Hadeeth Explanation: “Whoever died without an Imam he dies a death of jahilyyah”


Correct Meaning and Interpretation of the hadeeth.

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

Below is the narration usually misinterpreted by Shias:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنى أبى ثنا أسود بن عامر انا أبو بكر عن عاصم عن أبى صالح عن معاوية قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من مات بغير امام مات ميتة جاهلية
Prophet(saw) said: Whoever died without an Imam he dies a death of jahilyyah(pre-islamic times). (MusnadAhmed volume 4 page 96).

This hadeeth is usually misunderstood and misinterpreted by Shias, they cherry-pick the hadeeth and interpret it as per their desires, and ignore the other related authentic ahadeeth which provides the correct understanding of this hadeeth.

Insha Allah! In this article we will explain this narration with the help of authentic narrations which are related to this hadeeth, because the best explanation could only be derived from the Prophetic narrations, as they would further explain and clarify the actual meaning of the narration misinterpreted by Shias.

Here are few narrations which provide the correct understanding of the narration misinterpreted by Shias:

Prophet (peace be upon him) said – as related by `Abd Allah b. `Umar – “Whoever dies without being bound by the oath of allegiance (bay`ah), dies the death of the time of jahiliyya(pre-islamic times).” [Sahîh Muslim (1851)]

The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘Whoever parts from obedience, and splits away from the Jama’ah and dies, then he has died a death of Jahiliyyah. Whoever rebels against my Ummah, killing good and evil people alike, and does not try to avoid killing the believers, and does not pay attention to those who are under a covenant, then he is not of me. Whoever fights for a cause that is not clear, advocating tribalism, getting angry for the sake of tribalism, and he is killed, then he has died a death of Jahiliyyah. [Sunan an-Nasa’i Vol. 5, Book 37, Hadith 4119 ]

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a hand span and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya(pre-islamic times).[Sahi Muslim Bk 20, Number 4559]

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who defected from obedience (to the Ruler) and separated from the main body of the Muslims−if he died in that state−would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya(pre-islamic times).[Sahi muslim Bk 20, Number 4555]

إن عبد الله بن عمر أتى ابن مطيع فقال : اطرحوا لأبي عبد الرحمن وسادة فقال : ما جئت لأجلس عندك ولكن جئت أخبرك ما سمعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سمعته يقول : من نزع يدا من طاعة أو فارق الجماعة مات ميتة الجاهلية
الراوي: زيد بن أسلم المحدث: أحمد شاكر – المصدر: مسند أحمد – الصفحة أو الرقم: 9/23
خلاصة الدرجة: إسناده صحيح

Abdallah Ibn Omar came to Ibn Mutee’and said: “Ask Abi Abdul-Rahman for a cushion.” He said: “I didn’t come to sit with you, rather I came to inform you what I’ve heard from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, I heard him saying: “Whoever removes his hands from the obedience (i.e. disobeys the legal authorities of the Muslim rulers) or creates differences in the Jama’ah dies the death of the Jaahiliyyah.”[Musnad Ahmad vol 9, page 23, Isnad Sahih)

Thus in the light of these authentic reports which are related to the hadeeth in question, we found that, Prophet(saw) actually meant “whoever dies without giving allegiance and removing himself from obedience to the Imam will die the death of jahiliiya”. This hadeeth is regarding allegiance(bay’ah) and obedience to the Ruler. When there is a legitimate head of state for the Muslims (Imam), then it is not permissible for a Muslim to refrain from accepting him by not giving an oath of allegiance(bay’ah) to that Head of state, this is what the hadeeth means.

The oath of allegiance(bay`ah) is directly incumbent upon the leaders of the Muslim community(ahl al-hall wa al-`aqd) and must be given on the authority of the Qur’ân and Sunnah according to the conditions set forth in Islamic Law. As far as the general public is concerned, most scholars agree that the pledge of allegiance given by their community leaders will suffice them, so it is not necessary for every single individual to do so. This is what Abû Ya`lâ says in his work al-Mu`tamad (p. 254) and in his al-Ahkâm al-Sultâniyyah (p. 27). It is also the opinion stated by al-Mâwardî in his book by the same name (p. 15). Even though the individual in this case does not give the oath of allegiance directly, he is bound by it. He is required to obey in all matters that do not entail disobedience to Allah.

Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani(rah) stated:

“To die as those who died in the pre-Islamic period of ignorance(Jahiliyya) means the state of death: to die in a state of misguidance with no ruler to obey, as the inhabitants of that era had no such system of ruling. The hadith doesn’t mean that the Muslim will die as a kafir but as a disobeying Muslim. This Hadith has possible definitions:To resemble between the state of death between the disobeying Muslim and the Jahil, even if the Muslim was not in reality a Jahil; or, To frighten and reprimand, and this meaning is not the apparent one. Ibn Battāl said: this hadith is an argument to not disobey the ruler even if he is wronged. The scholars agreed unanimously on the obligation of obeying the empowered ruler and fighting under his commandment. As well as the scholars consider that obeying the ruler is better than disobeying him as this act prevents bloodshed and mitigates masses. “ (Fath Al-Bari,  commentary of #6530).

So to conclude, the death of Jahiliyyah means a death similar to those people who lived in pre-Islamic times, they were divided and not united upon one leadership, rather each tribe ruled itself and they declared wars on each-other. Islam stressed upon unity and loyalty for the sake of the greater good of the nation and this narration reflects this perfectly, it doesn’t mean that the disobedient person will become an idol worshiper like the people of Jahiliyyah.

Now after understanding the meaning of this hadeeth, it’s quite clear from these narrations which group of people are upon Jahiliyyah(ignorance), out of all groups the Imami Shiites have been the most popular for disobeying the rulers, not pledging allegiance to them and separating from the main body of Muslims to form their own small sect that opposes the rest of the Muslims politically and religiously.

The hadeeth about dying without an Imam isn’t applicable when the Muslim Ummah(community) is without an Imam[Such as the current situation].

From the authentic Prophetic narrations we presented above, it was clear that the phrase “whoever dies without an Imam dies the death of jahiliyya(pre-islamic times)” meant whoever died without removing himself from obedience to the Imam and without giving him allegiance, then he dies death of jahiliyya(pre-islamic times). This is only possible when Imam or the Caliph is present, if there is no Imam present then this hadeeth won’t be applicable.

Often Shias misinterpret this hadeeth and try to argue that this narration proves that every human being must die with an Imam, otherwise his/her death is upon Jahilliya(pre-islamic times). Shias also claim that this narration is referring to their 12 Imams whom they picked, their belief is that the world will always have an infallible divinely appointed Imam in it, without Imam world cannot exist and that everyone must pledge allegiance to the Imam of their time; they claim that their hidden Imam Mahdi is the Imam of this era, who from more than 1000 years is holding this position. This is false, incorrect and unrealistic  interpretation and belief of Shias.

The refutation to false Shia belief was given by Prophet(Saw), as one of his companions asked him about the days of the future and the Prophet(Saw) didn’t negate the idea that the Muslim Ummah could be WITHOUT an Imam, which nullifies the Shia misinterpretation.

In an authentic report from Sahi Muslim we read:

كان الناس يسألون رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن الخير ، وكنت أسأله عن الشر مخافة أن يدركني ، فقلت : يا رسول الله ، إنا كنا في الجاهلية وشر ، فجاءنا الله بهذا الخير ، فهل بعد هذا الخير من شر ؟ قال : ( نعم ) . قلت : وهل بعد ذلك الشر من خير ؟ قال : نعم ، وفيه دخن ) . قلت وما دخنه ؟ قال : ( قوم يهدون بغير هديي ، تعرف منهم وتنكر ) . قلت : فهل بعد ذلك الخير من شر ؟ قال : ( نعم ، دعاة إلى أبواب جهنم ، من أجابهم إليها قذفوه فيها ) . قلت : يا رسول الله ، صفهم لنا ؟ فقال : ( هم من جلدتنا ، ويتكلمون بألسنتنا ) . قلت : فما تأمرني إن أدركني ذلك ؟ قال : تلزم جماعة المسلمين وإمامهم ، قلت : فإن لم يكن لهم جماعة ولا إمام ؟ قال : ( فاعتزل تلك الفرق كلها ، ولو أن تعض بأصل شجرة ، حتى يدركك الموت وأنت على ذلك )

It has been narrated on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al−Yaman who said: People used to ask the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about the good times, but I used to ask him about bad times fearing lest they overtake me. I said: Messenger of Allah, we were in the midst of ignorance and evil, and then God brought us this good (time through Islam). Is there any bad time after this good one? He said: Yes. I asked: Will there be a good time again after that bad time? He said: Yes, but therein will be a hidden evil. I asked: What will be the evil hidden therein? He said: (That time will witness the rise of) the people who will adopt ways other than mine and seek guidance other than mine. You will know good points as well as bad points. I asked: Will there be a bad time after this good one? He said: Yes. (A time will come) when there will be people standing and inviting at the gates of Hell. Whoso responds to their call they will throw them into the fire. I said: Messenger of Allah, describe them for us. He said: All right. They will be a people having the same complexion as ours and speaking our language. I said: Messenger of Allah, what do you suggest if I happen to live in that time? He said: You should stick to the main body of the Muslims and their Imam(leader). I said: If they have no (such thing as the) main body and have no Imam(leader)? He said: Separate yourself from all these factions, though you may have to eat the roots of trees (in a jungle) until death comes to you and you are in this state.(Sahi Muslim Bk 20, Number 4553)

Comment: This narrations shows that there could be a time when there will be no Imam(as this is happening in this era). Which shows that Prophet(Saw) destroyed the innovated beliefs of the Shias, that earth can’t survive without an Imam. Notice that He(saw) wasn’t surprised when questioner asked what should be done when there is no Imam. He(saw) didn’t reject the question of people saying how could earth survive with without an Imam. This is sufficient to understand the falsification of the home-made beliefs of Shias.

Moreover, Ibn Majah recorded that the Prophet’s(saw) last statement was, “Then if you die while you are biting on a stump of a tree, that is better for you than following one of them.” Al-Baydawi states that this expression means, “If there is no khalifah on earth, then you are obligated to be detached and endure the harshness of the time.” “Fiercely biting the roots of a tree” is allegorical for “suffering through and enduring difficulties.” This is similar to someone biting on a stone to cope with pain.

Here is a simple example to understand this in better way:

Suppose someone states: “Whoever dies without treating his wife in a good manner dies the death of jahiliyya”.

Now it would be stupidity to conclude from this statement that it proves each and every Man of this world should die treating his wife in a good way. However the fact is that, this statement is only directed towards married people, it doesn’t include bachelors in it.

Similarly, the narration in question explains us that, when there is a legitimate Ruler, then disassociating from his obedience and dying in that manner will mean the death of Jahiliyah. But this condition is not applicable to those people among whom there is no Ruler or Imam, like we explained in our example that the condition was not applicable to people who were bachelors(without a wife). Importantly Prophet(Saw) even affirmed that there could be a time when there would be no community and no Imam or Caliph, which leaves no space for Shia misinterpretations.

{Note: This Hadeeth which talks about the time when Muslim Ummah is without an Imam, is applicable in the present era we are living, where there is NO Imam/Caliph over the Muslim Ummah. Also note that, the self-proclaimed Caliph, Al-Baghdadi the fraud, the Khawariji is NOT recognized as a Caliph and doesn’t even qualify to be a Caliph, because Prophet(saw) said: We do not appoint to this position one who asks for it nor anyone who is covetous for the same.(Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Hadith 4489).}

Authentic Prophetic hadeeth destroys the Shia claim from its roots:

Hudhaifah (radhiAllaahu anhu) narrated in a long hadeeth that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said, “There will come Imams(leaders) who will not follow my guidance nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of humans.” He (Hudhaifah) asked, “What should I do O Messenger of Allaah if I reach that?” He replied, You should hear and obey the ruler. Even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth you should still hear and obey.”( Sahih Muslim book 20,Hadith 4554)

Comment: This hadeeth cleanly refutes the Shia belief that earth will always have a divinely appointed Imam by  the prophecy that there would be Imams who would be evil and deviant. If Shias believe that Imamah was only meant for their 12 Imams and no one else, then this prophesy would apply on them, which the Shias will never agree upon. This shows that Imamate(Rulership) was not restricted to certain infallibles, as the Shias claim.

The baseless and denounced version of this hadeeth.

Sheikh Nasiruddin al-Albani(rah) says in his book ‘Silsila ad-da’eefa’:
” من مات ولم يعرف إمام زمانه مات ميتة جاهلية “.
لا أصل له بهذا اللفظ.
وقد قال الشيخ ابن تيمية: والله ما قاله رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم هكذا، وإنما المعروف ما روى مسلم أن ابن عمر قال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: ” من خلع يدا من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة ولا حجة له، ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية “، وأقره الذهبي في ” مختصر منهاج السنة ” (ص 2 وكفى بهما حجة، وهذا الحديث رأيته في بعض كتب الشيعة، ثم في بعض كتب القاديانية يستدلون به على وجوب الإيمان بدجالهم ميرزا غلام أحمد المتنبي، ولوصح هذا الحديث لما كان فيه أدنى إشارة إلى ما زعموا، وغاية ما فيه وجوب اتخاذ المسلمين إماما يبايعونه، وهذا حق كما دل عليه حديث مسلم وغيره.
ثم رأيت الحديث في كتاب ” الأصول من الكافي ” للكليني من علماء الشيعة رواه (1 / 377) عن محمد بن عبد الجبار عن صفوان عن الفضيل عن الحارث بن المغيرة عن أبي عبد الله مرفوعا، وأبو عبد الله هو الحسين بن علي رضي الله عنهما

“He who dies and does not know the Imam of his time dies the death of ignorance”.
The Hadith has no basis in this current form.
Ibn Taymiyyah said: By Allah the prophet (saw) never said it in this way, what is popular is what’s in Muslim from ibn `Umar: I heard the prophet (saws) say: The one who removes his hand from obedience, will meet his Lord with no argument in his defense. And the one who dies not having given an oath of allegiance will die a death of ignorance. al-Dhahabi agreed with him in Mukhtasar Minhaj al-Sunnah pg2 and they are sufficient as proof, and I saw this narration in some of the books of the Shia, then in some Qadiyani books and they used it as proof for people to believe in their liar Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, even if this narration was authentic it has no proof for them, it simply says the Muslims must appoint a leader and pledge allegiance to him, and this is true as we read in Sahih Muslim.
Then I saw the narration in (Shia book)Usoul al-Kafi 1/377 from Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Jabbar, from Safwan from al-Fudayl, from al-Harith bin al-Mugheerah, from abu `Abdullah (as), Marfou`, and he is al-Husayn bin `Ali (ra). (Silsila ad-da’eefa 305).

Comment: Thus as per Sheikh Nasiruddin al-Albani(rah), this version of hadeeth, which is about “not knowing or not recognizing the Imam ” is baseless.

How did companions of Prophet Muhammad(Saw) understand the word ‘Imam’?

We read in an authentic report from Sahi Bukhari:

دخل أبو بكر على امرأة من أحمس يقال لها زينب ، فرآها لا تكلم ، فقال : ما لها لا تكلم ؟ قالوا : حجت مصمتة ، قال لها : تكلمي ، فإن هذا لا يحل ، هذا من عمل الجاهلية ، فتكلمت ، فقالت : من أنت ؟ قال : امرؤ من المهاجرين ، قالت : أي المهاجرين ؟ قال : من قريش ، قالت : من أي قريش أنت ؟ قال : إنك لسؤول ، أنا أبو بكر ، قالت : ما بقاؤنا على هذا الأمر الصالح الذي جاء الله به بعد الجاهلية ؟ قال : بقاؤكم عليه ما استقامت بكم أئمتكم ، قالت : وما الأئمة ؟ قال : أما كان لقومك رؤوس وأشراف ، يأمرونهم فيطيعونهم ؟ قالت : بلى ، قال : فهم أولئك على الناس .

Narrated Qais bin Abi Hazim: Abu Bakr went to a lady from the Ahmas tribe called Zainab bint Al-Muhajir and found that she refused to speak. He asked, “Why does she not speak.” The people said, “She has intended to perform Hajj without speaking.” He said to her, “Speak, for it is illegal not to speak, as it is an action of the pre-islamic period of ignorance. So she spoke and said, “Who are you?” He said, “A man from the Emigrants.” She asked, “Which Emigrants?” He replied, “From Quraish.” She asked, “From what branch of Quraish are you?” He said, “You ask too many questions; I am Abu Bakr.” She said, “How long shall we enjoy this good order (i.e. Islamic religion) which Allah has brought after the period of ignorance?” He said, You will enjoy it as long as your Imams keep on abiding by its rules and regulations.” She asked, “What are the Imams?” He said, “Were there not heads and chiefs of your nation who used to order the people and they used to obey them?” She said, “Yes.” He said, “So they (i.e. the Imams) are those whom I meant.(Sahi Bukhari Vol. 5, Book 58, Hadith 175)

Comment: From this report we came to know that, as per the understanding of companions of Prophet Muhammad(saw), Imams were the fallible rulers and leaders who weren’t divinely appointed.  

Mullah Ali Qari in his book “Sharh Fiqh Akbar”, Chapter “Masala Nusbul Imamah” (Issue of appointment of the Imam) states:
“It is the majority opinion that there is a duty to appoint an Imam. But there is a difference, as to whether this is Allah’s duty or whether this is incumbent on the public. The belief in the eyes of Ahl’ul Sunnah and Muttazalites is that the duty to appoint an Imam is a duty of the public. In terms of hadith and logic this is a duty of the public.“(Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mullah Ali Qari, p 175).

Ahlelbayt rejected and refuted the Shia belief.

In an authentic hadith we read that, Member from Ahlelbayt, the great grandson of Imam Ali(ra) rejects and refutes the Shia belief.

في (الطبقات الكبرى) لابن سعد: حدثنا محمد بن عاصم حدثنا شبابة بن سوار عن الفضيل بن مرزوق قال: سألت عمر بن علي وحسين بن علي عمي جعفر قلت: هل فيكم أهل البيت إنسان مفترضة طاعته تعرفون له ذلك ومن لم يعرف له ذلك فمات مات ميتة جاهلية؟ فقالا: لا والله ما هذا فينا. من قال هذا فينا فهو كذاب. قال فقلت لعمر بن علي: رحمك الله، إن هذه منزلة تزعمون أنها كانت لعلي إن النبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) أوصى إليه. ثم كانت للحسن إن عليا أوصى إليه. ثم كانت للحسين إن الحسن أوصى إليه. ثم كانت لعلي بن الحسين إن الحسين أوصى إليه، ثم كانت لمحمد بن علي إن عليا أوصى إليه. فقال: والله لمات أبي فما أوصى بحرفين. قاتلهم الله! والله إن هؤلاء إلا متأكلون بنا، هذا خنيس الخرؤ ما خنيس الخرؤ؟ قال قلت: المعلى بن خنيس، قال: نعم المعلى بن خنيس، والله لفكرت على فراشي طويلا أتعجب من قوم لبس الله عقولهم حين أضلهم المعلى بن خنيس. (الطّبقات الكبرى)

(ibn Sa’ad) said in “al-Tabaqat al-Kubra″: Muhammad ibn ‘Asim from Shubabah bin Siwar from al-Fudayl ibn Marzuq; he said: I asked ‘Umar bin ‘Ali and Husayn bin ‘Ali the Uncles of Ja’far; I said, “Is there among you, Ahl al-Bayt, a person whose obedience (ie obedience to him) is obligatory and that whoever doesn’t recognize him dies the death of Jahiliyya(pre-Islamic times)?” Both of them said: “No, by Allah! This is not from us! Whoever says that about us is a liar.” I said to ‘Umar bin ‘Ali: “May Allah have Mercy on you. [It is said] that you claim that the Prophet (pbuh) appointed Ali as his successor, and then Ali appointed al-Hasan to be his successor, then al-Hasan appointed al-Husayn to be his successor, then al-Husyan appointed Ali bin al-Husyan as his successor then Ali appointed Muhammad bin Ali as his successor.“ So he said, “By Allah, my father died without uttering two letters with regards to succession. May Allah destroy them! By Allah, surely these people are nothing but a burden on us. This is (from) Khunays al-Kharu’?, was it Khunays al-Kharu’?” I said, “He is al-Mu’alla ibn Khunays.” He said, “Yes, al-Mu’alla bin Khunays, by Allah, I thought long in my bed wondering about people whom God had given knowledge as they were being lead astray by this al-Mu’alla bin Khunays. [(Tabaqat al-Kubra ibn Saad vol 7, page 318-319, #1812 ; Shaykh abi Nasr Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Imam in his Book, Tu’oun Rafidhah al-Yaman, page 17 said ” sanad Hasan”(chain is good).]

Comment: Thus from this authentic report we came to know that, as per member from Ahlelbayt (i.e) al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ‘Alī – the great grandson of Ali(ra), there was no person present amongst his family(during his time) whose obedience was obligatory nor  anyone failing to recognize whom would be death of pre-islamic times.

Similarly Imam from Ahlelbayt rejected the view that, He was divinely appointed Imam.

In his “Siyar A’laam un-Nubulaa” at page 259 Dhahabi narrated:

كتب إلي عبد المنعم بن يحيى الزهري، وطائفة قالوا: أنبأنا داود بن أحمد، أنبأنا محمد بن عمر القاضي، أنبأنا عبد الصمد بن علي، أنبأنا أبو الحسن الدارقطني، حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن إسماعيل الادمي، حدثنا محمد بن الحسين الحنيني، حدثنا مخلد بن أبي قريش الطحان، حدثنا عبد الجبار بن العباس الهمداني، أن جعفر بن محمد أتاهم وهم يريدون أن يرتحلوا من المدينة، فقال: ” إنكم إن شاء الله من صالحي أهل مصركم، فأبلغوهم عني: من زعم أني إمام معصوم مفترض الطاعة، فأنا منه برئ، ومن زعم أني أبرأ من أبي بكر وعمر، فأنا منه برئ “.

From Abdul Jabar ibn Al-Abbas al-Hamadani: ”Jafar as-Sadiq came to them when they were leaving Madinah and told them: You are inshallah from amongst the best of people from your country (or from your Egypt)  So report to them from me: He who claims that I’m an infallible imam who must be obeyed, I disassociate myself from him and he who claims that I disassociate myself from Abu Bakr and Umar, I disassociate myself from him.” [Siyar al-A’alaam al-Nubala, vol 6, page 259] ; [Tu’oun Rafidhah al-Yaman, page 19:Isnad Hasan].

Even the Son of Imam had no idea about the supposed divine Imamah of his Father.

We read:

“When Zayd ibn ‘Ali found out about that, he sent for him to ask about this rumour. Zayd said to him(Momin at-taq) :I have heard that you are claiming that among the family of Muhammad, there is an Imam to whom obedience is obligatory.Momin at-Taq said: “Yes, your father ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn was one of them.” He(Zayd) said “How can that be, when he would take a mouthful of food, and if it was hot, he would cool it with his hand and then put it in my mouth? Do you think that he could protect me from the heat of this mouthful and not protect me from the fire of hell?Momin at-Taq said: “He did not want to tell you lest you reject it and thus become a disbeliever, then he would not be able to intercede for you”. [Shia book, Rijaal Kashi page 139 ; Taken from, biography of Ali(ra) by Ali Muhammad Sallaabi.[Vol 2, pages 384-385].

The hidden Imam of Shias doesn’t fit in the criteria of Imam mentioned in Shia Hadeeth.

The Shias argue that their hidden 12th Imam is the Imam of this era and anyone who dies without believing in him dies death of jahiliyyah. So let us verify from Shia hadeeth that, does the hidden 12th Imam of Shias fit into the criteria of the Imam, without whom one would die death of jahiliyya?

We read in Shia books:
أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر قال: كتبت إلى الرضا عليه السلام …… وقد قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: من مات وليس عليه إمام حي يعرفه مات ميتة جاهلية. وقال أبوجعفر عليه السلام: إن الحجة لا تقوم لله عزوجل على خلقه إلا بإمام حي يعرفونه.
Ahmed ibn mohammed ibn issa from Ahmed ibn mohamed ibn abi nasr he said : I wrote to Ridha(as) …..Ridha(as) answered : Abu jafar (as) said : Rasool allah(saw) said : whoever died without a living Imam that he knows then he dies a death of jahiliyah. Abu jafar(as) said: hujja cannot be used by Allah upon his creation without a living imam that they know.( Qurb al-Isnad).

Comment: This shows that Imam is living so that creation would know him.  But Shias cannot prove from any factual evidence that their hidden Imam is living, and due to this lack of evidence, He can’t even be known by people.

عن عمر بن يزيد، عن أبي الحسن الاول (عليه السلام)، قال: سمعته يقول: ” من مات بغير إمام، مات ميتة جاهلية، امام حي يعرفه ” قلت: لم أسمع اباك يذكر هذا، يعني إماما حيا، فقال: ” قد والله قال ذلك رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله)، قال: وقال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله): من مات وليس له امام يسمع له ويطيع، مات ميتة جاهلية ». ( بحارالانوار ج23 ص92 و الاختصاص شیخ مفید صص 268-269 و

Abi al-Hassan (as) said: One who dies without a living and known Imam, dies the death of ignorance. The narrator said: I never heard this from your father, I mean the living Imam? He replied: By Allah the Messenger of Allah said this, and said: One who dies without an Imam, who can be heard and obeyed, dies the death of ignorance.
– Mufid in al-ekhtisas p268-289
– Bihar al-Anwar v23 p92.

Comment: Can the hidden Imam of Shias be heard and obeyed? Surely not!  

ال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: من مات وليس عليه إمام حي ظاهر مات ميتة جاهلية»
(بحارالانوار مجلسی ج23 ص 93 _ بیروت و مفید در الاختصاص ص269 _ بیروت)
Abu Abdilllah (as) said: One who dies without the living and Zahir (visible . i.e which can be seen) Imam, dies the death of ignorance.
– al-Mufid in Al-ekhtisas p269 Beirut
– Bihar al-Anwar v23 p93 Beirut.

«عن أبي الجارود قال: سمعت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول: من مات وليس عليه إمام حي ظاهر مات ميتة جاهلية، قال: قلت: إمام حي جعلت فداك ؟ قال: إمام حي، إمام حي»
(بحارالانوار ج23 ص93 و مفید در الاختصاص ص269 و مستدرک وسائل و..)
Abu Abdillah (as) said: One who dies without having a living and Zahir (visible, i.e which can be seen) Imam dies the death of ignorance. The narrator asked: May I be sacrificed for you, the living Imam? He replied: the living Imam, the living Imam.
– al-Mufid in al-ekhtisas p269
– Bihar al-Anwar v23 p93
– Mustadrak Wasail

Comment: Is the hidden Imam of Shias, visible(Zahir)? Not at all!

From these Shia ahadeeth we came to know that, the Imam is the one who can be Heard, who is visible(Zahir), and who is living. But unfortunately the current hidden Imam of Shias, can neither be heard nor seen, and there is no factual proof which proves that he is living due to which we cannot know him. Thus the non-existing twelfth Imam of Shias in no way considered as the Imam without whom one would die death of jahiliyyah.

Death of jahiliyya(pre-islamic death) does not mean dying as a Kafir(disbeliever).

Shias have a serious misconception that, the hadeeth in question means that whoever died without an Imam, would die as Kafir. This is completely wrong definition of hadeeth. The death of Jahiliyyah here implies the death of the pre-islamic times, meaning if a person refuses to integrate himself into Islamic society and follow the Muslims and their leader, but he rather decides to cause division and set a bad example, these are from the habits of pre-Islamic times, or the times of ignorance as we call them, one who does this risks Allah’s wrath on the day of judgment. This is a sin, but this doesn’t take one out of the fold of Islam nor does it make him Kafir.

Insha Allah! we will try to clear this confusion using other authentic narrations and also by presenting some historical reports.

We read in Sunan an-Nasa’i:

The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘Whoever parts from obedience, and splits away from the Jama’ah and dies, then he has died a death of Jahiliyyah. Whoever rebels against my Ummah, killing good and evil people alike, and does not try to avoid killing the believers, and does not pay attention to those who are under a covenant, then he is not of me. Whoever fights for a cause that is not clear, advocating tribalism, getting angry for the sake of tribalism, and he is killed, then he has died a death of Jahiliyyah. [Sunan an-Nasa’i Vol. 5, Book 37, Hadith 4119 ]

In this report we found that, the one who is killed fighting for the sake of tribalism, would die a death of jahiliyyah(pre-islamic death). Here death without obedience to Imam and death for the sake of tribalism BOTH have been considered as death of Jahiliyyah. Now it would be illogical to believe that a person who fought and was killed for the sake of tribalism died as a Kafir(disbeliever), how could this effect the faith of a Muslim?

Sheikh Abu Muhammad Mahmud ibn Ahmad explains that a pre-Islamic(jahiliyya) death is not one in which a Muslim dies as a kafir, but one in which one dies in a state of disobedience. Therefore, a pre-Islamic killing does not mean a killing in a state of kufr. Rather, it means a killing in a state of disobedience. (See Umdah al-Qari, Kitab al-Fitn, Bab 2 Qawl an-Nabi(S) : Satarawna Ba’di Umuran).

Ibn Hajar Asqalani stated: The hadith doesn’t mean that the Muslim will die as a kafir but as a disobeying Muslim.(See Ibn Hajar’s Fath Al-Bari, commentary of #6530.)

Al-Nawawi commented on the hadith in his commentary of Saheeh Muslim by saying:

أي : على صفة موتهم من حيث هم فوضى لا إمام لهم .

They will die in a fashion similar to theirs (the people of Jahiliyyah) since they were in chaos and had no leader.

Al-Suyuti commented on the hadith in his explanation of Sunan Al-Nasa’ee:

أي كما يموت أهل الجاهلية من الضلال والفرقة

They die like the people of Jahiliyyah, lost and divided

Thus the correct understanding of hadeeth is that, death of jahiliyyah means death in a state of disobedience towards the Caliph or Imam.

As for the faulty Shi’ee interpretation, then this can be refuted using the Shia sources.

عنه، عن أبيه، عن النضر، عن يحيى الحلبي، عن حسين بن أبي العلاء، قال: سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: ” من مات ليس له امام مات ميتة جاهلية ” فقال: نعم، لو ان الناس تبعوا علي بن الحسين عليهما السلام وتركوا عبد الملك بن مروان اهتدوا، فقلنا: من مات لا يعرف امامه مات ميتة جاهلية، ميتة كفر؟ – فقال: لا، ميتة ضلال

From him, from his father, from Al nadhar, from Yahya Al Halby, from Husayn Bin Abu Al A’ala who said, ‘I asked Abu Abdullah(AS) about the words of Rasool-Allah(SAWS) : ‘The one who dies and there is no Imam for him, died the death of an ignorant (Pre-Islamic period)’. So he(AS) said: ‘If only the people were to follow Ali bin Abu Talib(AS) and neglect Abdul Malik Bin Marwan, they would be Guided. So we said, ‘So the one who died not having recognised his Imam, died the death of an ignorant (Pre-Islamic period), died as an Infidel?’ So he(AS) said: No! Death of the straying one’. [al-Mahasin, vol 1, page 154, chapter 22, #80].

Comment: This report clarifies that death of jahilliyah does not mean death of kufr but death of straying.

Similarly, We find in Shia book Al-Kafi in the second hadith in Next Chapter after the Chapter of Drinkers of Intoxicants:

Abu Ali Al-Ash’ari from Al-Hasan bin Ali Al-Kufi from Al-Abbas bin Amer from Dawud bin Al-Husain from Abi Abdullah (as): “Whosoever drinks an intoxicant, his prayer will not be accepted for forty days. If he dead within those forty days, then he will die a death of the jahiliyyah, but if he repented then Allah will forgive him.” (Al Kafi, H 11914, Ch. 5, h 2; Al-Majlisi declares this hadith reliable in Mir’at Al-Uqool).

As we know, Shias do not declare apostasy for those that drink intoxicants, so it makes perfect sense that what is meant here is not a death of apostasy, but a death of jahiliyyah, since people in the pre-Islamic ages used to drink a lot of intoxicants.

Moreover, we find in Shia book  Jami Ahadith al Shia, there is a whole chapter as:
باب ما ورد في أن الوصية حق على كل مسلم ، وأن من مات بغير وصية مات ميتة جاهلية
Chapter on what has been narrated regarding that will(wasiyyah) is haqq on all the Muslims , and who died without making will dies upon the death of jahiliyyah.

Here is one hadeeth from the above chapter of Shia book:
المقنعة 101 – قال صلى الله عليه وآله من مات بغير وصية فقد مات ميتة جاهلية.
(9) al-Muqni`ah 101- He Peace be upon him and his family said: He who dies without a Will then he died a death of Jahiliyyah.

Now if we go by the faulty Shia interpretations then, any Shia who died without making a will would die as a Kafir. Will the Shias agree with this interpretation? We believe, they won’t, because this would be an illogical conclusion, similarly even in regards to the hadeeth in question, they should stop applying the illogical and incorrect interpretations to it, because death of jahiliyyah doesn’t mean dying as Kafir even in the case of dying without an Imam.

Even Ahlelbayt understood this hadeeth the same way as Ahlesunnah does, that is why these were their view regarding those who fought fourth Caliph of Muslims Ali(ra) as found in Shia books.

Jafar Sadiq narrates from his father (Baqir) that Ali never accused the ones with whom he fought of Shirk (i.e polytheism) or hypocrisy, rather he would say , they are our brothers who  rebelled against us. [Shia book  Qurb al-Isnaad , H#318, page 94]

فلقد كنا مع رسول الله صلى
الله عليه وآله وإن القتل ليدور على الآباء والابناء والاخوان والقرابات ،
فما نزداد على كل مصيبة وشدة إلا إيمانا ، ومضيا على الحق ، وتسليما
للامر ، وصبرا على مضض الجراح . ولكنا إنما أصبحنا نقاتل إخواننا
في الاسلام على ما دخل فيه من الزيغ والاعوجاج والشبهة والتأويل

Hz Ali addressing his companions and his opponents said: We were with prophet(saw) , that time our fathers and sons were killed , our near one and brothers were killed ,but after every problem and calamity our Eman used to get increase. We used to standstill on truth, We used to obey the commands, at times of difficulties we used to do sabr(patience). But now we are fighting our own Muslim brothers.(nahjul balagha tahqeeq subhi saleh, page 179)

Shia scholars Majlisi in “Bihar” (32/324); Burjardi in “Jamiu ahadeth ash-shia” (13/93) transmitted:
٢٩٧ – قرب الإسناد: ابن طريف عن ابن علوان عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عليا (عليه السلام) كان يقول لأهل حربه: إنا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ولكنا رأينا أنا على حق ورأوا أنهم على حق

Furat by his chain: ibn Tareef – Ibn Alwan – Jafar – Father – Ali (alaihi salam) who said about those who fought against him: We don’t fight with them due to their takfir, and don’t fight with them due to their takfir of us. But we see that we are upon truth, and they see that they are upon truth.

Refutation of Shia arguments.

Shia Argument 1:

According to Shia and Sunni sources, Fatima Al Zahraa, rejected Abu Bakr and never gave him allegiance. She was the first women in Islam rejecting the leadership of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was the Imam of the Islamic Nation. Have Fatima died the death of Jahiliyyah (Ma’azAllah)?

Answer:

Regarding the issue of Bay`ah or in English “Pledge of allegiance”, it was not recorded in history that women gave allegiance to the Caliphs, usually it is Ahlul-Hall wal-`Aqd who give the pledge then the women and children just follow along, what is meant by Ahlul-Hall wal-`Aqd are the leaders of the society, and it is common knowledge that the leader of the Islamic society at that time were the closest companions of The Prophet (SAWS), the Mouhajirun and the Ansar and they all gave Abu Bakr (ra) a pledge of allegiance.

Aside from the fact that women do not give a pledge of allegiance, In Islam not every single person is required to go and give the pledge of allegiance, so for the women it was enough that their husbands or male relatives or tribal leaders went and gave a pledge of allegiance, also there was no need for every single man to go and give a pledge and put his hand in the hand of the Caliph.

Let us give an idea to the readers, of what we are talking about, let’s say that the tribe of bani Hanifa in the land of Hijaz had a population of 5,000 people, and let’s say that they wanted to give allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra), does it means that the entire tribe of 5,000 men, women and children would travel all the way to Madinah, and each of them would give Abu Bakr (ra) allegiance and place their hands in his hand one by one? That is unheard of in Islam, what actually happens is that each tribe would send some representatives, maybe 13 men, maybe 4, and these men who are considered the leaders of those tribes would then give allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra), as for distant lands let’s say for example in the city of Kufa in `Iraq there would be a governor appointed by the Caliph, and the leaders of each tribe in `Iraq would meet up with this appointed governor and give him allegiance.

So for Fatima (ra) and all other women from bani Hashim, it was enough that the head of the family would go and give Abu Bakr (ra) allegiance, that would basically mean that all of them gave allegiance. And we know `Ali (ra) was appointed as head of bani Hashim, he was responsible for their affair and he gave Abu Bakr (ra) a Bay`ah.

And `Ali (ra) gave Abu Bakr (ra) Bay`ah(allegiance) on the very first day as is recorded in the authentic narration:

Abu Sa’eed al Khudri may Allah be pleased with him said: When the Prophet’s (SAWS) soul passed away and when the people gathered at the place of Sa’ad bin Ubadah and amongst them were Abu Bakr and `Umar, a Khatib(Speaker) from the Ansar(Supporters) spoke: “You know that the Prophet of Allah (SAWS) was from the Mouhajirun(immigrants) and his Caliph(Successor) must also be from the Mouhajirun, we were the supporters of the Prophet (SAWS) and we will be the supporters of his successor(Caliph) just as we were his supporters”. then `Umar bin al Khattab stood up and said: “This Man from amongst the Ansar speaks truth, and if it were anything other than this then we would not give you a bay’ah(Pledge of allegiance).” Then he grabbed the hand of Abu Bakr and said: “This is your close companion so give him Bay’ah.” Then `Umar and the Mouhajirun and the Ansar all gave him Bay’ah. Abu Bakr stood on the Mimbar and he looked at the faces of all the people there but he never saw al-Zubair so he called for him and and he came so he told him: “O son of the Prophet’s (SAWS) aunt and his disciple would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?” al-Zubair said: “Not at all O Caliph of the Prophet of Allah.” then he stood up and gave him Bay’ah, Then he looked at the faces of the people again but did not spot `Ali so he called for `Ali bin abi Talib and he came to him so he said: “O cousin of the prophet of Allah and the husband of his daughter would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?” So `Ali replied: “Not at all O Caliph of the Prophet of Allah.” then he stood and gave him Bay’ah.

sources:
-Mujama’a al Zawa’ed (5/183) with its Rijal being those of the SAHIH.
-Al Bidayah wal nihayah (5/281) with its Isnad being Thabit and SAHIH.
-Al Mustadrak (3/76) and al Sunan al Kubrah (8/143) with two SAHIH Isnads.

So we came to know that, in the case of Fatima(ra) it was her husband(ra) who gave a pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra) and she just followed along, the Caliphs never demanded or asked for the pledge of allegiance from women, so whether she went or didn’t go doesn’t matter.

Moreover, We read in an authentic narration from “Ithaf al-Khayarah al-Maharah” by al-Bouwaysiri, and [Musnad Abi ya’la vol 12, page 119, #6752] that
وَقَالَ أَبُو يَعْلَى الْمُوصِلِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ صَالِحٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فُضَيْلٍ ، عَنِ الْوَلِيدِ بْنِ جُمَيْعٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ ، قَالَ : جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، فَقَالَتْ : يَا خَلِيفَةَ رَسُولِ الله.
Abi al-Tufayl said: Fatima came to Abu Bakr and said: “O Khalipha of Rasool-Allah (SAWS)

This is a clear proof that like her husband(Ali) and the rest of believers, even Fatima(ra) accepted Abubakr(ra) as the Khalipha of Prophet(saw). Had it been that she didn’t accept Abubakr(ra) as the Khalipha, she wouldn’t have used those terms, since we know that dignified Arabs would never call a person with a sacred title, unless they truly believe that the person deserves that sacred title. For example, Suhail bin Amr who was a disbeliever at the time of treaty of Hudaibiyah, didn’t allow Muslims to write the words “(Messenger of Allah)” after name Muhammad(saw) in the treaty. So how could Fatima(ra) the leader of women in paradise call Abubakr(ra) Khalipha of Rasool Allah, if she don’t consider him to be so.

Also one of the biggest scholars of the Muslims and Fatima’s (ra) great-grandson Muhammad bin `Ali stated that he does not know of anyone from his family was not loyal and obedient to Abu Bakr (ra), it is narrated:
from Bassam bin `Abdullah al-Sayrafi: I asked Abu Ja`far(al-Baqir): “What do you say about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar may Allah be pleased with them?” He replied: “By Allah I am loyal to them and I ask Allah to forgive them and we never knew anyone from our family who was not loyal to them. (“Fadael al-Sahaba wa Manaqibihim wa Qawl Ba’adihim fi Ba’ad” by al-Imam al-Darqutni.
grading: Hadith Hassan(good).

Based on the above the matter is as clear as daylight. Fatima(ra) was pleased with Abu Bakr(ra) and loyal to him and so was her entire family, how can she not be pleased with the beloved companion of her father (SAWS)?

Thus, as for Fatima(ra) giving Abubakr(ra) a pledge of allegiance or a Bay`ah, this is not required from women in Islam and we have never read any Caliph demanding women to offer such a pledge. Moreover, it was never recorded in any instance that Fatima (ra) disobeyed Abu Bakr (ra).

Moreover, the report from Sahi bukhari, which states that Fatima(ra) was angry and didn’t speak to Abubakr(ra) until she died, is usually used by Shias to assume that Fatima(ra) didn’t give allegiance to Abubakr(ra), but the fact is that this report is from the idraaj(interpolations) of famous narrator Zuhri, who was criticized for interpolations. The part which Shias use from the hadeeth is from his interpolations, because he misunderstood and equated silence with anger. A detailed research has been done in our article on this subject where we have proven that, this part is not reliable. (Refer this link).

Secondly even if supposedly one accepts this unreliable interpolation then too, this is not a proof that Fatima(ra) removed herself from obedience to Caliph Abubakr(ra). It would be considered as a disagreement between them, and the history is filled with cases where people disagreed with the decision of their Caliphs, but this doesn’t imply in any way that they refused to give allegiance nor that they broke their allegiance. Especially, when we know the noble character of Fatima(ra) and Abubakr(ra), as these were the people who never preferred worldly possessions over the hereafter. It’s in fact thinking low of Fatima(ra), that because of a worldly possession(land of fadak), Fatima(ra)  didn’t give allegiance or broke it. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal(rah) was tortured by the Caliph of his time, but this doesn’t implies that He broke allegiance from the Caliph. These are assumptions of Shias which has no basis.

Shia Argument 2:

Sa’ad ibn ‘Ubaadah(ra) didn’t except the caliphate of Abu Bakr(ra) and died in that state.

Answer:

The answer to this argument was taken from the book of Dr. Ali Muhammad Sallaabee -“The biography of Abu Bakr as-siddeeq”.

We read:

{Certain fabricated and weak narrations indicate that there was a serious crisis and power struggle that occurred in the courtyard of Banu Saa’idah. Based on authentic narrations, however, we know that no crisis or power struggle took place; rather, in a very short span of time everyone came to a unanimous agreement that Abu Bakr(ra) should become the Leader of the Believers.

So in spite of what is claimed in certain false narrations, Sa’ad ibn Ubaadah(ra) was among the first to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr(ra). Yes, it is true that, prior the arrival of Abu Bakr(ra) and ‘Umar(ra) to the courtyard of Banu Saa’idah, Sa’ad(ra) did indicate that he should be appointed ruler of the Muslim nation. But no sooner did Abu Bakr(ra) remind him of what the Prophet(SAW) had said about the matter than Sa’ad (ra) yielded and said, “You are the leaders, and we are your ministers”. Also, I should point out that Abu Bakr(ra), ‘Umar(ra), and Abu ‘Ubaidah (ra) did not conspire among themselves to make sure that one of them would be appointed the Khaleefah of the Muslim nation. I mention such lies only because they are mentioned in false accounts that are related in certain history books.

Some historians paint an unfair and dark picture of Sa’ad ibn ‘Ubaadah(ra), claiming that he plotted against the Muhaajiroon, so as to prevent them from taking away his right to the caliphate. The claims such historians make are founded upon accounts that are not only fabricated, but that also contradict Sa’ad’ s past and lifelong dedication to the cause of Islam. To be sure, Sa’ad(ra) was among the best of the Prophet’s Companions; he participated in the Second Pledge of Al-‘Aqabah; he was perhaps the sole native inhabitant of Al-Madeenah that was tortured in Makkah because of his beliefs; he took part in the Battle of Badr; and he was a paragon of generosity and righteousness. The Prophet(SAW)depended on his counsel, as well as the counsel of Sa’ad ibn Mu’aadh(ra), during the Battle of Al-Khandaq, and with the counsel they gave the Prophet(SAW), they both proved their willingness to make sacrifices for the cause of Islam. It is inconceivable that a man with such a past could have had rekindled feelings of xenophobic tribalism, resenting the fact that the leader of all believers was chosen from a different tribe.

The false narrations I am referring to state that, after Abu Bakr(ra) became Khaleefah of the Muslim nation, Sa’ad(ra) refused to pray behind Abu Bakr(ra), acting as if he was completely withdrawing himself from Muslim society. This is categorically false. It is clearly mentioned in authentic narrations that Sa’ad(ra) pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr(ra) and that, when Abu Bakr(ra) said to Sa’ad(ra), “And you indeed know, O Sa’ad, that the Messenger of Allah(SAWS) said while you were sitting down (and listening to him), ‘The people of the Quraish are in charge of this matter (i.e., of the caliphate): all righteous people are followers of their righteous people, and all evildoers are followers of their evildoers,” Sa’ad replied, “You have spoken the truth. We are your ministers, and you are our leaders.” [Musnad Imam Ahmad (18). This narration is authentic by dint of other narrations that strengthen it.]  One cannot rely on a false narration that smears the reputation of Sa’ad(ra) and ignore many authentic narrations that remind us of the many sacrifices that Sa’ad(ra) made for the cause of Islam. As for the aforementioned false narration, we know that it is false for two main reasons: First, its narrator was one of the people of desires, and his narrations were universally rejected by the scholars of Hadeeth.[ Meezaan Al-‘Aitidaal Fee Naqd Ar-Rijaal,by Adh-Dhahabee (3/2992)] As Imam Adh-Dhahabee said about his narration, “As you can clearly see, its chain is utterly weak.”[ Siyyar ‘Alaam An-Nubalaa (1/277). ] And second, the actual text of the narration contradicts every piece of information we know about Sa’ad ibn ‘Ubaadah(ra) regarding his upright character and his lifelong dedication to promoting the cause of Islam.}

(Source:“The biography of Abu Bakr as-siddeeq” by Dr. Ali Muhammad Sallaabee, pages 213-215.)

Shia Argument 3:

Abdullah ibn Umar(ra) didn’t give pledge of allegiance to Ali ibn Abi Talib(ra).

Answer:

Mu‘awiyah(ra) was governor of Syria during the caliphates of ‘Umar(ra) and ‘Uthman(ra). When ‘Ali(ra) was appointed as caliph, he wanted to dismiss him and appoint Abdullah ibn ‘Umar(ra) instead, but Abdullah ibn ‘Umar(ra) refused to accept the governorship of Syria. He gave his apologies, mentioning the close ties of kinship and marriage that existed between them, as we find in Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah.

حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُلَيَّةَ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، قَالَ‏:‏ لَمَّا بُويِعَ لِعَلِيٍّ أَتَانِي، فَقَالَ‏:‏ إنَّك امْرُؤٌ مُحَبَّبٌ فِي أَهْلِ الشَّامِ، فَإِنِّي قَدَ اسْتَعْمَلْتُك عَلَيْهِمْ فَسِرْ إلَيْهِمْ، قَالَ‏:‏ فَذَكَرْت الْقَرَابَةَ وَذَكَرْت الصِّهْرَ، فَقُلْتُ‏:‏ أَمَّا بَعْدُ، فَوَاللهِ لاَ أُبَايِعُك، قَالَ‏:‏ فَتَرَكَنِي وَخَرَجَ، فَلَمَّا كَانَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ جَاءَ ابْنُ عُمَرَ إِلَى أُمِّ كُلْثُومٍ فَسَلَّمَ عَلَيْهَا وَتَوَجَّهَ إِلَى مَكَّةَ فَأَتَى عَلِي، فَقِيلَ لَهُ‏:‏ إِنَّ ابْنَ عُمَرَ قَدْ تَوَجَّهَ إِلَى الشَّامِ فَاسْتَنْفِرَ النَّاسَ، قَالَ‏:‏ فَإِنْ كَانَ الرَّجُلُ لَيُعَجِّلُ حَتَّى يُلْقِيَ رِدَاءَهُ فِي عُنُقِ بَعِيرِهِ، قَالَ‏:‏ وَأَتَيْت أُمَّ كُلْثُومٍ فَأُخْبرْت، فَأَرْسَلَ إِلَى أَبِيهَا‏:‏ مَا الَّذِي تَصْنَعُ قَدْ جَاءَنِي الرَّجُلُ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَيَّ وَتَوَجَّهَ إِلَى مَكَّةَ، فَتَرَاجَعَ النَّاسُ

Ibn Umar said: When Ali was given the pledge of allegiance, he came to me and said you are a person who is beloved to people of Shaam. I have appointed you over them, so go to them. So, I reminded the close ties of kinship and marriage(that existed between them), and said: After this, By Allah, I will not give pledge to you(about accepting this position). Ibn Umar said: He left me and went out. After this Ibn Umar went to Umm Kulthum(wife of Umar bin Khattab) sent salaam on her, and went towards Makkah. When Ali came, he was told that, no doubt Ibn Umar went towards Shaam, and gathering people to fight. Ali said, if this man hurries and puts his cloth on the camel’s neck. (Narrator) said: Someone came to Umm Kulthum and informed her about this, So she send a message to her Father(Ali), “What are you doing, that man(Ibn Umar) came to me, sent Salam on me and went towards Makkah”. So people went back. [Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah #38341 , vol 13, page 282283 Kitaab al-fitan; Grading: Isnaad Sahih as per Usamah bin Ibrahim bin Muhammad]

Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali(ra) respected his wishes and did not force him to go to Syria. As for the statement of Ibn Umar(ra), that he will not give pledge to Ali, then it was in specific to the condition of accepting the position of governorship over Shaam. Because, if Ibn Umar had not given the general pledge of allegiance to Ali, then how could Ali appoint Ibn Umar over Shaam? Infact, he would have first demanded pledge of allegiance from Ibn Umar. Therefore, the statement of Ibn Umar was in context of accepting the position given by Ali. As per Quran and authentic ahadeeth, A pledge is given for particular as task as well or for certain conditions as well, as we read in Quran (48:18), or as we find in ahadeeth, example: Malik al-Ashja’i reported: We, nine, eight or seven men, were in the company of the Messenger of Allah(SAWS) and he said: Why don’t you pledge allegiance to the Messenger of Allah? -while we had recently pledged allegiance. So we said: Messenger of Allah, we have already pledged allegiance to you. He again said: Why don’t you pledge allegiance to the Messenger of Allah? And we said: Messenger of Allah, we have already pledged allegiance to you. He again said: Why don’t you pledge allegiance to the Messenger of Allah? We stretched our hands and said: Messenger of Allah, we have already pledged allegiance to you. Now tell (on what things) should we pledge allegiance to you. He said (You must pledge allegiance) that you would worship Allah only and would not associate with Him anything, (and observe) five prayers, and obey- (and he said onething in an undertone) -that you would not beg people of anything. (And as a consequence of that) I saw that some of these people did not ask anyone to pick up the whip for them if it fell down. [Sahih Muslim #1043]. Also refer Sahih al-Bukhari #7468, Sahih al-Bukhari #2715, Sahih Muslim Book 4, Hadith #2037, Sunan an-Nasa’i #4163, regarding giving pledge on different conditions.

Moreover, If it is asked that why didn’t Ibn Umar obey the order of Ali, then we say that, Ibn Umar didn’t consider himself capable of accepting the position given by Ali on that occassion. And Ibn Umar along with other companions, narrated from Prophet(saws) about giving pledge in regards to obedience, that people must obey as far as they are capable of. We read: {Ibn ‘Umar reported: When we gave a pledge to Messenger of Allah(SAWS) to hear and obey, he(saws) would say to us, “As far as you are capable of”.} [Sunan Nasai, 4188 ; Sahih and Jami Tirmidhi 1593]

Similarly, when Ibn Umar gave pledge to Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, he mentioned the condition that he would obey, as much as he can. We read: {Abdullah ibn ‘Umar wrote to ‘Abdu’l-Malik ibn Marwan in order to pledge him his allegiance. He wrote to him, “In the Name of Allah, the All-Merciful, Most Merciful. To ‘Abdu’l-Malik, the Amir al-Mu’minin, from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar. Peace be upon you. I praise Allah to you. There is no god but Him. I offer you obedience according to the sunna of Allah and the sunna of His Messenger as much as I can.(Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1119 ; Sahih) }

As for the reports claiming that ‘Ali(ra) reviled or insulted Abdullah ibn ‘Umar(ra) for adopting a neutral stance instead of taking his side, they represent a distortion of the facts and seem to be blatant lies[These reports come via narrators such as AbuBakr al-Hudhali is was Matrook Al-hadeeth or from Sayf bin Umar who was also Matrook(rejected) or Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi who was considered a liar who fabricated reports]. People twisted some events and made up those reports, similar to what people made up in regards to Ibn Umar accepting Islam before Umar. [See Sahih al-Bukhari #4186]. The most that can be said concerning the issue of Abdullah ibn ‘Umar and the governorship of Syria is that which was narrated by adh-Dhahabi in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala.

ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ: عَنْ عُمَرَ بنِ نَافِعٍ، عَنْ أَبِيْهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، قَالَ: بَعثَ إِلَيَّ عليٌّ، فَقَالَ: يَا أَبَا عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ! إِنَّكَ رَجُلٌ مُطَاعٌ فِي أَهْلِ الشَّامِ، فَسِرْ فَقَدْ أَمَّرْتُكَ عَلَيْهِم.
فَقُلْتُ: أُذَكِّرُكَ اللهَ، وَقَرَابَتِي مِنْ رَسُوْلِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَصُحْبَتِي إِيَّاهُ، إِلاَّ مَا أَعْفَيْتَنِي.
فَأَبَى عَلِيٌّ، فَاسْتَعَنْتُ عَلَيْهِ بِحَفْصَةَ، فَأَبَى، فَخَرَجْتُ ليلاً إِلَى مَكَّةَ، فَقِيْلَ لَهُ: إِنَّهُ قَدْ خَرجَ إِلَى الشَّامِ.
فَبَعثَ فِي أَثَرِي، فَجَعَلَ الرَّجُلُ يَأْتِي المربدَ، فَيَخْطمُ بَعيرَهُ بِعِمَامَتِهِ لِيُدْرِكَنِي.
قَالَ: فَأَرْسَلَتْ حَفْصَةُ: إِنَّهُ لَمْ يَخْرُجْ إِلَى الشَّامِ، إِنَّمَا خَرَجَ إِلَى مَكَّةَ، فَسَكَنَ
Sufiyan ibn uyaynah, from `Umar bin Nafi`, from his father, from ibn `Umar that he said: `Ali ibn abi Talib sent after me so I came to him and he told me: “O abu `Abdul-Rahman, you are a man who is obeyed by the people of al-Sham, so go there, for I have appointed you over them.” so I said: “By Allah, I remind you of my closeness to the Messenger (SAWS) and my companionship to him, that you would pardon me (from this matter).” `Ali didn’t accept it and I asked my sister Umm al-Mu’mineen Hafsa to help (convince him) but he still insisted, so I went to Makkah during the night and they told him: “He went to al-Sham.” so he sent after me and the rider took-off in haste to catch up to me, then Hafsa sent to him that: “He didn’t leave to al-Sham, he only left to Makkah.” So `Ali calmed down. [Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, vol 3, page 224; Rijaal Thiqaat; also Tarikh Dimashq by ibn `Asakir, volume 31 page 181]

This offers definitive evidence that Ibn ‘Umar had sworn allegiance to ‘Ali(ra) and come under his authority; otherwise how could ‘Ali seek to appoint him if he had not sworn allegiance to him?

As for the indication that Ibn Umar swore allegiance to ‘Ali:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْقَاسِمِ خَلَفُ بْنُ الْقَاسِمِ الْحَافِظُ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ عُمَرُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ بْنِ مَعْمَرٍ الْجَوْهَرِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الحجاج ابن رِشْدِينٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو سَعِيدٍ يَحْيَى بْنُ سليمان الجعفي، قال: حدثنا أسباط ابن مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ سِيَاهٍ  ، عَنْ حَبِيبِ بْنِ أَبِي ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ، قَالَ: مَا آسَى عَلَى شيء إلا أني لم أقاتل مع علي رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ الْفِئَةَ الْبَاغِيَةَ.
وَحَدَّثَنَا خَلَفُ بْنُ قَاسِمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ الْوَرْدِ، حَدَّثَنَا يُوسُفُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَسَدُ بْنُ مُوسَى، حَدَّثَنَا أَسْبَاطُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ بْنِ سياه، عن حبيب ابن أَبِي ثَابِتٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ ابْنُ عُمَرَ: مَا أَجِدُنِي آسَى عَلَى شَيْءٍ فَاتَنِي مِنَ الدُّنْيَا إلا أني لم أقاتل الفئة الباغية مع عَلِيٍّ.
وَذَكَرَ أَبُو زَيْدٍ عُمَرُ بْنُ شَبَّةَ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْقَاسِمِ الْفَضْلُ بْنُ دُكَيْنٍ، وَأَبُو أَحْمَدَ الزُّبَيْرِيُّ، قَالا: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ حَبِيبِ بْنِ أَبِي ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ- حِينَ حَضَرَتْهُ الْوَفَاةُ: مَا أَجِدُ فِي نَفْسِي مِنْ أَمْرِ الدُّنْيَا شَيْئًا، إِلا أَنِّي لَمْ أُقَاتِلِ الْفِئَةَ الْبَاغِيَةَ مَعَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ.
وقال: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو أَحْمَد، حَدَّثَنَا عبد الجبار بْن الْعَبَّاس، عَنْ أَبِي العنبس، عَنْ أَبِي بَكْر بْن أَبِي الجهم، قَالَ: سمعت ابْن عُمَر يَقُول: مَا آسى على شيء إلا تركي قتال الفئة الباغية مع على.

In Ibn ‘Abdul-Barr’s al-Isti‘ab it is narrated via Habeeb bin Abi Thabit from Ibn Umar AND via Abu Bakr ibn Abil-Jahm from Ibn ‘Umar that he said, when he was dying: “I do not regret anything except not fighting the transgressors alongside ‘Ali. [Al-Isti’ab fi ma’rifat al-ashab, vol 3, page 431].

This also indicates that he swore allegiance to ‘Ali, because he ONLY REGRETTED not going out with ‘Ali(ra) to fight. He was one of those who kept away from turmoil and did not fight with anyone. If he had refrained from swearing allegiance, his regret for that would have been greater, and he would have said that clearly. The act of swearing allegiance is obligatory, and refraining from it is threatened with punishment, according to the report of Ibn ‘Umar himself, who said that the Prophet(saws) said: “Whoever dies without having sworn allegiance has died a death of pre-Islamic ignorance.” [See, Sahih Muslim #1851 & Sahih al-Bukhari #7111].

This is unlike going out to fight alongside ‘Ali; the Companions(may Allah be pleased with them) differed on this matter, and some of them kept out of it. Here are few examples:

قالالحسن: ان عليا بعث إلى محمد بن مسلمة فجيء به فقال ما خلفك عن هذا الأمر قال دفع اليبن عمك يعني النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم سيفا فقال:” قاتل به ما قوتل العدو فإذارأيت الناس يقتل بعضهم بعضا فاعمد به إلى صخرة فاضربه بها ثم الزم بيتك حتى تأتيك منيةقاضية أو يد خاطئة”، قال خلوا عنه” . مسند أحمد بن حنبل : ج 4 ص: 225 ،وقالالشيخ شعيب الأرنؤوط:حسن بمجموع طرقه
al-Hassan ibn ‘Ali (ra) said: ‘Ali called for Muhammad ibn Muslimah so he was brought to him and he asked: “Why not participate in this?” Ibn Muslimah said: Your cousin (Prophet) gave me this sword and said: “Fight with it as long as you are fighting the enemy but when you see the people kill each other then seek a rock and strike it then retire to your home until you are dead or killed by a hand.” ‘Ali then told his men: “Leave him be.”[Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4/225, Shu’ayb al-Arnaout said: all its chains are Hasan].

عديسة بنت أهبان : لما جاء علي بن أبي طالب ههنا البصرة دخل على أبي . فقال يا أبامسلمألا تعينني على هؤلاء القوم ؟ قال بلى . قال فدعا جارية له . فقال ياجارية أخرجي سيفي. قال فأخرجته . فسل منه قدر شبر فإذا هوخشب . فقال:” إن خليلي وابن عمك صلى اللهعليه و سلم عهد إلي إذا كانت الفتنة بين المسلمين . فأتخذ سيفا من خشب” . فإنشئت خرجت معك . قال لاحاجة لي فيك ولا في سيفك .سنن ابن ماجة كتاب الفتن ج 2 ص:1309،قال الشيخ الألباني:حسن صحيح،ومسند أحمد ج 5ص: 69، و ج6 ص: 393 وقال شعيب الأرنؤوط: حديث حسن
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “ O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili(my beloved companion) who is your cousin(means the Prophet SAWS) may peace be upon him made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.” [Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan].

قال عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ : بَيْنَمَا نَحْنُ حَوْلَرَسُولِ اللَّهِ ، صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، إِذَا ذَكَرَ الْفِتْنَةَ أَوْذُكِرَتْ عِنْدَهُ ، فَقُلْتُ : كَيْفَ أَفْعَلُ ، جَعَلَنِي اللَّهُ فِدَاكَ ؟ قَالَ: ” الْزَمْ بَيْتَكَ ، وَامْلِكْ عَلَيْكَ لِسَانَكَ”.
حديث حسن :أخرجه أبو داود (4343) ، والنسائي في ” عمل اليوم” (205) ، وابن المبارك في ” مسنده ” (257) ، وابن أبي شيبة (15/9ـ10) ، وأحمد (2/212) ، والطحاوي في ” بيان مشكل حديث النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم- ” (2/67 ـ 68) ، وابن السني في ” عمل اليوم (439) ، والحاكم (4/282 ـ238) ، وأبو عمرو الداني في ” الفتن ” (117) ، والطبراني في ” كبيره” (ج 13 رقم 4/قطعة من الجزء الثالث عشر) ، والخطابي في ” العزلة “(ص 63 ـ 64)
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amro ibn al-‘Aas (ra): While we were sitting around the Prophet SAWS they mentioned the Fitnah so I asked him: “May Allah make me a sacrifice for you, what am I to do?” he SAWS said: “remain in your house and guard your tongue.” [Hadith is Hasan from Abu Dawood #4343, Ahmad in his Musnad 2/212, Ibn al-Mubarak in his Musnad p257 and others].

الرسول-عليه الصلاة و السلام – قال : (( ستكون فتنة يكون المضطجع فيها خيرا من الجالس ،والجالس خيرا من القائم ،و القائم خيرا من الماشي ،و الماشي خيرا من الساعي ، )) فقالله أبو بكرة : يا رسول الله ما تأمرني ؟ قال : (( من كانت له إبل فليلتحق بإبله ،ومن كانت له غنم فليلتحق بغنمه ،و من كانت له أرض فليلتحق بأرضه ،)) فقال له أبو بكرة: فمن لم يكن له شيء من ذلك ؟ قال : (( فليعمد إلي سيفه فليضربه بحده على حرة ، ثملينجوا ما استطاع النجاء )) .رواه أبو داود في سننه ج4 ص 99 و صححه الشيخ الألباني
Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (ra): The Prophet SAWS said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
[Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.]

عن ابي موسى الأشعري رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم-قال عن أيام الفتنة : (( كسّروا قسيّكم ،و قطّعوا أوتاركم ،و ألزموا أجواف البيوت ،و كونوا فيها كالخيّر من بني آدم )). رواه أحمد في المسند ج 4ص: 408 وعلق الشيخ شعيبالأرنؤوط:صحيح لغيره .و الترمذي في سننه ج4 ص: 490 و صححه الألباني.وابن ماجة في السننج 2/ص1310 وصححه الألباني.
Abu Musa al-Asha’ari (ra): The Prophet SAWS told us about the days of Fitnah: “Break your swords and cut the strings of your bows and remain in the deepest part of your houses and be like best from amongst the children of Adam.”[Musnad Ahmad 4/408 al-Arnaout said: Sahih li ghayrihi, Sunan al-Tirmithy 4/490 and Ibn Majah 2/1310 al-Albani said Sahih].

Therefore, how can it be imagined that Ibn ‘Umar would regret not taking part in this fighting but not regret not swearing allegiance, if he did in fact refrain from that despite the stem warning concerning it? Thus it is clear that the claim of some historians, that Ibn ‘Umar did not swear allegiance to ‘Ali, is false. It is proven that he was one of those who swore allegiance to him. Indeed, Ibn Umar was close to Ali, to the point that ‘Ali was keen to appoint him as his governor and seek his help, because of the sincerity and loyalty he saw in him.

[Answer taken from Ali Muhammad Sallabi’s book with some additions, Ali ibn Abi Talib, vol 1, pages 433434]

May Allah’s (swt) blessings be upon Messenger of Allah, his household, and his companions.

20 thoughts on “Hadeeth Explanation: “Whoever died without an Imam he dies a death of jahilyyah”

  1. So does this mean that Aisha, Muawyah and all their followers died the death of a jahil for not paying allegiance to the caliph of their time which was Ali?

    • Not at all, Ayesha(as) acknowledged the correct stance of Ali(ra) after battle of Jamal, which implies she accepted Caliphate of Ali(ra). And women were never known for giving allegiance to the Caliphs. As for Muawiyah(ra) then, he didn’t die during the Caliphate of Ali(ra), infact he himself became the leader Muslims, eventually.

  2. An article rich with authentic Sunni traditions and views of notable Sunni scholars is Baseless? Well this just exposes where you are coming from.

    (1) – Sa’ad ibn Ubaadah(ra) did accept the Caliphate of Abu Bakr(as). Get your facts straight. And we are aware of certain reports which state otherwise, however those reports are weak and forged therefore unreliable. For a detailed answer, refer the book “The biography of Abu Bakr as-siddeeq” by Dr. Ali Muhammad Sallaabee, pages 213-215.

    (2) – As for your arguments which are without any reference, then the simple answer is that, by admitting that, “Sayyiduna Imam Hussain(as) wanted to move to the expansion of the land”, you indirectly admitted that Hussain(as) accepted the leadership of Yazeed, because the expansion of land was going on under the ruler-ship of Yazeed.

    (3) – Also by attesting that Hussain(as) made two choices one of returning and one of moving to the expansion of land, you destroyed the myth propagated by Shiites that, this was a fight between Islam or Kufr, or a Jihad, because retreating from a battle field is considered a sin.

    (4) – Yazid was not narrating ahadeeth or news, which Quran prohibits. As for the Imamah of Ibrahim(as) then Quran states:{My covenant includes not Zalimoon}; the word Zulm(injustice) is defined in several ways, in Quran Shirk(polytheism) was considered a great Zulm(injustice). We read: {Indeed, association [with him] is great injustice(Zulm). (31:13).

    (5) – If you believe that giving bayah to Tyrant is against Quran, then please let us know what is your stance on Muawiyah(ra), because we have proved in our article on relationship between Muawiyah(ra) and Ahlelbayt that, Hassan(as) did give bayah(allegiance) to Muawiyah(ra). Due to which some extremist Shia insulted Hasan(as).

    • 1/ Saad ibn Ubaada didnt pay allegiance to Abu Bakr(ra) and Omar(ra). It is a fact testified by nearly all classical and formative historians and muhaditheen. If the reports according to you are weak please bear in mind that the chains of transmission in this regard are many. As Bukhari has recorded his intitial opposition to the caliphate also.
      2/ As regards moving in the expansion of reign is recorded you seem to have lost common sense here. As Quran mentions that in times of fitna migrate, this is exactly what Syeddina Hussain (ra) was trying. Ibn Omar didnt allow Hafsa(ra) to go to the battle of Jamal, does it mean then that he was accepting the caliphate of Ali(ra)? If Hussain accepted Yazid as caliph why was he moving in the expanse of land.
      3/ Prophet Muhammad(saw) didnt fight the battle of tabuk and returned without fighting the kuffars, does it deem it devoid of jehad. Besides, study hadith. Anas bin Harith(ra) records that Prophet (saw) said that my son Hussain will be killed in karbala, aid him. This is deemed sahih by ibn Hajar Asqalani, Ibn Athir, Ibn Kathir etc.
      4/ As for the tyrants are considered there is explicit verse of Quran that dont even incline towards the unjust people, leave aside paying allegiance to them. that is why Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafii, Imam Malik supported the opposition to the fasiq rulers.
      5/ As far as your article about Hassan(ra) giving bayya to Muawiya is recorded let me clarify that Muawiya(ra) was no tyrant. He did committ mistakes though. Besides, as ibn Kathir has himself admitted that Muawiya repented going against Ali(ra) to Umme Salma(ra), it makes his rebellion subject to the mercy of Allah, as he forgives anyone who repents.

      Besides, my brother study the science of hadith and you will come to know that obedience to tyrants is rejected in many of them. Kaanb ibn Ujra(ra) records that Prophet (saw) told us that there will be rule of unjust young men. People who are from me and i am from them will oppose it. I give you in the refuge of Allah from that rule of 60 AH. ( Tirmizi, Kanzul Ammal, Sahih Nisai). that is exactly what happened Kaab died before the rule of yazid and Hussain went against it. For your information, all the sons of Kaab(ra) were matyred fighting against the rule of Yazid. (Ibn Saad in Tabaqat).

      Furthermore, study the hand of rulers in hadith formulation.

      Wasalam brother

      • 1. Brother, had you bothered to look up the source we recommended you would have realized that as per authentic reports Sa’ad did pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr(ra). As for you claim that the chains of the weak/forged reports many then it doesn’t helps your case because these reports are Munkar, regardless of their number they would still be considered unreliable. Anyways please present those chains in Arabic, so that we could scrutinize them for your benefit. Meanwhile, we again recommend you to refer the book “The biography of Abu Bakr as-siddeeq” by Dr. Ali Muhammad Sallaabee, pages 213-215, which dealt this issue perfectly.

        2. We don’t get your point for you bringing up the example of Ibn Umar(ra) and Hafsa(as). As for Hussain(ra) then let us quote what was the option he gave{…or that he may head to make Jihad against the Kouffar in the distant lands like any other Muslim…}. But we know that the Jihad that was going on at that time was under the ruler-ship of Yazeed, hence Hussain(ra) asking to join the forces under the rulership of Yazeed would imply that He(ra) is under the ruler-ship of Yazeed. As for migrating(hijrah) at time of Fitnah, then Hussain(ra) didn’t wish to go to a place where the rule of Yazeed was not implemented but rather the place which where the Muslims were fighting against the Kuffar under the rulership of Yazeed; Hence you are comparing apples with oranges.

        3. As for Prophet(SAWS) not fighting the battle of Tabuk, then it was because upon learning of the Muslims march, the Byzantines and their allies were so terrified that none of them dared set out to fight. The Muslim army returned from Tabuk victoriously, undeceived or wronged. [For Details refer the book Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum] .So please gain some proper knowledge before making these ridiculous claims. As for the hadeeth which talks about aiding Hussain(ra), then this seems to be dubious, because we know from history that Sahaba who were alive that time didn’t join Hussain(ra) infact they themselves advised him not trust the Kufi shia of his, as they were treacherous people. So please provide the Arabic text along with the chain of this hadeeth you mention.

        4. The verse you are quoting is (11:113), it is about not helping the unjust, it shows the illegality of helping the unjust. Because if even a slight inclination towards unjust people is prohibited, then how can helping them be permitted. As helping them would be the greatest form of inclining towards them. So there is no need to make your batil Qiyas(false analogy) and equate helping the unjust with paying allegiance to tyrant ruler. Because your qiyas goes against the authentic traditions of Prophet Mohammad(SAWS). Also take example of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who suffered oppression from the tyrant ruler of his time but did not revolt against him.

        5. It is good to hear that you don’t consider Muawiya(ra) as a tyrant but only a fallible Muslim, because all the Sahaba including Ahlulbayt were fallible Muslims, who did commit mistakes.

        As for your advice to study science of hadeeth, then my brother, We’re not just studying the science of hadeeth but we’re also implementing on it, but you seems to have not made a good study. Let us show how you failed in implementing one of the basic of hadeeth sciences, that is to understand a hadeeth based on the other related ahadeeth about that topic. You referred the hadeeth from Kab ibn Ujra. Here is the full hadeeth:

        It was narrated that Kab bin Ujrah said: “The Messenger of Allah came out to us, and there were nine of us. He said; ‘After me there will be rulers, whoever believes in their lies and helps them in their wrongdoing is not of me, and I am not of him, and he will not come to me at the Hawz. Whoever does not believe their lies and does not help them in their wrongdoing, he is of me, and I am of him, and he will come to me at the Hawz.”‘ [Sunan an-Nasa’i #4207].

        So brother if you read this hadeeth properly then you find that its about not helping the rulers in their wrongdoing, and this is agreed upon issue. This no where says that one shouldn’t give a tyrant allegiance. Now let us present some other reports which disapproves your misunderstanding.

        It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said: Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.[ Sahih Muslim #1847]

        Comment: This hadeeth clearly shows that tyrant ruler is to be obeyed, however this doesn’t contradict the hadeeth which says that one shouldn’t help the ruler in his wrongdoing or the one which says if ruler orders to commit sin then there is no obedience to the ruler in that command.

        Sayyiduna Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: A Muslim must listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) in things that he likes or dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to commit a sin. If he is ordered to disobey Allah, then there is no listening and no obedience. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6725 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1839).

  3. Wa’alaykum salam.

    Respected brother, you are comparing apples with oranges. Ibn Umar(ra) took a neutral position he neither opposed him nor join him, even when insisted by Ali(ra). So the example of neutral position doesn’t helps you, because in the case of Imam Hussain(ra), he(ra) wanted to participate in a process which was being done under the ruler-ship of Yazeed.

    As for the claim He stopped Hafsa(ra) from joining battle of Jamal or prevented opposition to him, then please elaborate on this, what are your views, do you believe that it was a deliberate battle or deliberate opposition? Because we don’t believe that it was an opposition or deliberate battle. If you are confused about this battle then please refer this link: https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/part-2-defence-of-ahlelbaytwives-of-prophetmothers-of-believers-from-the-religious-slanderers/

    • Asalamu Alykum. First of all there is clear verse of Quran not to accept those who transgress the bounds of Allah. Secondly there are hadith narrated both to be patient with an unjust ruler and also to oppose him. According to Imam Nawawi and Ibn Hajar Asqalani Imam Hussain took the way of opposition in light of Quran and those hadith. Now do you neo nasibis mean you knew deen more than Imam Hussain? Secondly as said above hand in hand comes in five places in historical events and NONE of this means bayyah. I challenge u to get one scholar who explicitly deems it bayyah to yazid bin muawiyah. As regards your presumption that Hussain going to frontiers meant acceptance of yazid please prove it as it clearly means going to frontiers or back to Medina without bayyah. These hadith of obligatory adherence to rulers is a fabrication of regimes. Check history. Hajjaj deemed those who rose against the ruler as kaafirs. Ibrahim Nakahiye, Saeed ibn Jubyr the student of Ibn Abbas rose against rulers. They were more well versed with deen than Ibn taimiyah and his followers. I challenge you to prove from One grear scholar of the past that Hussain was ready to offer bayah explicitly. Even your Imam yazeed said Hussain opposed my rule and got reward for it.. Albidayah ibn kathir.

      • Walaykumsalam. Brother it appears from your argument that you haven’t properly understood our stance on this issue. I suggest you carefully re-read the article for understanding our perspective. As for the argument that giving hand in hand doesn’t mean giving bay’ah(pledge of allegiance), then please refer to what Kitab Maqtal al-Hussain says, that will clarify to you what it meant. We read in this Shia book:

        “…or we send him to Yazid, the Commander of the faithful, to offer his pledge of allegiance to him and resolve their differences”.[ Kitab Maqtal al-Hussain, page 112]

        Click to access Kitab%20Maqtal%20al-Husayn.pdf

  4. Bro.Islam is a complete religion, it is the misguided who take a certain hadeeth. To prove he is teaching Islam by only proving on a certain hadeeth. It is a duty of every muslim to learn Islam and living to its best ability.

  5. Amir al-Muminin Ali (a.s.) said, “O people, the MESSENGER OF ALLAH IS THE IMAM WHETHER DEAD OR LIVING”.[Al-kafi: H , Ch. 111, h 36 ]

    [miraat al kutub vol 5 page 266-267 – Hasan kal-sahih]

  6. Brother, the point I’m making is that, the meaning of giving hand in hand in that context was to give Bayah(pledge of allegiance), this is why the Shia Translator, translated it likewise. I don’t consider you to be more knowledge than the Shia Translator who translated it as per its meaning.

    • Dear Slave, please understand that two notions prevail in all communities and religions- mainstream and non mainstream. The notion of the Shias is first of all not mainstream. The notion of the above author you quoted is unconventional and not a mainstream opinion. In every sect there are notions made by some scholars that are conventional. For example as per Ibn Hazm(ra), Javaid Ghammidi etc Essa ibn Maryam is dead. Now if a Qadiyani states these opinions of scholars the logical answer would be that these are aberrant views not conventional and general opinion. Same is the case here. of all scholars you are giving opinion of one tashayyu scholar. I asked you opinion of the salaf on it and you come with lame excuses. The statements of yazid, ibn ziyad, Hazrat Sulaiman ibn Suroo(ra), Ibn Zubair (ra) and other eminent personalities prove that Imam e Aali Muqaam Imam Hussain did not accept the bayyah of yazid bin muawiya. Please give a valid proof of your argument. Secondly, please show is history books that it was written that i give my hand in the hand of yazid as bayyah as you have stated. Khidri Misri (who had nasibi leanings) in Mohaziraat writes that it is a wrong notion of some people that Hussain was giving his hand in hand of yazid as bayyah. Ibn Hajar Haytami writes in Sawaiqul Muhariqah (a book to refute shias) that Hussain ibn Ali (ra) did not accept yazid’s bayyah and died in this condition. Ibn Khaldun the greatest historian and political commentator has clearly mentioned that Hussain did not accept yazid as caliph because he was not imam e haqq. Ibn Hajar Asqalani and Dhahabi clearly state Hussain opposed the rule of yazid. Young man please dont come with notions based on falsehood just because you want to refute shias. Hussain ibn Ali was beacon of resistance for all.
      Wasalam
      Aasif Najar

      • Brother Aasif Najar, the problem is that Shias have a bad habbit of shifting goal posts. Whenever they find that their challenge is met, they conveniently shift the goalpost, which eventually makes the discussion futile. Like you said{I challenge u to get ONE SCHOLAR who explicitly deems it bayyah to yazid bin muawiyah.} Hence I provided you the translation from a Shia scholar/Translator Hamid Mavani, who understood from the text that the option(of giving hand in the hand of Yazeed) meant giving pledge of allegiance. When you found the challenge was met, where a Shia scholar was cited, you changed your tone of ad hominem attacks of Nasibism, you came up saying its unconventional and not a mainstream opinion. However, in your challenge this wasn’t the condition given, you conveniently shifted the goalpost. Moreover, its true that its not a mainstream Shi’ee opinion, however my argument wasn’t that it is a mainstream Shi’ee opinion rather, I quoted the Shia translator to prove the most appropriate understanding of the that text as per the context. So your excuse gets invalidated, the Shia translator could hold mainstream Shi’ee opinion, yet chose to translate the text as per its appropriate meaning, even though he may not believe in that report.

        Also, from some sentences which the Shia Translator Hamid Mavani translated, it appears that he is from the mainstream. For example, in regards to the wording said by Imam Hussain(RA) when he heard the death of Muawiya(RA), this Shia translator didn’t translate the complete sentence, because those complete wordings wouldn’t go down the throat of any mainstream Shia. He translated(See page 16) it as: { “We are from God and to Him is our return” } , whereas the complete wording are {فقال حسين : انالله وانا إليه راجعون ورحم الله معاوية وعظم لك الاجر (Hussain said: “We are from God and to Him is our return and May Allah have mercy on Muawiya and give him great reward.)} there fore, your speculation that the Shia translator is not from mainstream gets discarded.

        Moreover, here is a Sunni scholar, who understood the same way that, the option(of giving hand in the hand of Yazeed) meant giving pledge of allegiance. He is [Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam, you may read his Fatwa here : http://www.daruliftaa.com/node/6098 , and you may switch back to your original ad hominem tone, which got mild towards Shia translator.

        Secondly, as for the claim that many Sunni scholars believed that Imam Hussain(RA) didn’t pledge his allegiance to Yazeed, then that is very true, even we never claim that Imam Hussain(RA) pledged allegiance to Yazeed. This didn’t happen. Imam Hussain(RA) was martyred before any of his three wishes/conditions were fulfilled.

        Thirdly, Inorder to demonstrate how inconsistent the Shia arguments are, let’s reflect upon the claim you made in your previous comment. You said: {First of all there is clear verse of Quran not to accept those who transgress the bounds of Allah…} and you challenged me to bring one hadeeth or view of scholar who said, what Hussain(RA) said meant giving pledge of allegiance to Yazeed. So now adhering this same condition which you set, let me ask you, Do you believe that Muawiya(RA) didn’t transgress the bounds of Allah, that is why Imam Hassan(RA) gave him pledge of allegiance, and followed Quran in this regards? If you believe this, then know that you will be accused of Nasibism by Shias. And if you don’t then would you like to see the ahadeeth which explicitly state that Hassan(RA) gave pledge of allegiance to Muawiya(RA), along with the views of scholars? If your answer is no and you reject them and change the conditions and your approach, in this situation, then know that its futile to discuss things which such inconsistent people. It would be merely a waste of time, and you would keep changing your conditions and shift your goalposts.

        Fourthly, these reports from Tareekh Tabari imply that Imam Hussain(RA) meant pledge of allegiance, because he left the judgement on Yazeed.

        And in another report, Imam Hussain(RA) rejected the offer to put hand in the hand of Ibn Ziyad, if it didn’t mean pledge of allegiance, then there wouldn’t have been any issue for Hussain(RA) to accept that demand. He rejected it because it meant pledge of allegiance.

        May Allah Guide you to correct path.

  7. stupid pure nasibi page, even can’t refute Quranic verse that all man will be called upon their respective Imams in the day of Qiyamah, or I believe that very verse are also not applicable for pure nasibi like you because you are definitely will be thrown in the Hellfire without any questioning for slandering and spreading fitnah against the Prophet saww and his holy progeny a.s., la’nat on you for eternally!!!

  8. Brother Aasif najar, from your reply, I have come to the conclusion that you are neither an objective person, nor are you moderate in your approach. Instead you are an extremist person, who falsely accuses Sunni scholars of Nasibism due to your ignorance(Jahl). And you have become so blind in your bigotry that, you fail to read a proper sentence or you purposely misrepresent things. Allah knows the best. Such a person in my view holds no credibility, and its better for you to educate yourself properly and its futile to discuss with such ignorant people, who can’t even read a text properly.

    ANSWER TO POINT ONE: I have already, mentioned that the Shia Translator of Maqtal Hussain translated the expression as per the common meaning of the expression. The expression giving hand in the hand of a person who is in the position of authority, means giving pledge of allegiance, this is the most reasonable understanding of this expression. And I don’t see how does your disagreement with this, weakens this view. If you disagree, then its fine. But your disagreement doesn’t prove that the translation done by a Shia translator of Maqtal Hussain is wrong. Add to it that even the Translator of Tareekh Tabari, IKA Howard, too understood this expression in the same manner as giving pledge of allegiance, which you can read in the introduction of this chapter. So you have two different Translators who understood this expression of giving hand in the hand(of a person in authority) meant giving pledge of allegiance. Also to add to the list is Sunni Mufti whom I quoted.

    ANSWER TO POINT TWO: You said {The english translation clearly gives sanad of the narration and it contains mujallid bin saeed who is a unknown…} Yes, the translation “CLEARLY” gives the sanad as you claimed, and it has two different narrators who narrated this report. One was Mujallid bin Saeed AND the other was al-Saq’ab bin Zuhayr al-Azdi. So there are CLEARLY two different people narrating it, not just one, which is apparent from the comma(,) separating their names, as the translation CLEARLY gives the Sanad(chain). For your convenience, here is the chain in Arabic:

    قَالَ أَبُو مخنف : وأما مَا حَدَّثَنَا بِهِ الْمُجَالِدُ بن سَعِيدٍ ، والصقعب بن زهير الأَزْدِيّ ، وغيرهما من المحدثين ، فهو مَا عَلَيْهِ جماعة المحدثين قَالُوا
    http://library.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?indexstartno=0&hflag=&pid=157489&bk_no=334&startno=2

    The other narrator who narrated the report, al-Saq’ab bin Zuhayr al-Azdi was a Thiqa(trustworthy) narrator. He was declared as Thiqa(trustworthy) by some prominent scholars of Jarh wa Tadeel, such as Abu Zura’a al Raazi, Al-Hakim Nisapuri, and Ibn Hajr al Asqalani, you may read these view in this link under the tab of Jarh wa Tadeel
    http://hadith.islam-db.com/narrators/1470/%D8%B5%D9%82%D8%B9%D8%A8-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%B2%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%B2%D9%87

    Also, He narrated a hadeeth in Adab al Mufrad of Imam Bukhari, and this hadeeth was classed as Sahih by Sheikh Al-Albani. https://sunnah.com/adab/30/11

    Therefore, This was your comment, based on which I conclude that you can’t even read and understand a text and you have been blinded in your bias.

    In regards to your theories then we have seen your understanding skills, and how messed up it is. The text of the report is clear, anyone blessed with basic understand skills can understand it. Let me quote you the text, so that it becomes easy for you to understand: The report states {…By God! If he left your land, without putting HIS HAND IN YOURS, he would be in a position of power and strength and you would be in a position of weakness and impotence. Do not give this concession , for it would be a mark of weakness. Rather let him and his followers SUBMIT TO YOUR AUTHORITY}. It’s quite clear that the expression “HIS HAND IN YOURS” meant submitting to the authority of Ibn Ziyad. And we can also see in the next report as well where Ibn Ziyad wrote to Ibn Saad. We read {“Take this message to `Umar b. Sad and let him offer al-Husayn and his followers the option of submitting to MY AUTHORITY}. Therefore, it is clear as sky in a cloudless day, that the demand of Ibn Ziyad was to make Hussain(RA) surrender to HIS AUTHORITY and this is what was meant by “HIS HAND IN YOURS”. Moreover, the demand of Ibn Ziyad was changed, due to suggestion of Shimr. Notice, when Ibn Saad wrote to Ibn Ziyad about the three options Hussain(RA) gave, Ibn Ziyad said: {This is the letter of a sincere man to his governor, one who is anxious for his people. YES I ACCEPT.”} If Hussain(RA) hadn’t accepted to pledge allegiance to Yazeed, then how could Ibn Ziyad, accept this condition initially? Rather the fact is that, he accepted it because one of Hussain’s(RA) option was to pledge allegiance to Yazeed directly. However due to suggestion of Shimr, Ibn Ziyad changed his mind and demanded that Hussain(RA) submit to HIS AUTHORITY instead of going to Yazeed directly. And the evil man Ibn Ziyad was and as what he had done to Muslim ibn Aqeel, Hussain(RA) never wanted to submit to Ibn Ziyad’s authority. That’s why Ibn Saad said: { By God! Husayn will not surrender, for there is a proud spirit in his body.” page 111}.

    So the point is that due to your poor understanding skills, you failed to understand a clear report where in the expression “giving hand in hand” meant submitting to authority. Please try to improve your understanding skills.

    ANSWER TO POINT THREE: If you consider that Muft Taqi Uthmani was a Nasibi due to no reason, then even I can consider you to be an under cover Rafidi. Secondly, I have demonstrated your reading and understanding ability in the previous response, your empty claims have no weight and can’t be relied upon, especially when you can’t even read and understand a text which you claimed was CLEAR. So please spare us with your claims without proper quoting along with reference.

    ANSWER TO POINT FOUR: As replied in last comment, none said that Hussain(RA) accepted the Caliphate of Yazeed, meaning Hussain(RA) didn’t get the chance to give pledge of allegiance to Yazeed. He was martyred before it. And know that Caliphate is a political station it isn’t a spiritual station. In regards to accepting a person Caliph, people have to meet and give pledge of allegiance or send someone who represents them to give pledge of allegiance. As for Ibn Zubayr(RA) using the martyrdom of Hussain(RA) then that’s not an issue to help your case, because a grandson of Prophet(SAWS) – who was innocent was martyred by those who were placed in-charge by Yazeed, and they got away without being punished. Similarly we know that people held a legitimate Caliph like Ali(RA) accountable to punish the killers of Uthman(RA), even though martyrdom of Uthman(RA) occurred when Ali(RA) wasn’t a Caliph, whereas Martyrdom of Hussain(RA) occurred when Yazeed was a Caliph, so obviously he would be held accountable for the actions of his governor.

    ANSWER TO POINT FIVE: There are ahadeeth about disobeying Rulers when they command you to commit sin, however the issue here is of revolting against a ruler not a mere act of disobedience. So don’t mix both. Disobedience to ruler in his command to commit sin, is specific to that command only. it doesn’t mean disobeying in every matter. For example, if even a father commands his son to stop praying Salah, then the son should disobey his father, but that doesn’t mean the father is to be obeyed in other matters or that he looses his authority over his son. The issue has been explained thoroughly, in the link I gave from the Fatwa of Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam, who explained it using authentic ahadeeth and Aqwaal of classical scholars, regarding the belief of Ahlus-sunnah. Secondly, Ahlus-sunnah doesn’t believe that Sahaba were infallible, they were fallible, and if a particular Sahabi made a mistake in his ijtihad then that doesn’t means it becomes hujjah for us, rather hujjah are the ahadeeth of Prophet(saws). This is a general answer, even though I don’t believe it applies on all the examples you mentioned, because there are different interpretations to those scenarios.

    Lastly, after answering your questions, I would like to ask you a question. Please don’t ignore this question. You wrote in your comment that narrator “{mujallid bin saeed who is a unknown}”, which basically means this narrator is Majhool. So please quote with reference those Muhadditheen who said this narrator is Majhool(unknown). Note that your reply shouldn’t be without the answer to this question.

    May Allah guide you.

  9. Dear Aasif Najar,

    When you aren’t following proper rules and etiquette of a discussion. In my response, I asked you to back your claims with quotations along with proper reference, which you have failed to abide. And I have displayed that how incompetent you are in reading and understanding a text or a chain. That’s why without proper and accurate quotations along with accurate reference, its a waste of time to continue discussion with you.

    Secondly, In regards to Mujallid you again didn’t follow the request properly, you didn’t quote the exact Hukm of scholars, nor did you give an accurate reference. Moreover, I’m well aware of the condition of Mujallid, that’s why I’m asking you to quote the hukm of scholars, its just to expose your incompetent, who can’t even differentiate between simple terms such as Da’eef and Majhool.

    Thirdly, you built your whole hypothesis on the narrations of Uqba bin saman. But the report is weak and unreliable due to below reasons:

    (i). Because it contains the narrator Abdur rahman bin Jundub who is majhool. Here is the chain in Arabic:
    الَ أَبُو مخنف : حَدَّثَنِي عبد الرَّحْمَن بن جندب ، عن عقبة بن سمعان ، قَالَ
    And Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani considered Abdur rahman bin Jundub as Majhool in Lisan al Meezan. Refer entry #4611 it says (مجهول.) in this link:
    http://www.al-eman.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%86%20(%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%AE%D8%A9%20%D9%85%D9%86%D9%82%D8%AD%D8%A9)/4611-%20(%D8%B2):%20%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%86%20%D8%A8%D9%86%20%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A8./i837&d1128453&c&p1

    (ii). The second reason is that, this weak and unreliable report from the Majhool narrator on which you based your theories has been contradicted not just by an authentic chain which I mentioned in my previous response, but this was even contradicted by the report of Imam Abu Jafar Mohammad Baqir(RA), who was the son of the survivor of Karbala, Ali ibn Hussain Zain al Abideen(RA). Even though this report isn’t detailed like the one of al-Saq’ab bin Zuhayr al-Azdi but this report refutes the one you are using, it shows that Hussain(RA) did give three options to Ibn Saad, one of which was to go to Yazeed.

    جع الحديث إِلَى حديث عمار الدهني ، عن أبي جَعْفَر فَحَدَّثَنِي زكرياء بن يَحْيَى الضرير ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَد بن جناب المصيصي ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا خَالِد بن يَزِيدَ بن عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْقَسْرِيّ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا عمار الدهني ، قَالَ : قلت لأبي جَعْفَر حَدَّثَنِي عن مقتل الْحُسَيْن حَتَّى كأني حضرته ، قَالَ : فأقبل حُسَيْن بن علي بكتاب مسلم بن عقيل كَانَ إِلَيْهِ حَتَّى إذا كَانَ بينه وبين القادسية ثلاثة أميال لقيه الحر بن يَزِيدَ التميمي ، فَقَالَ لَهُ : أين تريد ؟ قَالَ : أريد هَذَا المصر ، قَالَ لَهُ : ارجع ، فإني لم أدع لك خلفي خيرا أرجوه ، فهم أن يرجع وَكَانَ مَعَهُ إخوة مسلم بن عقيل ، فَقَالُوا : والله لا نرجع حَتَّى نصيب بثأرنا أو نقتل ، فَقَالَ : لا خير فِي الحياة بعدكم ، فسار فلقيته أوائل خيل عُبَيْد اللَّهِ ، فلما رَأَى ذَلِكَ عدل إِلَى كربلاء ، فأسند ظهره إِلَى قصباء وخلا ؛ كي لا يقاتل إلا من وجه واحد ، فنزل وضرب أبنيته وَكَانَ أَصْحَابه خمسة وأربعين فارسا ومائة راجل ، وَكَانَ عُمَر بن سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي وَقَّاص قَدْ ولاه عُبَيْد اللَّهِ بن زياد الري وعهد إِلَيْهِ عهده ، فَقَالَ : اكفني هَذَا الرجل ، قَالَ : أعفني ، فأبى أن يعفيه ، قَالَ : فأنظرني الليلة ، فأخره فنظر فِي أمره ، فلما أصبح غدا عَلَيْهِ راضيا بِمَا أمر بِهِ ، فتوجه إِلَيْهِ عُمَر بن سَعْد ، فلما أتاه قَالَ لَهُ الْحُسَيْن : اختر واحدة من ثلاث ؛ إما أن تدعوني فأنصرف من حَيْثُ جئت ، وإما أن تدعوني فأذهب إِلَى يَزِيد ، وإما أن تدعوني فألحق بالثغور ، فقبل ذَلِكَ عمر فكتب إِلَيْهِ عُبَيْد اللَّهِ : لا ، وَلا كرامة حَتَّى يضع يده فِي يدي ، فَقَالَ لَهُ الْحُسَيْن لا ، وَاللَّهِ لا يكون ذَلِكَ أبدا ، فقاتله فقتل أَصْحَاب الْحُسَيْن كلهم ، وفيهم بضعة عشر شابا من أهل بيته ، وجاء سهم فأصاب ابنا لَهُ مَعَهُ فِي حجره فجعل يمسح الدم عنه ، ويقول : اللَّهُمَّ احكم بيننا وبين قوم دعونا لينصرونا فقتلونا ، ثُمَّ أمر بحبرة فشققها ثُمَّ لبسها ، وخرج بسيفه فقاتل حَتَّى قتل ، صلوات اللَّه عَلَيْهِ ، قتله رجل من مذحج وحز رأسه وانطلق بِهِ إِلَى عُبَيْد اللَّهِ ، وَقَالَ : أوقر ركابي فضة وذهبا فقد قتلت الملك المحجبا قتلت خير الناس أما وأبا وخيرهم إذ ينسبون نسبا وأوفده إِلَى يَزِيد بن مُعَاوِيَة وَمَعَهُ الرأس ، فوضع رأسه بين يديه وعنده أَبُو برزة الأسلمي ، فجعل ينكت بالقضيب عَلَى فِيهِ ، ويقول : يفلقن هاما من رجال أعزة علينا وهم كَانُوا أعق وأظلما فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو برزة : ارفع قضيبك ، فَوَاللَّهِ لربما رأيت فا رَسُول اللَّهِ ، صلى الله عليه وسلم ، عَلَى فِيهِ يلثمه ، وسرح عُمَر بن سَعْد بحرمه وعياله إِلَى عُبَيْد اللَّهِ ، ولم يكن بقي من أهل بيت الْحُسَيْن بن علي ، عَلَيْهِ السلام ، إلا غلام كَانَ مريضا مع النساء ، فأمر بِهِ عُبَيْد اللَّهِ ليقتل ، فطرحت زينب نفسها عَلَيْهِ ، وقالت : وَاللَّهِ لا يقتل حَتَّى تقتلوني ، فرق لها فتركه وكف عنه ، قَالَ : فجهزهم وحملهم إِلَى يَزِيد ، فلما قدموا عَلَيْهِ جمع من كَانَ بحضرته من أهل الشام ، ثُمَّ أدخلوهم فهنئوه بالفتح ، قَالَ رجل مِنْهُمْ أزرق أحمر : ونظر إِلَى وصيفة من بناتهم ، فَقَالَ : يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ، هب لي هَذِهِ
    (Tareekh Tabari, English, vol 19, page 74-77, hadeeth from Imam Abu Jafar.)

    Fourthly, I have already explained to you what the hadeeth of Ibn majah meant, I gave a very basic example of Father and Son, to make you understand. This explanation is in accordance to the principles of Ahlus-Sunnah.

    Lastly, I have clearly established that giving hand in hand meant giving pledge of allegiance, I have demonstrated that using the text of reports, especially the sound reports with proper reference. Hence your speculations based on weak and unreliable reports get discarded. Moreover, If you want to reject an authentic report like the one from al-Saq’ab bin Zuhayr al-Azdi, and rely on any other contradictory report, you need to first establish its authenticty. Just because the content seems appealing to you, doesn’t make the hadeeth authentic.

    And I would like to repeat that, It’s a waste of time arguing with a person, who doesn’t follow the standard rules of discussion. When you are failing to give accurate quotes along with accurate references, then its futile. I don’t have time to go through a voluminous book, when you just say refer this book or that book, without proper quotation and accurate reference, with volume and page no.

  10. عَنْ حَبِيبِ بْنِ أَبِي ثَابِتٍ ، قَالَ : أَتَيْتُ أَبَا وَائِلٍ فقال لي:اسْتَخْلَفَ النَّاسُ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا ، فَبَعَثَ الْحَسَنُ بِالْبَيْعَةِ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، وَكَتَبَ بِذَلِكَ الْحَسَنُ إِلَى قَيْسِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا ، فَقَامَ قَيْسُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ فِي أَصْحَابِهِ ، فَقَالَ : يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ ، أَتَاكُمْ أَمْرَانِ ، لاَبُدَّ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَحَدِهِمَا : دُخُولٌ فِي فِتْنَةٍ ، أَوْ قَتْلٌ مَعَ غَيْرِ إِمَامٍ ، فَقَالَ النَّاسُ : مَا هَذَا ؟ فَقَالَ : الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ قَدْ أَعْطَى الْبَيْعَةَ مُعَاوِيَةَ ، فَرَجَعَ النَّاسُ ، فَبَايَعُوا مُعَاوِيَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لِمُعَاوِيَةَ هَمٌّ إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ بِالنَّهْرَوَانِ ، فَجَعَلُوا يَتَسَاقَطُونَ عَلَيْهِ فَيُبَايِعُونَهُ ، حَتَّى بَقِيَ مِنْهُمْ ثَلاَثُمِائَةٍ وَنَيِّفٍ ، وَهُمْ أَصْحَابُ النَّخِيلَةِ .المطالب العالية بزوائد المسانيد الثمانية للحافظ احمد بن علي بن حجر العسقلاني[52/5]،قال ابن حجر العسقلاني: هَذَا الْإِسْنَادُ صَحِيحٌ،وقال البوصيري:رواه إسحاق بن راهويه بسند صحيح[اتحاف الخيرة المهرة بزوائد المسانيد العشرة 17/8].

    Habib bin abi Thabit said: I came to Abu Wael who told me: the people gave the pledge to al-Hasan bin ‘Ali may Allah be pleased with them, then al-Hasan sent his Baya’ah to Mu’awiyah may Allah be pleased with him, al-Hasan then wrote to Qays bin Sa’ad may Allah be pleased with them who then stood between his companions and said: “O people! You are given one of two choices, entering a Fitnah or death without an Imam.” The people said: “What is that?” He replied: “al-Hasan bin ‘Ali has given his allegiance to Mu’awiyah.” Then the people returned and gave the Baya’ah to Mu’awiyah may Allah be pleased with him and he was deeply concerned about the people of Nahrawan, many of those came to him to offer him the pledge and only about three hundred remained, they were the people of Nakhilah. [Source: al-Matalib al-‘Aliyah bi Zawaed al-Masaneed al-Thamaniyah 5/52 and Ibn Hajar said SAHIH, al-Bousayri said in Ithaf al-Kheerah al-Maharah bi Zawaed al-Masaneed al-‘Asharah 8/17 “narrated by Ishaq bin Rahaweih with a Sahih chain.”]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s