Shattering the Mirage: A Response to ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din’s al Muraja’at: Letter 83 and 84

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Letter 83

 

Rabi’ul-Awwal 2, 1330

 

I. Can You Compromise the Text’s Accuracy With the Companions’ Truthfulness?

 

Those who are endowed with a discreet insight and keen comprehension regard the companions as being above doing anything contrary to the wish of the Prophet (pbuh) in whatever he bids or forbids, neither do they permit anything other than such a policy. Therefore, they could not have heard the text regarding the Imam once, twice or thrice, then deviated therefrom. And how can you describe such companions to be truthful had they heard the text about him then refrained from following it? I do not think that you are able to compromise both [contradictory] situations, Wassalam.

 

Sincerely,

S

 

Letter 84

 

Rabi’ul-Awwal 5, 1330

 

I. Compromising the Text’s Accuracy With Their Truthfulness,

II. Rationalizing the Imam’s Reluctance to Demand his Right.

 

1) Our legacy of traditions, which has been left to us by those companions, indicates that the latter adhered to all texts as long as they were relevant to the faith, concerned about the matters related to the Hereafter, such as his (pbuh) hadith regarding the obligatory fast during the month of Ramadan rather than any other month, facing only the qibla while performing the obligatory prayers, the number of obligatory prayers during the day or the night, the number of rak’at [prostrations] in each, as well as how to perform them, his hadith that the ceremonial tawaf around the House [Ka’ba] is seven times, and such ahadith aiming at the achievement of divine rewards in the life to come.

As regarding his texts that deal with political matters such as succession, government, administration, legislation, invasions, etc., they did not see that they had to follow or adhere to them in all circumstances; rather, they allowed themselves to practice a measure of research, discretion, and ijtihad. If they saw in opposing such texts a promotion of their cause, or an advantage to their power, they would oppose them. They may even seek to please the Prophet by doing just so. They were convinced that the Arabs would neither accept ‘Ali’s rule nor follow a text in such a matter, since he pressured them a great deal while enforcing the Will of Allah in their regard, spilling their blood with his sword in while promoting the Word of Allah, dismantling all their masks while defending the truth, till Allah’s Will became dominant in spite of every infidel. So, they would not obey him willingly, nor would they follow such texts except by force, having attributed to him the spilling of all blood in the way of Islam during the life-time of the Prophet (pbuh), according to their custom of retaliation in such circumstances, for they saw him as the only candidate upon whom they would seek revenge, especially since seeking revenge is usually done to the best among the foe’s tribesmen, and the choicest of its clans. They knew that he was the best among the Hashimites, after the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), without any doubt or dispute.

For this reason, the Arabs waited for a chance to annihilate him; they sought means to deal with him, and they bore a great deal of grudge against him and his descendants, till they leaped over them in a way that became well-known everywhere, and its shame filled the earth and the skies.

There is another reason: Quraysh in particular and the Arabs in general used to criticize ‘Ali’s might in dealing with the enemies of Allah, the forcefulness of his method of dealing with those who trespass the limits of Allah or permit what He prohibited. They feared his enjoining right and forbidding wrong; they dreaded his justice in dealing with the subjects and his equity in every public issue. Nobody hoped for his concession nor dreamed of his compromise. The mighty and powerful are weak till he executes justice on them, and the weak and downtrodden are strong and dignified when he grants them what is rightfully theirs. So, how can the Arabs willingly submit to a man like that while “They are the foremost in disbelief and hypocrisy, so much so that they ought not know the limits of what Allah has revealed unto His Messenger (Qur’an, 9:97),” and “Among the people of Medina are those who are stubborn in hypocrisy; you [O Our Prophet Muhammad] do not know them; We know them (Qur’an, 9:101), and among them are those who do not hesitate to commit anything insane.

There is still another reason. Quraysh in particular and Arabs in general used to envy him for the favours Allah bestowed upon him. He has been uplifted by Allah, His Messenger and the wise, to a sublime status due to his knowledge and feats; peers fall short of their attainment; those qualified hesitated to attempt to compete with him. He has, through his feats and attributes, won a status from Allah and His Messenger coveted by the hopeful, and a prestige unattainable by the most ambitious. For these reasons, jealousy filled the hearts of the hypocrites. The spiteful, ungrateful, and unequitable hypocrites, in addition to opportunists, all agreed not to discharge their responsibility towards him; therefore, they left these texts behind their backs, entrusting them to oblivion.

It was what it was, I shall never discuss the views; So, entertain good thoughts; do not ask about the news. Also, Quraysh and all other Arabs had by then coveted political dominance for their own respective tribes, and their ambition extended thereto. For this reason, they decided to discard the covenant and were determined to ignore the will. So, they all collaborated to forget the text, pledging not to mention it at all. They all agreed to divert the caliphate, since its inception, from its rightful candidate, who was assigned to it by their Prophet, and make it through election and choice, so that each one of their quarters might have a justification for hoping to attain it, though after a while. Had they followed the text and advanced ‘Ali to succeed the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, such caliphate would never have left his purified progeny, since he had equated his progeny on the Ghadir Day, as well as on other occasions, to the perfect Book of Allah, describing them as models for the wise till the Day of Judgment. The Arabs would not have been able to tolerate the confinement of caliphate to one particular dynasty, especially when all their tribes coveted it, and it was sought by all those who wanted it for their own camps. It has, indeed, withered, weakened, and waned: A skeleton unwanted even by one whose funds drained.

Also, whoever knows the history of Quraysh and the Arabs at the dawn of Islam would come to know that they did not yield to the Hashimite Prophethood except after being annihilated, being powerless; so, how could they have agreed that Hashim’s descendants should monopolize both prophethood and caliphate? ‘Umer ibn al Khattab once said to Ibn ‘Abbas in a dialogue between them: “Quraysh hated that both prophethood and caliphate should be confined to your household for fear you might oppress other people.”[1]

2) The good ancestors then could not force those folks to implement the spirit of the text for fear they might rebel if they did, and in apprehension of the dire consequences of disputing regarding such an issue. Hypocrisy surfaced immediately after the demise of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, and the might of the hypocrites increased by such a loss. The dark souls of the infidels grew darker, the foundations of the faith weakened, and the hearts of the Muslims waned, so much so that they became like frightened cattle in a winter night, surrounded by wolves and ferocious beasts. One group among the Arabs reneged, while another contemplated doing so, as we explained in Letter No. 82 above.

Under such circumstances, ‘Ali (as) feared dire consequences resulting from rushing matters if he took upon himself to take charge, knowing how people’s hearts were, as we have described, with the hypocrites being what they were, biting their fingers in rage, and the renegades as we have clarified, while the polytheist nations were just as we have previously indicated. The Ansars had differed and deviated from the Muhajirun, saying, “Let us choose our ruler and you choose yours, etc.” His concern about the faith prompted him to refrain from demanding the caliphate for himself and overlooking certain matters, knowing that demanding the caliphate under such circumstances would endanger the nation and jeopardize the safety of the faith; so, he opted to refrain just in preference of the interest of Islam and that of the common welfare, of the good of the future to that of the present.

He, therefore, remained at home, refusing to give his allegiance till he was forced to leave, just to silently enforce his own right, silently defying those who forsook him. Had he rushed to give his allegiance, he would have had neither argument nor pretext, but he, by doing so, safeguarded both religion and his own right to rule the believers, thus proving the originality of his mind, his overwhelming clemency, his patience and preference of the public interest to that of his own. Any soul that gives so much while facing so much affliction is sure to be rewarded by Allah with divine rewards. His objective was indeed to seek the pleasure of Allah in that epoch as well as in the epochs to come.

As regarding the three caliphs and their supporters, these have interpreted the text regarding his succession in the manner which we have indicated above. This should not surprise us at all once we come to know how they interpret and personally comprehend other texts of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, regarding issues such as succession, government, administration, legislation, etc. They probably did not consider them to be religious issues; so, it was easy for them to practically oppose them. When they finally took charge, they stuck to a policy of overlooking such texts, promising to punish those who would mention or even allude to them. When they succeeded in enforcing order, the dissemination of the religion of Islam, the invasion of nations, and the acquisition of wealth and power, they did not become corrupt in their own personal desires, and that elevated them and caused them to win people’s respect, confidence, and love. People followed suit in forgetting about that text, and when Banu Omayyah succeeded them, the latter’s main objective became the extinction and annihilation of the Prophet’s household. In spite of all this, a few correct texts have reached us and have been protected in authentic books of traditions; these suffice for proof; praise be to Allah, Wassalam.

 

Sincerely,

Sh

———————————–

[1] This is quoted by Ibn Abul-Hadid on page 107, Vol. 3, of Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, while discussing an issue worthy of the attention of researchers which is also discussed by Ibn al Athir near the conclusion of ‘Umer’s biography on page 24, Vol. 3, of his Al Kamil before discussing the story of the “consultation.”

 

Discussions

In this round of exchange ‘Abdul Hussain is setting the stage for his looming disparagement of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Companions. He proceeds using the recurring strategy employed throughout al Muraja’at which involves fabricating an argument attributed to the Sheikh al Azhar, this time seeking clarification on reconciling the Sahabah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhum attitude towards the concept of Wasiyyah.

The astute reader will easily recognize where this line of argument is headed: Effectively, he seeks to undermine the integrity of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum by insinuating they have an established track record of ignoring Prophetic directives and that their alleged disregard for this particular divine instruction, the Wasiyyah, simply aligns with a long history of similar behaviour.

Conveniently, the argument put forward on behalf of the Sheikh al Azhar proceeds with the undelying assumption that all other attempts at disproving the Wasiyyah were unsuccessful and lacked academic substance. There is no need to labour this point as we have already addressed this contention over the course of multiple discussions and we have conclusively demonstrated that there was no Wasiyyah, a fact corroborated even by ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself in Shia sources.

During this round of discussions we wish to draw attention to the manner in which ‘Abdul Hussain seeks to introduce the shameless idea that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum were treacherous, especially where it came to matters of governance which influenced their status and afforded them material gain. He is careful not to expose his readers to the uncensored reality of how the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Companions are viewed from the perspective of the Twelver Shia. Immediate exposure to such material would repel the undecided reader, allowing him an easy escape from the web of propaganda. Therefore, he seeks to add layers of ambiguity about them,  by establishing what he is going to repackage as a proven track record of disregard for Prophetic commands; implying personal or political ambitions was not uncommon among the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

His first sleight of hand is to suggest that the Companions were observant in terms of their devotions, and he cannot fault them in as far as their adherence to prayer and ritual worship is concerned. However, he claims that when it came to political expediency and worldly matters, they had no qualms about opposing the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and acting according to their own interests. This tactic by ‘Abdul Hussain is particularly clever and insidious. He deliberately conflates two distinct concepts: the nature of law and its alignment with divine commands, and the Sahabah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu attitude toward obedience to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

 

Relation of Divine commands to Maslahah

Broadly speaking, The Shari’ah aims to achieve both worldly benefits and eternal felicity in the Hereafter. These laws exist because Allah has decreed them, and His commands are conveyed through revelation, of which the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Sunnah is an extension. This divine communication is comprehended through explicit commands, prohibitions; although there are areas where the revealed sources are silent. In these cases the law is infered from existing textual sources through judicial reasoning, refered to as Ijtihad.

Human actions are categorized into acts of devotion, which are deeply rooted in the textually revealed sources, and other aspects of life, which are also governed by revelation but have application within a more recognisable rational framework. In this framework, the objectives of the law have a recognisable connection to the concepts of Maslahah (benefit) and Mafsadah (harm). However, the recognition of Maslahah or Mafsadah is fundamentally rooted in the revealed sources, such that explicit commands or prohibitions cannot be overridden solely based on perceived benefits or harms.

For instance, the prescribed waiting period, or ‘Iddah, for a divorced woman or widow is established by the revealed text. Its primary purpose is to determine that a woman is not pregnant from her previous marriage—a fact that could be confirmed with a single menstrual cycle or, with modern medical techniques, through a scan or blood test. Nonetheless, the Shari’ah prescribes that she observe the entire ‘Iddah period, regardless of whether pregnancy has been definitively ruled out.

In expression about these concepts, Imam ‘Izz al Din ibn ‘Abdul Salam, who is one of the leading scholars to have written on the subject, offers the following insights:

 

في مراعاة المصالح في الأوامر والمفاسد في النواهي ما أمر الله بشيء إلا وفيه مصلحة عاجلة أو آجلة أو كلاهما وما نهى عن شيء إلا وفيه مفسدة عاجلة أو آجلة أو كلاهما وما أباح شيئا إلا وفيه مصلحة عاجلة ولكل من هذه المصالح رتب متساوية ومتفاوتة في الفساد والصلاح والرجحان وأكثرها ظاهر جلي وأقلها باطن خفي يستدل عليها بأدلتها التي نصبها الله عز وجل لها ومنها ما لا يظهر فيه مصلحة ولا مفسدة سوى مصلحة جلب الثواب ودفع العقاب ويعبر عنه بالتعبد

On Considering the Benefits in Commands and the Harms in Prohibitions

Allah has not commanded anything except that it contains a Maslahah (benefit), whether immediate, deferred, or both.

Similarly, He has not prohibited anything except that it contains Mafsadah (harm), whether immediate, deferred, or both.

He has not permitted anything except that it contains an immediate benefit.[1]

Each of these benefits falls in a spectrum, some equal and others varying in terms of harm, benefit or preponderance of one over the other.

Most of them are evidently clear, while some are hidden and subtle, but potentially inferred through the evidences that Allah has established for them.

Among these, there are matters in which no apparent benefit or harm is evident, except for the benefit of earning reward and avoiding punishment; these are referred to as acts of worship.[2]

 

Eslewhere he says:

 

ومعظم الشريعة الأمر بما ظهرت لنا مصلحته ورجحان مصلحته والنهي عن ما ظهرت لنا مفسدته أو رجحان مفسدته وأما ما أمرنا به ولم يظهر جلبه لمصلحة ولا درؤه لمفسدة فهو المعبر عنه بالتعبد وكذلك ما نهانا عنه ولم تظهر مفسدته ولا درؤه لمفسدة ولا يفوت مصلحة فهذا تعبد أيضا فيجوز أن يشتمل على مصلحة خفية أو مفسدة باطنة ويجوز أن لا يشتمل على ذلك ويكون مصلحته الثواب على مسألة المأمور به واجتناب المنهي عنه وهو قليل بالنسبة إلى ما ظهر مصالحه ومفاسده

Most of the Shari’ah involves commanding what is noticeably beneficial to us or predominantly beneficial, and prohibiting what is noticeablly harmful or predominantly harmful. As for what we have been commanded to do without an apparent benefit or harm, it is referred to as acts of worship, Ta’abbud.

Similarly, what we have been prohibited from, without evident harm or avoidance of harm, and does not come at a loss of a benefit, is also considered an act of worship (ta’abbud).

It is possible that such commands contain hidden benefits or subtle harms, or they may not contain such aspects at all such that their benefit may lie in the reward for obeying the command and avoiding the prohibition, which is relatively minimal compared to what is evidently beneficial or harmful.[3]

 

We learn from Ibn ‘Abdul Salam, and this is the mainstream position for most experts of Islamic Legal Theory, that Maslahah (benefit) and Mafsadah (harm) are intrinsic to divine commands and prohibitions. These benefits and harms may be immediate or deferred, with most being apparent, while some require inference through established evidences due to their subtlety. Most importantly, he distinguishes acts of worship, which are supra-rational, from other aspects of divine law on the basis of how easily and recognisable the Maslahah is.

Returning to ‘Abdul Hussain’s sleight of hand, he conflates the conceptualization of devotional acts of worship with other aspects of the sacred law that possess a recognizable rational component. He alleges that while the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum adhered to the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam instructions in matters of worship, they failed to do so in other aspects of the law. His approach was calculated and deliberate; he softened the tone of his accusations yet framed and worded his argument in a manner that allowed him to speculate about their intentions. By doing this, ‘Abdul Hussain cleverly manipulates what he presumes are his unsuspecting readers. However, the discerning reader can easily recognize that he is planting seeds of doubt about the Companions’ radiya Llahu ‘anhum integrity.

He insinuates that their compliance with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was selective and motivated by personal or political gain. This narrative creates a dichotomy, suggesting that while the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum were outwardly pious, they were inwardly driven by self-interest when it came to governance and other worldly matters. Such rhetoric aims to undermine their credibility and by extension portrays them, without having to explicitly say so, as hypocritical figures who selectively followed divine guidance to suit their own agendas.

Its quite evident that the portrayal of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in al Muraja’at is very different from those whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has described as follows:

 

كُنتُمۡ خَيۡرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخۡرِجَتۡ لِلنَّاسِ تَأۡمُرُونَ بِٱلۡمَعۡرُوفِ وَتَنۡهَوۡنَ عَنِ ٱلۡمُنكَرِ وَتُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِۗ

You are the best Community ever brought forth for the good of humankind: You enjoin what is right, you forbid what is wrong, and you believe in Allah…[4]

 

This Ummah is praised for three descriptions: that it enjoins good, forbids evil and is grounded in its firm belief in Allah. If these are the descriptions of the Ummah as a collective, then it applies a fortiori to the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Companions as they were the only members of this Ummah when these verses were revealed and they remained that community throughout the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lifetime, meaning that this could not possibly have been abrogated. Notice, that the Quran praises them for their commitment to being upright, commanding the good, and forbidden evil: all of which is included in statecraft in managing the affairs of the Ummah.

It is inconceivable that those who deliberately disregarded the explicit commands of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam could be deserving of such commendation. If these qualities were true of the Companions during the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam life, they must remain true after his passing, for it is through them that the Qur’an has been reliably transmitted to us.

Then let us consider the implications of ‘Abdul Hussain’s portrayal of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Nabi Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is the final Messenger, commissioned to bring Allah’s ultimate message to all of humanity until the end of time. How does he fare in the court of ‘Abdul Hussain and others like him? He is depicted, following ‘Abdul Hussains narative to its natural conclusion, as unable to guide his Ummah on the correct path such that they fall into utter chaos immediately after his passing? What does it imply about the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam mission and effectiveness, from ‘Abdul Hussain’s perspective, if he was unable to cultivate a generation worthy of carrying on the legacy for which he had been sent?

This narrative, taken to its natural conclusion, suggests a profound failure in the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ability to ensure the continuity of his teachings and conveying what Allah tasked him to convey. With this consideration alone it becomes absolutely clear why the narrative in al Muraja’at is deeply flawed and undermines the very essence of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam status as the Seal of the Prophets and the perfect guide for humanity.

It also betrays an apathy towards the actual words of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala who describes this early band of believers in commendatory manner:

 

وَٱلَّذِيْنَ ءَامَنُوْا وَهَاجَرُوْا وَجَٰهَدُوْا فِي سَبِيْلِ ٱللَّهِ وَٱلَّذِيْنَ ءَاوَوْا وَّنَصَرُوْٓا أُوْلَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنُوْنَ حَقّٗاۚ لَّهُم مَّغۡفِرَةٞ وَرِزۡقٞ كَرِيمٞ

Those who have believed, emigrated, and striven for the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave shelter and aided, these are the true believers. For them is forgiveness and a noble provision.[5]

 

Once again, Allah praises the very people whom ‘Abdul Hussain seeks to make us revile. Allah Himself confirms their Hijrah, acknowledges their Jihad—not merely as acts of ritual worship, but as grand deeds of devotion all of which falls under the ambit of statecraft and governance.

He commends those who opened their homes for their brothers in faith whom they barely knew and provided refuge for them. Their city became a sanctuary for Allah’s Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and for Islam. These are people who willingly risked everything for this sublime cause. How could these be classified as ritualistic acts? They are profound sacrifices—financially, physically, and ultimately they sacrificed for the cause of Islam with their lives.

Consider for a moment that they led comfortable lives before they embraced this monumental responsibility. Yet, what does Allah proclaim about them? That they are the true believers. This expression, using a noun, signifies the permanence and unchanging nature of this noble descriptor. Furthermore, the repetition of the pronoun reinforces this exclusivity, echoing through the ages as a timeless testament to their sacrifices and dedication to Allah’s religion.

In an era where their actions could have been driven by convenience, they chose conviction. In a time where they could have sought safety, they embraced sacrifice. Their legacy is not transient; it is eternal, for Allah has enshrined them as the true believers.

How dare anyone insinuate that they gave in to worldly gain considering all that they had given up when they did not need to do so had they not been true believers! Worse still, how audacious it is to make such an insinuation after Allah Himself has lauded them with such glowing praise!

We could cite verse after verse wherein Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala extols the achievements of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. However, what we set out to establish here has been achieved by pointing out the nefarious conflation of aspects of worship with other aspects of Law versus the attitude of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Companions in obedience to him.

In his role as a prophet, Nabi Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam approved of a person’s course of action or tolerated their decision not to follow his suggestions, provided it was understood from the context that his suggestion was not a divine command.

The first example that we cite is on the occasion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself refused to write for the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

 

عن عبد الله بن عباس قال لما خرجت الحرورية اعتزلوا فقلت لهم إن رسول الله ﷺ يوم الحديبية صالح المشركين فقال لعلي اكتب يا علي هذا ما صالح عليه محمد رسول الله قالوا لو نعلم أنك رسول الله ما قاتلناك فقال رسول الله ﷺ امح يا علي، اللهم إنك تعلم أني رسولك امح يا علي واكتب هذا ما صالح عليه محمد بن عبد الله والله لرسول الله خير من علي وقد محا نفسه ولم يكن محوه ذلك يمحاه من النبوة أخرجت من هذه قالوا نعم

When the Haruriyya sect revolted, they withdrew, (in my debates with them) I said to them, “Indeed, on the Day of Hudaybiyyah, the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made a treaty with the polytheists. He said to ‘Ali, ‘Write, O ‘Ali: This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has agreed upon.’

They said, ‘If we knew you were the Messenger of Allah, we would not have fought you.’

So the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, ‘Erase it, O ‘Ali. O Allah, You know that I am Your Messenger. Erase it, O ‘Ali, and write: This is what Muhammad, the son of ‘Abdullah, has agreed upon.’

By Allah, the Messenger of Allah is better than ‘Ali, and he erased his own title. Erasing it did not diminish his prophethood. Did I convey this correctly?”

They said: “Yes.”[6]

 

This version demonstartes ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma defending ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu against the disparagements made by the Khawarij, who were also referred to as the Haruriyyah. This next version provides greater details about what transpired during the signing of the treaty itself. Note that this Hadith of al Bara ibn ‘Azib is one that has been used in al Muraja’at already. Our decision to truncate here is merely for convenience and to establish our point.

 

عن البراء قال اعتمر النبي ﷺ في ذي القعدة فأبى أهل مكة أن يدعوه يدخل مكة حتى قاضاهم على أن يقيم بها ثلاثة أيام فلما كتبوا الكتاب كتبوا هذا ما قاضى عليه محمد رسول الله فقالوا لا نقر بها فلو نعلم أنك رسول الله ما منعناك لكن أنت محمد بن عبد الله قال أنا رسول الله وأنا محمد بن عبد الله ثم قال لعلي امح رسول الله قال لا والله لا أمحوك أبدا فأخذ رسول الله ﷺ الكتاب فكتب هذا ما قاضى عليه محمد بن عبد الله…

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam performed ‘Umrah in Dhu al Qa’dah. The people of Makkah refused to allow him to enter Makkah until he agreed to stay there for only three days. When they wrote the treaty, [initially the Muslims] wrote, ‘This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has agreed upon.’

They said, ‘We do not acknowledge this title. If we knew you were the Messenger of Allah, we would not have prevented you. Rather, you are Muhammad, the son of ‘Abdullah.’

He said, ‘I am the Messenger of Allah, and I am Muhammad, the son of ‘Abdullah.’

Then he said to ‘Ali, ‘Erase: Messenger of Allah.’

‘Ali replied, ‘By Allah, I will never erase it.’

So, the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam took the document and signed, ‘This is what Muhammad, the son of ‘Abdullah, has agreed upon…’”[7]

 

In this instance, we see ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu declining to carry out a directive from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Unlike the Khawarij, Ahlus Sunnah view ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu decision positively, as it was ultimately met with the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam approval. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, referencing a version from al Nasa’i, comments on this incident:

 

وللنسائي من طريق علقمة بن قيس عن علي قال كنت كاتب النبي ﷺ يوم الحديبية فكتبت هذا ما صالح عليه محمد رسول الله فقال سهيل لو علمنا أنه رسول الله ما قاتلناه امحها فقلت هو والله رسول الله ﷺ وإن رغم أنفك لا والله لا أمحوها وكأن عليا فهم أن أمره له بذلك ليس متحتما فلذلك امتنع من امتثاله

According to an account by al Nasaʾi, from the narration of ‘Alqamah ibn Qais, who reported from ‘Ali, “I was the scribe of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on the Day of Hudaybiyyah. I wrote: ‘This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has agreed upon.’

Suhayl said, ‘If we acknowledged he was the Messenger of Allah, we would not have fought him. Erase it.’

I replied, ‘By Allah, he is the Messenger of Allah, even if your nose is turned up in disdain. By Allah, I will not erase it.’

It seemed that ‘Ali understood that the Prophet’s instruction was not absolute, which is why he refrained from complying.[8]

 

A similar situation can be cited for Barirah radiya Llahu ‘anhu who was set free by Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha. The incident is related by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma who was cited earlier defending ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu against the Khawarij.

 

عن ابن عباس أن زوج بريرة كان عبدا يقال له مغيث كأني أنظر إليه يطوف خلفها يبكي ودموعه تسيل على لحيته فقال النبي ﷺ لعباس يا عباس ألا تعجب من حب مغيث بريرة ومن بغض بريرة مغيثا فقال النبي ﷺ لو راجعته قالت يا رسول الله، تأمرني قال إنما أنا أشفع قالت لا حاجة لي فيه

The husband of Barirah was a slave named Mughith. I can still picture him walking behind her, weeping, with his tears flowing down his beard. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said to ‘Abbas, “O ‘Abbas, are you not amazed at the love Mughith has for Barirah, and the aversion Barirah has for Mughith?”

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then said to her, “Why don’t you take him back?”

She asked, “O Messenger of Allah, are you commanding me?”

He replied, “I am only interceding.”

She said, “I have no need of him.”[9]

 

It is evident from both these incidents that context played a great role in how some of the words of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were understood. In the case of Barirah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, it is more explicit, in the case of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, we understand that since the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not react negatively that he approved of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu decision not to write, meaning that it was permissible for him to decline to write here.

Bear these in mind when the discussions are eventually raised about other Sahabah and their interpreation of different situations.

 

NEXT⇒ LETTER 85 and 86 

---

[1] Meaning in this life.

[2] Al Fawaid fi Ikhtisar al Qawa’id, pg. 198.

[3] Al Fawa’id fi Ikhtisar al Qawa’id, pg. 226.

[4] Surah Al ‘Imran: 110.

[5] Surah Al Anfal: 74.

[6] Musnad Ahmed, vol 5. Pg. 263, Hadith no: 3187

[7] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith no. 2698; Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 1783.

[8] Fath al Bari, vol. 7 pg. 503.

[9] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith no: 4283.