Did Abu Bakr and Khalid Bin Waleed burn people as a punishment?

The report of Abu Bakr (R.A) burning Fuja’a is invalid. The sanad (chain of transmission) of this report rests on Ulwan b. Dawud al-Balji who was considered as discredited by the scholars and experts of hadith narrator criticism (a science which critically analyses the biographies and soundness of hadith narrators). Here is what some of them said:

– Ibn Hajar in his Lisan Al-Mizan mentions that Imam Al-Bukhari said Ulwan was someone who was known for narrating ‘disclaimed’ hadith (munkar).*
– Imam Al-Hafiz Al-Haythami commented on this report in his Majma Al-Zawaid and mentioned that Ulwan is a weak narrator and that the report is ‘disclaimed’.
– Al-Uqayli in his Al-Duafaa al-Kabir – a specialist book that records biographies of the hadith narrators that were considered weak and rejected – mentioned that Ulwan was a robber.

Given this, how is it then possible that people accept a report by a man known to have been a robber and hasten to accuse Abu Bakr of burning someone alive? And they do this before referring to the people most qualified to comment on this issue. The experts and qualified scholars of hadith rejected the hadith Ulwan narrated and rejected him as a sound and acceptable hadith narrator.

The same people also accuse Khalid ibn Walid of burning the head of Khalid ibn Nuwayra. Again, this report is invalid because the chain of narrators contains someone called Muhammad ibn Humaid al-Razi. His classification among the scholars of hadith narrator criticism and the experts on the biographies of hadith narrators is ‘liar.’ Imam Ibn Hibban, a renowned expert and authority in this field, said of him that he used to differ from sound and authentic narrators by inverting reports. Abu Zar’a said of him that he was known to be a liar.

These two invalid reports are often used by sections of the Shi’a to provoke people against the companions of the Prophet ﷺ.

Herein is a lesson for anyone who rushes to accuse our predecessors without verifying the veracity of their claims through knowledge, just as therein lies a lesson for anyone who is quick to believe these claims and share them without confirming their validity or referring back to the people of knowledge.

* A ‘Disclaimed’ (munkar) hadith is one which is has been reported by a weak narrator and goes against another authentic narration of the hadith.

Author: H. Jifri

Did ‘A’ishah (r) Advocate the Murder of ‘Uthman (r)?


Hadrat ‘A’ishah was a severe critic of Hadrat Uthman. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? During her lifetime Hadrat ‘A’ishah was a severe critic of Hadrat Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadrat Uthman as a victim and mobilise opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadrat Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Hadrat Ali (as)? History records that she said the following about Hadrat Uthman “Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is an unbeliever”, see History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206, Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141, al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290 and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223


The questioner has assumed as an historical fact the claim drawn from the named sources that Sayyidah ‘A’ishah advocated the killing of Sayyiduna ‘Uthman. He labours under the common misconception that the simple fact that the moment something mentioned is in a history book it is an incontrovertible fact. He fails to understand the need for authentication.

The fact of the matter is that in order for narrated information to be regarded as a valid basis for making claims that affect one’s belief system, or influence the way one views personalities, the information HAS to be authenticated. Leave aside reports of history; even the ahadith of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam have to be authenticated by rigorous criteria before store can be set by it.

What does authentication entail? Does it amount to providing a mere reference to a source or two such as what the questioner has given? Anyone who regards this as authentication hasn’t got the vaguest idea of what authentication is or what it entails. The questioner and other like him would be well advised to equip himself with some knowledge of the discipline before venturing boldly into making claims that may well affect their destiny in the hereafter.

Coming now to the issue under discussion: The questioner provides the following four references for his claim that history records Sayyidah ‘A’ishah as saying about Sayyiduna Uthman, “Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is an unbeliever”:

1. History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
2. Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141,
3. al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
4. Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223


The book “Lisan al-‘Arab” by Ibn Manzur is a not a work on history, but a lexicon of the Arabic language. Does the questioner not see the utter ridiculousness of his endeavour to establish historical truth by quoting a dictionary? His attempt is comparable to quoting scientific material from an anthology of poetry.


Ibn Abil Hadid was an extremist Shi’i whose beliefs would be repugnant even to the “moderate” Shi’ah themselves. His views of the near-divinity of Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib are reflected in his poetry, some of which is reproduced in the editor’s introduction to his commentary on “Nahj al-Balaghah”. As an extremist Shi’i, his being cited on a matter concerning the Sahabah cannot be free from prejudice, and must therefore be called into question seriously.

If we are going to accept everything the Shi’ah say about the Sahabah, we will eventually end up having to accept that beyond inciting the murder of Uthman, Sayyidah A’ishah was also guilty of adultery, [as recorded by Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi in his Tafsir (vol. 2 p. 377), Hashim al-Bahrani in al-Burhan (vol. 4 p. 358) and Abdullah Shubbar in his Tafsir (p. 338)]; that the sixth of the seven doorways of Hell will be exclusively for her [as stated in Bihar al-Anwar vol. 4 p. 378; and Tafsir al-‘Ayyashi vol. 2 p. 243]; and that she was a hypocrite who, along with the vast bulk of the Sahabah turned apostate openly after the demise of the Nabi sallallahu `alayhi wasallam.


Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih’s book “al-‘Iqd al-Farid” is a literary book about which the author states in his introduction, “I have written this book, and I have chosen its rare jewels from amongst select gemstones of literature.” He makes no claim that everything in his book is historically accurate and authentic. Again, the absolute inappropriateness of establishing historical truth from a source as unsuited for this purpose as a literary omnibus seems to escape the notice of the questioner.


The fact that the questioner names this work as the ” History of Ibn Athir” appears to reveal that he himself is unfamiliar with the book, and happens to be citing it from second or third hand sources. For his information, the book’s proper title is “al-Kamil”. Had the questioner been familiar with this book he would have been aware of the fact that this book is directly based upon Ibn Jarir at-Tabari’s work; and had he been familiar with Tabari’s work he would have known that Tabari has recorded the material in his book complete with chains of narrations. He would also have known that Tabari himself, in a disclaimer at the end of his introduction (vol. 1 p. 24) declares that in terms of authenticity the material in his book is only as good as the chains of narration through which it has come down to him.

In light of the above, let us now proceed to evaluate the authenticity of the statement which the questioner has so boldlessly and recklessly (and also – mind you – ignorantly) ascribed to Sayyidah A’ishah.

This statement is to be found on page 226 of the 5th volume of the edition of Tarikh at-Tabari published by Dar al-Fikr, Beirut in 1418/1998. It is recorded by Tabari on the authority of the following chain of narration:

Tabari narrates from ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-‘Ijli, who narrates from Husayn ibn Nasr al-‘Attar, who narrates from his father Nasr ibn Muzahim al-‘Attar…

Up to this point the following flaws present itself in the chain:

1. Of Tabari’s immediate source, ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-‘Ijli, no trace can be found in the biographical works of narrators. He is thus an unknown person.

2. The next person in the chain is Husayn ibn Nasr ibn Muzahim. Of him too, no trace is to be found in the biographical literature – hence another unknown person. The only thing that is known about him is the fact that he is the son of Nasr ibn Muzahim.

3. Nasr ibn Muzahim presents a major problem. He was known in his lifetime as a forger of historical material, and was condemned for it by, amongst others, the hadith expert Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb. His general unreliability as a narrator of historical material is echoed by al-‘Uqayli, Abu Hatim ar-Razi, ad-Daraqutni, al-‘Ijli, al-Khalili and Ibn ‘Adi. He is described by a number of these experts as a hardcore extremist Shi’i. (See Lisan al-Mizan vol. 7 p. 187) Even a non-muhaddith such as the literary biographer Yaqut al-Hamawi describes him as an extremist Shi’i who stands accused of forgery and is generally unreliable. (Mu’jam al-Udaba vol. 19 p. 225)

As may be expected, Shi’i hadith critics are generally more affable towards Nasr ibn Muzahim. However, even they have located a problem with the historical material which he transmits. The Shi’i hadith critic Abul ‘Abbas an-Najashi, for example, remarks about him that while he himself was a person of righteous conduct, his problem was that he transmitted material on the authority of unreliable sources. (Rijal an-Najashi vol. 2 p. 384) This statement of an-Najashi is corroborated by al-‘Allamah al-Hilli in al-Khulasah. (Jami’ ar-Ruwat vol. 2 p. 291)

With this background on Nasr ibn Muzahim, let us now proceed to investigate the sources on whose authority Nasr ibn Muzahim has ascribed this alleged statement to Sayyidah A’ishah.

Nasr produces two separate chains of narrators through which he claims to have received this information. They look as follows:

1. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from Sayf ibn ‘Umar, who narrates from Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn al-A’lam.

2. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from ‘Umar ibn Sa’d, who narrates from Asad ibn ‘Abdullah, who narrates from some learned men whom he met.

The first chain of narration shows glaring defects. Sayf ibn ‘Umar is that historian whose total unreliability has been a matter of much discussion, especially in Shi’i circles. The contemporary Shi’i scholar, Murtada al-‘Askari has written an interesting book in which he has pointed a finger of accusation at this very same Sayf ibn ‘Umar. The charge which he levels against Sayf ibn ‘Umar is that he is responsible for inventing of the personality of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba. Despite the flaws in al-‘Askaris’ research (upon which some light has been cast in an article that may be read at) this book has been highly acclaimed in Shi’i circles, and everyone climbed on the bandwagon of labeling Sayf ibn ‘Umar as a shameless liar and forger. But suddenly, when the material which Sayf transmits is not about Ibn Saba, but disparages Sayyidah A’ishah, his unreliability is conveniently forgotten, and an-Najashi‘s complaint of Nasr ibn Muzahim narrating from unreliable sources is cast to the wind. Such “objectivity” leaves one in complete amazement.

Furthermore, Sayf ibn ‘Umar’s two sources, Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn al-A’lam, are completely unknown entities.

Nasr ibn Muzahim’s second chain of narration suffers once again from the same defect. His immediate source, ‘Umar ibn Sa’d is unknown, as is ‘Umar ibn Sa’d’s source Asad ibn ‘Abdullah. The person or persons from whom Asad ibn ‘Abdullah allegedly received the information are not even named at all.

In summary it may therefore be said that not a single person in the entire chain of narration, from Tabari up the final sources, may be relied upon at all. Is it on the basis of such worthless historical material that the questioner wishes us to believe that Sayyidah A’shah advocated the killing of Sayyiduna ‘Uthman?

If the questioner can bring himself to accept such worthless material, it creates a question in the mind as to why he would do so. It cannot be because of the intrinsic value of the report itself, for it has been adequately demonstrated here that the report has no value at all. The only reason for his acceptance of such narrations will have to be his own sectarian prejudices. He himself will have to answer to Allah for accepting and believing information provided by such worthless and unreliable sources.

As for the rest of us, we abide by the instruction of Allah Most High: “O you who believe, when an evil-doer comes unto you with news, then ascertain the truth, lest you harm people unwittingly, and afterwards regret what you have done.” (49:6)

And since Sayyidah A’ishah was of the Muhajirin, it may be of interest to the questioner to note what attitude Allah has instructed those who come after the Muhajirin and the Ansar to adopt towards them: “And those who come after them, they say: Our Lord, forgive us and [forgive] our brethren who preceded us in faith. And do not put in our hearts rancour towards the Believers. Our Lord, You are Most Kind, Most Merciful.” (59:10)

Answered by Shaykh Taha Karaan

Source: http://www.ilmgate.org/did-aishah-ra-advocate-the-murder-of-uthman-r/

Was Tha’labah ibn Hatib a hypocrite?


I wanted to get your advice and your opinion on a matter.

In Mufti Shafi’s (RA) commentary Ma`riful Qur’an in Surah Taubah, commenting on verses 75-78, he mentions an incident involving a person called Tha’labah ibn Hatib al-Ansari and mentions he was declared a hypocrite.

Could you dig deeper and tell me whether this story is true or not and if not true, then should the incident be taken out of Ma`riful Qur’an?


Note from Hazrat Muftī Ebrahim Desai Sāheb Dāmat Barakātuhum:

The spurious views of the Shī‘ah regarding the Sahābah are well-known. Some may even quote the books of our Akabireen to prove their point. This article removes the misconception that some verses in Sūrah Tawbah refer to Tha‘labah ibn Hātib Radiallāhu ‘Anhu and that he was a Munāfiq. It makes for an interesting read for students of tafsīr.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Assalāmu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuh

Allāh Ta‘ālā says in the Qur’ān:

وَمِنْهُم مَّنْ عَاهَدَ اللّهَ لَئِنْ آتَانَا مِن فَضْلِهِ لَنَصَّدَّقَنَّ وَلَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ فَلَمَّا آتَاهُم مِّن فَضْلِهِ بَخِلُواْ بِهِ وَتَوَلَّواْ وَّهُم مُّعْرِضُونَ فَأَعْقَبَهُمْ نِفَاقًا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ إِلَى يَوْمِ يَلْقَوْنَهُ بِمَا أَخْلَفُواْ اللّهَ مَا وَعَدُوهُ وَبِمَا كَانُواْ يَكْذِبُونَ

“And amongst them is he who made a covenant with Allah: If He give us of His bounty, we will give in charity and become of the righteous. Yet, when He gave them of His bounty, they hoarded it and turned away, averse. So He made their fate to be hypocrisy in their hearts until the day when they shall meet Him, because they broke their word to Allah that they promised Him, and because they lied.” (9:75-7)

These verses speak of one or more of the Munāfiqīn who promised that if Allāh gives them wealth, they will spend of it in His path. However, when wealth was bestowed on them, they did not do as they had promised. Instead they were miserly and turned away from Allāh’s obedience. Hence, Allāh sealed their fate as Munāfiqīn.

A popular account states that these verses refer to Tha‘labah ibn Hātib. This attribution to Tha‘labah is narrated only from ‘Abdullāh bn ‘Abbās and Abū Umāmah al-Bāhilī (radiyAllāhu ‘anhum) from the Sahābah; and from al-Hasan al-Basrī from the Tābi‘īn. The report from Abū Umāmah al-Bāhilī (radiyAllāhu ‘anhu) contains a detailed narrative. The following is a brief analysis of the authenticity of these three reports.

The first report from Ibn ‘Abbās is narrated by Ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī[1], Ibn Abī Hātim[2], Ibn Mardawayh[3] and al-Bayhaqī[4]. It states that Ibn ‘Abbās said in explanation of the abovementioned verses: “A man called Tha‘labah ibn Hātib from the Ansār attended a gathering and made them bear witness saying, ‘If Allāh gives me from His bounty I will give of it to every person holding a right [over me] his due and I will give of it in charity and I will maintain blood relations by means of it.’ Thus Allāh tried Him from His bounty, whereupon he reneged on his promise and angered Allāh for going back on his word. Thus, Allāh related his story in the Qur’ān.”[5]

This report from Ibn ‘Abbās (radiyAllāhu ‘anhumā) is narrated only via the following chain:

  1. Muhammad ibn Sa‘d ibn Muhammad  ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Atiyyah ibn Sa‘d ibn Junādah Abū Ja‘far al-‘Awfī (d. 276 H) from:
  2. His father, Sa‘d ibn Muhammad al-‘Awfī from:
  3. His uncle, Al-Husayn ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Atiyyah Abū ‘Abdillāh al-‘Awfī (d. 201 H) from:
  4. His father, Al-Hasan ibn ‘Atiyyah al-‘Awfī (d. 181 H) from:
  5. His father, ‘Atiyyah ibn Sa‘d ibn Junādah al-‘Awfī (d. 111 H) from:
  6. Ibn ‘Abbās (d. 68)

This is a chain from a family of ‘Awfīs, and every one of them has been criticised for his transmission of hadīth, some more than others. Hence, al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī said Muhammad ibn Sa‘d is “weak” (layyin) in hadīth, although al-Dāraqutnī regarded him as “unproblematic”.[6] Regarding his father, Sa‘d ibn Muhammad, Imām Ahmad said: “Jahmī, and even if it was not so, he is still not worthy of being written from and he was not of that position.”[7] The next narrator, al-Husayn ibn al-Hasan al-‘Awfī, was “weak in judgement and weak in hadīth” according to Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn.[8] His father, al-Hasan ibn ‘Atiyyah, was also considered “weak in hadīth” by Abū Hātim al-Rāzī;[9] and Ibn Hibbān said: “Disreputable in hadīth…It is necessary to completely disregard him.”[10] And the final narrator, ‘Atiyyah ibn Sa‘d, was regarded as “weak in hadīth” by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, as well as Abū Zur‘ah al-Rāzī, Abū Hātim al-Rāzī, al-Nasā’ī and others.[11] Hence, this chain is “da‘īf jiddan” or “extremely weak.”

The second report from Abū Umāmah al-Bāhilī offers a full narrative as follows:

“Tha‘labah ibn Hātib said to the Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam): “Pray to Allāh to grant me wealth.” The Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “Woe to you, O Tha‘labah! A small amount of which its thanks is discharged is better than a large amount which you cannot bear.” He again said: “Pray to Allāh to grant me wealth.” He said: “Are you not satisfied that you will be like a prophet of Allāh? By the One in Whose hand is my soul, had I wished that the mountains move with me as gold and silver, they would surely move [with me as such].” He said: “By the One Who sent you with the truth, if you pray to Allāh to grant me wealth, I will surely give every person holding a right [over me] his due.” The Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “O Allāh, grant Tha‘labah wealth.”

Thus, he acquired some sheep, and they proliferated just as worms proliferate, until Madīnah became too restrictive for him, so he moved away from it and settled in one of its valleys. Consequently, he prayed only Zuhr and ‘Asr in congregation and left the rest of them. Then, they proliferated and became numerous so he moved away until he left all salāhs except Jumuah. They proliferated just as worms proliferate until he left Jumu‘ah too. He began to receive the caravans on Friday asking them the news. The Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “What happened to Tha‘labah?” They said: “O Messenger of Allāh, he acquired some sheep, and Madīnah became too restrictive for him,” and they informed him of his affair. He said: “Woe to Tha‘labah, woe to Tha‘labah, woe to Tha‘labah.”

Further, Allāh revealed: “Take Zakāt from their wealth, whereby you may purify them and make them clean.” (9:103) The obligations of Zakāt were revealed, so the Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) dispatched two men to [collect] Zakāt, a man from Juhaynah and a man from Sulaym. He wrote to them how to collect the Zakāt from the Muslims. He said to them: “Pass by Tha‘labah and by so-and-so – a man from Banū Sulaym – and collect their Zakāt.” Thus they left until they arrived at Tha‘labah and asked him for Zakāt and recited to him the letter of the Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). He said: “This is nothing besides tax! This is nothing besides the sister of tax! I know not what this is! Proceed until you complete [your task] and then come back to me.” Thus they proceeded and the Sulamī heard of them, so he inspected the best of his camels and put them aside for Zakāt. Then he met them with these [camels]. When they saw them, they said: “This is not incumbent on you and we do not wish to take this from you.” He said: “Indeed, take it, as my heart is content with this, and it is only for me.”  They took them from him. When they finished from their Zakāt [collection], they returned and passed by Tha‘labah. He said: “Show me your letter.” He looked at it and he said: “This is nothing but the sister of tax! Proceed so that I can apply my mind.” They proceeded until they came to the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and when he saw them he said: “Woe to Tha‘labah” before he spoke to them and he prayed for blessing for the Sulamī. They informed him of what Tha‘labah did and what the Sulamī did. Thus, Allāh (Gloried and Exalted is He) sent down: “And amongst them is he who made a covenant with Allah: If He give us of His bounty, we will give in charity and become of the righteous. Yet, when He gave them of His bounty, they hoarded it and turned away, averse. So He made their fate to be hypocrisy in their hearts until the day when they shall meet Him, because they broke their word to Allah that they promised Him, and because they lied” (9:75-8)

There was a man from the relatives of Thalabah in the presence of the Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) who heard this. He left until he came to him and said: “Woe to you, O Tha‘labah. Allāh has revealed such-and-such about you!” Tha‘labah went out until he came to the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and asked him to accept the Zakāt from him. He replied: “Allāh has prohibited me from accepting your Zakāt.” He began to throw dust on his head. The Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “This is your doing! I gave you an order and you did not follow it!”

When the Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) refused to accept [his Zakāt], he returned to his house. The Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) passed away and he did not accept anything from him. Then he came to Abū Bakr when he was appointed caliph and said: “You know my position in relation to the Messenger of Allāh and my place amongst the Ansār, so accept my Zakāt.” Abū Bakr said: “The Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) did not accept it, and I accept it?!” Thus Abū Bakr passed away not accepting it. When ‘Umar took charge, he came to him and said: “O Commander of the Believers, accept my Zakāt.” He said: “Neither the Messenger of Allāh nor Abū Bakr accepted it from you, so I will not accept it from you.” Thus he passed away and did not accept it. Then ‘Uthmān took charge, and he came to him asking him to accept his Zakāt. He said: “Neither the Messenger of Allāh, nor Abū Bakr, nor ‘Umar accepted it, and I will not accept it from you.” He did not accept it from him. Tha‘labah perished in the caliphate of ‘Uthmān.”

This lengthy report from Abū Umāmah was transmitted by Ibn Jarīr[12], Ibn Abī Hātim[13], al-Tabrānī[14], Abū Nu‘aym[15], al-Bayhaqī[16], al-Wāhidī[17] and al-Baghawī[18] amongst others[19], and the chains of transmission of all of them meet at the following:

  1. Mu‘ān ibn Rifā‘ah from:
  2. ‘Alī ibn Yazīd from:
  3. Al-Qāsim ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān from:
  4. Abū Umāmah

The first two narrators have been criticised. Mu‘ān ibn Rifā‘ah was regarded as trustworthy by ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī and Duhaym[20], and “unproblematic” by Ahmad and Abū Dāwūd[21], while the majority have considered him weak[22]. ‘Alī ibn Yazīd was considered a rejected narrator (matrūk), as stated by al-Dāraqutnī, al-Nasā’ī and others.[23] Al-Bukhārī said he is “munkar[24] which in his usage means it is not permissible to narrate his hadīths[25]. Ibn Hibbān said: “Extremely disreputable in hadīth…It is necessary to stay clear of his narrations.”[26] This renders the narration extremely weak. Thus,Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī said: “This is an extremely weak chain.”[27]

The third report from al-Hasan al-Basrī (d. 110) states that he said: “Those who took a covenant with Allāh amongst them are: Tha‘labah ibn Hātib and Mu‘attib ibn Qushayr, and they were from the Banū ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf.”[28] This report is narrated by Ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī through the following route:

  1. Muhammad ibn Humayd (168 – 248) from:
  2. Salamah ibn al-Fadl al-Rāzī (d. 191) from:
  3. Muhammad ibn Ishāq (80 – 150 H) from:
  4. ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd (d. 143)

The teacher of al-Tabarī, Muhammad ibn Humayd, was known to add chains of transmission to texts of hadīth. He is widely regarded as unreliable[29]. His teacher, Salamah, was also considered weak by some. ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd (d. 143 H) was a famous Mu‘tazilī preacher who a large group accused of lying and forging reports despite his outward piety and worship. Yūnus ibn ‘Ubayd (d. 140 H) said: “He would tell lies in hadīth.”[30] Humayd ibn Abī Humayd (68 – 143 H) said: “Do not take anything from this [person] as he invents lies from al-Hasan.”[31] ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Awn (d. 151 H) said: “What have we to do with ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd?! He would invent lies from al-Hasan.” When informed of a report of his, ‘Awf ibn Abī Jamīlah al-A‘rābī (58 – 146 H) said: “By Allāh ‘Amr lied.” These critics were amongst ‘Amr’s contemporaries and every one of them is a reliable transmitter found in all six of the famous collections of hadīth. Hence, this report cannot be ascribed to al-Hasan al-Basrī (rahimahullāh).

Since these three reports are the only source of this attribution, and their chains of transmission are extremely weak or worse, the verse cannot be said to refer to Tha‘labah ibn Hātib. The principle of two or more weak chains supporting one another only applies to those that are not extremely weak or baseless. When they are extremely weak or baseless, multiple chains do not confer added strength.[32] Hence, the attribution is unacceptable and the narration in question is unsuitable for quotation.

This is further corroborated by its inconsistency with other known details. The most important of these details is that the person in question, Tha‘labah ibn Hātib, was a Sahābī known to have participated in the Battle of Badr. It is not possible for such a great and noble Sahābī to be amongst the Munāfiqīn. There are also other areas of concern in the detailed narrative found in Abū Umāmah’s narration.

Thus, Imām al-Dhahabī said: “Tha‘labah ibn Hātib ibn ‘Amr al-Ansārī al-Awsī, a veteran of Badr. He said: ‘O Messenger of Allāh, supplicate to Allāh to grant me wealth,’ and then he mentioned a lengthy hadīth, which is completely rejected.”[33]

Ibn Hazm al-Zāhirī said:

“We narrated an inauthentic narration in which it is mentioned that this [verse] was revealed in regards to Tha‘labah ibn Hātib and this is false because Tha‘labah is a famous veteran of Badr.”[34]

While the narration is unreliable, many famous commentators of the Qur’ān have unfortunately included it in their books of tafsīr, including Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Hāfiz Ibn Kathīr and Mahmūd al-Ālūsī, without commenting on its spuriousness. Muftī Muhammad Shafī‘ in his Ma‘ārif al-Qur’ān appears to have relied on these earlier mufassirīn without investigating its authenticity. One who finds such reports in books of tafsīr should ascertain with a scholar of hadīth whether they are acceptable for quotation before accepting or quoting them.

With regards to the true background of the verse, Ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī narrates with a sound chain to Qatādah ibn Di‘āmah (60 – 118 H) that he said: “It was related to us that a man from the Ansār came to a gathering of the Ansār and said that if Allāh gives him wealth he will surely give each person with a right [over him] his due. When Allāh gave him wealth, he acted in it as you have heard.”[35]

“Ansār” in this narration is a reference to the people of Madīnah in general, some of whom were Munāfiqīn.

Ibn Jarīr also narrates with an authentic chain to Mujāhid ibn Jabr (19 – 102 H) that the verse is in reference to two men who said to a group of people: “If Allāh gives us provision, we will surely give in charity.” When they were given provision, they became miserly.[36]

Hence, the verses are in reference to one or more of the Munāfiqīn who resided in Madīnah. They are not in reference to Tha‘labah ibn Hātib or any other Sahābī.

And Allah Ta‘ālā Knows Best

Zameelur Rahman

Student Darul Iftaa

Checked and Approved by,
Mufti Ebrahim Desai.


[1] حدثني محمد بن سعد قال: ثني أبي قال: ثني عمي، قال: ثني أبي عن أبي عن ابن عباس قوله: ومنهم من عاهد الله لئن آتنا من فضله الآية، وذلك أن رجلا يقال له ثعلبة بن حاطب من الأنصار أتى مجلسا فأشهدهم، فقال: لئن آتاني الله من فضله آتيت منه كل ذي حق حقه وتصدقت منه ووصلت منه القرابة، فابتلاه الله فآتاه من فضله، فأخلف الله ما وعده، وأغضب الله بما أخلف وعده فقص الله شأنه فى القرآن (جامع البيان عن تأويل آي القرآن، مكتبة هجر، ج١١ ص٥٧٨)

[2]   أخبرنا محمد بن سعد العوفي فيما كتب إلي: ثنا أبي ثنا عمي عن أبيه عن جده عن ابن عباس قوله: ومنهم من عاهد الله لئن آتانا من فضله لنصدقن ولكونن من الصالحين، وذلك أن رجلا كان يقال له ثعلبة بن أبي حاطب من الأنصار أتى مجلسا فأشهدهم فقال: لئن آتاني الله من فضله، آتيت منه كل ذي حق حقه، وتصدقت منه ووصلت القرابة، فابتلاه الله فآتاه من فضله، فأخلف الله ما وعده فأغضب الله بما أخلف الخلفه ما وعده، فقص الله عز وجل شأنه فى القرآن (تفسير ابن أبي حاتم، مكتبة نزار مصطفى الباز، ص١٨٤٩)

[3] عزاه السيوطي إليه فى الدر المنثور، مركز هجر، ج٧ ص٤٥٧

[4] أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ، أخبرنا أحمد بن كامل القاضي، حدثنا محمد ابن سعد العوفي، حدثنا أبي، قال: حدثنا عمي: الحسين بن الحسن بن عطية، قال: حدثنا أبي، عن أبيه: عطية بن سعد، عن ابن عباس، قوله تعالى: ومنهم من عاهد الله لئن آتانا من فضله لنصدقن ولنكونن من الصالحين، وذلك أن رجلا كان يقال: له ثعلبة من الأنصار أتى مجلسه فأشهدهم، فقال: لئن آتاني الله من فضله آتيت كل ذي حق حقه، وتصدقت منه، ووصلت منه القرابة، فابتلاه الله فآتاه من فضله، فأخلف ما وعد، فأغضب الله بما أخلفه بما وعده فقص الله شأنه في القرآن (دلائل النبوة، دار الكتب العلمية، ج٥ ص٢٨٩)

[5] عن ابن عباس قوله: ومنهم من عاهد الله لئن آتنا من فضله الآية، وذلك أن رجلا يقال له ثعلبة بن حاطب من الأنصار أتى مجلسا فأشهدهم، فقال: لئن آتاني الله من فضله آتيت منه كل ذي حق حقه وتصدقت منه ووصلت منه القرابة، فابتلاه الله فآتاه من فضله، فأخلف الله ما وعده، وأغضب الله بما أخلف وعده فقص الله شأنه فى القرآن (جامع البيان عن تأويل آي القرآن، مكتبة هجر، ج١١ ص٥٧٨)

[6] وكان لينا فى الحديث، وذكر الحاكم أبو عبد الله بن البيع أنه سمع الدارقطني ذكره فقال: لا بأس به (تاريخ بغداد، دار الغرب الإسلامي، ج٣ ص٢٦٩)

[7] قال أحمد فيه: جهمي. قال: ولو لم يكن هذا أيضا لم يكن ممن يستأهل أن يكتب عنه، ولا كان موضعا لذاك (لسان الميزان، مكت المطبوعات الإسلامية، ج٤ ص٣٤)

[8] قال رجل ليحيى بن معين: فالعوفي؟ قال: كان ضعيفا فى القضاء، ضعيفا فى الحديث (تاريخ بغداد، ج٨ ص٥٥٣)

[9] وقال أبو حاتم: ضعيف الحديث (تهذيب الكمال، مؤسسة الرسالة، ج٦ ص٢١١)

[10] الحسن بن عطية بن سعد العوفي…منكر الحديث…اشتبه أمره ووجب تركه (كتاب المجروحين، دار الصميعي، ج١ ص٢٧٩)

[11] وقال مسلم بن حجاج قال أحمد وذكر عطية العوفي: فقال: هو ضعيف الحديث…(تهذيب الكمال، ج٢ ص١٤٧)

[12] حدثني المثنى قال: حدثنا هشام بن عمار قال: ثنا محمد بن شعيب قال: ثنا معان بن رفاعة السلامي عن أبي عبد الملك علي بن يزيد الألهاني أنه أخبره عن القاسم أبي عبد الرحمن أنه أخبره عن أبي أمامة الباهله عن ثعلبة بن حاطب… (جامع البيان عن تأويل آي القرآن، ج١ ص٥٧٨)

[13] حدثنا أبي ثنا هشام بن عمار ثنا محمد بن شعيب ثنا معان بن رفاعة السلامي عن أبي عبد الملك علي بن يزيد الألهاني أنه أخبره عن القاسم أبي عبد الرحمن أنه أخبره عن أبي أمامة الباهلي عن ثعلبة بن حاطب…(تفسير ابن أبي حاتم، ص١٨٤٧)

[14] حدثنا أبو يزيد القراطيسي ثنا أسد بن موسى ثنا الوليد بن مسلم ثنا معان بن رفاعة عن علي بن يزيد عن القاسم عن أبي أمامة أن ثعلبة بن حاطب الأنصار أتى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم…(المعجم الكبير، مكتبة ابن تيمية، ج٨ ص٢٦٠)

[15] حدثنا محمد بن أحمد بن حمدان ثنا الحسن بن سفيان ثنا هشام بن عمار ثنا محمد بن شعيب بن شابورح ح

وحدثنا أحمد بن جعفر بن حمدان ثنا عبد الله بن أحمد الدورقي ثنا الحسن بن أحمد الحراني ثما مسكين بن بكير ح

وحدثنا سليمان بن أحمد ثنا أبو يزيد القراطيسي ثنا أسد بن موسى ثنا الوليد بن مسلم

قالوا: ثنا معان بن رفاعة عن أبي عبد الملك علي بن يزيد الألهاني أنه أخبره عن القاسم أبي عبد الرحمن أنه أخبره عن أبي أمامة عن ثعلبة بن حاطب أنه قال لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم…(معرفة الصحابة، دار الوطن، ص٤٩٥)

[16] وحدثنا أبو عبد الرحمن محمد بن الحسين بن محمد بن موسى السلمي رحمه الله حدثنا أبو الحسن محمد بن عبد الله بن إبراهيم بن عبدة حدثنا أبو عبد الله محمد بن إبراهيم بن سعيد العبدي حدثنا الحسن بن أحمد بن أبي شعيب الحراني حدثنا مسكين بن بكير حدثنا معان بن رفاعة السلامي عن علي بن يزيد عن القاسم أبي عبد الرحمن وهو القاسم مولى عبد الرحمن أبي يزيد بن معاوئ عن أبي أمامة الباهلي قال جاء ثعلبة بن حاطب إلى…(دلائل النبوة، ج٥ ص٢٨٩)

[17] أخبرنا أبو الحسن محمد بن أحمد بن الفضل قال: حدثنا أبو عمرو محمد بن جعفر بن مطر قال: حدثنا أبو عمران موسى بن سهل الجوني قال: حدثنا هشام بن عمار قال: حدثنا محمد بن شعيب قال: حدثنا معان بن رفاعة السلامي عن أبي عبد الملك علي بن يزيد أنه أخبره عن القاسم بن عبد الرحمن عن أبي أمامة الباهلي أن ثعلبة بن حاطب الأنصاري…(أسباب النزول، دار الكتب العلمية، ص٢٥٧-٨)

[18] أخبرنا  أبو سعيد الشريحي، حدثنا أبو إسحاق الثعلبي، أخبرنا أبو عبد الله بن حامد الأصفهاني، حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن إبراهيم السمرقندي، حدثنا محمد بن نصر، حدثني أبو الأزهر أحمد بن الأزهر، حدثنا مروان بن محمد بن شعيب حدثنا معان بن رفاعة عن علي بن يزيد عن القاسم بن عبد الرحمن عن أبي أمامة الباهلي قال: جاء ثعلبة…(تفسير البغوي، دار طيبة، ج٤ ص٧٥-٦)

[19] راجع الدر المنثور، ج٧ ص٤٥٤

[20] وقال علي بن المديني: ثقة…وقال عثمان بن سعيد الدارمي عن دحيم: ثقة (تهذيب الكمال، ج٢٨ ص١٥٨)

[21] قال محمد بن عوف عن أحمد بن حنبل: لم يكن به بأس…وقال أبو عبيد الآجري عن أبي داود: ليس به بأس (تهذيب الكمال، ج٢٨ ص١٥٨)

[22] راجع المصدر السابق

[23] وقال النسائي: ليس بثقة وقال في موضع آخر: متروك الحديث…وقال أبو الفتح الأزدي وأبو الحسن الدارقطني وأبو بكر البرقاني: متروك (تهذيب الكمال، ج٢١ ص١٨١)

[24] وقال البخاري: منكر الحديث (تهذيب الكمال، ج٢١ ص١٨١)

[25] قال البخاري: كل من قلت فيه منكر الحديث فلا تحل الرواية عنه (الرفع والتكميل، مكتبة ابن تيمية، ص٩٧)

[26] منكر الحديث جدا…يجب التنكب عن روايته (المجروحين، ج٢ ص٨٥-٦)

[27] كلهم من طريق علي بن يزيد عن القاسم بن عبد الرحمن عن أمامة، وهذا إسناد ضعيف جدا (الكافي الشاف، ص٧٧)

[28] حدثنا ابن حميد قال: ثنا سلمة عن ابن إسحاق عن عمرو بن عبيد عن الحسن: ومنهم من عهد الله لئن ءاتنا من فضله الآية، وكان الذي عاهد الله منهم: ثعلبة بن حاطب ومعتب بن قشير، وهما من بني عمرو بن عوف (جامع البيان عن تأويل آي القرآن، ج١١ ص٥٨٢)

[29] وقال أبو زرعة ومحمد بن مسلم بن واراة الرازيان: صح عندنا أنه يكذب (معجم شيوخ الطبري، ص٤٨٠)

[30] تهذيب الكمال، ج٢٢ ص١٢٥

[31] المصدر السابق

[32] قال ابن الصلاح: ليس كل ضعف فى الحديث يزول بمجيئه من وجوه، بل ذلك يتفاوت، فمنه ضعف يزيله ذلك، بأن يكون ضعفه ناشئا من ضعف حفظ راويه مع كونه من أهل الصدق والديانة، فإذا رأينا ما رواه قد جاء من وجه آخر عرفنا أنه مما قد حفظه ولم يختل فيه ضبطه له. وكذلك إذا كان ضعفه من حيث الإرسال زال بحنو ذلك، كما فى المرسل الذي يرسله إمام حایظ إذا فيه ضعف قليل يزول بروايته من وجه آخر. ومن ذلك ضعف لا يزول بنحو ذلك لقوة الضعف وتقاعد هذا الجابر عن جبره ومقاومته، وذلك كالضعف الذي ينشأ من كون الراوي متهما بالكذب أو كون الحديث شاذا. (قال نور الدين العتر في تعليقه: ومثل المتهم بالكذب من كان شديد الضعف) (مقدمة ابن الصلاح، ص٣٤)

وإن يكن ضعف الحديث لكذب في رواية أو شذا أي شذوذ في رواية بأن خالف من هو أحفظ أو أكثر أو قوي الضعف بغيرهما مما يقتضى الرد كفحش الخطأ فلم يجبر ذا أي الضعف بواحد من هذه الأسباب ولو كثرت طرقه (فتح المغيث، مكتبة دار المنهاج، ج١ ص١٣٠)

[33] ثعلبة بن حاطب بن عمرو الأنصاري الأوسي، بدري. قال: يا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ادع الله أن يرزقني مالا، فذكر حديثا طويلا منكرا بمرة (تجريد أسماء الصحابة، دار المعرفة، ج١ ص٦٦)

[34] وفيه أنها نزلت في ثعلبة بن حاطب وهذا باطل لأن ثعلبة بدري معروف (المحلى، إدارة الطباعة المنيرية، ج١١ ص٢٠٧-٨)

[35] حدثنا بشر ثنا يزيد قال ثنا سعيد عن قتادة قوله: ومنهم من عهد الله لئن ءاتنا من فضله الآية: ذكر لنا أن رجلا من الأنصار أتى على مجلس من الأنصار فقال: لئن آتاه الله مالا ليؤدين إلى كل ذي حق حقه فآتاه الله مالا فصنع ما تسمعون (جامع البيان عن تأويل آي القرآن، ج١١ ص٥٨٠)

[36] حدثني محمد بن عمرو قال: ثنا أبو عاصم قال ثنا عيسى عن ابن أبي نجيح عن مجاهد في قول الله: ومنهم من عهد الله لئن ءاتنا من فضله، قال: رجلان خرجا على ملأ قعود، فقالا: والله لئن رزقنا الله لنصدقن، فلما رزقهم الله بخلوا به. (جامع البيان عن تأويل آي القرآن، ج١١ ص٥٨٢) ورواه بإسنادين آخرين

There is no sword better than Dhul-Fiqar and no man better than ‘Ali


How sound is the hadith: “There is no sword better than Dhul-Fiqar and no man better than ‘Ali (RA)”? Is it authentic or fabricated?


This saying is attributed to Imam Muhammad al Baqir (rahimahullah) and not to Nabi (sallalahu ‘alayhi wasallam); that on the day of Badr, an Angel called out:

“There is no better man than ‘Ali (RA), and no sword better than Dhul-Fiqar.”

However, Allama Sakhawi (r) has said that this narration is very weak. Mulla ‘Ali Al-Qari (r) also mentions that this hadith has no basis and portrays it as an innovation of the Shi’ah. Sa’d Bin Tareef is a narrator of this narration. Ibn Hajar (r) says he is very weak and that he was a Rafidhi (an extremist Shi’ah). This hadith is supporting his corrupt beliefs thus rendering his narration as unacceptable.

See al-Maqasidul Hasanah (1307), al-Asrarul Marfu’ah (595), and Taqrib al-Tahzib.

Note: Dhul-Fiqar being the name of the sword of Nabi (SAW) is proven from other narrations.

And Allah Ta’ala knows best.

Verified by: Moulana Muhammad Abasoomer

Source: http://www.hadithanswers.com/91/#more-91

Close all the doors (to the Mosque) except that of ‘Ali (RA)

The following is narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad from Sa’ad Ibn Abi Waqqas (RA):

“Rasulullah (SAW) ordered that all the doors leading to the Masjid should be closed and only the door of ‘Ali (RA) should be left.”

This narration is in conflict with the narration of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim wherein it is clearly stated that only the door of Abu Bakr (RA) should be left open.

The reply to this is that the narration of Imam Ahmad is not on the same level of authenticity as that of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. Assuming it was on the same level, the narration of the other two Imams abrogate the narration of Imam Ahmad because it was an order of Rasulullah (SAW) during his final illness while the order concerning the door of ‘Ali (RA) was a previous order which Rasulullah (SAW) issued at the time when the Masjid was being constructed and ‘Ali (RA) used to come and go through the Masjid door. As for the narration wherein Abu Bakr (RA) is mentioned, this order was issued three days before Rasulullah’s (SAW) demise. The principle is that the latter order abrogates the former order.

[Seeratul Mustafa of Shaykh Idris Kandehlawi: Vol. 3, chapter 3, pages 199-200]

Did Abu Talib die with Imaan?

According to the narrations cited by Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim and Nasa’i, when Abu Talib was about to breathe his last, Rasulullah (pbuh) drew close to him. Abu Jahal and ‘Abdullah Ibn Umayyah were also present at his bedside. Rasulullah (pbuh) pleaded with him: “O Uncle! Say La Ilaaha Illallah once only so that I may have some basis to intercede on your behalf before Allah Ta’aala.” Alarmed by this probability, Abu Jahal and Abdullah Ibn Umayyah exclaimed: “O Abu Talib! Do you wish to renounce the creed of Abdul Muttalib?”

Abu Talib refused to utter La Ilaaha Illallah and the very last words to leave his tongue were “Alaa Millati Abdil Muttalib”. In other words, I am committed to the creed of Abdul Muttalib.

Abu Talib died saying this but Rasulullah (pbuh) pledged, “I will continue to make du’a of forgiveness for him as long as Allah Ta’aala does not prohibit me.” Upon this the following verse was revealed:

“It is not permissible for the Prophet and the believers to seek forgiveness for the polytheists even if they are relatives when it is evident to them that they are the inmates of hell (In other words, they died in disbelief).” [Surah Tawbah, verse 113]

The following verse was also revealed in this regard:

“You are unable to guide who you wish but Allah guides whosoever he chooses to.” [Surah Qasas, verse 56]

Hadhrat ‘Abbas (RA) relates: “I asked Rasulullah (pbuh), ‘Of what benefit were you to your uncle? After all, he was your benefactor and he provided you his unstinting support.’ Rasulullah (pbuh) replied: ‘He is up to his ankles in the fire. Had I failed to intercede on his behalf, he would have been in this midst of the fire of hell.’” [Bukhari, under the chapter dealing with the story of Abu Talib]

Note: ‘Allamah Suhayli says: “Abu Talib was fully immersed in supporting and assisting Rasulullah (pbuh). Only his feet (so to say) were ensnared in the creed of Abdul Muttalib. This is why only his feet were enveloped by the divine chastisement (as mentioned above).”

“O our Lord! Dispense upon us patience and secure our feet and assist us against the disbelieving nation.”

[Footnotes: ‘Allamah Suhayli writes in Rawdul Anf, Hafidh Sayyidin-Nas writes in ‘Uyun al-Athar (vol. 1, page 133) and Hafidh ‘Asqalani writes in Fath al-Bari (vol. 7, page 148) that this question posed by Hadhrat ‘Abbas (RA) clearly indicates that the narration attributed to Hadhrat ‘Abbas citing the Imaan of Abu Talib is incorrect. The narration in question is that at the time of his death, Abu Talib’s lips were visibly moving. Hadhrat ‘Abbas (RA) put his ears to his mouth and subsequently informed Rasulullah (pbuh): “He has uttered the words you have asked him to express.” Rasulullah (pbuh) replied: “I did not hear him.”

The reason this narration is unsound is that if Hadhrat ‘Abbas (RA) actually heard Abu Talib uttering the words of the Kalimah Shahaadah, what is the sense of posing the aforementioned question? Hypothetically speaking, even if this narration is authentic, it cannot constitute any form of proof in contrast to the Qur’anic verses, narrations of Bukhari, Muslim and other authentic Hadith books and in contrast to a number of other reliable and renowned Ahadith, let alone a Hadith that is weak and unreliable.

On the basis of this weak and Munqati’ Hadith of Ibn Ishaq, ‘Allamah Shibli discards the narrations of Bukhari, Muslim and other authentic Hadith books and aims to establish the Imaan of Abu Talib. According to ‘Allamah Shibli, the narrations citing the trembling of the columns of Chosroe are unreliable simply because such narrations are not mentioned in Bukhari, Muslim and in any of the other 6 authentic books of Ahadith. If the Hadith of the columns of Chosroes is not mentioned in any of the 6 most authentic books, then at least not a word contradictory to this Hadith is mentioned in the 6 books. On the other hand, the 6 authentic books of Hadith mention authentic and explicit Ahadith contradicting this narration of Ibn Ishaq. Furthermore, according to ‘Allamah Shibli’s research, Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is declared an unreliable narrator because he often gleans his narrations from the Jews and Christians, and considers them as reliable narrators. I wonder how, on the basis of such an ‘unreliable’ narrators’ narration, ‘Allamah Shibli is willing to discard the authentic narrations of the Sihah Sittah. Furthermore, all the narrations citing the belief (Imaan) of Abu Talib are narrated by narrators who – Allah Ta’aala forbid – report Abu Bakr (RA) and ‘Umar (RA) to be disbelievers. Hafidh ‘Asqalani gives a detailed explanation of the Imaan of Abu Talib in his book Isaabah (vol. 4, page 115). Apart from Isaabah, academics may refer to al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah (vol. 3, pages 126 and 142) and Zarqani Sharah Mawahib (vol. 1, page 291) for further details.]

Hadhrat ‘Ali (RA) narrates: “When Abu Talib died, I notified Rasulullah (pbuh): “O Prophet of Allah! Your deviated uncle has died.” Rasulullah (pbuh) responded: “Go and bury him.” I submitted: “He died a Mushrik.”  Rasulullah (pbuh) said: “All the same, go and bury him.” This narration is cited in Abu Dawud and Nasa’i. [Fath al-Bari: vol. 7, page 148]

According to another narration, when Hadhrat ‘Ali (RA) reappeared before Rasulullah (pbuh) on his return from burying Abu Talib, Rasulullah (pbuh) instructed him to take a bath. This is why the jurists and ‘Ulamaa maintain that it is preferable to take a bath after administering the Ghusl and burial of a disbeliever or polytheist.

Hafidh Torpushti says: “On the basis of this Hadith, the A’immah Mujtahideen, principally Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Shafi’i, corroborate the permissibility of burying a disbeliever. Furthermore, they have additionally established that a Muslim does not inherit from a disbeliever. Abu Talib had four sons: Talib, ‘Aqil, Ja’far and ‘Ali. Only Talib and ‘Aqil profited from their father Abu Talib’s estate because they were adherents of the same creed as their father. ‘Ali and Ja’far were dispossessed of his estate because both of them were Muslims. [Mentioned in Mu’tamad fil Mu’taqad]

A note of caution: It is the unanimous belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah that Abu Talib died upon disbelief as verified by a number of Qur’anic verses and Ahadith. Hafidh Torpushti writes: “The disbelief of Abu Talib has reached levels of Tawaatur (uninterrupted unanimity) and this is the opinion of the past ‘Ulamaa and the A’immah of Deen. The Rawafidh are of the opinion that Abu Talib died with Imaan whilst Abu Bakr (RA) died upon disbelief. Bear in mind that love and sacrifice is insufficient for Imaan. A person can never be declared a Mu’min without believing in prophethood and without attesting to the truthfulness of Rasulullah (pbuh). Understand this well and remain firm.”

[Footnotes: This is the unanimous belief of the Ahlus Sunnah. Hence, for ‘Allamah Shibli to write in Siratun Nabi (vol. 1, page 181) that there is a difference of opinion in regards to the Islam of Abu Talib, is merely a deception. There is no difference of opinion amongst the Ahlus Sunnah as far as his disbelief is concerned. Yes, the Rawafidh are of the opinion that Abu Talib died with Imaan. Obviously, the difference of opinion held by the Rawaafidh is of no consequence. How can the difference of opinion of a sect that reckons Abu Bakr (RA) and ‘Umar (RA), in fact all the Sahaabah, as disbelievers and hypocrites, ever be considered?]

[Source: Seeratul Mustafa by Hadhrat Mawlana Idris Kandehlawi: Vol. 1, chapter 4, pages 301-304]

Hadith narrated by ‘Ali about Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with them both

The following Ahadith were collected from the major Hadith collections by Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti in his History of the Khulafaa.

Al-Hakim narrated in the Mustadrak that an-Nazzal ibn Sabrah said: We said to ‘Ali: ‘Amir al-Mu’minin, tell us about Abu Bakr.’ He said, ‘That man, Allah named him as-Siddiq on the tongue of Jibril and on the tongue of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He was the deputy of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for the prayer; he was content with him for our Deen and so we were pleased with him for our worldly affairs.’ Its Isnad (chain of narration) is excellent.

Ad-Daraqutni and al-Hakim narrated that Abu Yahya said: I cannot count the number of times that I heard ‘Ali say upon the Minbar, ‘Truly Allah named Abu Bakr through the tongue of His Prophet, a Siddiq.’ Al-Tabarani narrated with an excellent Sahih Isnad that Hakim ibn Sa’d said: I heard ‘Ali say, and he swore upon it, ‘Allah definitely revealed from heaven the name of Abu Bakr, as-Siddiq.’

Ibn ‘Asakir narrated by way of al-Harith who related that ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said: The first among men to accept Islam was Abu Bakr. Abu Ya’la, al-Hakim and Ahmad narrated that ‘Ali said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to me and Abu Bakr on the Day of Badr, ‘With one of you is Jibril and with the other is Mika’il.’

Al-Bazzar narrated in his Musnad that ‘Ali said, ‘Tell me who is the bravest of men?’ They said, ‘You.’ He said, ‘As for me, I never encountered anyone but that I took my due from him, but tell me who is the bravest of men?’ They said, ‘We don’t know. Who is it?’ He said, ‘Abu Bakr. On the Day of Badr we made a shelter from the sun for the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and then we said, “Who will be with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so that none of the idolaters may fall upon him?” By Allah, none of us drew near except for Abu Bakr who brandished a sword over the head of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. No-one fell upon him but that he in turn fell upon him. So he is the bravest of men.’

‘Ali (RA) said: I saw the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the Quraysh grabbed him. One held him and another threw him down and they were saying, ‘Are you the one who has made the gods into one god?’ By Allah, none of us approached except Abu Bakr, striking this one, and restraining that one, and throwing down another, saying, ‘Woe to you! Will you kill a man because he says, “My Lord is Allah?”’ Then ‘Ali raised a cloak which he was wearing and wept until his beard was wet and said, ‘I adjure you by Allah! Is the believer of the people of Fir’awn better or Abu Bakr?’ People were silent. He said, ‘Will you not answer? By Allah, an hour of Abu Bakr is better than a thousand hours of the like of the believer of the people of Fir’awn. He was a man who concealed his iman, and this was a man who was open about his Imaan.’

Ibn ‘Asakir narrated that ‘Ali (RA) said: When Abu Bakr accepted Islam, he was open about his Islam and he invited people to Allah and to His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Ahmad narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘No wealth ever benefited me as did the wealth of Abu Bakr.’ Abu Bakr wept and said, ‘Are I and my wealth for any but you, Messenger of Allah?’ Abu Ya’la narrated that A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, narrated the like of it as a Marfu’ Hadith. Ibn Kathir said: And it is narrated in hadith of ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Abbas, Anas, Jabir Ibn ‘Abdullah and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with all of them. Al-Khateeb narrated it from Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab as a Mursal Hadith and added, ‘And the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless and grant peace to him and his family, used to make use of the wealth of Abu Bakr as he did of his own wealth.’

Al-Bukhari narrated that Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib said: I said to my father, ‘Who is the best of mankind after the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace?’ He said, ‘Abu Bakr.’ I said, ‘Then who?’ He said, ‘’Umar.’ I was afraid that he would say ‘Uthman so I said, ‘Then you?’ He said, ‘I am nobody but a man among the Muslims.’ Ahmad and others narrated that ‘Ali said: The best of this Ummah after our Prophet are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Adh-Dhahabi said: This is mutawatir from ‘Ali, so may Allah curse ar-Rafidah (literally ‘the rejectors’ i.e. the Shi’ah), how ignorant they are!

– Abdassamad Clarke

Did Sayyiduna ‘Umar (RA) bury his daughter alive?

The story about Sayyiduna ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab (RA) burying his daughter was reported by a man named Jabir Al-Ju’fi and he is declared both unreliable and a liar. Therefore, the report is fabricated and a blatant lie against ‘Umar (RA). It is a fabricated story invented and spread by those who hate him.

Even IF it is considered true, it does not diminish the status of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (RA) the slightest because many Sahabah made mistakes during Jahiliyya before becoming Muslim. If Allah the Almighty has forgiven the past sins of every person who becomes a Muslim, then who are we to hold their action against them?

– Mufti Asad Waqqas Khalil (DB)

Where is ‘Ali (R.A)’s grave?

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

The valiant Fourth Caliph of Islam was brutally martyred in the month of Ramaḍān in 40 A.H at the hands of Khārijī Abd al-Rahmān ibn Muljim.

There is great controversy of the actual location of the grave of Sayyidunā `Alī Raḍiallahu `anhū.

Ibn Sa`d rahimahullah is of the opinion that he was buried in the Qasr al-Imārah (The Chateau of the Emirate) in Kufa. [1] Ibn Khalliqān rahimahullah is of the opinion that this is the most correct opinion. [2]

Imam al-Dhahabī rahimahullah quotes a few opinions in his famous Siyar al-`alām al-Nubalā. One opinion is that Sayyiduna Alī’s body was transported by night by a camel headed towards al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah. On the way, the camel was lost and found by the Ṭayyi’ tribe who buried the body somewhere in the wilderness. [3]

Other opinions suggest that he was buried in the wilderness of Kufa. [4]

In Tārīkh Baghdad, one opinion suggests that Sayyidunā `Alī was buried in the homes of Ja`dah bin Hubayrah. [5]

Others are of the opinion that Sayyiduna Hasan Raḍiallahu anhū transferred his body to al-Madinah al-Munawwarah. [6]

Ibn Hibbān rahimahullah states in his al-Thiqāt that there is nothing authentic with regards to the location of the grave. [7]

According to some reports, the current grave venerated and celebrated by the Shia to be the grave of Sayyiduna `Ali is the grave of al-Mughīrah bin Shu`bah Raḍiallahu anhu. [8]

In conclusion, the geographical location of the grave of Sayyiduna `Alī Raḍiallahu anhu is not authentically established.

And Allah Ta’ālā Knows Best

Mufti Faraz Adam al-Mahmudi,

[1] علي بن أبي طالب بن عبد المطلب بن هاشم بن عبد مناف بن قصي.

ويكنى أبا الْحَسَن وأمه فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتُ أَسَدِ بْنِ هَاشِمِ بْنِ عَبْدِ مناف بن قصي. وقد شهد بدرا ثم نزل الكوفة في الرحبة التي يقال لها رحبة علي في أخصاص كانت فيها ولم ينزل القصر الذي كانت تنزله الولاة قبله. فقتل. رحمه الله. صبيحة ليلة الجمعة لسبع عشرة ليلة خلت من شهر رمضان سنة أربعين وهو ابن ثلاث وستين سنة. ودفن بالكوفة عند مسجد الجماعة في قصر الإمارة. والذي ولي قتله عبد الرحمن بن ملجم (الطبقات الكبرى ج 6 ص 91 دار الكتب)

[2] وأصح ما قيل فيه: إنه مدفون بقصر الإمارة بالكوفة، والله أعلم. (وفيات الأعيان ج 4 ص 55 دار صادر)

[3] وقال صالح بن أحد النحوي: حدثنا صالح بن شعيب، عن الحسن بن شعيب الفروي، أن عليا -رضي الله عنه- صير في صندوق، وكثروا عليه الكافور، وحمل على بعير، يريدون به المدينة، فلما كان ببلاد طيئ، أضلوا البعير ليلا، فأخذته طيئ وهم يظنون أن في الصندوق مالا، فلما رأوه خافوا أن يطلبوا، فدفنوه ونحروا البعير فأكلوه. (سيىر أعلام النبلاء)

[4] وقيل في رحبة الكوفة (تهذيب التهذيب ج 7 ص 338 مطبعة دائرة المعارف النظامية)

[5] أخبرنا ابن رزق قال أنبأنا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عِيسَى الْكُوفِيُّ قال نبأنا محمّد ابن مَنْصُورٍ الْمُرَادِيُّ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو الطَّاهِرِ- يَعْنِي أَحْمَدَ بْنَ عِيسَى الْعُلَوِيَّ- قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ قَالَ: دَفَنْتُ أَبِي عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ فِي حَجَلَةٍ، أَوْ قَالَ- فِي حُجْرَةٍ- مِنْ دُورِ آلِ جَعْدَةَ بْنِ هُبَيْرَةَ. (تاريخ بغداد وذيوله ج 1 ص 146 دار الكتب)

[6] (ح) وَأَخْبَرَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ أَبِي بكر قال أنبأنا عبد الله بن إسحاق الحسن بن إبراهيم البغويّ قال نا عَبْد الملك بْن مُحَمَّد- وهو أَبُو قلابة الرقاشي- قال نبأنا الْحَسَن بْن مُحَمَّد النخعي قَالَ: جاء رجل إِلَى شريك فقال: أين قبر عَلِيّ بْن أَبِي طالب؟

فأعرض عنه، حتى سأله ثلاث مرات. فقال له في الرابعة: نقله والله الْحَسَن بْن عَلِيّ إِلَى المدينة- هذا لفظ حديث البغوي- قَالَ: وَقَالَ عَبْد الملك: وكنت عند أَبِي نعيم فمر قوم على حمير. قلت: أين يذهب هؤلاء؟ قَالَ: يأتون إِلَى قبر عَلِيّ بْن أَبِي طالب، فالتفت إلي أَبُو نعيم. فقال: كذبوا، نقله الْحَسَن ابنه إِلَى المدينة. . (تاريخ بغداد وذيوله ج 1 ص 146 دار الكتب)

[7] وَاخْتلفُوا فِي مَوضِع قَبره وَلم يَصح عِنْدِي شَيْء من ذَلِك فاذكره وَقد قيل إِنَّه دفن بِالْكُوفَةِ فِي قصر الْإِمَارَة عِنْد مَسْجِد الْجَمَاعَة (الثقات ج 2 ص 303 دائرة المعارف العثمانية)

[8] وقال مطين: لو علمت الرافضة قبر من هذا الذي يزار بظاهر الكوفة لرجمته، هذا قبر المغيرة بن شعبة. (تاريخ الإسلام وَوَفيات المشاهير وَالأعلام ج 2 ص 371 دار الغرب الإسلامي)

The view of the ‘Ulama concerning Yazid bin Mu’awiyah

There are many conflicting narrations regarding Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah. Some narrations describe him as being addicted to dancing, wine and music (Al-Bidayah wa ‘l-Nihayah, 11:659). He was also accused of legalizing adultery. Some regard him responsible for the martyrdom of Husayn (Allah be pleased with him). Based on these narrations, some ‘ulama regarded it permissible to curse him and even passed the verdict of kufr (disbelief) on him.

There are however, other narrations that describe him as a pious and learned leader. He is also praised for his night prayers. He was very disheartened at the martyrdom of Husayn (Allah be pleased with him) and he also cursed the killer. Based on these narrations, there are ‘ulama who hold him in great esteem.

A third group of ‘ulama prefer silence and hand over his matter to Allah.  This is the view of the vast majority of ‘ulama including the (majority of the) ‘ulama of Deoband. (Aap Ke Masa’il Aur Unka Hal, 1:171)

Ibn al-Salah (Allah have mercy on him) mentions: “The people have divided in three groups with regards to Yazid. One group loves him and (accepts him) as a leader. Another group criticises and curses him. (The third) group is moderate towards him. They do not (accept him) as a leader, nor do they curse him. They treat him (as they treat) all other kings and leaders (besides the Khulafa al-Rashidin and their likes). This group is on the correct path.” (Aap Ke Masa’il Aur Unka Hal, 1:172 with reference to Ma’arif al-Sunan, 6:8)

The reason for this stance is that many reports condemning Yazid are weak, especially in view of the fact that many senior Sahabah (Allah be pleased with them) took allegiance to Yazid. Yazid’s love for the family of Husayn (Allah be pleased with him) is also recorded in many narrations. Consider the following:

‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) and groups from the household of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not break their allegiance nor pledge to anyone else after pledging to Yazid, as Imam Ahmad narrates (with a chain) to Nafi’ who said : “When the people retreated from Yazid bin Mu’awiyah, Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) gathered his children and family and called out; ‘Verily we have pledged allegiance to this man on the pledge of Allah and His Messenger, and verily I have heard Allah’s messenger say: “On the day of Qiyamah, a flag will be erected for a person who deceives. It will be said: ‘This is the deception of a certain person. And verily the greatest deception besides associating partners to Allah is that a person pledges to another on the pledge of Allah and his messenger, and then breaks his pledge.’” None of you should retreat from Yazid in this matter nor should you exceed any bounds. That will then be a decisive criterion between me and him.” Imam Muslim and Tirmidhi also narrated this on the authority of Sakhr bin Juwayriyyah (R.A) and Imam Tirmidhi has graded it as hasan and sahih. Abu ‘l-Hasan ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah bin Abi Sayf al-Mada’iny narrates (this incident) from Sakhr bin Juwayriyyah from Nafi’ from Ibn ‘Umar. (Al-Bidayah wa ‘l-Nihayah, 11:652)

‘Ali bin Husayn (Allah have mercy on him) mentions: “We entered Damascus on our return from Kufa. Many people had gathered at the door of Yazid. I was taken to him and (found him) seated on a bed. By his side there were people from Sham, and Hijaz who were all silent. I was at the head of my family (therefore) I saluted (first). Yazid asked: “Who of you is ‘Ali bin Husayn?” I responded to him. He commanded that I be brought closer to him so much until my chest was just above his bed. Thereafter he said: “Know well, if your father came to me so that I could join ties with him and fulfil his rights (I would have gladly done so) but Ibn Ziyad, may Allah’s curse be on him, was too fast.” I responded: “Oh Amir al-Mu’minin, we are overtaken with dissension.” Yazid replied: “May Allah remove this dissension.”  I submitted: “Our wealth has been snatched. Make a note that it should be returned to us.” He immediately recorded it down. Thereafter Yazid said: “Stay by me so that I can fulfil your needs and show kindness to you.” I answered that Madinah is much more beloved to me. Yazid retorted: “Being close to me is better for you.” I submitted: “My family is scattered. We would gather them so that they can be thankful to Allah for this bounty.” Thereafter, he equipped and provided for us more than was taken from us to such an extend that he also gave clothes and (other) equipment and sent with us messengers to Madinah. He also allowed that we stop wherever we desire.” (Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, 1:3754)

‘Allamah al-Baladhuri narrates that Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin Abi Talib – famously known as Ibn al-Hanafiyyah – once came to bid farewell to Yazid when departing from Damascus after spending some time with him. Yazid said to him (and he always honoured him): “Oh Ab ‘l-Qasim, if you had seen any bad quality in me (inform me so that) I can reform. And I can practice on the advice you give me.” Ibn al-Hanafiyyah responded: “By the oath of Allah, if I saw any evil in you it would be incumbent on me to prohibit you and inform you of the truth for the pleasure of Allah because Allah has made it binding on the people of knowledge to speak  the truth and not conceal it. However, I never saw any evil in you.” (Ansab al-Ashraf, 5:17)   

In the above narrations, the brother of Husayn (Allah be pleased with him), Ibn al-Hanafiyyah (Allah have mercy on him), testifies that he never saw Yazid perpetrating any evil. In another narration he denies that Yazid ever drank wine, omitted prayers or exceeded the laws of the Qur’an. Ibn al-Hanafiyyah also talks of Yazid’s perpetuity on salah, his love for good, his thirst for knowledge and attachment to the Sunnah.

Hafiz Ibn Kathir (Allah have mercy on him) has related in Al-Bidayah wa ‘l-Nihayah (11:653) that Muhammad bin Muti’i and his companions came to Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, known as Ibn al-Hanafiyyah and desired that he removes Yazid (from the post of a leader). Ibn al-Hanafiyyah blatantly refused. Ibn Muti’i remarked: “Verily Yazid consumes wine, omits prayers and trespasses the laws of the Qur’an.” Ibn al-Hanafiyyah responded: “I never found him to be how you mention. Instead I stayed by him and found him punctual on prayers, pursuing good, asking matters of din and steadfast on the Sunnah.” To this they said: “He did this only to impress you.” Ibn al-Hanafiyyah answered: “What was there for him to fear or have hope in me that he had to show so much humility? Should I inform you of the reality of your accusation that he used to drink wine? If I inform you, you (would realize) you are his partners. If I don’t inform you it would not be permissible for you to bear testimony on what you don’t know.” They said: “This news (of Yazid’s evil) is true, even though we did not see him personally (carry out any of those evils).” Ibn al-Hanafiyyah responded: “Allah does not accept that from those bearing testimony.” Then he recited the verse ‘…except those who bear testimony to the truth knowingly.’ And said: “Therefore I have nothing to do with what you say.” Thereupon Ibn Muti’i and his companions remarked: “Perhaps you dislike someone besides yourself to be the leader. We would make you our leader.” Ibn al-Hanafiyyah replied: “I do not regard it permissible for me to fight for what you want from me-not as a leader nor as a follower.” “But you fought with your father” They interjected. “Bring me the likes of my father so I can fight for what he fought”, responded Ibn al-Hanafiyyah. “So command your sons Abu ‘l-Qasim and Qasim to fight with us”, they instructed. Ibn al-Hanafiyyah responded: “If I were to command them, I should fight myself.” They said: “At least support us so that people can be encouraged to fight.” Ibn al-Hanafiyyah shouted: “Glory be to Allah! Should I command people with something I won’t do and I am not even pleased with? In that case I won’t be faithful to Allah with regards to His servants.” “In that case we’ll force you.” They threatened. Ibn al-Hanafiyyah retorted “In that case I’ll command people to fear Allah and not please the creation at the cost of the anger of the Creator.” And then he left for Makkah.

These narrations show the love and respect Yazid had for the Ahl al-Bayt. The family of Husayn (Allah be pleased with him) are the ones that exonerated Yazid from the evil’s that were attributed to him.

Yazid was also outstanding in his knowledge. Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) praised him for this.

Mada’ini relates that Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) came to Mu’awiyah (Allah be pleased with him) after the demise of Hasan bin ‘Ali (Allah be pleased with him). Thereafter Yazid entered and sat next to Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) to console him. When Yazid got up, Ibn ‘Abbas remarked: “When the Banu Harb departs, the ‘ulama of the people depart.” (Ibn Kathir, 11:642)

Layth used to give him the title of Amir al-Mu’minin

Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi (Allah have mercy on him) says: “If it is objected that Yazid was addicted to wine, we’ll say: This is not accepted unless you bring two witnesses, so who would bear witness for you? In contrast, liable people bore testimony to Yazids good reputation.”

Yahya bin Bukayr relates that Layth used to say: “Amir al-Mu’minin Yazid passed away on such a date…” So he called Yazid ‘Amir al-Mumineen’ years after their rule and dominance. Had Yazid not deserved this title according to Layth, he would merely say ‘Yazid died’.”(Al-’Awasim min alQawasim, 153)

It is also not authentically proven that Yazid had any thing to do with the martyrdom of Husayn (Allah be pleased with him).

Ibn al-Salah says: “It is not authentic according to us that (Yazid) commanded that Husayn (Allah be pleased with him) be martyred.” (al-Khulasah fi bayan rayi Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah fi ‘l-Rafidha, 1:151)

The last words uttered by Yazid were;

اللهم لا تؤاخذني بما لم احبه، ولم ارده، واحكم بيني و بين عبدالله بن زياد

“Oh Allah do not take me to task for what I don’t like, and I didn’t intend (i.e. the martyrdom of Husayn (Allah be pleased with him)), and judge between me and ‘Abdullah bin Ziyad.”

Thereafter he said;

أمنت بالله العظيم

“I believe in Allah, the Glorious”

And with this he passed away. (Al-Bidayah wa ‘l-Nihayah, 11:659) This proves his death with iman.

In view of the above mentioned narrations, the ‘ulama of Deoband have adopted a cautious view and refrained from condemning Yazid. The general principle of Shari’ah is to hold a good opinion about a fellow Muslim brother and also to invoke Allah’s mercy for Muslims in general.

And Allah Knows Best.

[By Mufti Ismail Moosa (2008)]

Checked and approved by Mufti Ebrahim Desai