يا هذا كيف بليت بك؟ وأي ريح هبت إلي بك؟ سمعت الحسن بن صالح يقول: سمعت جعفر بن محمد يقول: حب علي عبادة، وأفضل العبادة ما كتم
“O man – how did we cross paths and what wind blew you to me?! … I heard Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad (al-Ṣādiq) say: ‘Love of ʿAlī is worship, and the best worship is that which is concealed!’”[1]
Introduction
Who was the best companion of the Prophet? How were the companions to be ranked in order of merit? These were fraught questions in early Islam and how you answered them could go a long way in determining your sectarian identity.
As Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241) is known to have declared:
أَخْبَرَنِي عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ الصَّمَدِ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ هَارُونَ الدِّيكَ، يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ أَحْمَدَ بْنَ حَنْبَلٍ، يَقُولُ: مَنْ قَالَ: أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ وَعُثْمَانُ فَهُوَ صَاحِبُ سُنَّةٍ، وَمَنْ قَالَ: أَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَعُمَرُ، وَعَلِيٌّ، وَعُثْمَانُ فَهُوَ رَافِضِيُّ، أَوْ قَالَ: مُبْتَدِعٌ
Whoever says: ‘Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān’ then he is a ṣāḥib sunna. But whoever says: ‘Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿAlī, ʿUthmān’ then he is a Rāfiḍī [or he said: mubtadiʿ][2]
The major point of contention was the figure of ʿAlī.
Tafḍīl ʿAlī or believing in the superiority of ʿAlī, be it over ʿUthmān (slightly tolerable) or above all companions (intolerable!), was a clear indication that someone inclined to Shīʿīsm, something which could have severe repercussions. Is it any surprise that some major narrators were uncomfortable and guarded when asked where they stood on this?[3]
Having said that, the literary sources do contain some widely reported trends with regard the ranking of companions in different regions, such as Kufa and Basra, each of which are portrayed as having their own preferences, akin to how different legal positions are associated to different regions in early Islam.
This article is divided into two parts: Part 1 attempts to flesh out the general position in Kufa before going on to problematize the commonly repeated notion that tafḍīl in Kufa was limited to giving precedence to ʿAlī over ʿUthmān. In fact, there exists some overlooked evidence to indicate that the true situation in Kufa was quite different: ʿAlī was considered superior to all other companions including Abū Bakr and ʿUmar! Next the ʿUthmānī position which left out ʿAlī completely and which was prevalent in Basra is documented.
The Kufans
The overwhelming majority of Kufan asḥāb al-ḥadīth (traditionists) in the second century subscribed to tafḍīl ʿAlī.
As Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal states:
فَأَخْبَرَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ قَالَ: ثَنَا صَالِحُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يَقُولُ: أَهْلُ الْكُوفَةِ كُلُّهُمْ يُفَضِّلُونَ
The Kufans – all of them – make tafḍīl[4]
Elsewhere, it is only two Kufans who are named as exceptions to this general rule.
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal states:
سَمِعْتُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ الْمَرُّوذِيَّ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ يَقُولُ: لَمْ تُخْرِجِ الْكُوفَةُ إِلَّا رَجُلَيْنِ: طَلْحَةَ بْنَ مُصَرِّفٍ وَعَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ إِدْرِيسَ
Kufa did not produce but two men: Ṭalḥa b. Muṣarrif and ʿAbdallāh b. Idrīs[5]
This somewhat ambiguous statement is clarified in a variant:
وَأَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ قَالَ: قَالَ أَبِي: أَهْلُ الْكُوفَةِ يُفَضِّلُونَ عَلِيًّا عَلَى عُثْمَانَ إِلَّا رَجُلَيْنِ: طَلْحَةَ بْنَ مُصَرِّفٍ وَعَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ إِدْرِيسَ
The Kufans deem ʿAlī superior to ʿUthmān except for two men: Ṭalḥa b. Muṣarrif and ʿAbdallāh b. Idrīs.
Aḥmad’s son, ʿAbdallāh, asks his father:
قُلْتُ: وَلَا زُبَيْدٌ؟
Not even Zubayd?
Aḥmad responds:
قَالَ: لَا، كَانَ يُحِبُّ عَلِيًّا
No. He (i.e. Zubayd) used to love ʿAlī[6]
ʿAbdallāh glosses his father’s expression (“used to love ʿAlī”) to mean that Zubayd considered ʿAlī superior to ʿUthmān.
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal is speaking from first-hand experience as he personally met numerous Kufan authorities, including ʿAbdallāh b. Idrīs (d. 192), when collecting ḥadīth there in the closing decades of the second century and would have learnt from these men both their personal positions as well as the attitude of previous generations.
Aḥmad’s testimony limits the rivalry in Kufa to ʿAlī and ʿUthmān with the implication being that the ranking of companions in Kufa was: Abū Bakr > ʿUmar > ʿAlī.[7]
The strength of the evidence means that Sunni scholars of the classical period had no option but to admit that belief in the superiority of ʿAlī over ʿUthmān was prevalent in Kufa.
For instance, al-Dhahabī (d. 748) quotes al-ʿIjlī (d. 261) stating that Ṭalḥa b. Muṣarrif (d. 112) deemed nabīdh prohibited and then comments:
قُلْتُ: وَكَانَ يُحِبُّ عُثْمَانَ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ فَهَاتَانِ خَصْلَتَانِ عَزِيْزَتَانِ فِي الرَّجُلِ الكُوْفِيِّ
He also used to love ʿUthmān. Now these two characteristics are rare for a Kufan[8]
Al-Dhahabī echoes the same expression used by Aḥmad to assert that Ṭalḥa deemed ʿUthmān superior to ʿAlī, something which Dhahabī acknowledges was rare for a Kufan.
Al-Dhahabī labels this tendency to consider ʿAlī superior to ʿUthmān tashayyuʿ khafīf or ‘mild’ Shīʿīsm[9] and is willing to countenance a discussion over it and even tolerate it:
قُلْتُ: لَيْسَ تَفْضِيْلُ عَلِيٍّ بِرَفضٍ، وَلاَ هُوَ ببدعَةٌ، بَلْ قَدْ ذَهبَ إِلَيْهِ خَلقٌ مِنَ الصَّحَابَةِ وَالتَّابِعِيْنَ، فَكُلٌّ مِنْ عُثْمَانَ وَعلِيٍّ ذُو فضلٍ وَسَابِقَةٍ وَجِهَادٍ، وَهُمَا مُتَقَارِبَانِ فِي العِلْمِ وَالجَلاَلَة، وَلعلَّهُمَا فِي الآخِرَةِ مُتسَاويَانِ فِي الدَّرَجَةِ، وَهُمَا مِنْ سَادَةِ الشُّهَدَاءِ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُمَا، وَلَكِنَّ جُمُهورَ الأُمَّةِ عَلَى تَرَجيْحِ عُثْمَانَ عَلَى الإِمَامِ عَلِيٍّ، وَإِلَيْهِ نَذْهَبُ
Tafḍīl of ʿAlī (i.e. over ʿUthmān) is neither rafḍ nor a bidʿa. A group of the companions and successors held this position. Since both ʿUthman and ʿAlī possess merit, precedence (in converting), participation in jihād, and are close to one another in knowledge and honour. Perhaps they will be upon the same station in the hereafter for they are both martyred chiefs. However, the vast majority of the umma are agreed in considering ʿUthman superior to Imam ʿAlī and this is what we hold[10]
Where Sunni scholars draw a line and refuse to even countenance is the possibility that ʿAlī could be better than Abū Bakr and ʿUmar.
The notion was so preposterous it cannot possibly have a genuine lineage going back to the early period.
Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728) goes so far as to claim that deeming ʿAlī superior to Abū Bakr and ʿUmar was unheard of even among the early Shia.
وَلِهَذَا كَانَتِ الشِّيعَةُ الْمُتَقَدِّمُونَ الَّذِينَ صَحِبُوا عَلِيًّا، أَوْ كَانُوا فِي ذَلِكَ الزَّمَانِ، لَمْ يَتَنَازَعُوا فِي تَفْضِيلِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ، وَإِنَّمَا كَانَ نِزَاعُهُمْ فِي تَفْضِيلِ عَلِيٍّ وَعُثْمَانَ
It is for this reason that the early Shia who accompanied ʿAlī or were (alive) in those times did not dispute the superiority of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar, rather their dispute was over ʿAlī and ʿUthman[11]
There could be no doubt about the superiority of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar among well-intentioned scholars since the matter was clear-cut and reached the level of necessary knowledge (ilm al-ḍarurī).
As Ibn Taymiyya says:
لَمْ يَتَنَازَعْ فِي هَذَا أَحَدٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِسِيرَتِهِ وَسُنَّتِهِ وَأَخْلَاقِهِ؛ وَإِنَّمَا يَنْفِي هَذَا أَوْ يَقِفُ فِيهِ مَنْ لَا يَكُونُ عَالِمًا بِحَقِيقَةِ أُمُورِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ … وَهَذَا كَسَائِرِ الْأُمُورِ الْمَعْلُومَةِ بِالِاضْطِرَارِ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِسُنَّةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ … وَأَمَّا عُثْمَانُ وَعَلِيٌّ فَهَذِهِ دُونَ تِلْكَ فَإِنَّ هَذِهِ كَانَ قَدْ حَصَلَ فِيهَا نِزَاعٌ
No one among the people of knowledge in his (i.e. the Prophet’s) biography, sunna, and character disputed this (i.e. the superiority of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar). The only one who denies this, or suspends judgment about it, is the one who is ignorant about the details of the life of the Prophet …
This (i.e. the superiority of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar) is just like the other matters that are necessarily known by those (scholars) who possess knowledge of the sunna of the Messenger of Allah …
As for ʿUthmān and ʿAlī then this is lesser than that (i.e. the superiority of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar), for this is matter about which there was some dispute …[12]
But was the matter so clear-cut? Was there really no dispute about it among scholars?
Third-Best or First?
Western academics have generally gone along with the traditional Sunni scholars’ portrayal of the rivalry among traditionists in Kufa as being limited to ʿAlī and ʿUthmān, taking for granted the prevalence of belief in the superiority of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar there.
This is despite there being some overlooked evidence to suggest that this is not an accurate reflection of the true situation in Kufa.
Consider the following statement attributed to Yaḥyā b. Ādam (d. 203), a Kufan authority of the previous generation and from whom Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal took ḥadīth:
أخبرنا أبو غالب وأبو عبد الله ابنا البنا قالا: أنا أبو الحسين بن الابنوسي أنا أحمد بن عبيد الله بن الفضل إجازة نا محمد بن الحسين نا ابن أبي خيثمة قال: سمعت يحيى بن معين يقول: قال يحيى بن ادم: ما أدركت أحدا بالكوفة إلا يفضل عليا يبدأ به وما استثنى أحدا غير سفيان الثوري
I did not encounter anyone in Kufa except that he considered ʿAlī superior, beginning with him. I do not exclude anyone from this except Sufyān al-Thawrī[13]
The apparent meaning of Yaḥyā’s statement is that the Kufans considered ʿAlī superior to both Abū Bakr and ʿUmar!
This is made explicit in a variant where one Salama b. ʿAffān asks Yaḥyā b. Ādam:
سمعت يحيى بن معين يقول: سأل سلمة بن عفان يحيى بن ادم فقال له: ترى السيف؟
Do you deem it permissible to revolt with the sword?
Yaḥyā responds:
قال: لا ارى السيف على احد من امة محمد ولكن ما لقيت احدا من اهل هذا المصر الا وهو يقدم عليا على ابى بكر وعمر ما خلا سفيان الثورى
No. I do not deem it permissible to wield the sword against anyone from the umma of Muḥammad.
However, I have not encountered anyone from the residents of this town (i.e. Kufa) except that he gives precedence to ʿAlī over Abū Bakr and ʿUmar with the exception of Sufyān al-Thawrī[14]
Now Yaḥyā b. Ādam was a highly esteemed and well-rounded scholar who was also prolific in narration. He took ḥadīth from everyone who was anyone in Kufa including Sufyān al-Thawrī.[15] Can he be mistaken in making such a bold, explicit and clear-cut statement about the state of affairs in Kufa?!
That this was the general Kufan position is corroborated by Yaḥyā b. Ādam’s contemporary, the Kufan ʿUbaydallāh b. Mūsā (d. 213), who Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal met but chose not to take ḥadīth from.
When a man came to ʿUbaydallāh and asked:
سمعت يحيى بن معين يقول: جاء رجل الى عبيد الله بن موسى فقال له: ايما كان افضل على او ابو بكر وعمر؟
Who was superior: ʿAlī or Abū Bakr and ʿUmar?
ʿUbaydallāh b. Mūsā responds:
فسمعت عبيد الله بن موسى يقول: ما كان احد يشك ان عليا افضل من ابى بكر وعمر
No one used to doubt that ʿAlī was superior to Abū Bakr and ʿUmar[16]
Note that ʿUbaydallāh’s usage of the past-tense may indicate that this earlier position of tafḍīl was now being challenged.
While it is true that ʿUbaydallāh himself was accused of “Shīʿīsm”, something which caused Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal to abandon his ḥadīth, it is not his personal opinion which he is giving us here but the general Kufan position, and no one can accuse ʿUbaydallāh of lying.
This is what Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn has to say about him:
سمعت يحيى يقول: عبيد الله بن موسى رجل صدق، ليس به بأس، كان له هدى وعقل ووقار
A man of truthfulness, there is no harm in (taking from) him, he had exemplary conduct, intelligence, and dignified restraint[17]
In fact, when Aḥmad tried to get his partner Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn to follow his lead in abandoning ʿUbaydallāh because of the latter’s “Shīʿīsm”, Yaḥyā responded:
وَسَمِعْتُ يَحْيَى بْن مَعِيْن وقيل له: إن أَحْمَد بْن حنبل قَالَ: إن عُبَيْد اللَّهِ بْن مُوسَى يُرَدُّ حديثه تَشَيُّعٌ. قَالَ: كَانَ والله الذي لا إله إِلا هو عَبْد الرَّزَّاق أَغْلَى فِي ذلك منه مئة ضعف، ولقد سَمِعْتُ من عَبْد الرازق أضعاف وأضعاف ما سَمِعْتُ من عُبَيْد اللَّهِ
I swear by Allah, other than whom there is no god, that ʿAbd al-Razzāq was more extreme in that (i.e. Shīʿīsm) than him (i.e. ʿUbaydallāh) – a hundred times (more)! I heard from ʿAbd al-Razzāq many, many times more what I heard from ʿUbaydallāh[18]
Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn’s point is that if Aḥmad was not willing to abandon ʿAbd al-Razzāq, who was more extreme in Shīʿīsm than ʿUbaydallāh, then there was no basis for abandoning ʿUbaydallāh.
Speaking of ʿAbd al-Razzāq (d. 211), here is a fascinating conversation[19] he had with his master, Maʿmar b. Rāshid (d. 153), which gives us a window into the Kufan attitude from an even earlier time.
Note that the Basran Maʿmar who went on to reside in Yemen is not known to possess any inclination towards Shīʿīsm whatsoever.
ʿAbd al-Razzāq recalls that he was once seated facing Maʿmar, alone with him, when the latter began smiling.
قال: ونا ابن أبي خيثمة نا أحمد بن منصور بن يسار نا عبد الرزاق قال: قال معمر مرة وأنا مستقبله وتبسم وليس معنا أحد قلت: ما شأنك؟ قال: عجبت من أهل الكوفة كان الكوفة إنما بنيت على حب علي ما كلمت أحدا منهم إلا وجدت المقتصد منهم الذي يفضل عليا على أبي بكر وعمر منهم سفيان الثوري
ʿAbd al-Razzāq: What is that (smile) for?
Maʿmar: I am astounded at the Kufans. It is as though Kufa was built upon the love of ʿAlī (i.e. as its foundation). Whoever I speak to from among them, I find the moderate to be the one who considers ʿAlī superior to Abū Bakr and ʿUmar, among them is Sufyān al-Thawrī.
If this was the moderate position in Kufa then presumably the radical one was the one which not only considers ʿAlī superior but reviles Abū Bakr and ʿUmar.
ʿAbd al-Razzāq, who generally tried to hide his own Shīʿī sympathies,[20] recalls how he “simulated”[21] shock at hearing this to which Maʿmar commented:
فقال معمر: وما ذاك لو أن رجلا قال علي أفضل عندي منهما ما عنفته إذا ذكر فضلهما إذا قال عندي ولو أن رجلا قال [عمر] عندي أفضل من علي وأبي بكر ما عنفته
What is that (shock) for?
If a man were to say “ʿAlī is superior to them both according to me” I would not rebuke him if he were to also mention their (i.e. Abū Bakr’s and ʿUmar’s) merit.
And if a man were to say “ʿUmar is superior to ʿAlī and Abū Bakr according to me” I would not rebuke him.
ʿAbd al-Razzāq continues:
قال عبد الرزاق: فذكرت ذلك لوكيع بن الجراح ونحن خاليان فاشتهاها أبو سفيان وضحك وقال: لم يكن سفيان يبلغ بنا هذا الحد ولكنه أفضى إلى معمر ما لم يفض إلينا
I relayed this (conversation) to Wakīʿ b. al-Jarrāḥ when we were alone together, so Abū Sufyān (i.e. Wakīʿ) showed eagerness for (hearing) it and laughed, saying: “Sufyān (i.e. al-Thawrī) would not reach this extent with us but he divulged to Maʿmar what he did not divulge to us!”
Then Wakīʿ b. al-Jarrāḥ (d. 197), whose own “Shīʿīsm” I had the occasion to document recently,[22] recalls his own conversation with Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161) on the subject saying:
وكنت أقول لسفيان: يا أبا عبد الله أرأيت إن فضلنا عليا على أبي بكر وعمر ما تقول في ذلك؟ فيسكت ساعة ثم يقول: أخشى أن يكون ذلك طعنا على أبي بكر وعمر ولكنا نقف
I used to put to Sufyān: “O Abū ʿAbdallāh, what is your opinion if we were to deem ʿAlī superior to Abū Bakr and ʿUmar – what would say to that?”
He would go quiet for a bit and then say: “I fear that this would be a criticism of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar but we suspend judgment”
The contents of this report are extremely revelatory and have far-reaching implications.
Ibn Kathīr (d. 774) does not know what to do with it for the chain of the report is reliable.
He comments:
وهذا الكلام فيه تخبيط كثير ولعله اشتبه على معمر فان المشهور عن بعض الكوفيين تقديم على على عثمان، فأما على الشيخين فلا، ولا يخفى فضل الشيخين على سائر الصحابة إلا على غبي، فكيف يخفى على هؤلاء الأئمة
These words contain a lot of confusion. Perhaps Maʿmar is mistaken for what is famously known about some Kufans is them giving precedence to ʿAlī over ʿUthmān, but as to the shaykhayn then no!
The superiority of the shaykhayn over the rest of the companions is not hidden from a fool so what about these imams?![23]
I say: Of course, it is confusing, since you are attempting to judge a conversation that happened before the matter became a dogma against the standards of dogma!
ʿAbd al-Razzāq having to simulate shock in front of Maʿmar and going out of his way to note that his conversation with Wakīʿ was “when we were alone together” reveals that tafḍīl was a sensitive question which could not be openly spoken about to an outsider because of its possible repercussions.[24] This explains why the evidence is not as wide-spread as we would expect.
Despite this, and based on the the direct and indirect evidence presented above, whose authenticity we have no good reason to doubt, the picture that emerges after correcting for exeggeration is of a Kufa in which a substantial majority made tafḍīl of ʿAlī over all other companions even if they did not denounce Abū Bakr and ʿUmar, with the last being a distinctive feature of the Rāfiḍa who also existed in significant numbers.
A question that remains is how this general position of the Kufans came to be misrepresented? Was it a case of the taqiyya being employed obscuring the true position apart from throw-away statements here and there? Or was the position purposely distorted in order to make it more palatable for later orthodoxy?
Changing Sides
What are we to make of this disparity in the sources over Sufyān’s exact position whereby he confesses tafḍīl to Maʿmar; advises tawaqquf to Wakīʿ; and is held up as an exception to the general trend in Kufa by Yaḥyā b. Ādam?
The most plausible explanation is that Sufyān’s position changed with time.
This is confirmed by an important remark by one of Sufyān’s Kufan students called Zayd b. al-Ḥubāb (d. 203):
حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ الثَّقَفِيُّ، ثنا خُشَيْشٌ الصُّوفِيُّ، ثنا زَيْدُ بْنُ الْحُبَابِ قَالَ: كَانَ رَأْيُ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ رَأْيَ أَصْحَابِهِ الْكُوفِيِّينَ يَفْضُلُ عَلِيًّا عَلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ، فَلَمَّا صَارَ إِلَى الْبَصْرَةِ رَجَعَ عَنْهَا وَهُوَ يُفَضِّلُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ عَلَى عَلِيٍّ وَيُفَضِّلُ عَلِيًّا عَلَى عُثْمَانَ
Sufyān al-Thawrī’s position was the position of his fellow Kufans, he would consider ʿAlī superior to Abū Bakr and ʿUmar, then when he travelled to Basra he recanted and began considering Abū Bakr and ʿUmar superior to ʿAlī while (still) considering ʿAlī superior to ʿUthmān[25]
In a variant, Zayd identifies two major Basran authorities, Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī (d. 131) and ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAwn (d. 150), as responsible for Sufyān’s conversion:
أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ، أنبا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ، أنبا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ زُهَيْرٍ، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ مُوسَى، ثنا الْفَلَكِيُّ (العكلي) قَالَ: كَانَ عَمَّارُ بْنُ رُزَيْقٍ، وَسَلْمَانُ (سليمان) بْنُ قَرْمٍ الضَّبِّيُّ، وَجَعْفَرُ بْنُ زِيَادٍ الْأَحْمَرُ، وَسُفْيَانُ الثَّوْرِيُّ، أَرْبَعَتُهُمْ يَطْلُبُونَ الْحَدِيثَ، وَكَانُوا يَتَشَيَّعُونَ، فَخَرَجَ سُفْيَانُ إِلَى الْبَصْرَةِ فَلَقِيَ أَيُّوبَ وَابْنَ عَوْنٍ فَتَرَكَ التَّشَيُّعَ
ʿAmmār b. Ruzayq, Sulaymān b. Qarm al-Ḍabbī, Jaʿfar b. Ziyād al-Aḥmar and Sufyān al-Thawrī, all four sought (to collect) ḥadīth and all had Shīʿī inclinations (yatashayyaʿūn).
Then Sufyān set out to Basra and met Ayyūb (al-Sakhtiyānī) and Ibn ʿAwn so he abandoned Shīʿīsm (tashayyuʿ)[26]
It is likely that Sufyān’s conversation with Maʿmar, in which a young Sufyān declared his tafḍīl of ʿAlī over all companions, happened when Sufyān had set out to Yemen to collect hadith from Maʿmar[27] and before his meeting with the two Basran authorities.
After meeting the Basrans, Sufyan became wary of tafḍīl and began suspending judgment as Wakīʿ reports, before later declaring Abū Bakr and ʿUmar superior to ʿAlī as reported by Zayd.
Zayd’s report is corroborated by the Kufan Abū Bakr b. ʿAyyāsh (d. 192), who was two years Sufyān’s senior, and who recalls:
انَ سُفْيَانُ يُنْكِرُ عَلَى مَنْ يَقُوْلُ: العِبَادَاتُ لَيْسَتْ مِنَ الإِيْمَانِ، وَعَلَى مَنْ يُقَدِّمُ عَلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ أَحَداً مِنَ الصَّحَابَةِ، إِلاَّ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يُقَدِّمُ عَلِيّاً عَلَى عُثْمَانَ
Sufyān would repudiate the one who asserts that acts of worship are not part of belief and (also) the one who gives precedence to anyone among the companions over Abū Bakr and ʿUmar, however, he used to give precedence to ʿAlī over ʿUthmān[28]
Note that while Sufyān changed his position on the superiority of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar under Basran influence, rehabilitating ʿUthmān in the Kufan context was a much tougher proposition
Now Sufyān al-Thawrī did not keep this conversion to himself but went on to use his growing authority and influence as an outstanding ḥadīth master to proselytize for it in Kufa.[29]
For one thing, Sufyān decided to abandon narrating the merits of ʿAlī presumably because they were being used to justify tafḍīl. He is quoted as saying:
مَنَعَتْنَا الشِّيعَةُ أَنْ نَذْكُرَ فَضَائِلَ عَلِيٍّ
The Shia have caused us to avoid recounting the merits of ʿAlī[30]
A creed supposedly dictated by Sufyān lists ‘taqdimat al-shaykhayn’ or ‘giving precedence to Abū Bakr and ʿUmar’ as the first item in a long list of items which together entail ‘muwāfaqat al-sunna’ or ‘adherance to the sunna’[31]
The only piece of polemic I could find where Sufyān lays out his rationale for his newly adopted position is the following statement widely attributed to him:
أَخْبَرَنَا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، قَالَ: ثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ حُبَيْبَ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي حَاتِمُ بْنُ أَبِي حَاتِمٍ الْجَوْهَرِيُّ، قَالَ: ثَنَا قَبِيصَةُ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ قَالَ: مَنْ قَدَّمَ عَلِيًّا عَلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ فَقَدْ أَزْرَى عَلَى اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ أَلْفًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَأَخَافُ أَلَّا يَنْفَعَهُ مَعَ ذَلِكَ عَمَلٌ
Whoever gives precedence to ʿAlī over Abū Bakr and ʿUmar then he has disparaged 12,000 companions of the Messenger of Allah and I fear that no good-deed can benefit such a person after this![32]
The mere fact that Sufyān had to rile against this position is sufficient to demonstrate that there was a substantial support for it in Kufa.
But what is even more noteworthy is that Sufyān does not argue for his ranking of the companions on the basis of any positive evidence (such as a Prophetic report) but resorts to historical reality (who actually got to be Caliph). The underlying psychology is of not wanting to entertain the thought that all those thousands of companions could agree to submit to an inferior candidate.
Sufyān would later leave Kufa for good and relocate to Basra, either in the year 150[33] or 155,[34] spending the last 11 or 6 years of his life there.
This is likely where his position solidified even further.
Instead of giving precedence to ʿAlī over ʿUthmān as he did in Kufa, we now begin to hear of him suspending judgment on this.
Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198), a Basran student of Sufyān, states:
انَ رَأْيُ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ: أَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَعُمَرُ، ثُمَّ يَقِفُ
The position of Sufyān al-Thawrī was Abū Bakr, (then) ʿUmar, and then he would halt[35]
The conversion is complete when Sufyān finally drops ʿAlī from the list all together.
Both Shuʿayb b. Ḥarb (d. 196) and Yūsuf b. Asbāṭ (d. 195) transmit that Sufyān used to hold:
Abū Bakr, (then) ʿUmar, (then) ʿUthmān[36]
It is precisely because he was ready to shift his position on this critical issue that Sufyān came to be recognized by the next generation of authorities who were critical for defining proto-Sunnism as one of their own.
The Basran critic ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Mahdī (d. 198) who studied under Sufyān declares Sufyān to be both an “imām of ḥadīth and an imām of the sunna” unlike many of his Kufan peers who were just “imāms of ḥadīth”. He also considers Sufyān to be the imām of Kufa just as Mālik was of Medina, al-Awzāʿī of Syria, and Ḥammād b. Zayd of Basra.[37]
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Mahdī’s student, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241), reserves his highest praise for Sufyān saying: “No one comes close to him in my heart! Do you know who an imām is? Sufyān al-Thawrī is an imām!”[38]
A creed attributed to ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234) goes so far as to state that loving Sufyān was an indicator that one was upon the sunna and not a mubtadiʿ (innovator)!
وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَ الرَّجُلَ يُحِبُّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ وَيَدْعُو لَهُ وَيَتَرَحَّمُ عَلَيْهِ فَارْجُ خَيْرَهُ وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ بَرِيءٌ مِنَ الْبِدَعِ … وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَ الرَّجُلَ يَعْتَمِدُ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْبَصْرَةِ عَلَى أَيُّوبَ السِّخْتِيَانِيِّ، وَابْنِ عَوْنٍ، وَيُونُسَ، وَالتَّيْمِيِّ وَيُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُكْثِرُ ذِكْرَهُمْ وَالِاقْتِدَاءَ بِهِمْ فَارْجُ خَيْرَهُ. ثُمَّ مِنْ بَعْدِ هَؤُلَاءِ حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، وَمُعَاذُ بْنُ مُعَاذٍ، وَوَهْبُ بْنُ جَرِيرٍ فَإِنَّ هَؤُلَاءِ مِحْنَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ. وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَ الرَّجُلَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكُوفَةِ يَعْتَمِدُ عَلَى طَلْحَةَ بْنِ مُصَرِّفٍ، وَابْنِ أَبْجَرَ، وَابْنِ حَيَّانَ التَّيْمِيِّ، وَمَالِكِ بْنِ مِغْوَلٍ، وَسُفْيَانَ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الثَّوْرِيِّ، وَزَائِدَةَ فَارْجُهُ. وَمِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ إِدْرِيسَ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ، وَابْنُ أَبِي عُتْبَةَ، وَالْمُحَارِبِيُّ فَارْجُهُ
If you see a man loving Abū Hurayra, supplicating for him, praying for him, then expect goodness from him and know that he is free of innovation …
If you see a Basran relying upon Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī, Ibn ʿAwn, Yūnus, and al-Taymī, loving them, mentioning them frequently, and following them, then expect goodness (from him). Then after these come Ḥammād b. Salama, Muʿādh b. Muʿādh, and Wahb b. Jarīr, for these are the litmus test (to discover) the ahl al-bidaʿ (people of innovation).
If you see a Kufan relying upon Ṭalḥa b. Muṣarrif, Ibn Abjar, Abū (sic. Ibn) Ḥayyān al-Taymī, Mālik b. Mighwal, Sufyān b. Saʿīd al-Thawrī, and Zāʾida, then expect (goodness). Then after these (doing the same for) ʿAbdallāh b. Idrīs, Muḥammad b. ʿUbayd, Ibn Abī ʿUtba, and al-Muḥāribī, then expect (goodness) …[39]
I have highlighted the names already encountered in the article.
The Basrans
The two Basran authorities (Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī and Ibn ʿAwn) responsible for Sufyān’s conversion have some things in common with the two Kufan authorities (Ṭalḥa b. Muṣarrif and ʿAbdallāh b. Idrīs) who deemed ʿUthmān superior to ʿAlī (according to Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal).
Apart from appearing together in ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī’s list which confirms perception of them as the ideal proto-Sunnis,[40] and setting aside the extreme laudation and high praise each man receives in classical works of Sunni rijāl, less advertised is the fact that all four men were ʿUthmānīs!
Ibn ʿAwn, Ṭalḥa, and ʿAbdallāh are explicitly called ʿUthmānīs in the early sources[41] and we can infer this for Ayyūb.
Who were ʿUthmānīs?
The ʿUthmānīs did not merely deem ʿUthmān superior to ʿAlī as Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal puts it, making it seem as though the ʿUthmānīs still considered ʿAlī the fourth-best in merit or Caliphate, rather the ʿUthmānīs of this period are known to have considered Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān to be the three best men after the Prophet and the only legitimate Caliphs,[42] with their attitude towards ʿAlī differing only in degree of hostility.[43]
As the well-informed litterateur al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255), no friend of the Shia, puts it:
وقد تعلمون أنه لم يكن في الأرض عثماني إلا تعلمون أنه منكر لإمامته، وهم أكثر عددا وأكثرهم فقيها ومحدثا
You know for a fact that there wasn’t a single ʿUthmānī on earth except that he rejected his (i.e. ʿAlī’s) imamate, and they (i.e. the ʿUthmānīs) were more in number (among the masses) and boasted a greater number of jurists and narrators[44]
Aḥmad b. Saʿīd al-Dārimī (d. 253) defines the ʿUthmānīs as follows:
وكان قوم يقال لهم عثمانية يقولون: أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان ويسكتون
There was a group called the ʿUthmāniyya who asserted: Abū Bakr, (then) ʿUmar, (then) ʿUthmān, (then) they remain silent[45]
Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī (d. 131) claims to have obtained this position from Medina.
The Basran scholar, Ḥammād b. Zayd (d. 177), a known ʿUthmānī[46] and a student of both Ayyūb and Ibn ʿAwn, narrates from Ayyūb the following:
قدمت المدينة والناس بها متوافرون: القاسم بن محمد، وسليمان بن يسار، وغيرهم، فما اختلف على أحد منهم في تقدمة أبي بكر، ثم عمر، ثم عثمان
I journeyed to Medina and the people there were plentiful (including) al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad, Sulaymān b. Yasār, and others. There was no dispute in giving precedence to Abū Bakr, then ʿUmar, then ʿUthmān.
Ḥammād b. Zayd comments:
قال حماد بن زيد: وذاك رأي أيوب وهو رأينا
This is the doctrine of Ayyūb, and it is our doctrine[47]
The silence over ʿAlī is deafening!
The Basran scholar, Yazīd b. Zurayʿ (d. 183), a known ʿUthmānī[48] and a student of both Ayyūb and Ibn ʿAwn, states:
خَيْرُ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: أَبُو بَكْرٍ، ثُمَّ عُمَرُ، ثُمَّ عُثْمَانُ، ثُمَّ نَقِفُ
The best of this umma after the Messenger of Allah are Abū Bakr, then ʿUmar, then ʿUthmān, then we stop[49]
The Basran judge, ʿAbdallāh b. Sawwār al-ʿAnbarī (d. 228), states:
السنة عندنا وما أدركنا عليه حمادًا، وحمادًا، والناس الذين يقتدى بهم تقديم أبي بكر، ثم عمر، ثم عثمان
The sunna with us, and what we found being upheld by Ḥammād (b. Salama), Ḥammād (b. Zayd), and those men who should be followed (is) giving precedence to Abū Bakr, then ʿUmar, then ʿUthmān[50]
Perhaps the best summary of the prevailing situation in Basra is provided by Mūsa b. Ismāʿīl al-Tabūdhkī (d. 223 or 226) who states:
هَكَذَا تَعَلَّمْنَا وَنَبَتَتْ عَلَيْهِ لُحُومُنَا، وَأَدْرَكْنَا النَّاسَ عَلَيْهِ: تَقْدِيمُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ وَعُثْمَانَ، ثُمَّ السُّكُوتُ
This is what we were instructed, what nourished our flesh (since childhood), and what we found the people (united) upon: Giving precedence to Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, then remaining silent[51]
Is it any surprise in light of this that when the Basran ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Mahdī got to know that his colleague, the Basran Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198) would consider Abū Bakr first, ʿUmar second, and then suspend judgment,[52] he grew angry at him and criticized him saying:
بِمَنْ تَقْتَدِي فِي هَذَا؟ وَأَهْلُ الْبَصْرَةِ لَيْسَ هَذَا قَوْلَهُمْ
Whose lead are you following in this?
When this is not the position of the Basrans![53]
Is this what it all came down to? Following ‘trusted’ authorities from the previous generation in one’s home-town?!
Conclusion
The conflicting positions of the Kufans and Basrans raises a curious conundrum for a modern reader who may have difficulty understanding why the ranking of companions was so contested in the first place! Isn’t this a clear-cut matter that was known to all?
Were the Kufans and Basrans obtuse or being purposely obstinate?
How could a master in Hadith such as Sufyān al-Thawrī change positions numerous times? How could a master in Hadith such as Maʿmar b. Rāshid show such ambivalence to the question? How could a master in Hadith such as Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān hesitate in his choice?
The reality is that the settled view which is now accepted by all Sunnis was not always so. What has become dogma now was something that was not so open-and-shut and needed to be argued for.
How this argument proceeded needs to be discussed.
To be continued …
Footnotes
[1] The exasperated response of the Kufan ḥadīth master, Abū Nuʿaym al-Faḍl b. Dukayn (d. 218), when an obnoxious Baghdadi man kept asking in public whether Faḍl was Shīʿī or not. See Taʾrīkh Baghdād, v. 14, p. 312 (https://shamela.ws/book/736/7968).
[2] Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 381, n. 532 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/569).
[3] ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 211) reports that four of his teachers: The Basrans Hishām b. Ḥassān (d. 145) and Maʿmar b. Rāshid (d. 153), the Kufan Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161), and the Medinan Mālik b. Anas (d. 179) would all say: ‘Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and (then) remain silent’. This is the famous ʿUthmānī position as discussed in this article, with Sufyān’s evolving position analyzed thoroughly. When the student asks ʿAbd al-Razzāq about his own stance, ʿAbd al-Razzāq elects to remain silent. See al-Maʿrifa wa-l-Taʾrīkh, v. 2, p. 806 (https://shamela.ws/book/12403/1525).
[4] Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 395, n. 568 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/602).
[5] Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 395, n. 567 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/601).
[6] Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 395, n. 569 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/603). See also Masāʾil Al-Imām Ahmad (Riwāyat ibnihi Abī al-Faḍl Ṣāliḥ), v. 2, p. 303, n. 921, 922 (https://shamela.ws/book/6106/658).
[7] This ranking is made explicit in a report which has Aḥmad’s student, al-Marrūdhī (d. 275), bring up the position of an unnamed Kufan who used to say in the matter of tafḍīl: “Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and (then) ʿAlī”. This evinces shock from Aḥmad. Al-Marrūdhī points out that: “The Kufans (as a whole) are upon this position” to which Aḥmad comments: “No one holds this (position) except a sick individual!” Aḥmad goes on to cite three pieces of evidence for ʿUthmān’s superiority: The words of Ibn Masʿūd at ʿUthmān’s accession; the statement of Ibn ʿUmar (which will be discussed in part 2); and the words of ʿĀʾisha after ʿAlī becomes Caliph wherein she favours ʿUthmān over ʿAlī. See Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 393, n. 563 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/597).
[8] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, v. 5, p. 193 (https://shamela.ws/book/10906/3965).
[9] Mīzan al-Iʿtidāl, v. 3, p. 552 (https://shamela.ws/book/1692/1903).
[10] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, v. 16, pp. 457-458 (https://shamela.ws/book/10906/10306).
[11] Minhāj al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya, v. 1, p. 13 (https://shamela.ws/book/927/11).
[12] Majmūʿ al-Fatāwa, v. 4, pp. 424-425 (https://shamela.ws/book/7289/1746).
[13] Taʾrīkh Madinat Dimashq, v. 42, p. 530 (https://shamela.ws/book/71/19516). Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 571) is quoting this report from the early work Taʾrīkh al-Kabīr of Ibn Abī Khaythama (d. 279) which survives partially. This is because it is this same chain (i.e. Abū Ghālib and Abū ʿAbdallāh [the sons of al-Bannā] > Abu al-Ḥusayn b. al-Ābnūsī > Aḥmad b. ʿUbaydallāh b. al-Faḍl > Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Zaʿfarānī > Ibn Abī Khaythama) that re-occurs for many quotations throughout Ibn ʿAsākir’s magnum opus. The chain is reliable. Note that Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463) records that Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Zaʿfarānī transmitted a version of Ibn Abī Khaythama’s Taʾrīkh. See Taʾrīkh Baghdād, v. 3, pp. 31-32, n. 649 (https://shamela.ws/book/736/945).
[14] Taʾrīkh Ibn Maʿīn (Riwāyat Ibn Muḥriz), v. 1, p. 159 (https://shamela.ws/book/101/110). Yaḥyā ends his statement with fa-innī lā adrī “for I do not know”. Is Yaḥyā saying that everyone prefers ʿAlī except Sufyān for he does not know where Sufyān stands on this? There seems to be some sort of textual corruption here for the variant is quite explicit in naming Sufyān as the sole exception.
[15] As a perusal of a list of his authorities can easily reveal. See Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, v. 31, pp. 188-192, n. 6778 (https://shamela.ws/book/3722/16738).
[16] Taʾrīkh Ibn Maʿīn (Riwāyat Ibn Muḥriz), v. 1, p. 159 (https://shamela.ws/book/101/110).
[17] Suʾālāt Ibn al-Junayd li Abī Zakariyyā Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn, p. 442, n. 700 (https://shamela.ws/book/12698/170).
[18] Taʾrīkh al-Kabīr (al-Sifr al-Thālith) (Ibn Abī Khaythama), v. 1, p. 133, n. 1226 (https://shamela.ws/book/8477/248). The same report is also found in Taʾrīkh Madinat Dimashq, v. 36, p. 189 (https://shamela.ws/book/71/16144) with Ibn ʿAsākir quoting from Ibn Abī Khaythama’s work via the same chain specified in footnote 13.
[19] Taʾrīkh Madinat Dimashq, v. 42, pp. 530-531 (https://shamela.ws/book/71/19516).
[20] As I argue in my article, “ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Shīʿīsm and the Limits of Sunni Hadith Criticism” (https://shiiticstudies.com/2022/11/17/%ca%bfabd-al-razzaqs-shi%ca%bfism-and-the-limits-of-sunni-hadith-criticism/).
[21] Reading “wa araytuhu ka-annī aʿẓamtu dhāk” as found in the superior edition of Taʾrīkh Madinat Dimashq published by Maṭbūʿāt Majmaʿ al-Lugha al-ʿArabiyya bi-Dimashq. See Taʾrīkh Madinat Dimashq (ed. Riyāḍ ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Murād et al.), v. 50, pp. 493-494 (at 494). Note that I have corrected numerous other mistakes found in the Shamela online transcription of the ʿUmrawī (Dār al-Fikr) edition.
[22] See my thread: https://x.com/ammaar_muslim/status/1816771824673345938. I noted how Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal’s cited reason for preferring ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Mahdī (d. 198) over Wakīʿ was that the “salaf” were “safe” from criticism by the former. See Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, v. 30, p. 474 (https://shamela.ws/book/3722/16541). There is also the incident where Wakīʿ draws a parallel between ʿUthmān and the tyrant al-Ḥajjāj! See al-Maʿrifa wa-l-Taʾrīkh, v. 2, p. 806 (https://shamela.ws/book/12403/1525). No wonder one contemporary was ready to label Wakīʿ a Rāfiḍī! See Taʾrīkh Baghdād, v. 15, p. 652 (https://shamela.ws/book/736/8851).
[23] Al-Bidāya wa-l-Nihāya, v. 8, p. 12 (https://shamela.ws/book/23708/2496).
[24] There was considerable social and professional cost for a Kufan ḥadīth transmitter in the middle and last part of the second century if he were discovered to be a Shīʿī. This could impinge negatively on his reputation leading to isolation and marginalization of his ḥadīth. As al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255) reveals: “A ḥadīth transmitter needed only be suspected of Shīʿīsm to cause him to be abandoned, weakened, and accused in the eyes of the people of knowledge, to the extent that such a man would conceal and hide this (i.e. Shīʿīsm) more than he would hide a deformity found in his body!” See Kitāb al-ʿUthmāniyya, p. 176 (https://shamela.ws/book/96338/173). Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, who would become extremely influential in defining correct practise among the ahl al-sunna, is quite clear: “Whoever asserts that ʿAlī is superior to Abū Bakr then he is an evil man, we do not mix with him nor do we sit with him” See Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 377, n. 524 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/559). Some important authorities would reject transmitting ḥadīth to anyone they considered a mubtadiʿ (innovator). Consider how the Zāʾida b. Qudāma (d. 161), a close associate of Sufyān al-Thawrī and one of the men in ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī’s list (discussed in this paper), would first ask whether a potential student was a ‘ṣāḥib sunna’ or not before taking them on. See Al-Thiqāt (al-ʿIjlī), v. 1, p. 367, n. 490 (https://shamela.ws/book/5825/189). When a colleague, Zuhayr b. Muʿāwiya (d. bet. 172-177), introduces a potential student to Zāʾida the latter asks: “Is he from the ahl al-sunna?” When Zuhayr responds: “I do not know of him committing any bidʿa” Zāʾida is not satisfied and asks again: “Is he from the ahl al-sunna?” An exasperated Zuhayr takes affront at Zāʾida’s undue suspicion and responds: “When were the people like this?!” To which Zāʾida has the rejoinder: “When were the people reviling Abū Bakr and ʿUmar?!” In other words, Zāʾida’s extra stringency is a reaction to the Kufans’ more open daring in stating their views. See Al-Jāmiʿ li-Akhlāq al-Rāwī wa Ādāb al-Sāmiʿ (al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī), v. 1, p. 332, n. 748 (https://shamela.ws/book/13012/854). It is noteworthy in light of what I have proposed in this article about Wakiʿ b. al-Jarrāḥ that the latter was one of the narrators whom Zāʾida refused to narrate ḥadīth to. Faḍl b. Dukayn (d. 218) relates: “Zāʾida would not speak to anyone (to transmit ḥadīth) before testing him. Wakīʿ came to him but he did not narrate ḥadīth to him”. See Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, v. 5, p. 29 (https://shamela.ws/book/36515/1603) quoting from the now-lost Rijāl work of Ibn Ḥazm al-Muntajālī/Muntajīlī (d. 350).
[25] Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ, v. 7, p. 31 (https://shamela.ws/book/10495/10010).
[26] Sharḥ Uṣūl Iʿtiqād Ahl al-Sunna wa-l Jamāʿa (al-Lālakāʾī), v. 1, p. 70, n. 42 (https://shamela.ws/book/9200/88). Al-Falakī in the chain of the printed edition is a mistake and should be corrected to al-ʿUklī (i.e. Zayd b. Ḥubāb). Salmān b. Qarm should also be corrected to Sulaymān b. Qarm.
[27] al-ʿIjlī notes that Sufyān al-Thawrī “travelled to him (i.e. Maʿmar) and heard from him there (i.e. Yemen), and he (i.e. Maʿmar) likewise heard from Sufyān” See Al-Thiqāt, v. 2, p. 290, n. 1766 (https://shamela.ws/book/5825/592).
[28] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, v. 7, p. 252 (https://shamela.ws/book/10906/4916).
[29] To cite just one evidence for this, the renunciant Yūsuf b. Asbāṭ (d. 195) of Kufan origin recalls: “My father was a Qadarī and my maternal uncles were all Rāfiḍīs but Allah, the exalted, rescued me through Sufyān”. See Musnad Ibn al-Jaʿd, p. 272, n. 1803 (https://shamela.ws/book/4407/1657).
[30] Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ, v. 7, p. 27 (https://shamela.ws/book/10495/9986).
[31] Sharḥ Uṣūl Iʿtiqād Ahl al-Sunna wa-l Jamāʿa (al-Lālakāʾī), v. 1, pp. 170-171, n. 314 (https://shamela.ws/book/9200/335).
[32] Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 374, n. 515 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/550).
[33] Al-ʿIlal wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, v. 3, p. 134, n. 4581 (https://shamela.ws/book/2331/1283).
[34] Al-ʿIlal wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, v. 3, p. 133, n. 4580 (https://shamela.ws/book/2331/1282).
[35] Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 373, n. 512 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/546).
[36] Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, pp. 401-402, n. 586 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/621). Recall that this is also what ʿAbd al-Razzāq attibutes to Sufyān. See footnote 3. Recall also that Yūsuf b. Asbāṭ is the one who recounts that Sufyān saved him from Rafḍ. See footnote 29.
[37] Al-Jarḥ wa-l Taʿdīl (Ibn Abī Ḥātim), v. 1, p. 118 (https://shamela.ws/book/2170/145). Note that Mālik, Awzāʿī and Ḥammād are all known to be ʿUthmānīs!
[38] Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, v. 11, p. 166 (https://shamela.ws/book/3722/5487).
[39] Sharḥ Uṣūl Iʿtiqād Ahl al-Sunna wa-l Jamāʿa (al-Lālakāʾī), v. 1, pp. 191-192 (https://shamela.ws/book/9200/343).
[40] Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354) names both Ayyūb and Ibn ʿAwn in a group of four Basrans “who manifested sunna in it, combined with extreme renunciation (of the world), fiqh in religion, prodigious mastery (of ḥadīth), and aloofness from the people of bidʿa” See Al-Thiqāt, v. 7, p. 647 (https://shamela.ws/book/5816/3254). Ibn Saʿd (d. 230) uses the important appelation ‘ṣāḥib sunna wa jamāʿa’, a precursor of the later ‘Sunni’, for ʿAbdallāh b. Idrīs. See Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 8, p. 511, n. 3531 (https://shamela.ws/book/146/3867).
[41] Ibn Saʿd (d. 230) explicitly labels Ibn ʿAwn an ʿUthmānī. See Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 9, p. 261, n. 4060 (https://shamela.ws/book/146/4155). Al-ʿIjlī (d. 261) does the same for Ṭalḥa b. Muṣarrif and ʿAbdallāh b. Idrīs. See Al-Thiqāt, v. 1, p. 479, n. 797 (https://shamela.ws/book/5825/301) and v. 2, p. 21, n. 853 (https://shamela.ws/book/5825/323).
[42] The attitude of the ʿUthmānīs towards ʿAlī’s reign is perhaps best glimpsed in a report that Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī narrates on the authority of the Basran tābiʿī Abū Qilāba (d. c. 104) who recounts how one Thumāma b. Ḥazn, a governor of Ṣanʿāʾ, wept profusely when news of the killing of ʿUthmān reached him before proclaiming: “On this day Prophethood [Ayyūb emends to: Caliphate of Prophethood] was taken away from the umma of Muḥammad and it has turned into kingship and tyranny. Whoever gains domination over something eats away!” See Al-Muṣannaf (Ibn Abī Shayba), v. 18, p. 41, n. 34198 (https://shamela.ws/book/333/39274); Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 334 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/460). This is to say that ʿAlī’s reign was not part of khilāfat al-nubuwwa. Note that Ayyūb was very close to Abū Qilāba such that the latter willed that his books should be handed over to him after his death which occurred in Syria to which he had relocated. Note also that al-Dhahabī labels Abū Qilāba ‘shaykh al- islām’ and from among ‘the imams of guidance’ despite al-ʿIjlī describing him as someone who “used to (verbally) attack ʿAlī”. See Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, v.4, pp. 468-475, n. 178 (https://shamela.ws/book/10906/3621); Al-Thiqāt, v. 2, p. 30, n. 888 (https://shamela.ws/book/5825/332). Ibn Ḥajar refers to this as “slight” naṣb. See Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, p. 304, n. 3333 (https://shamela.ws/book/8609/230). For a report that Abū Qilāba narrates from Anas and which is conspicuous in leaving out ʿAlī, see Sunan al-Tirmidhī, 3791 (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3791).
[43] Some ʿUthmānīs considered ʿAlī to to have been precipitant in hankering after leadership. The ʿUthmānī ʿAbdallāh b. ʿUkaym al-Juhanī (d. c. 88) tells Ibn Abī Laylā: “If only your man (i.e. ʿAlī) had waited patiently the people would have come to him themselves (i.e. to pledge allegiance)”. See Al-Thiqāt (al-ʿIjlī), v. 1, p. 480 (https://shamela.ws/book/5825/302). Many ʿUthmānīs held him primarily responsible for ʿUthmān’s murder and the bloodshed in the civil war that followed. Look at the impudence of the famed reciter, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī (d. 74), from whom we get the common qirāʾa that is Ḥafṣ from ʿĀṣim, when he says to Ibn ʿAṭiyya: “I know what emboldened your man (i.e. ʿAlī) to shed all that blood! I heard him (i.e. ʿAlī) saying …” before going on to quote ʿAlī narrating the incident where he discovers Ḥāṭib b. Abī Baltaʿa’s secret letter to the Meccans confirming Ḥāṭib’s treachery. However, the Prophet forgives Ḥāṭib because as the Prophet supposedly says: “You never know, perhaps Allah glanced at the Badrīs and said to them: ‘Do whatever you wish (i.e. your sins will be forgiven)’”. It is this divine amnesty to all Badrīs which emboldened ʿAlī to commit such a grave sin according to Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān! This canonical report is found in al-Bukhārī and Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān is explicitly labelled an ʿUthmānī in the chain. See Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī, 3081 (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3081). For a fuller account of the Ḥāṭib incident, see Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī, 4274 (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4274). ʿAbdallāh b. Shaqīq (d. c. 108) narrates a fabricated report wherein ʿUmar asks an unnamed bishop (usquf) whether he (i.e. ʿUmar) is found in the ‘scriptures’. The bishop responds in the affirmative and asserts that ʿUmar’s description therein is of an “iron horn”. The bishop continues by describing ʿUmar’s successors whose careers have been foretold. The fourth Caliph (i.e. ʿAlī) is described as a “rusty iron” who will rule when “the swords will be unsheathed” and “much blood spilt”. See Sunan Abū Dāwūd, 4656 (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4656). Ibn Saʿd calls ʿAbdallāh b. Shaqīq an ʿUthmānī. See Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 9, p. 125, n. 3832 (https://shamela.ws/book/146/4019). Al-ʿIjlī says that ʿAbdallāh “used to (verbally) attack ʿAlī” before labelling him thiqa (!). See Al-Thiqāt, v. 2, p. 37, n. 905 (https://shamela.ws/book/5825/339). Ibn Kharrāsh (d. 283) says: “He was thiqa. He was an ʿUthmānī. He used to hate (yabghuḍ) ʿAlī”. See Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, v. 15, p. 91 (https://shamela.ws/book/3722/7576).
[44] Kitāb al-ʿUthmāniyya, p. 176 (https://shamela.ws/book/96338/173).
[45] Masāʾil Ḥarb al-Kirmānī, v. 3, p. 1196 (https://shamela.ws/book/12527/1018). The whole passage should be studied since al-Dārimī provides a useful summary of the contrasting positions of the different early authorities on this question.
[46] Aḥmad b. Saʿīd al-Dārimī (d. 253) lists Ḥammād b. Zayd’s name when enumerating ʿUthmānīs. See Masāʾil Ḥarb al-Kirmānī, v. 3, p. 1196 (https://shamela.ws/book/12527/1018).
[47] Masāʾil Ḥarb al-Kirmānī, v. 3, p. 1197 (https://shamela.ws/book/12527/1019). See also Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 403, n. 590 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/626). Ayyūb’s testimony is suspect since there exists some evidence to indicate that the general stance among Medinans was suspending judgment after Abū Bakr and ʿUmar. Consider how Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal is quoted declaring: “I do not hold the position of the Kufans – Ibrāhīm (i.e. al-Nakhaʿī) and the others, nor the position of the Medinans, they do not prefer one over the other”. See Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 371, n. 508 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/541) and read raʾāhu for rawā at both instances as found in the printed edition of Ḥasan ʿAbbās Quṭb (al-Fārūq al-Ḥadīthiyya, 1428). Ibn Taymiyya confirms this when he says: “Some Medinans suspended judgment when it came to (comparing) ʿUthmān and ʿAlī, and this (suspension of judgment) is one position attributed to Mālik, but the other position is that he gave precedence to ʿUthmān over ʿAlī as is the position of the rest of the imams …” See Majmūʿ al-Fatāwa, v. 4, pp. 425-426 (https://shamela.ws/book/7289/1747). Such an attitude from the Medinans would also be more consistent with the reported role of many of their ancestors in forsaking ʿUthmān and leaving him to his fate at the hands of his assailants.
[48] Ibn Saʿd (d. 230) explicitly labels Yazīd an ʿUthmānī. See Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 9, p. 290, n. 4142 (https://shamela.ws/book/146/4184).
[49] Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 402, n. 588 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/624).
[50] Masāʾil Ḥarb al-Kirmānī, v. 3, p. 1197 (https://shamela.ws/book/12527/1019).
[51] Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 402, n. 588 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/624).
[52] Aḥmad b. Saʿīd al-Dārimī (d. 253) confirms that Yaḥyā was among the few Basrans who suspended judgment. See Masāʾil Ḥarb al-Kirmānī, v. 3, pp. 1196-1197 (https://shamela.ws/book/12527/1018).
[53] Al-Sunna (al-Khallāl), v. 2, p. 372, n. 511 (https://shamela.ws/book/1077/545). Yaḥyā claimed to be following Sufyān in this but then we know that Sufyān himself shifted on it.
Shiitic Studies 