First Objection:

Claim that Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) acknowledged the legitimacy of Muʿāwiyah’s caliphate

---

Objection Statement:

---

Some people, who possess no share of true knowledge, imagine that the peace treaty between Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) and Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān amounts to acknowledging the legitimate nature of Muʿāwiyah’s caliphate. Therefore, it seems appropriate to clarify the reality of this matter for the respected reader through the following stages:

First Stage: Explaining the difference between religious/spiritual caliphate and outward/political caliphate

Linguistically, khilāfah (caliphate) means “that which comes after,” as when it is said: “He is a true successor of his father.” It also means “representation or acting on behalf of another,” as in the Qur’ānic verse:

“اخْلُفْنِي فِي قَوْمِي”

(Succeed me among my people.” (Qur’ān 7:14 ) (1) al-Aʿrāf, verse 142)

As for the technical meaning:

In the Qur’an, khilāfah (caliphate) is presented as a lofty and exalted concept, indicating that Allah, Glorified and Exalted, has chosen certain elect servants to be His deputies—entrusted with the responsibility of cultivating and developing the earth, utilizing its resources and treasures, and even harnessing every particle of creation for the attainment of true human felicity. (1)

Among Ahl al-Sunnah, the term khilāfah is generally applied to the governments that came after the Prophet ﷺ—whether righteous or corrupt—and that attained power through selection or appointment. This is also referred to as “outward caliphate” (khilāfah ẓāhirah), “government” (ḥukūmah), or “leadership” (imārah).

In contrast, according to the Shīʿah Imāmiyyah, the concept of khilāfah applies solely to that person whose appointment was explicitly made by the Prophet ﷺ through a clear, unequivocal text. In reality, this caliphate is the Prophet’s vicegerency, inheriting his position in all matters except those specifically exclusive to prophethood itself—and thus, it is in truth Allah’s caliphate.

On this basis, the distinction between worldly leadership—i.e., the outward/political caliphate—and divinely ordained leadership—i.e., the religious/spiritual caliphate—becomes evident. The worldly caliphate means merely political power and governance, whereas the religious caliphate is a divinely granted office that continues the functions of prophethood, except for what is particular to a prophet.

Allah, the Exalted, says:

“إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامًا” ‏(البقرة: 124)

“وَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ أَئِمَّةً” ‏(الأنبياء: 73

“Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people.” (Qur’an 2:124)

“And We made them Imams.” (Qur’an 21:73)

These verses prove that imāmah is a divine office decreed by Allah Himself.

It is also possible for the religious caliphate and worldly rule to be separated, as occurred with Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī (ʿa), when his caliphate was usurped, creating a gap between his divine imamate and his worldly authority.

(1) Azmat al-Khilāfah wa al-Imāmah

Although worldly rule lasted for years, this separation never deprived the Imām (ʿa) of his religious and Qur’ānic imāmah. The same reality remained true for the rest of the infallible Imāms (ʿa) from his progeny.

The outcome of the peace treaty was that, at most, Muʿāwiyah was recognized as holding worldly leadership over the people, but this did not establish any legitimate sharʿī khilāfah for him. As for the use of the term khilāfah—which some people mention in this objection or generally apply to Muʿāwiyah—this is a clear fallacy, intended to make it appear that Muʿāwiyah possessed the same outward caliphate attributed to Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān.

In reality, even this outward caliphate does not apply to Muʿāwiyah, for according to the Prophet’s ﷺ mutawātir ḥadīth (1), he was among the rebels.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir (r):

“يا عمار تقتلك الفئة الباغية”

(“O ʿAmmār! You will be killed by a rebellious group.” 

Some of the Companions also rejected Muʿāwiyah’s claim to the caliphate, among them Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ—one of the six men ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb had chosen for the shūrā. When Saʿd visited Muʿāwiyah, he said:

“السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكَ أَيُّهَا الْمَلِكُ

Peace be upon you, O king.”

Muʿāwiyah replied:

فَهَلَّا غَيْرَ ذَلِكَ؟ أَنْتُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَنَا أَمِيرُكُمْ

“Could you not say something else? You are the believers, and I am your amīr.”

Saʿd responded

                                                                                            نَعَمْ، إِنْ كُنَّا أَمَّرْنَاكَ

“Yes—if we had appointed you.”

In another narration, Saʿd’s words are reported as:

نَحْنُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَلَمْ نُؤَمِّرْكَ

“We are the believers, but we have not appointed you as our leader.”

ʿĀʾishah bint Abī Bakr also objected to Muʿāwiyah’s claim to the caliphate. When news of this reached Muʿāwiyah, he said:

عَجَبًا لِعَائِشَةَ! تَزْعُمُ أَنِّي فِي غَيْرِ مَا أَنَا أَهْلُهُ، وَأَنَّ الَّذِي أَصْبَحْتُ فِيهِ لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ، مَا لَهَا وَلِهَذَا؟ يَغْفِرُ اللَّهُ لَهَا

“Strange is ʿĀʾishah! She thinks that I am unworthy of this position, and that what I now possess is not rightfully mine. What concern has she with this matter? May Allah forgive her.”

Then Muʿāwiyah added:

إِنَّمَا كَانَ يُنَازِعُنِي فِي هَذَا الأَمْرِ أَبُو هَذَا الْجَالِسِ

“The only one who used to dispute with me over this matter was the father of this man sitting here.”

(2) As stated by the author of Tafsīr al-Manār, Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, 10:340.

(1) Al-Tashīl li-ʿUlūm al-Tanzīl by Ibn Juzayy, 2:251; Al-Durr al-Manthūr by al-Suyūṭī, 6:77; Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl by al-Qāsimī, 6:403.

(3) Faḍāʾil al-Ṣaḥābah by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, 2:988, ḥadīth no. 1955; Muṣannaf of ʿAbd al-Razzāq, 10:90, ḥadīth no. 19455.

(4) Tārīkh al-Islām by al-Dhahabī, 4:220.

---

He was the father of the man sitting here.(1) And when Allah took him to Himself, Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) said:

“أوعجب ذلك يا معاوية؟”

“Does that surprise you, O Muʿāwiyah?”

Muʿāwiyah replied:

“إي والله”

“Yes, by Allah!”

So Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) said:

“أفلا أخبرك بما هو أعجب من هذا؟”

“Shall I not tell you something even more astonishing than that?”

Muʿāwiyah asked:

“ما هو؟”

“What is it?”

Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) replied;

(جلوسك في صدر المجلس وأنا عند رجليك“(٢”

“That you are seated at the head of the assembly while I am at your feet.”

Indeed, there is a ḥadīth narrated by the compilers of al-Sunan from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in which he said:

الخلافة بعدي ثلاثون سنة ثمّ تصير ملكًا عضوضًا

“The caliphate after me will last thirty years, then it will turn into a biting kingship.”

Ibn al-Athīr, explaining this ḥadīth in his al-Nihāyah fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, said:

أي يصيب الرعية فيه عنفٌ وظلم، كأنهم يعضون فيه عضا

“That is, the subjects will face severity and injustice in it, as if they were biting it with their teeth.”

This makes it absolutely clear that Muʿāwiyah was nothing more than a king and ruler, and that the mentioned treaty in no way implies that Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) granted him the sharʿī legitimacy of governance. There is no necessary connection between making peace and recognizing the sharʿī validity of someone’s rule, because the sharʿī khilāfah is a divinely ordained position, and the authority to appoint an Imām and Caliph belongs exclusively to Allah. Therefore, it was impossible for Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) to voluntarily relinquish this divinely granted station.

The reconciliation of Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) with Muʿāwiyah was exactly like the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah which the Prophet ﷺ made with the disbelievers of Quraysh.

When Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) was asked about the peace agreement, his answer was clear and reassuring. Abū Saʿīd asked him:

قلت للحسنؑ: يا ابن رسول الله، لم داهنتَ معاوية وصالحته وقد علمت أن الحق لك دونه وأن معاوية ضال باغ؟

“I said to al-Ḥasan (ʿa): O son of the Messenger of Allah! Why did you show leniency toward Muʿāwiyah and make peace with him, while you knew that the truth belonged to you, not to him, and that Muʿāwiyah is misguided and rebellious?”

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

(1) A reference to Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa).

(2) Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāghah by Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 3, p. 242.

(3) Fatḥ al-Bārī, vol. 8, p. 618. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said: It was narrated by Aḥmad and the authors of al-Sunan, and authenticated by Ibn Ḥibbān and others.

(4) al-Nihāyah fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, vol. 2, p. 253.

---

Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) said:

يا أبا سعيد، علّة مصالحتي لمعاوية هي علّة مصالحة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لبني ضمرة وبني أشجع ولأهل مكة حين انصرف من الحديبية

“O Abū Saʿīd! The reason for my reconciliation with Muʿāwiyah is the same reason the Messenger of Allah ﷺ reconciled with Banū Ḍumrah, Banū Ashjaʿ, and the people of Makkah upon returning from Ḥudaybiyyah.”

Then the Imam (ʿa) explained further:

“أولئك كفّار بالتنزيل ومعاوية وأصحابه كفّار بالتأويل”

“Those people were disbelievers according to the (literal) revelation, whereas Muʿāwiyah and his followers are disbelievers according to (false) interpretation.”

يا أبا سعيد، إذا كنتُ إمامًا من قِبَل الله تعالى ذكره، لم يجب أن يُسفّه رأيي فيما أتيتُه من مهادنة

“O Abū Saʿīd! If I am an Imam appointed by Allah, the Exalted, then my decision for peace should not be considered foolish or weak.”

If someone claims that Imam Ḥasan’s (ʿa) treaty equates to acknowledging the legitimacy of Muʿāwiyah’s caliphate in a religious sense, then would that mean the Prophet ﷺ’s treaty with the disbelievers at Ḥudaybiyyah was an acknowledgment of their false beliefs?

“كلا وحاشا”

 Absolutely not!

Such a notion is utterly absurd. It cannot even be imagined. Sound reason and pure human nature both reject this idea.

A treaty does not mean agreement with someone’s beliefs or their style of governance. Rather, it is a matter of strategy and wisdom.

SECOND OBJECTION:

The reconciliation of Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) with Muʿāwiyah was exactly like the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah which the Prophet ﷺ made with the disbelievers of Quraysh.

When Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) was asked about the peace agreement, his answer was clear and reassuring. Abū Saʿīd asked him:

 

قلت للحسنؑ: يا ابن رسول الله، لم داهنتَ معاوية وصالحته وقد علمت أن الحق لك دونه وأن معاوية ضال باغ؟

“I said to al-Ḥasan (ʿa): O son of the Messenger of Allah! Why did you show leniency toward Muʿāwiyah and make peace with him, while you knew that the truth belonged to you, not to him, and that Muʿāwiyah is misguided and rebellious?”

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

(1) A reference to Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa).

(2) Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāghah by Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 3, p. 242.

(3) Fatḥ al-Bārī, vol. 8, p. 618. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said: It was narrated by Aḥmad and the authors of al-Sunan, and authenticated by Ibn Ḥibbān and others.

(4) al-Nihāyah fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, vol. 2, p. 253.

---

Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) said:

يا أبا سعيد، علّة مصالحتي لمعاوية هي علّة مصالحة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لبني ضمرة وبني أشجع ولأهل مكة حين انصرف من الحديبية

“O Abū Saʿīd! The reason for my reconciliation with Muʿāwiyah is the same reason the Messenger of Allah ﷺ reconciled with Banū Ḍumrah, Banū Ashjaʿ, and the people of Makkah upon returning from Ḥudaybiyyah.”

Then the Imam (ʿa) explained further:

“أولئك كفّار بالتنزيل ومعاوية وأصحابه كفّار بالتأويل”

“Those people were disbelievers according to the (literal) revelation, whereas Muʿāwiyah and his followers are disbelievers according to (false) interpretation.”

يا أبا سعيد، إذا كنتُ إمامًا من قِبَل الله تعالى ذكره، لم يجب أن يُسفّه رأيي فيما أتيتُه من مهادنة

“O Abū Saʿīd! If I am an Imam appointed by Allah, the Exalted, then my decision for peace should not be considered foolish or weak.”

If someone claims that Imam Ḥasan’s (ʿa) treaty equates to acknowledging the legitimacy of Muʿāwiyah’s caliphate in a religious sense, then would that mean the Prophet ﷺ’s treaty with the disbelievers at Ḥudaybiyyah was an acknowledgment of their false beliefs?

“كلا وحاشا”

 Absolutely not!

Such a notion is utterly absurd. It cannot even be imagined. Sound reason and pure human nature both reject this idea.

A treaty does not mean agreement with someone’s beliefs or their style of governance. Rather, it is a matter of strategy and wisdom.

Third Objection:

Imam al-Ḥasan (ʿa) was fully aware of Muʿāwiyah’s reality and what the Prophet ﷺ had said about him.

How could the reality of someone like Muʿāwiyah be hidden from Imam Ḥasan (ʿa), when his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, had already prophesied about him?

It is narrated that when Abū Sufyān came to the Prophet ﷺ along with his son Muʿāwiyah, the Prophet said:

“اللهم العن التابع والمتبوع”

“O Allah! Curse the follower and the one who is followed.”

In another narration, the Prophet ﷺ said:

“اللهم العن القائد والسائق والراكب”

“O Allah! Curse the leader, the driver, and the rider.”

Moreover, there is a narration with an authentic chain in which the Prophet ﷺ said:

“إذا رأيتم معاوية على منبري فاقتلوه”

“When you see Muʿāwiyah on my pulpit, kill him!”

جلوسك في صدر المجلس وأنا عند رجليك

“That you are sitting at the head of the gathering, while I am seated at your feet.”

Moreover, there is a hadith narrated by the compilers of the Sunan in which the Prophet ﷺ said:

الخلافة بعدي ثلاثون سنة ثمّ تصير ملكًا عضوضًا

“The caliphate after me will last for thirty years, then it will turn into a biting monarchy (a tyrannical kingship).”

Ibn al-Athīr, in his book al-Nihāyah fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, explained this hadith as follows:

 أي يصيب الرعية فيه عنفٌ وظلم، كأنهم يعضون فيه عضا

“Meaning that the people (subjects) will face violence and oppression, as if they are being bitten.”

This clearly shows that Muʿāwiyah was merely a king and a political ruler, and that the treaty (ṣulḥ) made with him by Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) in no way implies that Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) recognized the legitimacy of Muʿāwiyah’s rule in a religious or divine sense.

There is no necessary connection between signing a peace treaty and acknowledging the religious legitimacy of someone’s rule. Sharʿī caliphate is a divine position, and the right to appoint an Imam or caliph rests solely with Allah, the Exalted.

Therefore, it was not possible for Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) to willingly renounce a position that was divinely granted to him.

Second Stage: The Peace Treaty of Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) with Muʿāwiyah Was Exactly Like the Treaty of the Prophet ﷺ at Ḥudaybiyyah with the Disbelievers of Quraysh.

When Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) was questioned about his treaty with Muʿāwiyah, his response was clear and satisfactory. Abū Saʿīd asked him:

“قلت للحسنؑ: يا ابن رسول الله، لم داهنتَ معاوية وصالحته وقد علمت أن الحق لك دونه وأن معاوية ضال باغ؟”

“I said to Imam Ḥasan (ʿa): O son of the Messenger of Allah! Why did you show leniency towards Muʿāwiyah and make peace with him, when you knew that the truth belonged to you, not to him, and that Muʿāwiyah is misguided and a transgressor?”

References:

1. A reference to Imam Ḥasan (ʿa).

2. Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāgha by Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 3, p. 242.

3. Fatḥ al-Bārī, vol. 8, p. 618 – Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said: “This ḥadīth was narrated by Aḥmad and the authors of the Sunan collections, and it was authenticated by Ibn Ḥibbān and others.”

4. Al-Nihāyah fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, vol. 2, p. 253.

Further References:

1. Al-Ṭarāʾif fī Maʿrifat Madhāhib al-Ṭawāʾif by Ibn Ṭāwūs, p. 196; Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 2, p. 44.

2. Sharḥ al-Akhbār by al-Nuʿmān al-Maghribī, vol. 2, p. 146; Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 33, p. 164; Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāgha by Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, vol. 4, p. 79; Nuzhat al-Naẓar fī Gharīb al-Nahj wa al-Athar, p. 700.

3. Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 33, p. 190; Al-Ghadīr by Shaykh al-Amīnī, vol. 3, p. 252; Waqʿat Ṣiffīn by Ibn Muzāḥim, p. 220.

4. Ansāb al-Ashrāf by al-Balādhurī, vol. 5, p. 128; Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī, vol. 8, p. 186; Tārīkh al-Islām, vol. 4, p. 312.

   ---

FOURTH OBJECTION

Imam Ḥasan (a.s.) Rejected Muʿāwiyah’s False Claim to the Caliphate

Despite the peace agreement, Imam Ḥasan (a.s.) never accepted Muʿāwiyah’s claim to the caliphate, and in fact, explicitly rejected it in strong terms. In a letter to Muʿāwiyah, the Imam wrote:

“إن هذا الأمر لي، والخلافة لي ولأهل بيتي، وإنها لمحرمةٌ عليك وعلى أهل بيتك، سمعته من رسول الله ص، لو وجدت صابرين عارفين بحقي غير منكرين، ما سلّمتُ لك ولا أعطيتك ما تريد .” (۱)

“Indeed, this matter (the caliphate) is my right, and the caliphate belongs to me and the People of my House (Ahl al-Bayt). It is forbidden for you and your household. I heard this directly from the Messenger of Allah (ṣ). If I had found patient supporters who recognized my right and did not deny it, I would never have handed power over to you nor granted you what you desired.” (1)

Clarifying the wisdom behind his peace treaty, Imam Ḥasan (a.s.) said:

وإن كان الحكمة وجه فيما أتيتُه ملتبسًا، ألا ترى الخضر ع لما خرق السفينة، وقتل الغلام، وأقام الجدار سخط موسیٰ ع فعله لاشتباه وجه الحكمة عليه حتى أخبره فرضي؛ هكذا أنا سخطتم عليّ بجهلكم بوجه الحكمة فيه، ولولا ما أتيتُ لما تُرك من شيعتنا على وجه الأرض أحد إلّا قتل.” (۲) 

“Even if the wisdom behind what I did appears obscure to some, have you not seen how Prophet Khiḍr (a.s.) damaged the boat, killed the boy, and repaired the wall? Mūsā (a.s.) was angered by these actions because the wisdom behind them was not clear to him—until Khiḍr (a.s.) explained the reality to him, at which point he was satisfied. Likewise, you are angered by me out of ignorance regarding the wisdom of my actions. Had I not acted as I did, not a single one of our Shīʿa would have remained alive on the face of the earth—they all would have been killed.” (2)

Imam Ḥasan (a.s.) also clarified the true criterion of the caliphate in the presence of Muʿāwiyah:

“ليس الخليفة من دان بالجور، وعطل السنن واتخذ الدنيا أبا وأمَّا، ولكنّ ذلك مَلِكٌ أصاب ملكًا تمتع به، وكأن قد انقطع عنه، واستعجل لذته، وبقيت عليه تبعثه، فكان كما قال الله عز وجل: ﴿وَإِنْ أَدْرِي لَعَلَّهُ فِتْنَةٌ لَكُمْ وَمَتَاعٌ إِلَى حِينٍ﴾.”(٣)

“The caliph is not one who governs through oppression, abandons the Sunnah, and takes the world as his master and mother. Rather, such a person is a mere king who has acquired a kingdom, enjoyed it for a while—and soon it will be cut off from him. He rushed to enjoy it, but its consequences will remain with him and punish him. Such a person is as Allah the Almighty has said: ‘And I do not know—perhaps it is a trial for you and a [temporary] enjoyment for a time.’” (3)

This makes it abundantly clear that Imam Ḥasan (a.s.) did not consider Muʿāwiyah fit to lead the affairs of the Muslims in any capacity.

And in conclusion, it becomes completely evident that this peace treaty did not signify the transfer of the caliphate to Muʿāwiyah, nor did it represent Imam Ḥasan (a.s.)’s abdication from any divine right, or recognition of Muʿāwiyah’s rule as legitimate in any sense.

References

Al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah – by Ibn Kathīr – Vol. 8, p. 132

Imtāʿ al-Asmāʿ – by al-Maqrīzī – Vol. 14, p. 369

Waqʿat Ṣiffīn – p. 216

Al-Kharāʾij wa al-Jarāʾiḥ – by al-Rāwandī – Vol. 2, p. 576
Al-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm – by ʿAlī ibn Yūnus – Vol. 2, p. 178
Biḥār al-Anwār – Vol. 45, p. 44Al-Ṭarāʾif – p. 196
Biḥār al-Anwār – Vol. 44, p. 2
ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ – Vol. 1, p. 211

Sharaf al-Muṣṭafā – by al-Kharqūshī – Vol. 5, p. 305
Simṭ al-Nujūm al-ʿAwālī – by al-ʿIṣāmī al-Makkī – Vol. 3, p. 97
Naẓm Durar al-Simṭayn – by al-Zarandī – p. 202
Sharḥ Iḥqāq al-Ḥaqq – by al-Marʿashī – Vol. 11, p. 192
Minhāj al-Barāʿah – by al-Khūʾī – Vol. 19, p. 151

---

Doubt:

The Alleged Contradiction Between the Treaty of Imam Hasan (a) and the Uprising of Imam Husayn (a)

 Stages of Responding to the Doubt:

• The objection is incomplete. 

• This case does not fall under the category of the conjunction of two contradictories (اجتماع نقیضین).

Objection : Alleged Contradiction Between the Treaty of Imam Hasan (a) and the Uprising of Imam Husayn (a)

The Doubt:
It is said that Imam Hasan (a) made a treaty with Mu’awiyah and handed over the caliphate to him, even though he had enough supporters and military strength to fight.
On the other hand, Imam Husayn (a) rose against Yazid, son of Mu’awiyah, even though he had very few companions and could have chosen a path of peace and reconciliation instead.

This matter seems to imply that if one of them was on the right, then the other must be on the wrong—because claiming that both were right would amount to combining two contradictories (نقیضین), and the conjunction of contradictories is logically impossible

 Response to the Doubt (Radd al-Shubha):

1. The Objection is Incomplete and Based on a Superficial Comparison

• This is not a case of contradiction (تناقض) but of different strategies in different circumstances. 

• Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Husayn (a) faced very different political, social, and military environments. Their actions were not contradictory, but contextual responses based on divine wisdom and the same goal: preserving the essence of Islam and protecting the Ummah from destruction. 

2. This is Not a True Case of “Niqeedayn” (Contradictories)

• The logic of contradiction (اجتماع نقیضین محال) applies only when two absolute and opposing propositions are affirmed simultaneously. 

• However, the treaty and the uprising do not represent contradictory truths, but rather complementary methods in the face of evolving political tyranny. 

  • Imam Hasan (a) signed the peace treaty to protect the lives of his followers and to preserve the religion at a time when civil war would have meant annihilation of the Shi‘a. 

  • Imam Husayn (a), however, found himself in a time where silence would have meant endorsing the corruption and legitimizing Yazid’s tyrannical rule, so resistance became obligatory, even if it meant martyrdom. 

3. Both Were Infallible and Divinely Guided Imams

• According to Shi‘a belief, both Imams were maʿṣūm (infallible) and acted only by divine guidance. 

• There was no contradiction in their objectives; only the external strategies differed, tailored to their respective times. 

• This diversity in action reflects depth of leadership, not contradiction. 

Conclusion:

The idea that the actions of Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Husayn (a) are contradictory is based on a misunderstanding of historical context and Islamic logic. Their actions were not opposites but strategically aligned responses to different phases of the same conflict: the struggle between divine justice and worldly tyranny.

Thus, there is no contradiction, and the Shi‘a doctrine of Imamate and Ismah (infallibility) remains intact and rationally consistent.

Firstly: The Incompleteness of the Objection

This objection is fundamentally flawed and unstable, because historically it is proven that Imam Hasan’s (a) army had become weakened due to internal betrayal. Several military commanders deceived him and defected to the enemy. This reality is made clear in the following historical narration:

فلما كان من غد وجه معاوية بخيله إليه، فخرج إليهم عبيد الله بن العباس فيمن معه، فضر بهم حتى ردهم إلى معسكرهم، فلما كان الليل أرسل معاوية إلى عبيد الله بن العباس: أن الحسن قد راسلني في الصلح، وهو مسلم الأمر إلي، فإن دخلت في طاعتي الآن كنت متبوعا وإلا دخلت وأنت تابع، ولك إن جتتني الآن أن أعطيك ألف ألف درهم، يعجل لك في هذا الوقت النصف وإذا دخلت الكوفة النصف الآخر، فانسل عبيد الله ليلا، فدخل عسكر معاوية فوفى له بما وعده…،.‏ (1)

“When the next day came, Mu’awiyah sent his cavalry against him (Imam Hasan’s army), and ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Abbas came out with his forces and struck them hard, driving them back to their own camp. But when night fell, Mu’awiyah secretly sent a message to ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, saying: ‘Hasan has written to me regarding a peace agreement and is going to hand over the government to me. If you submit to me now, you will be considered a leader, otherwise, you will have to follow as a subordinate. If you come to me now, I will give you one million dirhams—half immediately, and the other half once we enter Kufa.’ So, ‘Ubayd Allah defected during the night and entered Mu’awiyah’s camp, and Mu’awiyah fulfilled his promise and gave him the money.”
(Ref: [1])

But this was not the end of the conspiracies. They escalated to such an extent that there were plans to hand Imam Hasan (a) over to Mu’awiyah. However, Imam (a) became aware of the plot in time, and at that moment, he was faced with only two options:

(1) Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, p. 42

1.Accepting a humiliating defeat
2.Choosing an honorable peace

Thus, Imam Ḥasan (a) preferred the second path over the first. In contrast, the case of Imam Ḥusayn (a) was different. He initiated a movement accompanied by companions whose hearts were as firm as iron. Their sacrifice and steadfastness wrote a chapter in history that became an eternal example of bravery, honor, and standing for the truth. Therefore, there was a clear difference between the companions of Imam Ḥasan (a) and the companions of Imam Ḥusayn (a), and this difference is reflected in their respective decisions.

Secondly: This matter is not a case of “combining two opposites”

The objection that Imam Ḥasan’s peace treaty and Imam Ḥusayn’s battle negate one another is invalid. This is because Imam Ḥasan’s treaty was in exact accordance with the statement of the Noble Prophet ﷺ:

“إن ابني هذا سيد، وسيصلح الله به بين فتتين عظيمتين من المسلمين” (1)

“Indeed, this son of mine is a leader, and Allah will bring reconciliation through him between two great groups of Muslims.” (1)

Therefore, Imam Ḥasan’s making peace was just as legitimate and truthful as the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah conducted by the Noble Prophet ﷺ himself. No one can claim that Imam Ḥasan’s treaty was unlawful, for in Islam, peace is permissible under specific conditions—whether with Muslims or non-Muslims.

Similarly, Imam Ḥusayn’s battle was also in accordance with the Prophet’s ﷺ prophecy. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

“الحسن والحسين سيدا شباب أهل الجنة” (2)

“Ḥasan and Ḥusayn are the leaders of the youth of Paradise.” (2)

And in another narration:

“حسين مني وأنا من حسين” (3)

“Ḥusayn is from me, and I am from Ḥusayn.” (3)

Al-Manāwī, in Fayḍ al-Qadīr, commented:

“‘Ḥusayn is from me, and I am from Ḥusayn.’ Qāḍī said: It is as if the Prophet ﷺ, through the light of revelation, came to know all the circumstances that would occur between Ḥusayn (a) and his people. Thus, he mentioned him specifically, clarifying that in terms of the obligation of love, veneration, and the prohibition of fighting against him, he and Ḥusayn are like one reality. This is further emphasized by the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: ‘Allah loves the one who loves Ḥusayn.’ Indeed, loving Ḥusayn is in reality loving the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and loving the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is in reality loving Allah.” (4)

In fact, this indicates that whoever lives in the era of Ḥusayn (a) is obligated to support him. As al-Shawkānī mentioned in al-Dar al-Saḥābah fī Manāqib al-Qarābah wa al-Ṣaḥābah:

“Al-Baghawī, Ibn al-Sakan, al-Bārūdī, Ibn Mandah, Ibn ʿAsākir, and al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr—all with a chain whose narrators are trustworthy—narrated from Umm Salamah:

“أخرج البغوي وابن السكن والبارودي وابن مندة وابن عساكر والطبراني في (الكبير) بإسناد، رجاله ثقات عن أم سلمة: ‘إن ابني هذا يعني الحسين ع يقتل بأرض من أرض العراق، يقال لها كربلاء، فمن شهد ذلك منكم فلينصره” (5)

‘This son of mine—meaning Ḥusayn (a)—will be killed in a land of Iraq called Karbalāʾ. Whoever among you witnesses that event must support him.’” (5)

References

1. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 4/204, ḥadīth no. 3629. 

2. Sunan al-Tirmidhī, 6/117, ḥadīth no. 3768; Musnad Aḥmad, 17/31, ḥadīth no. 10999. 

3. Sunan al-Tirmidhī, 5/658–659, ḥadīth no. 3775. 

4. Al-Manāwī, Fayḍ al-Qadīr, vol. 3, p. 513. 

5. Al-Shawkānī, Dar al-Saḥābah fī Manāqib al-Qarābah wa al-Ṣaḥābah, p. 294.

So, where is the contradiction between these two positions, when both are right and legitimate?

Unless the opponent claims that truth always lies in fighting, and that under no circumstances is reconciliation with the opposing party permissible… however, there is no evidence for such a claim. Otherwise, the action of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah would (God forbid) be deemed invalid — and no one can say such a thing.

Thus, both war and peace have their own specific circumstances and factors. Truth and falsehood are not determined merely by whether it is war or peace, but by the surrounding conditions and circumstances.

Third Doubt:

Under the requirements of the peace treaty, Muʿāwiyah became the leader over Imam Ḥasan (ʿa).

Stages of responding to the doubt:

• The linguistic and technical definition of ṣulḥ (reconciliation). 

• A freed slave (mafāʾ) has no right to hold authority over a truly free person (mafīʾ), and Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān was (historically) a freed slave (mafāʾ). 

• The logical and legal requirement of the conditions of the treaty was that Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) should have authority over Muʿāwiyah, not the other way around.

Under the Demands of the Peace Agreement, Muʿāwiyah Was Regarded as the Ruler over Imam Ḥasan (A.S.)

The Doubt:
Some people hold the view that the peace treaty between Imam Ḥasan (A.S.) and Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān resulted in Muʿāwiyah becoming the ruler over the Imam (A.S.).

Refutation of the Doubt:
In order to respond to this doubt, we will proceed through the following stages:

First: The linguistic and technical definitions of ṣulḥ (peace/reconciliation).

Linguistically, ṣulḥ comes from the root ṣa-la-ḥa, which means “to make right” (yaṣluḥu) and ṣalāḥan wa ṣulūḥan (to be sound and proper). It signifies the prevention of corruption. Ṣalāḥ is the opposite of fasād (corruption), while iṣlāḥ is the state of removing corruption, and istiṣlāḥ is the opposite of istifsād (seeking corruption).

To correct something after it has become spoiled is “to set it right,” and to improve the condition of an animal is “to do it a favor,” by which it becomes sound. When it is said that a people iṣṭalaḥū (made peace with each other), it means that the hostility and disagreement between them have come to an end.

Ibn Fāris states:

الصاد واللام والحاء أصل واحد يدل على خلاف الفساد (1)

al-ṣād wa al-lām wa al-ḥā is a single root indicating the opposite of corruption. (1)

والصلح إنهاء الخصومة، وتصالح القوم بينهم، والصلح السلم، وهي المسالمة بعد المنازعة، وقد اصطلحوا، وصالحوا، وتصالحوا، واصالحوا بتشديد الصاد، قلبوا التاء صادا، وأدغموها في الصاد بمعنى واحد، وقوم صلوح متصالحون كأنهم وصفوا بالمصدر، والصلاح (بكسر الصاد) مصدر المصالحة والعرب تؤنثها، والاسم الصلح، يذكر ويؤنث، وأصلح ما بينهم، وصالحهم مصالحة وصلاحا. (2)

The term ṣulḥ means the ending of a dispute; when it is said taṣāliḥū about a people, it means they have agreed upon peace and harmony with one another. Al-ṣulḥ also means al-silm (peace), and it refers to reconciliation that occurs after a conflict. Terms like iṣṭalaḥū, ṣālaḥū, taṣāliḥū, and āṣalaḥū (with a doubled ṣād) all convey the same meaning. The Arabs transformed the tāʾ into a ṣād and merged it into the original ṣād, without changing the meaning. The phrase qawm ṣulūḥ describes people who have reconciled, as if they have been characterized by the very noun of peace itself. Al-ṣalāḥ (with a kasrah on the ṣād) is the verbal noun of reconciliation, which Arabs use in the feminine form, while al-ṣulḥ as a noun can be both masculine and feminine. The expressions aṣlaḥa mā baynahum (“he reconciled what was between them”) and ṣālaḥahum (“he made peace with them”) carry the meanings of reconciliation and restoration.

Al-Rāghib al-Aṣfahānī said:

والصلح يختص بإزالة النفار بين الناس، يقال منه: اصطلحوا وتصالحوا. (3)

Al-ṣulḥ is specific to removing alienation between people. It is said: iṣṭalaḥū and taṣāliḥū (“they reconciled”). (3)

Thus, in the general linguistic sense, ṣulḥ means to remove corruption and establish goodness and improvement; in its specific sense, it means to end disputes, put an end to conflicts, and halt enmity.

As for the technical definition of ṣulḥ, it is derived from its linguistic meaning. The author of al-Rawḍ al-Murbiʿ defines ṣulḥ as:

معاقدة يتوصل بها إلى إصلاح بين المتخاصمين (4)

“A contract through which reconciliation is achieved between two disputing parties.” (4)

References

(1) Maqāyīs al-Lughah by Ibn Fāris, vol. 3, p. 303.

(2) Lisān al-ʿArab by Ibn Manẓūr, vol. 2, p. 517.

(3) Mufradāt Alfāẓ al-Qurʾān by al-Aṣfahānī, vol. 1, p. 587.

(4) al-Rawḍ al-Murbiʿ by al-Bahūtī, p. 379.

And Ibn Qudāmah, in his book al-Mughnī, has defined it as follows:

معاقدة يتوصل بها إلى الإصلاح بين المختلفين، ويتنوع أنواعًا؛ صلح بين المسلمين وأهل الحرب، وصلح بين أهل العدل وأهل البغي۔ (1)

“A contract through which reconciliation is achieved between those in dispute. It occurs in different forms: reconciliation between Muslims and the people of war, and reconciliation between the people of justice and the people of rebellion.” (1)

This is an agreement that brings about reform between those who are in disagreement, and it comes in various types — such as peace between Muslims and non-Muslim combatants, and peace between those who uphold justice and those who engage in rebellion.

In summary, reconciliation (ṣulḥ) refers to anything that creates harmony among people, putting an end to disputes, halting fighting, or resolving hostility between two parties. The very purpose of reconciliation is to remove enmity and establish a ceasefire between opponents. So what is it within the nature of reconciliation that necessitates one party becoming the ruler over the other?

This is something that has neither been said by anyone, nor heard from any ignorant person — let alone from any scholar. The so-called “necessity” being claimed here finds no support in custom, in the Sharīʿah, or in language.

Second: A freedman (mufāʾ) has no right to authority over a person who is freeborn (mufīʾ). Historically, Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān was a freedman (mufāʾ).

Among the matters that nullify this claim and uproot the doubt is the ḥadīth of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ:

ا يلين مفاء على مفيء (2)

 “A freedman (mufāʾ) has no authority over a freeborn (mufīʾ).”

Ibn al-Athīr, in al-Nihāyah, said:

المفاء: الذي افتتحت بلدته وكورته، فصارت فيئا للمسلمين، يقال: أفأت كذا: أي صيرته فيئا، فأنا مفيء، وذلك الشىء مفاء، كأنه قال: لا يلين أحد من أهل السواد على الصحابة والتابعين الذين افتتحوه عنوة (3)

Al-mufāʾ: the one whose town and surrounding area have been conquered, making it property (fayʾ) of the Muslims. It is said: afāʾtu kadha, meaning, “I made it fayʾ,” so I am mufīʾ, and that thing is mufāʾ. It is as though the ḥadīth means: none of the people of al-Sawād (i.e., the inhabitants of conquered lands) should govern the Companions and Followers who conquered it by force of arms. (3)

REFRENCES

(1) Al-Mughnī by Ibn Qudāmah – vol. 4, p. 357

(2) ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ by Shaykh al-Ṣadūq – vol. 1, p. 212

(3) Al-Nihāyah fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth wa al-Athar – vol. 3, p. 483; see also: Gharīb al-Ḥadīth by Ibn al-Jawzī – vol. 2, p. 293

What al-Zamakhsharī said in al-Fā’iq is as follows:

لا يحل لأمرئ أن يؤمر مفاء على مفيء.أي يؤمر مولى على عربي؛ لأن الموالي فينهم. (1)

“It is not permissible for any man to appoint a mufāʾ over a mufī.
That is, to appoint a freed slave (mawlā) over an Arab, because the freedmen are subordinate to them.”

In any case, the mufāʾ is the person who became fayʾ (war booty) for the Muslims, while the mufīʾ is every Muslim who forcibly acquired that mufāʾ. If the mufāʾ obtained was an adult, then the Muslims have the choice: either to kill him, or to release him as an act of grace (minnan), or to free him in exchange for ransom (fidāʾ).

If he was a minor who had not yet reached puberty, then the Muslims are permitted either to enslave him, or to free him as an act of grace, or to release him in exchange for ransom.

But in this ḥadīth, mufāʾ refers to the person whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ freed as a favor—whether that person was young or old.

And concerning the meaning of ṭalīq, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī wrote in Nuzhat al-Albāb:

الطليق اسم لكل من كان بمكة يوم الفتح ومن عليه رسول الله رلأثته لقوله لهم: أنتم الطلقاء (2)

“The word ṭalīq is a name for everyone who was in Makkah on the day of its conquest, and upon whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ bestowed a favor by freeing him, saying to them: ‘You are the ṭulaqāʾ (freed ones).'”

It is not hidden from any intelligent Muslim, in the East or the West, that Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān was among these ṭulaqāʾ, to such an extent that no reasonable person could doubt or hesitate about it.

Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ said:

والثالث: قوله: (أنتم الطلقاء)، وبلغ من استفاضة ذلك في الأمة، أن الصحابة كانوا يسمون قريشا الذين أطلقهم النبي رلليثة حين فتح مكة: الطلقاء، مثل: سهيل بن عمرو، ومعاوية، وأشباههما من الناس، حتى كانوا يسمون أبناءهم: أبناء الطلقاء.

“The third proof is his saying: Antum al-ṭulaqāʾ (‘You are the freed ones’), and the fame of this in the ummah reached the point that the Companions used to call the Quraysh whom the Prophet ﷺ freed on the day of the Conquest of Makkah ‘the ṭulaqāʾ’—such as Suhayl ibn ʿAmr, Muʿāwiyah, and others like them—so much so that they even called their sons ‘the sons of the ṭulaqāʾ.’”

References:

(1) al-Fāʾiq fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, vol. 3, p. 152. See also: al-Muḥīṭ fī al-Lughah, vol. 2, p. 481; al-ʿAbāb al-Zākhir, p. 36.

(2) Nuzhat al-Albāb by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, vol. 1, p. 447.

ʿUmar said: 

وقال عمر: إن هذا الأمر (يعني الخلافة) لا يصلح للطلقاء، ولا لأبناء الطلقاء. فكانت

هذه سمة هم ولأبنائهم، حتى صارت كالنسب لشهرتها واستفاضتها (1)

“Indeed, this matter (meaning the caliphate) is not suitable for the freed captives (ṭulaqāʾ) nor for the sons of the freed captives.”
Thus, this became a distinguishing mark for them and their descendants, to the point that it became as well-known and widespread as a lineage. (1)

Al-Muttaqī al-Hindī has transmitted in Kanz al-ʿUmmāl a report whose chain goes back to al-Muṭṭalib ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥanṭab and Abū Jaʿfar. They both said:

ʿUmar said to the people of the shūrā:

قال عمر لأهل الشورى: إن اختلفتم دخل عليكم معاوية بن أبي سفيان من الشام۔ (2)

“If you differ among yourselves, Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān will come upon you from Syria.” (2)

Ibn ʿAsākir, in his Tārīkh, narrates the letter that the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿa), wrote to Muʿāwiya. After a long discussion, the section containing the main proof is as follows:

واعلم يا معاوية أنك من الطلقاء الذين لا تحل هم الخلافة ولا تعرض فيهم الشورى۔ (3)

“And know, O Muʿāwiya, that you are among the freed captives for whom the caliphate is not permissible, nor do they have any share in the shūrā.” (3)

Thus, Muʿāwiya was among those over whom the Muslims had the right either to kill or to enslave, but they did not do so. Rather, they showed magnanimity and freed him. Just as the Muslims had the right to manumit (free) him, they also had the right to kill or enslave him.

Therefore, it was not permissible for Muʿāwiya and the other ṭulaqāʾ (those who were set free after the conquest of Mecca without fighting) to claim authority over the Muslims, to rule over them, or to issue rulings against them, because they were under the authority (wilāya) that the Muslims held over them.

The evidence for this is that it was the Muslims who granted him the blessings of life and freedom, by which he became able to give orders and prohibitions regarding his own affairs, and to go wherever he pleased.

If he were then to command the Muslims and rule over them, it would be as if a slave were to assert authority over his master — a principle which contradicts the authority and right of wilāya that the Muslims possessed over the ṭulaqāʾ.

This is exactly what is meant by the well-known saying:

(لا يلين مفاء على مفيء)،— meaning: No freed captive (ṭalīq) can ever become a leader over the Muslims.

REFERENCES

(1) Sharh Mukhtasar al-Tahawi by al-Jassas – vol. 7, p. 110

(2) Kanz al-‘Ummal by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi – vol. 5, p. 735

(3) Tarikh Dimashq by Ibn ‘Asakir – vol. 59, p. 128

So, if he claims the right to rule over the Muslims, then, according to Sharia, reason, and analogy, he would be considered an usurper of the right to leadership and thus an oppressor. Therefore, since Muʿāwiyah was a ṭalīq (one who was freed upon the conquest of Makkah), he had no legitimate right to govern the Muslims.

Third: The conditions of the peace agreement required that Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) be the leader over Muʿāwiyah.

It has already been mentioned that the nature of a peace treaty entails the cessation of conflict, the halting of warfare, or the resolution of disputes between the parties. In no case does the concept of peace imply that one party becomes the ruler over the other.

Thus, the treaty concluded between Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) and Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān required the ending of war and the resolution of the dispute. However, it by no means required that Muʿāwiyah become the ruler over Imam Ḥasan (ʿa). They have no proof for this claim rather, there is evidence to the contrary, some of which is as follows:

First Point:
As is well known, the caliphate is not suitable for the Tulaqāʾ (those who were freed after the conquest of Makkah) and their descendants, as we clarified earlier. And Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān was among the Tulaqāʾ, being the son of a ṭalīq (freed one). This is a matter upon which all Islamic schools of thought agree.

Second Point:
The conditions of the peace treaty which Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) imposed upon Muʿāwiyah require that Imam Ḥasan be the leader (Amīr) over Muʿāwiyah and everyone else because an Amīr is the one who gives orders and whose orders are obeyed. Historical records which can in no way be overlooked establish the fact that Muʿāwiyah accepted all the conditions imposed by Imam Ḥasan.

Moreover, the one who sends a blank document and stamps it with his seal before the conditions are written in it is, in fact, acknowledging his subordination even before the terms are set down. This reality alone is enough to completely dismantle the claim, because even if we (hypothetically) were to accept that Muʿāwiyah was Amīr, he still, by virtue of this agreement, became a subordinate (maʾmūr).

Al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī, in Bihār al-Anwār, narrates from Shaykh al-Ṣadūq, who said:

Yūsuf ibn Māzin al-Rāsibī narrated to us that Imam Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon them both) pledged allegiance to Muʿāwiyah on the condition that:

• “An lā yusammīhu Amīr al-Muʾminīn” – He (Imam Ḥasan) would not call Muʿāwiyah Amīr al-Muʾminīn. 

• “Wa-lā yuqīm ʿindahu shahādah” – No testimony would be established in his (Muʿāwiyah’s) court. 

• “Wa ʿalā an lā yataʿaqqaba ʿalā Shīʿat ʿAlī (ʿa) shayʾan” – He would not pursue or take retaliatory action against the Shīʿa of ʿAlī (ʿa). 

• “Wa ʿalā an yufarriqa fī awlād man qutila maʿa abīhi yawma al-Jamal wa awlād man qutila maʿa abīhi bi-Ṣiffīn alf alfa dirham” – He would distribute one million dirhams among the children of those who were martyred alongside his father (Imam ʿAlī) in the Battle of Jamal, and among the children of those who were martyred alongside his father in the Battle of Ṣiffīn. 

• “Wa-an yajʿala dhālika min kharāj Dār Abjard” – And that this amount would be taken from the land tax (state revenue) of Dār Abjard.

So we say:

‏فنقول: رحمك الله إن ما قال يوسف بن مازن من أمر الحسن ع، ومعاوية عند أهل التمييز والتحصيل يسمى الهادنة والمعاهدة، ألا ترى كيف يقول ما وفى معاوية للحسن بن علي

‎)١(‏ انظر: أنساب الأشراف للبلاذري- ‎٤١ :٣‏ والكامل في التأريخ لابن الأثير ‎٦:٣‏ وتأريخ ابن

‎.٣٢٨:١ ‏خلدون‎

 May Allah have mercy on you, what Yusuf ibn Māzin said regarding the matter of Hasan (peace be upon him) and Muʿāwiyah — according to people of discernment and knowledge — is called a truce and a treaty. Do you not see how he says: “Muʿāwiyah did not fulfill his agreement with Hasan ibn ʿAli…”

(1) See: Ansāb al-Ashrāf by al-Balādhurī, 3:41; al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh by Ibn al-Athīr, 3:6; and Tārīkh of Ibn Khaldūn, 1:328.

بشيء عاهده عليه وهادنه) ولم يقل بشيء بايعه عليه، والمبايعة على ما يدعيه اللدعون على الشرائط التي ذكرناها، ثم لم يف بها لم يلزم الحسن ع.

“…in anything he had covenanted with him and made a truce upon — and he did not say: ‘in anything he had pledged allegiance to him upon.’

The pledge of allegiance, according to what the claimants assert, is upon the conditions we have mentioned; and if he did not fulfill them, Hasan (peace be upon him) was not bound by it.”

Do you not see how he (Yusuf ibn Mazin) says: “Muʿāwiya did not fulfill any of the agreements and truces he made with Imam Hasan ibn ʿAli (peace be upon him),” yet he did not say: “in anything upon which Imam Hasan (peace be upon him) pledged allegiance to him”?

And if those who claim there was an oath of allegiance were truthful in their claim, then that pledge would have been upon the very conditions we have mentioned. And when Muʿāwiya failed to fulfill those conditions, its violation would not be binding upon Imam Hasan (peace be upon him).

وأشد ما ههنا من الحجة على الخصوم، معاهدته إياه على أن لا يسميه أمير المؤمنين، والحسن ع عند نفسه لا محالة مؤومن، فعاهده على أن لا يكون عليه أميرا؛ إذ الأمير هو الذي يأمر فيؤمر له. فاحتال الحسن ع لاسقاط الايتمار لمعاوية إذا أمره أمرا على نفسه، والأمير هو الذي أمره مأمور من فوقه، فدل على أن الله يبك لم يؤمره عليه، ولا رسوله بص أمره عليه، فقد قال النبي ص: «لايلين مفاء على مفيء(1)

And here, the greatest proof against the opponents is that Imam Hasan (peace be upon him) made a treaty with Muʿāwiya on the condition that he would not be called Amīr al-Muʾminīn (“Commander of the Faithful”), while Imam Hasan himself considered himself, without any doubt, a believer.
Thus, this agreement meant that he refused to acknowledge Muʿāwiya as his commander, for a commander is one who gives orders and whose orders are obeyed.

Accordingly, Imam Hasan cleverly made an agreement that entailed that if Muʿāwiya were to command him in any matter, he would not be obliged to obey him—because a commander is only one whose authority has been established by a higher authority. And it has been proven that neither Allah appointed Muʿāwiya as a ruler over Imam Hasan, nor did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ command it.

Hence, the saying of the Prophet ﷺ is explicit proof for this:
“Lā yalī muʿtaq ʿalā muʿtaq” — “No manumitted (slave) can exercise authority over another manumitted (slave).”

It is therefore necessary to mention the conditions which Imam Hasan imposed upon Muʿāwiya, so that the picture we intend to examine may become clear. Some of these conditions are as follows:

أن‏ لا يسميه أمير المومنين. (2)

That he (i.e., Imam Ḥasan ʿa) would not call him “Amīr al-Muʾminīn” (Commander of the Faithful).

أن لا يقيم عنده شهادة. (3)

That no testimony would be established in his (Muʿāwiyah’s) presence.

أن لا يتعقب على شيعة علي ع شيئا۔ (4)

That he (Muʿāwiyah) would not pursue or take any retaliatory action against the Shīʿa of ʿAlī ʿa.

أن يفرق في أولاد من قتل مع أبيه يوم الجمل وأولاد من

That he would distribute wealth among the children of those who were killed alongside his father (ʿAlī ʿa) on the Day of Jamal, and among the children of…

References

(1) Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 21, p. 44

(2) ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ by Shaykh al-Ṣadūq, vol. 1, p. 200

(3) Ibid.

(4) Ibid

قتل مع أبيه بصفين ألف ألف درهم، وأن يجعل ذلك من خراج

دار أبجرد. (1)

That those whose fathers were martyred alongside his father (Imam ʿAlī, peace be upon him) in the Battle of Jamal, and those whose fathers were martyred in the Battle of Ṣiffīn, their children shall be granted one million dirhams, and that this amount shall be paid from the revenues (state taxes) of Dār Abjard.

وأن لا يشتم علياؑ.

And that ʿAlī (peace be upon him) shall not be reviled.

Thus, whoever reflects upon these conditions will realize that these very terms, in themselves, strip the caliphate away from Muʿāwiyah, and this was part of Imam Ḥasan’s strategic plan. It is an established fact that Imam Ḥasan (peace be upon him) is not only among the believers but is their leader. Therefore, if, according to the first condition, Muʿāwiyah is not Amīr al-Muʾminīn (Leader of the Believers), it means he is not the leader of Imam Ḥasan nor of any believer at all.

Likewise, the second condition  that no testimony shall be established in his presence  makes it impossible for one to claim the caliphate while testimony is not even accepted before him.

References

(1) Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, vol. 3, Year 41; ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ, vol. 1, p. 200.

(2) Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, vol. 3, Year 41; a similar report is found in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ by al-Dhahabī, vol. 3, p. 264.

Fourth Doubt: The Birth of Imam Ḥasan (a.s.) from the Thigh (Fakhd) of Lady Fāṭimah (s.a.)

Stages for Answering the Doubt:

1. Mention of the primary sources in which this narration is recorded. 

2. Isnād (chain of transmission) analysis of the narration. 

3. Matn (content and text) analysis of the narration. 

Doubt: The birth of Imam Ḥasan (a.s.) from the thigh (fakhdh) of Lady Fāṭimah (sa).

The doubt:
Some people, who do not understand the reality of Shīʿism and its beliefs, may say:
Shīʿa believe that the Imams (a.s.) are carried by their mothers in their sides (janb) and are born from the right thigh (al-fakhdh al-ayman). In their books, it is narrated that Lady Fāṭimah (sa) gave birth to Imam Ḥasan (a.s.) and Imam Ḥusayn (a.s.) from her right thigh.
If this is so, then was Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ  who is the most virtuous among all prophets and the noblest among all human beings  not carried in his mother’s womb and not born from the uterus?

Refutation of the doubt:
What the objector has mentioned above belongs to the category of rare narrations, reported by ghālī (extremist), weak, and deviant individuals who are opposed to the school of Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.).
I have no doubt that if any fair-minded and intelligent person examines these narrations, he will certainly conclude that they contradict the scholarly standards used to establish the beliefs of the Shīʿa Imāmīyah.

Refutation of the Doubt:

 What the doubter has mentioned above is from among the rare narrations transmitted by extremists, weak narrators, and those who have deviated from the school of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). I have no doubt that if any fair-minded and intelligent person examines such narrations, they will surely conclude that they go against the scholarly standards used to establish the beliefs of the Shi‘a Imāmiyyah.

The narration describing the manner of the birth of Imām Ḥasan (peace be upon him) and Imām Ḥusayn (peace be upon him) — stating that “wulidā min fakhidh ummihimā al-Zahrā’” (“they were born from the thigh of their mother Lady al-Zahrā’”) — is exactly the kind of report that some diseased-minded individuals, whose only aim is to search through books to find material with which they can malign the Shī‘a, imagine to be the fulfillment of their desire. But they will never, ever attain such a goal.

To answer this doubt, we will proceed through the following stages:

First Step: Mentioning the Sources Where This Narration Appears

This narration is found in al-Hidāyah al-Kubrā by Ḥusayn ibn Ḥamdān al-Khaṣībī, where it is stated:

وولدت الحسن والحسين من فخذها الأيمن وأم كلثوم وزينب من فخذها الأيسر، ومثله ما روي عن وهب بن منبه أن مريم ولدت عيسى ع من فخذها الأيمن 

 “Fāṭimah (peace be upon her) gave birth to Ḥasan and Ḥusayn from her right thigh, while Umm Kulthūm and Zaynab from her left thigh. A similar narration is reported from Wahb ibn Munabbih that Maryam (peace be upon her) gave birth to ʿĪsā (peace be upon him) from her right thigh.”

The narration is also mentioned in ʿUyūn al-Muʿjizāt by Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, in the following wording:

“وروي أن فاطمة س ولدت الحسن والحسين ع من فخذها الأيسر” (2)

 “And it is narrated that Lady Fāṭimah (peace be upon her) gave birth to Ḥasan and Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) from her left thigh.”

The same narration is quoted by Sayyid Hāshim al-Baḥrānī in his Madīnat al-Maʿājiz (3)from ʿUyūn al-Muʿjizāt. Likewise, ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī included it in Biḥār al-Anwār (4).

Reference

(1) al-Hidāyah al-Kubrā by al-Khaṣībī, p. 180

(2) ʿUyūn al-Muʿjizāt by al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, p. 51

(3) Madīnat al-Maʿājiz by Hāshim al-Baḥrānī, vol. 3, p. 226

(4) Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 43, p. 256

And the author of al-Khaṣāʾiṣ al-Fāṭimiyyah (1) has also narrated it, both of them having cited this narration from ʿUyūn al-Muʿjizāt.

From this, it becomes clear that this narration is found only in these two books, which belong to those who deviated from the Twelver Imāmī school of thought.
If it is found elsewhere, it is merely taken from these two books or from one of them.

Even if it happens to appear in some Shīʿī works, does the mere mention of it in a book prove that it is a Shīʿa belief?

Second Stage: Analysis of the Chain of Transmission

Since we have already mentioned the sources in which the aforementioned narration is found namely, al-Hidāyah al-Kubrā by Ḥusayn b. Ḥamdān al-Khaṣībī and ʿUyūn al-Muʿjizāt by Shaykh Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb—and it has also been made clear that its mention in other books is derived from these two works, it is now necessary to examine in detail the chain of transmission of this narration.

First: The narration as presented by the author of al-Hidāyah al-Kubrā is categorically devoid of credibility and authority, because he has not mentioned any chain of transmission for it, which makes this narration mursal (a disconnected report).

Second: Al-Khaṣībī has mentioned this narration in his book through Wahb b. Munabbih in a mursal form, without citing any intermediary between himself and Wahb.

Moreover, Wahb b. Munabbih himself is considered an extremely weak narrator. Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, in his al-Fihrist, and al-Najāshī, in his al-Rijāl, have explicitly stated that the scholars of Qumm excluded him from the list of narrators of Nawādir al-Ḥikmah (2). This exclusion is an indication of his weakness as a transmitter.

REFERENCE

(1) Al-Khasa’is al-Fatimiya by al-Kajuri, vol. 2, pp. 599–600.

(2) See: Jami‘ al-Ruwat by al-Ardabili, vol. 2, p. 31; Muntaha al-Maqal fi Ma‘rifat Ahwal al-Rijal by al-Mazandarani.

And al-Tustari, in his book Qamus al-Rijal (1), has clarified that the reason the hadith scholars of Qum excluded him was that his narrations were objectionable (munkar) and unacceptable.

Among his objectionable reports is the story of Prophet Jirjis (Jerjis), which al-Tabari narrated from him in his book al-Mubtada’ wa al-Siyar, in which it is stated that the king of Mosul killed Jirjis four times.

Similarly, among these munkarat is a narration transmitted from him by Kitab al-Hilya, in which he says:

مسخ بخت نصر أسدا فكان ملك السباع، ثم مسخ نسرا فكان ملك الطير، ثم مسخ ثورا فكان ملك الدواب، وهو في ذلك يعقل عقل الإنسان… إلخ.

“Nebuchadnezzar was first transformed into the form of a lion, and thus became the king of the beasts. Then he was transformed into the form of an eagle, and thus became the king of the birds. After that, he was transformed into the form of a bull, and thus became the king of the cattle and throughout all these stages, his human intellect remained intact…” and so on.

Similarly, among these munkarat is also the narration that Kitab al-Hilya has transmitted from him, in which it is said that…

أن النبي ص قال: إن أبا بكر وعمر من الإسلام بمنزلة السمع والبصر من الإنسان… (1)

The Noble Prophet ﷺ said: “Indeed, Abu Bakr and ʿUmar are to Islam as hearing and sight are to a human being.” …

And other narrations of this type, which fall under the category of munkarāt (rejected reports), are also transmitted from him.

وعليه، ف (وهب بن منبه) لا يعد من رواة الإمامية بل هو عامي، وقد

طفحت من ماريقه كتب العامة، خصوصا كتب التفسير والتاريخ والسير

وقد تسربت إلى كتبنا بعض مروياته ومخاريقه المنكرة.

On this basis, Wahb ibn Munabbih is not counted among the Imāmī narrators; rather, he was an ʿĀmmī (Sunni). The books of Ahl al-Sunnah — especially works of tafsīr, history, and sīrah — are filled with his narrations and distortions. A number of his munkar (rejected) reports have also found their way into our books.

وذكر ابن سعد في الطبقات الكبرى أن وهبا هذا قرأ اثنين وتسعين كتابا ادعى أنها كانت قد نزلت من السماء، اثنان وسبعون منها في الكنائس وفي أيدي الناس، وعشرون لا يعلمها إلا قليل، وحكي عنه أيضا أنه قرأ ثلاثين كتابا نزلت على ثلاثين نييا. (2)

Ibn Saʿd, in al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, mentioned that Wahb had read ninety-two books, which he claimed had been sent down from the heavens. Of these, seventy-two were found in churches and in people’s possession, while twenty were known only to a small number of people. It is also said that he had read thirty books that had been revealed to thirty prophets.

References

= 6: 399 Ṭarāʾif al-Maqāl by al-Burūjirdī – 2:45; Muʿjam Rijāl al-Ḥadīth by al-Khūʾī – 20:230.

(1) See: Qāmūs al-Rijāl by al-Tustarī – 10:454–455.

(2) al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā by Ibn Saʿd – 5:543.

And Wahb made every effort to spread these false statements and fabricated reports in the books of ḥadīth and tafsīr, and he claimed that many of them were attributed to the Noble Prophet ﷺ and his Companions.

Therefore, his narrations cannot be relied upon, and in this regard, his case is similar to that of Kaʿb al-Aḥbār and Tamīm al-Dārī.

What further weakens — rather renders completely unacceptable — this report is the fact that Khuṣaybī (1) (the author of Kitāb al-Hidāyah al-Kubrā) has been declared to hold corrupt beliefs. (2)

Ibn al-Ghaḍāʾirī said:

‏قال ابن الغضائري: كذاب فاسد المذهب، صاحب مقالة ملعونة، لا يلتفت إليه”.3

“A liar, corrupt in creed, the proponent of an accursed doctrine; he is not to be given any attention.” (3)

The second point:

The narration that al-Ḥadīth scholar Shaykh Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb recorded in Kitāb ʿUyūn al-Muʿjizāt is, in fact, taken from Kitāb al-Anwār, whose author is Abū al-Qāsim al-Kūfī. And it has been said about him:

‏إنه كان إماميا مستقيما في البداية إلا أنه انحرف فيم بعد، فأظهر مذهب اللخمسة، وصنف كتبا في الغلو والتخليط، وله مقالة تنسب إليه. (4)

He was initially an Imami and steadfast upon the straight path, but later deviated and openly professed the doctrine of the Khamsa (extremist beliefs). He authored books based on exaggeration (ghulū) and misguidance, and a specific doctrine is attributed to him.

‏وقال ابن الخضائري: علي بن أحمد، أبو القاسم الكوفي المدعي العلوية، كذاب غال، صاحب بدعة ومقالة، رأيت له كتبا كثيرة، لا يلتفت إليه. (5)

Ibn al-Ghaḍāʾirī said:

“ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad, Abū al-Qāsim al-Kūfī, who claimed to be an ʿAlawī, was a liar, an extremist (ghālī), an innovator, and a man of deviant beliefs. I have seen many of his books, but they are not worthy of consideration.”

REFERENCE

(1) He is considered among the sources of the Nusayri (Alawite) sect.
(2) See: Fihrist Asmāʾ Muṣannifī al-Shīʿa (Rijāl al-Najashī), p. 67.
(3) Muʿjam Rijāl al-Ḥadīth by al-Khoei, vol. 6, p. 244.
(4) See: al-Fihrist by Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, pp. 155–156; Khilāṣat al-Aqwāl by al-ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī, pp. 364–365; and Muʿjam Rijāl al-Ḥadīth by al-Sayyid al-Khoei, vol. 12, p. 270.
(5) Muʿjam Rijāl al-Ḥadīth, vol. 12, p. 270.

Moreover, this report is mursal (with a disconnected chain of transmission) and is not attributed to any infallible (ʿa).

Therefore, the account of conception occurring in the side and birth taking place from the thigh is, from the standpoint of its chain of transmission, invalid and unacceptable; and it is highly probable that it is among the fabricated reports.

That was the analysis of this narration from the perspective of its chain of transmission.

لخطوة الثالثة: في متن الخبر ومضمونه

أقول: إن الأئمة ع في وجودهم كسائر الناس خلقوا في بطون

أمهاتهم، ومر كل واحد منهم بمرحلة الجنين في ذلك الرحم، وولد منه كما

يولد آفراد البشر من بطون أمهاتهم، ومر أيضا بالرضاعة وتربى في حجر

إمه، فهم ليله يمتلكون الصفات التي عليها سائر البشر، ويتميزون عنهم

بغيرها(، ويدل على ذلك الروايات الكثبرة والمعتبرة المتصدية للحديث

عن ولادتهم لمييل من بطون أمهاتهم لا من الأفخاذ، وأسوق إليك في هذه

العجالة بعضا منها، وهو غيض من فيض، فأقول:

منها: ما يدل على أن الحمل إنما كان في الأرحام، وذلك في ما نقتطعه من

الزيارة المروية عن أكابر الطائفة، وإليك نص ذلك: «أشهد أنك كنت نورا

في الأصلاب الشاة والأرحام المطهرة، لم تنجسك الجاهلية بأنجاسها، ولم

Third Stage: Examination of the Text of the Report and Its Meaning

I say: The Imams (peace be upon them) in their creation are like other human beings. They were also conceived in the wombs of their mothers, each one completing the fetal stage in the womb, and they were born in the same way that ordinary humans are born from their mothers’ wombs. Then they too went through the stage of suckling and grew up in the laps of their mothers. Thus, they possessed human attributes, while in other qualities they were distinguished from others. (1)

Many authentic traditions indicate this fact, clearly stating that their births occurred from the wombs of their mothers like other human beings, not from thighs. I will briefly mention some of these reports here — just a drop from the ocean.

Among them is the narration which confirms that pregnancy took place in the womb, as in the statement transmitted from the elders of the sect in a well-known Ziyārah. Its wording is:

شهد أنك كنت نورا في الأصلاب الشاة والأرحام المطهرة، لم تنجسك الجاهلية بأنجاسها، 

“I bear witness that you were a light in the pure loins and purified wombs; the impurities of the Age of Ignorance did not defile you.”

FOOTNOTE

(1) Like their infallibility and purity (peace be upon them), which have been established by the Qur’an and the consecutively transmitted Sunnah, and like the concealment of pregnancy in some of their mothers — as in the case of Lady Nargis when she was carrying the awaited Imam al-Mahdi (may Allah hasten his reappearance) — and this is not a unique occurrence, as the books of Qur’anic exegesis and hadith collections inform us. For example, the pregnancy of the mother of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) was hidden by the will of Allah, in order to protect her and him from Pharaoh’s tyranny.

Just as their infallibility and purity (peace be upon them)  which are established by the Qur’an and the consecutively transmitted Sunnah and the concealment of pregnancy in some of their mothers, such as in the case of Lady Nargis when she was carrying the awaited Imam al-Mahdi (may Allah hasten his reappearance).

This is not a unique incident, as the books of Qur’anic exegesis and hadith compilations inform us. For example, the pregnancy of the mother of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) was also concealed by the will of Allah, so that He might protect her and her son from Pharaoh’s oppression and tyranny.

ولم تلبسك من مديات ثيابها (1)

“And its impure garments did not touch you.” (1)

Among these is also a narration reported from Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), which describes the manner of the Imam’s birth:

وإذا وقع من بطن أمه إلى الأرض وقع وهو واضع يده إلى الأرض۔ (2)

“When the Imam emerges from his mother’s womb onto the earth, he lands with his hand placed toward the ground.” (2)

ومنها: ما روي عن أبي بصير، عن أبي عبد الله ع في حديث ولادة الكاظم عيت، يقول فيه: إن الإمام إذا وقع من بطن أمه وقع واضعا يديه على الأرض”، وأنت -كما ترى- فالإمام ع وبصريح العبارة ينص على أن الولادة إنما كانت من البطن لا من الفخذ، فافهم وتبصر.

And among them is the narration that Abū Baṣīr reported from Imam Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), in which he mentioned the birth of Imam al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him), and in it he said:

“Indeed, when the Imam is born from his mother’s womb, he comes forth placing both his hands on the ground.”

And as you can see, the Imam (peace be upon him) has explicitly and clearly stated that birth takes place from the womb (the mother’s uterus), not from the thigh. So reflect and understand.

These narrations, along with many others like them, make it clear how the Imams (peace be upon them) are born — from their mothers’ wombs. No Shia Imami scholar has ever said that they are born from the thigh; rather, narrations reported from them indicate the opposite. Some of these have already been mentioned, and whoever wishes to know more should refer to the reliable primary Shia hadith sources that are considered authoritative in such matters.

REFERENCES

(1) Misbah al-Mutahajjid by Shaykh al-Tusi: pp. 721 and 789; Tahdhib al-Ahkam 6:114; al-Mazar by Ibn al-Mashhadi: pp. 422, 431, and 515; Iqbal al-A‘mal by Ibn Tawus 3:103 and 129; al-Misbah by al-Kaf‘ami: pp. 490 and 502; Bihar al-Anwar by Allama al-Majlisi 97:187, 98:200, and 98:260.

(2) Madīnat al-Ma‘ājiz by Sayyid Hashim al-Bahrani 6:184.

(3) See: Basā’ir al-Darajāt, p. 461; al-Jawahir al-Saniyya by al-Hurr al-‘Amili: p. 214; Bihar al-Anwar by Allama al-Majlisi 25:43; and al-Anwar al-Bahiyya by Shaykh Abbas al-Qummi: p. 180.

Fifth Doubt: Exonerating Muʿawiyah from the accusation of poisoning Imam Ḥasan (ʿa)

Steps to Respond to the Doubt:

• Muʿawiyah and his historical crimes 

• Muʿawiyah’s political approach and the established reports of him poisoning and killing his opponents 

• Muʿawiyah’s motives and interests in poisoning Imam Ḥasan (ʿa) 

• Historical evidence of Muʿawiyah’s involvement in the crime and refutation of Ibn Khaldun’s claim

FIFTH OBJECTION

Exonerating Muʿawiyah from the Accusation of Poisoning Imam Ḥasan (ʿa)

The Doubt: Ibn Taymiyyah says:

لقول بأن معاوية سم الحسن، فهذا مما ذكره بعض الناس، ولم يثبت ذلك ببينة شرعية أو إقرار معتبر ولا نقل يجزم به، وهذا مما لا يمكن العلم به، فالقول به قول بلا علم، وقد رأينا في زماننا من يقال عنه: إنه سم، ومات مسموما من الملوك وغيرهم، ويختلف الناس في ذلك، حتى في نفس الموضع الذي مات فيه ذلك الملك والقلعة التي مات فيها، فتجد كلا منهم يحدث بالشيء بخلاف ما يحدث به الآخر، ويقول: هذا سمه فلان، وهذا يقول: بل سمه غيره؛ لأنه جرى كذا، وهي واقعة في زمانك، والذين كانوا في قلعته هم الذين يحدثونك والحسن رضي الله عنه قد نقل عنه أنه مات مسموما، وهذا مما يمكن أن يعلم؛ فإن موت المسموم لا يخفى، لكن يقال: إن امرأته سمته، ولا ريب أنه

It is said that Muʿawiyah poisoned Ḥasan (peace be upon him), but this is among the claims mentioned by some people without any Sharʿī proof, reliable admission, or definitive transmitted report to establish it. This is a matter in which knowledge cannot be attained with certainty, so stating it is to speak without knowledge.

In our own time, we have seen cases of people—whether kings or others—about whom it was said that they were poisoned and died from it. Yet, people differed about the matter—even in the very place where the king died and the very fortress in which he passed away. One person would say, “So-and-so poisoned him,” while another would say, “No, someone else did it, because such-and-such happened.” And this is about an event that happened in your own time, with people in the same fortress telling you about it.

As for Ḥasan (may Allah be pleased with him), it has been narrated that he died due to being poisoned—and this is something that could be known, because death by poison does not remain hidden. But it is said: his wife poisoned him.

مات بالمدينة ومعاوية بالشام، فغاية ما يظن الظان أن يقال: إن معاوية أرسل

إليها وأمرها بذلك، وقد يقال: بل سمته امرأته لغرض آخر مما تفعله النساء؛

فإنه كان مطلاقا لا يدوم مع امرأة.‏ (1)

And there is no doubt that his death occurred in Madinah while Muʿawiyah was in Syria.

So, at most, what one can conjecture is to say: Muʿawiyah sent a message to her and ordered her to do that.

It can also be said that, in fact, his wife poisoned him for another purpose, as women sometimes do, for he was given to frequent divorces and would not remain long with any one wife.

وقال ابن خلدون: وما نقل من أن معاوية دس إليه السم مع زوجته جعدة بنت الأشعث، فهو من أحاديث الشيعة، وحاشا لمعاوية من ذلك. (2)

Ibn Khaldūn said: As for what has been reported—that Muʿāwiyah sent poison to him through his wife, Jaʿdah bint al-Ashʿath—this is among the Shīʿa reports, and Muʿāwiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) is completely free from it.

Refutation of the Doubt:

Whoever has read the history written with Umayyad ink will find that attributing the poisoning of Imam al-Hasan (peace be upon him) to Muʿāwiyah is far more widely known than attributing Qifā nabki to Imruʾ al-Qays.

However, some weak-souled individuals with base pens—those led astray by Satan and desires, who have gone to extremes in misguidance and rebellion, and who have turned away from the light of guidance—have worked to distort realities, alter signs, and manipulate events.

They have woven, through their lies, a web that outwardly resembles the truth, yet has no relation to it—just like the doubt we are about to refute and invalidate. Through it, they attempt to absolve Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān of his crime, or to find an excuse for him.

They strive to deceive the general Muslims, fabricating virtues for Muʿāwiyah, replacing his evils with supposed good deeds, and attempting the impossible—raising a banner for him in religion that Allah has cast down.

They wish to elevate for him a standard of truth that Allah has already lowered, despite the fact that reports of curses upon him are as widely known in the Ṣiḥāḥ, Masānīd, and Sunan as the fame of the sun on a clear day.

REFERENCES

(1) Minhaj al-Sunnah by Ibn Taymiyyah, vol. 4, pp. 469–470.

(2) Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p. 649.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement — “We have seen in our own time people about whom it was said that they were poisoned and died from its effect, whether they were kings or other individuals. And there was disagreement among people regarding this, even in the very place where that king died and in the very fortress where he passed away, those present gave differing accounts. One would say: ‘So-and-so poisoned him,’ while another would say: ‘No, rather someone else poisoned him, because such-and-such happened.’ And this was an incident that occurred in your own time…” —
compels us to adopt the same investigative method in order to prove that Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān committed the crime against Imām Ḥasan (peace be upon him).

So I say: When there are multiple parties involved in a murder case, and suspicion falls on each one of them, and each tries to exonerate themselves, researchers and investigators normally turn to certain clues that help establish which individual is the true perpetrator. Among the most important of these clues is determining whether that suspect has committed similar crimes in the past.

Another key factor that helps identify the killer, based on the nature of the crime, is this: whether the same specific means or method of killing that was used in previous crimes has again been used in the present case.

After this, the motives for the killing are examined, along with the personal benefits the perpetrator would gain from it.

If it is proven that a person has previously committed murder, that the method used in the current case matches the method used in prior crimes, and that there exist specific motives and benefits that are essential for him, then the commission of the crime by that person becomes certain — and the crime cannot logically be attributed to anyone else.

The same applies to the matter under discussion here: even if we were to accept the claim mentioned in the objection — though in reality we do not accept it — Muʿāwiyah would still fall among those individuals around whom suspicions revolve.

This is precisely what Ibn Taymiyyah hinted at in the above-mentioned statement, which he made while attempting to refute the accusations attributed to Muʿāwiyah. However, he did not completely remove him from the circle of those about whom there is suspicion. Thus, he said:

The most that an observer might suppose is to say that Muʿāwiyah sent to her (i.e., the concerned person) and ordered her to do so; and it could also be said that, no, rather his wife poisoned him for another motive.

Therefore, from this point, and following the method of those who raise such doubts, we must investigate and examine the following matters:

1. Have there been any previous historical crimes committed by Muʿāwiyah? 

2. Was the same method of killing, which Muʿāwiyah used in previous crimes, also employed in the killing of Imam Ḥasan (ʿa)? 

3. What were the reasons and interests that led Muʿāwiyah to decide to poison Imam Ḥasan (ʿa)? 

4. What are the historical testimonies and evidences that implicate Muʿāwiyah in the crime and refute Ibn Khaldūn’s statement? 

These, then, are the four points which we will explain one after another. Thus, we say:

First Matter: Muʿāwiyah and His Historical Crimes

History has recorded for us the names of certain Companions, Successors (Tābiʿīn), and their descendants who were killed at the hands of Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān. For the sake of brevity, we will mention here only a few well-known figures, the most famous of whom are as follows:

Ḥujr ibn ʿAdī

Ibn al-Khayyāṭ said in his Tārīkh:

سنة إحدى وخ حمسين، فيها قتل معاوية بن أبي سفيان حجر ابن عدي بن الأدبر، ومعه محرز بن شهاب وقبيصة بن ضبيعة بن حرملة القيسي وصيفي ابن فسيل من ربيعة. (1)

In the year 51 AH, Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān killed Ḥujr ibn ʿAdī ibn al-Adbar, and along with him, Muḥriz ibn Shihāb, Qabīṣah ibn Ḍabīʿah ibn Ḥurmalah al-Qaysī, and Ṣayfī ibn Fuṣayl al-Rabīʿī were also killed.

وقال الدينوري في (المعارف) عند ذكره حجر بن عدي، ما نصه: (هو الذي قتله معاوية (2) وذكر ابن الجوزي أيضا في (المنتظم) مقتل حجر بن عدي، وبين تفاصيل أحداث مقتله، فآل مقاله إلى أن من قتله هو معاوية بن أبي سفيان. (3)

Al-Dīnawarī, in al-Maʿārif, mentioned Ḥujr ibn ʿAdī and wrote:
“He is the one whom Muʿāwiyah killed.”

Ibn al-Jawzī, in al-Muntaẓam, also mentioned the killing of Ḥujr ibn ʿAdī and detailed the circumstances of his death. The summary of his account is that the one who killed him was indeed Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān.

Ibn al-Wardī, in his Tārīkh, wrote:

روى ابن الجوزي بإسناده عن الحسن البصري ما معناه: أنه استفظع من معاوية أخذه الخلافة بلا مشاورة واستخلافه يزيد واستلحاقه زيادا وقتله حجر بن عدي وأصحابه، وكان حجر من أعظم الناس دينا، قتل بعذراء ظاهر دمشق. (4)

Ibn al-Jawzī narrated with his chain from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, whose statement’s meaning is that al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī regarded four actions of Muʿāwiyah as very grave offenses: assuming the caliphate without consultation, appointing Yazīd as heir-apparent, attributing Ziyād to himself, and the killing of Ḥujr ibn ʿAdī and his companions.

Ḥujr was among those of great stature in religion, and he was killed at ʿAdhrāʾ, near Damascus.

“Muḥammad ibn Abī Ḥudhayfa ibn ʿUtbah ibn Rabīʿah:

Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb said:”

وكان محمد بن أبي حذيفة بن عتبة بن ربيعة شديد الميل إلى علي رضى الله عنه حين قصة عثيمان رضى الله عنه وبعد ذلك؛

“And Muḥammad ibn Abī Ḥudhayfa ibn ʿUtbah ibn Rabīʿah, after the incident of ʿUthmān (may Allah be pleased with him) and what followed it, inclined strongly toward ʿAlī (may Allah be pleased with him).”

REFERENCES

(1) Tārīkh Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ, p. 213

(2) al-Maʿārif by Ibn Qutaybah al-Dīnawarī, p. 334

(3) See: al-Muntaẓam fī Tārīkh al-Umam wa al-Mulūk by Ibn al-Jawzī, vol. 5, p. 241

(4) Tārīkh Ibn al-Wardī, vol. 1, p. 160

ولذلك قتله معاوية. (1)

And for this reason, Muʿāwiyah killed him.

قتل بمصر، قتله معاوية بن أبي حديج بأمر معاوية بن أبي سفيان (2)، قال به ابن الأثير في (الكامل). (3)

Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr was killed in Egypt. He was killed by Muʿāwiyah ibn Ḥudayj under the orders of Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān. Ibn al-Athīr mentioned the same in his book al-Kāmil.

Amr ibn al-Ḥamīq al-Khuzāʿī:

قال محمد بن السائب الكلبي : صَحب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وشهد مع علي مشاهده، قتله معاوية بن أبي سفيان»(4). وقال ابن عساكر في تاريخه : إن عمرو بن الحمق لما قُتل حمل رأسه إلى معاوية، وهو أول رأس حمل في الإسلام من بلد إلى بلد (5).

Muḥammad ibn al-Sāʾib al-Kalbī said: “He (ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥamīq) accompanied the Prophet ﷺ and participated alongside ʿAlī in his battles. He was killed by Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān.”

Ibn ʿAsākir mentioned in his Tārīkh:

“When ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥamīq was killed, his head was sent to Muʿāwiyah. It was the first head in Islam that was carried from one city to another.”

Muḥriz ibn Shihāb al-Saʿdī al-Tamīmī:

قال الزركلي: «من مقدمي أصحاب علي. كان موصوفًا بالشجاعة وجودة الرأي. قتله معاوية بعد أن قبض عليه زياد بن أبيه في الكوفة مع حجر بن عدي (6)

Al-Zurkalī said: He was counted among the prominent companions of ʿAlī. He was known for his bravery and sound judgment. He was killed on the orders of Muʿāwiya, after Ziyād ibn Abīhi had arrested him in Kūfa along with Ḥujr ibn ʿAdī.

References:

• Jawāb Ahl al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah fī Naqḍ Kalām al-Shīʿah wa al-Zaydiyyah (printed within al-Rasāʾil wa al-Masāʾil al-Najdiyyah, vol. 4, part 1) by Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, p. 181. 

• al-Bayān al-Mughrib fī Akhbār al-Andalus wa al-Maghrib by al-Marrākushī, vol. 1, p. 15. 

• See: al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, vol. 2, p. 707. 

• Nasab Maʿadd wa al-Yaman al-Kabīr by al-Kalbī, vol. 2, p. 451. 

• Tārīkh Dimashq, vol. 69, p. 40. 

• al-Aʿlām by al-Zurklī, vol. 5, p. 284.

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-ʿAnazī

قال الطبري في تاريخه: «أقبل أي معاوية عَلَى عبد الرحمن العنزي، فَقَالَ: إِيه يا أخا رَبِيعَة ! ما قولك في علي؟ قَالَ : دعني ولا تسألني؛ فإنه خير لك، قَالَ: والله لا أدعك حَتَّى تخبرني عنه، قَالَ : أشهَدُ أَنه كَانَ من الذاكرين الله كثيرًا، ومن الأمرين بالحق، والقائمين بالقسط، والعافين عن الناس، قَالَ: فما قولك في عُثمان ؟ قَالَ : هُوَ أول من فتح باب الظلم، وأرتج أبواب الحق، قَالَ: قتلت نفسك، قَالَ : بل إياك قتلت، وَلا رَبِيعَةَ بالوادي – يقول حين كلم شمر الخثعمي في كريم بن عفيف الخثعمي، ولم يكن له أحد من قومه يكلمه فِيهِ – فبعث بِهِ مُعَاوِيَة إِلَى زياد، وكتب إِلَيْهِ : أَمَّا بَعْدُ، فَإِنَّ هَذَا العنزي شرّ من بعثت، فعاقبه عقوبته التي هُوَ أهلها، واقتله شر قتلة، فلما قدم بِهِ عَلَى زياد بعث به زياد إلى قس الناطف، فدفن به حيًّا». (1)

Al-Ṭabarī mentioned in his Tārīkh

Muʿāwiya turned to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-ʿAnazī and said:

“Ah! O brother of Rabīʿah, what is your opinion about ʿAlī?”

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān replied:
“Leave me and do not ask me this, for it will be better for you.”

Muʿāwiya said:
“By Allah, I will not leave you until you inform me about him.”

Then ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said:
“I testify that he was among those who remembered Allah much, among those who commanded truth, among those who upheld justice, and among those who pardoned people.”

Muʿāwiya said:
“Then what is your opinion about ʿUthmān?”

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān answered:
“He was the first man who opened the door of oppression and closed the door of truth.”

Muʿāwiya said:
“You have destroyed your own life!”

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān replied:
“Rather, you have destroyed your own life!”

At that time, no man from Rabīʿah remained in the valley. This was said when he spoke to Shimr al-Khathʿamī regarding Karīm ibn ʿAfīf al-Khathʿamī, and there was no tribesman of his left to speak on his behalf.

So Muʿāwiya sent him to Ziyād with this written message:

“As for what follows: This al-ʿAnazī is the worst of all those whom I have sent to you. Therefore, inflict upon him the punishment that he deserves, and kill him in the worst possible manner.”

When he reached Ziyād, Ziyād sent him to Qis al-Nāṭif and had him buried alive there.

وممن قال بذلك أيضًا: ابن عساكر في تاريخه (2)، وابن الأثير في الكامل (3) ، وابن كثير في البداية والنهاية) (4) ، وابن خلدون في تاريخه (5)، وابن مندة في (المستخرج من كتب الناس ) (6)، 

And among those who have recorded this are Ibn ʿAsākir in his Tārīkh, Ibn al-Athīr in al-Kāmil, Ibn Kathīr in al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah, Ibn Khaldūn in his Tārīkh, and Ibn Mundah in al-Mustakhraj min Kutub al-Nās.

وقال الزركلي: «شجاع، قوي المراس. كان من أصحاب علي بن أبي طالب، وأقام في الكوفة يحرض الناس على بني أمية، فقبض عليه زياد بن أبيه ، وأرسله إلى الشام، فدعاه معاوية إلى

Al-Ziriklī says: He was a courageous and strong personality. He was among the companions of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, and while residing in Kūfa, he used to incite people against the Umayyads. Consequently, Ziyād ibn Abīhi arrested him and sent him to Syria.

References:

• Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī 5:276 

• Tārīkh Dimashq 8:2726 

• al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh by Ibn al-Athīr, 3:81 

• al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah by Ibn Kathīr, 11:234 

• Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn, 3:16 

• al-Mustakhraj min Kutub al-Nās by Ibn Mundah, 2:616 

البراءة من علي، فأغلظ عبد الرحمن في الجواب، فرده إلى زياد فدفنه حيًّا. (1)

“There, Muʿāwiyah demanded that he disavow ʿAlī, but ʿAbd al-Raḥmān gave a harsh reply. So Muʿāwiyah sent him back to Ziyād, who had him buried alive.”

Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid ibn al-Walīd:”

كَانَ السبب فِي ذَلِكَ مَا حَدَّثَنِي عمر، قال: حدثني علي، عن مسلمة بن محارب، أن عبد الرَّحْمَنِ بن خَالِد بن الْوَلِيدِ كَانَ قَدْ عظم شأنه بِالشَّامِ، ومال إِلَيْهِ أهلها، لما كَانَ عندهم من آثار أَبِيهِ خَالِد بن الْوَلِيد، ولغنائه عن المُسْلِمِينَ في أرض الروم وبأسه، حَتَّى خافه مُعَاوِيَة، وخشي عَلَى نفسه مِنْهُ، لميل الناس إِلَيْهِ، فأمر ابن أثال أن يحتال في قتله، وضمن لَهُ إِن هُوَ فعل ذَلِكَ أنْ يضع عنه خراجه ما عاش، وأن يوليه جباية خراج حمص، فلما قدم عبد الرحمن بن خالد حمص منصرفًا من بلاد الروم دس إِلَيْهِ ابن أثال شربة مسمومة مع بعض مماليكه، فشربها فمات بحمص، فوفى لَهُ مُعَاوِيَة بِمَا ضمن له، وولاه خراج حمص، ووضع عنه خراجه»(2).

Although he was among the governors under Muʿāwiya, yet he was not spared from his wrath. Al-Ṭabarī records the reason for the death of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid as follows:

Al-Ṭabarī writes:

The cause was what ʿUmar narrated to me, saying: ʿAlī informed me through Maslama ibn Muḥārib that the prestige of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid ibn al-Walīd had greatly increased in al-Shām, and the people there had inclined towards him, for he carried the legacy and influence of his father Khālid ibn al-Walīd. His bravery and services in the Roman territories for the Muslims were well-known.

So much so that Muʿāwiya became fearful of him and sensed danger to himself, because the people were leaning towards him. Thus, Muʿāwiya ordered Ibn Athāl to devise some stratagem to kill him, and promised that if he did so, he would grant him this reward: his tribute would be waived for as long as he lived, and he would be appointed over the collection of the kharāj (land-tax) of Ḥimṣ.

When ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid returned from the Roman lands and reached Ḥimṣ, Ibn Athāl sent him a poisoned drink through one of his slaves. He drank it and died in Ḥimṣ.

Afterwards, Muʿāwiya fulfilled his promise, granting Ibn Athāl authority over the collection of the kharāj of Ḥimṣ and exempting him from paying his own tribute.

وممن ذكر سبب موته أيضًا: أبو الفرج الجوزي في (المنتظم)(3)، وابن الأثير في (الكامل) (4) ، وابن الوردي في تاريخه (5)، وابن كثير في البداية والنهاية ) (6) .

And among those who have mentioned the cause of his death are: Abū al-Faraj al-Jawzī in al-Muntaẓam, Ibn al-Athīr in al-Kāmil, Ibn al-Wardī in his Tārīkh Ibn al-Wardī, and Ibn Kath

REFERENCES

1.al-Aʿlām by al-Ziriklī, 3:303.

2.Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī (History of al-Ṭabarī), 5:227.

3.al-Muntaẓam fī Tārīkh al-Umam wa al-Mulūk by Abū al-Faraj al-Jawzī, 5:217.

4.al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh by Ibn al-Athīr, 3:51.

5.Tārīkh Ibn al-Wardī, 1:160.

6.al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah by Ibn Kathīr, 8:34.

Mālik al-Ashtar

ذكر السمعاني في (الأنساب قائلا : ومالك المعروف بالأشتر ابن الحارث بن عبد يغوث بن مسلمة بن ربيعة بن الحارث بن جذيمة بن سعد بن مالك بن النخع النخعي، كان أحد الفرسان المشهورين يوم الجمل وصفين، وكان مع أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب رضى الله عنه، يروي عن خالد بن الوليد، روى عنه الشعبي، ومات بالقلزم مسموما سنة سبع وثلاثين من الهجرة، سمه معاوية في العسل، ولما بلغه الخبر قال: إن الله جنودًا حتى العسل» (1) .

Al-Samʿānī has mentioned in al-Ansāb:

Mālik, who was known as al-Ashtar, was the son of al-Ḥārith ibn ʿAbd Yaghūth ibn Muslimah ibn Rabīʿah ibn Ḥārith ibn Jadhīmah ibn Saʿd ibn Mālik ibn Nakhaʿ al-Nakhaʿī. He was among the famous horsemen on the Day of Jamal and Ṣiffīn, and he was with the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (may Allah be pleased with him). He narrated from Khālid ibn al-Walīd, and al-Shaʿbī narrated from him.

He was poisoned in Qulzum in the year 37 AH; Muʿāwiya had poisoned him in honey. When he came to know of it, he said: “Indeed, Allah has armies—even honey.”

Thus, among the crimes that Muʿāwiya committed against the aforementioned figures—and many of them occurred even before the crime of poisoning Imām Ḥasan (peace be upon him)—are reported consistently in the books of history and biography, and are presented as well-established facts.

I do not know what Ibn Taymiyyah is trying to conceal after this, and what exactly he is attempting to defend! It is as though he is trying to cover the sun with a sieve.

Therefore, from what we have presented, it becomes absolutely clear that Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān committed inhumane historical crimes against great personalities among the Companions and Followers, and thus the first matter stands established.

al-Ansāb by al-Samʿānī, vol. 5, p. 476.

Second Matter: Muʿāwiya’s Policy and the Tradition of Poisoning His Opponents

Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān employed inhumane methods against his opponents. Whenever, for some reason, he was unable to kill them openly, he resorted to cunning and deceit, secretly arranging for them to be poisoned and put to death.

Therefore, let us examine his repeatedly employed policy of how he arranged to poison his adversaries. The individuals whom Muʿāwiya had poisoned and killed include:

سمه معاوية في العسل، ولما بلغه الخبر قال: إن لله جنودًا من العسل. (1)

“Muʿāwiya had him poisoned with honey. When the news of his death reached him, he said: ‘Indeed, Allah has hosts even in honey.’

This statement (إن لله جنودًا من العسل)  “Indeed, Allah has hosts even in honey”) became a well-known proverb.

Al-Balādhurī narrated this incident in detail.”

أتت معاوية عيونه بشخوص الأشتر واليا على مصر، فبعث إلى رأس أهل الخراج بالقلزم، فقال له: إن الأشتر قادم عليك؛ فإن أنت لطفت لكفايتي إياه لم آخذ منك خراجًا ما بقيت، فاحتل له بما قدرت عليه. فخرج الأشتر حتى إذا أتى القلزم – وكان شخوصه من العراق في البحر – استقبله الرجل فأنزله وأكرمه وأتاه بطعام، فلما أكل قال له: أي الشراب أحبُّ إليك أيها الأمير؟ قال: العسل. فأتاه بشربة منه، قد جعل فيها سمّا ، فلما شربها قتلته من يومه أو من غده. وبلغت معاوية وفاته، فقال: كانت لعلي يدان – يعني قيس بن سعد والأشتر 

Muʿāwiya’s spies informed him that Mālik al-Ashtar was being appointed governor and sent to Egypt. Upon this, Muʿāwiya sent a message to the tax collector in the region of Qulzum, saying:

“Mālik al-Ashtar is coming to you. If, by some means, you can rid me of him, then for as long as you live, no tribute will be taken from you. So employ whatever stratagem you can.”

Mālik al-Ashtar set out, and when he reached Qulzum—since he was traveling by sea from Iraq—the man welcomed him, hosted him, and treated him with honor, offering him food and drink. After the meal, when Mālik al-Ashtar requested a beverage, he was asked:

“O Amīr, which drink do you like the most?”

He replied: “Honey.”

So honey was brought to him, in which poison had already been mixed. As soon as he drank it, he died that same day or the following day.

When news of his death reached Muʿāwiya, he said:

“ʿAlī had two strong arms—namely, Qays ibn Saʿd and Mālik al-Ashtar.”

“Al-Ansāb by al-Samʿānī, vol. 5, p. 476.”

فقد قطعنا إحداهما، وجعل يقول: «إن لله لجندًا من عسل» (1).

“We have cut off one of them, and he kept repeating: ‘Indeed, Allah has armies even in honey.”

Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ

أورد البلاذري خبرًا ذكر فيه أن سعدًا مات مسمومًا بسم دسه إليه معاوية بن أبي سفيان (2)، ورواه الطبراني في معجمه(3)، وقال محقق الكتاب حمدي السلفي: إسناده إلى قائله صحيح.

Al-Balādhurī transmitted a report in which it is mentioned that Saʿd was killed by poison, and that this poison was delivered to him by Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān. Al-Ṭabarānī also narrated it in his Muʿjam. The editor of the book, Ḥamdī al-Salafī, stated: “Its chain of transmission is authentic up to its narrator.”

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid ibn al-Walīd

“Al-Ṭabarī, in his Tārīkh, mentioned the cause of his death, saying:”

فقال: «خافه معاوية، وخشي على نفسه منه، لميل الناس إليه، فأمر ابن أثال أن يحتال في قتله، وضمن له إن هو فعل ذلك أن يضع عنه خراجه ما عاش، وأن يوليه جباية خراج حمص، فلما قدم عبد الرحمن بن خالد حمص منصرفًا من بلاد الروم دس إليه ابن أثال شربةً مسمومة مع بعض مماليكه، فشربها فمات بحمص، فوفى له معاوية بما ضمن له، وولاه خراج حمص، ووضع عنه خراجه» (4) .

“Muʿāwiya became fearful of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid and felt his own life was in danger, for the people were inclined toward ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. So he ordered Ibn Athāl to devise some stratagem to kill him, promising that if he carried it out, his tribute would be waived for life, and he would be appointed over the collection of the revenues of Ḥimṣ. When ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid returned from the Byzantine territories and arrived in Ḥimṣ, Ibn Athāl had some of his slaves serve him a drink laced with poison. No sooner had he drunk it than he died in Ḥimṣ. Upon this, Muʿāwiya fulfilled his promise to Ibn Athāl, appointing him as supervisor over the revenues of Ḥimṣ and exempting him from paying tribute.”

وذكره أيضًا أبو الفرج الجوزي في (المنتظم) (5)، وغيرهم(6).

“Ibn al-Jawzī has also mentioned this incident in his book al-Muntaẓam, and other historians have likewise recorded it.”

“Here, for the sake of brevity, I suffice with this much, and from it, it becomes evident that this method—namely, poisoning—was repeatedly employed by Muʿāwiya to eliminate his opponents. This very fact narrows down the circle of suspects in the case of Imam Ḥasan’s poisoning, restricting it to none other than Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān.”

---

REFERENCES

Ansāb al-Ashrāf by al-Balādhurī, 2:398–399.

See: the same source, 1:404.

Al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr by al-Ṭabarānī, 3:71 / 2694.

Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī, 5:227.

Al-Muntaẓam fī Tārīkh al-Umam wa al-Mulūk by Abū al-Faraj al-Jawzī, 5:217.

See: Zubdat al-Ḥalab fī Tārīkh Ḥalab by al-ʿUqaylī, vol. 2, p. 24; Al-Dawla al-Umawiyya by al-Ṣallābī, 1:422; and Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān by al-Ṣallābī, p. 480.

---

Third Matter: Muʿāwiya’s Interests and Motives in Poisoning Imām al-Ḥasan (ʿa)

I say: Among the reasons and motives that led Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān to take the step of poisoning Imām al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him) was the issue of the caliphate—and indeed, this was the fundamental and primary cause. This matter is not hidden from anyone; rather, it is completely clear and manifest. Only those who are low in intellectual and ideological standing, and who have surrendered their leadership to falsehood, could be ignorant of this reality.

When the conditions of the peace treaty were written down by the Imām (ʿa), the most important of them was that the caliphate would return to Imām al-Ḥasan (ʿa), and if he were to pass away, then it would be transferred to Imām al-Ḥusayn (ʿa). Because of this, Muʿāwiya could neither find peace nor feel assured. Thus, he intensified his efforts and began to devise means to break this agreement.

For Muʿāwiya, the annulment of the peace document—particularly the nullification of the clause regarding the “return of the caliphate”—was an absolute necessity. It was for this very reason that he martyred Imām al-Ḥasan (ʿa)!

And this is supported by the statement of al-Ṣafadī (d. 764 AH), who recorded in his book al-Wāfī bi-l-Wafayāt, where he writes:

إنّ زوجته جعدة بنت الأشعث بن قيس أمرها بذلك يزيد بن معاوية لتكون ولاية العهد له ووعدها أن يتزوجها، فلما مات الحسن قال يزيد: والله لم نرضك للحسن، فكيف نرضاك لأنفسنا؟ (1).

Indeed, Imām al-Ḥasan’s (peace be upon him) wife, Jaʿdah bint al-Ashʿath ibn Qays, was ordered by Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiya to poison him, so that the caliphate would be secured for him. Yazīd had promised her that he would marry her.

Thus, when Imām al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him) passed away, Yazīd said:

“By Allah! We did not choose you for Ḥasan, so how could we

Al-Wāfī bi’l-Wafayāt, by al-Ṣafadī, vol. 12, p. 68, Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth 

Taqī al-Dīn al-Maqrīzī (d. 845 AH) said in Imtāʿ al-Asmāʿ:

واتهمت زوجته جعدة بنت الأشعث بن قيس الكندي أنها سمته بتدسيس معاوية حتى بايع لابنه يزيد (1).

And his wife, Jaʿdah bint al-Ashʿath ibn Qays al-Kindī, was accused of having poisoned him at the behest of Muʿāwiya so that he could secure the allegiance of his son, Yazid.

Munāwī (d. 1031 AH) stated in Fayḍ al-Qadīr, citing Ibn Baṭṭāl and others, with utmost clarity:

لم يوفّ له بشيء منها، فصار معاوية من يومئذٍ خليفة، ولما خيف من طول عمر الحسن رضي الله عنه أرسل يزيد إلى زوجته جعدة إن هي سمته تزوجها، ففعلت فأرسلت تستنجزه، فقال: إنا لم نرضك له، فكيف نرضاك لنا؟ (2).

He (Muʿāwiya) did not fulfill any of those conditions, and from that day he assumed control of the caliphate. When concern arose over the long life of Hasan (رضي الله عنه), Yazid sent a message to his wife, Ja‘dah, promising to marry her if she poisoned him. She complied, and when she demanded Yazid fulfill his promise, he replied: “We did not consider you acceptable for him (Imam Hasan), so how could we consider you for ourselves?”

For this reason, we say that Muʿāwiya was extremely eager to annul the treaty, and his only path was the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام). The fundamental cause was that the agreement contained a clause which caused him unease and inner agitation: the matter of the caliphate, which would have either remained with Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) had he lived, or would have passed to Imam Husayn (عليه السلام).

Here I present two pieces of evidence that further clarify this matter:

If we consider the reason why Muʿāwiya had Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqās and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid ibn Walīd poisoned, it becomes reasonably certain that the same motivation compelled him to have Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) poisoned as well.

REFERENCES

(1) Imtāʿ al-Asmāʿ by al-Maqrīzī – 5:361

(2) Faiz al-Qadīr by al-Manāwī – 2:409 / Hadith 2167

فسبب دسّ معاوية السم إلى سعد إنما كان لإنكاره عليه دعواه الخلافة، حيث قال عند دخوله على معاوية ما نصه: ((السلام عليك أيها الملك)، فقال له: (فهلاً غير ذلك؟ أنتم المؤمنون وأنا أميركم). قال: (نعم، إن كنا أمرناك))(1)، وفي لفظ «نحن المؤمنون، ولم نؤمرك»(2).

The real reason Muʿāwiya had Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqās poisoned was that Saʿd had refused to recognize his claim to the caliphate. When Saʿd approached Muʿāwiya, he said: “O King! Peace be upon you,” to which Muʿāwiya replied: “Can you not say anything else? You are a believer, and I am your leader.” Saʿd responded: “Yes, if we had appointed you as a leader,” while in another narration the words are reported as: “We are believers, but we did not appoint you as a leader.”

As for ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid ibn Walīd, he had not refused anything to Muʿāwiya; in fact, he was counted among his close officials. However, the reason Muʿāwiya chose to have him poisoned, according to al-Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Kalbī, was as follows:

أما الطبري فقد قال في ذكر السبب : إنه قد عظم شأنه، ومال إِلَيْهِ أهل الشام، لما لأبيه خالد بن الْوَلِيد من مكانة وما تركه من آثار، فخافه مُعَاوِيَة، وخشي على نفسه مِنْهُ، لميل الناس إِلَيْهِ، فأمر ابن أثال أن يحتال في قتله، وضمن لَهُ إِنْ هُوَ فعل ذَلِكَ أنْ يضع عنه خراجه ما عاش، وأن يوليه جباية خراج حمص، فلما قدم عبد الرحمن بن خَالِد حمص منصرفًا من بلاد الروم دس إِلَيْهِ ابن أثال شربةً مسمومةً مع بعض مماليكه، فشربها فمات بحمص، فوفى لَهُ مُعَاوِيَة بِمَا ضمن لَهُ، وولاه خراج حمص، ووضع عنه خراجه (3).

Al-Ṭabarī, while explaining the cause of this incident, writes that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid ibn Walīd had gained a very high status, and the people of Shām were inclined toward him, because his father, Khālid ibn Walīd, had a distinguished position and the effects of his conquests were still felt. Muʿāwiya feared that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s growing popularity could pose a threat to him, so he ordered Ibn Athāl to kill him by some trick. He also promised that if Ibn Athāl succeeded, his taxes would be forgiven, and he would be appointed to collect the revenue of Ḥimṣ.

Thus, when ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid returned to Ḥimṣ from Bilād al-Rūm, Ibn Athāl had a poisoned drink sent to him through one of his servants, which he drank and died immediately. Muʿāwiya fulfilled his promise by assigning Ibn Athāl the responsibility of collecting Ḥimṣ’s taxes and forgiving his own dues

And Ibn Kalbī transmitted the cause of this incident through Khālid ibn Saʿīd from his father, stating that:

أنّ معاوية لما أراد أن يبايع ليزيد قال لأهل الشام: إن أمير المؤمنين قد كبرت سنه ودنا من أجله، وقد أردتُ أنْ أولي الأمر رجلا بعدي، فما ترون؟

When Mu‘āwiyah decided to secure the pledge of allegiance (bay‘ah) for Yazid, he said to the people of Sham: “The Commander of the Faithful’s life has grown long, and his death is near. I wish to appoint someone after me for the caliphate—what is your opinion?”

REFERENCES

(1) Fadā’il al-Ṣaḥābah by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal – 2:988, Hadith 1955; Muṣannaf ʿAbd al-Razzāq 10:390, Hadith 19455

(2) Tārīkh al-Islām by al-Dhahabī – 4:220

(3) See: Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī 5:227

---

فقالوا: عليك بعبد الرحمن بن خالد بن الوليد بن المغيرة، وكان فاضلا، فسكت معاوية، وأضمرها في نفسه، ثم إنّ عبد الرحمن اشتكى فدعا معاوية ابن أثال، وكان من عظماء الروم، وكان متطببا يختلف إلى معاوية، فقال: ائت عبد الرحمن فاحتل له، فأتى عبد الرحمن فسقاه شربة فانخرق عبد الرحمن

ومات، فقال حين بلغه موته: لا جِدّ إلا من أقعص عنك من تكره»(1).

So the people of Sham said, “Appoint ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid ibn al-Walīd ibn Mughirah [for the caliphate],” because he was a virtuous and esteemed person. Hearing this, Muʿāwiyah remained silent but kept the matter in his heart.

Later, when ʿAbd al-Raḥmān fell ill, Muʿāwiyah summoned Ibn Athāl, who was one of the prominent Romans, a physician, and frequently visited Muʿāwiyah. Muʿāwiyah commanded him: “Go to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and devise a plan for him.”

Thus, Ibn Athāl went to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and gave him a potion, which caused his body to deteriorate from within, and he died. When Muʿāwiyah received news of his death, he said: “True success is that which delivers you from those people whom you dislike.”

Thus, from the accounts of al-Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Kalbī, it becomes evident that there was a connection between the death of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid ibn Walīd and the pledge of allegiance (bayʿah) to Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah. Muʿāwiyah’s fear was motivated by two considerations:

First: People were inclined towards ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid because he was a brave man, and in their eyes, his father held great honor and prestige.

Second: Concerns about ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s popularity were reinforced by Muʿāwiyah’s own companions. This became clear when he consulted them about appointing his son Yazid (may Allah curse him) as his successor, and he was surprised that they mentioned ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid.

Hearing this, Muʿāwiyah remained silent, concealed his feelings, and waited for an opportunity to control the situation. When ʿAbd al-Raḥmān fell ill, Muʿāwiyah summoned his physician Ibn Athāl and ordered him to poison him.

This was despite the fact that Saʿd had never claimed the caliphate, nor had anyone pledged allegiance to him, and the same applied to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid. So, what would happen to someone who had claimed the caliphate and had people pledge allegiance to him?

REFERENCES

(1) Al-Munammiq fi Akhbar Quraysh by Abu Jaʿfar al-Baghdadi – p. 360

Shudhūr al-Dhahab fi Akhbar Man Dhahab by Ibn al-ʿImād al-ʿUkri – 1:239

(1) Al-Munammiq fi Akhbar Quraysh by Abu Jaʿfar al-Baghdadi – p. 360

Shudhūr al-Dhahab fi Akhbar Man Dhahab by Ibn al-ʿImād al-ʿUkri – 1:239

Fourth Matter: Historical Evidence of Muawiya’s Involvement in the Crime and the Refutation of Ibn Khaldun’s Claim

The incident of Imam Hasan (peace be upon him) being poisoned is a matter whose narration has reached near the level of mutawatir (widely transmitted). Even if it cannot be classified as mutawatir, it is certainly appropriate to say that its report appears abundantly across numerous historical sources. This event has been explicitly recorded by a group of early Sunni scholars, both narrators (muhaddithin) and historians (muharrikhun). Here, I am presenting a list of these historians who have mentioned the poisoning of Imam Hasan (peace be upon him) in their works. Some of them have even confirmed Muawiya’s direct involvement in this crime. It is also noteworthy that all these historians belong to the Sunni tradition, and none of them are among those Shia historians whom Ibn Khaldun accused of bias. I am listing these historians in order of their dates of death, so that the historical sequence is also preserved.

• Āmir al-Sha‘bī (d. 103 AH)

• Āmir al-Sha‘bī narrates that Imam Hasan (peace be upon him), at the time of his passing, upon hearing about the act carried out by Mu‘āwiyah, said:

قال: ومصداق هذا القول أن الحسن كان يقول عند موته، وقد بلغه ما صنع معاوية: لقد عملت شربته، وبلغ أمنيته، والله لا يفي بما وعد، ولا يصدق فيما يقول»(1

“Indeed, he has fulfilled his desire and given the intended drink. By God! He will never keep his promise, nor is he truthful in his words.”

• Qatadah ibn Du‘amah (d. 117–118 AH)

قال: سمت ابنة الأشعث بن قيس الحسن بن عليّ، وكانت تحته، ورشيت على ذلك مالاً»(2).

Qatadah ibn Du‘amah narrates that Hasan ibn Ali (peace be upon him) was poisoned by the daughter of Ash‘ath ibn Qays, who was his wife, and she was given a large sum of money as a bribe to carry out this act.

• Abu Bakr ibn Hafs

قال ابن حجر الهيتمي في (الصواعق): وبموته مسمومًا شهيدًا جزم غير واحد من المتقدمين، منهم قتادة الذي مرّ ذكره في أعلاه وأبي بكر بن حفص (3).

Ibn Hajar al-Haytami mentions in his book Al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah:
“The martyrdom of Imam Hasan (علیہ السلام) occurred through poisoning, and several earlier authorities have given a definitive ruling on this, including Qatadah (as mentioned previously) and Abu Bakr ibn Hafs

• Al-Suddi (d. 128 AH)

حكى قوله سبط ابن الجوزي في التذكرة (4).

Subṭ ibn al-Jawzī has recorded his statement in Al-Tadhkirah.

REFERENCES

(1) Tadhkirat al-Khawās by Subṭ ibn al-Jawzī – 212.

(2) Al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Saḥīḥayn 3:193 / Ḥadīth 4815.

(3) Al-Ṣawā‘iq al-Muḥriqah by Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī 2:413–414.

(4) Tadhkirat al-Khawās 211.

 

• Yaʿqūb ibn Sufyān al-Fasawī (d. 277 AH)

حكى ذلك عنه ابن الجوزي في صفة الصفوة (1).

Ibn al-Jawzī has recorded his statement in Ṣifat al-Ṣafwah.

• Al-Balādhurī (died 279 AH)

ذكر ذلك في أنساب الأشراف (2)، وذكر محقق الكتاب بقوله: «ولهذا القول شواهد قطعية من طريق رواة آل أبي سفيان وأعداء أهل البيت، وكفى بها حجة ودليلا»، ثم أردف كلامه بذكر تلك الشواهد.

He mentioned this incident in Ansāb al-Ashrāf. The editor of the book commented on it, writing:

“And conclusive evidence for this statement exists in the narrations of the family of Abī Sufyān themselves as well as from the opponents of Ahl al-Bayt, and this alone is sufficient as a strong proof and argument against them.” After this, the editor went on to detail those evidences.

• Abū al-Faraj al-Aṣbahānī (d. 356 AH):

ذكر ذلك في (مقاتل الطالبيين) قال: «ودس معاوية إليه حين أراد أن يعهد إلى يزيد بعده، وإلى سعد بن أبي وقاص، سما، فماتا منه في أيام متقاربة، وكان الذي تولى ذلك من الحسن زوجته جعدة بنت الأشعث بن قيس ؛ لمال بذله لها معاوية»(3).

He has narrated this incident in Maqatil al-Talibiyyin, writing:

“When Mu‘awiya intended to appoint Yazid as his successor, he had Hasan ibn Ali (AS) and Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas poisoned, and both passed away within a few days of each other. The poisoning of Imam Hasan (AS) was carried out through his wife, Ja‘dah bint al-Ash‘ath ibn Qays, in return for which Mu‘awiya grantedher wealth and riches.”

• Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH)

في (الاستيعاب في معرفة الأصحاب)، قال: «وقال قتادة وأبو بكر بن حفص : سُمَّ الحسن بن علي، سمته امرأته جعدة بنت الأشعث بن قيس الكندي، وقالت طائفة: كان ذلك منها بتدسيس معاوية إليها وما بذل لها في ذلك» (4) .

He wrote in Al-Isti‘ab fi Ma‘rifat al-Ashab:

“Qatadah and Abu Bakr ibn Hafs report that Imam Hasan ibn Ali (علیه السلام) was poisoned, and that his wife, Ja‘dah bint al-Ash‘ath ibn Qays al-Kindi, administered the poison. According to some narrations, this act occurred under the conspiracy of Mu‘awiyah, who had promised Ja‘dah wealth and riches in return.”

• Abu Muhammad Abdul Majid ibn Abdoon (d. 529 AH)

أشار إلى ذلك في قصيدته العصماء في رثاء بني الأفطس، فقال:

In his famous ode in the elegy of Bani al-Aftas, he alluded to this incident, saying:

REFERENCES

 (1) Ṣifat al-Ṣafwah by Ibn al-Jawzī 1:103
(2) Ansāb al-Ashrāf by al-Balādhurī 3:55
(3) Maqātil al-Tālibiyyīn by al-Asbahānī: 60
(4) Al-Isti‘āb fī Ma‘rifat al-Aṣḥāb by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr 1:389

And in Ibn Hind and in Ibn al-Mustafā Hasan,

It brought forth a puzzle for minds and intellects.

For some among us say: “No one assassinated him…”

وبعضنا ساكت لم يؤتَ مِنْ حَصَرٍ (1)

In Ibn Hind (Muawiyah) and Ibn al-Mustafā Hasan, A difficulty arose that astonished minds and understanding.
Thus, some among us say that no one killed him,
While others remain silent—not out of incapacity, but out of sheer amazement

• Abū al-Faraj al-Jawzī, Jamāl al-Dīn (d. 597 AH)

في (المنتظم في تاريخ الأمم والملوك (2).

He has narrated this incident in his book Al-Muntazam fī Tārīkh al-Umam wa al-Mulūk

Abu al-Fida Imad al-Din (d. 732 AH

في (المختصر في أخبار البشر)، قال: وتوفي الحسن من سم سقته زوجته جعدة بنت الأشعث، قيل: فعلت ذلك بأمر معاوية، وقيل: بأمر يزيد بن معاوية، ووعدها أنه يتزوجها إن فعلت ذلك، فسقته السم، وطالبت يزيد أن يتزوجها فأبى»(3).

He wrote in his book Al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al-Bashar:

The death of Hasan (peace be upon him) occurred by poison, which was administered to him by his wife, Ja’dah bint al-Ash’ath. It is said that she did this on the orders of Muawiyah, and according to some narrations, at the instruction of Yazid ibn Muawiyah, who had promised her that if she carried out this act, he would marry her. She administered the poison, but later when Ja’dah requested marriage with Yazid, he refused

• Umar ibn al-Muzaffar, known as Ibn al-Wardi (d. 749 AH), mentioned this incident in his history.

Umar ibn al-Muzaffar, known as Ibn al-Wardi (d. 749 AH), mentioned this incident in his book Tarikh Ibn al-Wardi.

• Al-Safadi (d. 764 AH) mentioned this incident in his work Al-Wafi bil-Wafayat.

الصفدي (ت) ٧٦٤ هـ) في (الوافي بالوفيات ) (5).

• Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH) mentioned this incident in his book Imta‘ al-Asma‘.

 تقي الدين المقريزي ( ت ٨٤٥ هـ) في (إمتاع الأسماع) (6)

                                        REFERENCES                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 Nihāyat al-Arab fī Funūn al-Adab by al-Nuwayri – 5:196

• Al-Muntazim fī Tārīkh al-Umam wa al-Mulūk – 5:226 

• Al-Mukhtaṣar fī Akhbār al-Bashar – 1:183 

• Tārīkh Ibn al-Wardī – 1:158 

• Al-Wāfī bil-Wafayāt by al-Safadī – 12:68, Edition: Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth 

• Imtā‘ al-Asmā‘ by al-Maqrīzī – 5:361 

• Shams al-Dīn al-Sakhāwī (d. 902 AH) mentioned this incident in his book Al-Tuhfa al-Laṭīfa (1).

۔ شمس الدين السخاوي ( ت ۹۰۲ هـ) في (التحفة اللطيفة) (1).

• Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911 AH) mentioned this incident in his book Tārīkh al-Khulafāʾ (History of the Caliphs).

قال: «توفي الحسن رضي الله عنه بالمدينة مسمومًا، سمّته زوجته جعدة بنت الأشعث بن قيس، دسّ إليها يزيد بن معاوية أن تسمه فيتزوجها» (2).

Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911 AH) wrote in his book Tārīkh al-Khulafāʾ:

Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) passed away in Medina as a result of poisoning. He was poisoned by his wife, Ja‘dah bint al-Ash‘ath ibn Qays. Yazid ibn Mu‘awiyah had encouraged her, promising that if she poisoned Imam Hasan, he would marry her.   

• Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Diyār Bakrī (d. 966 AH), in his Tārīkh al-Khamīs, narrated this incident citing Qatādah and Abū Bakr ibn Ḥafṣ.    

Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Diyār Bakrī (d. 966 AH) recorded this incident in his Tārīkh al-Khamīs, citing Qatādah and Abū Bakr ibn Ḥafṣ as his sources.                                                                                                                          

• Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (d. 974 AH) mentioned this incident in his Al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Muḥriqah.

Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (d. 974 AH) also mentioned this incident in his book Al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Muḥriqah.

• Al-Manāwī (d. 1031 AH) mentioned this incident in his book Fayḍ al-Qadīr.

 المناوي (ت ۱۰۳۱ هـ) في (فيض القدير ) (5) .

• Abd al-Malik al-‘Usāmī (d. 1111 AH) mentioned this incident in his book Simṭ al-Nujūm al-‘Awālī.

• Muhammad Ashraf al-Siddiqi Abadi (d. 1329 AH) mentioned this incident in his book ‘Ūn al-Ma‘būd.

Muhammad Ashraf Siddiqi Abadi (d. 1329 AH) also mentioned this incident in his book ‘Aun al-Ma‘bud.
And for anyone who possesses even a small amount of fairness or minimal knowledge, all these historical evidences are sufficient to refute the claims of Ibn Taymiyyah and the allegations of Ibn Khaldun.

REFERENCES

Al-Tuhfa al-Latifah fi Tarikh al-Madina al-Sharifah by Al-Sakhawi, 1:283

Tarikh al-Khulafa by Al-Suyuti, 147

Tarikh al-Khamees fi Ahwal Anfus al-Nafis 2:293

Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muhriqah by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, 2:413

Fayd al-Qadeer by Al-Manawi, 2:409 / Hadith 2167

Simt al-Nujoom al-‘Awali, 3:101–102

‘Aun al-Ma‘bud, 11:127

Sixth Doubt: Denial of the Prophetic lineage (sonship) of Imam Hasan ﷺ and Imam Husayn ﷺ from the Holy Prophet ﷺ

Stages of addressing this doubt:

1. Clarification of the meaning of “Ab” (father) in the Arabic language. 

2. The reason for the revelation of the Qur’anic verse: “Muhammad ﷺ is not the father of any of your men” (Mā kāna Muḥammadun abā aḥadin min rijālikum). 

3. The verse of Mubahala as the strongest proof of Imam Hasan ﷺ being a son of the Prophet ﷺ. 

4. Refutation of the doubt by Sahih al-Bukhari and affirmation of Imam Hasan ﷺ’s sonship from the Prophet ﷺ.

Denial of the Prophetic Lineage (Sonship) of Imam Hasan ﷺ and Imam Husayn ﷺ from the Holy Prophet ﷺ

Doubt / Objection:

Some people, who unnecessarily interfere in matters reserved for Allah Almighty, say:
“How can the Prophet ﷺ be the father of Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them) when a clear verse denies that the Prophet of Allah is the father of any of your men?”

That verse is:

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ

“Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.”

Hence, based on this verse, it might seem that the Prophet ﷺ cannot be the father of Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them).

• Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 40:

Response to the Doubt / Objection:In response to this doubt, it is necessary to follow the following steps:

First: Clarify the meaning of “أب” (father) in the linguistic sense.

The word “أب” (father), in the linguistic sense, is used for a parent (father) or grandfather. Additionally, it can refer to an uncle, the owner of something, or a person who is the cause of the existence, manifestation, or improvement of something. Its plural form is “آباء”.

The evidence that the meaning of “أب” (father) includes parent, grandfather, and uncle can be found in the following verses of the Qur’an:

وَاتَّبَعْتُ مِلَّةَ آبَائِي (2)

“And I follow the religion of my forefathers (آبائي).”

Likewise, Allah Almighty says:

أَمْ كُنْتُمْ شُهَدَاءَ إِذْ حَضَرَ يَعْقُوبَ الْمُوْتُ إِذْ قَالَ لِبَنِيهِ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ بَعْدِي قَالُوا نَعْبُدُ إِلَهَكَ وَإِلَهَ آبَائِكَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ إِلَهًا وَاحِدًا وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ (3)

“Were you present when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons: ‘What will you worship after me?’ They said: ‘We will worship your God and the God of your forefathers (آبائك), Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac — One God, and to Him we submit.’”

Here, Ibrahim is Jacob’s grandfather, and Isma‘il is his uncle, yet they are both referred to as “آبائك” (your forefathers).

Some scholars have stated that the root meaning of the word “أب” (father) is nurturing and upbringing. In this sense, “أب” applies truly to multiple figures such as a father, a grandfather, an uncle, or anyone responsible for guidance and upbringing.

Several verses of the Qur’an support this broader meaning.

1. In the Qur’an, one of the meanings of “أب” (father) is also “grandfather.”

REFERENCES

(1) al-Muʿjam al-Wasīṭ, p. 4.

(2) Surah Yūsuf, verse 38.

(3) Surah al-Baqarah, verse 133.

(4) See: al-Taḥqīq fī Kalimāt al-Qurʾān by al-ʿAllāmah al-Muṣṭafawī, vol. 1, p. 30

وَاتَّبَعْتُ مِلَّةَ آبَائِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ (1) 

“And I follow the religion of my forefathers—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

كَمَا أَتَمَهَا عَلَى أَبَوَيْكَ مِنْ قَبْلُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ (2)

“Just as He perfected His favor upon your forefathers, Abraham and Isaac.”

كَمَا أَخْرَجَ أَبَوَيْكُمْ مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ (3)

“Just as He expelled your parents from Paradise.”

 قَالُوا نَعْبُدُ إِلَهَكَ وَإِلَهَ آبَائِكَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ إِلَهَا وَاحِدًا (4)

“They said: We shall worship your God and the God of your forefathers, Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac — the One God.”

2.“– And among its meanings is ‘father,’ as Allah, the Exalted, has said:”

وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ (5)

“And his two parents inherited from him.” 

وَلِأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا (6)

  “And for each of his parents…”

3.“And among its meanings is also ‘uncle,’ as Allah the Exalted has said:”

وَمَا كَانَ اسْتِغْفَارُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ لأَبِيهِ (7)

“And the seeking of forgiveness by Abraham for his father.”

 وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ لأَبِيهِ آزر (8)

      “And when Abraham said to his father Āzar …”

4.“And We granted him Isaac and Jacob, and guided each of them. And Noah We guided before, and of his descendants, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron. Thus do We reward the doers of good. And Zachariah, John, Jesus, and Elias each one of them was of the righteous.”

وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِهِ دَاوُودَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ وَأَيُّوبَ وَيُوسُفَ وَمُوسَى وَهَارُونَ وَكَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ وَزَكَرِيَّا وَيَحْيَى وَعِيسَى وَإِلْيَاسَ كُلٌّ مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَ(9)

“And We placed among his descendants David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron. Thus do We reward those who do good. And (also) Zachariah, John, Jesus, and Elias—each one of them was of the righteous.”

📖 (Surah al-An‘ām 6:84–85)

“And based on what has been explained earlier regarding the lexical meaning of the word (‘ab’ – father) and its usage in the Qur’anic terminology, it becomes clear that the Prophet ﷺ is truly the father of Hasan (a.s.) and Husayn (a.s.), since, by being their maternal grandfather, he is the cause of their very existence.”

REFERENCES

(1) Surah Yusuf, Ayah 38

(2) Surah Yusuf, Ayah 6

(3) Surah al-A‘raf, Ayah 27

(4) Surah al-Baqarah, Ayah 133

(5) Surah al-Nisa’, Ayah 11

(6) The previous verse

(7) Surah al-Tawbah, Ayah 114

(8) Surah al-An‘am, Ayah 74

(9) Surah al-An‘am, Ayahs 84–85

Second: The reason for the revelation of the noble verse,

                                                                    “مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ”

The exegetes, whether Shia or Sunni, are unanimous regarding the saying of Allah, the Exalted, that:

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ الله وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.”

“This verse was revealed concerning Zayd ibn Ḥārithah, because people used to call him ‘Zayd ibn Muhammad.’ Therefore, Allah Almighty clarified that the Prophet is not the father of any man. Here, the sources are cited which explicitly mention this fact.”

1.“Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī:”

القول في تأويل قوله تعالى: مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ الله وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ (1)، يقول تعالى ذكره – : ما كان – أيها الناس – محمد أبا زيد بن حارثة، ولا أبا أحد من رجالكم الذين لم يلدهم محمد؛ فيحرم عليه نكاح زوجته بعد فراقه إياها، ولكنه رسول الله وخاتم النبيين … حدثنا بشر، قال: ثنا يزيد قال : ثنا سعيد ، عن قتادة قوله مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ قال : نزلت في زيد، إنه لم يكن بابنه، ولعمري ولـقـد ولـد لـه ذكور؛ إنه لأبو القاسم وإبراهيم والطيب والمطهر … حدثني محمد بن عمارة، قال : ثنا علي بن قادم قال : ثنا سفيان ، عن نسير بن ذعلوق عن علي بن الحسين في قوله مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ قال: نزلت في زيد بن حارثة (2)

“In the commentary of Allah Almighty’s saying: 

(مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ الله وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ), it is stated:”

O people! Muhammad is not the father of Zayd ibn Ḥārithah, nor is he the father of any of your men whom Muhammad did not beget, such that their divorced women would become unlawful for him to marry. Rather, he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.”

“Bishr narrated to us, saying: Yazīd narrated to us, saying: Saʿīd narrated from Qatādah regarding the statement of Allah, ﴿

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ (‘Muhammad is not the father of any of your men’). Qatādah said: This verse was revealed concerning Zayd, for he was not the Prophet’s real son. By Allah, sons were indeed born to the Prophet  he was the father of Abū al-Qāsim, Ibrāhīm, Ṭayyib, and Ṭāhir.”

“Muḥammad ibn ʿUmārah narrated to us, saying: ʿAlī ibn Qādim narrated to us, saying: Sufyān narrated from Nusayr ibn Dhuʿlūq, from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn, regarding the statement of Allah ﴿

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ(‘Muhammad is not the father of any of your men’), that he said: This was revealed concerning Zayd ibn Ḥārithah.”

REFERENCES

(1) Al-Ahzāb: 40

(2) Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, vol. 20, p. 278

2 – تفسير ابن كثير : وقوله : ﴿ مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ ، نهى تعالى أن يقال بعد هذا : زيد بن محمد أي: لم يكن أباه وإن كان قد تبناه»(1).

It is stated in Tafsir Ibn Kathir under the words of Allah Almighty:

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ

Allah Almighty forbade that after this Zayd should be called “Zayd ibn Muhammad” — meaning, the Prophet ﷺ was not his real father, even though he had adopted him.

Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī:

– تفسير القرطبي: قوله تعالى: ﴿ مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولُ الله وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ ، لما تزوج [النبي] زينب قال الناس: تزوج امرأة ابنه، فنزلت الآية، أي ليس هو بابنه حتى تحرم عليه حليلته، ولكنه أبو أمته في التبجيل والتعظيم، وأن نساءه عليهم حرام. فأذهب الله بهذه الآية ما وقع في نفوس المنافقين وغيرهم، وأعلم أنّ محمّدًا لم يكن أبا أحد من الرجال المعاصرين له في الحقيقة. ولم يقصد بهذه الآية أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يكن له ولد، فقد ولد له ذكور . إبراهيم، والقاسم، والطيب، والمطهر، ولكن لم يعش له ابن حتى يصير رجلًا. وأما الحسن والحسين فكانا طفلين، ولم يكونا رجلين معاصرين له»(2).

When the Prophet ﷺ married Zaynab, people said: “He has married the wife of his son.” So this verse was revealed — meaning that Zayd was not the biological son of the Prophet ﷺ such that his (former) wife would be unlawful for him. Rather, the Prophet ﷺ is in the position of a father for his Ummah in terms of honor and respect, and the wives of the Prophet are forbidden for the Ummah.

Through this verse, Allah Almighty removed the doubts that had arisen in the minds of the hypocrites and others, and made it clear that Muḥammad ﷺ was not, in reality, the father of any of the men of his time.

This verse does not mean that the Prophet ﷺ had no children. Indeed, he had sons: Ibrāhīm, Qāsim, Ṭayyib, and Ṭāhir. But none of them lived long enough to be called a rajul (i.e., a mature man). As for Ḥasan and Ḥusayn (peace be upon them), they were children and did not reach manhood during the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ.

I say: There is no doubt that this verse was revealed in order to remove the objection raised by some people against the Prophet ﷺ, namely that he had married the wife of his “son,” Zayd.

The clarification being given is that the Prophet ﷺ was not the father of Zayd, nor of any of the men who, at that time, had reached the age of maturity and were being addressed by this verse.

The address in the verse is directed toward those adult men who were making this objection, and “Zayd”  as is evident was among them. Thus, Allah the Exalted said: مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ (“from among your men”) and did not say “من رجالكم ورجاله” (“from among your men and his men”), which would have included the Prophet’s ﷺ own sons as well.

Thus, the sons of the Prophet ﷺ are excluded from this, and the question does not arise: “Was the Prophet ﷺ not the father of Qāsim, Ṭāhir, Ṭayyib, and Ibrāhīm?”

Because this verse does not include the sons of the Prophet ﷺ, since they passed away before reaching the age of maturity.

REFERENCES

(1) Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, 6:428.

(2) Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, 14:196.

The negation of the Prophet ﷺ being the father of “Zayd” is, in fact, a natural (biological) negation, not a legislative negation. The proof of this is the ḥadīth in which the Prophet ﷺ said to the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿa):

یا علی! أنا وأنت أبوا هذه الأمة (1)

That is why the Noble Prophet ﷺ is also referred to as ‘Abu al-Mu’minīn’ (the father of the believers). Allah, the Exalted, has said:”

النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَأَزْوَاجُهُ أُمَّهَاتُهُمْ (2)

“The Prophet has a greater claim over the believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.” (Al-Ahzāb 33:6)

“In some Qur’ānic readings, additional words are mentioned in this verse as: ‘And he (the Prophet) is a father to them.’

وقوله تعالى: مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ إنما هو نفي الولادة وتنبيه أن التبني لا يجرى مجرى البنوة الحقيقية (3).

“The statement of Allah, the Exalted:”

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ

“Muhammad ﷺ is not the father of any of your men.”

This is essentially a negation of biological parentage, meant to clarify that an adopted (foster) son cannot be considered a real son, because adoption does not confer the full status of biological sonship.

Thus, the prophetic ﷺ legal (Shariah) fatherhood for the believers is established, while biological (natural) fatherhood is negated. This is why it was permissible for the Prophet ﷺ to marry the divorced wife of his adopted son Zayd.

Accordingly, the meaning of this verse can be understood as:
“Muhammad ﷺ is not the father of any of your men in such a way that marrying their divorced wives would be considered the same as marrying the wife of a son.”

This is because Zayd was one of those men, so when the Prophet ﷺ married Zayd’s ex-wife after Zayd’s divorce, it was not, in reality, a marriage to the wife of a son.

As for the Prophet ﷺ’s adoption of Zayd, Allah clearly clarified that adoption does not carry the legal implications and effects of biological parenthood, as Allah says:

وَمَا جَعَلَ أَدْعِيَاءَكُمْ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ (4)

And Allah did not make your adopted (foster) sons your real sons.

• References: 

• Yanābī‘ al-Mawaddah by al-Qandūzī, Vol. 1, p. 370 

• Kamāl al-Dīn wa Tamām al-Ni‘mah by Shaykh al-Ṣadūq, p. 261 

• Ma‘ānī al-Akhbār p. 52 

• Manāqib Āl Abī Ṭālib by Ibn Shahrāshūb, Vol. 2, p. 300 

• ‘Umdat ‘Uyūn Ṣaḥāḥ al-Akhbār fī Manāqib Imām al-Abrār by Ibn Baṭrīq, p. 345 

• Sa‘d al-Su‘ūd by Ibn Ṭāwūs, p. 275 

• Bihār al-Anwār, Vol. 16, p. 95 

• Qur’anic References: 

• Surah Al-Aḥzāb, Ayah 6 

• Surah Al-Aḥzāb, Ayah 4 

• Lexical Reference: 

• Al-Mufradāt fī Gharīb al-Qur’ān by al-Rāghib al-Aṣfahānī

Al-Zamakhsharī in Al-Kashshāf:

قال الزمخشري في (الكشاف): «أي لم يكن أبا رجل منكم على الحقيقة، حتى يثبت بينه وبينه ما يثبت بين الأب وولده من حرمة الصهر والنكاح، ولكن كان رَسُول الله، وكل رسول أبو أمته فيما يرجع إلى وجوب التوقير والتعظيم له عليهم ووجوب الشفقة والنصيحة لهم عليه، لا في سائر الأحكام الثابتة بين الآباء والأبناء، وزيد واحد من رجالكم الذين ليسوا بأولاده حقيقة؛ فكان حكمه حكمكم، والادعاء والتبني من باب الاختصاص والتقريب ليس غير … فإن قلت: أما كان أبا للطاهر والطيب والقاسم وإبراهيم؟ قلت: قد أخرجوا من حكم النفي بقوله : مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ من وجهين، أحدهما: أنّ هؤلاء لم يبلغوا مبلغ الرجال. والثاني : أنه قد أضاف الرجال إليهم، وهؤلاء رجاله لا رجالهم. فإن قلت: أما كان أبا للحسن والحسين؟ قلت: بلى، ولكنهما لم يكونا رجلين حينئذ، وهما أيضًا من رجاله لا من رجالهم (1).

Al-Zamakhshari stated in Al-Kashaf:

“Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was not the biological father of any of your men, so that the legal rulings that apply between a real father and son—such as prohibitions in-laws and restrictions on marriage—would not apply. Rather, he was the Messenger of Allah, and every Messenger serves as a spiritual father for his community in the sense that reverence and respect for him are obligatory for the Ummah, and the Prophet owes care and compassion toward his community. However, this relationship does not include the other rulings that exist between a biological father and his son.

“And Zaid was also one of your men, who was not truly the son of the Prophet ﷺ; therefore, the ruling for him remained the same as for any other man. His relationship to the Prophet ﷺ as a ‘son’ was merely a sign of closeness and special affection, not real biological parenthood.”

“If someone asks whether the Prophet ﷺ was not the father of Al-Tahir, Al-Tayyib, Al-Qasim, and Ibrahim, I would say: Indeed, he was their father, but they are excluded from the ruling of this verse, because Allah Almighty said: مِّن رِّجَالِكُم (from among your men), which has two aspects:”

1.”These (the Prophet ﷺ’s sons) had not reached the age of maturity, so they cannot be called ‘men’.”

2.”The term ‘men’ is attributed to ‘your side,’ whereas the Prophet’s sons were his own, not anyone else’s.”

“If someone asks, ‘Were not Hasan and Husayn the sons of the Prophet ﷺ?’ I would say: Indeed they were, but at that time they were not considered men, and they too were among the Prophet’s own household, not counted among the men of the general people.”

From the above explanation, it becomes clear that this blessed verse does not negate the fatherhood of the Prophet ﷺ over Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them); because, as previously explained, this verse specifically addresses the men who were present at the time of its revelation.

Therefore, the command of Allah,

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ الله وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ

does not include Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (peace be upon them), as explained by the Sunni mufassirun (exegesists) and muhaddithun (scholars of Hadith).

REFERENCES

(1) Tafsir al-Kashaf 3:544
(2) Surah Al-Ahzab: Ayah 40

Because, due to their young age at the time, they were excluded from the meaning of this sacred verse, and the address of this verse was directed to those who had reached the age of maturity. As you know, they (Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn, peace be upon them) were not among your men but were counted among the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) own.

Third: The verse of Mubahala is the strongest proof of Al-Hasan’s (peace be upon him) status as the son of the Prophet ﷺ.

Allah Almighty said:

فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنْفُسَنَا وَأَنْفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَلْ لَعْنَةَ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ (1)

In this blessed verse, the word “أَبْنَاءَنَا” (Our sons) appears, and it is established through numerous authentic narrations that it refers to Hazrat Hasan and Hazrat Husain (peace be upon them). This proves that, according to the Quranic text, these two personalities are indeed the sons of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

This view has been transmitted by the eminent scholars, mufassirun (exegetes), and muhaddithun (scholars of Hadith) of the Ummah, and it was also testified by a large group of the Sahabah, Tabi‘in, and Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in. I will now present some of their statements.

REFERENCES

• Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him)

• Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him)

•  Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him)

• Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him)

 ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

• Surah Aal-e-Imran, Ayah 61 

• Tarikh Dimashq by Ibn Asakir, 42:431 

• Dala’il al-Nubuwwah by Abu Nu‘aym, 1:354; Al-Durr al-Manthur by Al-Suyuti, 2:231–232 

•   Zad al-Maseer by Ibn al-Jawzi, 1:289; Al-Durr al-Manthur, 2:231; Al-Shari‘ah by Al-Ajurri, 5:2201; Fath al-Qadeer by Al-Shawkani, 1:398 

• Sahih Muslim, 4:1871 / Hadith 2404; Tafsir Ibn al-Mundhir, 1:229

                              ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

• Sa‘id ibn Zayd 

• Jadd Salamah ibn Yashou‘ 

• Zayd ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn 

• ‘Alba’ ibn Ahmar al-Yashkuri 

• Al-Shu‘bi 

• Al-Hasan al-Basri 

• Shahr ibn Hawshab 

• Ibn Jurayj al-Makki 

• Miqatil ibn Sulayman 

• Al-Kalbi 

• Al-Suddi 

• Qatadah

             ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ   

• Tafsir al-Tabari 6:482 

• Dala’il al-Nubuwwah by Abu Nu‘aym – 5:385 & 388; Sirah al-Nabawiyyah by Ibn Kathir – 101:4 & 103 

• Tafsir al-Tabari 6:480 

• Tafsir al-Tabari 6:482; Imta‘ al-Asma‘ by al-Maqrizi – 14:67 & 69 

• Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim 2:667; Al-Dur al-Manthur 2:232; Al-Shari‘ah by al-Ajuri – 5:2201 

• Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim 2:667 

• Al-Shari‘ah 5:2203 

• Tafsir Ibn al-Mundhir 1:229; Sharaf al-Mustafa by al-Kharkushi – 5:367 

• Tafsir Maqatil ibn Sulayman 1:282 (he also included Aisha and Hafsa) 

• Tafsir Ibn Abi Zamanin 1:292 

• Tafsir al-Tabari 6:481; Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim 2:667; Al-Muharrar al-Wajiz (Tafsir Ibn ‘Atiyyah) 1:449 

• Tafsir al-Tabari 6:481

Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd (1)

So, will some people have the audacity to claim that this verse contradicts the verse in which Allah Almighty said:

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ﴾ (2)

And as you can see, the Verse of Mubahala clearly establishes the sonship (being the sons) of Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them) with the Prophet ﷺ. Similarly, it proves that in Allah Almighty’s statement: مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ, the term “men” refers to those men who were addressed at the time of the verse’s revelation, and not to the Prophet ﷺ’s own men (i.e., his sons), even if they were present.

Do you not see that in the Verse of Mubahala Allah Almighty said: 

فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا (“Say: Come! We will call our sons”), which is addressed to the Prophet ﷺ? This is clear evidence that the Prophet ﷺ was not the father of those addressed men, but rather the father of his own men (i.e., his own offspring). Otherwise, Allah Almighty would not have commanded the Prophet ﷺ to “call our sons” if he did not have sons!

Fourth: Refutation of the Objection by al-Bukhari and Affirmation of Hasan’s (peace be upon him) Sonship with the Prophet ﷺ

I say: the matter has now turned around, and it is we who are raising the objection, not the other way around. They must now choose between two paths:

Either they accept the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet ﷺ, through which the truth becomes manifest,
or they raise an objection against this book (Sahih al-Bukhari), which is considered the most authentic book after the Book of Allah.

Al-Bukhari, in his Sahih, has affirmed the relationship of Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (peace be upon him) with the Prophet ﷺ.
He narrates in his Sahih a report whose chain reaches Abu Bakrah (may Allah be pleased with him), in which he said:

أَخْرَجَ النَّبِيُّ الله ذَاتَ يَوْمِ الحَسَنَ، فَصَعِدَ بِهِ عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ، فَقَالَ:

“The Prophet ﷺ one day took Hasan (peace be upon him) outside, then seated him beside him on the pulpit, and said:

REFERENCES

(1) Tafsir al-Tabari 6:482

(2) Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 40

ابْنِي هَذَا سَيِّدٌ، وَلَعَلَّ اللهُ أَنْ يُصْلِحَ بِهِ بَيْنَ فِئَتَيْنِ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ» (1).

“My son is a leader, and through him, Allah will reconcile two groups of the Muslims.”

Thus, we say that this hadith, narrated in Sahih Bukhari, establishes that Hasan (peace be upon him) is indeed the son of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and this supports our position rather than contradicting it, as we have demonstrated through proofs and arguments. This view has been accepted by a large group of Muslims, except for a few who raise doubts or objections regarding this matter.

Therefore, those who object are, in fact, providing evidence against themselves, and the argument applies more appropriately against them, because they accept the authenticity of the hadiths in Sahih Bukhari. Consequently, it would be said to them:

اللہ تعالیٰ کا ارشاد ہے: مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ (2)

Praise be to Allah! He is not the father of any of your men, but He is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.

If, according to your belief, this verse negates the sonship of Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them), then why did Bukhari in his Sahih narrate from Abu Bakrah that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Hasan is my son”?

What will you say about this?

Faced with this difficulty, they have three options:

1. They could object to the Book of Allah, but there is no way for them to do so. 

2. They could object to Sahih Bukhari, but this is also impossible, because they claim it is the most authentic book after the Qur’an. 

3. Or they could submit to the truth, which is that Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them) are indeed the sons of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, as explicitly established in the Qur’an and the mutawatir narrations of the Sunnah. 

This noble verse was not revealed to negate the sonship of these two from the Prophet ﷺ, but as Islamic scholars have demonstrated with evidence, it was revealed to deny the paternal relationship of Zayd ibn Harithah to the Prophet ﷺ, and it pertains to others, not to the Prophet’s own children.

REFERENCES

(1) Sahih al-Bukhari 4:204, Hadith 3620

(2) Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah [40]

                                    ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ 

﴿خُذِ الْعَفْوَ وَأْمُرْ بِالْعُرْفِ وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْجَاهِلِينَ﴾ (1) 

“Exercise forbearance, enjoin what is good, and turn away from the ignorant.”

                                                   ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ    

Surah Al-A‘rāf, Ayah 199.

Seventh Objection: That the Verse of Mubahala does not indicate the virtue of Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them) and their parents

Stages of responding to this objection:

1. The individuals included in the Mubahala:
   The verse specifies who was to participate, highlighting the elevated status of the Prophet ﷺ’s family. 

2. Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas’s acknowledgment in Mu‘awiyah’s assembly:
   He admitted that such a distinction had never been granted to anyone before and would not be granted in the future. 

3. The Prophet ﷺ’s instruction regarding Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them) and their parents:
   He said: “When I pray, you all should say ‘Ameen’” (إِذَا أَنَا دَعَوْتُ فَأَمِّنُوا), indicating their exceptional status. 

4. The observation of the Christians:
   They remarked: “We see faces such that if they prayed to Allah to move a mountain, it would be moved.” 

5. The occurrence of Mubahala and Allah’s prior knowledge of it:
   Even though the Mubahala did not physically take place, its inclusion in divine knowledge demonstrates that this verse was revealed to indicate the virtue of Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them) and their parents.

                             ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

Objection: That the Verse of Mubahala does not indicate the virtue of Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them) and their parents.

Ibn Taymiyyah said:

“As for his taking Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn in the Mubahala, it is an authentic hadith, narrated by Muslim from Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas. He said in a long narration: ‘When this verse was revealed:

فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنْفُسَنَا وَأَنْفُسَكُمْ

(The Prophet ﷺ said: “Come, let us invoke the curse”), he called Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn, and said: “O Allah, these are my family.”’”

               اللهم هؤلاء أهلي

O Allah! These are my Ahl al-Bayt (my family).

لا يقتضي أن يكون من باهل به أفضل من جميع الصحابة، كما لم يوجب

Being included in the Mubahala does not necessarily imply that those whom the Prophet ﷺ called to the Mubahala are superior to all the other Companions.

──────────────────────────────

REFERENCES

(1) Surah Al-Imran: Verse 3:61

(2) Minhaj as-Sunnah by Ibn Taymiyyah – Volume 7, Page 123                                                        ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ 

 أن تكون فاطمة وحسن وحسين أفضل من جميع الصحابة (1).

Just as it also does not necessarily follow that Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn are superior to all the Companions.

Refutation of the Objection:

I say: In reality, Ibn Taymiyyah himself has spared us the effort of extensive investigation, because he has already acknowledged the authenticity of the ḥadīth and admitted that this matter was exclusive to those four pure personalities—ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn (ʿalayhim al-salām). These are the very ones whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ gathered beneath his cloak. This fact is, in truth, a resounding slap upon the faces of the distorters and a sharp sword against those who seek to sow doubts and suspicions.

However, once Ibn Taymiyyah had no choice but to accept the authenticity of this ḥadīth—and was compelled to acknowledge that Ḥasan, Ḥusayn, and their noble parents (ʿalayhim al-salām) were the very ones whom Allah and His Messenger ﷺ selected for this momentous occasion—he then devoted all his efforts to stripping them of the virtue that the verse of Mubāhala had granted them.

Yet this virtue is so evident that even the common people can easily perceive it, let alone the scholars of religion. Therefore, since Ibn Taymiyyah himself admitted to this reality, refuting his feeble objection has become far easier for us.

He then says: …

لا يقتضي أن يكون من باهل به أفضل من جميع الصحابة، كما لم يوجب أن تكون فاطمة وحسن وحسين أفضل من جميع الصحابة (2).

It is not necessary that those who were included in the Mubāhala are thereby superior to all of the Companions, just as it does not necessarily follow that Fāṭimah, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn (ʿalayhim al-salām) are superior to all of the Companions.

And in this regard, a detailed discussion will be presented in the following stages:

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
(1The same source, vol. 7, p. 127
(2) The previous source, vol. 7, p. 127
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

First: The acknowledgment of Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ in the assembly of Muʿāwiyah that this is a virtue which no one has ever attained before, nor will anyone attain in the future.

It is no secret that the Day of Mubahala was a decisive moment between tawḥīd (monotheism) and shirk (polytheism), and it is counted as one of the most crucial moments in the entire history of the Prophets and Messengers.

For this monumental day, the Divine command specifically chose the four pure personalities—Imam Ḥasan, Imam Ḥusayn, Lady Fāṭimah, and Imam ʿAlī (peace be upon them all)—while all the Muslims present at that time longed in their hearts that perhaps they might be chosen for this great event.

They were certain, however, that this choice was not a human preference but rather a Divine selection. Still, their expectation remained that the Holy Prophet ﷺ would take with him those most beloved and closest to Allah and His Messenger—that is, his Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them all).

This expectation was based on the fact that throughout his blessed life, the Prophet ﷺ repeatedly revealed the immense love, honor, and exalted rank of Imam Ḥasan, Imam Ḥusayn, Lady Fāṭimah, and Imam ʿAlī (peace be upon them all). The Companions not only heard these declarations but also recorded them, until these virtues spread throughout the world and became firmly engraved in the minds of all.

That is why, when the Holy Prophet ﷺ came out holding the hands of Ḥasan, Ḥusayn, Fāṭimah, and ʿAlī (peace be upon them all), it was not at all a matter of surprise for the Muslims.

And among those Companions who longed for this honor was Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ. He wished that he had been included among those individuals whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had called for this decisive occasion of Mubāhalah.

The narration transmitted by the scholars of Ḥadīth from Ahl al-Sunnah reads as follows:

أمر معاوية بن أبي سفيان سعدًا، فقال: ما منعك أن تسبّ أبا تراب ؟ فقال: أما ما ذكرت ثلاثا قالهن له رسول الله الله فلن أسبه، لأن تكون لي واحدة منهن أحب إلي من

۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

حمر النعم، سمعت رسول الله ص يقول له وقد خلّفه في بعض مغازيه، فقال له علي السلام : يا رسول الله خلفتني مع النساء والصبيان، فقال له رسول الله : أما ترضى أن تكون مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنه لا نبوة بعدي، وسمعته يقول يوم خيبر : لأعطين الراية رجلا يحب الله ورسوله ويحبه الله ورسوله، قال: فتطاولنا لها ، فقال : أدعوا لي عليا، فأوتي به أرمد، فبصق في عينيه، ودفع الراية إليه، ففتح الله عليه، ولما نزلت هذه الآية: ﴿فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءكُمْ دعا رسول الله الله عليا وفاطمة وحسنا وحسينًا، فقال: «اللهم هؤلاء أهلي»(1).

Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān once ordered Saʿd and said:

“What has kept you from cursing Abū Turāb (ʿAlī عليه السلام)?”

Saʿd replied:
*”Three things which I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say about ʿAlī have prevented me. For me, even one of them is dearer than red camels (the most prized wealth at that time).

I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, when he left ʿAlī behind during one of the battles. ʿAlī said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, have you left me behind with women and children?’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ replied:* …”

(And then Saʿd continued narrating the virtues of ʿAlī).

أما ترضى أن تكون مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنه لا نبوة بعدي

“Are you not pleased that your position to me is like the position of Hārūn (Aaron) to Mūsā (Moses), except that there will be no prophet after me?

And I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ on the Day of Khaybar say:”

لأعطين الراية رجلا يحب الله ورسوله ويحبه الله ورسوله

“I will give this banner to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and Allah and His Messenger love him.”
Sʿad said: “When we heard this, all of us desired to receive the banner. Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘Call ʿAlī.’ ʿAlī came while he was suffering from an eye ailment. The Prophet ﷺ applied his blessed saliva to his eyes and handed him the banner. Then Allah granted victory at his hands.”

And when this verse was revealed:

فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ 

“So say, ‘Come! Let us call our sons and your sons.’
Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ called ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn (peace be upon them), and he said:”

اللهم هؤلاء أهلي

O Allah! These are my Ahl al-Bayt.

Now, if in this matter there were no merit or superiority for al-Ḥasanayn and their parents (peace be upon them), as Ibn Taymiyyah claimed, then why would Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ wish that such an honor had also been granted to him?!

And Saʿd, as is well-known, was among the Companions, and according to the narrations of Ahl al-Sunnah he was one of the ‘Asharah Mubashsharah (the ten promised Paradise). Likewise, by their own texts, he is counted among the Sābiqūn al-Awwalūn (the earliest believers).

References

(1) Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar – vol. 7, p. 74
Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim by Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ – vol. 7, p. 414
al-Ifṣāḥ ʿan Maʿānī al-Ṣiḥāḥ by Abū al-Muẓaffar – vol. 1, p. 348
al-Jamʿ bayna al-Ṣaḥīḥayn by al-Ḥumaydī – vol. 1, p. 198 / ḥadīth no. 209

۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

Then Ibn Taymiyyah, while discussing the verse of Mubāhala, spoke about the virtues of those individuals whom the Noble Prophet ﷺ had included with him in the Mubāhala. However, in an attempt to diminish their virtues, he presented an explanation in which he said:

بل لهم بالمباهلة نوع فضيلة (1)

“Rather, because of the Mubāhala, they have a special kind of merit.”

This means that for the Companions in general, a virtue (faḍīlah) is established. And, as is known, a category (نوع جنس) falls under a genus (مجموعی وصف). But here a question arises, which may occur to some minds:

If a general virtue was indeed established for the Companions, then why did Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ not wish for merely one of those general virtues to be his share, but instead longed specifically for the particular virtue granted to those who were called to the Mubāhala?

And if the Companions truly did possess a general merit, would Muʿāwiya have sat silently and allowed Saʿd to speak as he did regarding ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al-salām)? Especially when Muʿāwiya had convened that very gathering for the purpose of belittling the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿalayhi al-salām), and not to hear his or his Ahl al-Bayt’s virtues!

Would it not have been more fitting for Muʿāwiya, in the presence of the people gathered, to explain that there are two kinds of virtue: “specific virtue” (nawʿ faḍīlah) and “general virtue” (jins faḍīlah)? And that the Companions were in fact superior to Ḥasan, Ḥusayn, ʿAlī, and Fāṭima (ʿalayhim al-salām), because those sacred ones were granted by the Mubāhala only a specific virtue, and not the general one?

All of this, and other matters like it, provide you with clear proofs and shining evidences—proofs which none can deny or cast doubt upon—that these four pure personalities are, after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, the most excellent of all creation.

Thus, their selection for the Mubāhala, for this decisive mutual invocation and imprecation—which stood at the dividing line between tawḥīd (pure monotheism) and shirk (associationism)—was itself a proclamation of their lofty status and exalted rank.

This event is of the utmost significance, for it bore with it the very signs of Allah’s wrath and punishment upon those who claimed divinity for Jesus (ʿalayhi al-salām).

Minhāj al-Sunnah, vol. 7, p. 126.

                                                 ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔            

Second Point: The statement of the Holy Prophet ﷺ to al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them both) and their parents (peace be upon them): “When I supplicate, you should all say Āmīn.”

Indeed, regarding the revelation of the Verse of Mubāhala and the exalted personalities who accompanied the Noble Prophet ﷺ in this momentous event, the narrations transmitted have reached the level of tawātur (continuous, mass-transmission), and even beyond. Some of these narrations — in fact, the majority of them — are of the highest rank of authenticity and contain this significant statement:

“إذا أنا دعوتُ فأمنوا”

“When I supplicate, then say Āmīn.”

This directive was addressed by the Holy Prophet ﷺ to the two noble grandsons (al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn), their mother, Lady Fāṭima al-Zahrāʾ, and their father, the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon them all).

This narration has been transmitted in the works of several eminent Sunni scholars in their Qur’ānic exegesis and collections, among them:

• al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān (Tafsīr al-Thaʿlabī), vol. 3, p. 85. 

• Abū al-Ḥasan al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Baṣīṭ, vol. 5, p. 320. 

• al-Baghawī, Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, vol. 1, p. 450. 

• al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, vol. 1, p. 368. 

• al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl, vol. 2, p. 20. 

• al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl, vol. 1, p. 261. 

• al-Zaylaʿī, Takhrīj Aḥādīth al-Kashshāf, vol. 1, pp. 186–187. 

• Ibn Ḥadīda Abū ʿAbd Allāh Jamāl al-Dīn, al-Miṣbāḥ al-Muḍī fī Kitāb al-Nabī al-Ummī, vol. 2, p. 250. 

• al-Nakhjawānī, al-Fawātiḥ al-Ilāhiyya wa-l-Mafātiḥ al-Ghaybiyya, vol. 1, p. 112. 

• Ḥusayn al-Diyār Bakrī, Tārīkh al-Khamīs, vol. 2, p. 196. 

• al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-Munīr, vol. 1, p. 222. 

• Abū al-Suʿūd al-ʿImādī, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm ilā Mazāyā al-Kitāb al-Karīm, vol. 2, p. 46. 

• Abū al-Fidāʾ al-Khalwatī, Rūḥ al-Bayān, vol. 2, p. 44. 

• Muḥammad al-Kīrwānī al-Hindī, Iẓhār al-Ḥaqq, vol. 4, p. 1212. 

• ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-ʿIrfān, vol. 2, p. 400. 

• Ibrāhīm al-Qaṭṭān, Taysīr al-Tafsīr, p. 199. 

“This aspect of the Hadith of Mubahala is one that deserves the attention of every fair-minded person and seeker of truth, for it contains lofty meanings and profound points. Therefore, we must reflect upon two important matters here.”

                                     ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

The First Matter: Indeed, the supplication of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is always accepted.

It is no secret that ‘Mubahala’ means that a person prays to Allah, the Exalted, asking that someone be left to his own state and consigned to his own soul.

Thus, to supplicate to Allah Almighty that a person be left to his own state is, in reality, equivalent to handing him over to his own self.

This truth is clarified in a sermon of the Commander of the Faithful, Ali (peace be upon him), where he says:”

 

“إن أبغض الخلائق إلى الله رجلان، رجل وكله الله إلى نفسه، فهو جائر عن قصد السبيل، مشغوف بكلام بدعة ودعاء ضلالة، فهو فتنة لمن افتتن به، ضال عن هدي من كان قبله، مضل لمن اقتدى به في حياته وبعد وفاته، حمّال لخطايا غيره، رهن بخطيئته” (1)

Translation: The two types of people most detested in the sight of Allah are: one is the person whom Allah has left to his own soul—thus, he strays from the straight path, becomes occupied with innovations, and engages in misguided supplications. Such a person becomes a trial for those who fall into his fitna. He is deprived of the guidance of those who came before him, and he continues to mislead others both during his lifetime and after his death. He bears the burden of others’ sins while being imprisoned by his own faults.

Therefore, whoever reflects upon the Qur’an and understands the Sunnah will not doubt this reality—that the supplication of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was always accepted by Allah, the Exalted. The same was the case with all the Prophets (peace be upon them), for they were the most excellent among all of creation and the most perfect in religion and worldly affairs. For this very reason, their supplications were accepted, and it has never been established that their prayers were like those of ordinary Muslims. Rather, Allah, Glorified and Exalted, made a promise to His Prophets that He would answer their supplications.

Accordingly, in Surah Maryam, regarding Prophet Zakariya (peace be upon him), it is stated:”

 

لَمْ أَكُنْ بِدُعَائِكَ رَبِّ شَقِيًّا (2)

 

“O my Lord! Never have I been deprived when supplicating to You.”

Ibn Kathir and other commentators say:

أي لم أعهد منك إلا الإجابة في الدعاء ولم تردني قط فيما سألتك(3)

“That is, I have always witnessed acceptance of my supplications to You, and You have never rejected me in my prayers.”

In the same Surah, while mentioning the dialogue of Prophet Ibrahim (A.S) with his father, Allah the Exalted says:

Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah by Ibn Abi al-Hadid – vol. 1, p. 283.

Surah Maryam, verse 1.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 5, p. 212.

قَالَ سَلامٌ عَلَيْكَ سَأَسْتَغْفِرُ لَكَ رَبِّي إِنَّهُ كَانَ بِي حَفِيًّا (1)

 

(Abraham said:) “Peace be upon you! I shall seek forgiveness for you from my Lord. Indeed, He is ever gracious to me.”

Qatādah, Mujāhid, and other exegetes said in the commentary of this verse:

قال: عوده الإجابة (2)

That is, Allah had made him (Abraham, peace be upon him) accustomed to the acceptance of supplications.”

And whoever recites Sūrah al-Anbiyā’ and reflects upon its blessed verses will find within it many of the supplications of the noble Prophets (peace be upon them), along with Allah’s acceptance of their prayers.

In several verses of this blessed Sūrah, Allah Almighty says:

وَنُوحًا إِذْ نَادَى مِنْ قَبْلُ فَاسْتَجَبْنَا لَهُ فَنَجَّيْنَاهُ وَأَهْلَهُ مِنَ الْكَرْبِ الْعَظِيمِ (3).

“And (remember) Noah, when he called upon Us before, so We responded to him and saved him and his family from the great distress.”

(Qur’ān, Sūrah al-Anbiyā’ 21:76)

وقوله سبحانه: ﴿وَأَيُّوبَ إِذْ نَادَى رَبَّهُ أَنِّي مَسَّنِيَ الضُّرُّ وَأَنْتَ أَرْحَمُ الرَّاحِمِينَ فَاسْتَجَبْنَا لَهُ فَكَشَفْنَا مَا بِهِ مِنْ ضُرٍّ وَآتَيْنَاهُ أَهْلَهُ وَمِثْلَهُمْ مَعَهُمْ رَحْمَةً مِنْ عِنْدِنَا وَذِكْرَى لِلْعَابِدِينَ ﴾ (4).

“And (remember) Job, when he called to his Lord: ‘Indeed, adversity has touched me, and You are the Most Merciful of the merciful.’ So We answered him, removed the adversity that was upon him, and restored his family to him, and the like thereof with them — as a mercy from Us and a reminder for the worshippers.”

(Qur’ān, Sūrah al-Anbiyā’ 21:83–84)

وقوله تعالى: ﴿وَذَا النُّونِ إِذْ ذَهَبَ مُغَاضِبًا فَظَنَّ أَنْ لَنْ نَقْدِرَ عَلَيْهِ فَنَادَى في الظُّلُمَاتِ أَنْ لا إِلَهَ إِلَّا أَنْتَ سُبْحَانَكَ إِنِّي كُنْتُ مِنَ الظَّالِمِينَ * فَاسْتَجَبْنَا لَهُ وَنَجَّيْنَاهُ مِنَ الْغَمِّ وَكَذَلِكَ نُنْجِي الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (5).

 

“And (remember) Job, when he called to his Lord: ‘Indeed, adversity has touched me, and You are the Most Merciful of the merciful.’ So We answered him, removed the adversity that was upon him, and restored his family to him, and the like thereof with them — as a mercy from Us and a reminder for the worshippers.”

(Qur’ān, Sūrah al-Anbiyā’ 21:83–84)

وقوله سبحانه: ﴿وَزَكَرِيَّا إِذْ نَادَى رَبَّهُ رَبِّ لَا تَذَرْنِي فَرْدًا وَأَنْتَ خَيْرُ الْوَارِثِينَ اللهُ فَاسْتَجَبْنَا لَهُ وَوَهَبْنَا لَهُ يَحْيَى وَأَصْلَحْنَا لَهُ زَوْجَهُ (6) .

And [remember] Zakariyya, when he called to his Lord: ‘My Lord, do not leave me alone [with no heir], while You are the best of inheritors.’ So We answered him, and We granted him Yahya, and We made his wife fit [for childbearing].”

(Qur’ān, Sūrah al-Anbiyā’ 21:89–90)

References:

• Sūrah Maryam, verse 47 

• Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, vol. 5, p. 236 

• Sūrah al-Anbiyā’, verse 76 

• Sūrah al-Anbiyā’, verses 83–84 

• Sūrah al-Anbiyā’, verses 87–88 

• Sūrah al-Anbiyā’, verses 89–90
                     ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔             

Then Allah, Glorified and Exalted, in His Noble Book — and in this very same sūrah — explained the reason why the supplications of the Prophets were accepted, as He said:

إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْخَيْرَاتِ وَيَدْعُونَنَا رَغَبًا وَرَهَبًا وَكَانُوا لَنَا خَاشِعِينَ (1).

“Indeed, they used to hasten in good deeds, and they would call upon Us with hope and fear, and they were humbly submissive before Us.”

(Surah al-Anbiya, 21:90)

“On this basis, numerous verses and texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah establish the acceptance of the supplication of the Noble Prophet ﷺ.”

“The second matter: Despite the fact that the supplication of the Noble Prophet ﷺ was bound to be accepted, he still requested his Ahl al-Bayt (ʿa) to say Āmīn to the supplication.”

المعروف مِنْ كلمة «آمين» أنه اسم فعل موضوع لاستجابة الدعاء(2)، بمعنى استجب» أو «كذلك كان أو فليكن» أو «كذلك فافعل» وغير ذلك(3)

“It is well known regarding Āmīn that it is a verbal noun (ism fiʿl) which is uttered for the acceptance of a supplication, meaning ‘(O Allah!) accept,’ or ‘So be it,’ or ‘Do it accordingly,’ and other similar meanings have also been mentioned.”

وقال الزمخشري: إنّه صوت سُمّي به الفعل الذي هو استجب، كما أن رويد، وحيهل، وهلم ، أصوات سُمِّيت بها الأفعال التي هي أمهل وأسرع وأقبل» (4)

Al-Zamakhsharī states:
It (Āmīn) is a sound which has been designated for the action of seeking acceptance of a supplication, just as words like ruwayd (‘wait a little’), hayhal (‘come on’), and halumma (‘come forth’) are used in the sense of verbs, such as amhal (‘give respite’), asriʿ (‘hurry up’), and aqbil (‘come forward’).”

And this word (Āmīn) has no other meaning besides this linguistic sense.

Therefore, the meaning of Āmīn is: “O Allah! Accept (this supplication).”

Since the Noble Prophet ﷺ asked his Ahl al-Bayt (ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn, peace be upon them all) to say Āmīn to his supplication — i.e., to say: “O Allah! Accept the supplication of Your Prophet ﷺ” — this contains a clear indication, needing no further explanation, that the Prophet ﷺ was clarifying that these four pure personalities possess such a lofty status and rank that they are the firm support of the message and its continuation.

REFERENCES

  (1) Surah Al-Anbiyā’: Verse 90
(2) Tahrir Alfāẓ al-Tanbih, p. 65
(3) Same source as above
(4) Tafsīr al-Kashshāf, vol., p.

                                                ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

These are precisely the individuals whom Allah Almighty commanded to accompany the Prophet ﷺ in the Mubahala against the Christians, because the essence of the matter was only about supplication (du‘ā) and nothing else. The Prophet ﷺ asked them to say “Āmīn,” even though there is no doubt that his ﷺ prayers were always accepted, as has been explained earlier.

Thus, including them in the supplication—while the Prophet ﷺ’s prayer would be accepted anyway—may seem apparently unnecessary, akin to achieving what is already achieved. The sole meaning of this inclusion can be that Allah Almighty, through this act, intended to show that these personalities are the continuation of the Prophet ﷺ’s prophethood and its strongest pillars, being the foremost supporters in reinforcing his mission. Therefore, reflect and understand.

Third Stage: The Christians said: “We see such faces that if they were to pray to Allah to move the mountains, even they would be moved.”

When the time for the Mubahala arrived, the Prophet ﷺ went out accompanied by Hasan ﷺ, Husayn ﷺ, Fatimah ﷺ, and Ali ﷺ. He ﷺ then ordered two trees to be cut and the space between them cleared. After that, he ﷺ commanded a thin black cloth to be spread, which was extended like a tent.

At that moment, everyone was waiting to see whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would bring for the Mubahala. As expected, he ﷺ came out with these four pure personalities. When the Christian delegation appeared, their leaders, Sayyid and Aqib, approached the Prophet ﷺ trembling with fear and asked:

“O Abu al-Qasim! With whom will you perform Mubahala against us?”

The Prophet ﷺ, embodying the greatness of faith and the fear of Allah, replied:

“I will perform Mubahala against you with those beings who are the best on earth and the most honored in the sight of Allah.”

Saying this, he ﷺ pointed towards Ali ﷺ, Fatimah ﷺ, Hasan ﷺ, and Husayn ﷺ.

Hearing this, they asked in astonishment:

“Why do you not perform Mubahala with the honored and renowned people who have believed in you and followed you?”

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ reassured them clearly that his Ahl al-Bayt ﷺ were the best of all creation and the highest in the sight of Allah, saying:

“Yes, I will perform Mubahala against you with these very beings, who are the best on earth and the most excellent among all creatures.”

                                     ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

Hearing this, they were astonished and realized that indeed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was upon the truth. They returned to their leader, the bishop, and said:

“O Abu Harithah! What is your opinion?”

The bishop replied:

“I see such faces that if they were to pray to Allah to move a mountain from its place, it would certainly move.”

He reinforced his statement with reasoning and oath, saying:

“Do you not see Muhammad ﷺ? He is standing with his hands raised, waiting to see what you will respond. By Christ! If even one prayer comes out of their mouths, we will never be able to return to our homes or possessions.”

He then tried to prevent them from engaging in the Mubahala and loudly exclaimed:

“Do you not see that the sunlight has changed, black clouds are spreading across the sky, strong winds are blowing with black and red colors, and these mountains are emitting smoke? Surely, punishment is about to descend upon us! Look at the birds—they are vomiting with their beaks; look at the trees—their leaves are falling continuously; and look at the earth—it is trembling beneath our feet!”

The sacred faces of the Prophet’s ﷺ Ahl al-Bayt ﷺ overshadowed them, and with their own eyes, they witnessed their great status and their exaltation and honor in the sight of Allah.

The Christians felt the gravity of the situation and, in haste, came to the Prophet ﷺ and pleaded:

“O Abu al-Qasim! Excuse us from this Mubahala. May Allah forgive your shortcomings!”

When the Christians saw these chosen personalities gathered around the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, their bodies trembled, and the strong resolve they had maintained until yesterday became shaken. The result of this fear and disturbance was that they withdrew from the Mubahala.

The reason was that when they gazed upon the faces of these four sacred individuals (Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn ﷺ), the signs of their virtues and their lofty rank in the sight of Allah became clearly apparent to them.

Among them, a phrase became commonly spoken:

“We see such faces that if they were to pray to Allah to move a mountain from its place, it would certainly move!”

Reference:

Book: Hayat al-Imam al-Husayn (Peace be upon him) by Baqir al-Qurashi
Volume/Page: 1:73
Secondary Reference: ‘An Nour al-Absar – by Al-Shiblaji: 100

                                                    ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

Here arises the question: Did those Christians attain the reality that Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers could not? The Christians acknowledged the virtues of those sacred personalities and recognized that these were the individuals whose prayers were never rejected. This was precisely the reason they retreated from their objective, even though they had come for a matter that would have impacted their future decisions. And this was by no means a trivial matter for them. So reflect deeply, so that the truth becomes evident to you.

Fourth Stage: The fact that the Mubahala did not actually take place, while it was included in Allah’s prior knowledge, is evidence that this verse was revealed to highlight the virtues of Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn (peace be upon them) and their parents.

 

المباهلة مفاعلة من البهل، وصيغة المفاعلة في اللغة العربية غالبا ما تدلعلى المشاركة التي تصدر من طرفين أو أكثر كالمضاربة والمشاتمة، فهي تدل بمادتها على صدور الضرب أو الشتم من الطرفين (1)

 

“Mubahala” is derived from the Arabic root “Bahl”, and in Arabic grammar, the form “Mufa‘alah” generally indicates mutual participation between two or more parties, such as “Mudharabah” (financial partnership between parties) and “Mushtamah” (cursing each other), which implies that an action originates from both parties involved.

On this basis, the occurrence of Mubahala is only possible when both parties participate. The Prophet ﷺ, in obedience to Allah’s command, went out for Mubahala with Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn, and Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Fatimah (peace be upon them). However, the other party—the Christians of Najran—strongly refused and did not consent to Mubahala.

Thus, when one party is present and the other party refuses, Mubahala cannot take place.

Therefore, the verse of Mubahala, for which it was revealed, could not be actualized, even though Allah had prior knowledge that the Christians would avoid it. This demonstrates that the true purpose of the verse was to reveal the virtues of these four infallible personalities, whom the Prophet ﷺ brought with him, showing that they are the best of all creation after the Prophet ﷺ.

REFERENCES

(1) See: Al-Sihah by Al-Jawhari, p. 1407, entry “Bahl.”

Another significant indication at this point is that the Christians themselves admitted that the individuals who accompanied the Prophet ﷺ would surely have their prayers accepted. This was the very reason they refrained from participating in the Mubahala with the Prophet ﷺ and his Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). If the Christians themselves acknowledged this reality, what will be the fate of those who are affiliated with Islam, such as Ibn Taymiyyah and those who follow his line of thought?

Ibn Taymiyyah’s claim that the participation of these four purified individuals (peace be upon them) in the Mubahala does not imply that they are superior to the Companions of the Prophet is rejected and unacceptable, because there is no clear evidence to support it. Moreover, this statement is contradicted by previous proofs and will also be refuted by subsequent evidence.

Many Companions of the Prophet ﷺ and esteemed scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have recognized the virtue and excellence of Hasan, Husayn, Fatimah, and Ali (peace be upon them).

  فقد روى مسلم في صحيحه عن بكير بن مسمار، عن عامر بن سعد بن أبي وقاص، عن أبيه، قال: أمر معاوية بن أبي سفيان سعدًا، فقال: ما منعك أن تسب أبا تراب ؟ فقال : أما ما ذكرت ثلاثًا قالهن له رسول الله ﷺ فلن أسبه، لأن تكون لي واحدة منهن أحب إلي من حمر النعم، سمعت رسول الله … ولما نزلت هذه الآية: ﴿فَقُل تَعَالَوا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُم دعا رسول الله العليا وفاطمة وحسنًا وحسينًا فقال : اللهم هؤلاء أهلي» (1) .

 

Thus, Muslim has narrated in his Sahih that Bakir ibn Mismaar reported from ‘Amir ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas, who in turn narrated from his father, that:

“Mu‘awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan asked Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas: ‘What prevented you from cursing Abu Turab (Ali ﷺ)?’”

Sa‘d replied:
“I remember the three statements of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in favor of Imam Ali ﷺ, so I would never speak ill of him. Indeed, if even one of those statements applied to me, it would be more beloved to me than red camels (a metaphor for immense wealth).”

It is also mentioned in this narration that when this verse was revealed:

﴿فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ﴾

Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ called for Imam Ali, Lady Fatimah, Imam Hasan, and Imam Husayn (peace be upon them), and while praying, he said:

“اللہم! ہٰؤلاءِ أَهلِي”
“O Allah! These are my Ahl al-Bayt (family).”

Al-Zamakhshari, in his famous Tafsir Al-Kashshaf, writes regarding this verse:

«وفيه دليل – لا شيء أقوى منه على فضل أصحاب الكساء» (2).

“This verse is the strongest and indisputable proof of the virtue of the People of the Cloak (Ahl al-Kisa), and there is no argument stronger than this.”

Similarly, Amir al-Mu’minin, Imam Ali (peace be upon him), himself also cited the verse of Mubahala as evidence of his own virtue.

References:

• Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Vol. 4, Hadith 1871, Book: Virtues of the Companions, Chapter: Virtues of Ali, Hadith 2404. 

• Al-Kashshaf 1:434, in the commentary on verse 61 of Surah Āl ‘Imrān.

Thus, Ibn Hajar al-Makki, in his work Al-Sawā‘iq al-Muḥriqah, narrates that Al-Daraqutni reported:

أن عليا يوم الشورى احتج على أهلها، فقال لهم: أنشدكم بالله من فيكم أحد أقرب إلى رسول الله ﷺ في الرحم مني، ومن جعله الله نفسه، وأبناءه أبناءه، ونساءه نساءه غيري؟ قالوا: لا …» (1) .

“When the Day of Consultation (Yawm al-Shura) arrived, Imam Ali (peace be upon him) addressed the people of Shura and argued: ‘I ask you by Allah, is there anyone among you who is closer to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in lineage than I am? And is there anyone among you whom Allah has designated the Prophet’s own soul (nafs), His sons as the Prophet’s sons, and His wives as the Prophet’s wives, except me?’

All those present replied: ‘No.’

Moreover, some hadith scholars – among the Sunni ulama – have also included the Verse of Mubahala (the verse of invoking mutual curse) in the chapter discussing the virtues of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). The following are the places where they have mentioned it in their writings:”

• Sahih Muslim: This is mentioned in the chapter on the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib. (2) 

• Sunan al-Tirmidhi: This is mentioned in the chapter on the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib. (3) 

• Al-Shari’ah by Al-Ajuri: This is mentioned in the comprehensive book on the virtues of the Ahl al-Bayt. (4) 

• Jami’ al-Usul fi Ahadith al-Rasul by Ibn al-Athir: This is mentioned in the third chapter on the virtues of the Ahl al-Bayt. (5) 

• Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar: This is mentioned in the chapter on the merits of Ali ibn Abi Talib. (6) 

Al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah: 154, Chapter 11, Section 1 on the verses revealed concerning them. Also see Tarikh Madinat 

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Dimashq by Ibn ‘Asakir 42:432.

Sahih Muslim: 4:1871.

Sunan al-Tirmidhi: 6:83.

Al-Shari’ah: 5:2200.

Jami’ al-Usul: 9:154.

Fath al-Bari: 7:74.

                                   ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

• Sharh Sahih Muslim by Al-Qadi ‘Iyad: It is mentioned under the chapter On the Virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib. 

• Sharaf al-Mustafa by Al-Kharkushi: It is mentioned under the chapter On the Virtues of Hasan, Husayn, and the Ahl al-Bayt.

Regardless of the entire discussion, to our knowledge, the Prophet ﷺ never granted the title “Sayyidā Shabāb Ahl al-Jannah” (the chief of the youth of Paradise) to anyone other than Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them). Similarly, he ﷺ did not honor any other woman with the title “Sayyidat Nisa’ al-‘Alamin” (the chief of the women of the worlds) except for Lady Fatimah Zahra (peace be upon her). Likewise, it is not established that the Prophet ﷺ ever said the words “Man kuntu mawlāhu fa-hādhā ‘Aliyun mawlāhu” (Whomever I am the master of, Ali is also his master) regarding anyone other than Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him).

Once this reality becomes clear, it also becomes evident that Ibn Taymiyyah harbored enmity and hostility toward the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) and expressed his animosity by inflating doubts and other objections against them.

I conclude the resolution of this doubt with a very clear and strong argument presented by Imam Ali ibn Musa al-Ridha (peace be upon him), which he stated during a debate with the scholars of Iraq and Khorasan. When he cited the verse of Mubahala as proof, he said:

«فهذه خصوصية لا يتقدمهم فيها أحد، وفضل لا يلحقهم فيه بشر، وشرف لا يسبقهم إليه خلق» (6) 

This is a distinctive honor in which no one can surpass them, a distinction in which no one can be their equal, and a virtue in which no one can rival them.

REFERENCES

• Sharh Sahih Muslim 7:413. 

• Sharaf al-Mustafa 5:366. 

• Musnad Ahmad 17:31 – Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut said: Its chain is authentic, and its narrators are trustworthy.Sunan al-Tirmidhi 5:656 – Al-Albani said: Authentic. Al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn by al-Hakim 3:182 – He said: Authentic hadith, and al-Dhahabi commented: Authentic. 

• Sahih al-Bukhari 8:64 / Hadith 6285. Sahih Muslim 4:1905 / Hadith 2450. 

• Al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn 3:613 – Al-Hakim said: Hadith with an authentic chain, and al-Dhahabi commented: Authentic. 

• Uyoon Akhbar al-Ridha (Al-Saduq), vol. 2, pp. 217–207, part 2, 23.

Eighth Objection: Naming Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (peace be upon him) as “Harb”

Stages for Responding to the Objection:

1. Statement of the objection. 

2. Mentioning the sources of the narrations on which the critics relied, along with the chain of transmission and their authenticity. 

3. The meaning of the name “Harb” and the relevant prohibitions according to the prophetic traditions. 

4. Imam Ali’s (peace be upon him) guidance regarding naming a newborn prior to birth.

Objection: Naming Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (peace be upon him) as “Harb”

The Objection:
Aqad writes:

و من إحسان التسمية أنه – أي الإمام أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب ع – هم بتسمية ابنه حربًا؛ لأنه يرشحه للجهاد، وهو أشرف صناعاته، لولا أن رسول الله سماه الحسن، وهو أحسن، فجرى على هذا الاختيار في تسمية أخويه الحسين والمحسن …» (1).

Translation:

“And from the excellence of naming is that—i.e., Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him)—named his son ‘Harb’ (War); for he was preparing him for jihad, which was his noblest endeavor. However, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ named him ‘Hasan,’ which is more beautiful. Thus, this choice continued in the naming of his other sons, Husayn and Muhsin…” (1)

Reference Translation:

(1) Al-‘Abqariyat al-Islamiyyah by Al-‘Aqqad, p. 821.

To address this objection, we will follow the following methodology:

First Step: Mention the sources of the narrations on which Al-‘Aqqad relied and clarify their chain of transmission (isnad) status.

(a) The original text of the narration and its sources
Al-‘Aqqad based his claim on a narration transmitted from Amir al-Mu’minin Ali (peace be upon him), which is as follows:

Amir al-Mu’minin Ali (peace be upon him) said:
“When Hasan was born, I named him ‘Harb’. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) came and said: ‘Show me my son, what have you named him?’ I said: ‘Harb.’ He (ﷺ) said: ‘No, rather his name is Hasan.’

Then when Husayn was born, I also named him ‘Harb’. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) came and said: ‘Show me my son, what have you named him?’ I said: ‘Harb.’ He (ﷺ) said: ‘No, rather this is Husayn.’

Then when the third child was born, I again named him ‘Harb’. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) came and said: ‘Show me my son, what have you named him?’ I said: ‘Harb.’ He (ﷺ) said: ‘No, rather this is Muhsin.’

Then the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘I have named them following the names of the sons of Harun: Shabbar, Shabir, and Mushabbar.’”

أخرجه أحمد، قال: حدثنا يحيى بن آدم، قال: حدثنا إسرائيل عــن أبي إسحاق عن هانئ بن هانئ، به (1).

This narration is transmitted by Ahmad in his Musnad, where he states:

“Narrated to us by Yahya ibn Adam, who narrated from Isra’il, who narrated through Abu Ishaq from Hani’ ibn Hani’.”

وأخرجه أيضًا، قال: حدثنا حجاج (2).

Also, this narration is transmitted through another chain, where Ahmad states:

“Narrated to us by Hajjaj.”

 References:

• Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 2, p. 159 / Hadith 768. 

• Same source, Vol. 2, p. 264 / Hadith 953.

                                          ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

وابن حبان (1) والحاكم من طريق عبيد الله بن موسی(2). والطبراني من طريق عبيد الله بن رجاء (3). والثلاثة (حجاج وعبيد الله بن موسى وعبيد الله بن رجاء) عن إسرائيل، به. وأخرجه الطيالسي قال: حدثنا قيس (4). والطبراني من طريق زكريا بن أبي زائدة (5). وبإسناد آخر من طريق يونس بن إسحاق (6). والحاكم من طريق يونس بن إسحاق). ثلاثتهم (قيس، وزكريا بن أبي زائدة، ويونس بن إسحاق) عن أبي اسحاق، به، إلا أن قيسا رواه مختصرًا (7).  وأخرجه الطبراني من طريق يحيى بن عيسى الرملي، عن الأعمش، عن سالم بن أبي الجعد، عن علي، به. ولم يذكر محسنًا (8).

Ibn Hibban and Hakim narrated through the chain of Ubayd Allah ibn Musa. Tabarani narrated through the chain of Ubayd Allah ibn Rajaa. All three of them (Hajjaj, Ubayd Allah ibn Musa, and Ubayd Allah ibn Rajaa) narrated via Isra’il.

Tayalisi narrated and said: Qays reported the hadith to us. Tabarani narrated through the chain of Zakariya ibn Abi Zaida. Another chain is narrated via Yunus ibn Ishaq. Hakim also narrated through Yunus ibn Ishaq. These three (Qays, Zakariya ibn Abi Zaida, and Yunus ibn Ishaq) narrated via Abu Ishaq, but Qays reported the narration in a brief form.

Tabarani narrated through Yahya ibn Isa al-Ramli, who reported from Amash via Salim ibn Abi al-Ja’d, from Ali (a.s.). However, in this narration, the mention of Muhsin is not included.

REFERENCES

1) Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān 15:410

(2) Al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Ṣaḥīḥayn 3:180 / Hadith 4773

(3) Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr 3:96 / Hadith 2773

(4) Musnad Abī Dāwūd al-Tayālisī 1:118 / Hadith 131

(5) Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr 3:96 / Hadith 2774

(6) Same source: Hadith 2776

(7) Al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Ṣaḥīḥayn 3:183 / Hadith 4783

(8) Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr 3:97 / Hadith 2777

بينما أخرجه أحمد في (فضائل الصحابة)(1)، عن وكيع، عــن الأعمش، عن سالم مرسلا، ولم يذكر علياء ع.

Ahmad narrated it in Fadā’il al-Ṣaḥābah:

This narration is transmitted via Waqi‘, who reports from Al-A‘mash, and he narrates from Sālim in a mursal (interrupted) chain. However, in this narration, there is no mention of Ḥazrat ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al-salām).

1. b) The Chain of Transmission:

We now examine the isnād (chain of transmission) of these narrations and highlight the weaknesses and inconsistencies present in them, as some prominent scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have criticized. Here, we will only cite the views of hadith scholars whose opinions are considered authoritative in matters of this nature, such as ʿAllāmah Al-Albānī and Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, who are well-known for their research and critique of the isnād of hadiths.

I say:

First Method: All of these narrations ultimately trace back to Subayʿī and Hānī’ ibn Hānī’, who report from Ḥazrat ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al-salām). Albānī classified this chain as weak (ḍaʿīf) in three separate works:

1. As-Silsilah al-Ḍaʿīfah (1) 

2. Ḍaʿīf al-Adab al-Mufaṣṣal (2) 

3. At-Taʿlīqāt al-Ḥasanah (3) 

According to Albānī, the main reasons for this weakness are the ikhtilāṭ (mixing) and tadlīs (obscuring the chain) by Abū Isḥāq al-Subayʿī, and the unknown status (majhūl al-ḥāl) of Hānī’ ibn Hānī’, which makes this narration unreliable.

In addition, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī states in At-Tahdhīb, as follows:

فأما أبو إسحاق عن قومٍ لا يُعرفون، ولم ينتشر عنهـم عنـد أهـل العلم إلا ما حكى أبو إسحاق عنهم، 

As for the narrations of Abū Isḥāq, he reports from individuals who are not well-known, and among the scholars, their narrations are generally not widely accepted, except for those hadiths that Abū Isḥāq himself transmitted from them.

REFERENCES

(1) Fadā’il al-Ṣaḥābah 2:774 / Hadith 1367.
(2) Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍa‘īfah wa al-Mawḍū‘ah 11:780 / Hadith 5452.
(3) Ḍa‘īf al-Adab al-Mufrad: p. 77.
(4) Al-Ta‘līqāt al-Ḥasan ‘alā Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān 10:88 / Hadith 6919.

فإذا روى تلك الأشياء عنهم كان التوقيف في ذلك الصواب عندي (1).

Ibn Hajar, in At-Taqreeb, wrote about Hani’ ibn Hani’:

“Hani’ ibn Hani’ is of unknown reliability, and there is insufficient evidence for his trustworthiness. Caution is necessary when accepting hadiths transmitted through him.”

This statement confirms that the chains of narration through him are not strong, and one must exercise caution before relying on them.

“hidden” or “concealed.”

This means that his circumstances are unclear and not well-known.

Shafi‘i said about this narrator:

وقال الشافعي هانئ بن هانئ لا يُعرف، وأهل العلم بالحديث لا ينسبون حديثه لجهالة حاله»(3).

Shafi‘i said: Hānī bin Hānī is not well-known, and the scholars of hadith do not consider his narration reliable due to his obscure status.

Second method and its two main reasons:
First reason: Interruption (Inqitā‘)
This chain of narration is interrupted because Sālim bin Abī al-Ja‘d did not meet Ali (peace be upon him).

قال العلائي : كثير الإرسال عن كبار الصحابة، كعمر وعلي وعائشة، وقال أبو زرعة : سالم بن أبي الجعد عن عمر وعثمان وعلي مرسل (4).

Regarding this, Alā’ī says:
He frequently narrates mursal (interrupted) reports from major Companions such as Umar, Ali, and Aisha.

Similarly, Abū Zar‘ah states:
The narrations of Sālim bin Abī al-Ja‘d from Umar, Uthman, and Ali are mursal (interrupted), meaning the direct hearing (samā‘) between them is not established.

Second Reason: Weakness of the Narrator

يحيى بن عيسى الرملي فقد ضعفه علماء أهل السنة، قال ابن معين : ليس بشيء (5)، وقال النسائي: ليس بالقوي (6)، وقال ابن شاهين: ليس حديثه بشيء (7) .

Regarding this, Alā’ī says:
He frequently narrates mursal (interrupted) reports from major Companions such as Umar, Ali, and Aisha.

Similarly, Abū Zar‘ah states:
The narrations of Sālim bin Abī al-Ja‘d from Umar, Uthman, and Ali are mursal (interrupted), meaning the direct hearing (samā‘) between them is not established.

REFERENCES

(1) Tahdhib al-Tahdhib: 67

(2) Taqrib al-Tahdhib: p. 570

(3) Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 11: 23

(4) Jami‘ al-Tahsil by al-‘Alai: p. 179

(5) Tarikh Ibn Ma‘in, vol. 3: 285

(6) Al-Du‘afa’ wa al-Matrukoon: p. 108

(7) Tarikh Asma’ al-Du‘afa’ wa al-Kadhdhabin: p. 194

If anyone claims the authenticity of certain chains of transmission (isnads), we will not accept it, as has already been stated. And even if we were to concede it, their texts (matn) are still not free from contradictions, ambiguities, and inconsistencies. Further, the forthcoming evidence will clearly dispel the doubts surrounding this issue.

Second Step: The Meaning of the Name “Harb” and the Prohibitions Regarding It in Prophetic Traditions

And before entering into the detailed research discussion on this matter, I consider it appropriate to recall what ‘Aqqad stated, and his words are as follows:

ومن إحسان التسمية أنه هم بتسمية ابنه حربًا.

And the level of excellence in choosing a name was such that he intended to name his son “Harb.”

Once you understand this point, I say:

إن ( حربًا) واحدة الحروب، واشتقاقها من الحرب، وهو السلب؛ لأنها تسلب المال والرجال (1) ، والحرب نقيض السلم لشهرته يعنون به القتال والذي حققه السهيلي أن الحرب هو الترامي ثم المطاعنة ثم المجالدة بالسيوف ثم المعانقة والمصارعة (2). وقال صاحب العين: وقوله تعالى: يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ  (3)

“Harb” (war) is the singular of “Hurub” (wars), and its derivation comes from the root حرب, which means to seize or plunder, because war takes lives and property by force. It is also the opposite of peace, as in common usage it refers to fighting or combat. According to the research of Saheeli, the meaning of “Harb” involves a sequence: first, the two parties attack each other, then spear fighting occurs, followed by sword combat, and finally close physical struggle or grappling.

The author of the book Al-‘Ayn states:
Allah Almighty says:

﴿يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ﴾

“They fight against Allah and His Messenger.”

References:

• Shams al-‘Uloom wa Dawa’ Kalam al-‘Arab min al-Kalom by al-Humayri – Vol. 3, p. 1383. 

• Taj al-‘Uroos – Vol. 2, p. 249. 

1. Qur’an, Surah Al-Ma’idah, Ayah 33. 

يعني المعصية، وقوله تعالى: ﴿فَأْذَنُوا بِحَرْبٍ مِنَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولِهِ ﴾ (1) (2) .

Meaning: It signifies rebellion or disobedience, as mentioned in Allah’s command: “Then declare war against Allah and His Messenger.”

وقال ابن فارس: الحاء والراء والباء أصول ثلاثة : أحدها السلب (3).

Ibn Faris says that the letters ḥā’ (ح), rā’ (ر), and bā’ (ب) form three root principles, one of which is “salb” (seizing or taking away).

والتحقيق : أن الأصل الواحد في هذه المادة: هو الحدة عملا، وهو ما يقابل السلم، وهذا المفهوم إذا استدام واستمر : يعبر عنه بالمحاربة على مفاعلة. ثم إن الحرب إما بمقصد إتلاف النفس أو بمنظور إتلاف المال، والأول يقال فيه المقاتلة، والثاني يعبر عنه بسلب المال. ولما كان إهلاك النفس منظورًا أصليا ومقصودا في الأغلب في مقام المحاربة ويحتاج إلى عمل كثير ومقابلة مستديمة شديدة: يعبر عنه بمطلق الحرب أو بالمحاربة (4).

Research shows that the original meaning of this root word denotes intense and forceful action, which comes in contrast to “silm” (peace). When this meaning becomes continuous and sustained, it is expressed under the category of “muḥāraba” (fighting or war).

War can occur either with the intention of killing or with the aim of seizing wealth. The first case is called “maqātila” (combat/killing), while the second is “salb al-māl” (taking or plundering wealth).

Since taking life is often a primary objective in war, requiring severe and sustained confrontation, it is generally termed “ḥarb” or “muḥāraba”.

Moreover, “ḥarb” is among those words that Islam discourages using repeatedly, and it was neither preferred as a personal name nor as an attribute. The Prophet ﷺ forbade naming anyone “Ḥarb,” considering it the worst name for a human being. In the pre-Islamic period, Arabs used to name their children “Ḥarb”, such as Ḥarb ibn Umayya, the father of Abu Sufyan ibn Ḥarb, and others.

REFERENCE

(1) Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 279
(2) Kitab al-‘Ayn, 2:214:3
(3) Maqāyīs al-Lughah by Ibn Fāris, p. 239
(4) Al-Tahqīq fī Kalimāt al-Qur’ān by Allāmah al-Mustafawī, 2:185

فروى أبو داود في سننه عن أبي وَهَب الجسمي قال: قال رسول الله : «تسموا بأسماء الأنبياء، وأحبُّ الأسماء إلى الله : عبد الله وعبد الرحمن… وأقبحها : حَرْبٌ ومُرّة» (1).

Abū Dāwūd, in his Sunan, narrated from Abū Wahb al-Jusmī, who said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

“Name your children after the Prophets, and the most beloved names in the sight of Allah are ‘Abdullah’ and ‘Abdur-Rahman’, while the worst names are ‘Harb’ and ‘Murrah’.

وروى ابن وهب في جامعه عن محمد بن عبد الرحمن حديثا لرسول الله ﷺ يقول فيه : (لا تُسمّوا صبا ولا حرب، ولا مرة، ولا خناس؛ فإنها من أسماء الشيطان) (2).

Ibn Wahb, in his Jami‘, transmitted another hadith from Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

“Do not name your children Saba, Harb, Murrah, or Khunnas, for these are among the names of Satan.”

وروى أيضًا في الجامع بسنده حديثًا آخر عن النبي أنه قال: خير الأسماء عبد الله وعبد الرحمن وأصدق الأسماء همام وحارث وشر الأسماء حرب ومرة» (3) ، قال الألباني: «وهذا إسناد مرسل صحيح، رجاله ثقات رجال مسلم» (4).

وذكره شعيب الأرنؤوط في هامش سنن أبي داود، فقال: مرسل صحيح، ويشهد له أيضًا مرسل عبد الوهاب بن بخت، أخرجه أيضًا ابن وهب في «جامعه» ورجاله ثقات (5).

Similarly, Ibn Wahb, in his Jami‘, transmitted another hadith with its chain of narration in which the Prophet ﷺ said:

“The best names are ‘Abd Allah and ‘Abd al-Rahman, and the most truthful names are Hammam and Harith, while the worst names are Harb and Murrah.”

Al-Albani commented on this hadith, saying:
“This hadith is mursal (interrupted chain) but authentic; all its narrators are trustworthy and among the narrators listed in Muslim’s Rijal.”

Shuaib al-Arna’ut noted in the margins of Sunan Abu Dawud:
“This hadith is mursal but authentic, and it is corroborated by another mursal narration of ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn Bakht, which Ibn Wahb transmitted in his Jami‘, and all its narrators are trustworthy.”

REFERENCES

(1) Sunan Abi Dawud: 305

(2) Al-Jami‘ fi al-Hadith by Ibn Wahb: p. 120

(3) Al-Jami‘ fi al-Hadith by Ibn Wahb: p. 90

(4) Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, 3:33 / 1039

(5) See: Marginal notes of Sunan Abi Dawud, 7:306

وروى مالك في الموطأ عن يحيي بن سعيد مرسلًا أن رسول الله قال للقحة ( الناقة ذات اللبن) تُحلب: «من يحلب هذه؟ فقــام رجل فقال : ما اسمك ؟ قال : مرّة، قال: اجلس، ثم قال: من يحلب هذه ؟ فقام رجل ، فقال : ما اسمك ؟ قال : حرب، قال: اجلس، ثم قال: من يحلب هذه ؟ فقاه فقام رجل ، فقال : ما اسمك ؟ قال: يعيش، قال له رسول الله ص : احلب» (1).

Malik, in Al-Muwatta, has narrated from Yahya ibn Sa’id, as a mursal report, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said regarding a milking she-camel:

“Who will milk it?”

A man stood up, and the Prophet ﷺ asked him: “What is your name?”
He replied: “Murrah” (which means harshness or bitterness).
The Prophet ﷺ said: “Sit down.”

Then the Prophet ﷺ asked again: “Who will milk it?”
Another man stood up, and the Prophet ﷺ asked: “What is your name?”
He replied: “Harb” (which means war).
The Prophet ﷺ said: “Sit down.”

The Prophet ﷺ asked once more: “Who will milk it?”
A third man stood up, and the Prophet ﷺ asked: “What is your name?”
He replied: “Ya’ish” (which means one who lives).
The Prophet ﷺ then said: “You may milk it.”

Here, the praise or good meaning that ‘Aqad tried to derive from the name Harb (“war”) is completely absent. The Hadiths clearly emphasize the undesirability of this name and caution against using it, as it belonged to pre-Islamic names associated with ignorance and moral degradation.

The name Harb carries neither a literal meaning indicating virtue, nor a common understanding of goodness, nor any technical positive connotation. Thus, there is no justification to consider it a commendable name.

Was this meaning hidden from Sayyid al-Bulaghā’ wa al-Fuṣahā’ (the master of eloquence) or from Amir al-Mu’minīn Ali ibn Abi Talib ﷺ?

Is Aqad correct in claiming that Ali ﷺ insisted on naming his sons Harb because he loved war, as he sarcastically commented:
“Wa huwa ashraf sina‘atihi” — “and war was his most honorable craft”?

This ignores the fact that Imam Ali ﷺ was widely recognized in authentic traditions for both knowledge and bravery, and according to Sunni scholars, he was among the most learned of the companions.

Was the Prophet ﷺ’s refusal to name his first grandson Harb not sufficient to indicate that Imam Ali ﷺ avoided this name for his other sons as well?
Could the Prophet ﷺ’s instruction to avoid this name have been hidden from Imam Ali ﷺ?

REFERENCES

(1) Muwatta’ Malik 5:1417 / 3569.

(2) See: Al-Mawāqif by Al-Iji 3:627; Al-Maqāṣid al-Ḥasanah by Al-Sakhawi (under no. 139, edited by Al-Ghumārī).

It is absolutely correct that such claims are contrary to the truth and misrepresent the character and scholarly virtues of Imam Ali (RA).

The bravery and knowledge of Imam Ali (RA) are well-established through numerous authentic narrations, and his aim was never the love of war, bloodshed, or tyranny. The Prophet ﷺ’s clear guidance regarding the name “Harb” demonstrates that avoiding such a name is necessary and recommended, and there is no inherent virtue or honor in it.

If authors like Aqad presented this name as a symbol of distinction or honor, it is a personal interpretation or misunderstanding that not only contradicts historical facts but also conflicts with the narrations recognized by the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah.

In other words, accusing Imam Ali (RA) of insisting on naming his child “Harb” or of being eager for war or bloodshed is completely false and baseless. It is a misleading notion that must be refuted within the correct historical and Shariah context.

Third Stage: Imam Ali’s (RA) Practice of Naming Newborns Before Birth

Here, I would like to recall Aqad’s statement in which he says:

«فجرى على هذا الاختيار في تسمية أخويه الحسين والمحسن …» (1)

This means that Imam Ali (RA) continued the same practice in naming Husayn and Muhsin (RA).

From Aqad’s statement, it is implied that Imam Ali (RA) insisted on naming his child “Harb,” while the Prophet ﷺ rejected it and decided on the name himself.

It should be noted that Aqad’s opinion does not stem merely from ignorance, but from a form of heedlessness that grips both the heart and mind. This heedlessness is far more dangerous and harmful than simple ignorance, and at times, it can even prove worse than ignorance itself.

(1) Al-Abqariyat al-Islamiyya by Al-Aqqad, p. 821.

Otherwise, can any person of sound reason even imagine that Amir al-Mu’minin ﷺ would stubbornly insist on naming his children “Harb” against the preference of the Prophet ﷺ, and do so repeatedly?

Such a notion is, in itself, unacceptable, unbelievable, and utterly baseless—especially when the weakness in both the chain (isnād) and text (matn) of these reports has already been clearly established.

These are mere assumptions and conjectures that cannot be proven by any sound reasoning.

The strongest evidence against Al-Aqqad’s false claim is the hadith narrated with a reliable chain by Shaykh Saduq, which he recorded in his book Al-Khisal.

عن أبيه ، قال : حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله، قال: حدثني محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد اليقطيني، عن القاسم بن يحيى، عن جده الحسن بن راشد عن أبي بصير ومحمد بن مسلم، عن أبي عبد الله السلام قال : حدثني أبي، عن جدي، عن آبائه ع : «أن أمير المؤمنين ع علم أصحابه في مجلس واحد أربع مائـة بـاب ممـا يصلح في دينه ودنياه، وجاء في الحديث ضمن النصائح: «سموا أولادكـم قبـل أن يولدوا ، فإن لم تدروا أذكره هم أم أنثى فسموهم بالأسماء التي تكون للذكر والأنثى، فإن أسقاطكم إذا لقوكم في القيامة ولم تسموهم يقول السقط لأبيه : ألا سميتني، وقد سمى رسول الله ﷺ محسنا قبل أن يولد» (1) ، ورواه أيضًا في علل الشرائع (2) ، ورواه الكليني في الكافي (3)، والمجلسي في بحار الأنوار (4)، والحر العاملي في وسائل الشيعة (5). 

Shaykh Saduq narrated from his father, who narrated from Sa‘d ibn ‘Abdullah, who narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Ubayd al-Yaqtini, who narrated from al-Qasim ibn Yahya, who narrated from his grandfather al-Hasan ibn Rashid, who narrated from Abu Basir and Muhammad ibn Muslim, who narrated from Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq ﷺ, who narrated on behalf of his father from his grandfather, and they narrated from their forefathers:

Amir al-Mu’minin ﷺ taught his companions four hundred chapters concerning religion and worldly matters in a single gathering. During this, he advised:

“Give your children names before their birth. And if you do not know whether they will be male or female, then choose names suitable for both. For if your aborted child meets you on the Day of Judgment without a name, they will complain to their father, asking why you did not give us a name.”

The Prophet ﷺ also had given the name Muhsin before his birth.

This narration is also mentioned by Shaykh Saduq in his other authoritative book ‘Ilal al-Shara’i‘, and it is transmitted by Shaykh Kulayni in al-Kafi, by Allama Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar, and by Shaykh al-Hurr al-‘Amili in Wasa’il al-Shi‘a.

Reflecting on this hadith, several clear and definite conclusions emerge, including the following:

───────────────────────────────
(1) Al-Khisal by Shaykh Saduq – p. 634
(2) ‘Ilal al-Shara’i‘ 2:464
(3) Al-Kafi 6:18
(4) Bihar al-Anwar 10:112
(5) Wasa’il al-Shi‘a 15:122
───────────────────────────────

First Point: The most important lesson derived from this narration is that Imam Ali (علیه السلام) instructed his companions to give a name to a newborn before birth. This fact alone refutes the false notion concocted by ‘Aqqad that Imam Ali intended to name his first son, Imam Hasan (علیه السلام), “Harb.”

Now the question arises: Is it possible that Imam Ali (علیه السلام) would give such guidance while not practicing it himself?
Far be it! Far be it! Such a notion is inconceivable!
Because the same Ali (علیه السلام), who is the epitome of wisdom and action, himself said:

من نصب نفسه للنّاس إمامًا فليبدأ بتعليم نفسه قبل تعليم غيره (1)

“Whoever wishes to become a leader (Imam) of the people should first educate himself, and then teach others.”

Here, the term “Imam” refers to anyone who is responsible for guiding and educating people. The mark of a flawed or hypocritical leader is that he acts contrary to what he preaches, exploits religion for worldly gains, and seeks proximity to rulers and the wealthy for honor and status.

Imam Aliؑ further states:

«إني والله ما أحثكم على طاعة إلا وأسبقكم إليها، ولا أنهاكم عن معصية، إلا وأتناهى قبلكم عنها» (2) 

“By ALLAH! I do not command you to any good deed without practicing it myself first, nor do I forbid you from any evil without avoiding it myself beforehand.”

These words perfectly reflect the character and conduct of Aliؑ, and they utterly dismantle the false and baseless claim made by ‘Aqqad.

Thus, it becomes clear that ‘Aqqad’s notion—that Imam Aliؑ intended to name Imam Hasanؑ as “Harb”—is not only historically and narratively incorrect but also entirely contrary to the teachings and practice of Imam Aliؑ.

Secondly, the narration also indicates that the Prophet ﷺ had already named Mohsin before his birth. If this is true, it becomes even more evident that the names of Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them) were likewise determined by the Prophet ﷺ before their birth.

From this, it follows that Imam Aliؑ neither chose nor imposed any names on his sons, neither before nor after their birth.

REFERENCES

(1) Sharh Nahj al-Balagha by Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mu‘tazili – 18:220.

(2) Yanabi‘ al-Mawaddah by al-Qandoozi – 3:435; Sharh Nahj al-Balagha by Ibn Abi al-Hadid – 10:10.

If the reader reflects on the following statement with me, they will find it highly improbable that Amir al-Mu’minin ʿAli ﷺ would have named his son Hasan “Harb,” because he ﷺ clearly expressed his disassociation from such disliked and objectionable names, saying:

إنا بنو عبد مناف فكذلك نحن، ولكن ليس أمية كهاشم، ولا حرب كعبد المطلب، ولا أبو سفيان كأبي طالب، ولا المهاجر كالطليق، ولا الصريح كاللصيق، ولا المحق كالمبطل، ولا المؤمن كالمدغل، ولبئس الخلف خلفًا يتبع سلفا هـوى في نار جهنم» (1).

“We are from Banu Abd Manaf and belong to this lineage, yet it is also true that the Umayyads are not like the Hashimites, nor is Harb like Abd al-Muttalib, nor is Abu Sufyan equal to Abu Talib, nor are the Muhajirun (those who embraced Islam after the conquest of Mecca) equal to the freed slaves, nor the pure in lineage equal to the weak in lineage, nor the truth-followers equal to the falsehood-followers, nor the believers equal to the hypocrites. And the worst successor is the one who follows a predecessor whose end is the fire of Hell.”

(1) Sharh Nahj al-Balagha by Ibn Abi al-Hadid – Volume 15, Page 123.

Ninth Doubt: Denial of the Madinan Context of Āyat al-Mawaddah and Its Restriction Not Being Specific to Imam Hasan ﷺ, Imam Husayn ﷺ, and Their Parents

Stages of Response to the Doubt:

1. Clarifying the importance of knowing the Sebab al-Nuzul (reason of revelation). 

2. Outlining the fundamental methodology for distinguishing Makki and Madani surahs. 

3. Critical discussion of Ibn Taymiyyah’s claim. 

4. Views of Sunni scholars regarding the Madinan nature of Āyat al-Mawaddah. 

The Doubt: Denial of the Madinan Context of Āyat al-Mawaddah and Its Specificity to Imam Hasan ﷺ, Imam Husayn ﷺ, and Their Parents

Ibn Taymiyyah, in his book Minhaj al-Sunnah, raised an objection to the Shia reasoning. His objection can be summarized as follows: Āyat al-Mawaddah, which is cited as evidence for the infallibility and Imamate of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), appears in Surah Ash-Shura. And Surah Ash-Shura, without doubt, is entirely Makki.

On this basis, he claims that at the time this verse was revealed, neither the birth of Imam Hasan ﷺ had occurred nor had the marriage of Imam Ali ﷺ with Lady Fatimah (peace be upon her) taken place, because their marriage took place after the Hijrah, following the Battle of Badr.

Ibn Taymiyyah reiterates his argument in different forms, presenting contradictory evidence and inconsistent proofs, which cannot be reconciled under any agreed-upon principles nor lead to any rational and balanced conclusion. He elaborates his point at length:

فهذا كذب ظاهر؛ فإنّ هذه الآية في سورة الشورى، وسورة الشورى مكّية بلا ريب، نزلت قبل أن يتزوج علي بفاطمة رضي الله عنهما، وقبل أن يولد له الحسن والحسين؛ فإنّ عليا إنما تزوج فاطمة بالمدينة بعد الهجرة في العام الثاني، ولم يدخل بها إلا بعد غزوة بدر، وكانت بدر في شهر رمضان سنة اثنتين. وقد تقدم الكلام على الآية الكريمة، وأنّ المراد بها ما بينه ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما من أنه لم تكن قبيلة من قريش إلا وبينها وبين رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قرابةٌ فقال : لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمُوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى (1) ، إلا أن تودوني في القرابة التي بيني وبينكم، رواه البخاري وغيره»(2).

This is clearly and manifestly false, because this verse was revealed in Surah Ash-Shura, which without any doubt is a Makki surah. The verse was revealed at a time when the marriage of Imam Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) to Lady Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) had not yet taken place, and neither Imam Hasan nor Imam Husayn (may Allah be pleased with them) had been born. Imam Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) married Lady Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) in Medina after the Hijrah, in the second year, and their wedding took place after the Battle of Badr, which occurred in Ramadan of 2 AH.

It has already been explained that the meaning of this noble verse has been discussed, and it is understood according to the clarification given by the esteemed Companion, Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him). According to him, there was not a single tribe among the Quraysh whose lineage was not connected to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Therefore, Allah Almighty said:

لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى 

“I do not ask you for any reward for this (conveying of the message), except the love of my near relatives. So love me on the basis of the kinship that exists between me and you.”

This narration has been reported by Imam Bukhari and other hadith scholars.

وقال: «وقد ذكر طائفةٌ من المصنفين من أهل السنة والجماعة والشيعة من أصحاب أحمد وغيرهم حديثًا عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن هذه الآية لما نزلت قالوا: يا رسول الله، من هؤلاء؟ قال: علي وفاطمة وابناهما، وهذا كذب باتفاق أهل المعرفة بالحديث. ومما يبين ذلك أنّ هذه الآية نزلت بمكة باتفاق أهل العلم؛ فإن سورة الشورى جميعها مكية، بل جميع الـ (حم) كلهن مكيات، وعلي لم يتزوج فاطمة إلا بالمدينة كما تقدم، ولم يولد له الحسن والحسين ع إلا في السنة الثالثة والرابعة من الهجرة، فكيف يمكن أنها لما نزلت بمكة قالوا: يا رسول الله، من هؤلاء؟ قال: علي وفاطمة وابناهما»(3).

Furthermore, some authors from both Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah and Shia scholars, including companions of Ahmad and others, have attributed a narration to the Prophet ﷺ that when this verse was revealed, the Companions asked: “O Messenger of Allah! Who are the people whose love has been commanded?” The Prophet ﷺ is reported to have replied: “Ali, Fatimah, and their two children, Hasan and Husayn.”

However, hadith scholars and specialists in the science of hadith are in full agreement that this narration is entirely fabricated and baseless. The reality is that this verse was revealed in Mecca, and all scholars agree that Surah Ash-Shura is completely Meccan. In fact, all surahs that begin with the letters “حم” are Meccan.

In contrast, the marriage of Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA) to Fatimah (RA) took place in Medina, and Hasan and Husayn (RA) were born in the third and fourth years after the Hijrah. Therefore, if this verse was revealed in Mecca, it would have been impossible for the Companions to ask at that time: “O Messenger of Allah! Who are these relatives?” and for the Prophet ﷺ to reply: “Ali, Fatimah, and their two sons.”

References

(1) Surah Ash-Shura, verse 23.

(2) Minhaj al-Sunnah by Ibn Taymiyyah, vol. 4, p. 562.

(3) Minhaj al-Sunnah, vol. 4, p. 564.

وقال أيضًا: «إنّ تفسير الآية الذي في الصحيحين عن ابن عباس يناقض ذلك؛ ففي الصحيحين عن سعيد بن جبير، قال: سُئل ابن عباس عن قوله تعالى ﴿قُلْ لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلا الْمُوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى فقلت : أَنْ لَا تؤذوا محمدًا في قرابته، فقال ابن عباس: عجلت إنه لم يكن بطن من قريش إلا لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيهم قرابة، فقال: لا أسألكم عليه أجرًا، لكن أسألكم أن تصلوا القرابة التي بيني وبينكم. فهذا ابن عباس ترجمان القرآن وأعلم أهل البيت بعد علي يقول: ليس معناها مودة ذوي القربى، لكن معناها : لا أسألكم – يا معشر العرب و يا معشر قريش – عليه أجرًا، لكن أسألكم أن تصلوا القرابة التي بيني وبينكم، فهو سأل الناس الذين أرسل إليهم أولا أن يصلوا رحمه، فلا يعتدوا عليه حتَّى يُبلغ رسالة ربه»(1) انتهى.

And he further said:

“Indeed, the interpretation of this verse that is narrated in the two Sahihs from Ibn ʿAbbas (RA) is contrary to the (other) interpretation. For in the two Sahihs, it is reported from Saʿid ibn Jubayr (RA) that Ibn ʿAbbas (RA) was asked regarding the saying of Allah the Exalted:

﴿قُلْ لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلا الْمُوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى﴾

“Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it except affection in kinship.”

So I (Saʿid) said—according to my own opinion—that its meaning is: ‘Do not harm the relatives of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’ Ibn ʿAbbas (RA) replied: You have rushed (in your interpretation)! For there was no clan among Quraysh except that it had some kinship tie with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Therefore, the meaning of Allah’s saying is: I do not ask you any reward for this (Message), except that you maintain the bond of kinship between me and you.

This is Ibn ʿAbbas (RA), the one known as the “Interpreter of the Qur’an” (Tarjumān al-Qurʾān), and the most knowledgeable of the Ahl al-Bayt after ʿAli (RA). He clearly states that the meaning of this verse is not “love for the close relatives (dhawi al-qurbā),” but rather its true meaning is:

O people of Arabia! O people of Quraysh! I do not seek from you any payment for this (Message), but I do ask you to respect the bond of kinship that exists between us, and to maintain that tie.

Thus, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ first requested from those to whom he was sent that they show kindness in kinship towards him, and that they not wrong him—so that he could deliver the message of his Lord completely and without hindrance.

And I have noticed that some people echo the words of Ibn Taymiyyah in this matter—such as Qasṭallānī (2), Ibn Kathīr (3), ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dahlawī (4), and others like them—who merely adopted Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement out of imitation, without research, and accepted his opinion blindly.

However, Allah, the Exalted, has condemned those nations who followed their forefathers blindly without using their reason. Thus, Allah says:

إِنَّا وَجَدْنَا آبَاءَنَا عَلَى أُمَّةٍ وَإِنَّا عَلَى آثَارِهِمْ مُقْتَدُونَ (5)

“Indeed, we found our forefathers upon a way, and we are following in their footsteps.”

References

• Minhāj al-Sunnah – vol. 7, p. 100 

• Irshād al-Sārī li-Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī – by al-ʿAsqalānī – vol. 7, p. 331 

• Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (2017 edition) 

• Mukhtaṣar al-Tuḥfa al-Ithnā ʿAshariyya – p. 153 

• Qur’an – Sūrat al-Zukhruf, verse 23

I say: This claim—that the Verse of Affection (Āyat al-Mawaddah) is Makkan and not Madinan, and that its address is to those Quraysh polytheists who were firmly opposed to the Prophet (ﷺ)—is in direct contradiction to the reports which explicitly state the reason for the revelation of this blessed verse. We shall present those reports in detail later.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s assertion that: “This is an outright lie, because this verse occurs in Sūrat al-Shūrā, and Sūrat al-Shūrā is without doubt a Makkan sūrah”—is wholly contrary to scholarly integrity, principles of research, and an objective method of argumentation. Yet, given the personality of Ibn Taymiyyah, such an approach is not surprising, for he was well known for breaking established consensuses, fabricating self-made “consensuses,” and attributing them to “the scholars.” This remains a puzzle that has never been solved, as Sunni scholars have long struggled to uncover this secret. It is astonishing that, to this day, they have not been able to identify who exactly were those individuals to whom Ibn Taymiyyah kept attributing the affirmation or negation of consensus. Will this knot ever be untied, or will it remain a sealed mystery forever?

Moreover, Ibn Taymiyyah’s manner of issuing unfounded and baseless verdicts without research or evidence is a conduct whose falsity leaves no room for doubt in the mind of any rational person. Whoever adopts such groundless methods as a system of reasoning does not deserve any excuse or concession. Yet, considering the approach of Ibn Taymiyyah and his like-minded followers, such a methodology is neither novel nor unexpected, for religious partisanship often causes one to neglect proof and sound reasoning.

This method was not limited to this occasion alone; rather, Ibn Taymiyyah had previously adopted the same stance when he denied the well-established virtues of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) reported through mutawātir traditions. And even today we find that he issues his verdicts without any proof or evidence, rejecting a truth which has been firmly established from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and his purified Household through tawātur—namely, the clear designation of Dhū al-Qurbā (the close kin).

He claimed with absolute certainty that this verse is Makkan, but he presented no proof for such certainty. In reality, this is yet another one of his baseless claims by which he is well recognized. Thus, his style of reasoning falls into the category described by the poet:

والدعاوى إن لم تقيموا عليها        بينات أبناؤها أدعياء

If claims are not established upon clear evidence, then those who make such claims are nothing but false and insignificant.

Claims that are devoid of proof and argument, when examined with reflection, cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the explicit reports concerning the occasions of revelation—which will be mentioned in detail later—together with the opinions of eminent scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, both categorically refute this false notion.

Therefore, in order to present a reasoned refutation of this suspicion, we shall proceed through the following stages:

Stages of Refuting the Doubt:

First Stage: To clarify the importance of understanding the occasion of revelation (sabab al-nuzūl).

The knowledge of asbāb al-nuzūl (occasions of revelation) holds immense importance, for through it the determination of whether a verse is Makkan or Madinan becomes directly possible. Generally, this knowledge is inseparable from the classification of verses as Makkan or Madinan, since it provides the historical background of a particular cause, the place where it occurred, and at times even the very day on which the verse was revealed.

Thus, sabab al-nuzūl is a highly significant science, and understanding it plays a major role in grasping the meanings of the Qur’an and in resolving the complexities of its exegesis. With the help of this discipline, the specific meaning of a blessed verse becomes clear—something which, at times, cannot be understood without knowing the occasion of revelation and the circumstances connected with it.

───────────────────────────────
It is to this reality that al-Wāḥidī al-Nīsābūrī points in the preface of his book Asbāb al-Nuzūl, where he says:

إذ هي أوفى ما يجب الوقوف عليها، وأولى ما تُصرف العناية إليها؛ لامتناع معرفة تفسير الآية وقصد سبيلها، دون الوقوف على قصتها وبيان نزولها (1).

“For it (i.e., the knowledge of occasions of revelation) is among the most essential matters that one must pay attention to, and it is the foremost subject toward which care and effort should be directed. For it is impossible to truly know the interpretation of a verse and the intent of its path without being aware of its background story and the explanation of its revelation.” (1)

وقد جعل السيوطي من فوائد معرفة أسباب النزول الوقوف على المعنى وإزاحة الإشكال عن وجه الآية (2).

Similarly, al-Suyūṭī also mentioned, among the benefits of knowing the occasions of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl), that it helps in understanding the meanings of a verse and in clarifying any difficulty that may be found within it.

It is also narrated from al-Qushayrī, who is famously known as Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd, that:

«بيان سبب النزول طريق قوي في فهم معاني الكتاب العزيز» (3)

That is to say, clarifying the reasons for the revelation of verses (asbāb al-nuzūl) is a strong method for understanding the meanings of the Noble Qur’an.

In light of the points mentioned above, it becomes clear that knowing the occasions of revelation of the verses is a major means of explaining the intent and meanings of the Qur’an.

At this point, a question may arise: What is the correct way to know the cause of a verse’s revelation?

The answer is that the correct way to determine the reasons for the revelation of verses is solely based on the reports and aḥādīth which describe in detail the incident or situation in connection with which the verse was revealed.

The scholars have unanimously acknowledged that the study of asbāb al-nuzūl is counted among the most effective means for understanding the meanings of the Qur’an.

Second Stage: Explaining the Fundamental Methodology for Determining Makkan and Madinan Sūrahs

It is no secret that, according to the scholars of Qur’ānic sciences, two fundamental methodologies are adopted for identifying whether a sūrah is Makkan or Madinan:

1. The Transmission-based (Samāʿī wa Naqlī) Method
   This method relies on the reports transmitted from the Companions who directly witnessed the revelation of the Qur’ān and observed with their own eyes the circumstances and occasions of its descent. Similarly, the reports of the Successors (tābiʿūn), who heard these details from the Companions, also fall under this category. Accordingly, most of the material concerning the identification of Makkan and Madinan sūrahs and verses is based on this transmitted method.

References:

• Asbāb Nuzūl al-Āyāt by al-Wāḥidī, p. 4. 

• See: Al-Itqān fī ʿUlūm al-Qur’ān, vol. 1, p. 87; and Lubāb al-Nuqūl fī Asbāb al-Nuzūl, p. 13. 

• Lubāb al-Nuqūl fī Asbāb al-Nuzūl, p. 13; Al-Burhān fī ʿUlūm al-Qur’ān by al-Zarkashī, vol. 1, p. 23. 

2. The Analogical and Ijtihādī Method
   This method is based on the distinctive characteristics of Makkan and Madinan sūrahs. If a Makkan sūrah contains a verse in the style of Madinan revelation or refers to Madinan events, it is classified as Madinan. Conversely, if a Madinan sūrah includes a verse resembling the Makkan style or narrates events of the Makkan period, it is considered Makkan.

According to this principle, if the characteristics of a sūrah are Makkan, it is regarded as Makkan; and if they are Madinan, it is considered Madinan. This is the essence of analogical reasoning (qiyās) and ijtihād. Based on this, exegetes (mufassirīn) have said:

• Any sūrah that narrates the stories of the prophets and the accounts of past nations is Makkan. 

• Any sūrah that deals with obligations, limits, and legal rulings (sharʿī laws) is Madinan. 

If these two criteria are taken as the standard for distinguishing between Makkan and Madinan, then the Verse of Affection (Āyat al-Mawadda) — “Say, I ask of you no reward for it except love for my near relatives” (Qur’ān 42:23) — is proven to be revealed in Madinah for three reasons, which we shall present one after another.

First Point: The Verse of Affection exhibits the characteristics of Madinan revelation.
The explanation is as follows: Before the Prophet’s ﷺ migration, his primary responsibility was to struggle against shirk, and to invite people to tawḥīd (monotheism) and belief in the Hereafter. Since Makkan society was not suitable for the introduction of detailed legal rulings (aḥkām) and jurisprudential issues, nor was it conducive for scholarly debate with the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), the majority of Makkan sūrahs consisted of doctrines, stories of past nations, and moral lessons.

When the Prophet ﷺ migrated to Madinah and circumstances stabilized — as most of its inhabitants embraced Islam — the opportunity arose to establish Islamic teachings and engage in debates with the Jews and Christians. They would raise doubts and argue with the Prophet ﷺ, in response to which lengthy sūrahs containing verses about them were revealed.

Therefore, if this criterion is adopted for distinguishing Makkan from Madinan verses, this verse (Āyat al-Mawadda) is undoubtedly Madinan, without any room for doubt. This is because, in Makkah, those who did not even accept faith in the Prophet ﷺ — and were intent on killing him — could not possibly have been addressed with a request for reward or for affection towards the Prophet’s near relatives. In contrast, in Madinah, the Aws and Khazraj tribes, along with various Arab clans, had gathered around him — as will be further explained. This, then, is the analogical and ijtihādī methodology.

الأمر الثاني: الاعتماد على الروايات والمنقولات (1)، أي المنهج السماعي النقلي: وهذا أيضًا إن عدّ ميزانًا في التمييز بين المكي والمدني فآية المودّة تكون مدنية، فقد صرّح كثير من علماء أهل السنة بمدنية أربع آيات من سورة الشورى بما فيها آية المودة، اعتمادا على روايـة ابـن عباس، وممن قال بذلك من علمائهم أبو حيان في (البحر المحيط)(2)، والقرطبي في (الجامع لأحكام القرآن) (3) ، والشوكاني في (فتح القدير )(4)، والماوردي في (النكت والعيون)) (5) ، والزمخشري في (الكشاف)(6)،

Second Point: Reliance on Reports and Transmissions
This refers to the auditory and transmitted method (samāʿī wa-naqlī). If this method is taken as the criterion for distinguishing between Makkan and Madinan verses, then the Verse of Affection (Āyat al-Mawadda) must be considered Madinan. The reason is that several eminent scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have explicitly stated that four verses of Sūrat al-Shūrā — among them the Verse of Affection — are Madinan. This position is based upon a narration from Ibn ʿAbbās.

Among the exegetes who have adopted this view are:

• Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ 

• al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qur’ān 

• al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr 

• al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʿUyūn 

• al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf

References:

• See: Mafāhīm al-Qur’ān, Shaykh al-Subḥānī, vol. 10, p. 271. 

• Tafsīr al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, vol. 9, p. 322. 

• Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, vol. 1, p. 16. 

• Fatḥ al-Qadīr, vol. 4, p. 601. 

• Tafsīr al-Māwardī (al-Nukat wa-l-ʿUyūn), vol. 5, p. 191. 

• Tafsīr al-Zamakhsharī (al-Kashshāf), vol. 4, p. 208. 

وعـز الدين بن عبد السلام في (مختصر تفسير الماوردي) (1) ، وابن جزي الكلبي

في (التسهيل لعلوم التنزيل ) (2) ، وأبو الفرج الجوزي في (زاد المسير )(3)،

والخازن في الباب التأويل ) (4) ، والماتريدي في تأويلات أهل السنة)(5)،

والآلوسي في (روح المعاني) (6) ، والمراغي في تفسيره (7)، والعيني في

(عمدة القاري ) (8) ، ومحمد طاهر بن عاشور في (التحرير والتنوير ) (9) ،

Izz al-Dīn ibn ‘Abd al-Salām – Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr al-Māwardī
Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbī – al-Tashīl li-‘Ulūm al-Tanzīl
Abū al-Faraj al-Jawzī – Zād al-Masīr
al-Khāzin – Lubāb al-Ta’wīl
al-Māturīdī – Ta’wīlāt Ahl al-Sunnah
al-Ālūsī – Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī
al-Marāghī – Tafsīr al-Marāghī
al-‘Aynī – ‘Umdat al-Qārī
Muḥammad Ṭāhir ibn ‘Āshūr – al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr

Therefore, according to this samā‘ī (narrative) and naqlī (transmitted) methodology, the Verse of Affection (Āyat al-Mawaddah) is also considered among the Medinan verses, even though it occurs in a Meccan sūrah (Sūrat al-Shūrā). This will be further clarified, God willing.

The Third Point: The Reason for the Revelation of the Verse
Reports explicitly state that the Verse of Affection – “Say: I ask of you no reward for it, except love for [my] near relatives” (Q. 42:23) – was revealed concerning the Anṣār, which establishes its Medinan origin. This was also pointed out by al-‘Ālūsī in his Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī, where he cites al-Suyūṭī in this regard.

ويدل له ما أخرجه الطبراني والحاكم في سبب نزولها، فإنّها نزلت في الأنصار (10)

This is supported by the narrations of al-Tabarānī and al-Ḥākim regarding the reason for the revelation of this verse, which explicitly state that it was revealed concerning the Anṣār.

REFERENCES

(1) Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr al-Māwardī 3:137

(2) al-Tashīl li-ʿUlūm al-Tanzīl 2:244

(3) Zād al-Masīr 4:58

(4) Lubāb al-Taʾwīl 4:93

(5) Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunnah 9:100

(6) Rūḥ al-Maʿānī 13:11

(7) Tafsīr al-Marāghī 13:25

(8) ʿUmdat al-Qārī 19:156

(9) al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanwīr 25:2423

(10) Rūḥ al-Maʿānī by al-Ālūsī – 13:11

فعن ابن عباس قال: «قالت الأنصار في ما بينهم لو جمعنا الرسول الله ص مالا فبسط يده، لا يحول بينه وبينه أحد، فقالوا يا رسول الله، إنا أردنا أن نجمع لك من أموالنا، فأنزل الله ﷺ قُلْ لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى فخرجوا يختلفون، فقالوا: ألم تروا إلى ما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ؟ فقال بعضهم: إنما قال هذا النقاتل عن أهل بيته وننصرهم، فأنزل الله ﷺ أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللهِ كَذِبًا إلى قوله وَهُوَ الَّذِي يَقْبَلُ التَّوْبَةَ عَنْ عِبَادِهِ فعرض لهم بالتوبة، إلى قوله: ﴿وَيَسْتَجِيبُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَيَزِيدُهُمْ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ هم الذين قالوا هذا إن يتوبوا إلى الله ويستغفرونه (۱).

It is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that:

The Anṣār said among themselves: “If we collect some wealth for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, so that he may use it whenever he wishes, and that nothing should come between him and this wealth.”

So they presented their proposal, saying:
“O Messenger of Allah! We wish to gather some of our wealth for you.”

Thereupon, Allah revealed this verse:

﴿قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى﴾

Say: I do not ask you for any reward for it, except love for [my] near relatives. (al-Shūrā 42:23)

When they heard this, disagreement arose among the Anṣār. They said:
“Did you not hear what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has said?”

Some of them remarked:
“Its meaning is that we should fight in defense of his Ahl al-Bayt and support them.”

Then Allah revealed further verses:

﴿أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا … وَهُوَ الَّذِي يَقْبَلُ التَّوْبَةَ عَنْ عِبَادِهِ﴾

 Or do they say, ‘He has fabricated a lie against Allah’? … Yet He is the One who accepts repentance from His servants. (al-Shūrā 42:24–25)

Thus Allah invited them to repentance, until He said:

﴿وَيَسْتَجِيبُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَيَزِيدُهُمْ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ﴾

And He answers those who believe and do righteous deeds, and increases them out of His bounty. (al-Shūrā 42:26)

This was revealed concerning those who had made that statement, indicating that if they repented and sought forgiveness from Allah, He would forgive them.

And in another narration it is reported that:

قال: سمع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم شيئًا، فخطب فقال للأنصار : ألم تكونوا أذلاء فأعزكم الله بي، ألم تكونوا ضلالا فهداكم الله بي، ألم تكونوا خائفين فأمنكم الله بي ، ألا تردون علي؟ قالوا: أي شيء نجيبك؟ قال: تقولون أ لم يطردك قومك فآويناك؟ أ لم يكذبك قومك فصدقناك؟ فعدّد عليهم، قال: فجثوا على ركبهم، فقالوا: أموالنا وأنفسنا لك، فنزلتْ ﴿قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمُوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى (2) .

When the Noble Prophet ﷺ heard something, he delivered a sermon and said to the Ansar:
“Were you not weak, and Allah honored you through me? Were you not misguided, and Allah guided you through me? Were you not afraid, and Allah granted you security through me? Will you not respond to me?”

They said: “What should we say in reply to you?”

The Prophet ﷺ said:
“You should say: Did not your people expel you, and we gave you shelter? Did not your people belie you, and we confirmed you?”

Then the Prophet ﷺ enumerated his favors upon them, whereupon they all fell upon their knees and said:
“Our wealth and our lives are all at your service.”

At that moment, the following verse was revealed:

﴿قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى﴾

“Say, I do not ask you for any reward for it, except love for [my] near relatives.”

Thus, from the context of these narrations, it becomes clear that this blessed verse was addressed to the Ansar and not to the disbelievers. Hence, there is no doubt that the verse under discussion is among the Madinan verses.

(1) Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr by al-Ṭabarānī, vol. 12, p. 33.

(2) Al-Mu‘jam al-Awsaṭ by al-Ṭabarānī, vol. 4, p. 159; Asbāb al-Nuzūl by al-Wāḥidī, p. 374.

Third Stage: A Critical Examination of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Claim

Now we turn to a detailed assessment of Ibn Taymiyyah’s claim, presenting his own words first so that the reality becomes clear to all—that this man was deeply mired in ignorance and misguidance. The weakness of his reasoning and the superficiality of his arguments will also be laid bare. Let us analyze his statements step by step:

First Discussion:
Ibn Taymiyyah attempted to substantiate his view with a particular argument, creating the impression that his claim rested on authoritative religious sources. In reality, however, those very sources expose the falsehood of his position. He says:

إنّ تفسير الآية الذي في الصحيحين عن ابن عباس يناقض ذلك، ففي الصحيحين عن سعيد بن جبير...

“The interpretation of the verse reported in the two Ṣaḥīḥs from Ibn ‘Abbās contradicts that (other claim). For in the two Ṣaḥīḥs, it is narrated from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr …”

Here, Ibn Taymiyyah is referring to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim when he uses the term “the two Ṣaḥīḥs.”

Although Ibn Taymiyyah often demanded scholarly integrity from his opponents, he himself is found trampling upon the very principles of fairness. His intellectual dishonesty becomes evident in two respects:

1. First Aspect: Misattribution to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī
   Ibn Taymiyyah attributed a narration to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī in support of his argument. Yet upon investigation, the falsehood of this claim becomes as clear as daylight. No such ḥadīth exists in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī—neither in wording nor in chain of transmission.
   
   Ibn Taymiyyah cited Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr as the transmitter of the report. But the actual narration in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī on this subject comes through ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Maysarah, Ṭāwūs, and Ibn ‘Abbās. This glaring contradiction proves that Ibn Taymiyyah falsely ascribed a report to al-Bukhārī in order to bolster his argument. 

2. Second Aspect: Fabricated Wording of the Ḥadīth
   The very wording of the narration cited by Ibn Taymiyyah cannot be found in any of the Ṣiḥāḥ (canonical ḥadīth collections) nor in the Musnads. None of the early authorities or eminent Imāms of the Ummah have ever reported it. This clearly shows that Ibn Taymiyyah relied on an unauthentic text with no trace in the reliable sources. 

Second Discussion:
The same narration was also attributed to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. However, upon consulting the original text, not only is the narration absent, there is not even the faintest indication of it. O noble reader, you can thus perceive the true measure of Ibn Taymiyyah’s so-called scholarly “trustworthiness.” And if this is the condition of the man who is honored by some with the title Shaykh al-Islām, then what can one expect of those of lesser stature who follow in his path?

As the poet aptly said:

إذا كانَ ربُّ البيت بالدّف ناقرًا
فلا تَلُمِ الصِّبيانَ فيه على الرَّقصِ

“If the master of the house himself beats the drum,
then do not blame the children for dancing.”

What is even more astonishing—and lamentable—is that within Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim itself, there exists a narration that is directly opposed to the very report Ibn Taymiyyah falsely attributed to al-Bukhārī and Muslim.

Muslim narrates with his chain that Yazīd ibn Hurmuz said …

كتب نجدة بن عامر الحروري إلى ابن عباس يسأله عن… وعن ذوي القربى، من هم؟ فقال(1) ليزيد: اكتب إليه، فلولا أن يقع في أخموقةٍ ما كتبت إليه، اكتب: أنك كتبت تسألني عن… وكتبت تسألني عن ذوي القربى من هم؟ وإنا زعمنا أنا هم، فأبى ذلك علينا قومنا» (2) .

Najda ibn ʿĀmir al-Ḥarūrī wrote a letter to Ibn ʿAbbās in which he asked about certain issues, including: “Who are the Dhū al-Qurbā (near relatives)?” Ibn ʿAbbās said to Yazīd: “Write! Had I not feared that he might fall into misguidance, I would not have written anything to him. Write: You asked me … and also inquired about who the Dhū al-Qurbā are? So we understood that we ourselves are the Dhū al-Qurbā, but our people refused to acknowledge it.”

If this narration of Ibn ʿAbbās is compared with the narration reported by al-Bukhārī, a clear contradiction becomes evident. In al-Bukhārī’s narration, Ibn ʿAbbās, while objecting to Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, says:

“ عجِلْتَ، إن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يكن بطن من قريش إلا كان له فيهم قرابة.”
“You have been hasty! The Noble Prophet ﷺ had a bond of kinship with every clan of Quraysh.”

Whereas, in the narration of Muslim, Ibn ʿAbbās himself says:

“ وإنا زعمنا أنا هم، فأبى ذلك علينا قومنا.”

“We understood that we ourselves were the Dhul-Qurbā (near relatives), but our people refused to accept it.

These two narrations are contradictory to each other, and the conflict between them is absolutely clear.”

REFERENCES

(1) Meaning: Ibn ʿAbbās.

(2) Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 3:1445, ḥadīth no. 1812.

(3) According to Ibn Taymiyyah’s claim regarding what he attributed to al-Bukhārī.

Thus, in light of the above explanation, if Ibn Taymiyyah’s intent was the same ḥadīth that al-Bukhārī has narrated, then this proves that he altered the wording of the ḥadīth in order to adjust its meaning according to his own desires and viewpoint. Accordingly, he writes:

“ففي الصحيحين عن سعيد بن جبير، قال: سُئل ابن عباس عن قوله تعالى: ﴿قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى﴾ فقلت …”

So, in al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (al-Bukhārī and Muslim), it is narrated from Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, who said: Ibn ʿAbbās was asked regarding the verse of Allah the Exalted:
“Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it except love for (my) near relatives.” — so I said…

Now, an important point worth noting in the text cited by Ibn Taymiyyah is this: in his version, the narrator is Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, whereas in the authentic narration found in al-Bukhārī, the narrator is ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Maysarah, who reports from Ṭāwūs, and Ṭāwūs narrates it from Ibn ʿAbbās.

In that narration, it is stated that: …

عن ابن عباس : و أنه سُئل عن قوله إِلا المَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى فقال سعيد بن جبير : قربی آل محمّد صلى الله عليه وسلم، فقال ابن عباس : عجلت، إنَّ النبيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلّم لم يكن بطن من قريش إلا كان له فيهم قرابة . فقال : (إلا أن تصلوا ما بيني وبينكم من القرابة)(1)

When Ibn ʿAbbās was asked about the saying of Allah Almighty:

﴿إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى﴾
(“except love for (my) near relatives”)

Saʿīd ibn Jubayr replied: “By qurbā is meant the family of Muḥammad ﷺ.”

But Ibn ʿAbbās answered:
“You hastened. The Prophet ﷺ had ties of kinship with every clan of Quraysh.”

Then he further clarified:
“But as for the bond of kinship that exists between me and you, maintain it.”

From the alteration of words in Ibn Taymiyyah’s version, it becomes clear that he wanted to give precedence to the statement of Ibn ʿAbbās over that of Saʿīd ibn Jubayr. According to Ibn ʿAbbās’s statement, qurbā does not mean Āl Muḥammad ﷺ, as Saʿīd ibn Jubayr understood, but rather refers to all of Quraysh. Such a distortion reveals Ibn Taymiyyah’s intention—that he sought to present this ḥadīth in line with his own viewpoint, so that it could serve as proof in support of his personal opinion.

Second Discussion:

Ibn Taymiyyah further said:
“This verse was revealed at a time when ʿAlī (may Allah be pleased with him) had not yet married Fāṭimah (may Allah be pleased with her), nor had al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn been born. ʿAlī (may Allah be pleased with him) married Fāṭimah (may Allah be pleased with her) after the Hijrah to Madīnah, in the second year, and her departure to his house (rukhsatī) also took place after the Battle of Badr, which occurred in Ramaḍān of the year 2 AH.”

(1) Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, vol. 6, p. 129, ḥadīth no. 4818. 

Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement is sufficient to cast deep doubts on the Medinan nature of the Verse of Affection (Āyat al-Mawaddah). He first mentioned the date of the marriage of the pure Lady, Sayyidah Fāṭimah al-Zahrā (peace be upon her), with the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī (peace be upon him), and then highlighted a fact upon which there is no disagreement—namely, the birth of the Prophet’s grandsons, Imām Ḥasan and Imām Ḥusayn (peace be upon them). On the basis of this background, he argued and concluded that the Verse of Affection is Makkan.

If his reasoning is expressed in clear words, it can be summarized as follows:

• Sūrat al-Shūrā was revealed in Makkah. 

• Imam ʿAlī (peace be upon him) married Lady Fāṭimah al-Zahrā (peace be upon her) in Madinah. 

• Imām Ḥasan and Imām Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) were also born in Madinah. 

Therefore, the Verse of Affection cannot be proven to concern the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), since it is part of a sūrah (al-Shūrā) that was revealed in Makkah.

This line of reasoning is invalid for two reasons:

1. There is no conclusive evidence that Sūrat al-Shūrā was revealed entirely in Makkah. On the contrary, eminent exegetes of Ahl al-Sunnah have explicitly stated that four verses of Sūrat al-Shūrā—including the Verse of Affection—were revealed in Madinah. This position is based on a narration from Ibn ʿAbbās, which will be explained in detail later. 

2. The fact that the marriage of Imam ʿAlī (peace be upon him) and Lady Fāṭimah al-Zahrā (peace be upon her) took place in Madinah, and that Imām Ḥasan and Imām Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) were born there, has no connection whatsoever with whether the Verse of Affection is Makkan or Medinan.

Stage Four: The Opinions of Sunni Scholars Regarding the Medinan Nature of the Verse of Affection

Ibn Taymiyyah argued for the Makkan nature of the Verse of Affection in this way:
Indeed, Sūrat al-Shūrā was revealed in Makkah. There is no doubt that the marriage of ʿAlī (peace be upon him) with Fāṭimah al-Zahrā (peace be upon her) took place in Madinah, and indeed the births of Imām Ḥasan and Imām Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) also occurred in Madinah. Therefore, the Verse of Affection cannot be specific to the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), since it appears in a sūrah (al-Shūrā) that was entirely revealed in Makkah.

As we have mentioned, this analogy is false, and there are several reasons for this. The most significant among them is that there is no evidence proving that Sūrat al-Shūrā was revealed entirely in Makkah. On the contrary, eminent Sunni scholars have denied that all of its verses were revealed in Makkah. According to them, four verses of this sūrah—including the Verse of Affection—were revealed in Madinah, and they based this claim on a narration from Ibn ʿAbbās.

Thus, some Sunni scholars have described the whole of Sūrat al-Shūrā as Makkan, but only in terms of its predominant nature, as Al-Ālūsī (1) has pointed out. Others have said that the sūrah is Makkan except for four verses, but without presenting any proof—treating this matter as if it were universally accepted. Still, others regarded the reports from Ibn ʿAbbās and Qatādah as authentic evidence for this claim, as will be clarified later.

The Opinions of Sunni Scholars:

• Abū Ḥayyān Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf ibn ʿAlī, in his tafsīr al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, writes: 

هذه السورة مكّية في قول الحسن وعطاء وعكرمة وجابر، وقال ابن عباس: مكية إلا أربع آيات من قوله تعالى: ﴿قُل لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمُوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى﴾ إلى آخر الأربع آيات؛ فإنّها نزلت بالمدينة (2).

This chapter is Makkan, according to the statements of Ḥasan, ʿAṭāʾ, ʿIkrimah, and Jābir. And Ibn ʿAbbās said: It is Makkan, except for those four verses — from “Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it except love for (my) near relatives” up to four verses — for indeed they were revealed in Madinah.

References:

(1) Rūḥ al-Bayān 10:25
(2) Tafsīr al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ 9:322

2. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Shams al-Dīn al-Qurṭubī, in his Tafsīr al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, states:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم، سورة الشورى مكية في قول الحسن وعكرمة وعطاء وجابر، وقال ابن عباس وقتادة: إلّا أربع آيات منها أُنزلت بالمدينة: ﴿قُل لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمُوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى إلى آخرها، وهي ثلاث وخمسون آية (1).

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Sūrah al-Shūrā is Makkan, according to the view of Ḥasan, ʿIkrimah, ʿAṭāʾ, and Jābir.
While Ibn ʿAbbās and Qatādah said: except for four verses which were revealed in Madinah, namely: “Say, I ask of you no reward for it except love for [my] near relatives” up to the end [of the four verses].
And this Sūrah consists of fifty-three (53) verses.

3. Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Shawkānī, in his Tafsīr Fatḥ al-Qadīr, writes:

روي عن ابن عباس وقتادة أنها مكية إلا أربع آيات منها أُنزلت بالمدينة قُل لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمُوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى إلى آخرها » (2) .

It is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās and Qatādah that Sūrah al-Shūrā is Makkan, except for the four verses which were revealed in Madinah, namely:
“Say, I do not ask you for any reward for it except love for [my] near relatives” up to the end [of those verses].

4. ʿAbdullāh Maḥmūd Shaḥātah, in his Tafsīr Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, states:

سورة الشورى مكية إلا الآيات ۲۳ ، ٢٤ ، ٢٥ ، ٢٧ ، فمدنية، وآياتها ٥٣، ونزلت بعد سورة فصلت (3) .

Sūrah al-Shūrā is Makkan, except for verses 23, 24, 25, and 27, which are Madinan.
This sūrah consists of 53 verses and was revealed after Sūrah Fuṣṣilat.

5. Abū al-Ḥasan al-Māwardī, in his Tafsīr al-Nukat wa’l-ʿUyūn, writes:

مكية في قول الحسن وعكرمة وعطاء وجابر، وقاله ابن عباس وقتادة إلا أربع آيات منها نزلت بالمدينة قُل لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى إلى آخرها (4).

This Surah is Makki, according to the statements of Hasan, ʿIkrimah, ʿAṭāʾ, and Jābir. Ibn ʿAbbās and Qatādah, however, said: except for those four verses which were revealed in Madinah, namely from:

﴿قُل لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى﴾ 

(“Say, I do not ask you for it any reward except love for the near relatives”) to the end of the Surah.

(1) Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī 1:16
(2) Fatḥ al-Qadīr 4:601
(3) Tafsīr Muqātil ibn Sulaymān 3:761
(4) al-Nukat wa al-ʿUyūn 5:191

6 – قال أبو القاسم جار الله الزمخشري في تفسيره (الكشاف عن حقائق غوامض التنزيل): سورة الشورى مكّية إلا الآيات ٢٣، ٢٤، ٢٥، ٢٧ فمدنية … » (1).

Abu al-Qāsim Jār Allāh al-Zamakhsharī, in his Tafsīr al-Kashshāf ʿan Ḥaqāʾiq Ghawāmiḍ al-Tanzīl, states:

“Sūrah al-Shūrā is Makki, except for verses 23, 24, 25, and 27, which are Madani.”

7- قال أبو محمد عز الدين بن عبد السلام في تفسيره (تفسير القرآن) وهو مختصر لتفسير الماوردي): سورة الشورى مكية إلا أربع آيات مدنية قُل لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا ٢٣ إلى آخرها » (2) .

8- قال ابن جزي الكلبي الغرناطي في تفسيره التسهيل لعلوم التنزيل: سورة الشورى مكّية إلا الآيات ٢٣ و ٢٤ و ٢٤ و ٢٥ و٢٧ فمدينة، وآياتها ٥٣ نزلت بعد فصلت (3).

Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbī al-Gharnāṭī, in his al-Tashīl li-ʿUlūm al-Tanzīl, writes:

“Sūrah al-Shūrā is Makki, except for verses 23, 24, 25, and 27, which are Madani. This Sūrah consists of a total of 53 verses, and it was revealed after Sūrah Fuṣṣilat.”

 9- وقال أبو الطيب محمد صديق خان القنوجي في تفسيره (فتح البيان في مقاصد القرآن): «سورة الشورى، وتسمى حم عسق، وسورة شورى من غير ألف ولام، وسورة حم عسق ، وهي ثلاثة وخمسون آية… ورُوي عن ابن عباس أنها مكّية إلا أربع آيات نزلت بالمدينة ﴿قُل لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إلا الْمُوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى إلى آخرها » (4).

Abū al-Ṭayyib Muḥammad Ṣiddīq Khān al-Qannūjī, in his Fatḥ al-Bayān fī Maqāṣid al-Qur’ān, states:

“Sūrah al-Shūrā, which is also called Ḥā Mīm ʿAyn Sīn Qāf, or simply Sūrah Shūrā without the definite article, and also Sūrah Ḥā Mīm ʿAyn Sīn Qāf — consists of a total of 53 verses. It is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that it is Makki, except for the four verses revealed in Madinah, from: ‘Say: I do not ask you for any reward for it except love for [my] near relatives’ up to the end [of the passage].”

Alī ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Sakhāwī, in his book Jamāl al-Qurrāʾ wa Kamāl al-Iqrāʾ, states:

“Ibn ʿAbbās and Qatādah said that Sūrah al-Shūrā contains some verses that are not Makki (i.e., they are Madani).”

REFERENCES

1) Tafsīr al-Kashshāf 4:208.

(2) Tafsīr al-Qur’ān (Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr al-Māwardī) 3:137.

(3) Al-Tashīl li-ʿUlūm al-Tanzīl 2:244.

(4) Fatḥ al-Bayān fī Maqāṣid al-Qur’ān 12:271.

(5) Jamāl al-Qurrāʾ wa Kamāl al-Iqrāʾ 1:137.

11 – وقال زكريا زين الدين أبو يحيى السنيكي في (المقصد لتلخيص ما في المرشد): سورة الشورى مكّية إلا قوله قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا أَما الآيات الأربع فمدنية (1).

Zakariyyā Zayn al-Dīn Abū Yaḥyā al-Sunīkī, in his book Al-Maqṣad li-Talkhīṣ mā fī al-Murshid, writes:

“Sūrat al-Shūrā is Makkan, except for the part where Allah the Exalted says: 

﴿قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا﴾.

 However, four verses of this sūrah are Madinan.”

12 – وقال مرعي الكرمي المقدسي الحنبلي في (قلائد المرجان): «سورة الشورى مكّية كلها إلا أربع آيات نزلت بالمدينة قُل لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا۔۔۔۔ الآيات (2) .

Marʿī al-Karamī al-Maqdisī al-Ḥanbalī, in his book Qalāʾid al-Marjān, writes:

“Sūrat al-Shūrā is entirely Makkan, except for four verses that were revealed in Madinah:

 ﴿قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا﴾ 

… up to the remaining verses.”

 13- وقال أحمد بن محمد الدمياطي شهاب الدين الشهير بالبناء في (إتحاف فضلاء البشر): شورة الشورى مكّية إلا أربع آيات، من قُلْ لا أسْأَلُكُمْ إلى أربع آيات فمدنية … (3) 

Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Dimyāṭī Shihāb al-Dīn, known as al-Bannāʾ, in his book Ithḥāf Fuḍalāʾ al-Bashar, states:

“Sūrat al-Shūrā is Makkan, except for four verses which begin with 

﴿قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ﴾

 and continue for four verses; these are Madinan.”

14 – وقال أبو الحسن النوري الصفاقسي المالكي في (غيث النفع في القراءات السبع): مكية، وقال ابن عباس رضي الله عنه : إلا أربع آيات من قُلْ لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إلى شديد، فإنها مدنية (4).

Abū al-Ḥasan al-Nūrī al-Ṣafāqisī al-Mālikī, in his book Ghayth al-Nafʿ fī al-Qirāʾāt al-Sabʿ, writes:

“This sūrah is Makkan, except that Ibn ʿAbbās (may Allah be pleased with him) said: four verses — from

 ﴿قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا﴾ up to ﴿شديد﴾ — are Madinan.”

15- وقال جمال الدين أبو الفرج الجوزي في (زاد المسير): «سورة الشورى، وتسمى حم عسق ، وهي مكّية، رواه العوفي وغيره عن ابن عباس، وبه قال الحسن وعكرمة ومجاهد وقتادة والجمهور، وحكي عن ابن عباس وقتادة، قالا: إلا أربع آيات نزلن بالمدينة أولها: قُل لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا

وقال مقاتل: فيها من المدني … (5).

Jamāl al-Dīn Abū al-Faraj al-Jawzī, in his tafsīr Zād al-Masīr, states:

“Sūrat al-Shūrā, which is also called Ḥā Mīm ʿAyn Sīn Qāf, is Makkan. This view was narrated by ʿAwfī and other commentators from Ibn ʿAbbās, and it is also the position of Ḥasan, ʿIkrimah, Mujāhid, Qatādah, and the majority. However, it is also reported from Ibn ʿAbbās and Qatādah that there are four verses within the sūrah that were revealed in Madinah, the first of which is: 

﴿قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا﴾.

 Muqātil’s view is that there are some Madinan verses in this sūrah.”

Reference 

• al-Maqṣad li-Talkhīṣ mā fī al-Murshid, p. 76. 

• Qalāʾid al-Marjān, p. 180. 

• Ittiḥāf Fuḍalāʾ al-Bashar, p. 491. 

• Ghayth al-Nafʿ fī al-Qirāʾāt al-Sabʿ, 1:520. 

1. Zād al-Masīr, 4:58.
   ――――――――――――――――――

 16- وقال علاء الدين علي المعروف بالخازن في الباب التأويل في معاني التنزيل: «… عن ابن عباس إلا أربع آيات نزلت بالمدينة، أولها قُلْ لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا … (1)

ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī, known as al-Khāzin, writes in his tafsīr al-Lubāb al-Taʾwīl fī Maʿānī al-Tanzīl:

“It is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that Sūrat al-Shūrā is Makkan, except for four verses that were revealed in Madinah, the first of which is: ‘Say, I do not ask of you any reward…’”

17- وقال محمد بن محمد أبو منصور الماتريدي في تأويلات أهل السُّنة): سورة حم عسق مكية إلا آيات (2).

Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī, in his Ta’wīlāt Ahl al-Sunnah, states:

“Sūrah Ḥā Mīm ʿAyn Sīn Qāf (i.e., Sūrat al-Shūrā) is Makkan, except for a few verses.”

18 – وقال الآلوسي في (روح المعاني): وفي البحر: هي مكية إلا أربع آيات من قوله تعالى قُل لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمُوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى إِلى آخر أربع آيات، وقال مقاتل: فيها مدني … (3).

Al-Alusi, in his Tafsir Ruh al-Ma‘ani, writes:

“It is mentioned in al-Bahr that this surah is Makki, except for four verses which begin with Allah’s statement: ﴿Say, I do not ask you for it any reward except love for [my] near relatives﴾, and continue until the end of four verses. Muqatil, however, held the view that it also contains some Madani verses.”

19 – قال أحمد بن مصطفى المراغي في تفسيره (تفسير المراغي): هي مكية إلا الآيات ۲۳ ، ٢٤ ، ٢٥ ، ٢٦ ، ٢٧ فمدنية… (4).

Ahmad ibn Mustafa al-Maraghi, in his Tafsir Tafsir al-Maraghi, states:

“This surah is Makki, except for verses 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27, which are Madani.”

20 – وقال محمد عزّت دروزة في التفسير الحديث): «وقد ذكر المصحف الذي اعتمدناه أنّ الآيات (٢٣ – ٢٥) مدنيات …»(5) .

Muhammad Izzat Darwazah, in his Tafsir al-Tafsir al-Hadith, writes:

“In the codex upon which we have relied, it is mentioned that verses (23–25) are Madani.”

21 – محمود بن أحمد بن موسى العيني في (عمدة القاري) قال: «قَالَ مقاتل: وفيها من المدني قَوْله: ﴿ذَلِكَ الَّذِي يُبشِّرُ اللَّهُ عِبَادَهُ (6) . وَقَوله: وَالَّذِينَ إِذا أَصَابَهُم الْبَغْيُّ هُمْ يَنتَصِرُوْنَ  إِلَى قَوْلِهِ : أُولَئِكَ مَا عَلَيْهِم مِن سبیل (7) (8)

Mahmūd ibn Aḥmad ibn Mūsā al-ʿAynī, in his book ʿUmdat al-Qārī, states:

“Muqātil said: It contains some Madani verses, such as: ﴿That is [the bounty] of which Allah gives glad tidings to His servants﴾ and from ﴿And those who, when tyranny strikes them, they defend themselves﴾ up to ﴿Against them there is no cause [for blame]﴾.”

Reference list:

• Lubab al-Ta’wil fi Ma‘ani al-Tanzil, vol. 4, p. 93. 

• Ta’wilat Ahl al-Sunnah, vol. 9, p. 100. 

• Ruh al-Ma‘ani, vol. 13, p. 11. 

• Tafsir al-Maraghi, vol. 13, p. 25. 

• al-Tafsir al-Hadith, vol. 4, p. 435. 

• Qur’an, al-Shura: 32. 

• Qur’an, al-Shura: 14–93. 

• ‘Umdat al-Qari, vol. 19, p. 156. 

22 – محمد طاهر بن عاشور في (التحرير والتنوير) قال: «وَعَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ وَقَتَادَةَ اسْتِثْنَاءُ أَرْبَعِ آيَاتٍ، أُولاهَا قَوْلُهُ قُلْ لَا أَسْئَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبِي (1) إِلَى آخِرِ الْأَرْبَعِ الْآيَاتِ. وَعَنْ مُقَاتِلِ اسْتِثْنَاءُ قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: ذلِكَ الَّذِي يُبَشِّرُ الله عِبادَهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِلَى قَوْلِهِ: ﴿إِنَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بذاتِ الصُّدُورِ ﴾ (2) . رُوِيَ أَنَّهَا نَزَلَتْ فِي الْأَنْصَارِ، وَهِيَ دَاخِلَةٌ فِي الْآيَاتِ الْأَرْبَعِ الَّتِي ذَكَرَهَا ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ (3).

Muḥammad Ṭāhir ibn ʿĀshūr, in al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanwīr, writes:
“It is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās and Qatādah that four verses of Sūrat al-Shūrā are excluded [from being Makki]; the first of these is:
(Say, I do not ask you for it any reward except love for [my] near relatives),
and this exclusion continues until the end of the four verses.

It is also narrated from Muqātil that he considered this verse to be excluded:
﴿That is what Allah gives glad tidings of to His servants who believe﴾ up to ﴿Indeed, He is Knowing of what is within the breasts﴾.

It is reported that this verse was revealed concerning the people of the Anṣār, and these are the very verses that Ibn ʿAbbās referred to.”

23 – رضوان بن محمد المخللاتي في القول الوجيز) قال: «مكية، وعن ابن عباس وقتادة : غير أربع آيات منها نزلت بالمدينة، وهي قوله تعالى: ﴿قُلْ لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إلى قوله تعالى: وَيَعْلَمُ مَا تَفْعَلُونَ (4).

Riḍwān ibn Muḥammad al-Mukhallilātī, in al-Qawl al-Wajīz, writes:
“This surah is Makki; however, it is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās and Qatādah that four of its verses were revealed in Madinah, namely from:
﴿Say, I do not ask you for it any reward﴾ up to ﴿and He knows whatever you do﴾.

Now, any fair-minded researcher, when he examines in depth the statements of the great scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, will clearly observe that describing Sūrat al-Shūrā as ‘Makki’ is, in fact, based on the consideration of the majority of its verses.

As al-Zurqānī explained this principle in Manāhil al-ʿIrfān as follows:”

إِنَّ وَصف السورة بأنها مكية أو وصفها بأنها مدنية يكون بحسب حال أكثر الآيات التي تغلب على السورة، فإن كانت أكثر آيات السورة مكية كانت السورة مكية، وإن كان أكثرها مدنيا كانت السورة مدنية (5).

“The criterion for calling a surah Makki or Madani is the revelation of the majority of its verses. If most of the verses of a surah were revealed in Makkah, it is called Makki; and if most of them were revealed in Madinah, it is considered Madani.”

References

Al-Shūrā 23

Al-Shūrā 23–24

Al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanwīr, 24:23–25

Al-Qawl al-Wajīz, p. 284

See: Al-Zarqānī, Manāhil al-‘Irfān, 1:199

This is one aspect of the matter; however, the other aspect is that there also exist evidences which restrict this general principle. The strongest of these are the narrations transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās and Qatādah, which explicitly establish that certain verses are Madani. These narrations make it clear that four verses of Sūrah al-Shūrā were not revealed in Makkah but rather in Madinah. This fact also becomes fully evident in connection with the occasion of revelation of the Verse of Affection (Āyat al-Mawaddah), which holds fundamental significance in determining whether a verse is Makki or Madani.

Thus, for anyone who reflects carefully, it becomes as clear as daylight that abandoning prejudice and selfish desire is the true means to felicity and success, while accepting truth and guidance in their stead is the real sign of wisdom and insight.

وَإِذْ تَقُولُ لِلَّذِي أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ وَاتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَتُخْفِي فِي نَفْسِكَ مَا اللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى النَّاسَ وَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَاهُ فَلَمَّا قَضَى زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنَاكَهَا لِكَيْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَرَجٌ فِي أَزْوَاجِ أَدْعِيَائِهِمْ إِذَا قَضَوْا مِنْهُنَّ وَطَرًا وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا 

“And [remember] when you said to the one upon whom Allah had bestowed favor and you [also] had bestowed favor, ‘Keep your wife to yourself and fear Allah,’ while concealing within yourself that which Allah was to reveal. And you feared the people, whereas Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you, so that there should not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.”

But on the contrary, Allah Almighty did not explicitly mention the names of ʿAlī, Ḥasan, or Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) in any doctrinal matter. Therefore, the absence of their names necessarily implies the negation of their Imamate.

Refutation of the Objection
We will respond to this objection in several stages, which are as follows:

First Stage: An explanation of the relationship between the Sunnah and the Noble Qur’an.

في هذه الخطوة نحاول أن نبين العلاقة بين القرآن الكريم والسنة الشريفة

الواردة عن النبي الأعظم ص ، وهل يجوز الاستغناء عنها والاكتفاء بالقرآن

الكريم في معرفة العقائد والأحكام؟

فأقول:

قال تعالى في محكم كتابه العزيز : كَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِيكُمْ رَسُولًا مِنْكُمْ يَتْلُو

عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمْ مَا لَمْ تَكُونُوا

تَعْلَمُونَ (١)، فهذه الآية الكريمة يفهم منها أن تعليم القرآن الكريم وبيانه

للناس هو من الوظائف الرئيسة لرسول الله ص ، وهذا مما لا شك فيه ولا

إشكال، ولكن حصل نزاع بين أهل السنّة في كمية البيان الذي اضطلع به

رسول الله ص للقرآن، فهل بين ص وفسر كل آيات القرآن أو أنه اقتصر

على تفسير بعضها فقط؟ أقوال فمنهم من استدل برواية عائشة التي

تقول: «ما كان النبي ص يفسر شيئًا من القرآن إلا آيا بعدد، علمهن إياه

جرئيل» (٢)، وهذا يعني أنه ص بين وفسر بعض الآيات من القرآن فقط.

In this stage, we will explain the relationship between the Noble Qur’an and the blessed Sunnah of the Holy Prophet ﷺ. Can a person rely solely on the Qur’an to understand beliefs and rulings, or does he also need the guidance of the Sunnah?

Thus, I say:
Allah Almighty has stated in His decisive Book:

كَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِيكُمْ رَسُولًا مِنْكُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمْ مَا لَمْ تَكُونُوا تَعْلَمُونَ (1)

Just as We have sent among you a Messenger who recites to you Our verses, purifies you, teaches you the Book and Wisdom, and teaches you that which you did not know before.

This blessed verse clearly establishes that teaching the Qur’an and explaining it are among the fundamental duties of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. There is no doubt about this reality. However, among the Ahl al-Sunnah there exists a difference of opinion regarding whether the Messenger of Allah ﷺ explained all of the Qur’anic verses or only some of them.

In this regard, various opinions are found. Some scholars have inferred from the narration of ʿĀ’ishah that:

ما كان النبي ﷺ يفسر شيئًا من القرآن إلا آيا بعدد، علمهن إياه جبرئيل  (2)

The Prophet ﷺ did not usually provide commentary on the Qur’an, except for a few specific verses that Jibrīl (peace be upon him) had taught him.
This narration indicates that the Prophet ﷺ did not explain the entire Qur’an, but rather clarified certain specific verses.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
(1) Sūrat al-Baqarah, verse 151.
(2) Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, 7:1.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

And some of them have said:
Indeed, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ provided commentary on all the verses of the Noble Qur’an.
Al-ʿAllāmah al-Suyūṭī, in al-Itqān, has transmitted this statement from Ibn Taymiyyah:

يجب أن يعلم أن النبي ﷺ بين لأصحابه معاني القرآن، كما بين لهم ألفاظه، فقوله تعالى: ﴿لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ (1)، يتناول هذا وهذا، وقد قال أبو عبد الرحمن السلمي: حدثنا الذين كانوا يقرؤون القرآن كعثمان بن عفان وعبد الله بن مسعود وغيرهما: أنهم كانوا إذا تعلموا من النبي ص عشر آيات لم يتجاوزوها حتى يعلموا ما فيها من العلم والعمل، قالوا : فتعلمنا القرآن والعلم والعمل جميعًا، ولهذا كانوا يبقون مدة في حفظ السورة» (2). انتهى.

“The statement of Allah, the Exalted:”

﴿لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ﴾ 

“So that you may make clear to the people what has been revealed to them,”
— this includes clarification of both the words and the meanings.

Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī narrates:
“Those who used to recite the Qur’an to us — such as ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd, and other Companions — would tell us that whenever they learned ten verses from the Prophet ﷺ, they would not proceed further until they had learned the knowledge and practice contained within them. They used to say: ‘Thus we learned the Qur’an, along with its knowledge and its implementation, all together.’ And it was for this reason that they would spend a long time in memorizing a single sūrah.”

“Commenting on this, al-ʿAllāmah al-Suyūṭī writes:”

فالعادة تمنع أن يقرأ قوم كتابًا في فن من العلم كالطب والحساب ولا يستشرحونه، فكيف بكلام الله الذي هو عصمتهم وبه نجاتهم وسعادتهم وقيام دينهم ودنياهم» (3).

It is against common sense and reason that people should read a book of any discipline, such as medicine or mathematics, and yet not explain it. Then what should be assumed regarding the Word of Allah, which is the means of their protection, salvation, happiness, and the preservation of their religion and worldly life?

It is noteworthy that, according to the jurists of Ahl al-Sunnah, the Sunnah is also a revelation sent down by Allah, having the same status as the Noble Qur’an, and adherence to it is obligatory. In this regard, a few statements of the jurists are mentioned below.

1 – قال أبو حنيفة : لولا السنة ما فهم أحد منا القرآن، ولم يزل الناس فيهم صلاح ما دام فيهم من يطلب الحديث، فإذا طلبوا العلم بلا حديث فسدوا) (4).

Abū Ḥanīfah said:
“If it were not for the Sunnah, none of us would be able to understand the Qur’an. And as long as people continue to seek ḥadīth, goodness will remain among them. But when they begin to acquire knowledge merely on the basis of reason and analogy, abandoning the ḥadīth, they will fall into misguidance.”

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
(1) Sūrat al-Naḥl, verse 44.
(2) Al-Itqān fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, vol. 2, p. 468.
(3) Al-Itqān fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, vol. 2, p. 469.
(4) Qawāʿid al-Taḥdīth min Funūn Muṣṭalaḥ al-Ḥadīth, p. 52.

۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

2 – وقال مالك: إياكم ورأي الرجال، واتبعوا ما أُنزل إليكم من ربّكم، وما جاء عن نبيكم وإن لم تفهموا المعنى فسلموا لعلمائكم، ولا تجادلوهم فإنّ الجدال في الدين من بقايا النفاق (1).

Mālik said:

“Avoid people’s opinions and follow that which has been revealed to you from your Lord and that which has come from your Prophet. If you do not understand its meaning, then entrust it to your scholars and do not dispute with them, for disputation in religion is among the remnants of hypocrisy.”

3 – وقال الشافعي: كلّ شيءٍ خالف أمر رسول الله ﷺ سقط، ولا يكون معه رأي ولا يقاس، فإنّ الله تعالى قطع العذر بقول رسول الله ﷺ فليس لأحد معه أمر ولا نهي غير ما أمر هو به (و) كل ما حكم به رسول الله ص فهو مما فهمه من القرآن لقوله ص : إني لا أُحِلَّ إِلَّا ما أَحَلَّ الله في كتابه ولا أحرم إلا ما حرم الله في كتابه (2).

Al-Shāfiʿī said:
“Everything that goes against the command of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is nullified, and in it there is no room for opinion or analogy. Indeed, Allah Almighty has, through the statement of His Messenger ﷺ, removed all excuse; thus, no one has the authority to command or prohibit except in accordance with what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ himself has declared.”

He also said:
*“Whatever the Messenger of Allah ﷺ decreed, he derived it from the Qur’an, for he ﷺ said: ‘I declare lawful only that which Allah has made lawful in His Book, and I declare unlawful only that which Allah has made unlawful in His Book.’”

4 – وقال أحمد بن حنبل: (أو لأحد كلام مع رسول الله ﷺ!) (3) يقصد به السنة بأنواعها.

Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said:

“Can anyone’s statement stand alongside the command of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ?!”

5 – قال ابن قيم الجوزية في كتابه “الروح”: أن الله سبحانه وتعالى أنزل على رسوله وحيين، وأوجب على عباده الإيمان بهما والعمل بما فيهما، وهما الكتاب والحكمة … والكتاب هو القرآن، والحكمة هي السنة باتفاق السلف وما أخبر به الرسول عن الله فهو في وجوب تصديقه والإيمان به كما أخبر به الرب تعالى على لسان رسوله، هذا أصل متفق عليه بين أهل الإسلام، لا ينكره إلا من ليس منهم، وقد قال النبي ص : إني أوتيت الكتاب ومثله معه (4) .

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya stated in his book Al-Rūḥ:

“Indeed, Allah, Glorified and Exalted, revealed two forms of revelation to His Messenger ﷺ, and it is obligatory upon His servants to believe in both and act upon them. These two forms of revelation are the Book and the Wisdom. By ‘Book’ is meant the Qur’an, and by ‘Wisdom’ is meant the Sunnah, and this is agreed upon by the Salaf. Whatever the Messenger of Allah ﷺ conveyed from Allah must be affirmed and believed in, just as if Allah Himself conveyed it directly through His Messenger. This is a fundamental principle upon which the people of Islam are unanimous, and only one who is outside Islam can reject it.

٦ – وقال الشوكاني: إن ثبوت حُجَّيّة السُّنة المطهرة واستقلالها بتشريع الأحكام ضرورة دينية، ولا يخالف في ذلك إلا من لا حظ له في الإسلام (1) .

Al-Shawkānī said:
“Indeed, the authority (ḥujjiyyah) of the purified Sunnah and its independent role in legislation is a religious necessity. The only one who denies it is a person who has no share in Islam.”

Therefore, the fundamental relationship between the Sunnah and the Qur’an is that of clarification, explanation, and elucidation, as the Qur’an itself has made clear.

لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ لَيْهِمْ (2) 

“So that you may clearly explain to the people what has been revealed to them.”

Thus, the Sunnah’s role in relation to the Qur’an is to clarify its difficult aspects, specify its general rulings, and restrict what is unconditional. In addition, there are many other matters in both creed and rulings that serve as a test for the believers.

The Qur’an stands as the fundamental constitution of the Islamic system, which lays down the general path for the life of the individual and society, while the Sunnah elaborates on those general principles presented by the Qur’an in their generality, rulings, application, and concise form. Hence, the Sunnah has been entrusted with the task of providing clarification through specification, restriction, and detailed explanation, just as Allah Almighty granted it the authority to explain.

It has even been said that revelation (waḥy) is of two kinds:

وحي أمرنا بكتابته، وتعبدنا بتلاوته، وهو القرآن الكريم. ووحي لم نؤمر بكتابته، ولم نتعبد بتلاوته وهو السنة(3).

The revelation that we have been commanded to write down, and the recitation of which is an act of worship, is the Qur’an.
And the revelation that we have not been commanded to write down, and the recitation of which is not an act of worship, is the Sunnah.

(1) Irshād al-Fuḥūl 1:97

(2) Sūrat al-Naḥl, verse 44

(3) See: Aḍwā’ al-Bayān of al-Shanqīṭī, p. 37 (quoting al-Suyūṭī).

                                    ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

روى البخاري بسنده قال: حدثنا محمّد بن يوسف، حدثنا سفيان عن منصور عن إبراهيم عن علقمة عن عبد الله، قال: لعن الله الواشمات والمتوشمات والمتنمصات والمتفلجات للحسن المغيرات خلق الله. فبلغ ذلك امرأة من بني أسد يقال لها أم يعقوب ، فجاءت فقالت: إنه بلغني أنك لعنت كيت وكيت، فقال: وما لي لا ألعن من لعن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ومن هو في كتاب الله ، فقالت: لقد قرأت ما بين اللوحين فما وجدت فيه ما تقول، قال: لئن كنت قرأتيه لقد وجدتيه، أما قرأت وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا . قالت: بلى، قال: فإنه قد نهى عنه، قالت: فإني أرى أهلك يفعلونه، قال: فاذهبي فانظري، فذهبت فنظرت فلم تر من حاجتها شيئًا، فقال : لو كانت كذلك ما جامعتها (1).

Imam al-Bukhārī narrated with his chain of transmission: Muhammad ibn Yūsuf reported to us, saying: Sufyān narrated to us, from Manṣūr, from Ibrāhīm, from ʿAlqamah, and ʿAlqamah from ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (RA), who said:

“Allah has cursed those women who tattoo (al-wāshimāt) and those who get themselves tattooed (al-mutawashshimāt), those who pluck their eyebrows (al-mutanammisāt), and those who create spaces between their teeth for the sake of beauty (al-mutafallijāt li’l-ḥusn), thereby altering the creation of Allah.”

This news reached a woman from the tribe of Banū Asad, who was called Umm Yaʿqūb. She immediately came to ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (RA) and said:
“It has reached me that you have cursed such-and-such women who do these acts!”

ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (RA) replied:
“Why should I not curse those whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ cursed, and who are condemned in the Book of Allah?”

The woman said:
“I have read the entire Qur’an, but I did not find in it anything of what you are saying.”

ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (RA) replied:
“If you had read it carefully, you would surely have found it. Have you not read the verse: …”

وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا

“…And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatever he forbids you from, abstain from it.”

The woman replied:
“Yes, I have indeed read this verse.”

ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (RA) said:
“Then know that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has forbidden these practices!”

The woman said:
“But I have seen that your own wife does this as well!”

ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (RA) replied:
“Go and see for yourself!”

So she went and investigated, but did not find anything to support her claim.

Then ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (RA) said:
“If my wife were to do such a thing, I would have no relation with her.”

Thus, when this matter became clear to us, it became necessary—while refuting such doubts—that we turn to those aḥādīth which explain the verses revealed concerning ʿAlī, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn (peace be upon them), because these are the very aḥādīth in which their noble names are explicitly mentioned.

And the basis of this argument is upon Allah’s clear command:

وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ (2)

Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it. And fear Allah; indeed Allah is severe in punishment.”

Thus, such an explicit statement is in reality equivalent to a Qur’ānic declaration, as is not hidden from anyone possessing insight.

The Second Stage:
In the verses of Āyat al-Taṭhīr (Verse of Purification), Āyat al-Mawadda (Verse of Love), and Āyat al-Mubāhala (Verse of Mutual Invocation), the Noble Prophet ﷺ explicitly identified Imām Ḥasan (AS) and the other members of his Ahl al-Bayt (AS) by name.

1 – The ḥadīth of the Noble Prophet ﷺ in which he explicitly mentioned their names (peace be upon them) in connection with Āyat al-Taṭhīr.

Ḥadīth of Umm Salama (RA):

من رواة هذا الحديث من الصحابة أم سلمة، قالت: «لما نزلت هذه الآية: ﴿إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تطهيرا ، دعا رسول الله ص عليا وفاطمة وحسنا وحسينًا، فجلل عليهم كساء خيبريا، فقال: اللهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي ، اللهم أذهب عنهم الرجس وطهرهم تطهيرا ، قالت أم سلمة : ألستُ منهم؟ قال : أنتِ إلى خير» (3) .

Narration of Ḥaḍrat Umm Salama (RA):

Among the Companions who narrated this ḥadīth is Ḥaḍrat Umm Salama (RA). She relates:

“When this blessed verse was revealed:

﴿إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا﴾ 

Ḥadīth of Ḥaḍrat Umm Salama (RA):

When this blessed verse (Āyat al-Taṭhīr) was revealed, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ called Ḥaḍrat ʿAlī (AS), Ḥaḍrat Fāṭimah (AS), Ḥaḍrat Ḥasan (AS), and Ḥaḍrat Ḥusayn (AS) to him. He covered them all with a cloak from Khaybar, and then supplicated before Allah:

“O Allah! These are my Ahl al-Bayt. So remove from them every impurity, and purify them with complete purity.”

Ḥaḍrat Umm Salama (RA) said:
“O Messenger of Allah! Am I also included among the Ahl al-Bayt?”

The Prophet ﷺ replied:
“You are upon goodness.”

References:

1. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 16:224, Bāb: Wa mā ātākum al-rasūlu fa-khudhūhu 

2. Sūrat al-Ḥashr, verse 7 

3. Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 20:265 

This ḥadīth has been narrated abundantly from her, such that ten Companions transmitted it from Umm Salama (RA). Among them are:

1. ʿAtā’ ibn Yasār – His narration is found in: 

   • al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, al-Mustadrak ʿala al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (1) 

   • al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā (2) 

   • Ibn ʿAsākir, Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq (3) 

   • and others. 

2. Shahr ibn Ḥawshab – His narration is found in: 

   • al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr (4), and al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ (5) 

   • al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr (6) 

   • Ibn ʿAsākir, Tārīkh Dimashq (7) 

   • and others. 

3. Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī (RA) – His narration is found in: 

   • al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr (8) 

   • al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār (9). 

Detailed References:

• al-Mustadrak ʿala al-Ṣaḥīḥayn 3:158 

• al-Sunan al-Kubrā 2:214 

• Tārīkh Dimashq 14:138 

• al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr no. 33323 

• al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ 4:134 

• Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 20:263 

• Tārīkh Dimashq 14:139 

• Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 20:265 

• Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār 2:241 

سلمة(١)، وأخرجها أيضًا ابن عساكر في تاريخ دمشق) (٢)، وغيرهم.

وأبو هريرة: أخرج روايته عنها الطبري في تفسيره (۳).

وأبو ليلى الكندي: أخرج روايته عنها أحمد بن حنبل في مسنده (٤)، وممن

أخرج روايته عن أم سلمة أيضًا الحاكم الحسكاني في (شواهد التنزيل)(٥).

وحكيم بن سعيد : أخرج روايته الطبراني في (المعجم الكبير)(٦)، وممن

أخرج روايته عنها، الطحاوي في مشكل الآثار))، وممن أخرج روايته

عنها، محمد بن جرير الطبري في تفسيره (۸).

وعبد الله بن وهب بن زمعة : أخرج روايته عنها الطبري في

تفسيره (جامع البيان) (۹) ، وأخرج روايته عنها أيضًا، الطبراني في

(المعجم الكبير ) (١٠) ، وممن أخرج روايته عنها أيضًا، الحاكم الحسكاني

في (شواهد التنزيل ) (١١) ، وأخرجها أيضًا الطحاوي في (مشكل الآثار ) (١٢).

And al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī mentioned it in Shawāhid al-Tanzīl.
He narrated twelve traditions whose chains all go from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī back to Umm Salama (RA).
Ibn ʿAsākir also narrated them in Tārīkh Dimashq, as did other ḥadīth scholars.

Abū Hurayrah (RA):
His narration was transmitted by al-Ṭabarī in his Tafsīr.

Abū Laylā al-Kindī (RA):
His narration was transmitted by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in his Musnad.
Among those who reported this from Umm Salama (RA) was also al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī, who mentioned it in Shawāhid al-Tanzīl.

Ḥakīm ibn Saʿīd:
His narration was mentioned by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr.
Among those who transmitted from Umm Salama (RA) was also al-Ṭaḥāwī, who included it in Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār.
Likewise, al-Ṭabarī included it in his Tafsīr.

ʿAbdullāh ibn Wahb ibn Zamʿah (RA):
His narration was mentioned by al-Ṭabarī in Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, and al-Ṭabarānī in al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr.
Among those who transmitted from Umm Salama (RA) was al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī in Shawāhid al-Tanzīl, and al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār.

ʿAmrah al-Hamdanīyyah:
Her narration was transmitted by Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār from Umm Salama (RA).
Among those who narrated from her was al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī in Shawāhid al-Tanzīl.

ʿAmrah bint Afʿā:
Her narration was transmitted by Ibn ʿAsākir in Tārīkh Dimashq from Umm Salama (RA).
It was also transmitted by al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī in Shawāhid al-Tanzīl, Ibn al-Aʿrābī in his Muʿjam, and al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār.

The father of ʿAṭiyyah al-Ṭafāwī:
His narration was reported by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in his Musnad, Ibn ʿAsākir in Tārīkh Dimashq, and al-Ṭabarānī in al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr.

Thus, all of these narrated the Ḥadīth al-Kisā’ from Umm Salama (RA).

Ḥadīth of Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ (RA):
This narration was reported by al-Nasā’ī in al-Khaṣāʾiṣ and in al-Sunan al-Kubrā.
It was also mentioned by al-Ḥākim in al-Mustadrak, by al-Bazzār in his Musnad, by al-Ṭabarī in Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, and by Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, though with slight variations in wording.

Ḥadīth of ʿUmar ibn Abī Salama (RA):
This narration was reported by al-Tirmidhī in his Sunan, and al-Albānī graded it authentic.
It was also recorded by al-Ṭabarī in his Tafsīr and by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār.

Ḥadīth of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī (RA):
This narration was reported by Ibn ʿAsākir in Tārīkh Dimashq.
Al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī also included it in Shawāhid al-Tanzīl, and al-Ṭabarī mentioned it in Jāmiʿ al-Bayān.

Ḥadīth of ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās (RA):
This narration was reported by Ibn ʿAsākir in Tārīkh Dimashq, al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī in Shawāhid al-Tanzīl, Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim in al-Sunnah, and al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī in al-Mustadrak ʿala al-Ṣaḥīḥayn.

Al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī said:
“This ḥadīth has a sound chain of transmission, although al-Bukhārī and Muslim did not narrate it.”
Al-Dhahabī also declared it authentic in al-Talkhīṣ.

It was also narrated by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in his Musnad, all through the route of ʿUmar ibn Maymūn.

وأخرجه البيهقي في (دلائل النبوة) (۸) ، والحاكم الحسكاني في (شواهد

التنزيل)(٩)، وابن كثير في (السيرة النبوية) (١٠) من طريق عباية بن ربعي.

وأخرجه الحاكم الحسكاني في (شواهد التنزيل)، عن أبي صالح، عن

ابن عباس (۱۱) به.

اAl-Bayhaqī narrated it in Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah (8), al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī in Shawāhid al-Tanzīl (9), and Ibn Kathīr in al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah (10), all through the route of ʿAbāyah ibn Ribʿī.
Likewise, al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī also narrated it in Shawāhid al-Tanzīl (11) from Abū Ṣāliḥ on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās (RA).

Ḥadīth of Wāthilah ibn al-Asqaʿ al-Laythī (RA):
The narration of Ḥadīth al-Kisā’ from Wāthilah ibn al-Asqaʿ al-Laythī has been transmitted in many Sunni sources, including:

• Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah (1) 

• Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (2) 

• Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal also included it in Faḍā’il al-Ṣaḥābah (3) 

• Ibn Ḥibbān in Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān (4) 

• al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī in al-Mustadrak ʿala al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (5), who declared: “This ḥadīth is authentic according to the criteria of Muslim.” 

Ḥadīth of ʿĀ’ishah (RA):
Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Naysābūrī narrated this ḥadīth in his Ṣaḥīḥ (6).
Abū Bakr al-Ājurī included it in his al-Sharīʿah (7).
al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī recorded it in al-Mustadrak ʿala al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (8).
Al-Bayhaqī transmitted it in al-Sunan al-Kubrā (9).

Al-Baghawī narrated it in Sharḥ al-Sunnah (1) and said:
“This is an authentic ḥadīth.”
It was also narrated by Muslim, through Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah, from Muḥammad ibn Bishr, from Zakariyyā, from Muṣʿab.
Al-Ṭabarī also narrated it in his Tafsīr (2).

 Up to this point, we see that Ḥadīth al-Kisā’ has been narrated:

• From Umm Salama (RA) through numerous isnād. 

• From Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, Abū Hurayrah, Ibn ʿAbbās, Ibn Wahb, and others. 

• From major Companions like Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, Wāthilah ibn al-Asqaʿ, ʿĀ’ishah, and ʿUmar ibn Abī Salama.

وقد روى عنها جوابًا على سؤال سألتها أم مجمع عن أحب الناس إلى رسول الله، فقالت: لقد رأيتُ رسول الله جمع عليا وفاطمة وحسنًا وحسينًا بثوب، ثم قال: اللهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي وخاصتي فأذهب عنهم الرجس وطهرهم تطهيرا، فقلت: يا رسول الله أنا من أهلك ؟ قال : تنحي فإنك إلى خير (3).

And in response to a question, it is narrated that Umm-e-Majma‘ once asked her (Umm Salama): “Who was the most beloved to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ?”

She replied: “I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ gather ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn under one cloak. Then he said: O Allah! These are my Ahl al-Bayt and my chosen ones. So remove from them every impurity and purify them completely.”

I (Umm Salama) asked: “O Messenger of Allah! Am I also among your Ahl (family)?”
He ﷺ replied: “Step aside, you are upon goodness.”

Ḥadīth of Jaʿfar ibn Abī Ṭālib

This was narrated by al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī in al-Mustadrak ʿala al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (3:159), and with similar wording by al-Bazzār in his Musnad (6:210).

Ḥadīth of Anas ibn Mālik

It was narrated by Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī in his Musnad (3:539).
The same wording was narrated by Ibn Abī Shaybah in his Muṣannaf (6:388), and by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in Faḍāʾil al-Ṣaḥābah (2:761; Musnad Aḥmad 21:273).

References:

• Sharḥ al-Sunnah by al-Baghawī 14:116 

• Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 20:263 

• al-Tafsīr al-Ḥadīth by Muḥammad ʿIzzat Darwazah 7:380 

• al-Mustadrak 3:159 

• Musnad al-Bazzār 6:210 

• Musnad Abī Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī 3:539 

• Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah 6:388 

• Faḍāʾil al-Ṣaḥābah 2:761; Musnad Aḥmad 21:273 

ʿAbd b. Ḥumayd narrated it in al-Muntakhab (1), al-Tirmidhī in his Sunan (2), and Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim in al-Āḥād wa al-Mathānī (3).

And al-Shawkānī in Fatḥ al-Qadīr stated:
Ibn Abī Shaybah, Aḥmad, al-Tirmidhī (who graded it ḥasan), Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Mundhir, al-Ṭabarānī (who declared it ṣaḥīḥ), and Ibn Mardawayh all narrated it from Anas with the same wording. (4)

Al-Ḥākim also narrated it in his Mustadrak and said:
“This ḥadīth is authentic according to the conditions of Muslim, though he did not narrate it.”
And al-Dhahabī in his Talkhīṣ (5) remained silent on it.

Ḥadīth of Abū al-Ḥamrāʾ Hilāl ibn al-Ḥārith

This was narrated by al-Thaʿlabī in his Tafsīr al-Kashf wa al-Bayān (6). Likewise, by Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-Salām in his Tafsīr (7), by Ibn Abī Shaybah in his Muṣannaf (8), and by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Mushkil al-Āthār (9). After mentioning it, he remarked…

وفي هذا دليل على أهل هذه من هم

This narration has been transmitted by al-Haythami in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id (1).

2. The Prophet ﷺ explicitly mentioning the names of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) in the Verse of Affection (Ayat al-Mawaddah):

Hadith of Ibn Abbas (RA):
This narration was reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Fada’il al-Sahabah (2), and al-Tabarani in his al-Mu‘jam (3). With the very same wording, al-Tha‘labi has recorded it in his al-Kashf wa al-Bayan (4), and al-Shajari in his al-Amali al-Khamisiyyah (5). Likewise, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi has cited it in his Tafsir al-Kabir from al-Zamakhshari’s al-Kashshaf (6).

Muhibb al-Din al-Tabari has mentioned in Dhakha’ir al-‘Uqba:

“When the verse (Say: I do not ask you for any reward except love for my near relatives – Qur’an 42:23) was revealed, the people asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah, who are your near relatives whose love has been made obligatory upon us?’
The Prophet ﷺ replied: ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn.’”

References provided in your text:

• Majma‘ al-Zawa’id of al-Haythami. 

• Fada’il al-Sahabah by Ahmad ibn Hanbal. 

• al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir of al-Tabarani. 

• al-Kashf wa al-Bayan of al-Tha‘labi. 

• al-Amali al-Khamisiyyah of al-Shajari. 

• Tafsir al-Kabir of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (quoting al-Kashshaf). 

ذكر أنهم المشار إليهم في قوله تعالى: ﴿قُلْ لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى ، عن ابن عباس رضى الله عنهما ، قال : لما نزلت قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى، قالوا: يا رسول الله من قرابتك هؤلاء الذين وجبت علينا مودتهم ؟ قال : علي وفاطمة وابناهما . أخرجه أحمد في المناقب (7))

The Indication in the Verse of Mawaddah

It has been mentioned that in the noble verse:

﴿قُلْ لا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى﴾

“Say, I do not ask you for any reward for it, except love for [my] near relatives” (Qur’an, 42:23),

those who are being referred to are none other than the Ahl al-Bayt.

Ibn ‘Abbas narrates that when this verse was revealed, the Companions asked:
“O Messenger of Allah! Who are those close relatives whose love has been made obligatory upon us?”

The Prophet ﷺ replied:
“Ali, Fatimah, and their two sons (Hasan and Husayn).”

This narration has been transmitted by Ahmad ibn Hanbal in al-Manaqib.

Sources

• Majma‘ al-Zawa’id by al-Haythami, 9:169 

• Fada’il al-Sahaba 2:669 

• al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir 11:444 

• Tafsir al-Tha‘labi, p.310 

• al-Amali al-Khamisiyyah 1:194 

• Mafatih al-Ghayb 27:595 

• Dhakha’ir al-‘Uqba, p.25 

It has also been narrated by al-Nasafi in his Tafsir Madarik al-Tanzil (1), al-Zayla‘i in Takhrij Ahadith al-Kashshaf (2), al-Haythami in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id (3), al-Maqrizi in Imta‘ al-Asma‘ (4), and Abu al-Su‘ud in his Tafsir Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim (5). Likewise, Mulla Ali al-Qari in Mirqat al-Mafatih (6), Isma‘il Haqqi (known as Abu al-Fida) in his Tafsir (7), Abu al-‘Abbas al-Fasi al-Andajri in al-Bahr al-Madid (8), al-Shawkani in Fath al-Qadir (9), Abu al-Tayyib Muhammad Siddiq Khan in Fath al-Bayan (10), and al-Mubarakpuri in Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi (11).

The Hadith of ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud

This tradition has also been reported by Abu Sa‘id Haytham ibn Kulayb al-Shashi—the author of al-Musnad al-Kabir—in his Musnad of ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, through the chain that ends with Zur ibn Hubaysh from him (12).

The Hadith of Jabir ibn ‘Abdillah al-Ansari

Narrated by Abu Nu‘aym in Hilyat al-Awliya’ (1).

The Hadith of Abu Umamah al-Bahili

Narrated by Ibn ‘Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (2).

3 – The Prophet’s ﷺ Explicit Mention of Their Names in the Verse of Mubahala

The Hadith of the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.)

Ibn ‘Asakir, in his Tarikh, narrates concerning the munashadah (plea and reasoning for his right) of the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) on the Day of Shura. The chain ends with ‘Amir ibn Wathilah, who reports:

“On the Day of Shura, Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) said:
‘Is there anyone among you whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ brought forth on the Day of Mubahala, placing him in the position of himself, along with his sons and his women—other than myself, Fatimah, Hasan and Husayn?’
They all replied: ‘No, there is none.’”

نشدتكم بالله هل فيكم أحد أقرب إلى رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) في الرحم ومن جعله رسول الله لنفسه وابناه أبناءه ونساءه نساءه غيري؟ قالوا: اللهم لا (3).

ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (AS) in the Council of Shūrā

“I place you under oath by Allah! Is there anyone among you whose lineage is closer to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ than mine, and whom the Messenger of Allah declared to be like his own self? He called his sons as my sons and his women as my women, other than me?”
All of them replied: “By Allah, no.”

Ḥadīth of ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās (RA):
Abū Nuʿaym narrated it in Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah (vol. 1, p. 354).

• (1) Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ 3:201 

• (2) Tārīkh Dimashq 42:65–66 

• (3) Tārīkh Dimashq by Ibn ʿAsākir 42:431 

• (4) Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah by Abū Nuʿaym 1:354 

Al-Suyūṭī in al-Durr al-Manthūr
Al-Suyūṭī states: Abū Nuʿaym narrated in Dalāʾil through al-Kalbī, from Abū Ṣāliḥ, from Ibn ʿAbbās (RA).

Ḥadīth of Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī (RA):
Ibn al-Jawzī transmitted it in Zād al-Masīr (2).

Al-Suyūṭī, while mentioning it in al-Durr al-Manthūr, said:
“Al-Ḥākim narrated it and declared it ṣaḥīḥ from Jābir.” (3)

Al-Shawkānī, in Fatḥ al-Qadīr (4), stated:
“Al-Ḥākim narrated it and authenticated it, and Ibn Mardawayh and Abū Nuʿaym in Dalāʾil also narrated it from Jābir.”

Al-Ājurī likewise transmitted it in his al-Sharīʿah (5).

Ḥadīth of Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ (RA):
Muslim has narrated it in his Ṣaḥīḥ (6), and Ibn al-Mundhir also reported it in his Tafsīr (7).

Al-Suyūṭī in al-Durr al-Manthūr said…

وَأخرج مُسلم وَالتَّرْمِذِي وَابْنِ الْمُنْذِر وَالْحَاكِمِ وَالْبَيْهَقِيِّ فِي سَنَنه عَن سعد بن أبي وقاص قال…

And it has been narrated by Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Hakim, and al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan, from Saʿd ibn Abi Waqqās, who said… (8)
And al-Shawkānī has also transmitted it in Fatḥ al-Qadīr (9).

References:

• al-Durr al-Manthūr 2:231–232 

• Zād al-Masīr by Ibn al-Jawzī 1:289 

• al-Durr al-Manthūr 2:231 

• Fatḥ al-Qadīr 1:398 

• al-Sharīʿah by al-Ājurri 5:2201 

• Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 4:1871 / ḥadīth 2404 

• Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir 1:229 

• al-Durr al-Manthūr 2:233 

• Fatḥ al-Qadīr 1:399

And Mubārakpūrī has also mentioned it in Tuḥfat al-Aḥwadhī (1).

And ʿIyāḍ al-Sabtī said in al-Shifāʾ:

عَنْ سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبي وقاص به

The same narration is transmitted from Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ (2).

The ḥadīth of Saʿīd ibn Zayd:
It was narrated by al-Ṭabarī in his Tafsīr (3).

The ḥadīth of the grandfather of Salamah ibn ʿAbd Yashūʿ:
It was narrated by Abū Nuʿaym in Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwa (4), and Ibn Kathīr narrated it in al-Sīra al-Nabawiyya (5). He also mentioned it in al-Bidāya wa al-Nihāya (6).

The ḥadīth of Zayd ibn ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn, peace be upon him:
It was narrated by Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī in his Tafsīr (7).

The ḥadīth of ʿAlbaʾ ibn Aḥmar al-Yashkurī:
It was narrated by al-Ṭabarī in his Tafsīr (8), and al-Maqrīzī also mentioned it in Imtāʿ al-Asmāʿ (9).

References:

(1) Tuḥfat al-Aḥwadhī 8:278–279
(2) al-Shifāʾ bi-Taʿrīf Ḥuqūq al-Muṣṭafā by ʿIyāḍ al-Sabtī 2:106–107
(3) Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 6:482
(4) Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwa by Abū Nuʿaym 5:385–388
(5) al-Sīra al-Nabawiyya by Ibn Kathīr 4:101–103
(6) al-Bidāya wa al-Nihāya by Ibn Kathīr 5:64–65
(7) Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 6:480
(8) Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 6:482. ʿAlbaʾ ibn Aḥmar al-Yashkurī narrated from ʿIkrima, the freedman of Ibn ʿAbbās. Aḥmad said: “There is no harm in him, I know of nothing but good about him.” Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt. He is listed in Tahdhīb.
(9) Imtāʿ al-Asmāʿ by al-Maqrīzī 14:6967

The ḥadīth of Shahr ibn Ḥawshab:
It was narrated by al-Ājurrī in his book al-Sharīʿa (1).

The ḥadīth of Ibn Jurayj al-Makkī:
It was narrated by Ibn al-Mundhir in his Tafsīr (Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir) (2).

The Third Stage: Refutational Responses

I say: We do not know in what manner the Qur’an arranges its exposition, for Allah, Glorified and Exalted, knows best the wisdom behind this. However, we do have certain objections against those who make this claim, and it is incumbent upon them to provide answers to these objections. Among them are:

First Objection:
The Qur’an makes no mention of the names of the three caliphs who assumed authority after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Their names are not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Noble Qur’an. Does this, then, imply a denial of their caliphate and a rejection of its legitimacy?

Could it not have been possible that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, would mention the name of Abū Bakr in the verse of the Cave, and make it a virtue for him, through which he would assume authority without opposition? But Allah the Exalted only said:

“ثَانِيَ اثْنَيْنِ إِذْ هُمَا فِي الْغَارِ إِذْ يَقُولُ لِصَاحِبِهِ لا تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا (3)

And it is only through the Sunnah that we come to know who is meant by the phrase “his companion” (ṣāḥibihi) in this verse.

So, if this claim can be established in favor of Abū Bakr, then the same can also be established concerning ʿAlī, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) with respect to the Verse of Purification (Āyat al-Taṭhīr), the Verse of Affection (Āyat al-Mawadda), and the Verse of Mutual Invocation (Āyat al-Mubāhala); for the reasons for the revelation of these verses, too, are known to us only through the Sunnah!!

References:

(1) al-Sharīʿa by al-Ājurrī, 5:2203.
(2) Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir, 1:229; Sharaf al-Muṣṭafā by Abū Saʿd al-Kharqūshī, 5:367.
(3) Sūrat al-Tawbah, Verse 40.

Second Objection: The Absence of Many Secondary (Furūʿī) Issues
If the mere absence of a matter in the Qur’an—and the occurrence of disagreement about it—were enough to reject it, then we would have to reject countless secondary issues as well, which are not mentioned in the Qur’an and have only reached us through the Sunnah, even though there is disagreement about them too.

Nevertheless, no one has ever claimed that such issues should be dismissed merely on the basis that they are not explicitly stated in the Qur’an. More than fourteen hundred years have passed, and still there remains a difference between the Sunnis and the Shīʿa regarding what materials are valid to prostrate upon (sujūd). The Shīʿa maintain that prostration is only valid upon earth, turbah (special soil tablets), and things that grow from the ground. The Sunnis, on the other hand, consider it permissible to prostrate upon carpets, mats, and other materials.

It is evident that prayer (ṣalāh) holds a fundamental position in Islam, and prostration is an essential pillar of it. Yet, the Qur’an has not provided any explicit ruling on whether prostration is restricted only to the earth and its produce, or whether it is also permissible upon carpets and other objects.

Although Allah, Exalted is He, was surely aware of this dispute and knew that the community would differ on this matter, He nevertheless did not reveal any explicit verse clarifying what materials prostration is valid upon. Rather, all guidance in this regard comes from the Sunnah, and it is only through the Sunnah that the details of the validity or invalidity of prostration on various materials have reached us.

This matter is not confined to sujūd alone. Many other theological (ʿaqīdah) and jurisprudential (fiqhī) issues are also clarified not by the Qur’an, but only through the Sunnah.

Third Objection: The Absence of Certain Most Important Doctrinal Matters
Nowadays, among some Muslims with extremist tendencies, one often hears the claim:
“Seeking blessings (tabarruk) from the tomb of the Prophet ﷺ or the Imams (peace be upon them) is shirk (polytheism).”

It is obvious to anyone with insight that shirk is an issue of the utmost importance—indeed, it is regarded as the most important of all doctrinal matters. Allah, Exalted is He, has said:

إِنَّ اللهَ لا يَغْفِرُ أَنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ وَمَنْ يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَى إِثْمًا عَظِيمًا  (1)

“Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners should be ascribed to Him, but He forgives whatever is less than that for whomever He wills. And whoever associates partners with Allah has indeed fabricated a tremendous sin.”

We say: If in reality seeking blessings (tabarruk) from the shrine of the Prophet ﷺ or the Imams (peace be upon them) were shirk, as they claim, then why was this matter not explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an? For we have already established that shirk is the most important doctrinal issue of all.

And when they are asked for proof that those who seek tabarruk are committing shirk, they bring forth narrations—yet interpret them solely according to their own understanding, applying them to label such acts as polytheism and deviation from tawḥīd.

But if you can claim—based on the Sunnah—that anyone who seeks blessing from the graves of the Noble Prophet ﷺ and the Imams (peace be upon them) is thereby a polytheist, then, by that very same principle, it can also be established that Allah’s statement:

إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا (2)

“And His saying:”

قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى (3)

“And also His saying:”

فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنْفُسَنَا وَأَنْفُسَكُمْ (4)

“What is meant here are ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn (peace be upon them). And the same method by which you have established the ruling of shirk (polytheism) upon the one who seeks blessings (tabarruk) — namely, the Prophetic Sunnah — can likewise be employed to prove this matter as well. Therefore, making a distinction between the two cases is nothing but clear partiality and an illogical differentiation.”

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
(1Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, verse 48
(2) Sūrat al-Aḥzāb, verse 33
(3) Sūrat al-Shūrā, verse 23
(4) Sūrat Āl ʿImrān, verse 61

Fourth Objection: The Mention of Mutashābihāt (Ambiguous Verses) in the Qur’an and the Fact That It Did Not Suffice with Only Muhkamāt (Clear Verses)

The claim that the names of ʿAlī, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn (peace be upon them) should have been explicitly mentioned so that the Ummah could be guided through a clear and unequivocal statement is refuted by the reality that the Qur’an contains mutashābihāt (ambiguous verses) and that there is a divine purpose behind their inclusion.

Allah, the Exalted, says:

:

هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبَّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ (1)

He it is Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are muḥkam (clear and decisive)—they are the foundation of the Book; and others are mutashābih (ambiguous). As for those in whose hearts is perversity, they pursue that which is ambiguous, seeking discord and seeking its (false) interpretation. Yet none knows its true interpretation except Allah. But those firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.” And none take heed except those of understanding.

So, why did the Qur’an not suffice with only muḥkam verses, so that the Ummah might be guided through a clear and explicit statement? And why did it also include mutashābihāt, when these became a trial for those whose hearts were crooked, since they clung to them and insisted on their interpretation, and thus deviated from the straight path?!

And from all these arguments and evidences, it becomes abundantly clear to us that the Qur’an has indeed explicitly affirmed the mention of Imām Ḥasan (peace be upon him) and all the other Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). And this was conveyed through the blessed tongue of the Noble Prophet ﷺ, whose words are themselves binding and established by the Qur’an—whether command or prohibition, speech or action, indeed everything that he brought forth.

(1) Sūrat Āl ʿImrān: Verse 7

“Thus Allah, Glorified and Exalted, says:”

وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ (1)

“And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you from, refrain from it. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in punishment.”
(Al-Hashr 59:7)

Thus, every word of the Noble Prophet ﷺ is revelation, just as the Qur’an is revelation. And the proof of this is also from the Qur’an itself, as Allah, the Almighty, says:

وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَى (2)

“And he (the Messenger) does not speak from his own desire. It is nothing but revelation that is sent down to him.”
(Qur’an, Surah Al-Najm, 53:3–4)

―――――――――――――――――――――――――
(1) Surah Al-Hashr: Ayah …
(2) Surah Al-Najm: Ayah 3–4

Objection Eleven: Denial of the Infallibility of Imam Ḥasan (a.s.), Imam Ḥusayn (a.s.), and Their Parents (a.s.) Prior to the Revelation of the Verse of Purification

Stages of Answering the Objection:

• Explaining the meaning of the word “Irāda” (will) in the statement of Allah Almighty:

﴿إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا﴾

• Clarifying Allah’s words:

 ﴿لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ﴾.

Objection: The Infallibility of al-Ḥasanayn (a.s.) and Their Parents (a.s.) Not Being Established Before the Revelation of the Verse of Purification

The Objection:

Some individuals, who have fallen under the influence of falsehood, speak with the tongue of prejudice and attempt to distort realities with the pen of their desires. They conspire to divert the Qur’ānic verses away from their true recipients and apply them to those who are unworthy. In doing so, they let their tongues run loose and their pens wander freely, raising the objection that…

إنّ الآية إذا كانت دليلا على عصمة الخمسة الله فلماذا جاءت بصيغة المضارع إنَّما يُرِيدُ ولماذا لم تكن إنما أراد الله؟ فإنّهم إذا كانوا معصومين ثم يريد الله عصمتهم فهو من تحصيل الحاصل (1).

If the Verse of Purification (Āyat al-Taṭhīr) is a proof for the infallibility of the Panjtan Pāk (the Five Pure Ones), then why was it revealed in the imperfect tense (yuʾrīdu: “Allah intends”)? Why was it not said instead: “innamā arāda Allāh” (“Indeed, Allah has intended”)? If they were already infallible, and then Allah is again said to be intending their infallibility, would this not amount to taḥṣīl al-ḥāṣil (i.e., affirming once more something that was already established)?

(1) See: Rūḥ al-Maʿānī by al-Ālūsī, 11:199 (abridged).

Refutation of the Objection:
We will respond to this objection in two stages.

In the first stage, we will clarify the meaning of the word “al-Irāda” (will/intention) in Allah’s statement:

“إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا (1)  

“Indeed, Allah only intends to remove from you impurity, O People of the Household, and to purify you completely.” (1)

I say: In the Noble Qur’an, the expression “innamā yurīdu Allāh” employs the root of the word irāda (intention/will), even though the exact noun al-Irāda does not appear. Nevertheless, its root and synonymous forms occur in many places in the Qur’an.

Before citing examples of these verses, it is essential to examine the lexical meaning of this word. For this, we must turn to the authoritative works of lexicography in order to see how the earliest scholars of language have defined and explained it in their compilations. This investigation will help the reader fully comprehend the scholarly dimension of this refutation and trace the reasoning from the outset all the way to the conclusions that will emerge at the end.

The linguists have said: arāda al-shayʾa (irādatan): shāʾahu — i.e., to intend something means “to desire it.”

According to Thaʿlab: al-Irāda takūnu maḥabbatan wa ghayra maḥabbah — that is, irāda sometimes conveys the sense of “love” (affectionate will) and at other times it does not carry that sense.

This word is also occasionally used in the sense of qaṣd (purpose/intention), as when one says: fulān ḥakā irādatī laka — meaning, “So-and-so expressed my intention to you,” i.e., clarified my purpose.

Moreover, according to the lexicographers, irāda is not limited to human beings alone; it can also be attributed to animals.

As for the case of irāda in Allah’s statement here: …

فَوَجَدَا فِيهَا جِدَارًا يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَنْقَضَّ فَأَقَامَهُ (2)

“Then they found therein a wall that was about to collapse, so he set it straight.”

(Qur’an, al-Kahf 18:77)

 فليس حقيقة، فالجدار قد تهيأ للسقوط وظهر تهيؤه كما

تظهر أفعال المريدين، فوصف الجدار بالإرادة ليس على الحقيقة، ومثله

(1) Sūrat al-Aḥzāb: 33

(2) Sūrat al-Kahf: 77

Here, the word “will” (إرادة) is not based on reality, because a wall does not possess a will. Rather, the wall had become ready to collapse, and this readiness appeared in such a way as if it were the actions of those who possess will. Thus, attributing “will” to the wall is not literal but metaphorical.

Similarly, “wa arāda al-shay’” means: he liked it and cared about it. It is said: “arāda–yarīdu–irādah.” Al-rayd is the noun of irādah.

Some linguists interpret irādah (will) as mashī’ah (wish), just as they sometimes explain mashī’ah as irādah. Others, however, differentiate between the two, stating that irādah is more specific than mashī’ah, because mashī’ah refers to the initial resolve or intention, whereas one may wish for something but refrain from actually willing it due to some rational or legal impediment. (1)

And when we reflect upon the Noble Qur’an, we find that in many verses “irādah” appears in two categories. To further clarify the picture, we will mention a few verses here:

Allah the Exalted says:

وَإِذَا أَرَادَ اللَّهُ بِقَوْمٍ سُوءًا فَلَا مَرَدَّ لَهُ وَمَا لَهُمْ مِنْ دُونِهِ مِنْ وَالٍ (2)

“And when Allah intends evil for a people, there is no averting it; and besides Him they have no protector.”

And He, the Exalted, also said:

إِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُ إِذَا أَرَادَ شَيْئًا أَنْ يَقُولَ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ۔ (3)

“Its task is only that when He intends a thing, He says to it: ‘Be!’—and it comes into existence.
The meaning of these two noble verses makes it clear that the Iradah (Divine Will) of Allah is always carried out, and nothing can obstruct it. This is His Mashi’ah (Will) which is decisive, for it pertains to the order of creation and the law of nature. This type of Iradah is referred to as Iradah Takwiniyyah (Creative Will).

Thus, Iradah Takwiniyyah refers to those decrees and interventions that occur within the realm of creation, such as origination, bringing into being, miracles, and all acts and events. In other words, everything that falls within the sphere of existence or non-existence lies under Allah’s Creative Will.

Therefore, when He commands something to exist, it inevitably comes into existence; and when He decrees for something not to be, it remains in non-existence.”

References:

• Lisān al-ʿArab, vol. 3, p. 191. 

• Qur’an, Surah al-Raʿd (13:11). 

1. Qur’an, Surah Yā Sīn (36:82). 

And as for the second type of Iradah (Will), which is called Iradah Tashrīʿiyyah (Legislative or Decreed Will), it is evident from Allah’s statement:

فَمَنْ شَهِدَ مِنْكُمُ الشَّهْرَ فَلْيَصُمْهُ وَمَنْ كَانَ مَرِيضًا أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ بِكُمُ الْيُسْرَ وَلَا يُرِيدُ بِكُمُ الْعُسْرَ (1)

So whoever among you witnesses the month [of Ramadan] should fast in it, and whoever is sick or on a journey, then [let him fast] on other days. Allah intends ease for you, and He does not intend hardship for you.

And from Allah’s statement as well:

مَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَكِنْ يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ (2)

So Allah does not intend to place any hardship upon you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you, so that you may be grateful.

From these verses, it is understood that “الإرادة التشريعية” (legislative will) refers to the commands and prohibitions issued by Allah and conveyed to the prophets through revelation, so that rational people may act accordingly. It also shows that humans are obliged to follow the halal and haram and observe the divine laws in legislative will.

However, as far as “الإرادة التكوينية” (creative will) is concerned, humans cannot operate outside its domain, because all actions and events in the universe occur under Allah’s power and capability.

In light of this, it becomes clear that the “will” mentioned in the verse under discussion is creative will, not legislative will, for several reasons:

1. The concept of a legislative will is not possible unless there are specific Shariah laws and regulations for its implementation. It would be illogical for a legislative will to be announced without providing the Shariah guidance to enable its execution. 

References:

(1) Surah Al-Baqarah: 185
(2) Surah Al-Ma’idah: 6

The best example of this is Allah’s statement:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَيْنِ وَإِنْ كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ مَرْضَى أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِنْكُمْ مِنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لا مَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُمْ مِنْهُ مَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَكِنْ يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ (1)

O believers! When you stand for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads, and (wipe) your feet up to the ankles. And if you are in a state of major impurity (janabah), purify yourselves. And if you are ill, or on a journey, or one of you comes from relieving himself, or you have touched women, and water is not available, then perform tayammum (dry ablution) with clean earth and wipe your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to place difficulty upon you, but He intends to purify you.

In this blessed verse, the “will” (irada) is legislative, because it includes commands for ghusl (full ablution), wudu (partial ablution), and tayammum, which are the means to attain purification. All these commandments are given to fulfill a legislative will, and clearly some people will follow them while others may neglect them.

Therefore, if the “will” mentioned in the Verse of Purification (Ayat al-Tathir) were also legislative, it would have explicitly included related legal injunctions, but it does not. Hence, the reality is that the “will” mentioned in this verse is not legislative but constitutive (takwini)—that is, a will that is directly enacted through divine power, in which no human choice interferes.

1. Limiting a legislative will only to purification from sins for the individuals addressed in the verse has no reasonable basis, because all legal commandments are primarily intended for human purification and spiritual development, and all are equally included. Therefore, it is necessary that the “will” here is constitutive, meaning it is linked to Allah’s divine will and its fulfillment is certain. It is impossible that the matter associated with Allah’s will would not reach completion. 

However, this does not imply that this theory should be interpreted as coercion, forcing the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) into infallibility. Rather, it means that the Imams, like the Prophets (peace be upon them), are considered infallible by virtue of Allah’s special grace and constitutive will.

(1) Surah Al-Ma’idah: 6

And the objector says: If this verse is proof of the infallibility of the five pure personalities (peace be upon them), then why is it expressed in the present tense (إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ, “He only wills”) rather than in the past tense (إِنَّمَا أَرَادَ اللَّهُ, “Allah only willed”)? Because if they were already infallible, then Allah’s willing of their infallibility would be merely a redundant repetition (taḥṣīl ḥāṣil).

And it is not hidden from anyone how much fallacy and misguidance exists in such reasoning.

Therefore, Allah’s Book is before you, and it is full of such styles. As Allah Almighty says:

 يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ بِكُمُ الْيُسْرَ وَلَا يُرِيدُ بِكُمُ الْعُسْرَ (1)

اAllah wants ease for you and does not want difficulty for you.

This does not mean that previously Allah wished hardship for His servants and has now begun to wish ease.

Just as Allah Almighty says:

يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ أَن يُخَفِّفَ عَنكُمْ (2)

اAllah wants to lighten the burden for you.

This does not mean at all that previously Allah did not want ease for His servants.

In the same way, the following saying of Allah the Exalted is also worth pondering:

وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَن يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا (3)

And Satan wants to lead them into distant error.
According to the objector’s argument, this would imply that previously Satan was not leading people astray, because here too the verb “يُرِيدُ” is in the present tense!

Yet, no one, including the objector, can deny the fact that Satan’s intent to misguide has been continuous from the creation of Prophet Adam (ﷺ) until today. He has always been, and will continue to be, engaged in leading people astray.

Thus, from what has been explained, it becomes perfectly clear that “يُرِيدُ” signifies continuity and permanence, encompassing past, present, and future.

Similarly, in our matter under discussion, Allah Almighty’s command:

إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ

Allah only wants to remove all kinds of impurity from you.
This also means that Allah’s will (irāda) has been ongoing since eternity, continues in the present, and will remain the same in the future.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
(1) Surah Al-Baqarah: 185
(2) Surah An-Nisa: 28
(3) Surah An-Nisa: 60

اور دوسری جانب، نبی کی عصمت اس قدر مشہور ہے کہ اس پر بحث و تمحیص کا کوئی جواز نہیں۔ اور یہ اس قدر

 It is well-known that no proof or argument is even needed for this, and both sides unanimously agree that the Prophet ﷺ is among the individuals mentioned in the Verse of Purification (Āyah al-Tatḥīr).

The objector, assuming otherwise, says: “Indeed, the protection of these personalities from impurity and sin only occurred after the will (irāda) related to the removal of their impurity was enacted.”

I say: O Allah! How astonishing this claim is! Was the removal of impurity from the Prophet ﷺ supposed to start at the moment of the verse’s revelation? And was there impurity in him before the verse was revealed? (Far be it from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ!)

This is something that even the objector cannot claim as necessary, while it is in complete opposition to the consensus of all Muslims, because there is no doubt or objection that the Prophet ﷺ has been pure and protected for all creation since the beginning of his mission.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Second Stage: Explanation of Allah’s Statement ﴿لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ﴾

In this stage, we will examine the discussion from two aspects:

First: The grammatical aspect

I say: Any scholar skilled in grammar knows that in Allah’s statement “لِيُذْهِبَ” the “lam” (ل) is an extra letter used for emphasis, and its original form is “أن يذهب”, meaning:

Allah wills that He removes it.

This is in contrast to those who claim that this “lam” is for causal meaning. Among them, there is disagreement, and some say that its object is omitted, i.e.:

• “Indeed, Allah wants to command and forbid you so that He removes (the impurity),” or 

• “Indeed, He wants for you what He wants so that (the impurity) is removed,”
  or a similar interpretation. 

Among the grammar scholars who have confirmed the Shia position that the “lam” in لِيُذْهِبَ is extra for emphasis is Ibn Hisham al-Ansari (in Sharh Qatr al-Nada). Ibn Hisham al-Ansari stated in Sharh Qatr al-Nada:

لام الْجُرِّ سَوَاء كَانَت للتَّعْلِيل كَقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى : وأنزلنا إِلَيْكَ الذكر لتبين للنَّاسِ، وَقَوله تَعَالَى: إنَّا فتحنا لك فتحا مبينًا ليغفر لك الله ، أو للعاقبة كَقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: فالتقطه آل فِرْعَوْنَ لِيَكُون لهم عدوا وحزنًا ، وَاللام هنا ليست للتَّعْلِيل؛ لأنهم لم يلتقطوه لذلك وَإِنَّمَا التقطوه ليَكُون لَهُم قُرَّة عين فَكَانَت عاقبته أن صار لهم عدوا وحزنًا، أَو زَائِدَة كَقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: إِنَّمَا يُرِيد الله ليذهب عَنْكُم الرجس أهل البيت، فالفعل فِي هَذِهِ الْمَوَاضِعِ مَنْصُوب بِأَنْ مضمرة (2).

“لامِ جر،“Lam of (grammatical) preposition, whether it is for causation (reason), such as Allah Almighty’s statement:”

وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ

“And We have sent down the Reminder (the Qur’an) upon you so that you may clarify it for the people.”

“And this Statement of Allah, the Exalted:”

إِنَّا فَتَح%