4. Tijani accuses ‘Umar of contravening revealed text
Then he says:
He violated the Book of Allah and the Tradition of the Prophet and passed rules and judgements during his caliphate which contradicted the texts of the Holy Qur’an and the noble Tradition of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
He says at another place:
Umar used to improvise and interpret the clear texts of the Prophet’s tradition, and even the Holy Qur’anic texts. Like he used to say: “Two pleasures were allowed during the life of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam but now I disallow them and punish those who commit them.”
Refuting Tijani’s accusation of ‘Umar contravening revealed text
The word Mut’ah is very versatile in its application. In a technical sense it may apply to a temporary marriage. It is also used to describe a format of Hajj where the pilgrim dons the ihram during the months of Hajj with the intention of ‘Umrah. After completion of ‘Umrah a new intention is undertaken, this time for Hajj.
Tijani is implying that Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu unilaterally abolished these practises though they continued to be practised during the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam time.
Mut’ah of Hajj
It was ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu policy to dissuade people from the Tamattu’ format of Hajj since he noticed that people would delay ‘Umrah and perform it only with Hajj. The convenience of Tamattu’ meant that ‘Umrah was at times neglected outside of the months of Hajj. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu wanted that the House of Allah never be empty of pilgrims. Therefore ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not forbid it, in the literal sense. Rather, his policy was of discouragement and not legal prohibition. There is strong evidence to prove that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu held the Tamattu’ format of Hajj permissible.
Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma narrates:
I heard ‘Umar saying, “By Allah! I do not forbid you from Mut’ah (i.e. Tamattu’ Hajj) as it is in the Book of Allah; and the Messenger did it,” (meaning ‘Umrah during the months of Hajj)
It is also reported in a lengthier hadith from Subayy ibn Ma’bad that he said to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
I entered into Ihram intending the Hajj and ‘Umrah’, and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to him, “You have been guided to the Sunnah of your Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”
The superiority of ‘Umrah outside of the months of Hajj is the opinion of many of the jurists.
Abu Dhar is one of the Sahabah whom the Shia view favourably and one of those whom Tijani would happily include under the first category of Sahabah based on his own typology. Abu Dhar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is well-known for forbidding Mut’at al Hajj (Tamattu’ Hajj) in general.
The narration in Sahih Muslim from Ibrahim al Taymi—from his father—quotes Abu Dhar saying:
كانت المتعة في الحج لأصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم خاصة
The Mut’ah in the Hajj was for Muhammad’s Companions exclusively.
If ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is guilty of violating the Book of Allah, and the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Sunnah, then surely the same applies to Abu Dhar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. After all, Tijani is a man of fairness and he has recently condemned ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu for being unfair.
Mut’ah of women
Tijani attempts to pin the prohibition on temporary marriages on ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This is a farfetched accusation with the sole intent of passing ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu off as someone who altered the religion after the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passing. Temporary marriages had been permanently banned by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and this has been recorded by ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu among others.
Muslim narrates in his Sahih from Rabi’ ibn Saburah al Juhani that his father narrated to him that he was with the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam when he said:
يا أيها الناس إني قد كنت أذنت لكم فى الاستمتاع من النساء وإن الله قد حرم ذلك إلى يوم القيامة فمن كان عنده منهن شىء فليخل سبيله ولا تأخذوا مما آتيتموهن شيئا
O people! Indeed, I permitted Mut’ah (temporary marriage) for you (in the past) and indeed Allah has forbidden it until the Day of Judgement. Therefore, whoever has by him from them (a wife under such a contract) anything let him cancel it and do not take anything from what you gave them.
Al Bukhari and Muslim narrate by way of al Zuhri—from Hassan ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali and his brother Abdullah—from their father:
‘Ali said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “Indeed, the Messenger forbade Mut’ah and the meat of donkeys during the Khaybar expedition.”
Ibn Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu used to permit the Mut’ah marriage as well as the meat of donkeys. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu corrected him on those matters. He said to him, “The Messenger forbade Mut’ah; and forbade the meat of donkeys the Day of Khaybar.” Ibn ‘Abbas retracted his view after the hadith of the prohibition of those two issues reached him.
A Shia scholar seeking reform acknowledged that the prohibition for Mut’ah was not something ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu had invented. Instead he enforced the prohibition pronounced by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu shared his view on the issue. He writes:
The legal opinion which states that Mut’ah was prohibited by the Khalifah ‘Umar ibn al Khattab is disproved by the action of ‘Ali who confirmed its prohibition during his Caliphate and did not advocate its permissibility. According to the Shia tradition and according to the view of our jurists the action of the Imam is a proof especially if he was unrestricted and he was able to disclose the correct view and explain the commands of Allah and His prohibitions. Imam ‘Ali, as we know, initially excused himself from the Caliphate and he made it a condition for accepting it the right to exercise his scholarly discretion in the administration of the state. Therefore, Imam ‘Ali’s tacit approval of the prohibition means that Mut’ah was, indeed, prohibited since the Messenger’s era. If that was not the case he would have opposed that ruling and explained the decree of Allah concerning it. The action of the Imam is a proof for the Shia and I do not know how our jurists can ignore it.
From this we know:
That the Ahlus Sunnah follows ‘Ali and those besides him from the Khulafa’ Rashidin in what they narrate from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The Shia, on the other hand, oppose ‘Ali regarding that which he narrated from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and instead follow the view of those who oppose him.
‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu made a public announcement of the prohibition of Mut’ah due to the fact that some people were unaware of its prohibition. This is what is narrated by ‘Abdufllah ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma:
لما ولي عمر بن الخطاب خطب الناس فقال إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أذن لنا في المتعة ثلاثا ثم حرمها والله لا أعلم أحدا تمتع وهو محصن إلا رجمته بالحجارة إلا أن يأتيني بأربعة يشهدون أن رسول الله أحلها بعد إذ حرمها
When ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu became the khalifah he addressed the people and said, “The Prophet permitted Mut’ah then he forbade it. By Allah! Any person who practices Mut’ah and he is Muhsan (a person that is or has been married) I will stone him, unless he brings to me four witnesses to testify that the Messenger permitted it after having prohibited it.”
It is for this reason that Sa’id ibn Musayyab said:
May Allah have mercy on ‘Umar. Had he not forbidden Mut’ah, zina would have become widespread.
The question that remains for Tijani is whether it is ‘Umar or the Shia who have violated the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Tijani goes on to say:
Umar said, “If it was not for Ali, Umar would have perished.”
Tijani presents this statement as if it is an insult. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu had the highest regard for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and even wed his daughter. Tijani’s perception of the community in Madinah reflects a schism in society, with the ‘good Sahabah’ on one side, and the ‘evil Sahabah’ on the other. If there is anything to be learnt it is that this perception of that society is far from accurate. The consequence of his flawed perception of that society has influenced the way Tijani, and others besides him, interpret the entire historical narrative that followed. His warped understanding forces him to reconstruct what must have happened, as nothing is what it seems. Every statement in praise of any Sahabi must be viewed with suspicion.
This statement that he has quoted ought to be understood in its proper context. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu had ordered that a woman be stoned for adultery. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu intervened saying that she was insane. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu rescinded his original judgement after ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu brought to his attention the detail of this woman’s sanity. It is in this context that he made this statement. ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu humility ought to be appreciated in this respect.
In a variant version of this incident ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu ordered for the stoning of a pregnant woman whereupon ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu intervened. The remaining details appear quite similar. Again the context of the incident provides a great deal of perspective.
We are informed of this incident by Ibn ‘Abd al Barr in al Isti’ab, Muhibb al Tabari in al Riyad al Nadirah, as well as the Shia scholar Ibn al Mutahhar who mentions these two narrations within this context.
Ahmed narrates in al Fada’il from Ibn Zabyan al Jambi that ‘Umar ibn Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu ruled that a particular woman found guilty of adultery be stoned.
When she was being taken to have the punishment enacted they passed ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who asked, “What did she do?”
They said, “She committed adultery and therefore ‘Umar commanded that she be stoned (to death).”
‘Ali took her aside and instructed them to return to ‘Umar.
When they returned ‘Umar asked, “What brings you back?”
They said, “He (‘Ali) sent us.
‘Umar said, “‘Ali would not do so unless he knew something (that we are unaware of).”
He then summoned ‘Ali. The anger on ‘Ali’s face was visible when he entered. ‘Umar asked him, “What caused you to send these men back?”
‘Ali said, “Did you not hear the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying, ‘The pen has been lifted from three: from the sleeping person until he awakens, from the minor until he becomes an adult and from the insane person until he becomes sane’?”
Umar said, “Indeed I have heard it,” and ‘Ali then said, “Perhaps the mental illness overcame her while he was with her.”
‘Umar said, “I did not consider that,” and ‘Ali said, “I (also) do not know that. “‘Umar, therefore, did not stone her.
Despite numerous efforts, and cross-referencing this narration from multiple sources none of them mention ‘Umar’s statement, “Had it not been for ‘Ali, ‘Umar would be ruined!”
Notwithstanding the fact that we could not trace the statement, it only confirms that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu gave the ruling because he was unaware of the insanity of this woman. We know that from his statement, “I do not know that.” Therefore, there is no doubt, in this instance, that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was excused as he was unaware about this woman’s insanity and there is no sin upon him as a result.
There is the other narration, which speaks of stoning a pregnant woman; found in Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah:
That there was a woman whose husband was away and when he returned he found her pregnant and raised the matter to ‘Umar who gave the instruction for her to be stoned.
Mu’adh radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “(Even) if you have a right over her you do not have a right over what is in her womb!”
‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “Imprison her until she gives birth!” Later she gave birth to a boy with two incisors. When his father saw him he said, “(This is) my son!”
That then reached ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu who said, “Women are unable to give birth to (sons) similar to Mu’adh radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Had it not been for Mu’adh, ‘Umar would be ruined!”
Then Ibn Abi Shaybah says:
Khalid ibn al Ahmar narrated to us from Hajjaj—from Qasim—from his father—from ‘Ali, a narration similar to it.
In its chain is Hajjaj ibn Artah who is a weak transmitter and often commits Tadlis (conceals narrators). Al Dhahabi says:
Hajjaj ibn Artah: His hadith is not proof-worthy.
This narration is therefore weak and is not proof-worthy.
As for the narration mentioned by Muhibb al Tabari:
That ‘Umar intended to stone the woman who gave birth after six months and ‘Ali said to him, “Allah says, ‘And his gestation and weaning (period) is thirty months,’ and He says, ‘and his weaning is in two years,’ the gestation period is six months and the weaning period is two years.” ‘Umar then decided against stoning her and said, “Had it not been for ‘Ali, ‘Umar would be ruined.” This narration is transmitted by ‘Uqayli. Ibn Samman also transmits it from Abu Hazm ibn Abu al Aswad.
Correction: The name given, ‘Abu Hazm’, appears to be a mistake. The correct wording is Abu Harb ibn Abu al Aswad. Appearing in the chain of this narration is ‘Uthman ibn Matr al Shaybani.
Yahya ibn Ma’in says, “He is weak. His hadith is not documented. He is not much of a transmitter.”
‘Ali ibn al Madini says, “‘Uthman ibn Matr is extremely weak.”
Abu Zur’ah says, “Weak in hadith.”
Abu Hatim says, “Weak in hadith. He is unacceptable in hadith.”
Salih al Baghdadi says, “His hadith is not to be documented.”
Abu Dawood says, “Weak.”
Nasa’i says, “He is not reliable.”
Al Bukhari says, “He is unacceptable in hadith.”
Ibn Hibban says, “‘Uthman ibn Matr was from amongst those who transmitted fabrications.”
Assuming the reliability of the narration, it displays ‘Umar’s humility and reverence for the truth. He was not infallible so errors are to be expected from him. This is an isolated case not known to him about which he was enlightened, there are other times where he forgot then someone reminded him, what is there to fault him on?
However, if he is going to be judged only in light of a single error and thousands of issues are overlooked, that speaks of the extent of bias and prejudice by some ‘impartial’ researchers.
Tijani’s accusation regarding the knowledge of ‘Umar
Then Tijani says:
This is Umar saying, “All people are more knowledgeable than I am, even women.” He was once asked about the meaning of a Qur’anic verse, and his reaction was to rebuke the man and beat him until he bled, then he said, “Do not ask about matters which may appear bad to you.”
Refuting Tijani’s accusation regarding the knowledge of ‘Umar
This narration is not narrated with the wording provided by Tijani. Tijani has been extremely careless with quoting statements throughout his book. The esteemed reader would have noticed that we repeatedly point out the correct wording. The translation of the wording in the narration that Tijani alludes to is, “Everyone is better in understanding than ‘Umar.”
No doubt Tijani concealed the context of this statement so that the reader would get the impression that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu said that indiscriminately. The narration is recorded in its entirety in the Sunan of Sa’id ibn Mansur, by way of al Sha’bi, who said:
‘Umar ibn al Khattab addressed the people. He praised Allah and extoled His Grace and said, “Do not be excessive in the Sadaq (wedding gift) of the women. It has reached me that some of you have given more than the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave. If you do not stop this practice I will take the surplus and place it in the Bayt al Mal.”
Then he descended the mimbar and a woman from the Quraysh objected and said, “Is the Book of Allah better to follow or your view?”
He said, “The Book of Allah! Why do you ask that?”
She said, “You prohibited the people a short while ago about being excessive in the wedding gifts of the women while Allah says in his book:
وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا فَلَا تَأْخُذُوْا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا أَتَأْخُذُوْنَهبُهْتَانًا وَّإِثْمًا مُّبِيْنًا
And you have given one of them a great amount (in gifts); do not take (back) from it anything. Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin?
‘Umar then said, “Everyone is better in understanding than ‘Umar,” twice or thrice.
Then he returned to the mimbar (pulpit) and said to the people, “I prohibited you from being excessive in the wedding gift of women. Let every man do what he sees fit in his wealth.”
Notwithstanding Tijani’s indiscretion when it comes to quoting, this narration is problematic in terms of its chain. There are two defects in the chain. The first is the interruption in the chain. Al Bayhaqi says at the end of this narration:
This is an interrupted chain as Sha’bi did not meet ‘Umar. Abu Zur’ah says in his book al Marasil, “I heard my father and Abu Zur’ah saying, “Sha’bi from ‘Umar is Mursal (interrupted).”
The second defect in it is a narrator named Mujalid who is Ibn Sa’id.
Al Bukhari says about him, “Yahya ibn al Qattan and Ibn Mahdi never used to transmit from him, from Sha’bi.”
Nasa’i says, “He is a Kufi and he is weak.”
Al Jawzajani says, “Mujalid ibn Sa’id, his hadith is graded weak.”
Ibn ‘Adi says, “I asked Ahmed ibn Hambal about Mujalid and he said, ‘He is not much of a transmitter. He elevated an anomalous hadith (to the Messenger) which none besides him have.’ (Ibn ‘Adi also said) Most of what he transmits is not documented.”
Ibn Ma’in said, “His hadith is not proof-worthy.” He also said, “He is a weak flimsy transmitter.”
Ibn Hajar said about him, “He is not a strong transmitter. He changed at the end of his life.”
There remains the assertion that ‘Umar beat the person who asked him about a verse in the Qur’an until he bled, and said to him, “Do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you,” Tijani has cited Sunan al Darimi, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, and al Durr al Manthur as references. After exhaustive searching in these references there appears to be absolutely no trace of this narration in Tijani’s cited sources. In fact there is no trace for it at all. The books are available for all to study. We would be extremely grateful if someone can point out where this narration could be found. I fear that once again Tijani has taken a chance assuming that he would get away with falsifying material.
Tijani’s accusation on ‘Umar concerning the meaning of Kalalah
Tijani’s nit-picking is far from over:
Also he was asked about “al Kalalah” but he did not know what it meant.
In his “commentary”, al Tabari stated that Umar once said the following, “My knowledge of al Kalalah is more valuable to me than owning a palace similar to those in Syria.”
In one of his books, Ibn Maja quoted Umar as saying “There are three things, if they were explained by the Messenger of Allahsalla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, I would have loved them more dearly than anything in the world: Al Kalalah, usury and the caliphate.”
Refuting Tijani’s accusation on ‘Umar concerning the meaning of Kalalah
Tijani displays a unique skill of projecting someone’s sincerity and humility as ignorance. Unfortunately many times this skill is accompanied with misdirection, fabrication or interpolation.
In order to demonstrate this I present the narration appearing in Sahih Muslim. Compare what Tijani has written to what appears in Sahih Muslim. Ma’dan ibn Abi Talhah related:
‘Umar ibn al Khattab addressed (the people) one Friday and mentioned the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Abu Bakr. Then he said, “Indeed, I do not leave behind anything more important to me than the Kalalah. I never consulted the Messenger about something as much as I consulted him about Kalalah and he was not stern with me about anything as much as he was stern about it (Kalalah). To the extent that (one day) he poked me with his finger against my chest and said, ‘O ‘Umar! Does the verse of summer at the end of Surah al Nisa not suffice you?’ (‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu said,) If I live (long enough) I will issue a ruling concerning it that the person who reads the Qur’an as well as the person who does not read the Qur’an will judge according to it.”
We learn from this hadith that ‘Umar’s uncertainty about Kalalah was not out of lack of knowledge. Instead, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam desired that the Sahabah apply their minds to extract laws from the revealed texts. Therefore he withheld the explanation and alerted ‘Umar to the verse which explains the meaning of the (word) Kalalah. This can be inferred from his statement, “O ‘Umar! Does the verse of summer at the end of Surah al Nisa not suffice you?” Here the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was referring to the verse:
يَسْتَفْتُونَكَ قُلِ اللّٰهُ يُفْتِيكُمْ فِي الْكَلَالَةِ
They request from you a (legal) ruling. Say, Allah gives you a ruling concerning the Kalalah…
Al Nawawi says:
Perhaps the Messenger acted harshly with him out of fear that his and others dependence upon what he explicitly stated may result in them abandoning deducing from the texts. Indeed, Allah says:
وَلَوْ رَدُّوْهُ إِلَى الرَّسُوْلِ وَإِلٰٓى أُولِى الْأَمْرِ مِنْهُمْ لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِيْنَ يَسْتَنْبِطُوْنَهمِنْهُمْ
But if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, and then the ones who (can) draw correct conclusions from it would have known about it.
Applying oneself in order to deduce rulings from the texts is of the most emphasised and required duties, as the clear texts only cover a few of the newer issues. When deduction from the texts is neglected the ability to issue legal decrees in newer cases, or at least some of them, is hindered. And Allah knows best!
‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu shared the same view as Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu that the word Kalalah refers to a person with no father and no son. This is also the view of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the majority of the jurists from the Companions, and those who came after them. This only highlights the depth of ‘Umar’s knowledge and understanding. Why not; when the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
إن الله وضع الحق على لسان عمر يقول به
Indeed, Allah has placed the truth upon the tongue of ‘Umar.
Al Tabari mentions fifteen narrations from ‘Umar ibn al Khattab about Kalalah in his Tafsir. Among these narrations is the hadith previously mentioned from Sahih Muslim. Tijani’s ‘objectivity’ is so vast that all he sees is ‘Umar’s statement, “Knowing the (meaning of the word) Kalalah is more beloved to me than having collecting the value of tax from the castles of Rome,” not the castles of al Sham, as Tijani says. Subhan Allah! He could not transmit this part accurately! What more can be said of his objectivity!
All that the narration amounts to is ‘Umar’s desire to have learnt the meaning of the word Kalalah from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This displays his eagerness for knowing the truth in this issue. Is this something that warrants criticism?
Tijani’s accusation on ‘Umar concerning the distribution of Zakat
Tijani’s tirade is far from over:
One of the first Companions to open the door of Ijtihad [interpretation] was the second Caliph who used his discretion vis-a-vis the Qur’anic Texts after the death of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to stop the shares of those whose hearts inclined (to truth), although Allah had made its payment compulsory out of the Zakat, and said, “We do not need you.”
Refuting Tijani’s accusation on ‘Umar concerning the distribution of Zakat
Ijtihad is an undisputed institution which dates back to the time of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. As a matter of fact, the hadith which Tijani brought against ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is an example of ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu exercising his Ijtihad. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not disapprove of his Ijtihad, instead he corrected it.
There are countless examples of Ijtihad which are well established from senior Sahabah such as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, and Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhum. It is in this regard that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
إذا حكم الحاكم فاجتهد ثم أصاب فله أجران وإذا حكم فاجتهد ثم أخطأ فله أجر
When a judge gives a correct ruling after applying his scholarly discretion (Ijtihad), he will have a double reward; and if he errs after applying his scholarly discretion, he will have a single reward.
Their scholarly discretion was not in opposition of the Qur’anic texts. On the contrary, their scholarly discretion was in the understanding of the Qur’anic and prophetic texts, or finding solution to situations which had not been addressed directly in the Qur’an and Sunnah. We ought to bear in mind that unlike Tijani, the Sahabah were well aware of the context of the texts. They witnessed it being revealed and understood, first-hand the purport behind the legislation, and the circumstances in which verses were revealed or in which the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said a particular statement. The lengthy period in which they accompanied the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam blossomed into a profound understanding of the Shari’ah.
There are rare cases where the Ijtihad of some of the Sahabah was in conflict with the revealed text. If we examine those cases we find that they were unaware of the revealed text on that matter. That being said, when they were made aware of the textual evidence, they retracted their views and adopted positions in line with the textual evidence.
‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu understood the Zakat distribution schedule of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to be based on specific benefits. Thus he considered the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to have only assigned a portion for the Mu’allafah Qulubuhum when the Muslims were in a state of weakness, to unite the hearts and in order to safeguard the Muslims from potential harm. After the Ummah established itself in terms of strength and ability to defend itself he no longer considered that category as worthy recipients for Zakat. This is definitely ‘Umar’s scholarly discretion on this matter. This was not contested by the rest of the Sahabah hence their silence can be taken as approval which can be accepted as a form of ijma’ (consensus).It cannot be said that this was Ijtihad in the face of Qur’anic texts. Rather, it was Ijtihad in determining the purpose of the text.
Tijani’s accusation on ‘Umar preventing Abu Hurairah from transmitting the hadith of glad tidings
Tijani goes on to say:
There is another incident involving the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Umar which shows clearly the latter’s mentality and how he allowed himself to argue and oppose the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The incident was about spreading the good news of Heavens. The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent Abu Hurairah with the instruction that whenever he met a man who is absolutely convinced that “There is no other god but Allah” he was to give him the good news that he would end up in Heaven. Abu Hurairah duly went out to spread the good news until he met Umar who prevented him from continuing his mission and beat him as he lay on the ground. Abu Hurairah went back crying to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and told him about his encounter with Umar, so the Messengersalla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked Umar, “What made you do that?” Umar replied by asking the question, “Did you send him to spread the good news of Heaven to whoever convincingly believes that there is no other god but Allah!” The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Yes.” Umar then said, “Do not do that, because I fear that all the people will rely on there is no other god but Allah.”
Refuting Tijani’s accusation on ‘Umar preventing Abu Hurairah from transmitting the hadith of glad tidings
It would not be an overstatement if we said that nearly every authentic hadith that has been mentioned in praise of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, or the other Sahabah for that matter, has been conveniently dismissed by Tijani. Not because of any weakness in the chain of transmission; rather it did not fit in with his preconceived idea of what may or may not apply to them. This time he quotes a narration with unshakable confidence, not because the transmitters in the chain are trustworthy, rather, because of the potential disparagement of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu in it.
Without realising it, Tijani has presented one of the greatest proofs for ‘Umar’s profound understanding of the din. It comes as no surprise since the truth is always on his tongue. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said about him:
إن الله وضع الحق على لسان عمر يقول به
Indeed, Allah has placed the truth upon the tongue of ‘Umar.
Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu also narrates that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
رأيت كأني أتيت بقدح من لبن فشربت منه فأعطيت فضلي عمر بن الخطاب قالوا فما أولته يا رسول الله؟ قال العلم
I saw (in a dream) as if I was brought a container of milk. Then I drank from it and gave my surplus to ‘Umar ibn al Khattab. They said, “How do you interpret it, O Messenger?” He said, “Knowledge.”
The hadith that Tijani quotes, also known as the hadith of Tabshir, has been narrated by Imam Muslim by way of Abu Hurairah in a lengthy report:
فقال يا أبا هريرة وأعطاني نعليه قال اذهب بنعلي هاتين فمن لقيت من وراء هذا الحائط يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله مستيقنا بها قلبه فبشره بالجنة فكان أول من لقيت عمر فقال ما هاتان النعلان يا أبا هريرة فقلت هاتان نعلا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعثني بهما من لقيت يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله مستيقنا بها قلبه بشرته بالجنة فضرب عمر بيده بين ثديي فخررت لاستي فقال ارجع يا أبا هريرة فرجعت إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فأجهشت بكاء وركبني عمر فإذا هو على أثري فقال لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما لك يا أبا هريرة قلت لقيت عمر فأخبرته بالذي بعثتني به فضرب بين ثديي ضربة خررت لاستي قال ارجع فقال له رسول الله يا عمر ما حملك على ما فعلت قال يا رسول الله بأبي أنت وأمي أبعثت أبا هريرة بنعليك من لقي يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله مستيقنا بها قلبه بشره بالجنة قال نعم قال فلا تفعل فإني أخشى أن يتكل الناس عليها فخلهم يعملون قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فخلهم
The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “O Abu Hurairah (and he handed me his sandals), go with these two sandals of mine and whoever you meet behind this wall that testifies that there is no God but Allah with conviction in his heart give him the glad tidings of Jannat.”
(Abu Hurairah says) then the first person I met was ‘Umar who said, “What are these two sandals, O Abu Hurairah?”
I said, “These are the two sandals of the Messenger. He sent me with them to whomever I meet that testifies that there is no God but Allah with conviction in his heart to give him the glad tidings of Jannat.”
Then ‘Umar struck me with his hand in the middle of my chest and I fell on my rear.
He said, “Return, O Abu Hurairah!”
So I returned to the Messenger, on the verge of crying. ‘Umar followed me and was right behind me. The Messenger said to me, “What is the matter Abu Hurairah?”
I said, “I met ‘Umar and informed him about what you sent me with. Then he struck me in the middle of my chest and I fell on my rear and he told me to return.”
The Messenger then said to him, “O ‘Umar! What caused you to do that?”
He said, “O Messenger of Allah! May my mother and father be sacrificed for you! Did you send Abu Hurairah with your two sandals to give everyone he meets that testifies that there is no God but Allah the glad tidings of Jannat?”
The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Yes!”
He said, “I suggest that you do not do that as I fear that the people will rely on it. Leave them to perform good deeds!”
The Messenger then said, “Leave them.”
In this hadith ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu feared that the people would be negligent in the performance of righteous deeds after hearing the hadith. Therefore he presented his suggestion to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, who considered it and accepted it. Qadi ‘Iyad has said:
‘Umar’s action, and his consulting the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, was not an objection against him, or a refutation of his instruction. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam only sent Abu Hurairah to appease the hearts of the believers and give them glad tidings. ‘Umar felt withholding this announcement was more beneficial and more suitable so that they do not depend upon it only. When he presented his suggestion to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam he considered ‘Umar’s view correct. And Allah knows best.
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam maintained this policy as can be seen from the hadith of Anas:
أنس بن مالك أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومعاذ رديفه على الرحل قال يا معاذ بن جبل قال لبيك يا رسول الله وسعديك قال يا معاذ قال لبيك يا رسول الله وسعديك ثلاثا قال ما من أحد يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله صدقا من قلبه إلا حرمه الله على النار قال يا رسول الله أفلا أخبر به الناس فيستبشروا قال إذا يتكلوا وأخبر بها معاذ عند موته تأثما
Anas ibn Malik relates that the Prophet of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam addressed Mu’adh ibn Jabal as he was riding behind him, “O Mu’adh!” to which he replied, “I am at your service, and at your pleasure, Messenger of Allah!”
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam again called out, “Mu’adh!” and he gave a similar reply, and this continued for a third time before the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said,: “If anyone testifies (sincerely from his heart) that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad is His slave and His messenger, Allah will grant him immunity from the Fire.”
Mu’adh then said, “O Messenger of Allah, shall I not inform people of it so that they may rejoice?”
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam replied, “If that is the case they will rely on this alone (and not exert themselves in righteous deeds).” Mu’adh only transmitted this at the time of his death, to avoid sinning.
When ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu struck Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the chest it was not to push him to the ground or to harm him, he merely meant to stop him from proceeding. This was his way of getting his point across effectively.
Is there anything as clear that proves that the truth is on ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu tongue and heart?
Tijani’s allegations against the Ahlus Sunnah concerning the infallibility of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam
True to his strategy of misdirection Tijani proceeds:
Looking at the various stances that Umar took regarding the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his Tradition we could deduce that he never believed in the infallibility of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; and he thought of him as any other man subject to right or wrong. Thus came the opinion adopted by the Sunni scholars and al Jamaah that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was infallible as regards the transmitting the Holy Qur’an, but that apart from that he was like any other human being, sometimes wrong and sometimes right. They (the Ahlus Sunnah) cite as a proof for that (dogma) ‘Umar’s directing his opinion on a number of occasions and on a number of issues.
Refuting Tijani’s allegations against the Ahlus Sunnah concerning the infallibility of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam
Tijani’s insult has no academic basis. He has exploited the forum of academic enquiry to malign ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Not only is this a breach of conduct, but it is a blatant display of Tijani’s bias towards the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Moreover, he accuses the Ahlus Sunnah of ‘covering-up’ for ‘Umar by retrospectively modifying their doctrine.
If Tijani is fair in his adjudication of ‘Umar, the same disposition towards the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was recorded from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu on other issues. By what right does ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu deserve exoneration and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu condemnation? If Tijani cannot bring himself to excuse ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, in a manner that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would be excused for—assuming Tijani’s breach of rank—then his claim to impartiality is nothing but a farce.
Al Bukhari narrates in his Sahih by way of al Zuhri, from ‘Ali ibn Hussain, that Hussain ibn ‘Ali informed him that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib informed him:
أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم طرقه وفاطمة بنت النبي عليه السلام ليلة فقال ألا تصليان فقلت يا رسول اللهِ أنفسنا بيد الله فإذا شاء أن يبعثنا بعثنا فانصرف حين قلنا ذلك ولم يرجع إلى شيئا ثم سمعته وهو مول يضرب فخذه وهو يقول وكان الإنسان أكثر شىء جدلا
The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam knocked on his and Fatimah’s door one night and said, “Are (the two of) you not performing salah?”
I said, “O Messenger of Allah! Our souls are in the hands of Allah, if He decrees to wake us He wakes us.”
The Messenger of Allah left when I said that and he did not rebuke me with anything. Then I heard him as he was turning around and slapping his hand on his thigh saying, “But man has ever been, more than anything, (prone to) dispute.”
Would Tijani infer that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu refused the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam request and angered him. Did he only consider the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam infallible regarding the conveying of the Qur’an; and in all other matters he might have been correct or might have erred? Was he the same as the rest of mankind in that respect? Is it that he attached no importance to this request? Whatever answer Tijani presents for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu applies equally to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, provided that Tijani doesn’t consider ‘Ali greater than the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Tijani’s claim that the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah only believe the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam infallible with regards to conveying the Qur’an can only be taken seriously if he provided a single quote from their books to support his claim. Tijani’s academic integrity is as consistent as his impartiality, absent!
Tijani’s accusation on ‘Umar concerning the Devil fleeing from him
His rant continues:
Some ignorant people claim that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam accepted the temptations of the devil in his home. Once he was lying on his back surrounded by women playing their tambourines and the devil sat joyfully next to him until Umar came, then the devil ran away and the women hid their tambourines under their seats. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said to Umar, “As soon as the devil saw you, he left by a different way from the way you came in.”
It is not therefore surprising that Umar has his own views on the religion and allowed himself to argue with the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam about political issues as well as religious ones, as we explained before regarding the good news about Heaven.
Refuting Tijani’s accusation on ‘Umar concerning the Devil fleeing from him
The hadith books of Ahlus Sunnah have been published on a large scale and are easily available in bookstores throughout the world. Despite this Tijani still manages to quote a narration that cannot be found in any of these books. There is not a single hadith in any of the books of the Ahlus Sunnah with his wording.
There is no doubt that Tijani is alluding to some authentic ahadith of which he is aware. However, his exhaustive research and impartiality got the better of him that he managed to interpolate two isolated narrations by combining them into one. I will present two isolated narrations which I believe Tijani combined into what he calls “a narration from the Ahlus Sunnah”.
The first hadith is narrated by al Bukhari in his Sahih:
عن عائشة قالت دخل علي أبو بكر وعندي جاريتان من جواري الأنصار تغنيان بما تقاولت به الأنصار يوم بعاث قالت وليستا بمغنيتين فقال أبو بكر أبمزمور الشيطان في بيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وذلك في يوم عيد فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يا أبا بكر إن لكل قوم عيدا وهذا عيدنا
From ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhu, she said, “Abu Bakr entered while there were two young girls from the Ansar with me singing what the Ansar sang at the Battle of Bu’ath. (She said) They were not singers. Abu Bakr then said, “The flutes of Shaytan in the house of the Messenger?”
That was a day of ‘Eid and the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “O Abu Bakr! Every nation has an ‘Eid (day of celebration) and this is our ‘Eid.”
The second hadith is narrated by al Tirmidhi in his Sunan from Buraydah, he says:
خرج رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في بعض مغازيه فلما انصرف جاءت جارية سوداء فقالت يا رسول الله إني كنت نذرت إن ردك الله صالحا أن أضرب بين يديك بالدف وأتغنى قال لها إن كنت نذرت فاضربي وإلا فلا ، فجعلت تضرب فدخل أبو بكر وهي تضرب ثم دخل علي وهي تضرب ثم دخل عثمان وهي تضرب ثم دخل عمر فألقت الدف تحت استها ثم قعدت عليه فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إن الشيطان ليخاف منك يا عمر إني كنت جالسا وهي تضرب فدخل أبو بكر وهي تضرب ثم دخل علي وهي تضرب ثم دخل عثمان وهي تضرب فلما دخلت أنت يا عمر ألقت الدف
The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam (once) came out for an expedition. When he returned a dark-skinned girl came to him and said, “O Messenger of Allah! I took an oath that if Allah returned you safely I would beat the drum in front of you and sing.”
The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallamsaid to her, “If you took an oath then beat (it) but if you did not then do not (beat it for me)!”
Then she started beating (the drum) and Abu Bakr entered while she was beating (the drum). Then ‘Ali entered while she was beating (the drum), then ‘Uthman entered while she was beating (the drum), then ‘Umar entered while she was beating (the drum) and she threw the drum under her backside, then she sat on it.
The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallamsaid, “Indeed, Shaytan fears you, O ‘Umar!” I was sitting and she was beating (the drum), then Abu Bakr entered while she was beating (the drum), then ‘Ali entered while she was beating (the drum), then ‘Uthman entered while she was beating (the drum), then you entered, O ‘Umar, and she threw (aside) the drum.”
There is nothing objectionable in both these narrations. They are two authentic ahadith. The two girls mentioned in the first hadith are two girls who had not yet reached puberty and they would sing during the day of ‘Eid. Naturally it was unlike the familiar forbidden music, which drives a person to follow the beat and stirs up passion. This is inferred from ‘Aisha’s words, “They were not singers”.
Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu reproach and subsequent comparison of the drum to the flutes of Shaytan is because they distract the heart from Allah’s remembrance and occupy the mind with amusement instead of being in a state of spiritual consciousness. Thereupon the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said to him, “Leave them,” and justified that the circumstances allowed for it when he said, “Every nation has a day of ‘Eid (celebration) and this is our ‘Eid.”
The second hadith is one in which the girl said to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that she took an oath to beat the drum if he returned safely, to which he responded, “If you took an oath then beat (it),” All that this amounts to is that the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam permitted her to beat the drum in order to fulfil her oath, otherwise not.
Thereafter Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu entered, then ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, until finally ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu entered and that is when the girl threw the drum aside and sat on it. The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then made his statement—which disturbed Tijani, “Indeed, Shaytan is afraid of you, O ‘Umar.” Can there any praise greater for ‘Umar after the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam praised him?
Compare what appears in the two sound narrations with what Tijani has written.
Tijani’s accusation that ‘Umar altered the rulings of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam
Tijani says further:
After that Umar came and made things even worse, he permitted things which were forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and forbade what Allah and His Messenger had permitted
Then he indicates in the footnote with the words:
Such as endorsing the three-fold divorce and his prohibition of the Mut’ah (Tamattu’) of the hajj and the Mut’ah marriage.
Refuting Tijani’s accusation that ‘Umar altered the rulings of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam
The issues of Mut’ah of Hajj and Mut’ah of women have been dealt with previously.The discussion to follow will focus on the issue of triple-divorce.
At the outset I present the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas:
كان الطلاق على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبي بكر وسنتين من خلافة عمر طلاق الثلاث واحدة فقال عمر بن الخطاب إن الناس قد استعجلوا في أمر قد كانت لهم فيه أناة فلو أمضيناه عليهم.فأمضاه عليهم
The divorce during the Messenger’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam era, and Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu era, and the first two years of ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu Caliphate, was that the three divorces (all at once) was regarded as one. Then ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “Indeed people are being hasty about a matter in which there was clemency (at one point). Perhaps I should pass it (the three-fold divorce all at once to be three) over them,” then he passed it over them.
This hadith explains if a husband issued his wife with a triple divorce in one instance it was at times considered a single divorce. This continued until the Caliphate of ‘Umar. During the first two years it was maintained, but when he saw the people’s carelessness about divorce and their abuse of it, he resorted to a stricter ruling to deter them from such carelessness and abuse and therefore he ruled the three-fold divorce at one instance constituted three.
This was his understanding of the issue, which was met with agreement from the Sahabah, including ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This was not a case of making permissible what Allah and his Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited as he did not abrogate the ruling. All he did was put it into perspective, and he was more knowledgeable of the Messenger’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam intent regarding the laws of divorce.
It is accepted that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was of the noblest and among the most knowledgeable of the Sahabah. His Ijtihad in this regard is valid and has been upheld by the Ummah subsequently. Even on the assumption that he erred, he is excused on the basis of him being qualified for Ijtihad.
Senior companions have acknowledged his virtue and knowledge. Sha’bi narrates from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who said:
We (the Companions of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had no doubt that Umar was the voice of wisdom.
Ibn Mas’ud said:
‘Umar was the most knowledgeable among us about Book of Allah, and the one with the best understanding of Allah’s din. He had the best recognition of Allah among us. By Allah! He was clearer than the path of those striving; meaning that this matter is clear and that the people recognise it.
He also said:
If ‘Umar’s knowledge was placed on the one pan of a scale and the entire world’s knowledge on the other, his (‘Umar’s) knowledge would outweigh their knowledge. (He said) I think that nine tenths of knowledge left the day ‘Umar left (this world).
When people differed in a matter then search for what ‘Umar did and take it.
In the spirit of fairness and impartiality I quote the Shia sources on what the Wasi, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib said in regards to the era of ‘Umar’s Caliphate:
For Allah was the good showing of Fulan (so and so, with reference to ‘Umar). He straightened the crookedness and he remedied the foundations. He pushed back fitnah and established the Sunnah. He left (this world) with a clean garment and few shortcomings. He procured the good of it (this world) and he hastened ahead of its evil. He executed his obedience towards Allah and was duly conscious of him. He passed on and left them (the people) upon many paths, the misguided not finding his way and the guided not certain (about his affairs).
He also said:
A leader governed them who straightened things (out) and was steadfast to the point where the din was firmly grounded.
In the book al Gharat by Ibrahim al Thaqafi he mentions that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu described the reign of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu with these words:
‘Umar stepped into office. He lived a praise-worthy lifestyle and had a blessed disposition.
When ‘Umar consulted him about leaving for the expedition of Rome, he said:
Indeed, if you travel to the enemy and you meet them personally and you are afflicted with disaster then the Muslims will not have a place to resort to besides the furthest of their lands. There is no point of reference after you which people may resort to. Therefore, send to them an experienced man and incite to go with him some men with ability and goodwill. If Allah grants you victory then that is what you wanted. If it is the other (i.e. defeat) you will be a support for the people and a refuge for the Muslims.
Another of their leaders, Muhammad Al Kashif al Ghita says in his book Asl al Shia wa Usuliha, which Tijani claims he enjoyed reading:
When he (‘Ali ibn Abi Talib) saw that the two khalifah’s, the first and the second (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar), exerted all their efforts into the spreading of the call of Tawhid, and preparing armies, and expanding the conquests, and they did not appropriate and they did not act tyrannically, he gave the pledge and made peace.
It is for that reason that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu married his daughter to ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Not only that, he named one of his sons ‘Umar, as acknowledged by al Arbili, in order to demonstrate his love and respect for the Khalifah, ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
After all this, does it really matter that an ‘impartial’ researcher finds fault with his knowledge?
 Then I was guided, 96.
 Ibid, p. 109-110.
 Sunan al Nasa’i with Hafiz’s commentary and Sindi’s sidenotes, Kitab al Hajj, Bab al Qur’an, no. 2719.
 Sunan al Nasa’i with the commentary, Kitab al Hajj, Bab al Tamattu’, Hadith no. 2736; Musnad Ahmed, vol. 1, Musnad ‘Umar ibn al Khattab; See also: Sahih al Nasa’i by Albani, vol. 2, Hadith no. 2548.
 Sahih Muslim with its commentary, Kitab al Hajj, Bab Jawaz al Tamattuʻ, Hadith no. 1224.
 Sahih Muslim with its commentary, Kitab al Nikah, Bab Nikah al Mut’ah, Hadith no. 1406.
 Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Nikah, Hadith no. 4825, Bab Nahy Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ‘an Nikah al Mut’ah Akhiran; Muslim with the commentary, Kitab al Nikah, Hadith no. 1407.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 4, p. 190.
 Al Shia wa al Tashih by al Musawi, p. 109.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 4, p. 190-191.
 Sunan Ibn Majah, Kitab al Nikah, Bab al Nahy ‘an Nikah al Mut’ah, hadith no. 1963; See also Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah, hadith no. 1597.
 Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab al Nikah, fi Nikah al Mut’ah wa Huramatiha, vol. 3, p. 390.
 Fada’il al Sahabah by Ahmed, Hadith no. 1209, p. 707, vol. 2, the examiner (of the book) says: its sanad is reliable.
 Refer to al Musnad vol. 1, Hadith no. 1327, the Musnad of ‘Ali, p. 325; and Ibn Khuzaymah in his Sahih, Kitab al Manasik, Hadith no. 3048, p. 348, vol. 4; Bukhari mentioned it in a positive manner with a suspended (Mu’allaq) sanad, Kitab al Muharibin, Bab La Yurjam al Majnun wa al Majnunah, p. 2499, vol. 6; and Abu Dawood, Bab fi al Majnun Yasriq aw Yusib Hadd, Hadith no. 4399, 4400, 4401, 4402; and Sunan al Daraqutni, Kitab al Hudud wa al Diyat, Hadith no. 173, vol. 3; and Musnad Abi Ya’la, vol. 1, Musnad ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, Hadith no. 587, p. 440; and Mustadrak al Hakim, Kitab al Salah, p. 257, vol. 1 and p. 59, Kitab al Buyuʻ, vol. 2 and p. 389, Kitab al Hudud, vol. 4, Refer also to ‘Ilal al Daraqutni, vol. 3, p. 72 and 291.
 Al Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, vol. 6, Kitab al Hudud, p. 557.
 Refer to: Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 5, p 420, biography no. 1112; (also) Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 1, biography no. 1726.
 Surah al Ahqaf: 15.
 Surah Luqman: 14.
 Al Riyad al Nadirah, vol. 2, p. 161.
 Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 19, p. 494, biography no. 3863.
 Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 3, p. 53.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vo. 6, p. 42.
 Surah al Ma’idah: 101.
 Then I was guided, p. 95 and 147.
 Surah al Nisa’: 20.
 Sunan Sa’id ibn Mansur, vol. 1, Bab ma Ja’a fi al Sadaq, hadith nos. 595, 569 and 579.
 Al Qowl al Mu’tabar fi Tahqiq Riwayah, ‘Kull Ahad Afqah min ‘Umar’, p. 20.
 Al Du’afa’ al Saghir by al Bukhari, p. 116, biography no. 368.
 Al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukin by al Nasa’i, p. 236, biography no. 552.
 Al Shajarah fi Ahwal al Rijal wa Ayat al Nabawiyyah by al Jowzajani, p. 144.
 Tahdhib al Kamal by al Mizzi, vol. 27, p. 222, biography no. 5780
 Taqrib al Tahdhib, vol. 2, p. 159, See the book al Qowl al Mu’tabar.
 Then I was guided,p. 147.
 Kalalah: One having neither descendants nor ascendants as heirs, in which case his siblings will inherit.
 Sahih Muslim with its commentary, Kitab al Fara’id, Bab Mirath al Kalalah, Hadith no. 1617.
 Surah al Nisa’: 176.
 Surah al Nisa’: 83.
 Op. cit. vol. 11, p. 82.
 Sunan Abu Dawood, Kitab al Kharaj wa al Imarah wa al Fay’, Bab fi Tadwin al Ata, Hadith no. 2962; and Sunan al Tirmidhi, Kitab al Manaqib, Bab Manaqib ‘Umar ibn al Khattab, Hadith no. 3946; and Ibn Majah fi al Muqaddimah, Bab Fada’il Ashab al Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam , Bab Fadl ‘Umar, Hadith no. 108; Refer also to Sahih Abu Dawood, by Albani, Hadith no. 2566.
 Then I was guided, p. 165.
 Sahih al Bukhari, Bab al I’tisam bi al Kitab wa al Sunnah, Hadith no. 6919, vol. 6; and Muslim with its commentary, Bab al Aqdiyah, Hadith no. 1716, from ‘Amr ibn al ‘As.
 Al Wajiz fi Usul al Fiqh by Doctor ‘Abd al Karim Zaidan, p. 261.
 Then I was guided, p. 165.
 Sahih Muslim with its commentary, Kitab al Iman, Hadith no. 31.
 Sahih Muslim with its commentary, p. 325-326.
 Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al ‘Ilm, hadith no. 128; Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Iman, hadith no. 55
 Sahih Muslim with its commentary, p. 325.
 Then I was guided, p. 166. NOT IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION
 Sahih al Bukhari, Abwab al Tahajjud, Hadith no. 1075.
 Then I was guided, p. 166.
 Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al ‘Idayn, Bab Sunnah al ‘Idayn li Ahl al Islam, Hadith no. 909.
 Sunan al Tirmidhi, Bab Manaqib ‘Umar ibn al Khattab, Hadith no. 3690; See also Sahih al Tirmidhi, Hadith no. 2913.
 Then I was guided, p. 167.
 Sahih Muslim with al Nawawi’s commentary, Kitab al Talaq, Hadith no. 1472.
 Fada’il al Sahabah by Ahmed, vol. 1, p. 249, Hadith no. 310, The examiner says, “its sanad is reliable.”
 Majma’ al Zawa’id by al Haythami, vol. 9, p. 72 and 76, he says, “Tabarani narrates it with many asanid, the transmitters of one them are the transmitters of the Sahih (al Bukhari).”
 Majma’ al Zawa’id by al Haythami, vol. 9, p. 72, al Haythami says, “Tabarani narrates this with many asanid and transmitters. This is the transmitters of the Sahih (of Bukhari) besides Asad ibn Musa who is also a reliable transmitter.”
 Fada’il al Sahabah by Ahmed, vol. 1, p. 264, Hadith no. 343, the examiner says, “its sanad is reliable.”
 In the footnote of the book al Nahj, it is the second khalifah, ‘Umar ibn al Khattab I.
 Nahj al Balaghah, vol. 2, p. 509.
 Ibid, vol. 4, p. 793.
 Al Gharat by al Thaqafi, vol. 1, p. 307, Risalah ‘Ali ila Ashabih.
 Nahj al Balaghah, p. 296-297.
 Asl al Shia wa Usuliha, p. 124.