not be cursed, as is done by the Rāfidah.
The most important reason of the invention of such erroneous and baseless principles and fundamentals has been the decision of the prevention from reporting and recording the Hadīth. This decision granted a big room for the authorities who adopted Opinionism to rule over the sacred texts.
In his Sharh al-Arba`īn, Sulaymān ibn `Abd al-Qawiy, a Hanbalite scholar died in AH 716, says,
The reason of disputes among the scholars is the contradiction of the narrations and reported texts. Some people allege that the reason beyond such dispute was `Umar ibn al-Khattāb; when the Sahābah asked him to permit them writing down the Holy Sunnah, he prevented them although he knew that the Holy Prophet had ordered the Muslims to record the Hadīth for Abū-Shāt and had said, “Record the knowledge by means of writing it.” Had `Umar let the Sahābah record what they had heard from the Holy Prophet, the Sunnah would have certainly been verified and no barrier would have stopped between the last generation of the Islamic nation and the Holy Prophet except the Sahābah whose narrations would have been written down because these records were uninterruptedly reported from the Sahābah in the same way as they were uninterruptedly narrated by al-Bukhāriy.
Shaykh Muhammad Abū-Zuhrah says,
Some of the Sahābah refrained from recording the Hadīth and prevented the others from recording it not because the Holy Prophet warned them against writing down his traditions, for the traditions that are reported from the Sahābah as regards the prevention of or the refraining from recording the Hadīth have not carried this justification at all; rather they used to present as pretext that they anticipated that people would occupy themselves with these traditions and disregard the Holy Qur'ān... etc.
In so doing, many of the Holy Prophet’s traditions wiped out and many more fabricated matters were ascribed to him and the Prophetic heritage was confused with the personal opinions and conclusions. In view of that, al-Bukhāriy decided to pick for his book from among six hundred thousand Hadīths. A similar thing was decided by Muslim, al-Nassā'iy, and other compilers of Hadīth.
The previously mentioned discussions have been lengthy, explicative presentation of the ordeal of the Holy Prophet’s reported texts as well as the inconveniences of the decision of preventing the reporting and recording of the Hadīth so as that the gentle reader will be acquainted with the confusions of the Islamic legislations as well as some of the reasons of disagreement among the Muslims. Nothing but truth has been our purpose—the truth that has been concealed from the Muslims for long ages and that has been besieged for about fourteen centuries.
 Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 5:456 H. 9770; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb 2:625 H. 988; al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 8:21; al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 5:152 No. 8074.
 Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 2:44 as quoted from al-Jawhariy’s Kitāb al-Saqīfah.
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 6:184; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb fī Ma`rifat al-Ashāb 3:396.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 13:587; Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 8:125; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb fī Ma`rifat al-Ashāb 8:397.
 Ibn al-Athīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 8:118.
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 6:184; Ibn al-Athīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 8:125.
 Tārīkh Khalīfah 1:155; Futūh al-Buldān 1:145; Tārīkh Dimashq 46:157, 59:111.
 Al-Muntadham 6:5; Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 31:54; Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb 11:126; al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 8:214.
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 5:59; Ibn al-Athīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 8:214.
 Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb fī Ma`rifat al-Ashāb 3:664.
 Tārīkh Khalīfah 1:154; Futūh al-Buldān 1:297; Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:516; al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 5:350-351.
 Siyar A`lām al-Nubalā' 3:43; al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 4:110.
 Al-Mas`ūdiy: Murūj al-Dhahab 2:353 H. 454.
 Ibn Qutaybah: al-Imāmah wa’l-Siyāsah 1:31; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3:344; Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:560; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 5:481 H. 9776; Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 7:439 H. 37071; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:151.
 Ibn al-Athīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 8:123. Ibn `Asākir, in Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 59:85, has narrated on the authority of al-Sā'ib that when `Umar ibn al-Khattāb appointed Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān as the governor of Aleppo, some people objected, for the latter was still young. On hearing this, `Umar said to them, “How dare you blame me for this, while I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying (about Mu`āwiyah), ‘O Allah! Make him guide and truly guided and guide him and make others be guided through him.’”
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:638; Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 2:133; Ibn al-Athīr: al-Kāmil fī’l-Tārīkh 3:35.
Ahmad Zaki Safwat: Jamharat Rasā'il al-`Arab 1:447 as quoted from al-Mas`ūdiy: Murūj la-Dhahab 2:600; Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 1:284.
 Al-Anwār al-Nu`māniyyah 1:53; Bihār al-Anwār 45:328; al-Māhūziy: Kitāb al-Arba`īn 104.
Qawl al-Sahābiy (the Sahābah’s sayings): According to some Sunnite jurisprudential schools, Qawl al-Sahābiy is one of the principles and sources upon which these schools depend in the deduction of religious laws from their sources.
 Shaykh Muhammad Abū-Zahrah: al-Hadīth wa’l-Muhaddithūn 102.
 Dr. Husayn al-Hājj Hasan: Naqd al-Hadīth 1:350-351. The quoted words have been originally quoted from Dr. `Alī al-Wardiy: Wu``ādh al-Salātīn, pp. 118.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Ihkām fi Usūl al-Ahkām 1:100-101.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Ihkām fi Usūl al-Ahkām 2:251.
 Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 5:444 H. 9758; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:55 H. 391; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3:616; Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:235.
 Al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 2:58 H. 1281; Ibn Hazm: al-Muhallā 2:274.
 Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 20:21.
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:274; al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 6:323; Ibn Habbān: al-Thuqāt 2:169.
 Al-Taftazāniy: Sharh al-Maqāsid 5:310.
 This statement has been quoted by Asad Haydar in his famous book of ‘al-Imām al-Sādiq wa’l-Madhāhib al-Arba`ah (Imam al-Sādiq and the Four Schools of Muslim jurisprudence)’.
 Shaykh Muhammad Abū-Zahrah: al-Hadīth wa’l-Muhaddithūn 234.
From the abovementioned discussions, we can conclude that the prohibition of recording the Hadīth passed by three stages:
First: The stage of Abū-Bakr and ``Umar.
Second: The stage of those who followed them, such as `Uthmān and Mu`āwiyah.
Third: The stage beginning with the end of Mu`āwiyah’s reign up to the age of the governmental recordings.
Abū-Bakr and `Umar issued the decision of the prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth because they had not learnt and comprehended all the heritage of the Holy Prophet in this respect. Because the position of caliphate (Muslim rulership) necessitates having full acquaintance with the judgments of the Holy Prophet in the various issues, the caliphs did not enjoy a distinctive relationship with the Holy Prophet to know all the judgments that he had issued, and the Holy Prophet was not proven to have declared those caliphs as realizing all the aspects of interpretation of exegesis of the Holy Qur'ān—because of all these reasons, it was natural that disagreement between the verdicts of the caliphs from one hand and the sayings of the Holy Prophet and the judgments of the Divine Revelation from the other hand would occur.
Had this fact of disagreement been shown to people as clear as it is in the present time, it would have caused a big problem, especially that the caliph was engaged in military combats and conquests of the countries that neighbored the Islamic homeland. For all these reasons, the caliph assumed that it is necessary for him to adopt his personal opinion, even if they would violate the sacred texts, so that he would be excused in the decisions that he would issue out of his personal views and prospects. `Umar therefore used to say, “Well, that verdict was for that occasion and this verdict is for this one.”
On account of the expansion of the young Islamic State by means of conquests and dealing with various peoples who had just embraced Islam, the issues and events increased while the caliph was not in the appropriate scientific situation that qualified him to find answers, from the Islamic legislation, for all these innovative and increasing demands because he had not been acquainted enough with the Hadīth of the Holy Prophet and had not comprehended properly the texts that the Holy Prophet had revealed as regards the legal situation of such questions. As a matter of fact, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb had not been devoted to accompanying the Holy Prophet and learning from him; rather he and one of his friends who belonged to the Ansār used to visit the Holy Prophet by turns. Al-Bukhāriy has narrated that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb said, “My neighbor, one of the Ansār, and I lived in the quarter of the tribe of Umayyah ibn Zayd, which was on the skirts of al-Madīnah. We used to visit the Holy Prophet by turns; I would visit him a day and my neighbor would visit him on the other. When it was my turn, I would go there and carry the news of the Divine Revelation to my neighbor; and when it was his turn, he would carry for me the news and the like.”
Umar ibn al-Khattāb was also diverted from accompanying the Holy Prophet by roaming in marts and making business deals. He used to say, “I was engaged in bargains in marts.” One day, Ubayy ibn Ka`b said to him, “While you were engaged in making deals in marts, I was engaged in the Holy Qur'ān.” That was one of the reasons of the rarity of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s meetings with the Holy Prophet.
Nevertheless, the new events required urgent solutions that must have been derived from the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah; and because the caliph had not comprehended all the items of the Holy Sunnah and the aspects of the interpretation of the texts of the Holy Qur'ān, he had to face an unsolvable problem; if he would issue a verdict violating the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah, he would be embarrassed before the Sahābah who would certainly declare the very accurate verdict, as found in the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah, about that even as exactly as they had heard from the Holy Prophet. For that reason, `Umar, at the outset, used to ask about the Holy Prophet’s judgment in such situation—so as to save himself from future embarrassment—or submit to what the Sahābah would mention from the Holy Prophet’s words and deeds without discussion.
All the same, if the state of asking the Sahābah about the events and situations involved would incessantly continue and if the fact that all the judgments should be always deduced from these texts would not be restrained, these two things would certainly entrap the caliph in new embarrassments whenever exigencies would necessitate a legal situation revealing the judgment of Almighty Allah and hence many opportunities would be missed by him. It was therefore necessary to find an exit from such embarrassments and missing of opportunities. That exit was nothing but the enactment as a law the freedom of experiencing one’s personal opinions and views as regards the issues of the religious legislation so that `Umar, as well as those who would follow his course, would be excused in whatsoever decision they would take.
As a consequence, the Muslims had to be separated into two parties. The first party embraced those who rejected any personal judgment or deduction unless they are inferred in the light of the texts of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah—the two major sources of the Islamic legislation. The second party embraced those who argued that efforts should be exerted in issuing laws in events about which no sacred text is found and argued that only that which conforms to the public interests would be issued even if it would be in violation of the sacred texts.
Interest has been the strongest means that was adopted by the rulers who always claimed that they ordered of matters and warned against others only due to the achievement of the public interests. However, there is an inescapable question that they should answer: Were all these decisions that were claimed to achieve the public interest deduced from the sacred texts of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah or not?
When the followers of the trend of thorough compliance with the sacred texts adopt a secondary ruling, they will certainly have adopted it in the light of the sacred texts and for a period limited by the necessity, not out of personal perspectives.
On the other hand, the interest in the trend of the pro-caliphs was derived from the act of the caliph and his personal appreciation of a certain question and such ruling would be permanent, not limited. Of course, there is a great difference between the two.
It is undeniable that Ijtihād is so elastic and streamlined that none can stop its procession. One who assumes Ijtihād will find himself the best example on Imam `Alī’s description in the famous sermon of al-Shaqshaqiyyah where he says, “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.”
In the same time as `Uthmān ibn `Affān intended to keep up the conducts (sunnah) of Abū-Bakr and `Umar, he found himself suitable enough for issuing religious verdicts and practicing Ijtihād according to his own perspectives of interests and opinions as same as Abū-Bakr and `Umar had done because he was hurt by the commitment to what had been done during their reigns, as was openly stated by him in his first sermon after coming to power,because he deemed himself not less than they were. He preceded many others to the conversion to Islam and he was related by marriage to the Holy Prophet; therefore, people should not object to him when he would violate some personal judgments of Abū-Bakr and `Umar because he, with his own eyes, saw these people keeping silent before the personal judgments of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb that were in clear violation of the Holy Prophet’s traditions and instructions. Moreover, the publics accepted, assumed, and betook such personal judgments as the course of their lives considering them as weighty as the Holy Sunnah although the majority of these personal decisions opposed the Holy Sunnah and were more dangerous and challenging than the decisions of `Uthmān.
`Uthmān ibn `Affān used to repeat the following questions to himself: Why did `Umar have the right to enact laws and stop certain actions for nothing more than an “interest” that he himself supposed—such as in the issues of Salāt al-Tarāwīh and the temporary marriage—while I am deprived of such a right?
What for is that it is obligatory upon me to follow the policies of Abū-Bakr and `Umar and it is impermissible for me to, just like them, issue judgments and to have followers?
These questions were said openly by `Uthmān when he addressed those who objected to his policy, saying, “Certainly, you are criticizing me for a matter that when was done by `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, you acceded to it.” He then added, “By Allah I swear, I am certainly mightier in followers, closer in supporters, more in number, and worthier than the others are. If I say come on, they will come to me. I have prepared for you your equivalent counterparts... etc.”
As has been previously cited, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf, at the so-called Shūrā Committee, tried to bind `Uthmān ibn `Affān with the adoption of the manners of Abū-Bakr and `Umar only and could obtain pledges and covenants from `Uthmān to carry out such obligation, but he then could not bind `Uthmān with these covenants; he therefore could do nothing other than keeping silent in his last dialogue with `Uthmān on the manner of prayer at Minā:
`Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf asked: “You did perform this prayer with the Messenger of Allah in the shortened form (shortening the four units of prayers to two only), did you not?
`Uthmān answered: Yes, I did.
- You did perform this prayer with Abū-Bakr in the shortened form, did you not?
- Yes, I did.
- You did perform this prayer during your first six years of caliphate in the shortened form, did you not?
- Yes, I did.
- Then what for are you now performing this prayer in the complete form (i.e. four units of prayer)?
- This is due to a personal opinion that I have decided!
Hence, `Uthmān violated this divine ruling due to his having practiced Ijtihād in his own sense. Accordingly, he exceeded the limits of the divine legislation, but nobody could stop or object to him or to the personal opinions (Ijtihād) of the others, because the ruler of the Muslims had done such; hence, if one would object to the others’ Ijtihād, he should first object to the caliph because he had done such. If Ijtihād (in the sense of the caliphs and their followers and fans) is legal, then the Ijtihād of `Uthmān as well as anyone else is legal, too; and if the Ijtihād is illegal, then why had Abū-Bakr and `Umar practiced it?
Once again, the issuance of the decision of prohibiting the recordation of the Hadīth and the decision of reducing the reporting from the Holy Prophet—these two decisions created the Ijtihād of Abū-Bakr and `Umar; and it was the Ijtihād of Abū-Bakr and `Umar that caused `Uthmān to practice similar Ijtihād and change the religious laws according to the “interests” that he himself assumed; and all the caliphs who came after `Uthmān—of course except Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib—found their lost in the very application of Ijtihād and assuming of the “interest” since these two concepts stood for the best cover beyond which they would hide for deeming legal and correct all their personal views and decisions.
On the other hand, Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib opposed and objected to the creed of this trend. His words in this regard, as found in Nahj al-Balāghah and many other reference books, demonstrate his situation so manifestly that none would doubt it. Let us now quote two texts only from his sermons during his reign of caliphate. In these texts, Imam `Alī shows the features of difference and the roots of this invented question:
“The basis of the occurrence of evils are those desires which are acted upon and the orders that are innovated. They are against the Book of Allah. People cooperate with each other about them even though it is against the Religion of Allah. If wrong had been pure and unmixed it would not be hidden from those who are in search of it. And if right had been pure without admixture of wrong those who bear hatred towards it would have been silenced. What is, however, done is that something is taken from here and something from there and the two are mixed! At this stage, Satan overpowers his friends and they alone escape for whom virtue has been apportioned by Allah from before. Verily, I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying, ‘What will you do when you are confused by a seditious matter due to which the child will be older and the big will be senile. People will accept it and betake it as tradition. When a part of it is changed, they will object that the Sunnah (tradition) has been changed and an evil thing has occurred to the people! Then the misfortune will be more catastrophic and the Offspring (of the Holy Prophet) will be taken as captives. The heresy will smash the people in the same way as fire smashing wood and in the same way as millstone smashing the skin under it. The will study the religious knowledge for the sake of other than Almighty Allah, and they will learn not for acting upon what they learn, and they seek worldly pleasures through acts of the world to come.”
He then turned his face to the fore while he was surrounded by some people of his household, friends, and followers, and said, “Before me, the rulers had done some deeds in which they deliberately violated the Messenger of Allah, breaching their covenants with him, and distorting his traditions (Sunnah). If I oblige these peoples to stop acting upon these deeds and if I restore these deeds to their original faces which were carried out during the age of the Messenger of Allah, my soldiers will certainly depart me until I remain alone or with a few of my adherents who have realized my virtue and recognized the (divinely commissioned) obligation of loyalty to me as it is recorded in the Book of Almighty Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. Most certainly, if I order the Standing-place of Prophet Abraham (Maqām Ibrāhīm) to be restored to the very place in which the Messenger of Allah had put;and give Fadak back to the inheritors of Fātimah; and restore the Sā` as it had been decided by the Messenger of Allah; and execute the donations that the Messenger of Allah had gifted to some people, but his decision was not executed or carried out; and give back the house of Ja`far to his heirs and take out its share from the Masjid; and run over again issues that were unjustly decided; and restore women, whom were unjustly divorced from their husbands and married to others, to their actual husbands and judge among them according to the very laws of Almighty Allah as regards matrimony; and take the descendants of the tribe of (Banū) Taghlib as captives; and restore all that which was distributed from the lands of Khaybar; and erase all the records of governmental gifts; and give equally in the same way as the Holy Prophet used to do in order that it may not merely make a circuit between the wealthy among you only; and cancel the land surveying tax; and regulate equally the rules of marriage; and execute the Khums tax according to the very law that Almighty Allah has revealed and imposed; and restore the building of the Holy Prophet’s Mosque to its actual place; and close the doors that were opened on it; and open the doors that were closed; and ban the rubbing on the sandals (in the ritual ablution); and execute the doctrinal provision on those who drink wines; and decide the two kinds of temporary marriage as lawful; and order to repeated reciting the Takbīr (the statement of Allāhu Akbar) five times in the Deceased Prayers; and oblige people to recite the Basmalah audibly during the obligatory prayers; and take out of the Holy Prophet’s Mosque those whom were entered there after the Holy Prophet himself had ordered to dismiss them and admit therein those whom were taken out of the Holy Prophet’s Mosque although he himself had permitted them to enter there; and lead people to submit to the actual laws of the Qur'ān and to carry out the divorce as was decided by the Sunnah; and decide the very classes and provisions of the Zakāt; and restore the (ritual) ablution, bathings, and prayers to their actual times, ceremonies, and places; and treat the captives of Persia and the other nations according to the instructions of the Book of Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet’s traditions;—if I do all these things, the people will depart me.
By Allah I swear, I have ordered people not to gather during the month of Ramadān except for the performance of the obligatory prayers and I have informed that to offer a supererogatory prayer collectively is a heretical matter, but some of my soldiers called at some of those who fought with me, saying, ‘O people of Islam! The Sunnah of `Umar has been changed! He is warning us against performing prayers during the month of Ramadān!’ In reality, I anticipated that they would lead a revolt in a side of my army. I have really encountered onerous things due to separation and obedience to the leaders of wrong and the inviters to Hellfire! However, I have been granted the share of The Near Relatives about which Almighty Allah has added,
‘And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire, a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.’ [Holy Qur’ān: 8/41]
By Allah I swear, we are the Near Relatives that Almighty Allah has added us to Him and to His Messenger, saying,
“What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (and taken away) from the people of the townships,- belongs to Allah,- to His Messenger and to the near relatives and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer; in order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you. So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in punishment.” [Holy Qur’ān: 59/7]...etc.
Shaykh al-Tūsī, in Tahdhīb al-Ahkām, has written down that Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq narrated the following: When he settled in al-Kūfah, Imam `Alī Amīr al-Mu'minīn ordered Imam al-Hasan to declare to the people that no more (supererogatory) congregational prayers should be performed in the mosques during the month of Ramadān. As they heard al-Hasan ibn `Alī carrying out the order of Imam `Alī, people began to shout, “Oh for `Umar! Oh for `Umar!” When he returned back, Imam `Alī asked him about these shouts, and Imam al-Hasan informed him of the people’s situations. Hence, Imam `Alī said, “You may allow them to perform that prayer!”
The following matters can be concluded from the two abovementioned narrations:
1) The rulers (caliphs) who came to power before Imam `Alī had enacted a number of religious laws that were not accepted by Imam `Alī because they were in violation of the Holy Prophet’s instructions.
2) Although Imam `Alī spared no efforts in canceling these invented laws, he could not succeed because of the prevalence and great influence of the trend that backed and defended `Umar ibn al-Khattāb and followed his decisions which were issued out of his personal opinions.
3) Not only was the disagreement between Imam `Alī and `Umar ibn al-Khattāb about the matter of the worthiest of holding the position of leadership of the Islamic nation after the departure of the Holy Prophet, but also they disagreed on matters appertained to the Muslim jurisprudence and the Islamic legislation. Moreover, the disagreement about matters of the Muslim jurisprudence can be sometimes preceded. The same thing is applicable to the question of `Umar’s prohibition of recording the Hadīth.
Those who argued the validity of Opinionism and the Sahābah’s Ijtihād opposed the reporting and recordation of the traditions of the Holy Prophet. Moreover, they gave preference to the personal opinions of Abū-Bakr and `Umar over all other things because they believed that these individuals had realized the actual logics for the religious laws as well as the spirit of the Muslim legislation! On the other hand, the followers of the trend of thorough compliance with the sacred texts stopped against the threats of those individuals so as to clarify the actual jurisprudence of the Holy Prophet and to convey his traditions to the people even if this would cause their necks to experience the edges of swords.
It has been narrated that after he was stabbed to death, Imam `Alī said to the attendants,
“My will to you is, first, Almighty Allah: join not any partners with Him and, second, Muhammad: waste not his traditions. Keep these two pillars upright... etc.”
Ibn Kathīr has narrated that his father said: I came near Abū-Dharr who was sitting near the Middle Jamarah (in Makkah) and was surrounded by people who were asking him about religious laws. In the midst of this situation, a man came near him and said, “Have you not been ordered not to deliver religious verdicts any more?” Abū-Dharr raised his head towards the man and answered, “Have you been appointed to watch me? Even if your swords are put on my neck and I have the opportunity to spread any word that I have heard from the Messenger of Allah, I will spread it.”
Consider how Abū-Dharr insisted on conveying what he had heard from the Holy Prophet even if swords would be put on his neck! Also, consider how he used the statement, “what I have heard from the Messenger of Allah” instead of the phrase “religious verdict.” This matter reveals the big difference between the two trends.
As they felt the responsibility that was burdened on their shoulders, Abū-Dharr and his companions among the followers of the trend of thorough compliance with the sacred texts exerted all possible efforts in conveying the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet to the last spark of life. He therefore said, “Even if your swords are put on my neck and I have the opportunity to spread any word that I have heard from the Messenger of Allah, I will spread it.”
As for Abū-Dharr, to say such a statement was so natural because he heard the Holy Prophet on more than one occasion expressing his fear lest his nation would go astray, leave the Right Path, and follow the invented traditions of the others out of their hatred to Imam `Alī.
It has been narrated that Hanash al-Kināniy said that he heard Abū-Dharr saying, while holding fast to the Gate of the Holy Ka`bah,
O People: Some of you have known me; rather as for those who have not, I tell them that I am Abū-Dharr. I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying, “The like of my Household (the Ahl al-Bayt) is the Ark of Noah; he who embarks it will have been saved; but he who falls behind will have downed.’”
Abū-Dharr is also reported as having said,
O the community that have been engaged in perplexity after their Prophet! Verily, had you not selected for your leadership those whom Almighty Allah has rejected, and rejected those whom Almighty Allah has selected for you, and confessed to the divinely commissioned leadership and successorship of the Household of your Prophet, you would surely have been nourished from above you and from beneath your feet, no shortage would have occurred to the shares of inheritance none of which would have ever failed, and no two individuals have ever disagreed about any of the laws of Almighty Allah; rather you would have found the knowledge of all these present with them (i.e. the Ahl al-Bayt) as same as they are found in the Book of Allah and the traditions of the Prophet. Nevertheless, after you had done what you had done, taste then the ill-effects of your own conduct. “Those who do wrong will come to know by what a (great) reverse they will be overturned. ”
It has been also narrated that Imam `Alī said to Abū-Dharr,
You have feared those peoples for your religion but they have feared you for their worldly lives.
The aforesaid narrations reveal the perplexities and ordeals that were suffered by the Muslim community whose individuals had not known which trend to take! Because they had selected for their leadership those whom Almighty Allah has rejected, and rejected those whom Almighty Allah has selected for them, the Muslims had to encounter such perplexities and ordeals.
The Sahābah led the two major trends of the Muslims. Abū-Dharr and his likes supported the trend of the thorough compliance with the sacred texts and confirmed that the Muslims must abide by the traditions of the Holy Prophet whose authentic version is found with the Ahl al-Bayt. In this regard, too many are the narrations that have reported from the Holy Prophet the distinctive standing of `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib who recorded the words of the Holy Prophet during his lifetime and had the books of al-Sahīfah, Kitāb al-Jāmi`ah, and al-Jafr in which he compiled all that which he had heard from the Holy Prophet. `Alī used to sit alone with the Holy Prophet twice a day—once in the morning and once in the evening. He stated that he had the knowledge of each and every verse of the Holy Qur'ān completely... etc.
The other trend of the Sahābah adopted the words of `Umar, rejected the recordation of any material said or reported from the Holy Prophet, and, moreover, they enacted the right of practicing and deciding one’s own views as opposite to the Holy Prophet’s words so long as that one declares that he had realized the spirit of the religious legislation!
It has been narrated that `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, having noticed that people neglected the Prophetic instruction of raising the voice with the Talbiyah (the statement of Labbayka Allāhumma labbayk), asked why the people had not declared the Talbiyah. He was answered that that was because of their fear from Mu`āwiyah. Nevertheless, Ibn `Abbās left his tent raising his voice with the Talbiyah and saying, “Labbayka Allāhumma labbayk in defiance of Mu`āwiyah. O Allah: curse these peoples. They have neglected the Sunnah out of their malice against `Alī.”
It has been also narrated that `Ikrimah told Ibn `Abbās that he had heard an old man that he had followed in a congregational prayer at Makkah repeating the Takbīr twenty-two times and he thought that that old man had been foolish! But Ibn `Abbās answered, “Woe to you! That was the very instruction of Abu’l-Qāsim (i.e. the Holy Prophet)!”
Reports have confirmed that Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān usurped the Basmalah from the Sūrahs and ordered people not to regard it as part of the Sūrahs. Other narrations have confirmed that Mu`āwiyah once sold a golden jug with more than its weight, but Abu’l-Dardā' objected to this deal and informed that he had heard the Holy Prophet declaring such deals as forbidden. However, Mu`āwiyah answered, “Well, I do not see any problem in this deal!” Hence, Abu’l-Dardā' said, “Who will accept my apology if I do anything to Mu`āwiyah! While I am reporting to him from the Messenger of Allah, he is answering me with his own opinion! I will never settle in a land in which you live!”
These reports and their likes demonstrate clearly the opposition between the two trends in principles and concepts.
This stage represents the ages of the rulers who came after Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān up to the age of the governmental recordings. These rulers adopted the same goals of the rulers who preceded them as well as those who came after them. They all took advantage of the concepts that were prevalent during the first age of Islam as regards the legality of the practice of personal views and opinions in the face of the sacred texts. These concepts had been invented for the sake of discriminating and holding back the activities of the descendants of Abū-Tālib who throughout ages represented the Oppositionists of the ruling authorities. As has been previously cited, `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz ordered Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhriy to write down the Prophet’s traditions (Sunnah) confirming that the conduct of Abū-Bakr and `Umar must be adopted. It has been also narrated that Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhriy said, “We had disliked writing down the Prophet’s traditions but the authorities compelled us to do it.”
One must always keep in mind the fact that these rulers were the descendants of Abū-Sufyān and al-Hakam ibn al-`Ās whom were entered under the pennon of Islam by force. Abū-Sufyān is reported to have said, “I swear by him, there is neither Paradise nor Hellfire!”
Disparaging the Holy Prophet, Mu`āwiyah said, “The name of the son of Abū-Kabshah (i.e. the Holy Prophet) is declared loudly five times a day! (i.e. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) Which deed will then perpetuate and which mention will remain after that? Woe to you! Work on burying this mention!”
It has been well-known that Yazīd ibn Mu`āwiyah cited the poetic verse of Ibn al-Zubu`riy that read: “The Hāshimites played with kingdom; certainly, no news (from the heavens) came and no revelation was descended!”
It is also impossible to conceal the report that Abū-Sa`īd al-Khidriy, once, pulled Marwān ibn al-Hakam from the dress after the latter had tried to ascend the minbar and recite the ritual khutbah of the Salāt al-`Īd (The Feast Prayer) before the performance of that prayer.
Abū-Sa`īd further said, “By Allah, you have changed all things. (i.e. religious laws)”
However, Marwān answered, “Abū-Sa`īd: That which you keep in mind has gone.”
Abū-Sa`īd answered, “By Allah, that which I keep in my mind is certainly better than that which I do not know.”
Marwān commented, “Because I know that people will not listen to me after the performance of the prayer, I decided to recite the Khutbah before it!”
Commenting on this, Shaykh Muhammad `Abduh says,
“During the Umayyad Dynasty, forgeries prevailed on people causing them misfortunes. Reporters thus increased in numbers while the number of the truthful decreased. The majority of the grand Sahābah refrained from reporting the Hadīths except for a few people that they had trusted.”
The `Abbāsid rulers were not less harmful that the Umayyads to the Islamic legislation. They have misused the Sharī`ah in order to achieve political purposes and to preserve their regime. Previously, we have cited how al-Mansūr, the `Abbāsid ruler, ordered Mālik ibn Anas to compile the Sunnah in a written form so that he would order the publics to follow. He also summoned Abū-Hanīfah to lead a dispute against Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq. In addition, many other narrations have confirmed the ideological disagreement between the two trends as well as the difference in the principles adopted by each party.
The ruling authorities betook the jurisprudential disagreement as their means of recognizing the party of Imam `Alī; therefore, the contradicted narrations that support a certain Muslim jurisprudential school increased in number. Mr. Ahmad Amīn says,
“It is strange to know that if we make a diagram for the Hadīth, it will take a form of a pyramid the summit of which is the age of the Holy Prophet and then it expands with time passage until it reaches the base, which is the remotest age from the Holy Prophet’s. Nevertheless, the opposite should have been the most logical; the companions of the Holy Prophet were the most acquainted with his traditions and this acquaintance decreases with the death of these companions. In fact, we notice that the Hadīths during the Umayyad dynasty were bigger in number than the Hadīths during the age of the Rāshidite caliphs; and the Hadīths in the `Abbāsid dynasty were bigger in number than these in the Umayyad... and so on.”
Mr. Ahmad Amīn then justifies this fact by claiming that the wide movement of the immigration for seeking the knowledge of Hadīth as well as the roles played by the Jews and Christians had been the reasons behind that. He however pretended to neglect the main reason, which was the role of the ruling authorities and their political goals.
In this respect, I wonder how the Jews—who used to pay the tribute readily and were brought low, in the words of the Holy Qur'ān—could practice such a grave, destructive role away from any support or overlooking from the ruling authorities! In my conception, the most important factors in this respect were the political decisions that enacted the legality of the personal opinions as opposite to the sacred texts. Having predicted such, the Holy Prophet expressed his fear for the future of the Islamic legislation, guided to the necessity of the commitment to his instructions, and emphasized on the obligation of adopting and complying with the words of the Ahl al-Bayt, as is obviously clear in the famous Hadīth of al-Thaqalayn in addition to many other Hadīths. Abū-Bakr, too, anticipated this when he said, “People who will come after you will be more discrepant that you are.” However, he did not treat that except through calling the publics for depending upon the Book of Allah alone!
As a conclusion, from the aforesaid discussions we can understand that all these conceptions and their likes came to surface as a result of the enactment of the prohibition of recording and reporting the Hadīth as well as the adoption of the legality of the Sahābah’s personal views and other political factors.
It is said that a difference begins with one millimeter and ends up with a kilometer or even becomes endless. The ordeals of the Prophetic texts and all that which happened to the Islamic legislation have become the best example on this geometric fact. The Holy Sunnah unfortunately reached at such an unfavorable level that it has not been recognized except through the acts of the Sahābah and, what is worse is that the opinions and deeds of the Sahābah were decided as restricting the texts of the Holy Qur'ān!
Hereinafter, some texts of the Holy Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt that carry answers for the majority of the spurious arguments and confirm the illegality of depending upon personal views as regards the religious laws will be cited:
In a lengthy epistle that he has sent to his followers, Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq says,
“O the compassionated and successful group! Verily, Almighty Allah has perfected for you the welfare that He has conferred upon you. Be it known to you that it is unacceptable, according to the knowledge and commission of Almighty Allah, that any of His creatures may decide a matter appertained to His religion out of his own fancy, opinion, or invented analogy. Almighty Allah has revealed the Qur'ān, has included it the exposition of all things, and has chosen definite people for preserving and teaching it. It is unfeasible for the people of the knowledge of the Qur'ān that Almighty Allah has given exclusively to them to adopt any fancy, opinion, or analogy as regards the questions of their religions. Those are the Ahl al-Dhikr (Followers of the Reminders) to whom Almighty Allah has ordered the community to refer in the religious questions...
Although the Messenger of Allah, before his demise, had ordered them to adhere to the sacred texts, they, immediately after the demise of him, decided to follow and adopt matters upon which people -the ordinary people- would agree even if such matters would violate the commission of Almighty Allah and His Messenger. Certainly, to claim the capability of deciding matters that are in violation of the commissions of Almighty Allah and the Messenger of Him has been the most defiant to Almighty Allah and the most deviant act. By Allah I swear; it is incumbent upon His creatures to obey Him and to follow His commissions during the lifetime of Muhammad—peace be upon him and his family—and after his death...
Can any of these enemies of Almighty Allah prove that anyone of those who followed and submitted to Muhammad had adopted their personal opinions and acted upon analogies? If they answer affirmatively, they will certainly have forged lies against Almighty Allah and indeed strayed off into a remote error. And if they answer that it was illegal for anyone (of those who followed and submitted to the Holy Prophet) to decide his own views, fancies, and analogies in matters of the religion, then they will have testified against themselves and proved the falsity of their claims. In the same way as it was illegal for anyone of those who followed and submitted to the Holy Prophet to decide his own views, fancies, and analogies in matters of the religion during his lifetime, it is also illegal for those lived after him to do such...
Follow and adopt the traditions and heritage of the Messenger of Allah; and follow not your own fancies and opinions lest you will have strayed off. Verily, the most deviant people in the view of Almighty Allah are those who follow their own fancies and opinions without any guidance from Him.
O Group: Adhere to the traditions and conducts of Almighty Allah as well as the traditions and conducts of the Imams of the Household of the Messenger of Allah—the guides to the true. Verily, one who follows that shall have certainly been guided to the truth, but one who neglects and abandons that will have strayed off. This is because these Imams are the very ones the obedience and loyalty to whom have been commissioned by Almighty Allah.”
Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq, on the authority of his honorable fathers, has narrated that Imam `Alī, within a long sermon, said,
“Verily, a true believer is he who has taken his religion from his Lord, not from his own opinions.”
Imam `Alī has narrated that the Holy Prophet said,
“Almighty Allah says: He who interprets My Words in his own opinion has in fact not believed in Me; and he who anthropomorphizes me has in fact not recognized Me.”
It has been narrated that Mu`āwiyah ibn Maysarah ibn Shurayh narrated, I once saw Abū-`Abdullāh (Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq) in Masjid al-Khayf in the middle of a company of about two hundred persons among whom was `Abdullāh ibn Shabramah who asked him, “Abū-`Abdullāh: In Iraq, we judge between people according to the Qur'ān and Sunnah, but sometimes we face some questions that we judge according to our own views that we exert efforts in deducing them...”
Replying to him, Imam al-Sādiq asked, “What is your opinion about `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib?”
Ibn Shabramah began to praise Imam `Alī as brilliantly as he could.
Then, Imam al-Sādiq commented, “Verily, `Alī rejected to insert any personal opinion in the affairs of the religion of Almighty Allah and rejected to express any opinion or analogy in the questions of the religion... Had Ibn Shabramah known what exactly annihilated the peoples, he would have never accepted or acted upon analogies in the religious questions.”
It has been narrated that Imam Muhammad al-Bāqir said,
“O Zurārah: Beware of those who act upon analogy in the religious affairs. They have neglected the knowledge that they were commissioned to learn and have engaged themselves in learning the knowledge that has been already given to them. They are interpreting the traditions and forging fabrications against Almighty Allah. I see coming that when one of these (who act upon analogy) is called from ahead, he answers from behind and when he is called from behind him, he answers from ahead. Thus have they strayed off and been confused in the lands and in the religion.”
It has been narrated that Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq said,
“Have your books in custody, for you will need them.”
“Record (the knowledge), for you will not retain unless you write down.”
“Write down and circulate your knowledge among your brethren-in-faith. Before you depart life, give your books in inheritance to your sons. People shall experience an age of commotion during which nothing will amuse them except their books.”
Furthermore, too many are the narrations that encourage and confirm the necessity of writing down, the following of the choice companions of the Holy Prophet who had written down the knowledge of the religion, and the thorough compliance with the sacred texts though these narrations are not mentioned herein for fear of lengthiness. In addition, these narrations denounce the issuance of verdicts out of personal views and baseless inferences as well as the issuance of verdicts depending upon principles that were not decided by the Holy Prophet; rather they were invented in later ages under certain circumstances.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:255.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:46 H. 89, 2:871 H. 2335; Sahīh Muslim 2:1112; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:33 H. 222; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 5:420 H. 420.
Al-Bukhāriy: Kitāb al-`Ilm 1:33 Section: 27 H. 1956, 6:2676 H. 6920; Sahīh Muslim 3:1695.
 Al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn 3:305; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 7:69; al-Qurtubiy: Tafsīr 14:125-6.
 It has been narrated on the authority of Mahmūd ibn Labid that `Uthmān ibn `Affān, from the minbar, said, “It is impermissible for anyone to report any of the traditions of Allah’s Messenger unless that Hadīth has been circulating during the reigns of Abū-Bakr and `Umar.” See Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 2:336; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 39:180. al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy, in al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhay 4:377, has narrated that when `Umar ibn al-Khattāb was stabbed to death, he counseled the attendants about the ruling of the grandfather’s share from inheritances. `Uthmān ibn `Affān answered, “If we follow your own opinion, this will be true guidance; and if we follow the opinion of the Shaykh who was before you (i.e. Abū-Bakr), this will be excellent!” See also Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:159 H. 631; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:246 H. 12201.
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 4:338-339; Ibn Qutaybah: al-Imāmah wa’l-Siyāsah 1:46; al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 7:169.
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:606 (Events of AH 29).
 For the details of this incident, refer to `Allāmah Muhsin al-Amīniy: al-Ghadīr as well as other reference books of Islamic history.
 The story of Fadak is too famous to require explanation. Master scholars have written many books about it.
 Sā` is an Islamic unit of measurement.
 For the details and actual reality of this issue, refer to Shaykh al-Tūsiy: al-Khilāf.
 This means that the ruling authorities had usurped the house of Ja`far and added it to a mosque.
 Such as `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s verdicts about the shortage in the shares of heritage and the like.
The ruling authorities had decided the validity of the divorce that is uttered by those who divorced his wife without witnesses or without having been ritually pure. In the actual Islamic legislation, divorce is invalid unless its stipulations are achieved. Among these stipulations are the presence of witnesses and ritual purity. It is also probable that this statement of Imam `Alī was an indication to his famous saying after the people’s homage to him: “By Allah, even if I had found that by such money (distributed unjustly by `Uthmān ibn `Affān) women have been married or slave-maids have been purchased I would have resumed it because there is wide scope in dispensation of justice, and he who finds it hard to act justly should find it harder to deal with injustice. Certainly, each and every estate that was given by `Uthmān and every amount of money that `Uthmān took from the treasury of Allam and gave to certain people must be restored to the public treasury.
 This is because `Umar ibn al-Khattāb had exempted the individuals of the tribe of Taghlib from the jizyah (tribute: A tax imposed on non-Muslim subjects in Muslim countries as remuneration of their enjoying the protection of the Islamic state.) Accordingly, they were no longer included with the Ahl al-Dhimmah (non-Muslim subjects enjoying the protection of the Islamic state) and thus it is legal to take their descendants as captives. In this respect, Muhyī al-Dīn al-Baghawiy says, “It has been narrated that when `Umar ibn al-Khattāb asked them to pay the jizyah, the Arab Christians rejected claiming that they would not pay in the way as the non-Arabs did; rather they suggested to `Umar to take from them taxes under the same title that was taken from the Muslims, which is Sadaqah (alms). Yet, `Umar replied that the Sadaqah (alms) was Almighty Allah’s obligation on the Muslims exclusively. Hence, the Arab Christians suggested that he would choose any other title except the jizyah. He therefore contracted with them that they would pay as twice as the Sadaqah.
 This is because `Umar imposed, in the same effect of the obligatory Zakāt, upon the peasants, craftsmen, and businessmen to defray a tax in the interest of the scholars, governmental officials, and soldiers. He further recorded the names of both the parties in two separate records.
 `Allāmah al-Majlisiy, in Bihār al-Anwār 8:284, has written down that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, as one of his personal decisions that were in violation of the Islamic legislation, imposed land tax on the people of Iraq and decided to survey their lands and decided that for each jurayb (a unit of length) of date-palm trees, ten dirhams should be defrayed as tax, and for each jurayb of grapes, eight dirhams should be defrayed... etc. For more details in this issue, refer to Sharīf al-Murtadā: Kitāb al-Shāfī.
 This might have been an indication to the decision of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb that a non-Qurayshite man is not allowed to marry a Qurayshite woman; and a non-Arab man is not allowed to marry an Arab woman.
 This is an indication to `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s having prevented the Ahl al-Bayt from receiving their divinely commissioned share of the Khums tax.
 This means that he would remove from the building of the mosque the additions that were added to it by usurpation.
 This is an indication to the incident that Archangel Gabriel carried the commission of Almighty Allah that all the doors opened to the mosque must be cancelled except the door of Imam `Alī’s house.
 This is an indication to the fact that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb validated the rubbing on the sandals in the ritual ablution while this matter was denied by `Ā'ishah, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, Imam `Alī, and many others.
 This is an indication to the ritual Mut`at al-Nisā' and Mut`at al-Hajj.
 According to the reports of Hudhayfah, Zayd ibn Arqam, and others, the Holy Prophet recited the Takbīr five times during the ritual Deceased Prayers.
 The ruling authorities concentrated on reciting the Basmalah inaudibly during the ritual prayers.
 This may be an indication to the mutinous ‘Sahābah’ whom were dismissed from the Holy Prophet Mosque after they had been among the intimate friends of him; therefore, Imam `Alī would dismiss those whom were dismissed by the Holy Prophet, such as al-Hakam ibn al-`Ās and others.
 Earlier in this book, discussions and examples on `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s having opposed the Holy Prophet’s traditions as regards the method of the valid divorcement have been presented.
 The actual classes of the ritual Zakāt are the following nine categories: (1) (golden) Dīnārs, (2) (silver) Dirhams, (3) wheat, (4) barley, (5) dates, (6) raisins, (7) camels, (8) sheep, and (9) cows.
 The ruling authorities had violated all these laws. In my book of Wudū' al-Nabiy, I have explained this matter with more details.
 This is an indication to the Salāt al-Tarāwīh (the recommended nightly prayers during Ramadān), which `Umar ordered the Muslims to perform collectively. As he saw them lining up for performing this prayer, `Umar commented, ‘How excellent this heresy is!” (See Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 3:58; Ibn Shibbah: Tārīkh al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah 2:713; al-Tabariy: al-Riyād al-Nadirah 1:309; al-Ya`qūbiy: Tārīkh 2:140.)
 Shaykh al-Kulayniy: Rawdat al-Kāfī 8:58 H. 21.
 Shaykh al-Tūsī: Tahdhīb al-Ahkām 3:70 H. 27.
 Al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 1:96 H. 197.
 Al-Dhahbiy: Tadhkirat al-Huffādh 1:18. The narration has been written down as follows: “... A man from Quraysh came near him and said reproachfully, “Amīr al-Mu'minīn did warn you against delivering religious answers, did he not?”
Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy, in Fath al-Bārī fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy, commented that the one who reproached Abū-Dharr was from Quraysh and the one who prevented him from delivering religious answers was `Uthmān ibn `Affān.
 Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:146 H. 545. Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy, in Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:161, said that Abū-Dharr believed that it is illegal to obey the instruction of an imām who warns against issuing verdicts. This is because Abū-Dharr believed that it is obligatory to convey and spread the Holy Prophet’s instructions.
 Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 2:343; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 355 H. 5534; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 3:45 H. 2636; Musnad al-Shihāb 2:273 H. 1343. The Hadīth has been also narrated by other Sahābah, such as Abū-Sa`īd al-Khidriy and `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās. See, further, al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 6:85 H. 5869; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 3:46 H. 2638, 12:34 H. 12388; Abū-Na`īm: Hilyat al-Awliyā' 4:306.
 This is an indication to the holy verse, “If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. 5/66”
 This is a quotation from the Holy Qur'ān (26/227).
 Al-Ya`qūbiy: al-Tārīkh 2:171.
 Nahj al-Balāghah 2:12 Sermon No. 130; Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 8:252; al-Laythiy: `Uyūn al-Hikam wa’l-Mawā`idh 552; Shaykh al-Kulayniy: al-Kāfī 8:207; al-Jawhariy: al-Saqīfah wa-Fadak 78; al-Mahāsin 2:354 S. 12 H. 45; Makārim al-Akhlāq 249.
 Sunan al-Nassā’iy 5:253; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan 5:113; Al-Qāsim ibn Muhammad: Al-I’tisām bi-Habl-illāh al-Matīn 1:360.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:199 H. 775.
 Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 2:92 H. 2618; al-Shāfi`iy: Kitāb al-Umm 1:108; Sunan al-Dārqutniy 1:311 H. 33, 34; al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 1:357 H. 85.
 Mālik ibn Anas: al-Muwatta' 2:634; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan 5:280; al-Shāfi`iy: al-Risālah 1228.
 Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:122 H. 404.
 Ibn Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb 4:679; al-Mas`ūdiy: Murūj al-Dhahab 2:343; Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 2:45.
 Al-Zubayr ibn Bakkār: al-Muwaffaqiyyāt 576-577; al-Mas`ūdiy: Murūj al-Dhahab 3:454; Muhammad ibn `Aqīl: al-Nasā'ih al-Kāfiyah 116; Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 9:338.
 According to the Islamic laws, the Khutbah must be recited after the performance of the Salāt al-`Īd (The Eid Prayer).
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 2:22.
 Mahmūd Abū-Rayyah: Adwā' `Alā’l-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah 389 as quoted from Shaykh Muhammad `Abduh: al-Tārīkh 2:347.
 In my book of ‘Wudū' al-Nabiy’ pp.349-353, I have cited this debate and written down commentaries on it.
 In my book of ‘Wudū' al-Nabiy’, this topic has been discussed in details.
 Ahmad Amīn: Duhā al-Islām 2:128-129.
 This is an indication to Almighty Allah’s saying in the Holy Qur'ān, “Ask the Followers of the Reminder (Ahl al-Dhikr) if you do no know. 21/7”
 Shaykh al-Kulayniy: al-Kāfī 8:5; al-Hurr al-'Āmiliy: Wasāi’l al-Shī’ah 27:37. In a lengthy statement, Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq refuted the arguments of the School of Ijtihād as regards their opinions about the Ijtihād of the Holy Prophet and the false misinterpretations of the Hadīth that reads, “Disagreement of my community is mercy... etc.” For more details, refer to Sharīf al-Murtadā: al-Muhkam wa’l-Mutashābah 91 al-Hurr al-`Āmiliy: Wasā'il al-Shī`ah 27:52.
 Shaykh al-Sadūq: al-Amāliy 4:287, Ma`ānī al-Akhbār 1:185 as mentioned in al-Hurr al-`Āmiliy: Wasā'il al-Shī`ah 27:44-45.
 Shaykh al-Sadūq: `Ilal al-Sharā'i` 1:59 as mentioned in al-Hurr al-`Āmiliy: Wasā'il al-Shī`ah 27:45.
 Al-Barqiy: al-Mahāsin 77:210 as mentioned in al-Hurr al-`Āmiliy: Wasā'il al-Shī`ah 27:51.
 They forge lies against Almighty Allah because they depend upon their own conjectures. In this respect, Almighty Allah, in the Holy Qur'ān, says, “Say: Has Allah commanded you, or do you forge a lie against Allah. 10/59”
 Shaykh al-Mufīd: al-Amāliy 12:51 as mentioned in al-Hurr al-`Āmiliy: Wasā'il al-Shī`ah 27:59, H. 43.
Summary of the Last Reason
From the previously mentioned discussions, we can conclude that the actual motive of the prohibition of recording the Hadīth was not only to suppress the merits of the Ahl al-Bayt but also to give rise to a new jurisprudential atmosphere through which the ruler (or the caliph) can block all the jurisprudential shortage that he would find. This conclusion can be manifested more clearly through the consideration of the following presentations:
We have previously presumed that the first spark of the prohibition of recording the Hadīth came into view on the tongue of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb shortly before the demise of the Holy Prophet when the latter asked the attendants to bring him a pen and an inkpot so that he would dictate a document that would save the Muslims from straying off forever. Objecting to the Holy Prophet, `Umar said, “The man is hallucinating! Let the Book of Allah be sufficient for us!”
This process of the prohibition from recording rested upon offending the sacredness and the magnificent esteem of the Holy Prophet and upon defaming his divine immaculacy although this process was, in a certain moment, a private situation that `Umar had to take in order to orient the issue of the next leadership to the course that he wanted. As a result, `Umar opened wide the door permitting each one to do as exactly as he wanted. He also imposed his own opinion on the Sahābah and the attendants in that situation. Even when women, from behind the curtains, shouted at the attendants to carry out the Holy Prophet’s order, `Umar answered them, “Shut up! You have had ill situations with him. When he is ill, you press your eyes for shedding tears; and when he restores to health, you hang to his neck!” Yet, the Holy Prophet said, “These (women) are better than you are!”
This answer exposes that the Holy Prophet had not been satisfied with `Umar’s act; rather he wanted to reconfirm his statement that he had previously declared during the Farewell Hajj when he said that he would leave among his people the two weighty things (i.e. the Holy Qur'ān and the Ahl al-Bayt) one of which is more precious than the other.
As he anticipated that the Holy Prophet would reconfirm on the Holy Qur'ān and the Ahl al-Bayt as the two weighty things that he would leave among his people to follow, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb ascribed irrational talk to the Holy Prophet—while the Holy Prophet is too sacred to talk irrationally—in order to underestimate his words or even his written documents in case the Holy Prophet would have written something. As `Umar belittled the words of the Holy Prophet and ascribed him to hallucination, then it would have been unimportant to present his written document as pretext. From this cause, the Holy Prophet had to abstain from insisting on recording (or dictating) a document that he promised to save the Muslims from deviation! He therefore said, “Leave me and do not dispute with each other! It is unsuitable to dispute in the presence of a Prophet.” In brief, the prohibition of recording in this situation was made in order to prevent stating the decision of the next leadership in a written form.
The prohibiting from writing later on was the result of the contradiction between `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s opinions and the Holy Prophet’s traditions, instructions, and directives. Accordingly, the prohibiting from writing had two dimensions; one is political and the other is legislative.
What is I consider the most probable reason behind the prohibiting from writing and from recording the Hadīth, in addition to all that which has been mentioned by the gentle scholars in the presentation of the seventh reason, was that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb wanted to establish the conception of “an opinion that I have considered” (i.e. Ra’y) and to allow the multiplicity of opinions in order to meet the jurisprudential shortage that very frequently embarrassed him.
Because they knew that the source of the religious laws was exclusively Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet, the people did not accept to take these laws except from people who enjoyed elite relationship with the Holy Prophet and had full knowledge with the secrets of the divine revelation and its interpretation. Furthermore, the two caliphs who came to power after the Holy Prophet had to encounter issues the dealing with which necessitated the issuance of verdicts deduced from personal opinions and away from the sacred texts. The caliphs therefore had to practice Ijtihād and then allow the others to practice it so that decisions that would be taken out of their practices of Ijtihād would be justifiable and that they would not stand alone in this invented process. `Umar then exerted all efforts to dedicate such right of Ijtihād to himself, but `Uthmān ibn `Affān, as has been previously cited, said no.
Abū-Bakr and `Umar did not claim full acquaintance with all the religious questions in which the Holy Prophet had judged; rather they issued religious decisions according to their personal views. In this regard, Abū-Bakr affirmed on various occasions that the verdicts he issued had not been based upon any reference of legislation; if it therefore was true, this would be originated from Almighty Allah’s guidance, but if it was not, it would be Satan’s, as well as his, fault. They also used to ask the other Sahābah about the rulings that had been decided by the Holy Prophet while they had not known; and they did accept the words of these Sahābah in this respect. They also confessed of their lack of knowledge before everybody including the lady who proved false `Umar’s decision in the famous issue of women’s dowries and thus he confessed of her having been more knowledgeable than he was in the jurisprudential questions.
As a matter of fact, the religious rulings that Abū-Bakr and `Umar ignored were not few and were not restricted to one or two questions so that one would exert efforts in finding for them a justifiable interpretation. Meanwhile, the other Sahābah—such as Mu`ādh ibn Jabal, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān, `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, and `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib—knew the actual religious laws about such questions.
It is now obvious that when `Umar ibn al-Khattāb summoned the Sahābah and said to them, “We (i.e. the ruling authorities) are more knowledgeable about these rulings than you are; therefore, I listen to you but sometimes reject your words,” and when `Urwah ibn al-Zubayr said to `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, “They (i.e. Abū-Bakr and `Umar) were more know knowledgeable about the traditions of Allah’s Messenger than you are and they are also more attentive to them than you are,”—such situations and their likes were declared for the sake of strengthening the scholarly position of Abū-Bakr and `Umar in the ruling government and for obliging the others to accept the decisions of these two even if such decisions would be issued out of their personal views since they were more knowledgeable than anybody else about what is good for the Muslims. As has been previously cited, when the people brought before `Umar the records that comprised the Holy Prophet’s traditions, they had only intended that he would pick up the most accurate of them; they had not wanted him to decide about the fate of these papers and declare his own opinion to be the most accurate.
The concept of most knowledgeability was presented after the affairs of the Islamic State had been settled for `Umar and after the prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth had advanced in great strides. These two matters made possible for `Umar to claim enjoying the amount of knowledge that he liked after he had threatened and terrified the Sahābah. In the beginning, `Umar permitted the Sahābah to practice Ijtihād and pretended that he had submitted to their opinions as regards the religious laws; and this was the first step in the march of justifying his decisions that he issued later on. Because the opinions of some of the Sahābah who were less knowledgeable than `Umar, such as Abū-Hurayrah and Samarah ibn Jundub, were decided as true, the opinions of `Umar should be absolutely justifiable since he was not less than these names in knowledge and standing; rather he should be preceded to them. Moreover, `Umar was the first and last winner in the jurisprudential sessions that were held under his supervision. The unlimited, extensive participation in the practice of Ijtihād, as a preliminary step, achieved another benefit for the ruling authority. This benefit could be seen clearly in the states of the Sahābah’s commitments of mistakes as regards the religious laws and their finding faults with each other. Such states would institute the most powerful justifications and the most logic explanations of `Umar’s jurisprudential errors. None would be able to argue that `Umar had made a mistake since the all had participated in that error when they acceded to the issuance of religious laws according to personal views and deductions.
What is more is that we should not forge that the enactment of the prohibition of the recordation and reporting of the Hadīth that resulted in the blankness of the Sahābah’s books of Hadīth had brought about a big space in the religious legislation that could not be met except by the practice of Ijtihād and the resting upon personal opinions. Hence, the one and only purpose behind `Umar’s decision of the prohibition of recording the Hadīth was the invention of Ijtihād.
Earlier in this book, we have scanned narrations revealing that some of the Sahābah used to test and provoke `Umar ibn al-Khattāb for purpose of attracting his attention towards his faults, not disparaging him. They used to ask him about the religious ruling of a certain question on many occasions so that he would take notice of the contradiction in his answers. Such narrations also reveal that the disagreement between the Sahābah was restricted to the jurisprudential questions.
As a matter of fact, `Umar was annoyed by such behaviors; he therefore said to the man who asked him about a question that he had already heard its answer from the Holy Prophet, “May perdition overtake both your hands! You have asked me a question that you had put before the Holy Prophet so that I would contradict him.”
The experience of finding fault with the caliph can be seen in its clearest version during the reign of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb rather than the other rulers. This matter supports the fact that he had opened the door of the adoption of personal opinions so wide that he could not close it.
Generally speaking, one who is actually expert in religious laws must not be alarmed by questions that are put before him; rather he must enjoy putting questions before him so that he will answer. In this respect, Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib used to say, “Ask me before you miss me.” On the other hand, one who lacks the knowledge of the Holy Prophet will panic about any question that is put before him and will also beat Subay` ibn `Usul accusing him of infidelity because he put many questions!
Owing to the expansion of the area of the Islamic State; the multiplicity of the new questions; the necessity of finding solutions for these questions in the light of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah; `Umar’s failure to comprehend all the traditions of the Holy Prophet as regards such questions; the possibility of the occurrence of contradiction between `Umar’s reports and the Sahābah’s—owing to all of these reasons, it became fundamental for `Umar to strengthen his previous conceptions of Opinionism (Ra’y), which he had presented during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, and legality of Ijtihād. Also, it became necessary to block the reporting and recordation of the Hadīth since these two matters would educate the publics and attract the attentions towards the caliph’s errors.
In the last of his reign, `Umar allowed the Sahābah to practice Ijtihād and declare their own opinions in the religious issues so as to justify his deeds. As well, he ordered them to reduce reporting the Hadīth because he did not like hearing the questions whose answers were not known by him. As a consequence, the prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth relieved from its private frame to prove that the purpose behind it were further than what has been said about it and to prove that it was not related to the issue of the true and false leaderships of the Islamic State.
It is well-known that `Umar dispersed the Hadīths about the virtues and merits of Imam `Alī in particular and the Ahl al-Bayt in general and that he justified his act of taking them away from the political leadership of the Muslim community that the people of Quraysh had not liked for the Hāshimites to hold both “positions” of prophethood and leadership.
Having held the position of the leadership (i.e. caliphate), it became harmless for `Umar to spread the Hadīths revealing the merits of `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib; rather it was offensive to spread the Hadīths of jurisprudential questions since such narrations comprised materials that would show clearly the contradictions between `Umar’s decisions that were based upon his personal views from one side and the divine revelation and the Holy Prophet’s traditions on the other side. The result of such contradiction would be that all his decisions would be proven false and thus the Muslims would not stand motionless; rather they would revolt against him. Had the government of `Umar failed, the source of such failure would have been this very point.
It is true that after he had come to power, `Umar did not like hearing the details and expositions of the virtues and merits of Imam `Alī and the Ahl al-Bayt since the circulation of such Hadīths would contribute in the shaking of his standing as a caliph and in the undermining of his leading position as well as in strengthening the situation of the opposite party and in revealing his legality and worthiness of holding the position of the leadership of the Islamic State. The same words are applicable to the situation that `Umar adopted in the case of the Disastrous Thursday (i.e. preventing the Holy Prophet from dictating his final will in a written form). Nevertheless, in addition to the problems that `Umar had to encounter as regards finding suitable answers for the jurisprudential questions that were put before him, the fear from spreading the Hadīths of the merits and virtues of Imam `Alī and the Ahl al-Bayt was one of the leading motives that urged him to decide the prohibition from reporting and recording the Hadīth. As a result, he prohibited the reporting and recordation of the Hadīth generally so as to save his position and himself from the political, jurisprudential inconveniences.
To take Imam `Alī away from the jurisprudential and political leaderships was one of the essential goals of the state of the caliphs. This sense was publicly declared in `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās’s famous word,
“Verily, had you not selected for your leadership those whom Almighty Allah has rejected, and rejected those whom Almighty Allah has selected for you, and confessed to the divinely commissioned leadership and successorship of the Household of your Prophet, you would surely have been nourished from above you and from beneath your feet, no shortage would have occurred to the shares of inheritance none of which would have ever failed, and no two individuals have ever disagreed about any of the laws of Almighty Allah.”
This is because the jurisprudential enlightenment was not less important than the political education. If people had recognized the actual capability of Imam `Alī in the knowledge of the religious laws and the actual incapability of the other party (represented by the ruling authorities), this would undoubtedly have had misgivings about the caliph’s jurisprudential knowledge causing one of the two wings of caliphate to fail.
The prohibition from recording the Hadīth in general and the decision of reducing reporting it in particular and the opening wide the door of Ijtihād by means of personal opinions, analogies... etc.,—all these matters bear out that there must have been another more important motive, other than the motives mentioned by the scholars as have been presented in the seventh reason, that necessitated the issuance of the decision of prohibiting the recordation of the Hadīth.
The majority of the reports that narrated the objections of the Sahābah to `Umar’s decision was dedicated to the jurisprudential, not administrative or governmental, aspects. In plain words, the Sahābah objected to `Umar as regards the jurisprudential questions, not the worthiness and merits of other individuals.
Earlier in this book, it has been cited that `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās said, “I see coming that you shall certainly be perishing! 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!”and `Abdullāh ibn `Umar said, “I will never neglect the instructions of the Holy Prophet for a word of any other person!” and “The Holy Prophet did it; and certainly he is better than `Umar ibn al-Khattāb.” These texts and their likes confirm that the disagreement between `Umar and the Sahābah was dedicated to the exposition of the religious laws and to the principles that `Umar had decided for the Muslim jurisprudence, such as the Ijtihād and Qiyās... etc.
The overall scheme of the caliphs included the prohibition from reporting the merits of the Ahl al-Bayt, the evidences on the divinely commissioned leadership of them, and the Holy Prophet’s instructions and traditions about the religious laws. In general, the scheme recommended the prohibition of spreading any item that would contribute in documenting the authenticity of the Ahl al-Bayt School. To prove it, let us cite the following narrations:
It has been narrated that `Abd al-Rahmān ibn Yazīd said: In the year 82 (AH), Sulaymān ibn `Abd al-Malik, having been still the crown prince, passed by al-Madīnah during his journey to performing the ritual Hajj. The people greeted him while he was pushing his way in the city. He then visited the places where the Holy Prophet had offered prayers as well as the site where he was injured during the Battle of Uhud. Accompanied by Abān ibn `Uthmān, `Amr ibn `Uthmān, and Abū-Bakr ibn `Abdullāh, the crown prince visited the sites of Masjid Qubā’, Masjid al-Fadīkh, Mashrabat Ummi-Ibrāhīm, and Uhud Mount. As he asked about each site that he visited, the fellows explained to him what had happened therein. He then ordered Abān ibn `Uthmān to write down a book about the life account of the Holy Prophet as well as the events of his campaigns.
Abān said, “I have already written down such a book whose materials have been authenticated by trustworthy individuals.”
Sulaymān thus ordered that book to be copied ten times. When the book was copied on parchments, the copies were presented before the crown prince. As he noticed that the Ansār were praiseworthily mentioned in the book, especially as regards the two historical homages of al-`Aqabah and the Battle of Badr, he commented, “I cannot imagine that these people (i.e. the Ansār) did really enjoy such merits. There is only one option in this regard; either my family had denied the merits of these people or they were not as exactly as what is mentioned in this book.”
Abān ibn `Uthmān answered, “Your Excellency: the deeds that they had committed against the oppressed martyr should not stop us from saying the truth. They (i.e. the Ansār) were as exactly as what is mentioned in this book.”
Sulaymān said, “I must not order of copying such a book before I seek the permission of Amīr al-Mu’minīn (i.e. the caliph; `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān). Probably, he will refuse such a thing.”
He therefore ordered the copies to be torn out and commented, “When I return, I will ask Amīr al-Mu’minīn, and if he agrees, nothing will be easier than re-copying the book.”
When he was back to the capital, he presented the question before his father, the caliph, who commented, “What will you excuse when you bring us a book that is empty from any item of honor for us? Do you intend to introduce to the people of Syria matters that we do not want for them to know?”
Accordingly, Sulaymān answered, “For this very reason have I ordered the copies of the book to be torn out. I would never copy the book before I seek your opinion.”
The caliph thus acceded to this good opinion.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 5:644 H. 14133; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 2:244.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:54 H. 114; Ibn Hazm: al-Ihkām fī Usūl al-Ahkām 7:425; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb 1:169; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:209.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 7:233 H. 14114; Sa`īd ibn Mansūr: Kitāb al-Sunan 195 H. 598.
 Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 3:174 H. 13181; al-Āhād wa’l-Mathānī 3:228 H. 1589; Sharh Ma`ānī al-Āthār 2:232; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 3:262 H. 3353.
 Al-Ghāmidiy: Haqīqat al-Bid`ah wa-Ahkāmuhā 1:114 (as quoted from Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 165); Sunan al-Dārimiy H. 146; Ibn Waddāh: al-Bida` 69; Durr al-Ta`ārud 7:172. In his book of ‘al-Masā'il’ 1:478 H. 81, Ahmad ibn Hanbal says, “Abū-`Uthmān al-Nahdiy said that a man—from the tribe of Yarbū` or the tribe of Tamīm—asked `Umar ibn al-Khattāb about the interpretation of the words ‘wa’l-Dhāriyāt’ wa’l-Nāzi`āt’, ‘wa’l-Mursalāt’, mentioned in the holy Qur'ān in the holy verses, “I swear by the wind that scatters far and wide, 51/1” “I swear by the emissary winds, sent one after another (for men's benefit), 77/1” “I swear by the angels who violently pull out the souls of the wicked. 79/1”
Instead of answering the man, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb ordered him to remove his head cover. As the man did, `Umar noticed that there was hair on his head. He thus said, “If I found you hairless, I would certainly behead you!”
`Umar then ordered us (or wrote a missive to the people of al-Basrah, ordering them) not to sit with that man forever. As a result, whenever we saw that man, whose name was Subay` ibn `Usūl, we left him and separated even if we were one hundred persons.
On the other side, al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy, in al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 2:506 H. 3736, has narrated on the authority of Abu’l-Tufayl that Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib Amīr al-Mu'minīn, once, stood on the minbar and said, “O people: Ask me before you miss me. Seize this opportunity and ask me, for you shall never find anyone like me to ask.”
On hearing this, Ibn al-Kawwā’ stood up and asked, “O Amīr al-Mu'minīn! What is the interpretation of (the holy verse) ‘Wa’l-Dhāriyāti Dharwa; I swear by the wind that scatters far and wide. 51/1’?”
The Imam answered, “This is the wind.”
Ibn al-Kawwā’ went on, “What is the interpretation of (the holy verse) ‘Fa’l-Hāmilāti Waqra; Then those clouds bearing the load of minute things in space. 51/2’”
The Imam answered, “This is the clouds.”
Ibn al-Kawwā’ continued, “What is the interpretation of (the holy verse) ‘Fa’l-Jāriyāti Yusra: Then those ships that glide easily. 51/3’?”
The Imam answered, “This is the ships.
Ibn al-Kawwā’ continued, “What is the interpretation of (the holy verse) ‘Fa’l-Muqassimāti Amra: Then those angels who distribute blessings by Our command. 51/4’?”
The Imam answered, “This is the angels.”
Ibn al-Kawwā’ then asked, “Who are those about whom Almighty Allah, in the Holy Qur'ān, has said, ‘Have you not seen those who have changed Allah's favor for ungratefulness and made their people to alight into the abode of perdition (Into Hell)? They shall enter into it and an evil place it is to settle in. 14/28-29’?”
The Imam answered, “These are the hypocrites from the tribe of Quraysh.”
Commenting on this narration, al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy says that its series of narrators is authentic; yet, al-Bukhāriy and Muslim have not recorded it.” See this narrative and its ways of narration in the following reference books of Hadīth: `Umdat al-Qārī 10:19; Taghlīq al-Ta`līq 318-319; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 13:159-162; al-Ahādīth al-Mukhtārah 2:126 H. 494, 176 H. 556, 298 H. 678; Musnad al-Shāshiy 2:96 H. 620; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 27:99; al-Mi`yār wa’l-Muwāzanah 298; Nudhum Durar al-Simtayn 126; Nahj al-Sa`ādah 2:631; al-Ihtijāj 1:386; Jawāhir al-Matālib 1:300.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:253 H. 12237.
 Al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 5:141; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:95 H. 5700 (In this reference book, it is written that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar answered those who asked him why he had violated his father who prohibited the Mut`at al-Hajj, “Whose instruction must be followed; the Messenger of Allah or `Umar?”); al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 5:21 H. 8658.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 2:567 H. 1488; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:135 H. 1139.
 Al-Zubayr ibn Bakkār: al-Muwaffaqiyyāt 332-333. In this reference book, the author has written a commentary to this report.
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