Appendix
December 5, 2025Introduction
February 4, 2026BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Letter 97
Rabi’ al Awwal 30, 1330
I. Requesting Narration of all Such Incidents
Narrate all the rest of such incidents, without leaving any one of them out, so that we do not have to request you again, even if this means that your letters will be lengthy, Wassalam.
Sincerely,
S
Letter 98
Rabi’ al Thani 11, 1330
I. Glittering Proofs,
II. Reference to Other Incidents.
1) Consider the Hudaybiya Treaty, Hunayn’s booties, the taking of ransom from the captives of the Battle of Badr, his (pbuh) order to slaughter a few camels when they had a severe shortage of food rations during the Battle of Tabük, some of their own affairs on Uhud and its valley, the incident when Abu Hurairah started conveying glad tidings to all those who believed in the Unity of Allah, the incident of performing ritual prayers for a hypocrite, the incident of their questioning the sadaqat and their inquiries about debauchery, their interpretation of the verses dealing with the khums and zakat, the two verses dealing with the mut’a [temporary] marriage, the verse dealing with the divorce thrice, their interpretation of the traditions regarding the extra prayers during the month of Ramadan, the latter’s methods and numbers, the method of calling the athan, the number of takbirs during funeral prayers…, to the end of the list that is too lengthy to be dealt with in detail here. Add to this their opposition regarding the matter pertaining to Hatib ibn Balta’ah, their opposition to what the Prophet (pbuh) did at Ibrahim’s maqam, the addition of the houses of some Muslims to the building of the mosque, the enforcement of the blood money of Abu Khirash al Hathli to be paid by the people of Yemen, the banishment of Nasr ibn al Hajjaj al Salami, the penalty enforced on Ja’dah ibn Salam,[1] the method to regulate the jizya, the covenant to conduct the shüra in the well-known manner, roaming at night and spying during day-time, the compensation in performing the rituals…, to the end of the list of innumerable issues in which they aspired to achieve power and control, as well as special interests. We have dedicated in our book Sabil al Mu’minin[2] a lengthy chapter to deal with them.
2) Yet there are other texts dealing particularly with ‘Ali and the purified progeny ‘alayh al Salam besides the ones related to the caliphate which they did not honour either; rather, they acted to the contrary of the latter, as researchers know very well. So, no wonder to see how they used their own judgment to interpret the texts related to his caliphate; after all, isn’t it just another text which they subjected to their own views and preferred their own thinking rather than acting upon it? Wassalam.
Sincerely,
Sh
=====================
[1] Refer to ‘Umer’s biography in Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat and you will see how Ja’dah was executed for no complaint brought against him nor a witness other than a sheet on which there were verses written by an anonymous poet accusing Ja’dah of committing adultery.
[2] If you did not have a chance to read Sabil al Muminin, try not to miss reading Al Fusül al Muhimma, for it contains precious benefits which no other book contains. We have dedicated a complete chapter to those who interpret it; it is Chapter 8, pages 44 to 130 of the second edition, where these matters are explained in detail.
Discussions
‘Abdul Hussain’s method in these letters has by now become predictable. He casts Sheikh Salim al Bishri in the pitiable role of one pleading for further examples, only to substantiate his opponent’s claims. Thus, he provides himself with the occasion to advance the narrative he has been carefully constructing throughout his ‘correspondence’: that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum habitually subordinated revelation to expedience. The entire construct of this narrative rests on false premises which reframes occasions in which the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum used discretion in unique circumstances as being equivalent to opposing revelation.
Having failed to produce a single incident capable of bearing the weight of his ultimate accusation—that the Sahabah prejudiced ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and reinterpreted the narrations about his Imamah—he resorts instead to the artifice of listing a miscellany of incidents without any regard for authenticity or context, and builds his narrative around this, treating it as evidence of a continuous pattern of defiance.
He references, either directly or by implication, some twenty-five alleged incidents; some transmitted with sound chains, others of unreliable sources. What is astonishing, however, is that many of these very reports, when read in their proper sources and contexts, do not censure the Sahabah at all; infact they commend them.
The examples involving ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu are the most striking: what ‘Abdul Hussain treats as a pattern of defiance are, in reality, occasions of discernment for which the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam explicitly affirmed ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu judgment and upon which revelation descended in accordance with his view.
Take, for instance, the incident of Maqam Ibrahim. When ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu suggested to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that the place on which Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam stood be taken as a site of prayer, revelation soon descended confirming it. This was not a case of asserting preference over revelation; instead, it was revelation itself that ratified ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu intuition.
Similarly, in the matter of the ransom for the captives of Badr, the factual incident does not portray a contest of will between the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his Companions, but rather a moment of deliberation within which both Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma expressed divergent views and where the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself aligned with the view of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not opposed to the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam view as it was not a command. It was an occasion of Shura, which the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam endorsed. Revelation later favoured ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu position.
Equally misplaced is his insinuation regarding the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam wives and the command of hijab. The authentic narrations record that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, observing that visitors entered upon the Mothers of the Believers without a barrier, expressed his wish that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam instruct them to veil. Not long thereafter, the verse of hijab was revealed, enjoining seclusion upon them and setting the precedent for the modesty of believing women thereafter.
The same applies to the prayer over the hypocrite. When the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam chose to pray over ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy, ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu enquired about it on the basis of the verse forbidding forgiveness for those who persist in hypocrisy. Revelation again descended aligning with his apprehension. Far from exposing defiance, the report shows a mind so attuned to the spirit of revelation that the Qur’an itself bore witness to his discernment.
This harmony between ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu discernment and revelation is attested to in the most authentic narrations, and was attested to by numerous Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Ibn ‘Umar and Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma relate that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu said:
وافقت ربي في ثلاث في مقَام إبراهيم وفي الحجاب وفي أسارى بدر
My opinion coincided with my Lord’s revelation in three matters: concerning the Maqam of Ibrahim, the command of hijab, and the captives of Badr.[1]
This observation was confirmed in the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam own words. ‘Aishah radiya Llahu ‘anha relates that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would say:
قد كان يكون في الأمم قبلكم محدثون فإن يكن في أمتي منهم أحد فإِن عمر بن الخطاب منهم قال ابن وهب تفسير محدثون ملهمون
Among the nations before you were men who were muhaddathun; if there is any such person in my Ummah, it is ‘Umar ibn al Khattab.
Ibn Wahb explained, “Muhaddathun means inspired (mulhamun).”[2]
These instances alone are sufficient to expose the absurdity of portraying ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu as one who set revelation aside, for revelation itself bore witness to his perception. Yet the pattern is not confined to these three or four incidents. It appears again in the reports concerning Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the declaration of glad tidings, where the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam affirmed the prudence of ‘Umar’s restraint; and again in the expedition of Tabuk, where his counsel became the means by which a manifest miracle was wrought. Each of these incidents, when returned to their authentic sources, reverses the claim of defiance and stands instead as testimony to divine inspiration.
Among the incidents he lists is that of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu conveying the glad tidings of divine mercy to the believers. In the authentic reports, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had said, “Whoever says La ilaha illa Allah sincerely from his heart will enter Paradise.” Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, overcome with joy, went out to announce this to the people at the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam behest. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, apprehending that the masses might rely upon this statement and neglect righteous actions, restrained him. When the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam enquired from ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu the nature of his actions, he explained his reasoning and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam upheld ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu view: that it was indeed better to withhold such news lest the people depend upon it alone.[3]
We know this because the same principle was applied later by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself, independent of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, in the narration of Muaz ibn Jabal radiya Llahu ‘anhu, to whom the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam confided a similar assurance, then cautioned him, “Do not tell the people, lest they rely on it.”[4] What emerges is a clear affirmation of ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu prudence and understanding of human nature. To present this as an act of suppression is to ignore that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself confirmed the wisdom of his judgement.
The same distortion appears in his depiction of the expedition to Tabuk. During that arduous march, the army faced an acute shortage of provisions. Some of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum sought permission to slaughter their camels for sustenance, and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam granted it. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, fearing that their mounts would be depleted before the campaign was complete, respectfully proposed an alternative: that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gather what little food remained, invoke blessing upon it, and distribute it among the army. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam accepted his counsel, spread a cloak upon the ground, and ordered the men to bring what provisions they had. After he supplicated, every soldier ate to his fill yet the food did not deplete. In fact, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam instructed each person to replenish his store and declared his conviction in being Allah’s Messenger having witnessed the miracle.[5]
‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu suggestion was the cause of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam du’a’, which resulted in a miracle. It is difficult to imagine a clearer manifestation of ‘Abdul Hussain’s distortion of reality than an event in which ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu prudence served as the means by which a sign of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prophethood was observed.
It was not only in the matters that revelation later confirmed that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam endorsed ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu discernment. Even on occasions where Wahy ultimately clarified the hidden dimensions of a case, the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam management of the situation demonstrates that ‘Umar’s response was, by the standards of outward judgement, sound and justifiable. His reactions were nothing short of a sincere reading of the apparent circumstances and a glowing testimony to his defence of the truth and loyalty to Allah’s din. The events of al Hudaybiyyah and the case of Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah radiya Llahu ‘anhu illustrate this clearly when read in their proper context.
At al Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had set out with his Companions intending only to perform ‘Umrah. They were in a state of ihram and were unarmed, except for travellers’ swords. They had no intention of battle and were not equipped for it. When the Quraysh blocked their entry into Makkah, negotiations ensued, culminating in a truce whose terms appeared humiliating to many of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. They would return to Madinah that year without completing their ‘Umrah and only be permitted to enter Makkah the following year. More distressing still was the clause requiring that any Makkan who embraced Islam and sought refuge in Madinah be returned to the Quraysh, while Muslims defecting from Madinah would not be returned. To men who had left their homes and families for the sake of this faith, such conditions felt intolerable.
While this discussion was in progress, Abu Jandal, son of Suhail, came running dragging his chains, having escaped from Makkah. He threw himself at the feet of the Muslims seeking sanctuary.
Suhail said, “This fellow, O Muhammad, is the first whom I charge you to return to me.”
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “But we have not completed the agreement yet.”
“In that case,” Suhail insisted, “I will never make a pact with you over anything.”
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Release him to my custody.”
“I will not release him to you,” Suhail replied.
“I insist that you release him!” the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam pleaded.
“That I will not do,” Suhail retorted.
Abu Jandal then exclaimed, “O Muslims, shall I be returned to the polytheists? I have come to you as a Muslim. Can you not see how I have been treated?” He had been brutally tortured on account of his Islam.
The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Be patient, O Abu Jandal! Allah will provide a solution and relief for you and the others with you who are powerless. We have made a peace pact with the enemy and we and they have sworn to this in Allah’s name; we cannot act falsely with them.”
‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, now unable to reconcile what he saw with what he knew of divine support, came before the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and asked:
“Are you not truly the Messenger of Allah?”
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam replied, “Indeed I am.”
‘Umar continued, “Are we not upon the truth and our enemies upon falsehood?”
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Indeed we are.”
“Then why,” ‘Umar asked, “do we accept humiliation in our religion?”
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam answered with calm authority, “I am the Messenger of Allah; and He will never forsake me.”[6]
Even so, the pain in ‘Umar’s voice echoed the anguish of many, for they could not yet see the divine wisdom behind the truce.
When Suhail ibn ‘Amr demanded that the Messengers’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam title—Rasul Allah—be erased from the treaty document, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself resisted, saying, “By Allah, I cannot erase your name.”[7] It was the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who erased it with his own hand. Thus, the hesitation that ‘Abdul Hussain frames as mutiny was shared even by ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Why then the double standard?
Outwardly, every impulse of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was aligned with the honour of Islam and the Prophet’s cause. His initial hesitation and questioning arose from loyalty, not from wanting to divert the Prophetic command. Only when revelation later declared the truce to be a manifest victory (fath mubin) did he grasp the unseen dimension of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam foresight. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu wept bitterly, sought forgiveness, and thereafter would never speak of that day except with humility. His heart was sincere and his submission was absolute.
Commenting on this, Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani states:
What is apparent is that ‘Umar’s questioning the treaty was an interlude from him in order to discover the wisdom of the incident and remove uncertainty. Similar to this is the incident in which he questioned the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam performing funeral prayer over the known hypocrite ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy. In the first case (i.e. al Hudaybiyyah), however, his discernment did not coincide with divine decree whereas in the second (the funeral prayer on Ibn Ubayy), it did. He only did the mentioned actions for this reason. Therefore, everything which came from him was excusable, in fact rewardable, as he acted in conformity with his best discretion.[8]
The Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum did not subvert explicit commands, as ‘Abdul Hussain strives to suggest. There is nothing in the incident to indicate that they intended to oppose the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or to prefer their own discretion over his command. Their reaction was born of love for their faith and indignation at the apparent humiliation imposed by the disbelievers. The greater absurdity lies in the attempt to portray the same generation that bore the burden of the Message as treacherous to it. How can such a claim be sustained when Allah Himself bore witness to their commitment and to what was in their hearts? Concerning the very Treaty of al Hudaybiyyah, Allah says:
لَقَدْ رَضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُونَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ فَعَلِمَ مَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ فَأَنْزَلَ السَّكِينَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَثَابَهُمْ فَتْحًا قَرِيبًا
Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you under the tree; He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquillity upon them and rewarded them with an imminent victory.[9]
The incident of Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah radiya Llahu ‘anhu unfolded on the eve of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam march toward Makkah. The Quraysh had violated their treaty obligations at al Hudaybiyyah, and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam resolved to advance swiftly and secretly so that the city might be taken without bloodshed. During this critical juncture, a woman was intercepted on the road carrying a concealed letter. It was addressed to the leaders of the Quraysh, warning them of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam impeding approach. When it was revealed that this letter had actually been dispatched by Hatib radiya Llahu ‘anhu, ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu demanded immediate justice, exclaiming, “O Messenger of Allah, allow me to strike the neck of this hypocrite!” By every outward measure, his judgement was sound; the act bore all the marks of treachery. To alert the enemy in such a moment could have jeopardised the entire mission and cost innumerable lives.
When the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam interrogated Hatib radiya Llahu ‘anhu, he confessed that while he had indeed written the letter, his motive was not to disadvantage the Muslims or disbelief. Rather, it was motivated by the fear for his family, who had remained among the Quraysh without tribal protection. He hoped that they would be spared in the event that the Quraysh began hunting down relatives of Muslims in Madinah. So, when ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu sought to achieve what would outwardly be demanded of justice, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam intevened demonstrating the hidden dimension that could only be known via Wahy. He said, “He has witnessed Badr, and what do you know? Perhaps Allah has looked upon the people of Badr and said, ‘Do as you will, for I have forgiven you.’”[10]
If these incidents are to be weighed honestly, then the decisive factor is not whether the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum exercised judgement, but how that judgement was situated within the Prophetic order. In every case cited, their responses were either explicitly ratified by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or corrected by him through revelation. Once this is acknowledged, the attempt to resurrect these episodes as evidence of habitual defiance collapses under its own weight. To persist in presenting them as “problems” is no longer an act of historical analysis but a re-narration driven by prior commitments. The distortion lies not in the conduct of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, but in the hermeneutic that insists on reading faithful engagement and contextual judgement as rebellion against revelation.
This has direct bearing on the insinuation that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum subverted the right of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Nothing in his conduct suggests that he regarded their actions as a betrayal of a Prophetic mandate. On the contrary, he participated in their deliberations, upheld their policies, and preserved their legal and administrative precedents. Had the matter of Imamah been established by an unequivocal command whose violation amounted to usurpation and distortion of Allah’s religion, silence and cooperation would themselves have been indefensible. To suggest otherwise is to place ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the impossible position of acquiescing to what would amount to the gravest dereliction of duty. The historical record admits no such conclusion. The doctrine of Imamah, when pressed into this framework, finds no voice in the actions of those who would have been most obligated to defend it.
[1] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 402; Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 2399.
[2] Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 2398.
[3] Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 31.
[4] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 128; Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 32.
[5] Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 27.
[6] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 3182; Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 1785.
[7] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 2698; Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 1783.
[8] Fath al Bari, vol. 5 pg. 408.
[9] Surah al Fath: 18.
[10] Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 3007.