The English translation of Muḥammad Abū Zahra’s biography of Abū Ḥanīfa includes the following analysis of Shīʿa beliefs:
“The separation of the Shīʿa from the body of the Muslims was of political origin and turned on the matter of how the khalīfa of the Muslims should have been decided upon. Their difference was based on two things. Firstly, the khalīfate was not a matter to be decided by the community as a whole, but by specific appointment. The khalīfate is the pillar of the Dīn and the rule of Islām, and in their view it was inconceivable that the Prophet would have ignored it and left it up to the community to decide. The khalīfa must have been specified for them and was protected from major and minor wrong actions. Secondly, and following from that, they maintained that ʿAlī was the khalīfa chosen by the Prophet ﷺ and was the best of the Companions.”
At this point, however, the translators omitted an entire paragraph that appears in the Urdu edition:
“It is imperative to highlight that the view that ʿAlī was the most superior of the Ṣaḥāba was not exclusively a Shīʿa position. Some Ṣaḥāba shared this viewpoint, and their names are worth mentioning.
“Miqdād ibn al-Aswad, Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī, Salmān al-Fārsī, Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh, Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, Ḥudhayfa, Burayda, Ayyūb, Sahl ibn Ḥanīf, ʿUthmān ibn Ḥanīf, Abū al-Haytham, Ḥudhayfa ibn Thābit, Abū al-Ṭufayl ʿĀmir ibn Wāthila, al-ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib and Banū Hāshim (riḍwāna Allāh ʿalayhim ajmaʿīn) were of this group. In the beginning, Ḥaḍrat Zubayr held this view but changed it later. Among the Umayyads, only a few people held this view, such as Khālid ibn Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ and ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz.”
(Source: Imām Aʿẓam, p. 184)
First Observation: Translator Dishonesty
The omission of this paragraph cannot be dismissed as an oversight. By removing it, the translators deliberately crafted a narrative that frames the belief in ʿAlī’s (as) superiority as a purely Shīʿa innovation. Yet Abū Zahra himself, a respected Sunnī scholar, explicitly acknowledged that numerous Companions—including Miqdād, Abū Dharr, Salmān, Jābir, and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb—openly affirmed ʿAlī (as) as afḍal al-ṣaḥāba (the most superior of the Companions). The translator’s decision to erase this testimony is intellectual dishonesty, motivated by an agenda to protect a fragile narrative.
Second Observation: Early Testimony of the Ṣaḥāba
When Abū Zahra’s words are restored, the picture changes dramatically. The belief that ʿAlī (as) was the most superior of the Companions was not an isolated Shīʿa claim. It was a conviction shared by:
- Leading Muhājirūn: Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī, Salmān al-Fārsī, Miqdād ibn al-Aswad.
- Prominent Anṣār: Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, Sahl ibn Ḥanīf, Abū al-Haytham.
- The Prophet’s family: al-ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib and Banū Hāshim.
- Other major figures: Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh, Abū al-Ṭufayl ʿĀmir ibn Wāthila.
This demonstrates that the belief transcended tribal or factional lines. It included Muhājirūn and Anṣār, members of the Banu Hashim and non-family Companions, and even later Umayyads such as Khālid ibn Saʿīd and ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. Such diversity proves that the position was embedded in the early Islamic community itself.
Third Observation: Collapse of the Sunni Claim of Abū Bakr’s Superiority
The standard Sunnī position is that Abū Bakr was afḍal al-ṣaḥāba (the most superior of the Companions) and that this was universally recognised. But if that were the case, how could so many eminent Companions—including the Prophet’s uncle al-ʿAbbās, along with highly respected figures like Abū Dharr, Salmān, and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb—hold the opposite view?
This fact exposes a critical flaw in the Sunnī narrative: Abū Bakr’s supposed superiority was not a matter of unanimous recognition. Instead, many of the Prophet’s most loyal and trustworthy followers openly affirmed that ʿAlī (as) was the most superior of all the Companions. Their testimony dismantles the later constructed idea that the Ummah agreed on Abū Bakr’s primacy.
Conclusion
Abū Zahra’s restored words completely alter the discussion. Far from proving that the Shīʿa position was sectarian or politically motivated, they show that the doctrine of ʿAlī’s (as) superiority was deeply rooted in the earliest Islamic community and upheld by many of the Prophet’s closest Companions.
Thus, two central Sunnī claims are undermined:
- That the belief in ʿAlī’s (as) superiority was uniquely Shīʿa.
- That Abū Bakr’s superiority was universally accepted by the Ṣaḥāba.
The translators’ attempt to conceal Abū Zahra’s admission only underscores how destabilising this historical reality is for the later Sunnī narrative.