Saturday, January 26, 2019

An Examination of the Issue of Adoption

The following is the translation of an Arabic article.


The origin in respect to the meaning of “At-Tabanniy” (adoption) is the taking or adoption of the son and it has been used in a metaphorical manner to refer to the taking or adoption of the opinion. It is therefore said for example that: “Tabannaa Zaid Fikran” (Zaid adopted an idea or thought) i.e. that he took a thought for himself making it his. Within the context of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah it is said that “Zaid Tabannaa (adopted) the Hurmah (prohibition) of a matter or the Hall (permissibility) of a matter” etc… Meaning that he had designated for himself a particular Hukm Shar’iy (ruling) from among the numerous rulings. That “he took or adopted it as an opinion that he would regulate his conduct with”.

The intended meaning of “At-Tabanniy” (adoption) in this study, is that meaning which is held by a group in this current time of ours. That is in the case where they say: “The Ameer (leader) of the Jamaa’ah is the one who adopts specific Ahkaam Shar’iyah for the group from amongst the numerous Ahkaam, which the Mujtahideen have held, or as a result of a new Ijtihaad that he has made”. Then, if he adopts a particular Hukm Shar’iy from amongst the Ahkaam, then his opinion becomes the opinion of the Jamaa’ah (group) as a whole and every individual of the group must concede and give up his own opinion to adopt his opinion, and even if that is definitely contrary and opposed to their own convictions.

They also made that a right belonging to the Ameer of the Jamaa’ah in respect to intellectual, political and administrative opinions just as they did in relation to the Shar’iyah opinions. Therefore, any opinion that the Ameer adopts, it becomes obligatory upon all of the individuals of the group to adhere to it in word and deed, and to step down from or give up his own opinion. They do not even accept within their membership the one who does not accept this thought and will also expel from their ranks the one who violates any opinion that the Ameer of the group has adopted and even if he definitely viewed the error of the Ameer’s opinion, as mentioned previously.

They used as evidence for that the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah, may Allah be pleased with them, as they say. They said: “Some of the Sahaabah stepped down from or gave up their opinion for others and so for example ‘Umar stepped down from or gave up his opinion to follow the opinion of ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with them both, and ‘Uthmaan would also do that. In addition, in the Bai’ah (pledge) of ‘Uthmaan, he stepped down from his opinion to adopt the opinion of the two Sheikhs, ‘Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, in order to unify the word (i.e. for the sake of unity). And they said that this happened before the sight and hearing of the Sahaabah and as such represents an Ijmaa’ (consensus) upon the permissibility of a person stepping down from or giving up his opinion to follow the opinion of someone else”.

They then listed specific cases or circumstances in which it is permissible to give up one’s opinion, mixing or confusing between giving up an opinion or stepping down from it and between changing the opinion when a stronger evidence becomes apparent to the Mujtahid than the evidence that he had been relying upon. This case represents the changing of the opinion i.e. cancelling the old opinion and carrying a new one, but it does not represent the person stepping down or giving up his opinion which he is convinced of due to particular circumstances. In any case, what has been presented represents the summary of their opinion and the most prominent of what they have said regarding the subject. That is whilst this opinion of theirs represents a pure error and the explanation of that will be presented in the following examination:

Difference in respect to understanding the address of the Shaari’ (Legislator) has be known throughout the life of the Muslims, from the era of the Nabi and through the eras that followed it, until our current day. However, this difference did not manifest a noticeable negative effect during the era of the Nabi . That is because if required, the matter was raised to the Nabi who would resolve it for those disputing; either by way of approving of the opinions which were at variance with each other or by specifying a particular view from them and resolving the matter. That was in addition to that this occurred on a small scale due to the newness of the era of legislation and the relatively small number of those who were concerned with memorising it and understanding it.

However, following the death of the Nabi , the space for difference of opinion expanded amongst those who were concerned with understanding the address of the Shaari’ (Legislator) and particular after the number of Muslims increased and the number of Fuqahaa’ and Mujtahideen increased along with that. As such they differed in respect to one single Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) which reached the level of opposites on occasions. In the case where the Hukm of Allah in respect to a single person can only be one decisively, it became obligatory upon the Muslim to specify for himself a Hukm from among the plurality of Ahkaam to which he would adhere during his life. This represents the origin of “At-Tabanniy” (adoption) in respect to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah. Taking into consideration the disparity of the people in relation to their capabilities and concerns in respect to understanding Islaam, they naturally ended up being divided into levels:

The First: Those who possessed the sciences (i.e. knowledge) of the Shar’iyah which qualified them to understand the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy from the Khitaab (address) of the Shaari’ (Legislator), without needing to refer back to anyone else in respect to that. These were known as the Mujtahideen and the Hukm of Allah in respect to them is what they arrived to via their own Ijtihaadaat. They were of different categories and the Fuqahaa’ have held a consensus (Ijmaa’) that it is not permitted for those to leave their own opinion which they have arrived to, to adopt other than it, in the case where they believe that their opinion is the strongest.

The Second: These are those who have less knowledge than the Mujtahideen, in the case where they have the capability to examine the evidences and outweigh them in terms of strength. However, they are incapable of deeply examining the related evidences to the Mas’alah that is being investigated. Rather, they look into the issue (Mas’alah) the evidences of which have been specified by others and these were known as the Mutabbi’een i.e. those who follow the strongest evidence wherever it is found and are not restricted to following any of the Mujtahideen. The Hukm of Allah in respect to them is that which they is weighed by them to be strongest in relation to the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue)/

The Third: These are those who are incapable of Ijtihaad and of weighing the strength of the evidences. The one who fell under this category came to be known as the Muqallid ‘Aamiy (blind imitator). Usually most of the people fall under this category and particularly when the thought has declined, the sun of Islaam has set (disappeared i.e. the Islamic society and rule) and as a consequence the Deen has weakened amongst the people and with that their concern for it and for its sciences or knowledge has also diminished and weakened. The Muqallid Al-‘Aamiy, like the rest of the Muslims has been addressed with the address (Khitaab) of Islaam and it is necessary for him, so that he can adhere to Islaam in his life, to specify a single Hukm from the plurality of Ahkaam to adhere to and regulate his conduct by. Because he is incapable of that, he relies completely upon other than him in respect to becoming knowledgeable about the Hukm (ruling) of Allah in respect to him, although it is not permissible for him to imitate and follow an opinion which he is not at ease or confident with.

However, this ease does not refer to his mood or desires and whims which he follows. Rather, it must be based upon confidence or trust in respect to the Taqwaa and level of knowledge. It is therefore obligatory upon the Muqallid Al-‘Aamiy to exert his effort to become aware of the one who has the most Taqwaa and knowledge from among the Mujtahideen. If he then assures himself in respect to one of them and his breast is opened to him, it becomes obligatory upon him to imitate him and no one else, whilst it is not Halaal to move away from following him to another unless his conviction changes.

It is permissible for him to make Taqleed (imitation) to more than one Mujtahid from among the Mujtahideen and it is not a condition that he imitates one of them in everything that he says. That is because the effort that he has expended in relation to becoming aware of the Taqwaa and knowledge level could lead him to the conclusion that Abu Haneefah, for example, is most knowledgeable in the area of Mu’aamalaat (societal transactions and interactions) whilst Ibn Hanbal, is the closest to the truth in respect to the ‘Ibaadaat, and so on … If he came to hold such a conviction, then he would imitate every Imaam he believed to be closest to what is correct. That is because it is not taken for granted for there to exist a particular person who is the most knowledgeable in every matter after the Nabi , and if that was possible, it would be extremely rare.  

This was indicated to in his Hadeeth which was related by Ahmad, Ibn Maajah, At-Tirmidhiy and An-Nasaa’iy, in which it was mentioned: “And the most knowledgeable of them in respect to the Halaal and the Haraam is Mu’aadh Bin Jabal, the most well-read of them in respect to Kitaab of Allah is Ubayy and the most knowledgeable of them in respect to the Faraa’id (i.e. rules of inheritance) is Zaid Bin Thaabit”. Such a Hadeeth does not represent a historical narration to be taken for mere pleasure, but rather it represents a directing from him , for the one who is ignorant of a matter, from those mentioned, to be directed to the one whom the Nabi specified to be most knowledgeable in respect to that matter.

This indicates explicitly to that a Zaid (i.e. particular person), from amongst the Mujtahideen, could be more aware than others in respect to a particular matter, despite the capability of others to provide an opinion in relation to it. This represents a matter which is comprehended by anyone who has the minimal knowledge of Fiqh and the reality of the Fuqahaa’. Therefore, the claim to follow one Mujtahid in every matter always, is not correct. Following a single Mujtahid is permitted just as it is permissible to follow more than one Mujtahid. The matter returns back to the condition or reality of the one being imitated or followed. He (the Muqallid) could trust or be confident that a particular Zaid from the Mujtahideen has the most Taqwaa and is the most knowledgeable in every matter, just as his confidence could in respect to the Mujtahideen could differ in accordance to the subject matter.

The important matter in this issue, is that the Muslim, regardless of the level or category he belongs to, is obliged to be at ease and assured in respect to the Hukm that he is adhering to, whilst it is not Halaal (permissible) for him to leave that which he is at ease and assured about, to adopt that which he is not assured or at ease about. The Messenger indicated to this in the Hadeeth related by Al-Bukhaariy, that the Messenger said to Waabisah when he came asking about Al-Birr and Al-Ithm (righteousness and sinfulness): “O Waabisah, seek the verdict of your heart and your Nafs three times. Al-Birr (righteousness) is what the Nafs is at ease with and Al-Ithm (sinfulness) is what causes uneasiness in the Nafs and wavering in the breast, and even if the people continue to give you verdicts (i.e. that something is Halaal)”.

The Messenger explained the necessity of making effort to attain comfort and ease of mind when hearing the Hukm from anyone and to not suffice oneself with the mere hearing of it. Exactly similar to this, is when the Muslim hears a number of opinions in relation to a specific Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue), as it is necessary for him to be assured and at ease in respect to the one he is imitating (in opinion). This (understanding) was acted upon throughout the Islamic periods and none of the Khulafaa’ of the Muslims, upon their different Madhaahib, thought about making the Muslims leave their opinions and follow the opinion of the Imaam.

That was because the Mujtahideen and those who followed and imitated them, had opinions contrary to the opinions of the rulers in every time, whilst no ruler thought about making them leave their opinions and adopt his. So we have the example of ‘Umar and ‘Ali in addition to the rest of the Sahaabah, may Allah be pleased with them all, holding opinions which were contrary to the opinion of Abu Bakr whilst he was the Khalifah, and he did not make them leave those opinions. The disagreement between Bilaal and ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with them, is well-known and famous, to the point that ‘Umar made the Du’aa: “O Allah suffice me with Bilaal and his companionship”, whilst he did not think about making them leave their opinion by force, “regardless of the need for that”.

And when one of the A’immah thought about making the people leave their opinion and adopt the opinion he had adopted, he failed miserably in that, just as what happened in the Fitnah (turmoil or trial) related to the issue of the creation of the Qur’aan in the time of the Khalifah Al-Ma’moon. This agitated the people, not because of its connection to the Aqeedah, but rather because the issue was related to making a group of the people leave that which they were at ease and assured upon, to that which they were uneasy and unassured about. Therefore, had the attempt been to make the followers of Ash-Shaafi’iy leave the opinion of their Imaam in Mu’aamalaat (societal transactions and interactions) to adopt the opinion of Ibn Hanbal, for example, then such an attempt would have met the same fate in terms of failure, and that is evident.

As for the Khalifah adopting a particular opinion and the submission of the people to his rule in respect to implementation, then that is not considered to be the giving up of an opinion. The Daleel (evidence) for that, is that it is permitted for the one submitting to the opinion of the Khalifah, in respect to implementation, to teach the people with an opinion contrary to that of the Khalifah’s. Indeed, it is permissible to spread his contrary opinion amongst the people and account the Khalifah upon its basis. Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy explicitly stated that in his book “Ash-Shakhsiyah” when discussing the adoption of the Khalifah. He explained that it does not cover study and culturing. Consequently, if the Imaam Al-Aazham (the greatest ruler, i.e. Khalifah), who has been appointed over the people, does not possess the right to make the people descend from and give up their opinion to adopt his, then by greater reason, that is not permitted for the Ameer Al-Khaass (specific leader i.e. of the group).

As for the claim of the permissibility of giving up and descending from the opinion because some of the Sahaabah gave up their opinions to follow others, then this is also an incorrect claim and does not cover the giving up of the opinion whilst believing it to be the strongest or preponderant opinion. That is because this Riwaayah (report) is not Saheeh in origin. Then, if we were to suppose its soundness, the Sahaabah did not used descend from and give up their opinions to some others, in a permanent form, and the fact that they descended sometimes and on other occasions they did not, indicates that their descending was only due to a reason that called for that. The most likely of possibilities is that they would descend from or give up their opinion, when they were convinced that an opinion which they had heard, was stronger. That is because, this explanation alone is in agreement and conformity with the governing origin, which is to follow the Daleel weighed to be strongest. Then, when they did not descend from their opinion, that was because they were not convinced with the opinion that they had heard, and this represents a process of outweighing, even if any discussion is not apparent. That is because hearing the opinion of others and weighing it oneself, without discussion, and his measuring of what he has heard, represents a natural matter that occurs, and it represents a weighing process as we have discussed previously and not a form of Taqleed. Included within this weighing process was that some of the Sahaabah would give up their opinion for the opinion of others.

As for what was related from ‘Abdur Rahman Bin ‘Auf and his statement to ‘Uthmaan, may Allah be pleased with them, during his Bai’ah: “I give you Bai’ah (the pledge) upon (the basis) that you rule by the Kitaab of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger and the Sunnah of the two Sheikhs”, then this does not indicate to what has been suggested in relation to this issue. That is because the Ameer, any Ameer, whether he was a general Ameer (like the Khalifah) or a specific Ameer (like the Ameer of a journey or group), does not have to abolish what his predecessor has left in terms of laws, when he assumes the position of ruling. It is permitted for him to keep the matters and affairs proceeding according to what his predecessor had determined and even if that was contrary to his opinion. It is also permitted for him to abolish them and this is not regarded as stepping down or giving up the opinion.

For it to be regarded as stepping down or giving up of the opinion, it must be (in origin) obligatory upon him to regulate the matters, including both those which have been passed and those which are new, according to his opinion alone. Concerning this, if this was obligatory in respect to the new matters, it is not obligatory in relation to those matters which have passed. And as long as it is not obligatory upon him, then his leaving of the past matters, as they are, is not considered to be a stepping down. In respect to those laws, he is like the rest of the Muslims he obliged to submit to them when they encompass him, whilst possessing the right to disagree or differ with them in study and culturing.

The acceptance of ‘Uthmaan to the condition of ‘Abdur Rahman Bin ‘Auf, may Allah be pleased with them, is understood from this angle and not from the angle of bringing together the word of the Muslims (i.e. for the sake of their unity). That is because, had it been for the sake of the unity of the Muslims, then that implies an accusation against ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, that he refused to bring together or unify their word, whilst it is very unlikely that he would refuse or reject such a matter. In addition, the unifying of the word of the Muslims where it is necessary cannot be perceived to be in Mubaah (permissible). It would either be Fard or Mandoob, whilst ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, did not fall back or tarry from either of these two, and specifically in relation to such a situation as this was.

In addition, the most important matter to be paid attention to here, is that giving up the stronger (Raajih) opinion for an opinion that is Marjooh (outweighed i.e. weaker), only occurs in the area of the Taqleed (imitation) of the Marjooh, whilst the outweighed (Marjooh) is not considered to be a Deen (i.e. valid worship) in respect to the one views it as such. And the (legitimacy of the) like of this Taqleed (imitation) must be established upon a Qat’iy (definite) Daleel (evidence) just as the definite evidence has been established for the (legitimacy of the) Taqleed of the Raajih (stronger preponderant opinion). That is because if it is not established upon a definite evidence, that would mean that the Muslim would be undertaking the action whilst being doubtful about the reward of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla for him for undertaking it, and that represents a “Mumtani” (prevented) matter to abstain from. That is because when the Muslim makes Taqleed (i.e. follows or imitates) the Raajih (stronger or preponderant) opinion, even if is Zhanniy (indefinite), he knows definitely (Qat’an) that Allah will reward him for it due to the definite Daleel establishing that. The same must be present in respect to the matter of the Taqleed of the Marjooh (outweighed or weaker), and that does not exist, which indicates that the Taqleed (following) of the outweighed or weaker opinion is not considered to be following the Deen.

All of this relates to the Fiqhiy perspective of this subject matter. As for the practical reality of the issue of “At-Tabanniy” (adoption), then whoever applies the least amount of examination will be able to comprehend with ease, that the adoption which is meant to make the individuals of a particular group adhere to a single opinion, is nothing more than an imaginary thought, the application of which is impossible, whilst no one apart from an ignorant or arrogant person would claim the possibility of its existence. Let us examine the statement of the Messenger , who was the purest in the tongue of the Arabs, which was spoken to his companions who were the standard bearers of the Arabic language, when he said to them: “None of you prays ‘Asr except in Bani Quraizhah”.

Let’s look at this statement and how simple it is, and yet despite that, the people of the language “The Sahaabah” divided into two groups in respect to understanding it, and had they spread out across the horizons, who knows how many divisions they would become. If that is the case, when what would we think when an Ameer of a particular Jamaa’ah distributes a publication to the individuals of his Jamaa’ah about As-Sababiyah (causality) or Mantiq ul-Ihsaas (logic of sensation) or the intellectual sensation, whilst he is not the purest of Arabs and the individuals of his group are not the Sahaabah? How much will those upon whom this publication was distributed be divided? And if they are divided in respect to the understanding of much of what is provided to them from the Ameer, then what is the value of adoption?

That is because the thought itself is an imaginary fictional one which is impossible to be applied in reality. This is particularly the case when you are talking about a situation where one person distributes orders and thoughts to thousands of ordinary people. Is it possible to envisage that they will be unified upon one single understanding for what he said? Let alone, the situation when they are studying books and each studies according to his understanding, whilst the understanding of the teachers differs, the way they deliver to those receiving is different, and each of those receiving understands what has been provided in a different or contrasting way to his brother. Therefore, the adoption, if it exists in the view of some, its presence is nevertheless theoretical and does not have practical value. That is with the exception of some of the fundamental concepts of the Jamaa’ah, whilst the unity upon them in origin returns to the conviction in them and not to the reality of adoption.

In addition, the original position in respect to adoption, is that it represents an argument against the one holding it and not the opposite. That is because it dictates that the group stating it descends to the opinion of others from the other groups for the purpose of unifying the word and not the opposite. That is because, had the opinion been possible, then the original position in respect to it would be for the one who is convinced of it to descend down from and give up his opinion to adopt the opinion of other than him. If, however, the group holds this, holds on to it firmly and demands others to descend to adopt its opinion, then this in truth and reality, represents the opposite of the matter and does not represent acting upon the opinion or its application.

Examples of the claimed adoption is only when one person descends from or gives up his opinion for the well-being of the Jamaa’ah. As for the Jamaa’ah giving us its opinion for one person, then this is a claim which does not exist practically at all. That is because it is the Ameer who descends from his opinion for the sake of the Jamaa’ah (collective) and not the opposite. In addition, adoption makes the door of those who hold it narrow and does not expand to encompass except those who believe in it. So for example, it does not expand to include the one who views the obligation of the Niqaab for the woman, if those who hold adoption adopt the opposite.

By branching out upon this concept and upon the other opinions that the group adopts, we will find many Muslims falling outside of the Jamaa’ah (group), based upon the argument that they do not adopt what the group adopts. Indeed, if we were to bring our time together with the time of the Sahaabah themselves, we would find that many of the Sahaabah would not be found suitable for membership of the Jamaa’ah (group), because they carry contrary opinions to that which the group has adopted. And that represents a calamity because had the door been left wide in the absence of adoption, it would be wide enough to encompass every Muslim whose opinion is based upon Islaam.

Also, the one who scrutinises the matter of adoption finds that it weakens the Deen in the Nafs of the one who is subject to it and tames his Nafs upon laxity in respect to Taqwaa. That is because when an individual from a particular group sees that a certain matter is Haraam according to the Shar’a, whilst his Jamaa’ah views that it is Halaal, and then he adopts the opinion of the Jamaa’ah whilst being convinced of his opinion, he will feel, in respect to his Nafs (self), that what he is practising is not from the Deen. If such examples were to become numerous, it would have become easy for him to abandon or give up any matter, because it would have become deep-rooted in him that abandoning and giving up matters is permissible, whilst the important matter in respect to him is that the opinion which he imitates or follows has been stated by a Faqeeh from amongst the Fuqahaa’, whilst there is no difference between that and satisfying desires.

Adoption also eliminates the creative and elevational aspect which must dominate over the Jamaa’ah. That is because it makes it restricted to one person and he is the one who possesses the right. As such, anyone who arrives to an opinion contrary to the adopted opinion must discuss it with the person possessing the right alone whilst he cannot broadcast it amongst the individuals of the group or discuss it with them. And it is the one who possesses the right alone who decides the acceptance or rejection, which means that the elevation or progressive development is restricted and limited to him alone.

The statement that the one under command had participated in it through his research and examination is not correct and that is because when the person attempts one time after another to convince the person possessing the right of adoption and fails each time, does not find except one of two matters: Either isolation/seclusion or thinking only in respect to that which serves the opinion of the Ameer regardless of the correctness or error. Each of these two matters is worse than the other, in addition to the prevention or forbiddance of the discussion of a particular opinion with others is Haraam according to the Shar’a. It is not permissible for anyone to impose this upon the people, as we would then have made it permissible for someone to not listen to others, and then it would only be fair for others to not be permitted to listen to us. And if that was to happen, who then would we carry the Da’wah to? And how will we make the people listen to us?

The adoption also kills the spirit of ‘Ilm (knowledge). That is because the movement within its sphere does not assist the existence of ‘Ulamaa’ or Fuqahaa’. It should not be said that Da’wah carriers and not ‘Ulamaa’ is what the Jamaa’aat (groups) require. That is because here we have the example of the Sahaabah, may Allah be pleased with them, who are carriers of the Da’wah and the most knowledgeable of the ‘Ulamaa’. They were in the highest peaks of knowledge when they discussed An-Najaashiy at the beginning of their period with the Nabi . That is because, the natural free movement of the Da’wah carriers contributes definitely to the generation of ‘Ulamaa’ and Fuqahaa’ at an amazing speed, whilst the constraints of adoption limit its existence, if it doesn’t completely eliminate it.

And finally, but possible not last, the adoption has no market for itself except amongst those who are ready to be constrained in their thought or do not possess an opinion to begin with. In summary, it is worth picturing, as just one example, how it is possible for a person who holds an opinion like Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, to be regulated by the law of adoption, in the case where he was been commanded and not issuing the commands himself.

It is true that the Jamaa’ah must have a thought which it adopts, however this thought must not go beyond the thoughts that express it so that others are capable and enabled to pass judgment upon it in respect to it fulfilling the obligation or not. These thoughts do not go beyond its fundamentals at all and do not include the branch Ahkaam at all. The disagreement of the individual person with a particular group or his agreement with it upon a branch opinion does not make him fulfilling his obligation or his non-fulfilment of it, whereas his disagreement with it in respect to its method or its objective, would by its nature represent a basis by which the fulfilment of the obligation or non-fulfilment would be judged.

The perception that the group would collapse by the abandonment of the adoption is an incorrect perception. That is because even if its exists amongst some as a law, it nevertheless is non-existent from the perspective of the reality or practically, whilst its non-existence did not eliminate the group, nor did it change its colour. Many of the groups present in the Islamic and non-Islamic world today have never had an adoption and yet they are still standing and present. In addition, those who adopt the issue of adoption also have opinions which are not adopted whilst no effect in respect to what is adopted or not adopted appears when they interact with the people. What then is the value or worth of adoption them, other than constraining the people and the Jamaa’ah itself.

In conclusion, the adoption which compels another person to describe the Mubaah with Haraam and vice versa, does not have a Daleel (evidence) from Islaam and no Faqeeh has ever stated that it is permissible. Indeed, it represents a lie, because if the description of the Halaal as Haraam or vice versa, is not a lie, then what then is a lie? And if the Raajih (stronger or preponderant) opinion requires a Qat’y Daleel for it to be followed, then the need in relation to following the Marjooh (outweighed and weaker) opinion, for a definite evidence, is far greater. Based upon this it is stated that the adoption of the group Haraam to be imposed or to act in accordance with or to call for.

The group which seeks to revive the Muslims must have a strategy that encompasses all of them and particularly when it is working to establish the Khilafah upon the earth and the Khilafah encompasses all of the Muslims, whatever their colours (i.e. variations). It should not constrict or narrow its door to a Muslim whose opinion is based upon Islaam and even if his opinion differs to theirs. This is whilst much of the time the disagreement or difference of some groups with others, due to the issue of adoption or similar to that partisanship towards the opinion, was a cause for quarrelling, hating one another and dispute, which is contrary to what the Ummah needs today in respect to unifying its word.

Many of the lessons can be summed up in to statements; that the secret of the power or strength is their gathering together to strike the Muslims from one bow, whilst the secret of the weakness of the Muslims lies in their fragmentation and division. There is no question that the thought of adoption and similar to that partisanship to the opinion has had an impact in respect to the fragmentation and division. Therefore, it is to cast out division that we call you to O Muslims and for you to be one row or rank like a firm building in the face of the enemy, and to accept that which the Rabb of ‘Izzah (might) has accepted from you in respect to difference in opinion. That is because the secret to unity is the acceptance of difference and the disbelievers have not united (against us) except because they accepted the existence of such difference.

We are an Ummah, before the coming of which, the world was upon one opinion: “The opinion of the King, Caesar and Priest”. Then Allah favoured us with Islaam, accepted from us difference and made it obligatory upon us to accept it, and so we came by the favour of Allah brothers, one single row or rank in the face of our enemy, in spite of the existence of major differences of opinion in respect to the branches, which reached to the existence of fifty opinion in relation to one single Mas’alah, may Allah reward the holders of all of those opinions. We are those from who emerged Bilaal “the slave of yesterday” who would discuss his opinion with the head of state, whilst none denounced that due to their knowledge that he was doing that which was rewardable from Allah. It is not rightful guidance for Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla to reward a person for an opinion whilst we fight him for it.

If we do not return to how we were as an Ummah which accepts difference upon the basis of Islaam and only reject that which is not based upon or does not emanate from Islaam, then we will remain revolving in an empty cycle; one generation following another without any result, whilst our enemy grazes amongst us and our resources however and whatever way he wishes. So let us accept that which Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has accepted and placed reward upon and let us reject that which Allah has made Haraam, so that we return as we had been to being the best Ummah raised up for mankind, all of us holding firmly upon the rope of Allah, pleased with those whom Allah was pleased with from our brothers and even if they disagree with us in respect to opinion. 

Sheikh Abu Islam Yusuf Shaqeero, Palestine  

Monday, January 21, 2019

Adoption & an evaluation of the Riwayaat leading to the Baya' of Uthman (ra)

I present this research to the Ulema, da’wah carriers and the Transitional Committee (Lajnah) which was formed to study and evaluate what led to the failure of the various revivalist parties and to determine a path ahead for the work to re-establish the Khilafah. This paper intends to discuss one of the main evidences used to prove the subject of adoption within a group and the riwayaat surrounding the subject. I make dua that Allah (swt) guides me to the Haqq and gives me the tawfeeq to do what will please him alone. I make dua that He (swt) guides the Lajnah and its members to setup a movement upon the correct methodology to work to re-establish the Khilafah upon the path of Prophethood.

Introduction


The subject of Umar’s (ra) death and the incidents that took place during the ensuing period until the appointment of Uthman (ra) as the Khalifah is of much significance.

From among the significant issues, the first issue is with regards to the instruction given by Umar (ra) to the people of Shura to choose one among themselves as a Khalifah within a period of three days and that the dissenter should be killed if he opposed what the others had arrived at. This incident has been the basis to prove the obligation to appoint a khalifah within a period of 3 days and 2 nights and the incident is considered as Ijmaa’ As Sahabah. The argument is that Umar’s (ra) had ordered fifty from the Ansar to kill the dissenter from the members of the Shura and he gave his order in the presence of the Sahabah (ra) and no one was reported to have denied it or disagreed with it, therefore it becomes Ijma’a of the Sahabah.

The second issue is with regards to the conditional Baya’ that was offered to Ali (ra) which he did not accept and then it was offered to Uthman (ra) who accepted the Baya’ unconditionally. Ali’s (ra) refusal to accept the conditions of the Baya’ which was to follow the Sunnah of the two Shaykhayn or the two Khulafaa ar Rashideen (i.e Abu Bakr & Umar (raa)) and Uthman’s (ra) acceptance of the conditions of the Baya’ has been the basis to prove that it is wajib to leave the personal opinion and adopt another opinion for the sake of unity of the Ummah.

This research is regarding the authenticity of what took place after Umar (ra) was stabbed and his appointment of the Shura (council) of six from the ten promised Jannah and the subsequent appointment of Uthman (ra). This paper seeks to study the authenticity of the narrations regarding the incidents and specially with regards to the additional conditions placed by Abd AlRahman bin Awf (ra) at the time of the contraction of the Baya’ to follow the Seerah of the Shaykhayn (Umar (ra) & AbuBakr (ra)) which Ali (ra) refused while Uthman (ra) accepted and hence was given the Baya’a and appointed as Khalifah.

Research Methodology


My methodology for research includes:
a. Study of the relevant narrations in the books of Tarikh and the Tahqeeqs/Takhreej of these books wherever available
b. The source of the narrations wherever available within the books of Tareekh
c. Review of literature addressing the subject

Riwayat that have reached us on the subject


I have studied the following original texts where the discussion has been narrated and I have produced them here along with their translations.

Firstly, I will present the various narrations as they have been presented in the books of Tarikh and the books of Hadith. I will also outline wherever the Author quotes the Sanad (chain of narration). Following that I will present the views of various Muhadditheen & Muhaqqiqeen on the subject.

1. Musnad Ahmad

مسند أحمد (1: 162)
حدثنا : ‏ ‏عبد الله ‏ ‏، حدثني : ‏ ‏سفيان بن وكيع ‏ ‏، حدثني : ‏ ‏قبيصة ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏أبي بكر بن عياش ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏عاصم ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏أبي وائل ‏ ‏قال : ‏ ‏قلت ‏ ‏لعبد الرحمن بن عوف ‏: ‏كيف ‏ ‏بايعتم ‏ ‏عثمان ‏ ‏وتركتم ‏ ‏علياًً ‏ ‏(ر) ‏ ‏قال : ما ذنبي قد بدأت ‏ ‏بعلي ‏ ‏فقلت : أبايعك على كتاب الله وسنة رسوله وسيرة ‏ ‏أبي بكر ‏ ‏وعمر ‏ ‏(ر) ‏ ‏قال : فقال فيما إستطعت ، قال : ثم ‏ ‏عرضتها على ‏ ‏عثمان ‏ ‏(ر) ‏ ‏فقبلها.
Abdulrahman bin Awf (ra) said to Ali (ra): I pledge Allegiance to you on the book of Allah and the Sunnah of his prophet and the Seerah of AbuBakr and Umar, so he (Ali (ra)) replied, according to my Istita’aa (capability). Musnad Ahmad Volume 1, Page 162,

The Sanad of the Hadith in Musnad Ahmad has Sufyan Bin Wakee’ who was deemed unacceptable and weak by Bukhari, AdDhahabi, Abu Dawud and others. Hence the hadith is unacceptable.

2. Saheeh Bukhari

فالله عليك لئن أمرتك لتعدلن، ولئن أمرت عثمان لتسمعن ولتطيعن. ثم خلا بالآخر فقال له مثل ذلك. فلما أخذ الميثاق قال: أرفع يدك يا عثمان، فبايعه، فبايع له علي، وولج أهل الدار فبايعوه.
صحيح البخاري 3: 1356
So I ask you by Allah to promise that if I select you as a ruler you will do justice, and if I select `Uthman as a ruler you will listen to him and obey him.” Then he took the other (i.e. `Uthman) aside and said the same to him. When `Abdur-Rahman secured (their agreement to) this covenant, he said, “O `Uthman! Raise your hand.” So he (i.e. `Abdur-Rahman) gave him (i.e. `Uthman) the solemn pledge, and then `Ali gave him the pledge of allegiance and then all the (Medina) people gave him the pledge of allegiance.
Saheeh Bukhari Volume 3, Page 1356,

This hadith from Bukhari is a Saheeh hadith. The hadith of placing the condition of following the two previous khulafah’s seerah was not mentioned and not was it indicated in any manner and what was relayed was Abdulrahmans Qawl (saying) to Uthman (ra): , “O `Uthman! Raise your hand.”

3. Saheeh Bukhari

حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد بن أسماء: حدثنا جويرية، عن مالك،عن الزُهريِّ: أنَّ حميد بن عبد الرحمن أخبره: أنَّ المسور بن مخرمة أخبره: أنَّ الرهط الذين ولاهم عمر اجتمعوا فتشاوروا، فقال لهم عبد الرحمن: لست بالذي أنافسكم على هذا الأمر، ولكنكم إن شئتم اخترت لكم منكم، فجعلوا ذلك إلى عبد الرحمن، فلما ولَّوا عبد الرحمن أمرهم، فمال الناس على عبد الرحمن، حتى ما أرى أحداً من الناس يتبع أولئك الرهط ولا يطأ عقبه، ومال الناس على عبد الرحمن يشاورونه تلك الليالي، حتى إذا كانت الليلة التي أصبحنا منها فبايعنا عثمان، قال المسور: طرقني عبد الرحمن بعد هجع من الليل، فضرب الباب حتى استيقظتُ، فقال أراك نائماً، فوالله ما اكتحلت هذه الثلاث بكبير نوم، انطلق فادعوا الزبير وسعداً، فدعوتهما له فشاورهما، ثم دعاني فقال: ادع لي علِيًّا، فدعوته فناجاه حتى ابهارَّ الليل، ثم قام عليّ من عنده وهو على طمع، وقد كان عبد الرحمن يخشى من عليٍّ شيئاً، ثم قال: ادع لي عثمان، فدعوته، فناجاه حتى فرَّق بينهما المؤذِّن بالصبح، فلما صلَّى للناس الصبح، واجتمع أولئك الرهط عند المنبر، فأرسل إلى من كان حاضراً من المهاجرين والأنصار، وأرسل إلى أمراء الأجناد، وكانوا وافوا تلك الحَجَّة مع عمر، فلما اجتمعوا تشهَّد عبد الرحمن ثم قال: أمَّا بعد يا عليُّ، إنِّي قد نظرت في أمر الناس، فلم أرهم يعدلون بعثمان، فلا تجعلنَّ على نفسك سبيلاً. فقال: أبايعك على سنَّة الله ورسوله والخليفتين من بعده، فبايعه عبد الرحمن، وبايعه الناس: المهاجرون، والأنصار، وأمراء الأجناد، والمسلمون.

Al-Miswar bin Makhrama Narrated: The group of people whom `Umar had selected as candidates for the Caliphate gathered and consulted each other. `Abdur-Rahman said to them, “I am not going to compete with you in this matter, but if you wish, I would select for you a caliph from among you.” So all of them agreed to let `Abdur-Rahman decide the case. So when the candidates placed the case in the hands of `Abdur-Rahman, the people went towards him and nobody followed the rest of the group nor obeyed any after him. So the people followed `Abdur-Rahman and consulted him all those nights till there came the night we gave the oath of allegiance to `Uthman. Al-Miswar (bin Makhrama) added: `Abdur-Rahman called on me after a portion of the night had passed and knocked on my door till I got up, and he said to me, “I see you have been sleeping! By Allah, during the last three nights I have not slept enough. Go and call Az-Zubair and Sa`d.’ So I called them for him and he consulted them and then called me saying, ‘Call `Ali for me.” I called `Ali and he held a private talk with him till very late at night, and then ‘Al, got up to leave having had much hope (to be chosen as a Caliph) but `Abdur-Rahman was afraid of something concerning `Ali. `Abdur-Rahman then said to me, “Call `Uthman for me.” I called him and he kept on speaking to him privately till the Mu’adh-dhin put an end to their talk by announcing the Adhan for the Fajr prayer. When the people finished their morning prayer and that (six men) group gathered near the pulpit, `Abdur-Rahman sent for all the Muhajirin (emigrants) and the Ansar present there and sent for the army chief who had performed the Hajj with `Umar that year. When all of them had gathered, `Abdur- Rahman said, “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,” and added, “Now then, O `Ali, I have looked at the people’s tendencies and noticed that they do not consider anybody equal to `Uthman, so you should not incur blame (by disagreeing).” Then `Abdur-Rahman said (to `Uthman), “I gave the oath of allegiance to you on condition that you will follow Allah’s Laws and the traditions of Allah’s Apostle and the traditions of the two Caliphs after him.” So `Abdur-Rahman gave the oath of allegiance to him, and so did the people including the Muhajirin (emigrants) and the Ansar and the chiefs of the army staff and all the Muslims.

Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 4, Section 97 — Kitaab Al Ahkaam (judgements) under the Chapter of How do the people give the Baya’ah to the Imam

This hadith from Bukhari is a Saheeh hadith. The hadith of placing the condition of following the two previous khulafa’s is discussed but only with Uthman and not with Ali. Infact Ali is not reported to have been offered the Baya’ as has been quoted by Ibn Jarir At Tabari in his Book Tarikh At Tabari. Rather Ali was informed that people prefer Uthman over him therefore he should accept.

4. Tarikh Yaqoobi — Yaqoobi (Died 284 Hijri) — Volume 2, Page 162

وفي تاريخ اليعقوبي 2: 162
ابايعكم بكتاب الله وسنة نبيّه ما استطعت
وعندما اعاد عليه عبد الرحمن القول ثانية، قال(ع): إن كتاب الله وسنّة نبيه لا يحتاج معهما إلى اجيري (أي طريقة) أحد.
I pledge allegiance to you on the Book of Allah (swt) and the sunnah of his Prophet (saw) according to my Istita’aa (capability).
Yaqoobi does not mention any Isnaad and that is enough to reject the riwayah (narration). Furthermore, he is well known to be inclined towards the Shia

5. Tarikh Ibn Khaldoon — Ibn Khaldoon (D: 808 Hijri) — Volume 2, Page 126

إبن خلدون — تاريخ إبن خلدون — الجزء : ( 2 ) — رقم الصفحة : 126
ونادى سعد يا عبد الرحمن أفرغ قبل أن يفتتن الناس فقال : نظرت وشاورت فلا تجعلن أيها الرهط على أنفسكم سبيلاًً ، ثم قال لعلي عليك عهد الله وميثاقه لتعملن بكتاب الله وسنة رسوله وسيرة الخليفتين من بعده ، قال : أرجو أن إجتهد بل أن أفعل بمبلغ علمي وطاقتي ، وقال : لعثمان مثل ذلك فقال : نعم فرفع رأسه إلى سقف المسجد ويده في يد عثمان وقال : اللهم أشهد إني قد جعلت ما في عنقي من ذلك في عنق عثمان فبايعه الناس.

Saad bin Abi Waqqas said, “Get it over with, Abd Al Rahman, before our people fall into civil war” Abd Al Rahman said “ I have looked into the matter and consulted. Do not, members of the electoral council (Shura) , lay yourselves open to criticism” He summoned Ali and said , “Gods agreement and covenant is binding on you, Will you indeed act in accordance with Gods book, the practice of Messeneger and the example of the two caliphs after him? (Ali) replied “I hope to do this and act thus to the best of my knowledge and ability” Abd Al Rahman summoned Uthman and said to him the same as what he had said to Ali , (Uthman) replied, “yes” So (Abd Al rahman) gave him the oath of allegiance. Ali said, “You have always been partial in his favour! This is not the first time you have banded together against us. But (my course is) comely patience and Allahs help is to be asked against what you describe

Ibn Khaldoon in this report did not mention the Sanad (chain of narrations) for the incident which is enough to reject the riwayah and the quote he presents is what is available in Tabari.
Access the Arabic reference from the following link — https://al-maktaba.org/book/12320/1368

6. AlKaamil fiTarikh — Ibn AlAtheer (D:630 Hijri) — Volume 2

إبن الأثير — الكامل في التاريخ — الجزء : ( 2 (
- فقال عبد الرحمن‏ :‏ إني قد نظرت وشاورت فلا تجعلن أيها الرهط على أنفسكم سبيلاً ، ودعا علياًً وقال :‏ عليك عهد الله وميثاقه لتعلمن بكتاب الله وسنة رسوله وسيرة الخليفتين من بعده‏ ، قال :‏ أرجو أن أفعل فأعمل بمبلغ علمي وطاقتي ودعا عثمان فقال له مثل ما قال لعلي ، فقال :‏ نعم نعمل‏ ،‏ فرفع رأسه إلى سقف المسجد ويده في يد عثمان فقال :‏ اللهم أسمع وإشهد اللهم إني قد جعلت ما في رقبتي من ذلك في رقبة عثمان فبايعه‏.‏
(Abd Al Rahman) then spoke, “O people I have studied and seeked counsel so Do not, members of the electoral council (Shura) , lay yourselves open to criticism”. Come forward to me, Ali” He did not and stood beneath the minbar. Abd Al Rahman took his hand and said, “Will you give me your oath of office based on Gods book, the practise of his prophet, and the deeds of Abu bakr and Umar?” He replied, “NO, but based on my own effort in all this and in accordance with my own ability”. (Abd Al Rahman) let go of (Ali’s) hand and called out, “Come forward to me, Uthman” He took him by hand, and (Uthman) stood where Ali had stood, and said, “will you give me your oath of office based on gods book, the practise of his Prophet, and the deeds of Abubakr and umar ?” (Uthman) replied, “Indeed yes!” So (Abd Al Rahman) stretched right up to the ceiling of the mosque, his hand still Uthmans hand. Then he said, “O god, hear and bear witness! O God, I have placed what was my own responsibility in all this upon Uthman”

He starts his narration from the name of the Sahabi قَالَ عُمَرُو بْنُ مَيْمُونَ الْأَوْدِيُّ without the full sanad.
Access the Arabic reference from the following link — https://al-maktaba.org/book/21712/1133

7. AlIqd Al Fareed — Ibn Abd Rabh (D:328 Hijri) — Volume 1

إبن عبد ربه — العقد الفريد — الجزء : ( 1 )
- فقال عبد الرحمن :‏ إني قد نظرت وشاورت فلا تجعلن أيها الرهط على أنفسكم سبيلاً‏ ، ودعا علياًً فقال :‏ عليك عهد الله وميثاقه لتعملن بكتاب الله وسنة نبيه وسيرة الخليفتين من بعده ، قال :‏ أعمل بمبلغ علمي وطاقتي‏ ،ثم دعا عثمان فقال :‏ عليك عهد اللّه وميثاقه لتعملن بكتاب اللّه وسنة نبيه وسرة الخليفتين من بعده ، فقال :‏ نعم فبايعه‏ ،‏ فقال علي :‏ حبوته محاباة.
I have looked into the matter and consulted. Do not, members of the electoral council (Shura) , lay yourselves open to criticism” He summoned Ali and said , “Gods agreement and covenant is binding on you, Will you indeed act in accordance with Gods book, the practice of Messeneger and the example of the two caliphs after him? (Ali) replied “I hope to do this and act thus to the best of my knowledge and ability” Abd Al Rahman summoned Uthman and said to him the same as what he had said to Ali , (Uthman) replied, “yes” So (Abd Al rahman) gave him the oath of allegiance. Ali said, “You have always been partial in his favour!

Ibn Abd Rabh did not mention the Isnaad and the quote he presents is at is available in Tabari.
Access the Arabic reference from the following link — https://al-maktaba.org/book/23789/1458

8. Tareekh Abil Fidaa — Abu Fidaa (D: 732 Hijri)

تاريخ أبي الفداء
- ثم جمع عبد الرحمن الناس بعد أن أخرج نفسه ، عن الخلافة فدعا علياًً فقال :‏ عليك عهد الله وميثاقه لتعملن بكتاب الله وسنة رسوله وسيرة الخليفتين من بعده ، فقال :‏ أرجو أن أفعل وأعمل مبلغ علمي وطاقتي ، ودعا بعثمان وقال له مثل ما قال لعلي فرفع عبد الرحمن رأسه إلي سقف المسجد ويده في يد عثمان وقال :‏ أسمع وإشهد اللهم إني جعلت ما في رقبتي من ذلك في رقبة عثمان وبايعه فقال علي : ليس هذا أول يوم تظاهرتم علينا فيه فصبر جميل والله المستعان على ما تصفون والله ما وليت عثمان إلاّّ ليرد الأمر إليك والله كل يوم هو في شأن‏.
So Abdulrahman gathered the people after he had pulled himself out from the candidacy for the Khilafah and He summoned Ali and said , “Gods agreement and covenant is binding on you, Will you indeed act in accordance with Gods book, the practice of Messeneger and the example of the two caliphs after him? (Ali) replied “I hope to do this and act thus to the best of my knowledge and ability” Abd Al Rahman summoned Uthman and said to him the same as what he had said to Ali , (Uthman) replied, “yes” So (Abd Al rahman) gave him the oath of allegiance. Ali said, “You have always been partial in his favour! This is not the first time you have banded together against us. But (my course is) comely patience and gods help is to be asked against what you describe. You have appointed Uthman only so that the rule will come back to you. ‘Every day God exercises power:.

Ismaeel ibn Abi Fidaa did not mention the sanad and the quote he presents is the quote as available in Tabari.

9. Al Bidaya Wan Nihaya — Ibn Kathir (D: 774 Hijri) Volume 7, Page 165

إبن كثير — البداية والنهاية — الجزء : ( 7 ) — رقم الصفحة : 165
- فقال : أيها الناس ، إني سألتكم سراً وجهراً بأمانيكم فلم أجدكم تعدلون بأحد هذين الرجلين أما علي وأما عثمان ، فقم إلي : يا علي ، فقام إليه تحت المنبر فأخذ عبد الرحمن بيده فقال : هل أنت مبايعي على كتاب الله وسنة نبيه (ص) وفعل أبي بكر وعمر ؟ ، قال : اللهم لا ولكن على جهدي من ذلك وطاقتي ، قال : فأرسل يده وقال : قم إلي : يا عثمان ، فأخذ بيده فقال : هل أنت مبايعي على كتاب الله وسنة نبيه (ص) وفعل أبي بكر وعمر ؟ ، قال : اللهم نعم ! قال : فرفع رأسه إلى سقف المسجد ويده في يد عثمان فقال : اللهم أسمع وإشهد ، اللهم أسمع وإشهد ، اللهم أسمع وإشهد ، اللهم إني قد خلعت ما في رقبتي من ذلك في رقبة عثمان.
(Abd Al Rahman) then spoke, “O people I have questioned you in secret and openly on the question of [who will be] your leader. I have found that one of you regard [anyone else] as equal to one of these two, Ali or Uthman. Come forward to me, Ali” He did not and stood beneath the minbar. Abd Al Rahman took his hand and said, “Will you give me your oath of office based on Gods book, the practice of his prophet, and the deeds of Abu bakr and Umar?” He replied, “NO, but based on my own effort in all this and in accordance with my own ability”. (Abd Al Rahman) let go of (Ali’s) hand and called out, “Come forward to me, Uthman” He took him by hand, and (Uthman) stood where Ali had stood, and said, “will you give me your oath of office based on gods book, the practice of his Prophet, and the deeds of Abubakr and umar ?” (Uthman) replied, “Indeed yes!” So (Abd Al Rahman) stretched right up to the ceiling of the mosque, his hand still Uthmans hand. Then he said, “O god, hear and bear witness! O God, I have placed what was my own responsibility in all this upon Uthman”

Ibn kathir has quoted this incident from Tabaqat ibn Saad (volume 3 page 62). However, following the narration Ibn Kathir who has taken the narration from Tabari, mentions that within the incident as narrated by Tabari there are narrations inserted by the Rawafidh and foolish story tellers who cannot make a difference between the Saheeh and the Daheef and the invalid and the valid, the convincing and unconvincing. [vol 10, page 213 of the Dar Hajr edition , tahqeeq Dr AbdulMohsin AtTurki]

Access the Arabic reference from the following link — https://al-maktaba.org/book/4445/5709

10. Wudhoo AnNabi — AlShahrastani — Volume 2, Page 190

الشهرستاني — وضوء النبي (ص) — الجزء : ( 2 ) — رقم الصفحة : 190
- إذ جاء في التاريخ أن عبد الرحمن بن عوف قال لعلي : يا علي ، هل أنت مبايعي على كتاب الله وسنة نبيه وفعل أبي بكر وعمر ؟ ، فقال علي : أما كتاب الله وسنة نبيه فنعم وأما سيرة الشيخين فلا ، فعلي لم يرتض الشرط الأخير ، ومعنى كلامه تخالف سنة رسول الله (ص) مع سيرتهما على أقل تقدير من وجه نظر الإمام علي لأنهما أي السنة وسيرتهما.
It has been narrated in the books of Tarikh that AbdulRehman said to Ali: O Ali, do you accept the oath on the book of allah, the Sunnah of the prophet and the actions of the Abu Bakr and Umar. So ali replied: As for the book of Allah and the Sunnah of the prophet, Yes as for the Seerah of the Shaykhain, that i do not accept. So Ali did not accep the last part of the condition. And his words mean that the Sunnah of the prophet contradicts their (AbuBakr & Umars) Seerah atleast according to Imam Ali.

Shahrastani is Ali Shahrastani, one of the modern Shia scholars. He quotes the incident without mentioning the sanad or a reference to the book where he is taking the quote from.

11. Tareekh Mukhtasar AdDuwal — Ibn Al’Abari (D: 685 Hijri)

إبن العبري — تاريخ مختصر الدول
- قال عبد الرحمن لعلي بن أبي طالب : هل أنت مبايعي على كتاب الله وسنة نبيه وسنة الشيخين قال : أما كتاب الله وسنة نبيه فنعم وأما سنة الشيخين فإجتهد رأيي ، فجاء إلى عثمان فقال له : هل أنت مبايعي على كتاب الله وسنة نبيه وسنة الشيخين قال : اللهم نعم فبايعه.
Abdul Rahman said to ali bin Abi Talib: Do you accept the pledge of allegiance on the book of Allah, and the Sunnah of the prophet and the Sunnah of the Shaykhayn. He (ali) replied: As for the book of Allah and the Sunnah of the prophet, Yes as for the Sunnah of the Shaykhain, then i will make my Ijtihad. So he went to uthman and said: Do you accept the pledge of allegiance on the book of Allah, and the Sunnah of the prophet and the Sunnah of the Shaykhayn, and he said yes, So Abdulrahman gave him the pledge.

The Author does not quote the sanad, makes a passing mention of the incident without quoting the sanad or the book where he has taken the quote from.

Access the Arabic reference from the following link -https://al-maktaba.org/book/12348/110

12. Sharh Nahj Al Balagha — Ibn Abi Hadeed (D: 656 Hijri) Volume 12, page 263

إبن أبي الحديد — شرح نهج البلاغة — الجزء : ( 12 ) — رقم الصفحة : 263
- وفى روايه الطبري أن عبد الرحمن دعا علياًً (ع) ، فقال : عليك عهد الله وميثاقه لتعملن بكتاب الله وسنة رسوله ، وسيرة الخليفتين ؟ ، فقال : أرجو أن أفعل وأعمل بمبلغ علمي وطاقتي.

And in Tabari it is mentione that abdulrehman called Ali and said to him: “Gods agreement and covenant is binding on you, Will you indeed act in accordance with Gods book, the practice of Messeneger and the example of the two caliphs after him? (Ali) replied “I hope to do this and act thus to the best of my knowledge and ability”

Ibn Abi Hadeed was a Shia Mutazili scholar. In the above quote, He mentions the reference as Tabari however he does not mention any Sanad

13. Tarikh Tabari — ibn Jarir AtTabari (D: 310 Hijri) Volume 3 , Page 297

Narration 1

I am quoting the relevant section of the quote from Tabari here because of the length of the actual quote which runs over several pages, however I have placed a link for the full text from Tabari and Its translation below.
الطبري — تاريخ الطبري — الجزء : ( 3 ) — رقم الصفحة : 297
- فقال عبد الرحمن : إني قد نظرت وشاورت فلا تجعلن أيها الرهط على أنفسكم سبيلاً ودعا علياًً فقال : عليك عهد الله وميثاقه لتعملن بكتاب الله وسنة رسوله وسيرة الخليفتين من بعده ، قال : أرجو أن أفعل وأعمل بمبلغ علمي وطاقتي ، ودعا عثمان فقال له مثل ما قال لعلي قال : نعم فبايعه فقال علي : حبوته حبو دهر ليس هذا أول يوم تظاهرتم فيه علينا فصبر جميل والله المستعان على ما تصفون.
Abd Al Rahman said “ I have looked into the matter and consulted. Do not, members of the electoral council (Shura) , lay yourselves open to criticism” He summoned Ali and said , “Gods agreement and covenant is binding on you, Will you indeed act in accordance with Gods book, the practice of Messeneger and the example of the two caliphs after him? (Ali) replied “I hope to do this and act thus to the best of my knowledge and ability” Abd Al Rahman summoned Uthman and said to him the same as what he had said to Ali , (Uthman) replied, “yes” So (Abd Al rahman) gave him the oath of allegiance. Ali said, “You have always been partial in his favour! This is not the first time you have banded together against us. But (my course is) comely patience and gods help is to be asked against what you describe.

Ibn Jarir mentions the Sanad in the Riwaya and it is a (Murakkab) combined Isnaad where Ibn Jarir combines several narrations that had reached him. As a part of the combination of the Riwayaat he mixed the riwayahs with each other.

The main narrator in this Riwayah is Abi Mikhnaf Loot bin Yahya, a well known Ghaali Shia (vehement shia) who is known to have inserted 600 false riwayaat into the books of history including at-Tabari which eventually made their way to most of the books of history. He was severely criticized by the scholars of Jarh Wa Tadeel and is considered Matrook and untrustworthy.

A recent tahqeeq of Abi Mikhnaf and his false riwayaat in at-Tabari by Dr Yahya Al Yahya can be found here — https://ia801408.us.archive.org/1/items/marwiyat_abi_mokhanaf/marwiyatabimokhanaf.pdf

In an answer to a Question I read the author relied on another narrator in the Riwayah, Shahr Bin Hawshab and said that Al ‘Ijli (died 261 AH), Al haithani (d 807 AH), Ibn Shaheen (died 385 AH) and others have considered him from the trustworthy and therefore the narration by Ibn Jarir Tabari is authentic.

It is true that Shahr bin Hawshab is a trustworthy narrator and has been accepted by the scholars of Jarh wa Tadeel as one of the Thiqaat (trustworthy), however there are certain important matters to take into consideration regarding him.

Firstly, Shahr bin Hawshab did not see Umar (ra). He was born during the Khilafah of Uthman (ra). Therefore he did not witness the incident of succession after Umar (ra).

Secondly, His narration is unrelated to the subject of Shura and what is narrated by Abi Mikhnaf. Ibn Jarir had combined multiple Riwayaat by taking something from one narrator and another from another narrator so he took part of the narration from Shahr and from Abi Mikhnaf and he added both their names in the Isnaad.

A deeper scrutiny of Shahr bin Hawshabs actual Riwayah reveals that it does not discuss any of what was narrated by Abi Mikhnaf, the Riwayah quotes Umar (ra) that he would have given the Khilafah to so and so if he was alive and he mentions the names of some of the Sahaba (ra). This Riwayah was extracted by the Ustad of Ibn Jarir , Umar bin Shibh in his well known book , Tareekh Al Madina, Volume 6, Page 3.

The Narration is as follows:

“ حَدَّثَنِي عُمَرُ بْنُ شبة، قال: حدثنا علي بن محمد، عن وَكِيعٍ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الأَنْصَارِيِّ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عَرُوبَةَ، عن قتادة، عن شهر بن حوشب وابى مِخْنَفٍ، عَنْ يُوسُفَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ، عَنْ عَبَّاسِ بْنِ سَهْلٍ وَمُبَارَكُ بْنُ فَضَالَةَ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ وَيُونُسَ بْنِ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مَيْمُونٍ الأَوْدِيِّ، أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّاب لَمَّا طُعِنَ قِيلَ لَهُ: يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، لَوِ اسْتَخْلَفْتَ! قَالَ: مَنْ أَسْتَخْلِفُ؟ [لَوْ كَانَ أَبُو عُبَيْدَةَ بْنُ الْجَرَّاحِ حَيًّا اسْتَخْلَفْتُهُ، فَإِنْ سَأَلَنِي رَبِّي قُلْتُ: سَمِعْتُ نَبِيَّكَ يَقُولُ: إِنَّهُ أَمِينُ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةُ، وَلَوْ كَانَ سَالِمٌ مَوْلَى أَبِي حُذَيْفَةَ حَيًّا اسْتَخْلَفْتُهُ، فَإِنْ سَأَلَنِي رَبِّي قُلْتُ: سَمِعْتُ نَبِيَّكَ يَقُولُ: إِنَّ سَالِمًا شَدِيدُ الْحُبِّ لِلَّهِ
“Umar ibn Shibh narrated to me, I heard Ali bin Muhammad narrated, from Wakee’, from ‘Amash, from Ibrahim and Muhammad bin Abdullah alAnsari, from ibn Abi Arooba, From Qatadah, from Shahr bin Hawshab and Abi Mikhnaf, from Yusuf bin Zayd, from Abbas bin Sahl and Mubarak bin Fudhala, from Ubaidullah bin Umar and Yunus bin Abi Ishaaq, from Umar bin Maymoon alAwadi, that when Umar bin Al Khattab (ra) was attacked and injured he was asked, “O Commander of the believers (Ameer Al Mumineen), Why don’t you appoint someone as Khalifah after you, He replied, who should I appoint? If Abu Obaidah bin Al Jarrah was alive I would have appointed him, and when Allah (swt) would have asked me I would have replied that I heard you Prophet say, He (Abu Obaidah) is the Ameen of the Ummah, and if Salim Mawla Abi Huzaifa was alive, I would have appointed him, and when Allah (swt) would have asked me, I would have replied, I heard your Prophet said, Salims love for Allah has no bounds.” [End Quote]

This is where his narration ends. And it is apparent that the narration is unrelated to the subject of Shura and the offer of Baya’ to Ali and Uthman and the conditions placed before them. Therefore, to rely on the narration by assuming that Shahr bin Hawshab is an acceptable narrator is wrong, because Shahr’s narration is unrelated to the subject discussed by Ibn Jarir Tabari and that it is only because Ibn Jarir combined the unrelated narrations of Shahr bin Hawshab and that of Abi Mikhnaf due to which the name of Shahr appears in the Isnaad.

A very important resource to study Tabari and the riwayat of Tabari is the book — صحيح و ضعيف تاريخ الطبري a 14 volume Tahqeeq of Tabaris riwayat which was published in 2007 under the guidance of a group of scholars led by Shekh Muhammad bin Tahir AlBarzanji and the supervision of the Muhaqqiq Shekh Muhammad Subhi Hassan Hallaq. The First 7 volumes discuss the Saheeh riwayat in the Tabari while the last 7 discuss the Dhaeef Riwayat in Tabari. You can access the book from here — http://waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=3270. The discussion about the Shura is available in volume 4 which has the Tahqeeq of the Saheeh riwayat and Volume 8 which has the Tahqeeq of the Dhaeef riwayat

Access the Arabic reference through the following link — https://al-maktaba.org/book/9783/2125
Access the Full translation of Tabari’s Riwayah in English through the following link — https://www.dropbox.com/s/79w84in12nvl6ci/Tabari%20translation.pdf?dl=0

14. Tarikh Tabari — ibn Jarir AtTabari (D: 310 Hijri) Volume 3 , Page 301
Narration 2

I am quoting the relevant section of the quote from Tabari here because of the length of the actual quote which runs over several pages, however I have placed a link for the full text from Tabari and Its translation below.
الطبري — تاريخ الطبري — الجزء : ( 3 ) — رقم الصفحة : 301
- فأخذ عبد الرحمن بيده فقال : هل أنت مبايعي على كتاب الله وسنة نبيه وفعل أبي بكر وعمر قال : اللهم لا ولكن على جهدي من ذلك وطاقتي قال : فأرسل يده ثم نادى قم إلي : يا عثمان فأخذ بيده وهو في موقف علي الذي كان فيه فقال : هل أنت مبايعي على كتاب الله وسنة نبيه وفعل أبي بكر وعمر قال : اللهم نعم ، قال : فرفع رأسه إلى سقف المسجد ويده في يد عثمان ثم قال : اللهم أسمع وإشهد اللهم إني قد جعلت ما في رقبتي من ذاك في رقبة عثمان قال : وإزدحم الناس يبايعون عثمان حتى غشوه عند المنبر.
Abd Al Rahman took his hand and said, “Will you give me your oath of office based on Gods book, the practise of his prophet, and the deeds of Abu bakr and Umar?” He replied, “NO, but based on my own effort in all this and in accordance with my own ability”. (Abd Al Rahman) let go of (Ali’s) hand and called out, “Come forward to me, Uthman” He took him by hand, and (Uthman) stood where Ali had stood, and said, “will you give me your oath of office based on gods book, the practise of his Prophet, and the deeds of Abubakr and umar ?” (Uthman) replied, “Indeed yes!” So (Abd Al Rahman) stretched right up to the ceiling of the mosque, his hand still Uthmans hand. Then he said, “O god, hear and bear witness! O God, I have placed what was my own responsibility in all this upon Uthman” The people crowded round to give Uthman the oath of allegiance, until they reached him at the minbar

Ibn Jarir mentions the Sanad in the Riwaya. However the Isnaad is Dhaeef Jiddan (very Weak),. In addition to this, AbdulAziz who is one of the Rawi’s (narrators) is Matrook (rejected). Furthermore, the Matn of the Hadith is severely detestable (Nakara Shadida) due to what is fabricated about Ali (ra) that he said ‘Deceit, What deceit!” i.e that he was deceived by the Shura of the eminent Sahaba. This incident is not established through the Saheeh riwayah or even a Dhaeef Riwayah.

More details about the Isnaad and its Tahqeeq can be found in Volume 8 of صحيح و ضعيف تاريخ الطبري , the Tahqeeq of Tabaris riwayat. http://waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=3270.
Access the Arabic reference through the following link- https://al-maktaba.org/book/9783/2130
Access the Full translation of Tabari’s Riwayah in English through the following link — https://www.dropbox.com/s/6pddaowsf8xscni/Tabari%20translation%202.pdf?dl=0

15. Subul Al Huda WarRashaad — AsSalehi Ashami (D : 942 Hijri) — volume 11, Page 277

الصالحي الشامي — سبل الهدى والرشاد — الجزء : ( 11) — رقم الصفحة : 277
- فسعى عبد الرحمن في تلك الأيام ، وإجتهد إجتهاداً كثيراًً ، ثم صعد منبر رسول الله (ص) فقام على الدرجة التي يجلس عليها رسول الله (ص) ، ووقف وقوفاً طويلاًً ، ودعا دعاء طويلاًً ، ثم قال : أيها الناس ، قد سألتكم سراً ، وجهراً ، مثنى وفرادى ، فلم أجد كم تعدلون بأحد هذين الرجلين ، فقم إلي : يا علي ، فقام إليه فوقف تحت المنبر فأخذ عبد الرحمن بيده ، فقال : هل أنت مبايعي على كتاب الله وسنة نبيه (ص) وفعل أبي بكر وعمر ؟ ، فقال : اللهم لا ، ولكن على جهدي من ذلك وطاقتي ، فأرسل يده ، وقال : قم يا عثمان ، فقال : هل أنت مبايعي على كتاب الله وسنة رسوله (ص) وفعل أبي بكر وعمر ؟ ، قال : اللهم نعم ، قال : فرفع رأسه إلى سقف المسجد ويده في يد عثمان فقال : اللهم أسمع وإشهد ، اللهم أسمع وإشهد ، اللهم أسمع وإشهد ، اللهم إني قد جعلت ما في رقبتي من ذلك في رقبة عثمان.
AbdulRahman in those days lot of effort. He went up into the minbar where he stood for a long time. Then he said a prayer that the people did not hear. (Abd Al Rahman) then spoke, “O people I have questioned you in secret and openly on the question of [who will be] your leader. I have found that one of you regard [anyone else] as equal to one of these two, Ali or Uthman. Come forward to me, Ali” He did not and stood beneath the minbar. Abd Al Rahman took his hand and said, “Will you give me your oath of office based on Gods book, the practise of his prophet, and the deeds of Abu bakr and Umar?” He replied, “NO, but based on my own effort in all this and in accordance with my own ability”. (Abd Al Rahman) let go of (Ali’s) hand and called out, “Come forward to me, Uthman” He took him by hand, and (Uthman) stood where Ali had stood, and said, “will you give me your oath of office based on gods book, the practise of his Prophet, and the deeds of Abubakr and umar ?” (Uthman) replied, “Indeed yes!” So (Abd Al Rahman) stretched right up to the ceiling of the mosque, his hand still Uthmans hand. Then he said, “O god, hear and bear witness! O God, I have placed what was my own responsibility in all this upon Uthman”

The author does not mention the Sanad nor does he mention the reference. Access the Arabic reference -  https://al-maktaba.org/book/1693/5068

 

Discussion

 
Firstly, it is apparent that most of the Historians (Muarrikheen) do not mention the Sanad in the riwayat as is a usual custom with historians as the riwayaat of Tarikh do not undergo the same amount of scrutiny as the riwayaat of Sunnah. This is further clarified when Ibn Jarir at Tabari the well-known MuaArikh (historian) himself writes in his book of Tarikh,

“The reader should know that with respect to all I have mention and made it a condition to set down in this book of ours, I rely upon traditions and reports which i have transmitted and which i attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very exceptionally upon what i learned through rational arguments and produced by internal thought processes. For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and recent men and events is attainable by those who are not able to observe them and did no live in their time, except through information and transmission provided by informants and transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal though processes. This book of mine may (be found to) contain some information, mentioned by us on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases he should know that it is not our fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to us. We have merely reported it as it was report to us”

So, the books of tarikh are not scrutinized for the authenticity of the Riwayat that are being reported.
Secondly, Regarding the subject of Shura and the Baya’ of Uthman (ra), It appears that most of the books of Tarikh have not quoted the Sanad in the riwayah they have mentioned. Furthermore, it is also apparent that the source for most of the historians in this matter is Ibn Jarir At Tabari. Some of them have directly referenced him while the rest have just quoted the incident as it has been quoted by Ibn Jarir At Tabari.

The most important matter here is that, Not mentioning the Isnaad is enough to reject a riwayah. Any riwayah that reaches us without the Isnaad cannot be accepted as an historical incident let alone for deriving Shari’ Ahkaam.

So if we find that none of the books of Tarikh discuss the Isnaad of the incident of Ali (ra) being offered Baya’ let alone being given Baya’ with conditions which he rejected, and the only book we find (Tabari) has multiple problems in its Isnaad and its Matn (text) such as the existence of liars and fabricators in the Riwayah, Can we then believe that Ali (ra) was offered the Baya’ along with conditions as is mentioned in Tabari? This is while the Saheeh riwayat from Bukhari contradict it blatantly.

Is it then acceptable for us to use the incident of Uthman’s (ra) baya’ to say that it is Wajib for a person to leave his personal views for the sake of the Unity of the Ummah or the sake of the unity of a group?

Thirdly, It is important to note that Abi Mikhnaf did not just insert a riwayah or two rather hundreds of riwayaat which under no circumstances can be accepted.

Many incidents in history such as the order by Umar (ra) to kill the members of Shura if they didn’t agree to appointing one of them as khalifah have been fabricated by Abu Mikhnaf. For eg, the riwayah that Umar (ra) addressed Suhaib to monitor the meeting and said to him: “Lead the people in prayer three days, and let Ali, Uthman, Az-Zubayr, Sa’ad, Abdul Rahman b. Awf, and Talha, if he came back (from his travel) and bring in Abdullah b. Umar, without allowing him any personal interest in the matter, and stand at their heads (i.e. supervise them). If five agreed and accepted one man, while one man rejected, then hit his head with the sword. If four consented and agreed on one man, and two disagreed, then kill the dissenters with the sword. If three agreed on one man and three disagreed then let Abdullah bin Umar arbitrate. The group which Abdullah b. Umar judged for, let them select one from them. If they did not accept the judgement of Abdullah b. Umar, then be (all of you) with the group in which is Abdul Rahman b. Awf, and kill the rest if they declined to accept what the people agreed upon.” , this Riwayah is false and it is Munkar.

This riwayah is not only strange in its subject but it also contradicts the saheeh narrations on the subject. The Saheeh narration on the subject is that Umar (ra) said to Suhaib “Lead the people in prayer for three days and do not disturb the people of Shura and once they have come to a consensus regarding a person, then whoever disagrees with them then kill him”. This has been narrated by Ibn Saad in his Tabaqaat and this is what is also narrated in Saheeh Muslim,
عَنْ عَرْفَجَةَ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ “‏ مَنْ أَتَاكُمْ وَأَمْرُكُمْ جَمِيعٌ عَلَى رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَشُقَّ عَصَاكُمْ أَوْ يُفَرِّقَ جَمَاعَتَكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُ ‏”‏ ‏.‏
It has been narrated on the Same authority (i. e. ‘Arfaja) who said I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: When you are holding to one single man as your leader, you should kill who seeks to undermine your solidarity or disrupt your unity.

Another of the fabrications by Abi Mikhnaf is that what has been reported in Tabari that Talha (Ra) was not present in the Shura meeting and only arrived on the day after the Baya to Uthman (ra) had been given and this is false as the Saheeh riwayaat prove otherwise.

Abi Mikhnaf was widely criticized and rejected by the scholars of Jarh Wa Tadeel. Abu Hatim writes in his book Jarh Wa Tadeel on Page 182 , Vol 7, “Abu Mikhnaf is Matrook”. He was like wise criticized by DaarQutni, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Adiy’, Imam Ad-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajr Al Asqalani and all of them considered him Matrook and Ghayr thiqah (untrustworthy).

Views of Some of the Scholars on the Subject


  1. Dr Khalid Kabir A’llaal wrote in his book -
بحوث حول الخلافة و الفتنة الكبرى — خلال العهد الراشدي -د. خالد كبير علال
Research into the Khilafah and the great Fitna during the Khilafah ArRashida: a Critical study based on the science of Jarh Wa Tadeel.

As for the Narrations by Tabari, The narration has an Inqitaa’ (break/gap). It is impossible that there would only be three people in the Sanad for an incident that took place in 23 Hijri and the narrator Ibn Qutaibah who died in 276 Hijri. Furthermore the attribution of the book to Ibn Qutaibah is also not established, rather the author of the book itself is Majhool (unknown), therefore it is unacceptable to take the narration from someone who is unknown or doubtful. As for the Matn (text) it is confusing and contradictory, So at one instance it mentions that Abdulrahman left Ali and gave Uthman the baya’ when Ali did not aaccept the conditions that Abdulrehman had put forth that Ali would not appointed from Banu Hashim to rule the people, however on another side it mentions that abudlrahman when he stood in the mosque he told the people that he did not find people giving more weightage/preference to anyone other than Uthman therefore he gave him the pledge (baya’a), however he did not mention that he gave baya’a to Uthman because Ali did not accept the conditions that were placed before him. This is while the people had preferred Uthman over ali, so what was the benefit of the condition that ali did not accept? And the narration also presented abdulrehman bin awf as an oppressor to Ali when he did not accept Ali’s response to the condition placed before and the reply that Ali (ra) gave was practical and better than the reply of Uthman and the narration also presents Abdulrehman as a zalim when he threatens Ali with the sword and all of this is invalid and unacceptable as this is not the behaviour of the sahaba. Above all this narration contradicts the saheeh narration on the subject.

As for the second narration of Tabari, it has within its Sanad those who are Majrooh like Abu Saaib bin Junadah alKufi and Sulaiman bin Abdul Aziz. Furthermore, the Matn has what proves its invalidity. It firstly contradicts the Saheeh riwayat on the subject and it insults/disparages the Sahaba, Ali and Amr bin Aas. It shows Ali as a naive and Amr as deceptive which contradicts with the character of the Sahaba.

Furthermore, with regards to Abdulrahman giving Baya to Uthman and not to Ali because Ali did not agree to accepting the baya’ accept with certain reservations while Uthman accepted it without any reservations, this is invalid because the Sanad has those who are Dhaeef and those accused of lying like Sufyan bin Wakee’ ArRawasi (Died 247 Hijri) and in the Matn there is what is Munkar and what contradicts the Saheeh narrations. It is established historically that Abdulrehman did not given Baya’ to Uthman except after he had taken the views of the people and he did not find people preferring anyone more than Uthman. So he selected him on this basis and no other basis. And what was the benefit of taking the consent of the people if was going to make the decision on the basis of the candidates accepting the conditions or not. And what is the difference between the answers of the two? Ali replied that he will rule by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger and the Seerah of the Shaykhayn according to his capacity, and he did not say that he would not work according to them. And Uthman said yes to the condition, and his reply is not different to saying that he would do so based on his capacity. And if Uthman accepted Uthman based on this reply of his then Abdulrehman has frauded the Ummah and failed in fulfilling the amanah and broken the agreement in the Shura and this is not possible as he was one of the early Sahaba who was also promsied the Jannah. The Saheeh narration on the subject is as discused in the two narrations in Bukhari. [End Quote]

The Arabic book can be accessed here, https://www.saaid.net/book/open.php?cat=7&book=7222

2. Qaadhi Abdul Jabbar (died 415 Hijri) says in this book -كتاب تثبيت دلائل النبو

 Volume 2 Page 579
أن الذي ثبت عند العلماء أن عبد الرحمن قال لأهل الشورى: إني قد نظرت وشاورت واستخرت فما وجدت الناس يعدلون بعثمان أحدا
What is established among the scholars is that AbdulRahman told the people of Shura, I have assessed and taken counsel on the matter and I also performed Istikharah and i did not find the people preferring anyone more than Uthman.

So the subject of Ali (ra) being offered the khilafah did not take place rather the people preferred Uthman and this is what is also being narrated by Bukhari in the two riwayaat.

Conclusion

The Tahqeeq of the narrations regarding the Baya’ of Uthman prove that AbdulRahman (ra) did not offer the Baya’ to Ali (ra) rather he offered it to Uthman (ra) without having offerred it to Ali (ra). The Saheeh narrations do not support the view that Ali (ra) was offered the Baya’ if he accepted the condition to leave his opinions for the opinions of AbuBakr and Umar (raa).

Consequently, the principle that it is wajib to leave one’s opinion and adopt another opinion with or without conviction, for the sake of the unity of the Ummah or the group is invalid as there is no Shari’ evidence to support it.

Furthermore, through the course of this study it becomes clear that Riwayaat that reach us through the historians need to undergo additional scrutiny because of the difference in the manner how narrations are collected by historians compared to muhaditheen.

It is also apparent that some fabricators and story tellers have been able to insert a large number of riwayaat in the books of Tarikh which is unacceptable.

Abu Khaled Al Hejazi

14th Jumadi al awwal, 21st January 2019

Telegram: @inshai

Source


More Articles from this author:

The reality of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and the shari’ah rule regarding them