All praises due to Allah and May His peace and blessings be upon the Last and Final Messenger Muhammad and upon his family and companions.
This concise biography on Imam Zain al-‘Abideen is compiled with the intention to give clear picture of him according to authentic sunni sources unlike shi’a authors who generally do not care about authenticity and rather judge a narration based on their own preconceived beliefs. This short biography will make it clear that ‘Ali bin Husain was never a claimant of Imamate as per the concept propounded by Shi’ites.
The source for this compilation is Siyar A’alam an-Nubala of Dhahabi but mostly I have traced the original source and added other beneficial points which are not in Siyar. Herein I have only mentioned those reports which are authentically proven and if there is any considerable defect in Isnad then I have pointed it out.
Download complete file:
Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar al-Waqidi as a Narrator
He is the famous historian, the author of Maghazi and other books on history. His reliability is an issue of debate among scholars. Most of the scholars do not consider him reliable although they do not see any problem in quoting his narrations and reports related to history but not for evidence. The correct view is that of the majority scholars who do not take him as evidence.
His full name was Muhammad bin ‘Umar bin Waqid Al-Waqidi Al-Aslami, Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Madani. He was a Qadhi in Baghdad. He has narrated from the likes of Zaid bin Aslam, Thawr bin Yazid, Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Al-Awza’I, Ibn Juraij, Malik bin Anas, Ibn Abi Dhi’b, Ma’mar, Ibn Abi Saburah and many others. Those who have narrated from him include Ahmad bin Mansur Ar-Rammadi, Harith bin Abi Usamah, Husain bin Marzuq, Sulaiman Ash-Shadhkuni, Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaibah, Qasim bin Sallam, Ibn Sa’d (his scribe) and many others. He died in the year 207 AH.
Those who have made criticism on him are:
- Ibn Mubarak who abandoned him as reported by Bukhari.
- Ibn Numair who abandoned him as reported by Bukhari.
- Isma’eel bin Zakariyyah
- Ishaq bin Rahwayh
- Ahmad bin Hanbal
- Ali bin Madeeni
- Ibn Ma’een
- Al- Bukhari
- Abu Zur’ah Ar-razi
- Abu Hatim Ar-Razi
- Abu Dawud
- Ibn ‘Adi
- Ibn Hibban
- Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim
Refer to Tahdheeb al-Kamal (26-180-194) by Al-Mizzi, Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (9/363-368) by Ibn Hajar, Meezan al-I’tidal (3/662-666) by Dhahabi etc.
There are those who have praised him include: Al-Darawardi, Muhammad bin Salam Al-Jumahi, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Mus’ab Az-Zubairi, Abu ‘Aamir al-‘Uqdi, Mujahid bin Musa, As-Saghani, Al-Musayyibi, Ma’n bin ‘Isa, Abu Yahya al-Azhari, Ibn Numair, Qasim bin Sallam, ‘Abbas al-‘Anbari
- Ad-Darawardi who said that Al-Waqidi was Ameer al-Mumineen in the field of hadith. Besides that, Ad-Darawardi himself did not have the status as compared to the scholars quoted against Al-Waqidi. Al-Darawardi was criticized for his memory.
- Muhammad bin Sallam al-Jumahi said regarding him that he was the scholar of his time. This does not necessitate Tawtheeq in the terminology of hadith science. No wonder Hafiz Dhahabi says in Meezan (3/567) that he [Al-Waqidi] was one of the people of knowledge along with the weakness in him. Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani said, “He was Matrook along with the vastness of his knowledge.”
- Ibrahim al-Harbi said that he was the most knowledgeable person regarding the Islamic history. He also considered that Al-Waqidi was most reliable regarding the opinions of Malik and Ibn Abi Dhi’b.
- Mus’ab az-Zubairi said, “I have never seen someone like him.” Ibrahim al-Harbi narrates from him that Al-Waqidi was Thiqah.
- Abu ‘Aamir al-‘Uqdi said, “We are being asked regarding him? He is to be asked regarding us.” The same was said by Ma’n bin ‘Isa regarding him.
- Mujahid bin Musa said, “I have not written from anyone greater in memorizing than Al-Waqidi.” Al-Dhahabi said, “He said the truth. He was on the peak in memorizing the historical reports, Seerah, Maghazi, incidents, the timeline of people, Fiqh and other things.”
- Muhammad bin Ishaq al-Musayyibi said, “He was Thiqah.”
- Abu Yahya Az-Zuhri said, “He was Thiqah Ma’moon.”
- Ibn Numair said, “His narrations from us is alright, as for his narration from people of Madinah then they are more aware of it.”
- Abu ‘Ubaid said, “He was Thiqah.”
- Muhammad bin Ishaq As-Saaghani also declared him Thiqah.
- Yazeed bin Haroon declared him Thiqah.
- ‘Abbas Al-‘Anbari said as reported by Khateeb, “Al-Waqidi is more beloved to me than Abdur-Razzaq.” In a report of Ibn ‘Adi he said, “Al-Waqidi was more truthful than Abdur-Razzaq.” This statement doesn’t necessitate Tawtheeq because according to ‘Abbas, Abdur-Razzaq was a liar and to downgrade him he compared him with Al-Waqidi as Al-Waqidi was famous as a rejected narrator. Note that no one from the scholars rely on ‘Abbas in his Jarh on Abdur-Razzaq As-San’ani.
- Ibn Sa’d praised him with knowledge.
Comparison between praise and disparagement:
After listing out all the statement of scholars regarding him we see that:
- Jarh regarding him is explained. For instance Imam Ahmad said, “We never cease to defend him until he narrated from Ma’mar from Az-Zuhri from Nabhan from Um Salamah that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to his wives, “Are you blind too?” And this is the hadith of Yunus, no one else narrates it besides him.” Similarly Ibn Ma’een said, “He used to mix up the hadith of Yunus to the hadith of Ma’mar. He was not reliable.” Abu Ahmad said, “He was Dhaahib al-Hadith.” Muslim said, “He was Matrook al-Hadith.” Similarly Ibn al-Madeeni accused him of fabricating hadith. The most conclusive statement was given by Ibn Adi who said, “These are the hadith which I mentioned and with it also those which I did not mention, none of them are preserved. Those narrations are not preserved from those Thiqaat through whom al-Waqidi narrates except through the route of al-Waqidi, and the evil is from al-Waqidi. The texts of the reports of al-Waqidi are not preserved and his weakness is obvious.” Ibn Hibban said, “He would narrate from Thiqaat reversed [Maqloob] reports, and from Thabt narrators severely disconnected narrations so much so that sometimes it appears to the heart that he does it intentionally.” Ad-Daarqutni said, “Weakness is clearly apparent in his narrations.” I say: Anyone who is slightly familiar with the methodology of scholars of hadith would smell weakness in the reports of Al-Waqidi for the weakness of a narrator is observed in his narrations.
- Majority criticized him as compared to very few scholars who made Tawtheeq. Those who made Tawtheeq were not famous for their criticism and praise on narrators, hence barely anyone will see them commenting on narrator’s status in the books of Jarh and Ta’deel.
So based on these conclusions we are sure about the unreliability of Muhammad bin ‘Umar al-Waqidi. Finally I quote a beautiful observation of Hafiz Dhahabi: It has already been mentioned that Al-Waqidi is weak,but he is needed in case of incidents of Battles and History. We mention his works without taking evidence from them. As for Faraidh then it is not good to mention him. Here are the six books of Hadith and Musnad Ahmad and you will see them reporting the narrations of several weak narrators, rather even Matrook reporters, but they do not mention al-Waqidi. This is besides the fact that his status according to me is that his hadith narrations are to be written as I do not accuse him of fabricating hadith. There is extremism, from some point of view, in the statement of those who totally left him just like there is nothing to rely on in the statement of those who declared him Thiqah like Yazeed, Abu ‘Ubayd, As-Saghani, Al-Harbi, Ma’n and all ten hadith scholars because there is agreement among scholars in these days that he is not Hujjah and his narrations are of the category of severely weak narrations (waahi).” Siyar (9/469).
Who was the bravest companion?
Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm
This is one of the issues which Shia love to raise against the personality of companions like Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Their problem is that they think bravery is to kill people in Jihad and if someone couldn’t kill with his power than he is not brave. And hence, they conclude, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were not brave. If that is the case then people like Pharaoh, Nimrod, Stalin and all the mass murderers would have to be listed at the top of all the braves.
Among the believers Bara bin Malik al-Ansari lonely killed hundred men besides those whom he killed with the help of others. Hamza, Abu Dujanah al-Ansari, ‘Aasim bin Thabit, Talha, Zubair, Sa’d were all known for their specialty in tackling the enemy. But no one prefer them over ‘Ali bin Abi Talib or over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be well pleased with them all.
Once a person presents himself to face the enemy he is proven to be a brave one regardless of how much of them he could kill or defeat. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, never missed any battle with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and they were seen defending the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) during harsh conditions especially in Uhud and Hunain. How could such a person be coward? If it is just because there is hardly any narration describing how they killed a Mushrik during battle then what could be the response regarding the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) who never killed anyone in battle except Ubayy bin Khalaf? If they say that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) was bravest but he was a leader and hence did not involve in fighting then we shall let ‘Ali (ra) falsify this claim. Hence Imam Ahmad records in Musnad (1042), Abu Ya’la (302, 412) and others with an authentic Isnad through Abu Ishaq from Harithah bin Mudharrib that ‘Ali said:
لَمَّا حَضَرَ الْبَأْسُ يَوْمَ بَدْرٍ اتَّقَيْنَا بِرَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَكَانَ مِنْ أَشَدِّ النَّاسِ، مَا كَانَ – أَوْ: لَمْ يَكُنْ – أَحَدٌ أَقْرَبَ إِلَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ مِنْهُ
“When the fighting grew intense on the day of Badr we sought shelter by drawing closer to the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), who was one of the strongest of men, and no was closer to the disbeliever than him.”
We see that during the harsh time even brave like ‘Ali (ra) used to seek shelter with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) but still he did not kill anyone except Ubayy.
So what is bravery? Let us look at the meaning of Shuja’ah [Arabic of bravery] in Arabic dictionary. Al-Jawhari says in “As-Sihaah” (3/1235):
شدَّة القلب عند البأس
“It is the stability of heart during trial.”
Even the English word bravery means ‘able or ready to face and endure danger, disgrace or pain’. So not being able to kill someone or not being able to conquer some place does not indicate cowardice. Indeed, those who were killed by ‘Ali during the battles were more than those who were killed by Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. But it only proves that ‘Ali encountered more famous combatants than them not that they were hiding for their life.
As for running away from battles than there is no indication that any of the two Shaikh left the battle field. There were two incidents in Prophetic history when Muslims ran from the battle field when they couldn’t handle the enemies’ fierce attack. But in none of them, with any shred of evidence, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar left the battle field. So called proofs which some Shia authors quote to prove that they ran away from the battlefield are nothing but sheer misrepresentation of the context. If Allah willed I will compile a refutation on such arguments.
The following passage I translated from Minhaj as-Sunnah (8/87-89) of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah who quoted ‘Allamah Ibn Hazm from “Al-Fisal” (4/107).
Ibn Hazm said:
We see that they claim that ‘Ali was the greatest in waging Jihad against disbelievers and attacking and fighting them among all the companions.
Abu Muhammad (Ibn Hazm) said: This is wrong as the Jihad is classified in three categories;
- One of them is calling towards Allah,
- Second is to do Jihad during war by ideas and strategies
- And the third is to do jihad with hands by killing and hitting.
We find that with regards to the first type of Jihad no person supersede Abu Bakr and ‘Umar after the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). As for Abu Bakr then we find that the senior companions accepted Islam on his hands. As compared to him, ‘Ali does not have much share in this. As for ‘Umar then we see that the day he became Muslim Islam was strengthened and the worship of Allah was being done openly. This is the greatest Jihad and these two persons were alone in such Jihad of the first two categories (during early days) which has no comparable and ‘Ali does not have participation in it.
With regards to the second category then we find that it is specifically for Abu Bakr and then for ‘Umar.
As for the third category which is stabbing, hitting and combating then we find that it is the lowest level of Jihad because of the obvious reason that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), with the agreement of Muslims, was selective in doing the most virtuous of the act and we see that his – may Allah sends Salaat and salutation upon him – Jihad in most of the cases was restricted within the first two categories which is to call towards Allah – the Mighty and Majestic – and planning and forwarding. His least involvement (among the three categories) was in stabbing, hitting and combating. This is not because of cowardice but in reality he was absolutely the bravest of all earthly beings with his hands and soul and the most complete to attain succor. But he would look for the best and then next after it from the acts, and then he would prefer it and get involved with it. We find that, during Badr and other battles, Abu Bakr would not leave him and sometimes even ‘Umar was included in it. They were distinguished in this case unlike ‘Ali and all other companions, except in rare cases.
Then after that we ponder over the third category of Jihad which is to stab, to hit and to combat. We see that ‘Ali was not alone in this, but many other companions also had the same share like Talha, Zubair and Sa’d and those were killed in early Islam like Hamza, ‘Ubaidah bin Harith and Mus’ab bin ‘Umair, and from Ansar Sa’d bin Mu’adh, Simak bin Kharshah Abu Dujanah and others. Also Abu Bakr and ‘Umar do have good share in it even if they did not involve in it like these people which is because of their participation in a better Jihad in association with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and to aid him during battles. And he sent them for war more than he sent ‘Ali. He sent Abu Bakr towards Bani Fazarah and elsewhere and he sent ‘Umar towards Bani Fulan. On the other hand we do not know ‘Ali was sent for any battle except at some fort of Khaibar which he conquered [and he had sent Abu Bakr and ‘Umar there, before ‘Ali, but they could not conquered it]. So Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were involved in the highest level of Jihad and besides that they have their share with ‘Ali in the lower category of Jihad.
This research is not to deny that ‘Ali (ra) was “not the one who flee”, but since Shiites may use it to show that Abu Bakr (ra) and ‘Umar (ra) were the one who fled away from the battle of Khaybar therefore I made went into depth of this particular addition. This is a version of very famous hadith on the merit of ‘Ali (ra) quoted in authentic book. But the addition under discussion has different story. This discussion is a part of my ongoing work on shia encyclopedia. Quoting from “A Shiite Encyclopedia”:
“I will give the standard tomorrow to a man who loves Allah and his Prophet, and whom Allah and his Prophet love, (a man) who will be steadfast and will not flee”.
The next day Allah’s Apostle gave ‘Ali the flag and Allah granted victory under his leadership. (See Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Traditions 5.52, 5.520)
I could not find the hadith in Sahih Bukhari with the addition of “who will be steadfast and will not flee” neither do I see such sentence in the English translation of Sahih Bukhari by Muhsin Khan and Al-Hilali. Imam Bukhari has mentioned this hadith at seven places in Sahih Bukhari; twice in the book on Merits of Companions, and twice in the Book of Maghazi and thrice in the book of Jihad. Nowhere does this meaning exist.
However, I found this tradition with the addition of “He is not the one who flees” as follows:
- It has been reported in Musnad (778) of Imam Ahmad, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (32080), Ibn Majah (117) and others through the chain of Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah from Minhaal from Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah who report the incident of his father with Ali (ra) which include this hadith of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah was the one regarding whom Shu’bah said, “I have not seen a person who has as bad memory as Ibn Abi Lailah.”
- Ibn Ishaq reports it in Seerah  and through him At-Tabrani in “Al-Kabeer” (7/35) through Buraidah bin Sufyan bin Farwah from his father from Salamah bin Akwa’ (ra). Buraidah bin Sufyan is not reliable. [Meezan (1/306)] His father remains unknown as no one considered him reliable except Ibn Hibban as per his standard rejected by other scholars.
- Ibn Abi Shaibah in Musannaf (36894) through Nu’aim bin Hakeem from Abu Maryam [Ath-Thaqafi] from ‘Ali (ra). Nu’aim bin Hakeem who is disputed upon among scholars. [ Tahdheeb al-Kamal (29/464), Meezan (4/267)]
Abu Maryam Qais Ath-Thaqafi al-Kufi was Majhool as per the statement of Ad-Daarqutni and Ibn Hajar. [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (12/232)] An-Nasai mentioned a narrator “Abu Maryam Qais al-Hanafi” and declared him Thiqah. According to Ibn Hajar this is a Wahm of A-Nasai as the name of Abu Maryam al-Hanafi was Iyas bin Sabeeh not Qais. Abu Maryam Iyas bin Sabeeh Al-Hanafi was a Qadhi of Basrah by the command of Abu Musa al-Ash’ari and he narrated from Umar bin al-Khattab and ‘Uthman, and his son Abdullah and Ibn Sireen have narrated from him as stated by Abu Ahmad al-Hakim in his book Al-Kuna. While Abu Maryam Qais Ath-Thaqafi al-Madaini was a different person who narrate from Ali and ‘Ammar. Refer to Tahdheeb of Ibn Hajar. And Allah knows best.
- Imam Nasai narrates it in Al-Kubra (8458) under “Khasais ‘Ali” through Muhammad [bin Ishaq] from Abdullah bin Abi Najeeh from his father from Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (ra). Muhammad bin Ishaq is mudallis of the fourth category and besides that Abu Najeeh did not hear from Sa’d and hence Abu Hatim said regarding this Isnad that it is Mursal. [Al-Jarh wa at-Ta’deel (9/306)]
And Allah knows best
Hadith : “Whoever loves Ali has loved me, and whoever hates Ali has hated me”
Al-Haakim (no.4648) reported it through Sa’eed bin Aus Al-Ansari from ‘Auf from Abu ‘Uthman An-Nahdi that a person asked Salman al-Farasi, “What is this intense love of ‘Ali from you?” He said, “I heard the messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam)…alhadith”. All of its narrators are trustworthy.
Its narrators are as follow:
- Ahmad bin ‘Uthman bin Yahya al-‘Atashi al-Adami al-Muqri (d.349): He was trustworthy as per the declaration of Al-Barqani and Khateeb. [Tarikh al-Islam (7/871)]
- Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yazeed bin Abil ‘Awwam ar-Riyahi: He was declared Saduq by Ad-Daarqutni. Ibn Hibban listed him among Thiqaat. Maslamah bin Qasim said that he was Thiqah. Ibn ‘Uqdah reports from Abdullah bin Ahmad that he was Saduq. [Ath-Thiqat by Qasim bin Qatloobagha (8/163)]
- Sa’eed bin Aws Abu Zaid al-Ansari: Ibn Ma’eed and Abu Hatim said Saduq. Salih Jazarah said Thiqah. [Tahdheeb al-Kamal (10/330-337)]
- Awf al-A’rabi: He was declared Thiqah by Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma’een and An-Nasai. [Tahdheeb al-Kamal (22/437-441)]
- Abu ‘Uthman An-Nahdi: He was from the senior-most Tab’een.
Al-Hakim declared it authentic. This narration was also reported by Ash-Shajari in his Amaali through a weak chain going back to Sa’eed bin Aws. [Al-Eema ila zawa’id al-Amaali wa al-Ajza (3/29)]
The same wording has also been reported as a narration of Um Salamah (ra). At-Tabarani in “Al-Kabeer” (23/380), Abu Tahir Al-Mukhallis in Fawaid (3/150, no.2193) and Ibn ‘Asakir in his Tarikh (42/270-271) through Abu Jabir from Hakam bin Muhammad from Fitr from Abu Tufayl from Um Salamah (ra)…alhadith.
Shaikh Al-Albani declared the Isnad of the hadith of Umm Salamah to be Sahih. [As-Saheehah (1299)]
It is a well accepted opinion among the scholars of Sunnah that Mut’ah (temporary marriage) is an invalid practice. It is also well accepted that it was once valid but later on it was banned. Hence, many narrations are present in the books of hadith to prove that it was prohibited. One of the companions who have narrated the hadith on the prohibition of Mut’ah is ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (ra). Besides that there were some who held the view of its permissibility. This is not a discussion on it details rather this is particularly to discuss the view of Abdullah bin ‘Abbas (ra) regarding it and the reaction of companions to his opinion.
OPINION OF IBN ‘ABBAS REGARDING TEMPORARY MARRIAGE
Ibn ‘Abbas considered that temporary marriage was permitted. Al-Imam Muhammad bin Isma’il al-Bukhari (d256 AH) narrates in his Sahih:
5116 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي جَمْرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ: سُئِلَ عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ «فَرَخَّصَ»، فَقَالَ لَهُ مَوْلًى لَهُ: إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ فِي الحَالِ الشَّدِيدِ، وَفِي النِّسَاءِ قِلَّةٌ؟ أَوْ نَحْوَهُ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «نَعَمْ»
Ibn ‘Abbas was asked regarding temporary marriage with women so he allowed it. On this one of his slaves said, “It is only in harsh condition, when there is lack of women?” or something of that sort. So Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.”
In a tradition from As-Sunan Al-Kabeer (14166) by Al-Bayhaqi Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) responded to the criticism of Sa’eed bin Jubair on his view on Mut’ah by saying, “I did not intend that, neither did I give such ruling regarding Mut’ah. Mut’ah is not permitted except in case of necessity. Indeed it is like the dead meat, blood and the flesh of swine.”
It is clear from the above authentic narrations that the view of Ibn ‘Abbas was not similar to that of Shia Twelvers regarding Mut’ah. Hence, according to him Mut’ah is only permitted when there is need while according to Twelvers it is a virtuous act.
However, Sunni scholars do not think that Mut’ah is permitted even if there is lack of women unlike Ibn ‘Abbas who thought it is permitted. The view of Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) was wrong and the view of Twelvers is worse.
REACTION OF COMPANIONS AGAINST THE VIEW OF IBN ‘ABBAS
The foremost to oppose Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) in his view was Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (ra). Al-Imam Al-Bukhari narrates in his marvelous book Sahih:
5115 – حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ الزُّهْرِيَّ، يَقُولُ: أَخْبَرَنِي الحَسَنُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، وَأَخُوهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: «إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنِ المُتْعَةِ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الحُمُرِ الأَهْلِيَّةِ، زَمَنَ خَيْبَرَ»
Al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin ‘Ali and his brother Abdullah bin Ali both narrate from their father [i.e. Ibn al-Hanafiyyah] that ‘Ali said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade from Mut’ah and the eating of domestic donkey’s flesh during the time of Khaybar.”
In Sahih Muslim it is like this:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللهِ، ابْنَيْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُلَيِّنُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ، فَقَالَ: «مَهْلًا يَا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، فَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الْإِنْسِيَّةِ»
‘Ali heard of Ibn ‘Abbas being lenient regarding Temporary marriage so he said to him, “Wait O Ibn ‘Abbas! Indeed the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade it during Khaibar and from the meat of domestic donkeys.”
In another version of Sahih Muslim he said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “You are a person who has been led astray…”
Another person to oppose Ibn ‘Abbas in this regard was Abdullah bin az-Zubair. Hence, Imam Muslim records in Sahih:
حَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ: أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، قَامَ بِمَكَّةَ، فَقَالَ: «إِنَّ نَاسًا أَعْمَى اللهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ، كَمَا أَعْمَى أَبْصَارَهُمْ، يُفْتُونَ بِالْمُتْعَةِ»، يُعَرِّضُ بِرَجُلٍ، فَنَادَاهُ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّكَ لَجِلْفٌ جَافٍ، فَلَعَمْرِي، لَقَدْ كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ تُفْعَلُ عَلَى عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ – يُرِيدُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ: «فَجَرِّبْ بِنَفْسِكَ، فَوَاللهِ، لَئِنْ فَعَلْتَهَا لَأَرْجُمَنَّكَ بِأَحْجَارِكَ»
Abdullah bin Zubair stood up in Makkah and said referring to a person, “Allah has made some people hearts blind as they as He has made their eyes blind; they issue verdict in favor of Mut’ah.” So that person called him and said, “You are uncouth and lacking in manners. By Allah, Mut’ah was practiced during the time of the leader of the pious i.e. the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).” Ibn az-Zubair said to him, “Then do it by yourself. By Allah if you do that I will stone you with your own stones.”
Ibn Abi ‘Amrah al-Ansari objected to Ibn ‘Abbas on his view on Mut’ah. Hence, Abdur-Razzaq reports in “Al-Musannaf” (14033) through Az-Zuhri from Khalid bin Muhajir:
عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي الزُّهْرِي، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ قَالَ: أَرْخَصَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ: «مَا هَذَا يَا أَبَا عَبَّاسٍ؟» فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: فُعِلَتْ مَعَ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ. فَقَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ: «اللَّهُمَّ غُفْرًا، إِنَّمَا كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ رُخْصَةً كَالضُّرُورَةِ إِلَى الْمَيْتَةِ، وَالدَّمِ، وَلَحْمِ الْخِنْزِيرِ، ثُمَّ أَحْكَمَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى الدِّينَ بَعْدُ»
Ibn ‘Abbas permitted Mut’ah so Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said to him, “What is this O Ibn ‘Abbas?” He said, “I did it during the time of the leader of pious.” Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said, “May Allah forgive. Indeed Mut’ah was an exemption like in the case when the dead meat, blood or the flesh of swine is necessary. Then Allah completed his religion after that.”
‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar also raised his voice against Ibn ‘Abbas regarding Mut’ah. Abdur-Razzaq (14035) reports:
14035 – عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ، قِيلَ لِابْنِ عُمَرَ: إِنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ فَقَالَ: «مَا أَظُنُّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَقُولُ هَذَا». قَالُوا: بَلَى، وَاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَيَقُولُهُ قَالَ: «أَمَا وَاللَّهِ مَا كَانَ لِيَقُولَ هَذَا فِي زَمَنِ عُمَرَ، وَإِنْ كَانَ عُمَرُ لَيُنَكِّلُكُمْ عَنْ مِثْلِ هَذَا، وَمَا أَعْلَمُهُ إِلَّا السِّفَاحَ»
Saalim said: It was said to Ibn ‘Umar that Ibn ‘Abbas permits Mut’ah with women. He said, “I do not think Ibn ‘Abbas says that.” They said, “Indeed, by Allah he says that.” So he said, “By Allah, he would not say such a thing during the lifetime of ‘Umar. Indeed ‘Umar would punish you on such things. And I do not think of it except as adultery.” – This narration is present in Sahih Muslim but without mentioning Ibn ‘Abbas.
All praises due to Allah and may His peace and blessings be upon the Last and Final Messenger Muhammad.
In Sahih Muslim, Book of Menstruation, chapter on Tayammum:
Abd al-Rabmin b. Abza narrated It on the authority of his father that a man came to ‘Umar and said: I am (at times) affected by seminal emission but find no water. He (‘Umar) told him not to say prayer. ‘Ammar then said. Do you remember,0 Commander of the Faithful, when I and you were in a military detachment and we had had a seminal emission and did not find water (for taking bath) and you did not say prayer, but as for myself I rolled in dust and said prayer, and (when it was mentioned before) the Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: It was enough for you to strike the ground with your hands and then blow (the dust) and then wipe your face and palms. Umar said: ‘Ammar, fear Allah. He said: If you so like, I would not narrate it.
A hadith like this has been transmitted with the same chain of transmitters but for the words: ‘Umar said: We hold you responsible for what you claim.”
Based on above narration some people allege that Umar bin Khattab (ra) was unaware of the verses of Tayammum. Basically Tayammum has been mentioned at two places in the Qur’an. First in Surah Nisa verse 43:
“O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.” [Qur’an 4:43 tr. Sahih International]
And in Surah Ma’idah verse 6:
“O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful.” [5:6]
Sayyiduna ‘Umar (ra) was certainly aware of this verse and he also held it permissible to perform Tayammum in case of minor impurity [i.e. when only ablution is necessary] when there is no water available. But according to him it was not permissible to perform Tayammum in case of major impurity [i.e. when Ghusl is necessary]. In the above two verses if the word “lams” is taken for sexual intercourse then it does go against ‘Umar (ra), however if it is taken to mean physical touch then it is not a proof against his opinion. Basically the meaning of that part is controversial among scholars. According to Imam Shafi’i the part “Lamastumun Nisa” means touching of women while according to Imam Abu Hanifa it means sexual intercourse. So Umar (ra) was not actually unaware of the verses of Tayammum but he considered them to be only for those who with minor impurity but not in case of Janabah. It was a matter of Ijtihad not like some Rawafidh are trying to portray as though he was simply ignorant of the verses of Qur’an. It is said that he left this opinion. And Allah knows best.
Another point which clearly shows that the verse is not decisive against the view held by ‘Umar (ra) is the fact that in the incident which happened between him and ‘Ammar bin Yasir (ra) regarding the issue Ammar (ra) reminded him of an incident happened during the lifetime of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and not the verses regarding Tayammum. There could not have been any evidence stronger than the verse of Qur’an and ‘Ammar (ra) would never had left it if it were against ‘Umar (ra).