|
Analysis and Conclusion
As the second introduction and its appendages has been elaboration of our opinion as regards the prohibition of recording the Hadīth, and in order not to avoid reference to some of the appertained wonderments and probabilities, it seems necessary to cite `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s justifications for the prohibition of recording the Hadīth. As a matter of fact, he presented two justifications only. First, he anticipated that the Muslims would be influenced by the Ahl al-Kitāb and, second, he anticipated that the Muslims would follow the Holy Prophet’s instructions and forsake the Holy Qur'ān.
However, Ibn Hazm has regarded as improbable that `Umar’s prohibition of recording the Hadīth included the Holy Sunnah; rather the decision, according to Ibn Hazm’s opinion, was aimed at the very tales of the past nations. In this regard, he says,
“The meaning of `Umar’s prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth, had this thing been true, is manifested in the narration that I recorded on the authority of Qaradhah.[282]`Umar only prohibited reporting the narratives regarding the past nations and their likes. To prohibit reporting the conducts and norms of the Holy Prophet is absolutely violation. It is impermissible for anyone to believe that an ordinary Muslim individual may prohibit the spread of the Holy Prophet’s heritage. On this account, it will be extremely unacceptable to think that `Umar would do so. My proof is that `Umar himself reported many things from the Holy Prophet. Had the reporting of the Hadīth been discommended, `Umar would have contradicted himself when he reported very much from the Holy Prophet. It is impermissible for any Muslim individual to believe that `Umar had prohibited a matter and than he himself did it.”[283]
Imitating Ibn Hazm, Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb deemed unacceptable to say the `Umar ibn al-Khattāb prohibited the Sahābah from reporting and recording the Hadīth or imprisoned `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd and others when they violated this decision because this claim is contrary to sense.[284]
Nevertheless, a deep investigation in the events of the first age of Islam will unquestionably prove that the arguments of Ibn Hazm and his fans have not been accurate as they are far away from the reality. The uninterruptedness of the narrations that reported `Umar’s having decided to prohibit recording and reporting the Hadīth are undeniable and irrefutable. Other narrations have confirmed that `Umar’s decision generally included any sort of Hadīth and any Sahābiy. Moreover, it has been authentically narrated that `Umar treated the reporters and recorders of Hadīth with ultimate brutality. This fact cannot be denied save by unreasonable contenders. On this account, Ibn Hazm and his fans have attempted to invent justifications for `Umar’s deed. Yet, they have had nothing other than regarding as improbable or wonderments that are not based upon any scientific ground.
Regarding `Umar’s ordering Qaradhah and his companions to reduce reporting the Holy Prophet’s narrations, it must be exposed to one of two probabilities; either `Umar accused them all of fabricating lies against the Holy Prophet or he ordered them to conceal the revelations of Almighty Allah that were said to the Holy Prophet in private.
Neither Ibn Hazm nor would anyone of his fans accept any of these two probabilities. Yet, I accept the first probability provided that another matter is added to it. My proof on this is that `Umar used to accuse his officials of bribery and very often he seized half of their fortunes in addition to the fact that he used to be severe with them to the degree that his famous rod played on their bodies over and over again! `Umar’s general behaviors with the Sahābah proves that he distrusted them, railed at them, and exposed their defects to the publics.
Because Ibn Hazm and his fans would never accept the two aforementioned probabilities, they have had to claim that `Umar prohibited reporting and recording the narrations concerning the manners of the past nations only. This voluntary claim cannot withstand in the face of the many evidences inferred from the narrations that recorded the decision of `Umar’s having prohibited recording and reporting the Hadīth. To explain, the narrations intended have carried general sense and `Umar’s conducts as regards his application of the decision of prohibition indicate generality, not specification, and his well-known brutality has been too excessive to include a definite sort of narration. `Umar prevented `Ammār ibn Yāsir to report an undoubted incident (concerning the Dry Ablution; Tayammum) that `Umar himself witnessed during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet!
Thus, `Umar’s decision of prohibiting reporting and recording the Hadīth is not restricted to the narrations reporting the manners and tales of the past nations although it is probable that he opted for this justification in order to hide the actual purpose beyond his decision, which is related to the psychological backgrounds of `Umar who, during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and in the beginning of the Divine Mission, was prohibited from tracking and reporting the traditions of the Jews. Hence, his decision could act as negative reaction of the Holy Prophet’s situation against his reporting the Jews’ traditions. As a result, `Umar bore malice against reporting and recording any tradition, including the Holy Prophet’s, whether these traditions were authentic or not or whether they related to the manners of the past generations or not.
Khālid ibn `Urfutah narrated that `Umar said: Once, I… copied a book belonging to the Ahl al-Kitāb and brought him before the Holy Prophet.
“What do you have in your hand, `Umar?” asked the Holy Prophet.
“This is a book that I have copied so as to increase my knowledge,” answered I.
The Holy Prophet became so angry that both of his cheeks turned red. He then called people to gather. Having seen this situation, the Ansār knew that the Holy Prophet was enraged; they therefore armed themselves and surrounded the minbar. The Holy Prophet then said,
“O People: I have been given the comprehensives and seals of good wording (of knowledge), which has been briefed for me. I have hence given them to you as white and pure as they are. You must thus neither be confused nor be deceived by the nonbelievers.”
Soon after that, I (`Umar) stood up and declared, “I have accepted Allah as my Lord, Islam as my religion, and you as the Messenger.”
The Holy Prophet then descended from the minbar.[285]
According to another narration, `Abdullāh ibn Thābit reported that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, once, came to the Holy Prophet and said, “As I have passed by one of my Jew friends, he recorded for me comprehensive paragraphs from the Torah. May I show them to you?” On hearing this, the Holy Prophet’s face changed. I (`Abdullāh) reproached `Umar saying, “May Allah spoil your brain! Can you not see what occurred to the Holy Prophet’s face?” `Umar hence shouted, “I have accepted Allah as my Lord, Islam as my religion, and Muhammad as the Messenger.”[286]
It has been authentically narrated that `Umar associated the Jews and copied some of their books. Having read these books, he liked their materials. He therefore read these books not for investigation and refutation; rather he was admired by their contents as he aimed at educating himself through them. For this reason only, the Holy Prophet became so angry since he had already warned his followers against associating with the Jews. Likewise, the Holy Qur'ān, on more than one occasion, has declared the cunning and cheating of the Jews. In this regard, Almighty Allah says,
“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. [Holy Qur’ān: 5/51]”
“Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans. [Holy Qur’ān: 5/82]”
This incident had left a deep and negative reaction in `Umar’s mentality due to which he stood so severely against the reporters and recorders of the Hadīth some of whom were detained by him and others were beaten by his famous rod. From this cause also, he confirmed the decision of prohibition by saying, ‘This is a false wish just like that of the Christians and the Jews.’
Supporting our discussion, Khālid ibn `Urfutah narrated that he, once, was sitting with `Umar when a man from (the tribe of) `Abd-Qays residing in Sūs was brought before him.
“You are so-and-so from A`bd-Qays, are you not?” asked `Umar.
“Yes, I am,” answered the man.
“You are living in Sūs, are you not?” asked `Umar.
“Yes, I am,” answered the man.
`Umar then hit the man with a rod he had in his hand. “What have I done, Amīr al-Mu’minīn?”[287]shouted the man.
`Umar then ordered him to sit down. When the man did, `Umar recited, (the holy verses) “In the Name of Allah, the All-compassionate and the All-merciful. Alif. Lam. Ra. These are verse of the Scripture that maketh plain. Lo! We have revealed it, a Lecture in Arabic, that ye may understand. We narrate unto thee (Muhammad) the best of narratives in that We have inspired in thee this Qur'ān, though aforetime thou wast of the heedless.” [Holy Qur’ān: 12/1-3]
`Umar repeated these verses thrice and each time he recited, he beat the man with his cane.
“What have I done, Amīr al-Mu’minīn?” asked the man again.
“It was you who copied the Book of Daniel, was it not?” asked `Umar.
The man answered, “Well, I will carry out anything you will say.”
`Umar thus instructed, “Go and erase it with fire and white wool. After that, you must not recite it ever again and must not show it to anybody at all. Beware! If I am informed that you will have recited it before anybody, I will kill you under punishment.”
`Umar then related to the man his story with that book of the Jews that he had copied during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet… etc.[288]
If truth be told, the decision of prohibition in this narration would have been acceptably pleasing and accurate had it been dedicated to it. Yet, the purpose of the decision has been trailed by many personal opinions and intrusions that confused its path and contents.
Such a negative reaction occurred to Usāmah ibn Zayd, too, when he killed a Muslim individual thinking that the man had only declared being Muslim because he feared of being killed. When Usāmah was back, Almighty Allah revealed the holy verse, “O ye who believe! When ye go abroad in the cause of Allah, investigate carefully, and say not to any one who offers you a salutation: ‘Thou art none of a believer!’ Coveting the perishable goods of this life. [Holy Qur’ān: 4/94]” Thus, Usāmah became so fearful and hesitant that he abstained from participating in Imam `Alī’s campaigns against the breachers, the violators, and the apostates, claiming that he would not kill Muslim individuals. Yet, he forgot the many holy verses, Prophetic deeds, Hadīths, and consensus of the Sahābah on the legality of putting to death the Muslim married who commits fornication, the Muslims who deny one of the fundamentals of Islam, the Muslims who violate the souls of other Muslims, and many others. Pretending to have forgotten all these Islamic laws, Usāmah rested upon his personal views that to fight against the breachers, violators, and apostates is not permissible although his personal inferences were in violation of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah.
By the notice of `Umar’s negative reaction against the aforementioned incident that occurred to him in addition to his frequent encroachments against the Sahābah whom are accused of treachery and fabrication, detained and beat—by noticing all these factors, it becomes easy to understand why `Umar prohibited the others from reporting and recording the Hadīth while he allowed himself to do it.
Because he was the caliph, he thought that he had full authority to report the Hadīth while the others, because they were object to doubt, distrust, and flaw, must not enjoy such an authority.
Moreover, the conduct of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb contradicts the justification of Ibn Hazm. It is known that `Umar was fond of the narratives of the Ahl al-Kitāb as well as the Jews who converted to Islam and still kept the Torah, especially Ka`b al-Ahbār who brought to `Umar a book, whose edges were torn due to oldness, comprising the Torah and asked for permission to read it;[289] hence, `Umar permitted him to read it day and night.[290] In other words, `Umar ordered him neither to erase that book, nor to set fire to it, nor did he warn him against such thing.
When he conquered Bayt al-Maqdis (in Jerusalem), Ka`b al-Ahbār said to him, “Your deed was predicted by a Prophet five hundred years ago! Good tidings, Jerusalem! Al-Farūq (i.e. `Umar) will purify you from what you keep!”[291]
According to another narration, Ka`b al-Ahbār said to `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, “In the Torah, it is written that this land, which was inhabited by the children of Israel (i.e. the Israelites), would be conquered at the hands of a virtuous man.” On hearing this, `Umar thanked Almighty Allah.[292]
Ka`b al-Ahbār also said to `Umar, “In the Torah, we read that ‘Woe to the king of the earth from the King of the Heavens.” `Umar added, “Except those who watch themselves.” Ka`b al-Ahbār commented, “I swear by Him Who grasps my soul; it is written in the Torah in this very form (i.e. with the addition of `Umar).” `Umar thus raised his sound with ‘Allāhu Akbar’ and prostrated himself.[293]
When a man, who had absented himself in a hole in a mountain for four days, claimed that he had entered Paradise, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb summoned Ka`b al-Ahbār and asked him, “Can you see in your books that a man belonging to our nation would enter Paradise and then come out of it?”
Ka`b al-Ahbār said, “Yes, I have read such a thing and, further, I can tell which one is that person if he is now among you.”
`Umar said, “Yes, he is among us.”
Ka`b al-Ahbār looked at the attendants and then pointed at the man![294]
One day, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb summoned Ka`b al-Ahbār and asked, “How am I described (in the Torah)?”
Ka`b al-Ahbār answered, “You are described as an iron age.”
“What comes next?” asked `Umar.
“Then will come a caliph killed by an unjust faction,” answered Ka`b al-Ahbār.
“What comes next?” asked `Umar.
“Then will come ordeals!” answered Ka`b al-Ahbār.[295]
Furthermore, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb sought the advice of Ka`b al-Ahbār in the most serious question of the Islamic nation; he consulted him about the leadership of the ummah, saying, “What is your opinion about the leadership of `Alī? I need your conception in this regard.”
Ka`b al-Ahbār answered, “From the aspect of personal opinions, he is not fit enough. This is because he is very strict in the religious affairs. He never overlooks any flaw, never shows mercy in any mistake, and never acts upon his personal opinions.”[296]
Ka`b al-Ahbār also came to `Umar ibn al-Khattāb to inform him about his eminent death as mentioned in the Torah. He said to him, “You should, Amīr al-Mu'minīn, prepare your will, for you will die in three days.”
“How do you know?” `Umar asked.
Ka`b al-Ahbār answered, “I read that in the Book of Allah—the Torah!”[297]
In addition, al-Bukhāriy has recorded, in his book of Sahīh, narrations that refute Ibn Hazm’s justification. He narrated that it is permissible to report from the Children of Israel. In this connection, he has recorded on the authority of Abū-Hurayrah that the Ahl al-Kitāb used to recite the Torah in Hebrew then translate it into Arabic for the Muslims. Commenting on this, the Holy Prophet said, “You should neither believe nor belie the Ahl al-Kitāb; rather you should only repeat (the verse that reads): Say: We believe in Allah and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit. [Holy Qur’ān: (2/136)]”[298]
Ibn Kathīr says, “When he converted to Islam during the reign of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, Ka`b al-Ahbār used to discuss, in the presence of the caliph, matters driven from the sciences of the Ahl al-Kitāb. `Umar used to listen to him in order to encourage him and also because he was admired by these narratives. Many people thus sought `Umar’s permission to write down these narratives of Ka`b al-Ahbār; therefore, they were permitted to report from the Children of Israel. However, a big amount of mistakes and a great deal of confusion occurred due to such.”[299]
Although none is responsible for the contradictions between `Umar’s deeds and words, the previous discussion removed the accuracy of all the justifications of Ibn Hazm and his fans in which they have spared no efforts for fabricating excuses for `Umar’s unacceptable deeds.
Two More Justifications
Other authors have attempted to find other justifications for `Umar’s decision. They have claimed,
“`Umar only wanted to protect the Hadīth against fabrication through reducing the reporting and recordation of it; therefore, experts in Hadīth and the truthful reporters were excluded from the decision.”[300]
Such sayings cannot convince any rational! Protection is senseless since it is meaningless to prevent a trustworthy narrator from reporting the Hadīth, taking into consideration that some of those whom were directly prohibited from spreading the Hadīth were such trustworthy that the Holy Prophet said about them words of praise and respect.
To actually protect the Hadīth is to urge such persons to report it so that others will spread the Holy Prophet’s heritage and convey it throughout the Islamic regions and thus people would know the details of their religion saving themselves from ignorance with the religious rulings.
If `Umar’s protection signifies the fear of a reporter’s inaccuracy, oblivion, or the like flaws, this meaning must be first applied to `Umar himself without expecting it from others and hence preventing them for reporting.
It is also so surprising to say that the experts in Hadīth and the trustworthy reporters were excluded from `Umar’s decision because it has been authentically narrated that `Umar jailed grand Sahābah, such as Abu-Dharr, `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, Abu-Mas`ūd al-Ansāriy, and Abu’l-Dardā’ because of their having breached the decision. He also warned `Ammār ibn Yāsir, Abū-Mūsā al-Ash`ariy and other Sahābah against violating it.
It is also very improbable to say that acts like prohibition, putting in jail, and beating were incompatible with `Umar’s psychology for his having been the caliph and one of the grand Sahābah and thus he should be deemed far above committing such things! To refute it, we say that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb has been well-known for his brutality and rough treatment since the lifetime of the Holy Prophet.[301] This is an irrefutable fact. He also continued such behaviors during the reign of Abū-Bakr.[302] When he came to power, his rod did not depart him for a single moment; he used to beat, punish,[303] detain,[304] exile, and displace peoples[305] for matters that could have been treated through other means of discipline and guidance. Finally, in the first days of his reign, he prayed to Almighty Allah to make him lenient![306]
Historians have conveyed various pictures of `Umar’s norm as regards treating the subjects. Describing `Umar, the author of Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah says,
“`Umar’s tempers and words were full of violence and patent abuse. He was intensely cruel, unsociable, harsh, and frowning. He regarded these features as virtues and any opposite quality would be defect.”[307]
As a consequence, it is not strange for `Umar to adopt such a strict situation against anyone who would break his decision of prohibiting recording and reporting the Hadīth, especially after he had been reproached by the Holy Prophet for having copied a book of the Jews. To add to the previous facts `Umar’s overflowing tribalism and the danger that the reporting of the Holy Prophet’s heritage would cause to the legality of his position of leadership, the matter becomes easily understandable.
Above all, `Umar detained Abu’l-Dardā’ who had disagreed with him on certain jurisprudential issues and detained Abū-Dharr and `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd who both disagreed with him as regards the issue of forbidding the temporary marriage. The same thing is applicable to the others whom `Umar disallowed to leave his capital.[308] These incidents indicate that `Umar was extremely coarse to those persons because they reported Hadīths whose significances did not appeal to him or violated his personal legislations. On the other hand, he neither detained nor beat nor censured Abū-Hurayrah who reported more than 5374 Hadīths. He only satisfied himself with menacing and banishing him for a period before he permitted him alone to report the Hadīth.
The most obvious evidence on `Umar’s having enjoyed this feature is the narration that he, once, saw off a group of the Sahābah that he had delegated to al-Kūfah.
“Do you know why I am seeing you off?” asked he.
“Yes, we do,” they answered, “This is for the sake of our being the companions and supporters of the Holy Prophet.”
Replying them, `Umar said, “This is true. But I am seeing you off for another matter that I wanted to tell you in private… you must reduce reporting the Hadīth and I am responsible for this decision.”[309]
Because they were from the Ansār—the group of the pure compliance with the Holy Prophet’s commandments whom are expected to report things that `Umar would not like to be spread among the Muslims lest his flaws would float to the surface—`Umar had to prevent them from reporting the Hadīth or had to order them to restrict it so that his lack of experience would not come to view.[310]
As has been earlier proven, all the invented justifications that have been presented for defending `Umar’s decision of prohibiting the reporting and recording of the Hadīth will never withstand the criticism and investigation that is based on logic and knowledge. For that reason, the foundation on which they have built their opinions of finding suitable justifications for `Umar’s decision has been the big hallo that they sketched around `Umar’s personality in their mentalities as is seen in Ibn Hazm’s statement, “It is impermissible to anyone to believe that an ordinary Muslim may prohibit the spread of the Holy Prophet’s heritage. On this account, it will be extremely unacceptable to think that `Umar would do so.”
Moreover, other reasons, to be mentioned later on, prompted `Umar to prohibit reporting and recording the Hadīth and expand the circle of personal inferences and identification of advantages. The proofs on which the adopters of this opinion depended were in fact present in the mentalities of some of the Sahābah, headed by `Umar, since the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. Yet, `Umar worked for establishing this idea.
Summary
The discussions of the first introduction can be summarized in the following points:
1) Since the age of the Holy Prophet, the Sahābah followed two different trends; some of them complied thoroughly with the sacred texts and the instructions of the Holy Prophet, while others followed their personal opinions and views.
2) Abū-Bakr and `Umar, the first and second caliphs, followed the second trend of Ijtihād and Opinionism.
3) `Umar ibn al-Khattāb made expansive steps in the field of establishing the foundations of his personal opinions that he unveiled during his reign.
4) One of the factors that urged `Umar ibn al-Khattāb to prohibit the reporting and recording of the Hadīth was the negative reaction that inflicted him due to his having copied the books of the Jews.
5) The justifications of Ibn Hazm as regards `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s prohibiting from spreading the Hadīth are actually baseless, because `Umar’s decision was general. The conducts of `Umar with the Ahl al-Kitāb in general and Ka`b al-Ahbār in particular, even during his reign, contradicts the claims of Ibn Hazm. Similarly, the two last justifications—that `Umar issued such decision due to his excessive carefulness to the religious affairs or that the decision would not befit his psychological personality—have been proven as inaccurate.
Notes:
[282] The narration that is reported on the authority of Qaradhah reads that `Umar send Qaradhah ibn Ka`b along with a group of the Sahābah to al-Kūfah and ordered them to reduce reporting the Hadīth by saying, “Reduce reporting the Hadīth of the Messenger of Allah and I am responsible for this decision.”
[283] Ibn Hazm: al-Ihkām fi Usūl al-Ahkām 2:226. In his book of ‘Dalā'il al-Tawthīq al-Mubakkir’ 230, Dr. Imtiyāz Ahmad concluded the authenticity of the narrations of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s having detained the Sahābah in order to stop spreading the Hadīth.
[284] Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb: al-Sunnah Qabl al-Tadwīn 106-107.
[285] Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 52.
[286] `Abd al-Razzāq: al-Musannaf 6:113 H. 10164, 10:313 H.19213; al-Haythamiy: Majma’ al-Zawā’id 1:174 [where the narration reads as follows: `Umar said, “Allah’s Messenger: These are comprehensive paragraphs from the Torah that were given to me by a friend of mine belonging to the Banu-Zurayq (a Jew tribe).” The Holy Prophet’s face changed…].
[287] Amīr al-Mu’minīn (the commander of the believers) is a title that the Holy Prophet granted for Imam `Alī exclusively. Yet, all the leaders of the Muslim States have used it for themselves. In fact, the first one who seized this title was `Umar ibn al-Khattāb. (Translator)
[288] Tafsīr ibn Kathīr 2:468; al-Ahādīth al-Mukhtārah 1:216 H. 115.
[289] This text demonstrates that Ka`b al-Ahbār came to `Umar after converting to Islam and during his reign.
[290] Ibn Salām: Gharīb al-Hadīth 4:262; al-Harbiy: Gharīb al-Hadīth 3:95: al-Nihāyah al-Athīriyyah 2:468.
[291] Tārīkh al-Tabariy 4:160.
[292] Tārīkh Dimashq 5:162.
[293] Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 12:575 H. 35797.
[294] Yāqūt al-Hamawiy: Mu`jam al-Buldān 4:386.
[295] Al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 1:84; al-Haythamiy: Majma` al-Zawā'id 9:65 (He adds: Al-Tabarāniy has reported this narration whose series of narrators is trustworthy.)
[296] Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 12:81.
[297] Tārīkh al-Tabariy 3:264.
[298] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 8:160.
[299] Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 1:19.
[300] Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb: al-Sunnah qabl al-Tadwīn 105.
[301] Ibn Abī-Shaybah: al-Musannaf 3:171 H. 1352; al-Damīriy: Hayāt al-Hayawān al-Kubrā 1:71.
[302] Sunan Sa`īd ibn Mansūr 5:132 H. 942; Ibn Abī-Shaybah: al-Musannaf 6:358 H. 32013, 7:434 H. 37056; al-Khallāl: al-Sunnah 1:275 H. 337.
[303] Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:270; Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 1:181, 12:75; Ma’āthir al-Anāfah 3:339; Ibn Khallakān: Wafiyyāt al-A`yān 3:14 No. 317.
[304] Ibn Abī-Shaybah: al-Musannaf 5:294; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 1:193 H. 374; al-Dhahbiy: Tadhkirat al-Huffādh 1:7; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Dimashq 40:501; Mu`tasar al-Mukhtasar 2:380.
[305] Masā'il al-Imām Ahmad 1:489; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3:285, 2:609; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb 1:326; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 6:485 No. 8845, 6:182 No. 8142, 2:521 No. 2754; al-Tuhfah al-Latīfah fī Tārīkh al-Madīnah al-Sharīfah 1:264; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Dimashq 62:27, 23:408, 59:361; al-Dhahbiy: Tadhkirat al-Huffādh 2:609; Ibn Qutaybah: Gharīb al-Hadīth 2:544, 545; I`tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah 4:635 H. 1138; Ibn Mākūlā: al-Ikmāl 6:208; Tashīfāt al-Muhaddithīn 2:896; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 3:231 H. 1586; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bārī fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 7:4; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Tamhīd 9:89.
[306] Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3 :274 ; Ibn Abī-Shaybah: al-Musannaf 6:56 H. 29511, 7:256 H. 35835; Safwat al-Safwah 1:280.
[307] Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah 1:183 and 6:327.
[308] Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:679.
[309] Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 6:7, Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:85, Ibn `Abd al-Rabb al-Qurtubiy: Jāmi`u Bayān al-`Ilm wa-Fadlih(i) 2:120, al-Dhahbiy: Tadhkirat al-Huffādh 1:7, al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-’Ummāl 2:284 H. 4017 et al.
[310] In my book of ‘Wudū' al-Nabiy’, I have proven that Qaradhah ibn Ka`b used to perform the ritual ablution by rubbing his feet and that he objected to those who washed their feet. Moreover, according to Shaykh al-Majlisiy, in Bihār al-Anwār 32:354 as mentioned in the book of ‘al-Kāfīyah fī Ibtāl Tawbat al-Khāti'ah’, Qaradhah was one of the adherents (Shī`ah) of Imam `Alī. In this regard, it has been narrated on the authority of `Amr ibn Shamr on the authority of Jābir on the authority of Imam Muhammad al-Bāqir that when Imam `Alī Amīr al-Mu'minīn approached al-Kūfah after he had been in al-Basrah, the people, headed by Qaradhah ibn Ka`b, went out to welcome him. They met him before the river of al-Nadr ibn Ziyād and began to congratulate him for the victory and he was wiping sweat from his forehead. The first one to speak was Qaradhah who said, “All praise be to Allah Who supported your adherents, humiliated your enemies, and gave you victory over the tyrants, oppressors, unjust... etc.”
Source:
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
|
