The Rise of Opinionism in Islamic History

By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani
A deep look into the history of Islam takes to the conclusion that the Sahābah in the age of the Divine Mission and legislation can be classified into two groups in the capacity of their conducts towards the Holy Prophet’s words and instructions. The representatives of the fist group entered upon the ultimate compliance with all the rulings issued by Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet. This situation was based upon a number of considerations such as
(1) the sacredness of such rulings, for they are issued by Almighty Allah, the one and only God,
(2) the obligation of the compliance with the Holy Legislator and the impermissibility of breaking His laws as is deduced from Almighty Allah’s sayings
“O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak), [Holy Qur’ān: 8:20]” “He who obeyeth Allah and His messenger, and feareth Allah, and keepeth duty (unto Him): such indeed are the victorious, [Holy Qur’ān: 24:52]” “And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it), [Holy Qur’ān: 59:7]” “But nay, by thy Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make thee judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which thou decidest, and submit with full submission, [Holy Qur’ān: 4:65]” “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, [Holy Qur’ān: 24:51]” “And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest, [Holy Qur’ān: 33:36]”
and similar verses, and
(3) the fact that personal opinions in the fields of systemizing the social and individual conducts are worthless so long as there is a perfect legislation and flawless elucidation of all the laws comprised by the Holy Qur'ān. In other words, since there is an all-inclusive and unqualified legislation, it is meaningless to adopt anything claimed to make up for such unblemished code of law. In this regard, Almighty Allah says,
“And We reveal the Scripture unto thee as an exposition of all things, and a guidance and a mercy and good tidings for those who have surrendered (to Allah). [Holy Qur’ān: 15:89]”
The members of this group were characterized by their incontrovertible abidance by the Prophet’s words and instructions and their negligence of any personal opinion alongside of the Divine legislation and elucidation taking into consideration that the members of this group are exposed to flaw, oblivion, or inadvertence because they are not sinless! Later on, we will present models of this group.
The second group includes those who treated the Holy Prophet as an imperfect mortal who is liable to making mistakes such as insulting and cursing others and then asking Almighty Allah’s forgiveness for them.[226]They neither confessed of the sacredness and actual position of the Holy Prophet that he received from Almighty Allah nor did they treat him as exactly as Almighty Allah has commanded. This fact can be proven through many Qur'ānic verses and narrations. As much as the Qur'ānic verses are concerned, let us cite the following:
“O ye who believe! Lift not up your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor shout when speaking to him as ye shout one to another, lest your works be rendered vain while ye perceive not. [Holy Qur’ān: 49:2]”
This verse shows that some of the Sahābah did not observe the sacredness of the Holy Prophet; therefore, Almighty Allah has instructed them to conform to his unattainable position.
“O ye who believe! What aileth you that when it is said unto you: Go forth in the way of Allah, ye are bowed down to the ground with heaviness. Take ye pleasure in the life of the world rather than in the Hereafter? The comfort of the life of the world is but little in the Hereafter. [Holy Qur’ān: 9:38]”
This verse, too, shows that some of the Sahābah did not carry out or comply with the Holy Prophet’s command of participating in jihād (holy warfare); rather they bowed down to the ground with heaviness.
“Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained. [Holy Qur’ān: 33:57]”
“And of them are those who vex the Prophet and say: He is only a hearer. Say: A hearer of good for you, who believeth in Allah and is true to the believers, and a mercy for such of you as believe. Those who vex the messenger of Allah, for them there is a painful doom. [Holy Qur’ān: 9:61]”
These verses show clearly that some of the Sahābah used to vex the Holy Prophet.
“Hast thou not observed those who were forbidden conspiracy and afterward returned to that which they had been forbidden, and (now) conspire together for crime and wrongdoing and disobedience toward the messenger? And when they come unto thee they greet thee with a greeting wherewith Allah greeteth thee not, and say within themselves: Why should Allah punish us for what we say? Hell will suffice them; they will feel the heat thereof - a hapless journey's end. [Holy Qur’ān: 58:8]”
All the forecited Qur'ānic texts indicate the existence of some men among the Sahābah who did not realize the actual connotation of the Holy Prophet’s position in the Islamic legislation in specific and all fields of life in general. They therefore raised their voices in the presence of the Holy Prophet[227] and felt annoyed for his ordering them to fight against the enemy.[228] Moreover, some of them used to object to the Holy Prophet’s acts[229] and follow what is personally advantageous for themselves although a divine text in this regard was put between their hands.[230] They also issued personal opinions in his presence.[231] Exceeding all limits, some of them asked him to change some religious laws just because they did not meet their interests. Facing such objections, the Holy Prophet used to recite Almighty Allah’s saying,
“Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my accord. I only follow that which is inspired in me. Lo! If I disobey my Lord, I fear the retribution of an awful Day. [Holy Qur’ān: 10:15]”
Meanwhile, Almighty Allah, on more than one occasion, confirms to the Holy Prophet to abide by the divine commands. In this regard, He says,
“And now have We set thee (O Muhammad) on a clear road of (Our) commandment; so follow it, and follow not the whims of those who know not. [Holy Qur’ān: 45:18]”
Not only were the hypocrites and opportunists who fall under the category of ‘al-Mu’allafah Qulūbuhum—Those whose hearts are made to incline to Islam’—classified under the second group of the Sahābah, but there were also some ‘first-class’ Sahābah who, as is concluded from historical facts and biographies of the Holy Prophet’s companions, carried wrong impressions towards treating the divine texts in general and the Holy Prophet’s words and instructions in particular. Since they were still holding the traditional concepts that a Prophet is no more than an ordinary mortal who may be right or wrong, they used to object to the Holy Prophet in the same way as they object to any man. Both Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet have frequently denied such concepts. In this regard, the Holy Prophet is reported to have addressed to his companions,
“What for are you attempting to violate the Book of Allah? Because of this very thing did the past nations perish.”[232]
“How dare you act playfully in the Book of Allah while I am still among you?”[233]
“Have you been ordered of or created for violating the Book of Allah? Only because of such acts did the nations that preceded you go astray. You are not allowed to do anything with these instructions except to obey. You must carry out what you have been ordered to do and must refrain from what you have been ordered to avoid.”[234]
Too many are the Holy Prophet’s words that hint at the same topic and confirm his inerrancy and extraordinary character because the community, due to a traditional view, regarded him as an ordinary person who may make mistakes, forget or neglect… etc. As a consequence, many of the Holy Prophet’s decisions, which were taken in compliance with the Divine Commissions, were objected by his companions; such as releasing the prisoners of the Battle of Badr, offering the Dead Prayer for the hypocrite, entering into the Hudaybiyah Truce, and many other occurrences.
Nevertheless, an inclusive study of this topic leads us to a bitter fact that most of those who used to object to the Holy Prophet did not stop and did not accept the divine elucidations in this regard; rather they, disregarding the divine instructions, exerted all efforts in instilling this wrong idea in the minds of the Muslims after the departure of the Holy Prophet.
Although it goes without saying that by uttering the shahādah (the two creeds of Islam), one’s blood becomes too regardful to be shed unjustly, and although the Holy Prophet had been confirming on this principle since the first stages of his promulgation for Islam, Usāmah ibn Zayd killed Mirdās ibn Nuhayk, the Muslim, unjustly. When Usāmah was the commander of a brigade, he ordered to raid on a group of people among whom was Mirdās who had already converted to Islam. Having seen the attacking horsemen of Usāmah’s brigade, Mirdās drove his sheep towards a corner in the mountain so as to save them. When the horsemen caught him, he received them with statements of Allāhu Akbar and the two creeds of Islam; but Usāmah ibn Zayd killed him and took his sheep. When the Holy Prophet was informed about this incident, he was terribly depressed. He then said to them, “You have killed him only because you wanted to seize his sheep!” He then recited Almighty Allah’s saying,
“And do not say to any one who offers you peace: You are not a believer. Do you seek goods of this world's life! [Holy Qur’ān: 4:94]”[235]
The incident of Khālid ibn al-Walīd’s awful deed with the Banū-Judhaymah is a more expressive example. Writing the incidents that fell in AH 8, al-Tabariy recorded that after the Conquest of Makkah, the Holy Prophet decided to promulgate Islam in the neighboring districts through groups that he appointed for this purpose. Khālid ibn al-Walīd was the leader of the group sent to the Banū-Judhaymah as promulgators about Islam, not fighters. When Khālid resided in an area there, the men of Banū-Judhaymah armed themselves. Khālid then ordered them to lay down their weapons for all the people had accepted Islam. When they did, Khālid ordered his men to tie their hands behind their backs. He then killed a number of them. When the Holy Prophet was informed about this massacre, he raised his two hands towards the heavens and declared, “O Allah: I repudiate Khālid’s deed before You.” He then ordered (Imam) `Alī to take with him some money and pay them to the heirs of the victims of Khālid’s massacre as blood money. `Alī carried out… etc.[236]
Such incidents and such mentalities did not stop; they left their imprints on the events of the social life of Islam and continued to influence the reigns of Abū-Bakr and `Umar. In this regard, Ibn Hajar records that Khālid ibn al-Walīd used to issue personal orders without letting the caliph, Abū-Bakr, know about him.[237]
In addition to Khālid ibn al-Walīd and Usāmah ibn Zayd, too many were the Sahābah who used to act upon their own opinions, which were in violation of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah, while the Holy Prophet was among them. In fact, the Muhājirūn rested upon their personal views that violated the divine laws and instructions more than the Ansār[238] did. Most of the Ansār complied with the divine laws and instructions without discussion.
Those Sahābah who objected and acted upon their personal views were the originators of the schools of Ijtihād[239] (personal inference) and Ra’y (personal opinion) that emerged thereafter. Similarly, they were the cornerstones of the decision of prohibiting reporting and recording the Hadīth. It was they who warned `Abdullāh ibn `Amr ibn al-`Ās against recording the Hadīth during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and it was they who spread definite opinions and concepts that were later on included with the Holy Sunnah.[240]

The Situations Of Abū-Bakr And `Umar Towards The Two Groups
In order to sketch a clearer picture about the motives of the prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth, it is necessary to probe the situations of Abū-Bakr and `Umar towards the divine texts and instructions and their intuition about the Holy Prophet though we do desire to skip this page so as to avoid sectarian matters that are unnecessary in this discussion. In spite of that, this study requires matters of this kind the skipping of which results in the concealment of important facts, the deprivation of the actual motive beyond the prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth, the curtailment of the ideas and beliefs, and the confiscation of the freedom of presenting the concepts and motives.
On account of the abovementioned introduction, we have to tackle this topic even if it may add some points to the characters of Abū-Bakr and `Umar in particular and some of the Sahābah in general.
It has been narrated on the authority of Abū-Sa`īd al-Khidriy, Anas ibn Mālik, Jābir ibn `Abdullāh al-Ansāriy, and many grand Sahābah that Abū-Bakr, once, came to the Holy Prophet and told that he saw such a pious and religious man offering prayers in so-and-so valley. Suddenly, the Holy Prophet ordered Abū-Bakr to go back there and kill that man. Abū-Bakr did; but when he saw the man offering prayers in such a state of piety, he disliked carrying out the Holy Prophet’s order. He therefore came back. The Holy Prophet then ordered `Umar to carry out that order; but when `Umar went there, he also disliked killing the man for the same reason that made Abū-Bakr break the Holy Prophet’s order. When `Umar came back without carrying out the order, the Holy Prophet ordered Imam `Alī to go there and kill the man. Unfortunately, Imam `Alī could not find that man; he therefore came back and told the Holy Prophet. Commenting on the situation, the Holy Prophet said,
“Verily, that man and his companions recite the Holy Qur'ān but it does not reach even their clavicles. They will slip from the religion in the same way as an arrow slips the hit; then they will never return to it until the arrow corrects its position!”[241]
It has been also narrated that Anas ibn Mālik said: We, once, were sitting with the Holy Prophet in the yard of the mosque when one of us mentioned the manners of an individual known for his bravery and diligence. The Holy Prophet denied the man although we mentioned other characteristics. Meanwhile, the man appeared before us and we said, “This is the man, Allah’s Messenger!” The Holy Prophet said, “I did not know him. This is the leader of the first straying group in my nation in the first age. Verily, he holds a characteristic from the Devil.”
When the man came near the Holy Prophet, he greeted him, and the Holy Prophet replied and then said, “I adjure you by Almighty Allah to answer me frankly; when you came to us, you thought of yourself as being the most excellent and that none of us is better than you are, did you not?”
“Yes, I did,” answered the man who, then, entered the mosque to offer a prayer.
The Holy Prophet then ordered Abū-Bakr to go and kill that man. When Abū-Bakr entered the mosque, he found the man offering a prayer. He thus thought that because a prayer had sanctity, he should go back to the Holy Prophet and ask him. When Abū-Bakr came back, the Holy Prophet asked whether he had killed the man or not.
“I did not. I found him offering a prayer and I know that prayer has sanctity. However, I could have killed him if I had wanted,” answered Abū-Bakr.
The Holy Prophet said, “You are not the appropriate man for this mission.” He then ordered `Umar ibn al-Khattāb of the same matter.
When `Umar entered the mosque, he found the man prostrating himself. He thought that prostration has sanctity and that he should ask the Holy Prophet about the matter before he would kill the man in the same way as Abū-Bakr had done.
He thus returned to the Holy Prophet who asked him whether he had killed the man.
“No, I did not. I found him prostrating himself and I know that prostration has sanctity and I could have killed him if I had wanted,” `Umar answered.
The Holy Prophet said, “You are not the appropriate man for this mission.” He then asked `Alī to kill the man if he would find him.
When Imam `Alī entered the mosque, he could not find the man. He thus returned to the Holy Prophet who asked him whether he had done the mission.
“No, I did not,” answered Imam `Alī.
The Holy Prophet commented, “If this man was killed this day, no single dispute would ever take place in my nation up to the coming of the Dajjāl.[242]”
The Holy Prophet then spoke to them about the past nations, saying,
“The nation of (Prophet) Moses separated into seventy-one sects all of whom will be in Hellfire except one only. Similarly, the nation of (Prophet) Jesus separated into seventy-two sects all of whom will be in Hellfire except one only. My nation will exceed these two nations in the number of the separating sects in one degree. They will separate into seventy-three sects all of whom will be in Hellfire except one only.”[243]
From the previous narration, we conclude that Abū-Bakr behaved according to his own view believing that it is proper not to kill the man because he was offering prayers so piously. He therefore violated the Holy Prophet’s command and followed his own opinion. This proves that he did not comply with the divine texts and the Holy Prophet’s words and instructions as exactly as divinely commissioned. The same thing is applicable to `Umar ibn al-Khattāb who, too, had followed his personal opinion and disobeyed the Holy Prophet’s command after he had heard Abū-Bakr’s excuse and the Holy Prophet’s confirmation.
It is now fair to put the following questions: What does the Holy Prophet’s confirmation on killing that pious man mean especially after he had heard Abū-Bakr’s excuse to give up carrying out the Holy Prophet’s order? Is it permissible for the Holy Prophet to order of killing a pious man? Did he have the right to kill people unjustly? How can one accept a personal error from the Holy Prophet especially in a question of suppressing innocent souls? Supposing that it was acceptable or even obligatory to kill that man, why did Abū-Bakr and `Umar break the Holy Prophet’s order?
Abū-Bakr and `Umar should have understood Almighty Allah’s sayings,
“And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). [Holy Qur’ān: 59:7]”
“That this is in truth the word of an honored messenger Mighty, established in the presence of the Lord of the Throne (One) to be obeyed, and trustworthy And your comrade is not mad. [Holy Qur’ān: 81:19-22]”
“That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger. It is not poet's speech—little is it that ye believe nor diviner's speech—little is it that ye remember. [Holy Qur’ān: 69:40-41]”
“Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived nor doth he speak of (his own) desire It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired. [Holy Qur’ān: 53:2-4]”
It is vastly important to study, investigate, and analyze the question of the disobedience that Abū-Bakr and `Umar showed towards the commissions of the Holy Prophet and their objections to his decisions as well as their acting upon their personal opinions in his presence. Let us refer to an example on such objections:
During the Hudaybiyah Truce, `Umar objected to the Holy Prophet, saying, “Are you really the messenger of Allah?”
Answering him, the Holy Prophet said, “Yes, I am.”
“Are we really the right while our enemies the wrong?” `Umar asked again.
“Yes, this is true,” answered the Holy Prophet.
“Why are we then making relinquishments for them?” wondered `Umar.
The Holy Prophet replied, “Verily, I am the Messenger of Allah and I will never disobey Him, for He will certainly give me victory.”
Keeping on asking, `Umar said, “Have you not told us that we will be at the Holy House (the Ka`bah) and circumambulate it?”
“Yes, I have,” answered the Holy Prophet, “Have I told you that we will come to it this very year?”
“No, you have not,” answered `Umar.
“You will certainly come to and circumambulate the Holy House,” asserted the Holy Prophet.
`Umar then came to Abū-Bakr and asked, “Is he really the prophet of Allah?”
“Of course he is,” answered Abū-Bakr.
“Why are we then making relinquishments for our enemies?” `Umar asked again.
Abū-Bakr answered, “Listen man! He is verily the messenger of Allah; and he will never disobey his Lord Who will surely give him victory. You must thus hold fast to him for he is surely the right. I swear it by Allah.”
Keeping on asking, `Umar said, “Has he not told us that we will come to and circumambulate the Holy House?”
“Has he told you that you will come to it this very year?” asked Abū-Bakr.
“No, he has not,” answered `Umar.
“You will then certainly come to and circumambulate the Holy House,” confirmed Abū-Bakr.[244]
The clearest thing that can be concluded from the aforementioned incident is `Umar’s having suspected and mistrusted the Holy Prophet’s words—the obvious fact that none can ever doubt about it. Although the Holy Prophet explained the question of the prediction for him, `Umar repeated the same questions for Abū-Bakr. This means that he was not sure of the Holy Prophet’s words. Yet, Abū-Bakr confirmed the fact that the Holy Prophet would never disobey the Lord for he was surely His Messenger. He also urged `Umar earnestly to adhere to the Holy Prophet for he was right.
Although he heard the same words from Abū-Bakr, `Umar insisted on the question and again doubted the Holy Prophet’s words by asking, “Has he not told us that we will come to and circumambulate the Holy House?”
This incident proves that `Umar did not belong to the group of the Sahābah who practiced ultimate compliance with all the rulings issued by Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet; otherwise he would have complied with the Holy Prophet’s words, deeds, and instructions and would not have needed the confirmations of Abū-Bakr or anyone else.
History has kept for us other situations in which `Umar ibn al-Khattāb expressed his personal opinions. Moreover, he confirmed such opinions and obliged the Sahābah to follow them although he knew that the Holy Prophet had rejected them. In the presence of the Holy Prophet, he once beat some of those who wept for the demise of Ruqayyah and Ibrāhīm, daughter and son of the Holy Prophet[245] because he did not like weeping for the dead. In the same situation, the Holy Prophet said,
“Verily, the heart naturally grieves and the eye sheds tears.”[246]
This sacred saying means that those who weep for their dead people must be treated mercifully, not severely. In the same manner, the Holy Prophet is reported to have wiped the tears off the eyes of Lady Fātimah when she wept for her sister, Ruqayyah, and the ladies of the Ansār to weep for the martyrdom of Hamzah, his uncle, saying,
“How is it that none is weeping for Hamzah?”[247]
Moreover, the Holy Prophet himself wept for the martyrdom of Hamzah.
It has been also narrated that `Umar, once, objected to the Holy Prophet who wanted to offer the ritual Deceased Prayer for a hypocrite. Further, `Umar pulled the Holy Prophet round and shouted, “How come you are offering a prayer for a hypocrite?”[248] From then on, `Umar expressed his remorse for his situation.
As a matter of fact, `Umar’s situations of objection to the Holy Prophet were more serious than the aforementioned incidents; he protested against the Holy Prophet’s decision of releasing the prisoners of the Battle of Badr in return for a definite ransom. In this issue, `Umar suggested that Hamzah should have killed al-`Abbās, his brother who was within the prisoners, and `Alī should have killed `Aqīl, his brother, and the same should have been applied to every Muslim who had relatives within the prisoners so that all the prisoners would be killed.[249] Out of his compliance with the Divine Revelation Whose distinctive feature has been mercy and wisdom, the Holy Prophet rejected this opinion totally.
As a sequence, a big number of historians and traditionalists have dared to criticize the Holy Prophet in order to justify the objections of Abū-Bakr and `Umar against him! Of course, such audacity has been the result of the distorted principles of history and Islamic jurisprudence, which were sketched by or during the reigns of Abū-Bakr and `Umar themselves and which have been, unfortunately, still depended by some sects that claim their belongingness to Islam. One of such historians has claimed that the objections of Abū-Bakr and `Umar were in fact the actual exegesis of the Qur'ānic texts revealed during that incident! Exceeding all limits, this historian has added that Almighty Allah’s saying, “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise, [Holy Qur’ān: 8:67]” was no more than condemnation addressed to the Holy Prophet and some of the Sahābah who, according to the speech of this historian, desired the lure of this world against the Hereafter and took ransoms from the prisoners before they had ‘thoroughly subdued in the land.’ Moreover, this historian and his likes have claimed that none was saved from that ‘sin’ except `Umar ibn al-Khattāb!
In order to avoid the lengthy details of this issue, it is sufficient to quote Sayyid Sharaf al-Dīn’s words explaining the holy verse involved: Anyone who claims that the Holy Prophet had prisoners and accepted ransoms from them in return for releasing them before he had fought and triumphed—anyone claiming such is definitely liar! Only after he had fought, triumphed, and killed the tyrannical heads of the polytheists of Quraysh, such as Abū-Jahl, `Utbah, Shaybah, al-Walīd, and Handhalah up to seventy foes—only after that, the Holy Prophet took prisoners. This fact is openly known for everybody. In view of that, the Holy Prophet is too far above any censure mentioned in the holy verse involved. Glorified is Allah and High Exalted above what those unjust people say.
The truth is that the holy verse blamed those who desired to gain the caravan rather to fight for the sake of Allah. About them, Almighty Allah has said,
“And when Allah promised you one of the two bands (of the enemy) that it should be yours, and ye longed that other than the armed one might be yours. And Allah willed that He should cause the Truth to triumph by His words, and cut the root of the disbelievers. [Holy Qur’ān: 8:7]”
Counseling his companions, the Holy Prophet said to them: “The polytheists have set off riding any possible ridden animal. Do you desire to have their properties, including the animals, or to fight them for the sake of Allah?”
Although they noticed that the Holy Prophet desired earnestly to fight the enemies, they answered that they would rather seize the enemies’ animals than to fight them. Some of them, however, suggested to him that he should have identified fighting the enemy so that they would be ready for it, because they had readied themselves for seizing the enemies’ caravan. This situation saddened the Holy Prophet so much that the color of his face changed. Consequently, Almighty Allah revealed to him saying,
“Even as thy Lord caused thee (Muhammad) to go forth from thy home with the Truth, and lo! A party of the believers were averse (to it), disputing with thee of the Truth after it had been made manifest, as if they were being driven to death visible. [Holy Qur’ān: 8:5-6]”
As Almighty Allah wanted to convince the Sahābah of the Holy Prophet’s insistence on fighting the enemies and disregarding seizing their caravan, He revealed the verse involved. The explanation of the verse is put between parentheses in the following exposition:
“It is not for any prophet (among those whom were chosen by Almighty Allah before Muhammad) to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. (Thus, your Prophet, following the norms of the Prophets who preceded him in time, shall not take captives before he fights and triumphs. From this cause, he did not care about the seizure of the caravan and the imprisonment of its owners—Abū-Sufyān and his companions) Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter (through terminating the armed enemies), and Allah is Mighty, Wise (and might and wisdom, on that day, required eradicating the enemies and extinguishing their fire of polytheism). [Holy Qur’ān: 8:67]”
Reproaching and threatening those who desired for the properties of the polytheists’ caravan, Almighty Allah then says,
“Had it not been for an ordinance of Allah which had gone before (in His eternal Knowledge that He would prevent you against seizing the animals of the caravan and capturing its people, you would have captured them and seized the animals of their caravan; and had you done this), an awful doom had come upon you on account of what ye took (before you would fight and triumph). [Holy Qur’ān: 8:68]”
This is the exact meaning of the holy verse; and Almighty Allah is too Glorified to reproach His Prophet, as has been claimed by those ignorant people.[250]
During the battle of Uhud, the same Sahābah committed such acts that prove our exposition. Facing al-Madīnah and turning the back to Mount Uhud, the Holy Prophet ordered the archers, who were fifty in number, to stay behind the army. Historians and traditionalists have confirmed that the Holy Prophet appointed `Abdullāh ibn Jubayr as the commander of the archers and ordered him saying, “Pelt the horsemen with arcs so that they will not come upon us from the back; and never leave your place whether we win or lose.” Besides, the Holy Prophet urged them earnestly to keep their places and to obey their commander. Nevertheless, they preferred their personal opinions to the Holy Prophet’s orders as they did not comply with his emphatic instructions. When the battle reached its climax and the Muslim army beat the enemies so fiercely that Imam `Alī could kill the bearers of the enemies’ standard one after another causing their standard to be thrown on the ground as none of them had the courage to raise it, the enemies absconded disorderly. Hence, the Muslim army attacked their camp looting whatever they found there. On account of their avarice to gain such loots, the archers left their positions breaking the Holy Prophet’s orders and paying no attention to the instructions of their commander. They said to him, “Why should we keep up our positions while we have seen how the enemies ran away?” Yet, `Abdullāh ibn Jubayr said, “I swear by Allah that I will never violate the order of Allah’s Messenger. Together with less than ten archers, `Abdullāh did not leave his position. Khālid ibn al-Walīd, accompanied by `Ikrimah ibn Abī-Jahl, seized the opportunity and led a brigade of horsemen to attack the archers who were behind the Muslim army. They killed `Abdullāh ibn Jubayr so savagely that they mutilated his limbs. They then stroke the Muslim army from the back raising their voices with the names of their idol-gods; Lāt and `Uzzā.[251]
It is worth mentioning that to refer to the witticism that although those who supported, welcomed, and defended the raising of personal opinions, especially by the Sahābah, in the face of the divine texts and the Holy Prophet’s words and instructions have claimed that a mujtahid –one who rests upon his personal opinion in the face of the divine texts- will be given twice as the reward when his opinion hits the target and will be rewarded once when his opinion is wrong—although they maintain such a principle, they have not applied it to the Holy Prophet when they claimed that Almighty Allah blamed him -Allah forbid- for accepting ransoms in return for releasing the prisoners of the Battle of Badr! Moreover, they have fabricated the lie that the Holy Prophet, after the incident, wept heavily for he knew that the heavenly chastisement was on his doorstep; therefore, he said, “The heavenly chastisement is very close. If it will befall us, nobody will be saved from it except `Umar!”[252]
In short, a group of the Sahābah used to act upon their personal opinions disregarding the Holy Prophet’s words and deeds; they therefore used to deem incorrect the Holy Prophet’s deeds and declare openly that his deeds were in violation of the Divine Commissions -Allah forbid-.
On the other side, another group of the Sahābah believed in the obligatory compliance with the Holy Prophet’s instructions and the forbiddingness of violating his words, deeds, and confirmations as evidenced by Almighty Allah’s saying,
“And your Lord creates and chooses whom He pleases; to choose is not theirs. [Holy Qur’ān: 28:68]”
Above and beyond, the Holy Qur'ān is full of such verses confirming the impermissibility to go over the Holy Prophet’s instructions: “They only are the true believers who believe in Allah and His messenger and, when they are with him on some common errand, go not away until they have asked leave of him. Lo! those who ask leave of thee, those are they who believe in Allah and His messenger. So, if they ask thy leave for some affair of theirs, give leave to whom thou wilt of them, and ask for them forgiveness of Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [Holy Qur’ān: 24:62]”
“O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and the messenger when He calleth you to that which quickeneth you, and know that Allah cometh in between the man and his own heart, and that He it is unto Whom ye will be gathered. And guard yourselves against a chastisement which cannot fall exclusively on those of you who are wrong-doers, and know that Allah is severe in punishment. [Holy Qur’ān: 8:24-25]”
It has been narrated that al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwām, explaining the aforementioned verse, said,
“Although we were with the Messenger of Allah, we did not recognize that this verse intended us and nobody else.”[253]
He is also reported to have said,
“We have been reciting this verse for ages without noticing that we might have been intended. We are now fully aware that the verse intended us and nobody else.”[254]
According to al-Siddiy, the verse intended the warriors of the Battle of Badr by name. It thus was applied to them during the Battle of the Camel (al-Jamāl) when they fought against each other.[255]
We have previously pointed out that too many were the situations on which `Umar ibn al-Khattāb objected to the Holy Prophet; yet, some historians and biographers have considered them special talents that were given to `Umar exclusively after it had been made obscure to the others, including the Holy Prophet, so as to present what is advantageous and refrain what is not! One of such situations is `Umar’s having prevented the Holy Prophet from recording his last will, which he described as ‘perpetually protecting the Muslim community against deviation.’
While he was in the last hours of his honorable life, the Holy Prophet ordered the attendants to bring him a paper and a pen so that he would write for them a will that would protect them from deviation forever. Yet, `Umar said, “This man is hallucinating! Sufficient for us is the Book of Allah!”[256]
Let us make a comparison between the last hours of the honorable life of the Holy Prophet and the last hours of Abū-Bakr’s life in order to allude to an important, yet ironical, affair. `Umar rejected and deterred from the carrying out of the Holy Prophet’s final will that would, in the words of the Holy Prophet, save the ummah from deviation forever, but when Abū-Bakr, having been in the final hours of his life, wanted to appoint `Umar as the coming caliph, he uttered a few words then he was fainted. Hence, `Uthmān ibn `Affān wrote down the name of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb as the successor of Abū-Bakr. When the latter regained consciousness, he accepted `Uthmān’s personal dictation.[257] Historians have not regarded the recordation of `Umar’s name as the next caliph as hallucination, but they have regarded the Holy Prophet’s request to write down a document protecting his ummah from deviation as absolute hallucination! We should thus wonder why Abū-Bakr was not accused of hallucination while the Holy Prophet, who does never speak out of desire in the words of the Holy Qur'ān, was! In fact, the state of Abū-Bakr was greatly more intense than the Holy Prophet’s. In like manner, why did they accept the words of `Umar, while he was intensely ailed, that defined the names of the members of the so-called Shūrā Committee and reject the words of the infallible Prophet? Why did they oppose each other before the Holy Prophet while they all together accepted `Umar’s will? Why have we never heard that anybody had the courage to accuse `Umar of hallucination in spite of his too many contradictory words and deeds while they have dared to accuse the Holy Prophet of such a disgraceful charge although they, yet openly, confess that `Umar would have never reached the rank of the Holy Prophet?
Is it not rightful for every Muslim individual to declare his will? If so, why did `Umar stood against the declaration of the will of the Holy Messenger of Allah? Was the Holy Prophet less ranked than any other ordinary Muslim?
If the Holy Prophet did not appoint any individual as his successor leaving his ummah to select a leader for themselves, why did Abū-Bakr violate this Prophetic method when he nominated his successor? Furthermore, how can one believe that the Holy Prophet left his ummah for themselves while he used to tell them about what the past generations had done to their religions and used to declare that people had not had full faith yet since they were very near to the pre-Islamic era (Jāhiliyyah)? According to authenticated narrations, the Holy Prophet had never left al-Madīnah before he would appoint an individual as his representative.[258] Similarly, Prophet Moses did not go at Almighty Allah’s Appointed Time before he had appointed his brother, Aaron, as his representative.[259] These facts are in violation of the claim that he left his ummah without leader. Similarly, Abū-Bakr did not depart his subjects before he nominated `Umar as his successor so that, as has been claimed by his fans, he would avoid dispute and disagreements among the publics,[260] and `Umar, too, did not depart them before he nominated the six members of the so-called Shūrā Committee. After all, it is unbelievable that the Holy Prophet left his ummah for themselves without nominating a successor while, according to authenticated narrations, he emphasized on joining the phalanx of Usāmah until the last spark of his honorable life. Undoubtedly, this indicates his interest in the matter of his successorship.
Throughout this study, the trend of those who followed and complied with the Holy Prophet’s instructions thoroughly will be called “The School of Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts” while the trend of those who adopted and depended upon their personal views and opinions will be called “The School of Ijtihād and Opinionism.”[261]
To sum it up, the aforesaid, as well as the coming, discussions prove unquestionably that Abū-Bakr and `Umar were not accustomed to follow everything said by the Holy Prophet; rather they used to depend upon their personal views in defining the good of a question in his presence. Of course, such a spirit was the product of their tribal tendency that was, in their conception, above everything.
During the lifetime and in the presence of the Holy Prophet, the companions generally followed two methods as regards their attitude to the Holy Prophet. One group purely adopted and followed every single word or commanded said by the Holy Prophet without any argument, while the other group, to which Abū-Bakr and `Umar belonged, presented the Holy Prophet’s commandments to their personal viewpoints; if they were compatible, they would carry out otherwise they would follow their opinions violating the Holy Prophet’s instructions. These two trends continued to exist even after the departure of the Holy Prophet.
For instance, although the Holy Prophet very frequently confirmed the impermissibility to observe fasting incessantly and, instead, instructed that to observe fasting on the first, middle, and last days of a month would be regarded as fasting all the days of one’s lifetime,[262] some of the Sahābah did not stop observing fasting incessantly.
Another example is that although the Holy Prophet, during the Battle of Tabūk, permitted his companions to slaughter and eat the meat of camels, some of the Sahābah denied this matter.[263]
During the Battle of Uhud, five warriors from the polytheists’ army attacked the Holy Prophet. One of them hit his forehead, another broke his scapula, another hit him on the cheek… etc. He then did not want the polytheists to know that he was still alive lest they would again attack the Muslims and him. When Ka`b ibn Mālik knew that the Holy Prophet was not killed, he, intending to convey this good tiding to the Muslims, shouted that the Holy Prophet was still alive. Yet, the Holy Prophet gestured him not to declare it so that the enemy would not attack him again. The man understood and kept silence. Then Abū-Sufyān overlooked the Muslim army and shouted, “Is Muhammad still among you?” The Holy Prophet ordered his army not to answer him at all. Abū-Sufyān then asked `Umar by name, “Did we kill Muhammad?” Breaking the Holy Prophet’s order, `Umar shouted, “No, by Allah! He (the Prophet) can hear your words!” Having been happy for this reply, Abū-Sufyān said, “You (`Umar) have been more truthful that Ibn Qamā.”[264]
Although the Holy Prophet ordered, confirmatively, his army not to tell the enemies about his having been still alive, `Umar broke this order and informed Abū-Sufyān. Beyond doubt, `Umar followed his personal conjecture and he was definitely wrong.
One day, the Holy Prophet distributed the almsgivings in a definite way, but `Umar objected saying, “Allah’s Messenger: there are others who are worthier than those whom you have given.”[265] The Holy Prophet answered, “You are asking me to be unfair! You are forcing me to be either spendthrift or niggardly; yet I am not ungenerous.”[266]
It has been narrated on the authority of `Abdullāh that, once, the Holy Prophet distributed the almsgiving in a definite way, but one of Ansār objected saying, “I swear by Allah that this distribution has not been purely intended for the sake of Allah.” I (`Abdullāh the narrator) decided to bear this wording to the Holy Prophet. When I did, yet secretly, the Holy Prophet’s color changed out of rage for he was very upset. He then commented, “(Prophet) Moses suffered injuries that were severer than this one; yet he could stand them.”[267]
Talhah and `Uthmān ibn `Affān are reported to have said, “How is it that Muhammad is allowed to marry our widows while we are not allowed to marry his? As soon as he dies, we will certainly have all of his women by lottery!” [268] Talhah intended to marry `Ā’ishah[269] and `Uthmān Ummu-Salamah (the Holy Prophet’s wives). By such words, they both wanted to hurt the Holy Prophet; therefore, Almighty Allah revealed to him saying,
“Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Messenger, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly, such a thing is in Allah's sight an enormity. [Holy Qur’ān: 33:53]”
“Whether ye show what is in your minds or conceal it, Allah Calleth you to account for it. [Holy Qur’ān: 2/284]”
“Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment. [Holy Qur’ān: 33/57]”
“The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves, and his wives are (as) their mothers. [Holy Qur’ān: 33/6]”
Among the many incidents of this kind is the occurrence narrated by al-Bukhāriy, al-Sahīh, Kitāb al-Ādāb, that some of the Sahābah[270] disdained to carry out one of the Holy Prophet’s orders; he therefore was angry. He said,
“What for do some people disdain carrying out the order that I myself do. I swear by Allah that I am more knowledgeable and more pious than they are.”[271]
Among the Sahābah, there were those who slandered the Holy Prophet in the matter of the distribution of the almsgivings,[272] those who, when seeing some bargain or amusement, disperse headlong to it and leave the Holy Prophet’s standing alone,[273] those who injured the Holy Prophet,[274] those who escaped participating in jihād,[275] those who raised their voices about the Holy Prophet’s voice,[276] those who falsely ascribed... to the chastity of the Holy Prophet’s wife,[277] those who conspired with each other to assassinate the Holy Prophet at the night of al-`Aqabah,[278] those who disobeyed the Holy Prophet[279]… etc.
On the other side, among the Sahābah were those who followed him on any matter that required collective action, those who complied with his commandments and refrained from matters that he deemed unlawful, and those who never broke his orders, and those who accepted to sleep in his bed in order to save him from assassination. For instance, Handhalah, the one washed by the angels, never absented himself from any campaign led by the Holy Prophet except on one occasion after he had obtained the Holy Prophet’s permission to stay with his bride on his wedding night.[280] In the same time, too many were the Sahābah who refused to join the Holy Prophet.
This paradox indicates that Handhalah belonged to the group of the Sahābah who purely followed the Holy Prophet’s orders and instructions while the others belonged to the group of the Sahābah who followed their personal conjectures and opinions.
It is worth mentioning that the Holy Prophet, through such commandments, wanted to test definite individuals. The strange story of killing Dhu’l-Thadyah while he was in an elevated state of piety; the request of recording his will in the final hours of his honorable life; the appointment of the eighteen year old Usāmah ibn Zayd as the commander of aged men like Abū-Bakr, `Umar and Abū-`Ubaydah—all these are points worthy of considerable investigation.
By giving the name of ‘the group of identifying what is good and personal conjecture’ to the group of the Sahābah who followed their personal opinions even if they would violate the Holy Prophet’s orders, I mean that, whenever they were asked for explanation for their deeds, they always answered that they identified the advantage or that they attempted to infer the best but they failed! And one who attempts to infer the best (mujtahid) and finds it will be rewarded twice but one who attempts but fails will be rewarded once!
It also seems that most of the previously represented issues were in the form of a divine test for those Sahābah and purposed for distinguishing the obedient believer from the disobedient. According to the Sharī`ah, the followers must obey whatever the Holy Prophet instructs and refrain from doing whatever he forbids, whether his commandment and forbiddance are related to the religious or the ordinary affairs. In other words, the Holy Prophet’s orders must be always obeyed under any circumstance. Besides, the followers do not enjoy any right of choice in this regard according to the following holy verse that reads,
“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. [Holy Qur’ān: 33/36]”
On the grounds of the aforementioned givings, it is very likely that the Holy Prophet’s request for a paper and ink to record his will and the events that resulted from this request was only intended to uncover the reality of those Sahābah before the attendants as well as to expose their actual view about the Holy Prophet. The same conclusion can be deduced from the nomination of Usāmah ibn Zayd as the commander of the Muslims. When the Holy Prophet was informed that a group of the Muslims rejected the commandment of Usāmah and thus refused to join his army, he went out and said,
“O People: Is it true that some of you have denied and rejected the commandment of Usāmah? It is yet not strange from you, because you also denied my decision of nominating his father as your commander some time ago.”[281]
As a conclusion, there were two trends during the life of the Holy Prophet; one trend includes those who followed their personal opinions even if that would lead them to violate the Holy Prophet’s orders. Abū-Bakr and `Umar were among this trend. The other trend represented the sincere Sahābah who would never break the Holy Prophet’s order whatever the consequence would be.
Notes:
[226] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 5:2339 H. 6000; Sahīh Muslim 4:2007, 2008 H. 2601, 2009 H. 2602; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:390 H. 9062, 488 H. 10341, 3:400 H. 15329; Sunan al-Dārimiy 2:406 H. 2765.
[227] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 4:1833; Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniy: Fath al-Bārī fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 8:590; Tafsīr al-Qurtubiy 16:303; Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 4:206; Tafsīr al-Tabariy 26:117-119.
[228] Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 2:358; Tafsīr al-Tabariy 10:133-134; Tafsīr al-Baghawiy 2:292.
[229] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 3:1321 H. 3414; Ibn Hazm: al-Ihkām fī Usūl al-Ahkām 1:89.
[230] Sahīh Muslim 2:896 H. 1222; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1: 50 H. 351.
[231] Subul al-Hudā wa’l-Rashād 5:53; al-Ahādīth al-Mukhtārah 1:325; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 1:72, 6:88.
[232]Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-‘Ummāl 1:193 No. 977; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:178, H. 6668, 185 H. 7641, 2:195 H. 6845; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukharjiy 9:100-101; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 2:79 H. 1308, 3:227 H. 2995, 7:124 H. 7052.
[233] Sunan al-Nassā'iy (al-Mujtabā) 6:142 H. 3401. According to Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy’s Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 9:362, the narrators of the Hadīth are trustworthy. Al-Mubdi` 7:262.
[234] Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:195 H. 6845; Ibn Abī-`Āsim: al-Sunnah 1:177 H. 406; I`tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah 4:627 H. 1119; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 2:79 H. 1308; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-‘Ummāl 1:383 H. 1661.
[235]The story is recorded in Tafsīr Abu’l-Sa`ūd 2:219; Tafsīr al-Tabariy 2:224; Tafsīr al-Fakhr al-Rāziy 11:3; al-Zamakhshariy: Tafsīr al-Kashshāf 1:552; Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 1:851-852.
[236] Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:164; Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 4:313-314, 6:323; Ibn al-Jawziy: al-Muntadham 3:331; Ibn al-Athīr: al-Kāmil fi’l-Tārīkh 2:255-6; Ibn Hushām: al-Sīrah al-Nubawiyyyah 4:70-8.
[237] Ibn Hajar: al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 2:255 No. 2203.
[238] Ansār are the people of Yathrib (al-Madīnah) who accepted, supported, and received the Holy Prophet and the emigrants of Makkah (Muhājirūn).
[239] Ijtihād is a polysemous term in the Muslim jurisprudence. Lexically, it means the exertion of efforts in the attainment of a matter. In the initial emergence of Ijtihād, it took the meaning of the dependence on personal views and the issuance of personal judgments in the religious issues even if this would violate the sources of the Islamic laws since such judgment would agree with the interest, or the public interest. In the Sunnite jurisprudence, Ijtihād means the independent or original interpretation of problems not precisely covered by the Holy Qur’ān, the Holy Sunnah, and the other sources of the Islamic law from the viewpoint of the Sunnite scholars, such as analogy (Qiyās), consensus (Ijmā`)… etc. In the Shiite jurisprudence, Ijtihād means the exertion of all possible efforts in the deduction of the religious laws from their sources. To sum it up, the concept of Ijtihād in the Sunni doctrine is different from it in the Shiite. While it stands for the personal conclusion in the Sunni doctrine, it has its definite principles and fundamentals that cannot be contravened and are based upon Divine texts in the Shiite doctrine.
[240]They claimed that the Holy Prophet had not known about the Divine revelation until Waraqah ibn Nawfal guided and taught him. Such false claim is absolutely contradictory to the authentically reported characteristics of the Holy Prophet such as his having been chosen for the final Prophethood since, or even before, the beginning of the creation and that he had the sign of Prophethood on his shoulder and many similar things. The Holy Prophet is in fact too perfect to require the teachings of Waraqah ibn Nawfal or any other mortal. Refer to Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:4 H. 3, 3:1241 H. 3212, 4:1894 H. 4670, 6:2651 H. 6581.
[241] Ibn Hajar: al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 1:484, Abū-Na`īm: Hilyat al-Awliyā’ 3:227, Ibn `Abd Rabbih: al-‘Iqd al-Farīd 2:244-5, Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 7:298 and Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:15.
[242]The Dajjāl (Imposter), like the Antichrist, is a personal opponent to Imam al-Mahdi, the Awaited, predicted in the narrations to appear before the end of the world.
[243] Musnad Abī-Ya`liy 6:341 H. 3668; Abū-Na`īm: Hilyat al-Awliyā’ 3:227; Subul al-Hudā wa’l-Rashād 10:157. The same narration is recorded on the authority of Abū-Sa`īd al-Khidriy in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:15 H. 11133; Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 7:299.
[244] This famous incident has been recorded in the majority of the books of the Islāmic history and Tafsīr (Exegesis of the Holy Qur'ān). See, for confirmation, Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 2:978 H. 2581 (as narrated on the authority of al-Masawwir ibn Makhramah and Marwān ibn al-Hakam), 3:1162 H. 3011 (as narrated on the authority of Sahl ibn Hunayf); Sahīh Muslim 3:1411 H. 1785. The narration is also recorded, yet in brief, by al-Tabarāniy, in al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 1:72 H. 82 on the authority of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb himself. It is also recorded by al-Bayhaqiy in al-Madkhal 1:192 H. 217. Ibn Hajar, in 5:347, comments, “The narration is recorded by al-Bazzār on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar on the authority of `Umar himself (Musnad al-Bazzār 1:254 H. 148) and al-Wāqidiy on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās... See also Ibn al-Jawziy: Tārīkh `Umar ibn al-Khattāb 58.
[245] Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:237 H. 2127, 1:335 H. 3103; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3:398; Musnad al-Tayālīsiy 1:351 H. 2694.
[246] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:439 H. 1241; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 1:139; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 1:175.
[247] Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 1:537, 3:215 H. 4883; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 4:70 H. 6946; Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 3:63 H. 12127.
[248] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 4:1716 H. 4395. For more details about this incident, refer to Ijtihād al-Rasul 209-211.
[249] Sahīh Muslim 3:1385 H. 1763; Musnad Abī-`Uwānah 4:255 H. 6692; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:320 H. 12622.
[250] `Abd al-Husayn Sharaf al-Dīn: al-Fusūl al-Muhimmah 113.
[251] `Abd al-Husayn Sharaf al-Dīn: al-Fusūl al-Muhimmah 116.
[252] Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah 14:175, 12:178; al-Āmudiy: al-Ahkām 4:216; al-Ghazāliy: al-Mustasfā 170, 347; al-Sarakhsiy: al-Mabsūt 5:475; Sharh Fath al-Qadīr 5:475.
[253] Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 2:488-9.
[254] Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 2:488-9.
[255] Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 2:488-9.
[256] Sahīh Muslim 3:1259 H. 1637; Musnad Abī-`Uwānah 3:478 H. 5762. Moreover, in six positions of al-Sahīh, al-Bukhāriy has referred to this incident. The other reference books of Hadīth have reported `Umar’s taking pride in playing the greatest role in the process of depriving the Holy Prophet of recording his will.
[257] Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:353; Ma’āthir al-Anāfah 1:49; Ibn al-Jawziy: al-Muntadham 4:126.
[258] Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 2:367 H. 3294. About this narration, al-Hakīm says, “This Hadīth is of authentic series of narrators, yet they (i.e. al-Bukhāriy and Muslim) have not mentioned it.”
[259] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 4:1652 H. 4154; Sahīh Muslim 4:1871 H. 2404; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 5:638 H. 3724.
[260] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:54 H. 114, 3:1111 H. 2888, 1155 H. 2997, 4:1612 H. 4168, 5:2146 H. 4168, 6:2680 H. 6932; Sahīh Muslim 3:1257 H. 1637, 3:1259 H. 1638; Sharh al-Nawawiy `Alā Muslim 11:89; al-Suyūtiy: al-Dībāj `Alā Muslim 4:330.
[261] For more details, refer to the author’s book of Tārīkh al-Hadīth al-Nubawiy; al-Mu’aththirār fī `Ahd Abī-Bakr.
[262] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 2:697 H. 1874; Sahīh Muslim 2:812 H. 1159; Sahīh Ibn Habbān 2:65 H. 352.
[263] Sahīh Muslim 1:56 H. 27; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:11 H. 11095; Musnad Abī-`Uwānah 1:7; Musnad Abī-Ya`liy 2:412 H. 1199. For more details, see Sahīh al-Bukhāriy, Kitāb al-Jihād wal-Sayr (Section: Fighting and campaigns), Bāb Haml al-Zād fi’l-Ghazw (Chapter: Supplying with food during campaigns.)
[264] Ibn al-Athīr: al-Kāmil, Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt and al-Sīrah al-Halabiyyah.
[265] Those whom the Holy Prophet gave shares of the almsgivings were the homeless Muslims (Ahl al-Suffah)who had to reside in the Masjid.
[266] Sīrat Ibn Ishāq 3:513; Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:71; Ibn Habbān: al-Thuqāt 1:232; al-Iktifā’ Bi-māTadammanahu min Maghāzi al-Rasūl 2:80; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:20 [as related on the authority of al-A’mash on the authority of Shaqīq on the authority of Salmān ibn Rabī’ah] and Sahīh Muslim, Section: Zakāt.
[267] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy, Kitāb al-Ādāb (Section: Etiquette) Bāb: al-Sabr `Ala’l-Adhā (Chapter: Steadfastness against injury) 5:2263 H. 389; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:411 H. 3904, 441 H. 4204.
[268] Tafsīr al-Qurtubiy 14:229; al-Ālūsiy: Rūh al-Ma`ānī 22:74.
[269] Tafsīr al-Rāziy 25:225; Tafsīr al-Qurtubiy 14:229; Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 3 :506; al-Suyūtiy: al-Durr al-Manthūr 6 :639; Tafsīr al-Baghawiy 3 :541; al-Nahhās: Ma`ānī al-Qur'ān 5:373; al-Ālūsiy: Rūh al-Ma`ānī 22:73; `Abd al-Bāsit ibn Khalīl: Ghāyat al-Sa’ūl fī Sīrat al-Rasūl 223; al-Sīrah al-Halabiyyah 1:448; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 8:201; Ibn al-Jawziy: Zād al-Masīr fī `Ilm al-Tafsīr 6:416; Ibn Shakwāl: Ghawāmid al-Asmā' al-Muhimmah 2:712. Al-Siddiy, however, narrated that it was `Uthmān ibn `Affān who said so (see Dalā'il al-Sidq 3:337-339).
[270] Although in the text of al-Bukhāriy’s narration, the word mentioned here is ‘people’, they were in fact some individuals among the Sahābah. Yet, al-Bukhāriy, as well as the other pro-Qurayshite narrators, used to make any bad behavior that is committed by the Sahābah as ambiguous as they can.
[271] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy, Kitāb al-Ādāb (Section: Etiquette) Bāb: Man lam Yuwājih al-Nās bi’l-Itāb (Section: Indirect Blame) 5:2263 H. 5750, 6:2662 H. 6769; Abu’l-Mahāsin: Mu`tasar al-Mukhtasar 1:97.
[272] The Holy Qur'ān 9:58 “And of them there are those who blame you with respect to the alms; so if they are given from it they are pleased, and if they are not given from it, lo! they are full of rage.”
[273] The Holy Qur'ān 62:11 “And when they see merchandise or sport they break up for It, and leave you standing. Say: What is with Allah is better than sport and (better) than merchandise, and Allah is the best of Sustainers.”
[274] The Holy Qur'ān 33:57 “Surely (as for) those who speak evil things of Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the here after, and He has prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace.”
[275] The Holy Qur'ān 9:38 “O you who believe! What (excuse) have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in Allah's way, you should incline heavily to earth; are you contented with this world's life instead of the hereafter? But the provision of this world's life compared with the hereafter is but little.”
[276] The Holy Qur'ān 49:2 “O you who believe! do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and do not speak loud to him as you speak loud to one another, lest your deeds became null while you do not perceive.” See also Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 4:1587 H. 4109, 6:2662 H. 6872.
[277] The Holy Qur'ān 24:11 “Surely they who concocted the lie are a party from among you. Do not regard it an evil to you; nay, it is good for you. Every man of them shall have what he has earned of sin; and (as for) him who took upon himself the main part thereof, he shall have a grievous chastisement.”
[278] The Holy Qur'ān 9:74 “They swear by Allah that they did not speak, and certainly they did speak, the word of unbelief, and disbelieved after their Islam, and they had determined upon what they have not been able to effect, and they did not find fault except because Allah and His Messenger enriched them out of His grace; therefore if they repent, it will be good for them; and if they turn back, Allah will chastise them with a painful chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall not have in the land any guardian or a helper. 9/74” For details, refer to Sharh al-Nawawiy `Alā Muslim 17:12; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 4:146 H. 3831, 8:102 H. 8100; al-Ahādīth al-Mukhtārah 8:221 H. 260 (in this reference book, the compiler confirms the authenticity of the series of narrators); al-Haythamiy: Majma` al-Zawā'id 1:109 (He adds, the narration has been recorded by al-Tabarāniy and the series of its narrators is authentic); Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 5:20; Sahīh Muslim 4:124 H. 2778, 2779 (yet in brief); al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:198; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:319; Musnad al-Baghawiy 2:307.
[279] The Holy Qur'ān 4:81 “And they say: Obedience. But when they go out from your presence, a party of them decide by night upon doing otherwise than what you say; and Allah writes down what they decide by night, therefore turn aside from them and trust in Allah, and Allah is sufficient as a protector.”
[280] Sahīh Ibn Habbān 4:15 H. 7025; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:225 H. 4917 (He adds, This narration is authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhāriy and Muslim, yet they did not record it.); Sunan al-Bayhaqiy al-Kubrā 4:15 H. 6605; Tuhfat al-Muhtāj 1:602; al-Tuhfah al-Latīfah fī Tārīkh al-Madīnah al-Sharīfah 1:310 No. 108; al-Sīrah al-Halabiyyah 2:525; Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:69.
[281] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 4:1551 H. 4004; Sahīh Muslim 4:1884 H. 2426; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:20 H. 4701.

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.”