Shattering the Mirage: A Response to ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din’s al Muraja’at: Letter 93 and 94

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Letter 93

 

Rabi’ al Awwal 23, 1330

I. Requesting Narration of Other Incidents

 

We seem to have elaborated on Usamah’s regiment, just as we elaborated on the Thursday calamity, till truth became distinct from falsehood, and the rays of the dawn became visible to those who can see; so, now let us hear about other incidents, Wassalam.

 

Sincerely,

S

 

Letter 94

 

Rabi’ al Awwal 25, 1330

I. His Order (pbuh) to Kill the Renegade

 

Suffices you in response to your request what is recorded by a group of the nation’s scholars and the imams of narrators, such as imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal who writes on page 15, Vol. 3, of his musnad, quoting Abu Sa’d al Khudri saying that Abu Bakr once came to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny and said: “O Messenger of Allah! I was passing through a valley when I saw a man, solemn and properly attired, saying his prayers.” The Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, said to him: “Go and kill him.” So, Abu Bakr went there, and when he saw the man like that, he hated to kill him; therefore, he returned to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, without carrying out his order. The Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, said to ‘Umer: “Go and kill him,” and ‘Umer went there and saw him in the same way Abu Bakr had described, and he, too, came back without killing the man and said: “O Messenger of Allah! I have seen him saying his prayers very solemnly; so, I hated to kill him.” The Prophet (pbuh) then said to ‘Ali: “‘Ali, you go and kill him,” whereupon ‘Ali went to the place and returned only to say: “O Messenger of Allah! I could not find the man.” The Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, then said: “This man and his friends read the Qur’an only pronouncing its words [just to impress people]; they depart from the faith as swiftly as the arrow departs from the bow, and they do not go back till the arrow goes back to the bow anew. Kill them, for they are the worst among the living.”

In his Musnad, Abu Ya’li, as stated in the biography of Thul Thadya by Ibn Hajar in his Isaba, quotes Anas ibn Malik saying: “We used to admire the piety and ijtihad of a man who was contemporary to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), and we mentioned him by name to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, but he did not know him. We described him to the Prophet (pbuh), but he still did not recognize him. While we were talking about him, he came into sight and we said that it was he. He (pbuh) said: ‘Are you talking to me about a man on whose face Satan has placed his mark?’ The man approached till he stood before them without greeting them. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, asked him: ‘I ask you in the Name of Allah if you have told yourself when you approached that there is nobody among us better than or superior to you?’ The man answered: ‘Indeed, I have,’ and he came in to say his prayers. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, asked who would be willing to kill the man, and Abu Bakr said he would. When Abu Bakr entered, he found the man engaged in saying his prayers; so, he wondered how he could kill a man who was saying his prayers. When the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) asked him what he did, he answered: ‘I hated to kill him while he was saying his prayers, and you yourself had ordered us not to kill those who pray.’ The Prophet (pbuh) asked for a volunteer, and this time ‘Umer responded. ‘Umer entered and found the man prostrating and said to himself that Abu Bakr was better than him; therefore, he went out. When the Prophet (pbuh) asked him if he did what he had promised to do, he told him that he had found the man placing his forehead on the ground prostrating to God. The Prophet (pbuh) once more asked: ‘Who can kill this man?’ ‘Ali answered in the affirmative, and when he entered looking for him, he found out that he had already left; so, he went back to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and told him that the man had already left. It was then that the Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Had this man been killed, no couple among my nation would have disputed with one another.’”

This incident has been recorded by al Hafiz Muhammad ibn Müsa al Shirazi in his book wherein he combines the tafasir of Y’aqüb ibn Hayyan, ‘Ali ibn Harb, al Sadi, Mujahid, Qatadah, Waki’, and Ibn Jurayh. Its authenticity is considered common knowledge by trustworthy traditionists such as Imam Shihabud-Din Ahmed, who is better known as Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih al Andalusi, who quotes it at the conclusion of his chapter on those who follow their own inclinations in the first volume of his book Al ‘Iqd al Farid. At the conclusion of this incident as he narrates it, he says that the Prophet (pbuh) has said: “This is the first horn [of the devil] coming out in my nation. Had you killed him, no two men would have disputed with each other. The children of Isra’il split into seventy-two groups, and this nation shall split into seventy-three groups all of which, except one, will go to Hell.”[1]

Another almost similar narration of this incident is recorded by authors of books of traditions[2] who cite ‘Ali (as) saying: “Some people from Quraysh came once to the Prophet (pbuh) and said: ‘O Muhammad! We are your neighbours and allies, and some of our slaves had come to you without a genuine desire to learn your religion or jurisprudence; they simply escaped from our possession; so, return them to us.’ He asked Abu Bakr his opinion, and Abu Bakr said: ‘They are right in saying that they are your neighbours;’ whereupon the Prophet’s face changed colour [i.e. became red with anger], and he asked ‘Umer what he thought. ‘Umer repeated Abu Bakr’s words, and again his face changed colour and said: ‘O people of Quraysh! By Allah! Allah will send you a man the faith of whose heart is tested by Allah, and he will fight you in order to safeguard the faith.’ Abu Bakr inquired if he meant him, and his answer was negative. Then ‘Umer inquired if it was he about whom the Prophet (pbuh) was talking, and his answer was: ‘No, it is the man who is mending the sandal;’ the Prophet (pbuh) had given me his sandal to mend,” Wassalam.

 

Sincerely,

Sh

 

=====================

[1] The words “firqa” and “Shia” are, if you count the times each one of them is repeated, synonymous, for the total number of each one of them is 385, making the majority of that group hopeful.

[2] Such as Imam Ahmed near the conclusion of page 155, Vol. 1, of his Musnad, Sa’id ibn Mansür in his Sunan, and Ibn Jarir in Tahthib al Athar, all testifiying to its authenticity. It is quoted from all of them by al Muttaqi al Hindi on page 396, Vol. 6, of his book Kanz al ‘Ummal.

 

Discussions

The Sheikh al Azhar is once again portrayed as having acquiesced to his ‘interlocuter’. We have already exposed the artifice of ‘Abdul Hussain’s narrative and how it fails dismally to hold up to historic scrutiny. He now requests further examples of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum allegedly defying the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam command, hoping to establish a precedent that would render their supposed rejection of the Wasiyyah plausible.

Let us be reminded that these are the same individuals about whom Allah has lauded with timeless praise in the Qur’an, whom the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on repeated occasions expressed his pleasure towards, and whom he entrusted with leading the Ummah in prayer. If their integrity was ever in question, it was not by the standard of divine revelation or Prophetic affirmation; but by the jaundiced lens through which ‘Abdul Hussain insists on viewing history.

As evidence for his egregious allegations, ‘Abdul Hussain cites a report narrated by way of Abu Sa’id al Khudri, recorded in Musnad Ahmed. The narration describes an incident in which Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu allegedly came to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and informed him of a man he had encountered in a certain valley who appeared deeply devout, with an austere presence, engaged in prayer. Upon hearing this, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is said to have instructed Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu to kill him. However, when Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu reached the man and observed his apparent piety, he hesitated and returned without carrying out the order.

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then commanded ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu to do the same, but ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, too, refrained upon witnessing the man’s devotion. Finally, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was sent, but by the time he arrived, the man was no longer there. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then explained the reason behind the instruction, “This man and his companions will recite the Qur’an, but it will not go beyond their throats. They will leave the religion as an arrow leaves its quiver, never returning to it. Kill them, for they are the worst of creation.”

A similar incident is related in a report attributed to Anas ibn Malik in Musnad Abi Ya’la, though ‘Abdul Hussain references it from a secondary source—al Isabah by Ibn Hajar. In an attempt to lend further weight to his claims, he also cites al ‘Iqd al Farid by Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, a work that is primarily an anthology of literary anecdotes and historical narratives rather than an authoritative source subjected to academic scrutiny.

Finally, he cites the report of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu mending his sandals. We have elaborated on the variations of this narration in a fair amount of detail, pointing out that this particular version is not reliable.

 

The complete version of the hadith cited in al Muraja’at

Before turning our attention to the authenticity of the ahadith attributed to Abu Sa’id al Khudri and Anas ibn Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, let us take a moment to examine them in their entirety.

The hadith of Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu is narrated via two chains, both in the Musnad of Abu Ya’la:

1. Muhammad ibn al Faraj — Muhammad ibn Zibriqan — Musa ibn ‘Ubaidah — Hud ibn ‘Ata’ — Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[1]
2. Abu Khaythamah — ‘Umar ibn Yunus — ‘Ikrimah — Yazid al Raqashi who relates that while he was at the Zam-Zam well and people from Quraysh and others were gathered around him. He said:

 

Anas ibn Malik narrated to me:

There was a man during the time of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who used to participate in military expeditions alongside the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. When he returned from battle and had unloaded his mount, he would head straight to the Prophet’s Masjid and prolong his prayers. Some of the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam began to believe that he had a virtue surpassing theirs.

One day, while the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was seated among his Companions, the man passed by. Some of them remarked, “O Prophet of Allah, this is that man.” Either the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent for him, or he approached on his own. When the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saw him coming, he said, “By the One in Whose hand is my soul, there is a mark of Shaitan between his eyes.”

When the man arrived at the gathering, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said to him, “Did you say to yourself, as you approached this gathering, ‘There is no one here better than I?’”

The man replied, “Yes.”

He then turned away and went to another part of the Masjid, where he drew a line on the ground with his foot, aligned his heels, and began to pray.

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then said, “Who among you will stand up and kill this man?”

Abu Bakr stood up, but when the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam later asked him, “Did you kill the man?”, he replied, “I found him praying, so I hesitated.”

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then said, “Who among you will go and kill this man?”

‘Umar said, “I will,” and he took up his sword. But when he found the man standing in prayer, he too refrained. He returned and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked, “Did you kill the man?”

‘Umar replied, “O Prophet of Allah, I found him praying, so I hesitated.”

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then said, “Who among you will stand up and kill this man?”

‘Ali said, “I will.”

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “He is yours if you find him.”

‘Ali went, but he did not find him and returned.

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked, “Did you kill the man?”

‘Ali replied, “I do not know which path he took.”

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then said, “This is the first faction to emerge from my Ummah. If you had killed him—or if he had been killed—no two people in my Ummah would have differed over it. Indeed, the Bani Isra’il split into seventy-one sects, and this Ummah—meaning his Ummah—will split into seventy-two sects. All of them will be in the Fire except for one.”

We asked, “O Prophet of Allah, who is that one group?”

He said, “The Jama’ah.”

Yazid al Raqashi said, “So, I asked Anas, ‘O Abu Hamzah, where is the Jama’ah?’”

He replied, “With your leaders, with your leaders.”[2]

 

Before delving into the discussion about the Isnad, it is necessary to first examine the report in its entirety. ‘Abdul Hussain’s selective citation of this hadith is yet another glaring example of intellectual dishonesty. He deliberately truncates the narration, preserving only the portion that he believes casts Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma in a negative light while omitting the critical conclusion:

 

“Indeed, the Children of Israel split into seventy-one sects, and this Ummah—meaning his Ummah—will split into seventy-two sects. All of them will be in the Fire except for one.”

The Companions then asked: “O Prophet of Allah, who is that one group?”

He replied, “The Jama’ah.”

Yazid al Raqashi further inquired, “So, I asked Anas, ‘O Abu Hamzah, where is the Jama’ah?’”

Anas responded, “With your leaders, with your leaders.”

 

It is no mystery why ‘Abdul Hussain omitted this segment: it outright dismantles the very foundation of his doctrinal claims. The latter part of the hadith explicitly upholds adherence to al Jama’ah and obedience to its leaders, directly contradicting the doctrines of Wasiyyah and Imamah that he has laboured, unsuccessfully, to validate.

If he accepts the authenticity of this hadith, then by his own standard, he must concede that the Jama’ah—the collective body of the Ummah—was upon the truth, and that salvation lies in following its leadership, beginning with Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This singular admission would unravel his entire thesis, rendering his arguments void at their very core.

On the other hand, if he rejects the hadith as weak—as we do—then he exposes himself yet again for his intellectual duplicity. He has cited a report that he himself does not regard as credible, solely because the first portion appears to serve his agenda. This is not a principled argument; it is a blatant exercise in selective convenience. Either he acknowledges the authority of al Jama’ah and its leadership, or he stands guilty—once more—of deception by employing a report he would otherwise dismiss. Whichever way one examines it, his inconsistency is both glaring and inescapable.

 

Study of the Isnad

As for the Isnad, the first version is narrated by way of Musa ibn ‘Ubaidah — Hud ibn ‘Ata — Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu

Musa ibn ‘Ubaidah

Musa ibn ‘Ubaidah’s weakness is primarily linked to his poor retention, frequent inconsistencies and his narration of munkar (anomalous) reports. He is not accused of fabrication but his unreliable memory and tendency to narrate strange reports render him unsuitable for reliance in Hadith transmission.

• Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub al Juzajani reports, “I heard Ahmed ibn Hanbal say, ‘It is not permissible, in my view, to narrate from Musa ibn ‘’

I asked, ‘O Abu ‘Abdullah, is it truly impermissible?’

He replied, ‘In my view, yes.’

I said, ‘But Sufyan narrates from Musa ibn ‘Ubaidah, and Shu’bah also narrates from him, saying: Abu ‘Abdul ‘Aziz al Rabadi narrated to us?’

He responded, ‘Had Shu’bah realized what others came to know about him, he would not have narrated from him.’”[3]

• Ahmed ibn Abi Yahya says, “I heard Yahya ibn Ma’in say, ‘Musa ibn ‘Ubaidah is not a liar, but he narrated munkar reports from ‘Abdullah ibn Dinar.’”
• Ahmed ibn Abi Yahya goes on to say, “I also heard Ahmed ibn Hanbal say, ‘Do not write down Hadith from Musa ibn ‘ I have not included anything from him in my compilations. His Hadith are munkar.’”[4]
• Yahya ibn Ma’in said, “He [his narrations] is not to be relied upon for evidence.”[5]
• ‘Ali ibn al Madini states, “Musa ibn ‘Ubaidah al Rabadhi is da’if (weak); he narrates munkar reports.”[6]
• Abu Zur’ah remarks, “He is not strong in H”[7]
• Abu Hatim states, “His ahadith are munkar.”[8]
• Ya’qub ibn Shaybah offers a similar assessment, “He is truthful (saduq), but his Hadith are da’if jiddan (extremely weak). Some scholars refrain from writing his reports due to his feebleness, his weak retention, and frequent inconsistencies. However, he was a man of honesty.”[9]

From these statements, we observe that Musa ibn ‘Ubaidah’s weakness is primarily linked to his poor retention, frequent inconsistencies, and his narration of munkar reports. He is not accused of fabrication, but his unreliable memory and tendency to narrate anomalous reports render him unsuitable for reliance in Hadith transmission.

 

Hud ibn ‘Ata’

The next narrator in this chain is Hud ibn ‘Ata’. He is not generally known to be a prolific narrator, and despite the limited extent of narration, he is found to contradict others and have narrated what cannot be corroborated. As a result, he is equally unreliable.

• Ibn Hibban said about him, “Hud ibn ‘Ata’ al Yamami. Narrates from Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He is not to be used as proof as his narrations—though few—are munkar.”[10]

This appraisal is upheld by al Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hajar, and many others.[11]

It follows that this narration is unreliable due to the narrator deficiencies. We have two successive narrators from Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu who are both unreliable and are known for anomalous ahadith.

In the second version of the hadith, Yazid al Raqashi appears in the chain of transmission. His reliability is highly questionable. While he was recognised for his piety and devotion, his proficiency in Hadith transmission was widely criticised by the scholars of al Jarh wa al Ta’dil. His excessive preoccupation with asceticism and worship resulted in a lack of precision in preserving narrations, leading him to attribute reports to sources inaccurately.

Ibn Hibban explicitly states that he was known for misattributing sayings. His lack of proficiency in Hadith led him to conflate the words of al Hasan (al Basri) and attribute them to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with an imagined link via Anas. His narrations were filled with errors to such an extent that Hadith scholars unanimously agreed that his reports should not be relied upon for establishing legal rulings or doctrinal matters. Thus, narrating from him is impermissible except for the purpose of expressing amazement at how problematic they were. Shu’bah was particularly severe in his assessment of Yazid al Raqashi, highlighting the magnitude of his weaknesses.[12]

 

Conclusion on the hadith of Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu

Independently, both chains suffer from weakness. Whether their convergence lends them any additional strength—on the basis that some degree of corroboration occurs—is a matter open to scrutiny. In our estimation, this does not appear to be the case, as we shall demonstrate further.

The premise that multiple weak reports can reinforce one another is contingent upon the nature of their individual deficiencies. If a report is undermined by minor lapses in precision or isolated errors in transmission, corroboration through multiple chains may, in some cases, mitigate these weaknesses. However, when the defect is fundamental such as severe inconsistency in narration, demonstrable unreliability of transmitters, or contradictions against sounder reports; mere numerical repetition does nothing to salvage its credibility. Here, the weakness of both chains does not stem from slight imperfections but from critical flaws in the reliability of the transmitters. Their dabt (precision) is too compromised to permit any meaningful reinforcement, making the claim of mutual corroboration untenable.

Moreover, the matter does not rest solely on the intrinsic weakness of these reports. Even if one were to momentarily grant the assumption that corroboration could lend them strength, this would still not validate their claim. The true test of a report’s reliability is not merely whether multiple chains exist but whether those chains stand in harmony with the broader corpus of authentic transmission.

In this case, the reports in question are not just weak; rather they are in direct contradiction with what is far more soundly and authoritatively established from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Corroboration, in such instances, does not create strength; rather, it amplifies the inconsistency, marking these reports as anomalies rather than legitimate evidence. This, as we shall expound upon, is why the claim of reinforcement collapses under closer scrutiny.

 

The hadith of Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu

We then turn to the report attributed to Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The incident of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam discussing the Khawarij is well-attested through multiple chains originating from Abu Sa’id radiya Llahu ‘anhu, making it an established subject of narration. However, the version cited in al Muraja’at stands apart. This report comes through Abu Ru’bah, Shaddad ibn ‘Imran al Qaisi, a narrator deemed majhul (unknown) by the overwhelming majority of Hadith critics.[13]

This version diverges markedly from all other transmissions of Abu Sa’id radiya Llahu ‘anhu related to the Khawarij. When a narrator whose reliability is unproven narrates a report that conflicts with well-established renditions of the same event, the methodological approach is clear: precedence is given to the authentic, corroborated versions. Weak or anomalous transmissions do not override what is firmly grounded in sound chains. In this case, the report relayed through Shaddad ibn ‘Imran does not merely exist in isolation; it contradicts the well-established narrations from Abu Sa’id radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the matter.

These are the sound versions that appear in al Sahihayn:

 

بعث علي بن أبي طالب  إلى رسول الله ﷺ من اليمن بذهيبة في أديم مقروظ لم تحصل من ترابها قال فقسمها بين أربعة نفر بين عيينة بن بدر وأقرع بن حابس وزيد الخيل والرابع إما علقمة وإما عامر بن الطفيل فقال رجل من أصحابه كنا نحن أحق بهذا من هؤلاء قال فبلغ ذلك النبي ﷺ فقال ألا تأمنوني وأنا أمين من في السماء يأتيني خبر السماء صباحا ومساء قال فقام رجل غائر العينين مشرف الوجنتين ناشز الجبهة كث اللحية محلوق الرأس مشمر الإزار فقال يا رسول الله اتق الله قال ويلك أولست أحق أهل الأرض أن يتقي الله قال ثم ولى الرجل قال خالد بن الوليد يا رسول الله ألا أضرب عنقه قال لا لعله أن يكون يصلي فقال خالد وكم من مصل يقول بلسانه ما ليس في قلبه قال رسول الله ﷺ إني لم أومر أن أنقب قلوب الناس ولا أشق بطونهم قال ثم نظر إليه وهو مقف فقال إنه يخرج من ضئضئ هذا قوم يتلون كتاب الله رطبا لا يجاوز حناجرهم يمرقون من الدين كما يمرق السهم من الرمية وأظنه قال لئن أدركتهم لأقتلنهم قتل ثمود

‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent a small gold nugget from Yemen to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam , wrapped in tanned leather, still mixed with dust. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam distributed it among four men: ‘Uyaynah ibn Badr, al Aqra’ ibn Habis, Zaid al Khayl, and the fourth was either ‘Alqamah or ‘Amir ibn al Tufayl.

Upon seeing this, one of his Companions remarked, “We were more deserving of this than these men.”

When the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam  was informed of this comment, he responded, “Will you not trust me, while I am the trustee of the One in the heavens? Revelation comes to me from the heavens morning and evening!”

At that moment, a man with sunken eyes, prominent cheekbones, a protruding forehead, a thick beard, a shaved head, and a lifted lower garment stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allah, fear Allah!”

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam replied, “Woe to you! Who on this earth is more entitled to fear Allah than me?”

The man then turned and walked away. Seeing this, Khalid ibn al Walid radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “O Messenger of Allah, shall I not strike his neck?”

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam responded, “No, perhaps he prays.”

Khalid radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “But how many are there who pray, yet merely utter words with their tongues while their hearts remain empty?”

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then said, “I have not been commanded to pierce through people’s hearts or to split open their chests.”

As the man walked away, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam observed him and remarked, “From the followers of this man will emerge a group who will recite the Book of Allah fluently, yet it will not go beyond their throats. They will exit the religion as an arrow passes through its target.” And I believe he also said, “If I were to encounter them, I would slay them as the people of Thamud were slain.”[14]

 

There is another sound version from al Sahihayn, with a slightly different detail:

 

Al Zuhri reported that Abu Salamah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman informed him that Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu said:

While we were with the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as he was distributing wealth, Dhu al Khuwaysirah, a man from the tribe of Banu Tamim, approached him and said, “O Messenger of Allah, be just!”

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam responded, “Woe to you! Who will be just if I am not? You would indeed be ruined and lost if I were not just.”

At this, ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “O Messenger of Allah, grant me permission to strike his neck!”

But the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam replied, “Leave him, for he has companions, in comparison to whom one of you would belittle his own prayer and fasting. They will recite the Qur’an, but it will not pass beyond their throats. They will exit the religion as an arrow passes through its target. A man looks at the arrowhead and finds nothing, then looks at its shaft and finds nothing, then look at its feathers and finds nothing. It passes so swiftly that no trace of blood or flesh remains upon it. Their distinguishing sign is a black man with one of his upper arms resembling a woman’s breast or a piece of flesh that wobbles. They will emerge at a time of division among the people.”

Abu Sa’id radiya Llahu ‘anhu continued, “I bear witness that I heard this hadith from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and I bear witness that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu fought them while I was with him. He ordered that the man described by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam be searched for, and when he was found and brought forth, I saw him exactly as the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had described.’”[15]

 

The fact that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu fought the Khawarij and killed this individual is an undisputed historical reality, firmly documented in both Hadith and historical sources. However, the claim that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam allegedly commanded Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, and then ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhum to execute this man while he was engaged in prayer is supported only by unimpressive chains of transmission. These narrations not only lack the necessary strength to stand as credible reports, they are directly contradicted by far more authoritative transmissions that offer a different, and more historically consistent, account of events.

The sound versions place Khalid and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma both eager to smite the neck of Dhu al Khuwaysirah, yet the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam explicitly cautions them against killing one who prays. Why, then, would the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam supposedly send Abu Bakr and then ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to execute a man while he was engaged in prayer? Unless the context implies something other than killing him while he was praying, this account stands in direct contradiction to the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam established position. The more plausible explanation is that the weak narrators of this report confused distinct elements—his act of prayer, the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam warning, and the eventual killing of Dhu al Thudayyah at the hands of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

Given the poor dabt of these narrators, such confusion is neither surprising nor uncommon. This is the characteristic of unreliable transmissions: they introduce inconsistencies, conflate separate incidents, and distort details while borrowing elements from authentic reports. Instead of presenting a coherent historical reality, they produce a muddled and unreliable account that collapses under scrutiny.

After the brutal assassination of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, ‘Abdullah ibn Shaddad visited Madinah and related all the events that transpired in Iraq to ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha. Notice how Umm Mu’minin speaks favourably of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and recognises his habits and reminisces.

 

جاء عبد الله بن شداد فدخل على عائشة ونحن عندها جلوس مرجعه من العراق ليالي قتل علي فقالت له يا عبد الله بن شداد هل أنت صادقي عما أسألك عنه تحدثني عن هؤلاء القوم الذين قتلهم علي قال وما لي لا أصدقك قالت فحدثني عن قصتهم قال فإن عليا لما كاتب معاوية وحكم الحكمين خرج عليه ثمانية آلاف من قراء الناس فنزلوا بأرض يقال لها حروراء من جانب الكوفة وإنهم عتبوا عليه فقالوا انسلخت من قميص ألبسكه الله تعالى واسم سماك الله تعالى به ثم انطلقت فحكمت في دين الله فلا حكم إلا لله تعالى فلما أن بلغ عليا ما عتبوا عليه وفارقوه عليه فأمر مؤذنا فأذن أن لا يدخل على أمير المؤمنين إلا رجل قد حمل القرآن فلما أن امتلات الدار من قراء الناس دعا بمصحف إمام عظيم فوضعه بين يديه فجعل يصكه بيده ويقول أيها المصحف حدث الناس فناداه الناس فقالوا يا أمير المؤمنين ما تسأل عنه إنما هو مداد في ورق ونحن نتكلم بما روينا منه فماذا تريد قال أصحابكم هؤلاء الذين خرجوا بيني وبينهم كتاب الله يقول الله تعالى في كتابه في امرأة ورجل وإن خفتم شقاق بينهما فابعثوا حكما من أهله وحكما من أهلها إن يريدا إصلاحا يوفق الله بينهما فأمة محمد ﷺ أعظم دما وحرمة من امرأة ورجل ونقموا علي أن كاتبت معاوية كتب علي بن أبي طالب وقد جاءنا سهيل بن عمرو ونحن مع رسول الله ﷺ بالحديبية حين صالح قومه قريشا فكتب رسول الله ﷺ بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم فقال سهيل لا تكتب بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم فقال كيف نكتب فقال اكتب باسمك اللهم فقال رسول الله ﷺ فاكتب محمد رسول الله فقال لو أعلم أنك رسول الله لم أخالفك فكتب هذا ما صالح محمد بن عبد الله قريشا يقول الله تعالى في كتابه لقد كان لكم في رسول الله أسوة حسنة لمن كان يرجو الله واليوم الآخر فبعث إليهم علي عبد الله بن عباس فخرجت معه حتى إذا توسطنا عسكرهم قام ابن الكواء يخطب الناس فقال يا حملة القرآن إن هذا عبد الله بن عباس فمن لم يكن يعرفه فأنا أعرفه من كتاب الله ما يعرفه به هذا ممن نزل فيه وفي قومه قوم خصمون فردوه إلى صاحبه ولا تواضعوه كتاب الله فقام خطباؤهم فقالوا والله لنواضعنه كتاب الله فإن جاء بحق نعرفه لنتبعنه وإن جاء بباطل لنبكتنه بباطله فواضعوا عبد الله الكتاب ثلاثة أيام فرجع منهم أربعة آلاف كلهم تائب فيهم ابن الكواء حتى أدخلهم على علي الكوفة فبعث علي إلى بقيتهم فقال قد كان من أمرنا وأمر الناس ما قد رأيتم فقفوا حيث شئتم حتى تجتمع أمة محمد ﷺ بيننا وبينكم أن لا تسفكوا دما حراما أو تقطعوا سبيلا أو تظلموا ذمة فإنكم إن فعلتم فقد نبذنا إليكم الحرب على سواء إن الله لا يحب الخائنين فقالت له عائشة يا ابن شداد فقد قتلهم فقال والله ما بعث إليهم حتى قطعوا السبيل وسفكوا الدم واستحلوا أهل الذمة فقالت آلله قال آلله الذي لا إله إلا هو لقد كان قالت فما شيء بلغني عن أهل العراق يتحدثونه يقولون ذو الثدي وذو الثدي قال قد رأيته وقمت مع علي عليه في القتلى فدعا الناس فقال أتعرفون هذا فما أكثر من جاء يقول قد رأيته في مسجد بني فلان يصلي ولم يأتوا فيه بثبت يعرف إلا ذلك قالت فما قول علي حين قام عليه كما يزعم أهل العراق قال سمعته يقول صدق الله ورسوله قالت هل سمعت منه أنه قال غير ذلك قال اللهم لا قالت أجل صدق الله ورسوله يرحم الله عليا إنه كان من كلامه لا يرى شيئا يعجبه إلا قال صدق الله ورسوله فيذهب أهل العراق يكذبون عليه ويزيدون عليه في الحديث

‘Abdullah ibn Shaddad arrived and entered upon ‘Aisha while we were seated with her. It was in the days following the assassination of ‘Ali, during his return from Iraq. She turned to him and said, “O ‘Abdullah ibn Shaddad, will you tell me the truth about what I ask you, regarding those whom ‘Ali killed?”

He replied, “And why would I not?”

She said, “Tell me their story.”

He responded, “When ‘Ali wrote to Muawiyah and agreed to arbitration between the two appointed judges, eight-thousand of the Qur’an reciters from among the people rose against him. They encamped at a place called Harura’ on the outskirts of Kufah. They turned against him, saying, ‘You have cast off a robe that Allah clothed you in and abandoned a title that Allah bestowed upon you. Then you went forth and appointed arbitration in the religion of Allah—there is no judgment except Allah’s judgment!’

When ‘Ali heard of their grievances and their break from him, he commanded that none enter upon him except those who had memorised the Qur’an. When his house filled with such men, he called for a grand, weighty mushaf and placed it before him. He struck it with his hand and said, ‘O Mushaf, speak to the people!’

The people called out, ‘O Amir al Mu’minin! What are you asking of it? It is nothing but ink on paper—we are the ones who speak from it! What do you want?’

He said, ‘Your companions—those who have broken away from me—between us and them is the Book of Allah. Allah says regarding a man and his wife, And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people; if they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause harmony between them. The Ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has greater sanctity in blood and honour than a man and a woman. And yet they denounce me for writing to Muawiyah as ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. But was it not Suhayl ibn ‘Amr who came to us at Hudaybiyyah when we were with the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, as he made a treaty with Quraysh? The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam wrote, ‘Bismillah al Rahman al Rahim.’

Suhayl objected, ‘Do not write that.’

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked, ‘Then how shall we write it?’

Suhayl said, ‘Write: Bismika Allahumma.’

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then wrote: Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah.

Suhayl protested again, ‘If I knew you were the Messenger of Allah, I would not have opposed you!’

So he wrote instead: This is what Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah has agreed upon with Quraysh.

And Allah has said in His Book: Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example for whoever hopes for Allah and the Last Day.

‘Ali then sent ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas to them, and I went along with him. When we entered the heart of their encampment, Ibn al Kawwa’ stood and addressed the people, saying, ‘O bearers of the Qur’an! This is ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas. If you do not recognise him, I will introduce him to you from the Book of Allah. He is from those about whom it was revealed: An argumentative people! So, return him to his companion, and do not debate the Book of Allah with him.’

But their leaders stood and declared, ‘By Allah, we shall debate the Book of Allah with him! If he brings forth truth that we recognise, we shall follow it. If he brings forth falsehood, we shall refute him with his own falsehood!’

So, they debated with ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas for three days. In the end, four thousand among them repented and returned—including Ibn al Kawwa’—until ‘Abdullah led them back to Kufah to ‘Ali.

‘Ali then sent a message to those who remained, ‘You have seen what has transpired between us and the people. Remain wherever you wish until the Ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam reaches a consensus. Between us and you is the condition that you do not spill any unlawful blood, block the roads, or violate the protection of any dhimmi. If you do so, then we shall declare war upon you on equal terms—for indeed, Allah does not love the treacherous.’”

‘Aisha then asked, “O Ibn Shaddad, but he killed them?”

He replied, “By Allah, he did not attack them until they blocked the roads, shed blood, and violated the sanctity of the dhimmis.”

She asked, “By Allah?”

He responded, “By Allah, besides whom there is no deity, this indeed happened.”

She then asked, “What is this thing I have heard from the people of Iraq? They keep speaking of ‘Dhu al Thudayy, Dhu al Thudayy.’”

He said, “I saw him myself. I stood with ‘Ali among the slain, and he called upon the people, asking, ‘Do you recognise this man?’ Many came forward, saying, ‘I saw him praying in such-and-such Masjid,’ yet none could give clear proof regarding him except for that.”

She then asked, “What did ‘Ali say when he stood over him, as the people of Iraq claim?”

He replied, “I heard him say, ‘Allah and His Messenger have spoken the truth.’”

She asked, “Did you hear him say anything else?”

He said, “By Allah, no.”

She responded, “Indeed, he spoke the truth—Allah and His Messenger have spoken the truth. May Allah have mercy on ‘Ali. It was his habit that whenever he saw something remarkable, he would say, ‘Allah and His Messenger have spoken the truth.’ But the people of Iraq fabricate lies against him and add to his statements.”[16]

 

In conclusion, we bring the citation of al Sindi, who said:

 

It is evident that the apparent meaning of this narration is problematic. How could Abu Bakr and then ‘Umar hesitate to kill someone whom the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam explicitly commanded to be executed? After all, it has been authentically reported that ‘Umar sought permission to kill the man who accused the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam of being unjust in his distribution (of wealth), as did Khalid ibn al Walid, yet the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not grant them permission, explaining that the man performed prayer.

What becomes apparent is that the individual mentioned in these narrations is in fact the same person about whom it is reported that ‘Umar and Khalid sought permission to kill him. It is also clear that the version wherein ‘Umar requested permission for his execution is more authentic and well-established than these other reports.

This strongly suggests that there is some inconsistency within these weaker narrations. Anyone who closely examines the variations in the details of the incident across these reports will find no difficulty in accepting this conclusion. And Allah knows best.”[17]

 

NEXT⇒ LETTER 95 and 96

---

[1] Musnad Abi Ya’la, Hadith: 90.

[2] Musnad Abi Ya’la, Hadith: 4127.

[3] Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 29 pg. 107-112.

[4] Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 29 pg. 109.

[5] Tarikh ibn Ma’in, vol. pg. 594.

[6] Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 29 pg. 111.

[7] Asami al Du’afa, bio. 658; al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, vol. 8 bio. 686.

[8] Al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, vol. 8 bio. 686.

[9] Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 29 pg. 112.

[10] Al Majruhin, vol. 3 pg. 96.

[11] Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 4, pg. 310; al Takmil, vol. 2 pg. 19; Lisan al Mizan, vol. 8 pg. 346.

[12] Al Majruhin, vol 2. pg. 91; Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 32 pg. 68; Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 4 pg 418.

[13] Musnad Ahmed, vol. 17 pg. 187, Hadith: 11118.

[14] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 4351; Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 1064.

[15] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 3610; Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 1064.

[16] Musnad Ahmed, vol. 2 pg. 84-86, Hadith: 656.

[17] Musnad Ahmed, vol. 17 pg. 189 in the footnotes under Hadith: 11118.