“I saw the Messenger of Allah in a dream. He came to me so I said: “O Messenger of Allah! They have differed over the tashahhud. So-and-so says it is one way, another says it is a different way, Ibn Masʿūd says it is yet another way!” [1]
Khuṣayf al-Jazarī (d. c. 136)
Introduction
The exact formula of tashahhud that someone had to recite within ṣalāt (ritual prayer) became a source of controversy in early Islam since there existed different versions transmitted by different companions all claiming to go back to the Prophet.
The tashahhud taught by ʿAlī, as narrated by his close disciple al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar (d. 65), was wholly sidelined in the Sunni corpus, to be found only in a single surviving source, with al-Ḥārith himself weakened as a narrator. Studying the earliest criticism against al-Ḥārith, especially by al-Shaʿbī whose pro-Umayyad bias is documented in full, provides insight into the limits of Sunni hadith criticism.
It is shown that ʿAlī’s tashahhud found in the Sunni corpus matches what is found in the Imāmī corpus where it is given its due place as the most recommended formula. This supports the assertion that the Imāmī corpus accurately preserves the legal positions of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib as transmitted by his descendants Muḥammad al-Bāqir (d. 114) and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148).
The article concludes by addressing the critical question of why the companions differed over the tashahhud: Did the Prophet teach a fixed formula as is commonly held or did he give license for flexibility?
Al-Ḥārith’s Report
Consider the following report transmitted by the early Kufan hadith collector, Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235), in his Muṣannaf:
حدثنا وكيع عن الأعمش عن أبي إسحاق عن الحارث عن علي: أنه كان يقول إذا تشهد: بسم اللَّه خير الأسماء اسم اللَّه
Wakīʿ (b. al-Jarrāḥ) narrated to us from al-Aʿmash from Abū Isḥāq (al-Sabīʿī) from al-Ḥārith (al-Aʿwar) from ʿAlī that he (i.e. ʿAlī) used to say in the tashahhud: bismillāh khayrul asmāʾ ismu-llāh[2]
In variants preserved by al-Bayhaqī (d. 458), al-Ḥārith reports that ʿAlī would say bismillāh or bismillāh wa-billāh in his tashahhud.[3]
It is noteworthy that the famous versions of the tashahhud as narrated by Ibn Masʿūd (adopted by Ḥanafīs and Ḥanbalīs), ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (adopted by Mālikīs), and Ibn ʿAbbās (adopted by Shāfiʿīs) do not begin with bismillāh.
In fact, Ibn Masʿūd is quoted as commenting the following when he heard someone say bismillāh in the tashahhud:
This is something that is said over food (before eating)![4]
What we have here, then, is a case of disagreement between ʿAlī and some other companions over whether bismillāh should be recited in the tashahhud or not.[5]
Now ʿAlī’s tashahhud must have been longer than merely saying bismillāh but where can the rest of it be found?
I searched the whole Sunni corpus and could only find it in a single extant[6] place: Aḥwāl al-Rijāl of al-Jūzjānī (d. 259) where a more complete version of al-Ḥārith’s report is provided.[7] Note that al-Ḥārith’s report is still truncated[8] and only given by al-Jūzjānī to demonstrate al-Ḥārith’s weakness as a narrator since al-Jūzjānī argues that the tashahhud of ʿAlī transmitted by al-Ḥārith goes against the consensus of the umma as represented by the respective formulas of Ibn Masʿūd, Abū Mūsā, and Ibn ʿAbbās which are closer to each other.
وأمر الحارث في حديثه بين عند من لم يعم الله قلبه وقد روى عن علي تشهدا خالف فيه الأمة قال: كان يقول: بسم الله خير الأسماء التحيات لله ما طاب فلله وما خبث فلغيره أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا عبده ورسوله أشهد أنه نعم الرب ونعم الرسول محمد السلام على نبي الله السلام على أنبياء الله السلام على المؤمنين والمؤمنات من غاب منهم ومن شهد ونحو هذا والتشهد عن ابن مسعود وأبي موسى وابن عباس كأنهم تكلموا بلسان واحد عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم محفوظ مشهور
Apart from being found in al-Jūzjānī’s book dedicated to collecting weak narrators, ʿAlī’s tashahhud has been wholly sidelined by Sunni scholars and does not even figure in fiqh debates as a possible option. This is likely because of the controversial status of al-Ḥārith as a narrator.
The Status of al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar
Al-Ḥārith was an early tābiʿī known to have been especially close to ʿAlī.[9]
A witness recounts how ʿAlī once mounted the pulpit in Kufa and announced:
Who will buy knowledge for a dirham?
Al-Ḥārith bought several ṣuḥuf (sheets) for a dirham and got a lot of knowledge dictated to him by ʿAlī.
ʿAlī later announced:
O people of Kufa – you have been vanquished by half a man! (i.e. al-Ḥārith was one-eyed)[10]
It is claimed that both al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn would query al-Ḥārith about the hadith of their father ʿAlī.[11]
Al-Ḥārith reported almost exclusively from ʿAlī as the hadith expert ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234) confirms:
Al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar was not on the path of the students of ʿAbdallāh (b. Masʿūd). His narrations and madhhab belonged to that of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. I do not know him to have narrated from ʿAbdallāh except two reports[12]
ʿAlī trained al-Ḥārith in all areas of the law but especially inheritance law. Ibn Abī Dāwūd (d. 316) states:
Al-Ḥārith was the best among people at jurisprudence (fiqh), the best among people at calculating inheritance shares (farāʾiḍ), the best among people at arithmetic (ḥisāb). He learnt calculating inheritance shares from ʿAlī[13]
Al-Ḥārith’s general standing in Kufa can be gleamed from the following statement by the early Basran authority, Ibn Sīrīn (d. 110):
I encountered the Kufans giving precedence to five: The one who counts al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar first has ʿAbīda (al-Salmānī) second, and the one who counts ʿAbīda first has al-Ḥārith second, then ʿAlqama is third without dispute …[14]
Being ranked above the premiere students of Ibn Masʿūd such as ʿAbīda al-Salmānī (d. c. 70) and ʿAlqama b. Qays (d. c. 62) is quite the distinction.
Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī (d. 127) recalls that he used to pray behind al-Ḥārith who was the prayer-leader (imam) for his tribe,[15] something which speaks to al-Ḥārith’s reputation for piety and knowledge among the Hamdān, a large Yemenite tribe in Kufa.
Yet, there was still something about al-Ḥārith that some found objectionable.
Consider how a contemporary, Murra al-Hamdānī, took offense at a remark spoken by al-Ḥārith and asked al-Ḥārith to wait by the door as he entered a house. Al-Ḥārith sensed that something was not right and left. He was right. Murra had gone in to fetch a sword to attack al-Ḥārith.[16] This demonstrates that al-Ḥārith had to self-censor his views.
Murra likely heard al-Ḥārith say: “I learnt the Qur’an in a year and the waḥy in three years!”[17] or “The Qur’an is easy (to learn) whereas the waḥy is more difficult!”[18] This is not necessarily blasphemous, however, for waḥy could entail the divinely-revealed taʾwīl (interpretation) of verses or the Prophetic sunna which is also considered divinely-revealed! Al-Khaṭṭābī (d. 388) proposes on linguistic grounds that waḥy here could be referring to learning how to write.[19]
Unlike Murra whose attempted assassination failed, the man who did real harm to al-Ḥārith was his one-time student, al-Shaʿbī (d. c. 105), who came to declare:
حَدثنِي أبي قَالَ: حَدثنَا أَبُو أُسَامَة قَالَ: حَدثنِي مفضل عَن مُغيرَة قَالَ: سَمِعت الشّعبِيّ يَقُول: حَدثنِي الْحَارِث وَأشْهد أَنه أحد الْكَذَّابين
Al-Ḥārith narrated to me and I bear witness that he was one of the kadhdhābīn (liars) …[20]
Al-Shaʿbī would go on to down-play his former association with al-Ḥārith.
When he was asked whether he used to “frequent going to al-Ḥārith” he responds:
Yes. I used to frequent going to him to learn arithmetic from him for he was the best of people at it[21]
But we know that al-Shaʿbī did not only learn arithmetic from al-Ḥārith but also hadith which he went on to censor: choosing not to narrate the majority[22] and narrating only a few which he found acceptable,[23] sometimes without naming his intermediary.[24]
Al-Shaʿbī’s contemporary, Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī (d. 96), is also reported to have taken issue with al-Ḥārith.
Mughīra b. al-Miqsam (d. 136) states:
حَدثنِي أَحْمد بن يُونُس ثَنَا زَائِدَة عَن مُغيرَة عَن إِبْرَاهِيم أَنه اتهمَ الْحَارِث
Ibrāhīm accused al-Ḥārith[25]
The effectiveness of Ibrāhīm’s accusation is blunt somewhat by the fact that it is not immediately clear what Ibrāhīm accused al-Ḥārith of.
The same cannot be said about al-Shaʿbī’s criticism. There could not be a more damaging attack in the context of hadith narration than being labelled a ‘liar’!
Reception of the Criticism
Ibrāhīm and al-Shaʿbī were very early authorities who were active before the formative period of Sunni hadith criticism. It is for this reason that Tirmidhī (d. 279) can appeal to their stance on al-Ḥārith as a paradigmatic precedent demonstrating the permissibility of narrator criticism:
Some of those who lack understanding have faulted the ahl al-ḥadīth in their speaking about men, but we have found numerous imams from the tābiʿīn to have spoken about men. They include al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110) and Ṭāwūs (d. 106) both of whom spoke about Maʿbad al-Juhanī (d. c. 80). Saʿīd b. Jubayr (d. 95) spoke about Ṭalq b. Ḥabīb (b. 100). Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī and ʿĀmir al-Shaʿbī spoke about al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar.
Statements have been transmitted from Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī (d. 131), ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAwn (d. c. 150), Sulaymān al-Taymī (d. 143), Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160), Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161), Mālik b. Anas (d. 179), al-Awzaʿī (d. 157), ʿAbdallāh b. al-Mubārak (d. 181), Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198), Wakīʿ b. al-Jarrāḥ (d. 197), ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Mahdī (d. 198) and others from among the people of knowledge in which they speak about men and weaken (them).
What drove them to do that, in our view, and Allah knows best, is (providing) counsel for the Muslims. It cannot be entertained about them that they sought to make false accusations against people or back-bite, rather, what they wanted, according to us, is to expose the weakness of these (narrators) so that they can be known …[26]
Narrator criticism worked by taking on-board the opinion of previous critics and it is no surprise to encounter al-Shaʿbī’s damning indictment of al-Ḥārith being adopted by the two influential Basran critics of the subsequent generation, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198) and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Mahdī (d. 198).
A student of the two critics recalls:
Yaḥyā and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān took the pen from my hands and struck out around fourty hadith narrated by al-Ḥārith from ʿAlī (for exclusion)[27]
I say “adopted” because there is no statement attributed to these two Basran critics explaining their decision to abandon al-Ḥārith’s hadith. It is likely, therefore, that they depended on the Kufan al-Shaʿbī who had actually met and studied under al-Ḥārith without necessarily evaluating al-Ḥārith’s hadiths for themselves.
Al-Shaʿbī’s influence must also be why ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234), a student of the two aforementioned Basran critics, labels al-Ḥārith a liar for he does not substantiate his assertion or give an example of al-Ḥārith lying.[28]
When we come to the generation of the authors of the canonical works, it is clear that they were exposed to the original criticism against al-Ḥārith and consequently chose to sideline al-Ḥārith’s reports almost completely from their celebrated works:
- Bukhārī (d. 256) cites al-Shaʿbī’s indictment and Ibrāhīm’s accusation in his great book on narrators[29] and consequently does not include even a single report from al-Ḥārith in his Ṣaḥīḥ.
- Muslim (d. 261) cites al-Shaʿbī’s indictment; al-Ḥārith’s remark about the Qur’an; Ibrāhīm’s accusation; Murra’s attempt on al-Ḥārith’s life in the muqadimma (introduction) to his Ṣaḥīḥ,[30] and consequently does not include even a single report from al-Ḥārith in his Ṣaḥīḥ.
- Abū Dāwūd (d. 275) must have been aware of al-Shaʿbī’s indictment and consequently only includes 2 independent reports with al-Ḥārith in the chain. In Abū Dāwūd’s letter to the Meccans laying out the methodology he followed in his Sunan he states that he included only 1 report from al-Ḥārith which we can put down to forgetfulness.[31]
- Al-Nasāʾī (d. 303) contradicts himself when he says about al-Ḥārith in one instance “he is not strong” (laysa bi-l-qawiyy)[32] and in another instance “there is no harm in him” (laysa bihi baʾs),[33] but he ultimately includes only 1 report from al-Ḥārith in his canonical work.
The only exceptions to this trend are Ibn Māja (d. 273) and Tirmidhī (d. 279). Ibn Māja includes 17 independent reports from al-Ḥārith. This can be put down to his well-known ‘leniency’ as a hadith scholar.
Tirmidhī includes 13 independent reports from al-Ḥārith. It seems that Tirmidhī did not fully buy into al-Shaʿbī’s labelling of al-Ḥārith (more on this later) as he uses his intermediate grading ‘ḥasan’ (fair) for chains which contain al-Ḥārith,[34] making sure to remind his readers that some scholars weaken al-Ḥārith.[35]
Even though both these scholars include some of al-Ḥārith’s reports, a study of their contents reveals that they only included those reports that were about non-controversial subjects (e.g. benign supplications, good etiquette etc.) or points of law about which there was no disagreement.
Neither scholar would include a report from al-Ḥārith if it contradicted “stronger” chains and this is the reason why ʿAlī’s tashahhud came to be excluded from all six canonical works.
Al-Shaʿbī and the Umayyad Connection
The problem with relying on al-Shaʿbī’s criticism of al-Ḥārith, however, is that there is evidence for his personal bias against the Shia.
Al-Shaʿbī was born around the year 28 in Kufa.
It is claimed that al-Shaʿbī was Ṣhīʿī himself in his youth,[36] but if we accept this then he had long abandoned the madhhab.
Consider how al-Shaʿbī is quoted as saying:
I resided in Medina for eight or ten months together with ʿAbdallāh b. ʿUmar
Ibn Saʿd (d. 230) comments:
The reason for his stay in Medina was that he feared al-Mukhtār so he fled from him to Medina and resided therein[37]
Mukhtār’s revolt began in the year 66. Al-Shaʿbī would have been around 38 years of age. This is also around the time his former teacher al-Ḥārith passed away.
Fleeing from Kufa because al-Mukhtār had taken power is not something expected from a Ṣhīʿī!
Thus, when al-Ājurī (d. 360) asks Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī (d. 275):
A group claim that he (i.e. al-Shaʿbī) had Ṣhīʿī tendencies?
Abū Dāwūd rightfully rubbishes the suggestion:
I seek refuge in Allah! He is the one who said: “If the Shia were birds they would be vultures, and if they were beasts they would be donkeys!”[38]
The turning-point in al-Shaʿbī’s life can be traced back to a single pivotal moment: His elevation by al-Ḥajjāj (d. 95), the Umayyad governor of Iraq under ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (r. 65-86), who became governor of Iraq in the year 75. Al-Shaʿbī would have been around 47 years of age. It is this patronage that made al-Shaʿbī who he was and explains his later prominence.
Al-Shaʿbī relates in an auto-biographical note:
When al-Ḥajjāj arrived in Kufa he said to Ibn Abī Muslim: “Present to me the ʿurafāʾ (tribal overseers).” He (i.e. Ibn Abī Muslim) presented them to him. He (i.e. al-Ḥajjāj) saw among them the dregs of the people and said: “Woe upon you! Are these the deputies of the warriors over their families?!” He (i.e. Ibn Abī Muslim) responded: “Yes.” He (i.e. al-Ḥajjāj) said: “Expel them and bring me the (whole) tribes tomorrow!”
He (i.e. Ibn Abī Muslim) brought him the tribes under their banners the next day and they began being presented to him. He would summon any man who caught his attention. The Shaʿbīyīn (i.e. Shaʿbī’s clan) were called. The first age-group marched in front of him but he did not summon anyone from them. The second age-group marched and he summoned me.
He asked: “Who are you?” I informed him. He said: “Sit.” I sat. He asked: “Have you memorized the Qur’an?” I said: “Yes.” He asked: “Have you mastered calculating inheritance shares?” I said: “Yes.” He asked: “What is your position concerning this and that, having to do with the creed of Abū Turāb?” I informed him. He said: “You have hit the mark.” He asked me: “Have you looked into the Arabic language?” I said: “Yes.” He asked: “Do you transmit poems?” I said: “I have looked into their meanings.” He asked: “Have you looked into arithmetic?” I said: “Yes.”
Ibn Abī Muslim interjected: “We need him in one of our dīwāns (departments)!”
He (i.e. al-Ḥajjāj) asked: “Do you transmit the maghāzī (campaigns) of the Messenger of Allah?” I said: “Yes.” He said: “Narrate to me the story of Badr.” So I began with the dream of ʿĀtika (i.e. the aunt of the Prophet) until the muʾadhdhin called for ẓuhr.
Then he entered and said to me: “Do not leave.” He came out and prayed the ẓuhr and I completed it for him.
He made me an ʿarīf[39] over the Shaʿbīyīn, and the mankib[40] over the whole of Hamdān, and set my stipend with the nobility …[41]
It is one of the ironies of history that al-Shaʿbī impressed al-Ḥajjāj with the same skills that he had learnt from al-Ḥārith who learnt them from ʿAlī!
Notice the censorship with regard the question concerning Abū Turāb (a pejorative name for ʿAlī). We don’t know what exactly al-Ḥajjāj asked and how exactly al-Shaʿbī responded but we do know that al-Ḥajjāj approved. In fact, it was Umayyad state-policy to abuse ʿAlī and al-Ḥajjāj, in particular, was adamant in implementing this. There is no way that al-Shaʿbī would have been recruited if he did anything but support such a policy.
Al-Shaʿbī worked for the Umayyads for 8 years without incident but then his political career took a sharp fall when he aligned himself with Ibn al-Ashʿath and the Kufan aristocracy in their revolt against al-Ḥajjāj and the Umayyads. To hear him tell it, his support for Ibn al-Ashʿath was lukewarm and mainly motivated by the Kufan qurrāʾ who implored him to join their side.[42]
When Ibn al-Ashʿath was defeated at the battle of Dayr al-Jamājim (in the year 83), al-Shaʿbī had to go into hiding since al-Ḥajjāj was seeking to avenge what he deemed an act of personal betrayal. Al-Shaʿbī sought refuge with the Umayyad governor in Khurāsān, Qutayba b. Muslim, who had announced a general amnesty for the defeated.[43]
When al-Ḥajjāj came to know that al-Shaʿbī was with Qutayba he summoned al-Shaʿbī. Many feared that al-Ḥajjāj would have al-Shaʿbī executed. There are numerous alternate reports of how the fateful encounter played out. What is clear is that al-Shaʿbī had to grovel to pacify al-Ḥajjāj’s anger.
Ibn Saʿd reports the following dialogue:
Al-Ḥajjāj: Did I not come to this town and your stipend was such-and-such then I increased your stipend whereas the likes of you are not increased?!
Al-Shaʿbī: Indeed (you did), may Allah preserve the amīr.
Al-Ḥajjāj: Did I not instruct that you lead your tribe (in prayer) whereas the likes of you do not lead?!
Al-Shaʿbī: Indeed (you did), may Allah preserve the amīr.
Al-Ḥajjāj: Did I not appoint you as an ʿarīf whereas the likes of you are not appointed?!
Al-Shaʿbī: Indeed (you did), may Allah preserve the amīr.
Al-Ḥajjāj: Did I not send you as a delegate to the amīr al-muʾminīn whereas the likes of you are not sent in a delegation?!
Al-Shaʿbī: Indeed (you did), may Allah preserve the amīr
Al-Ḥajjāj: Then what caused you to rebel with ʿAduww al-Raḥmān (a play on ʿAbd al-Raḥmān i.e. Ibn al-Ashʿath)?!
At which point al-Shaʿbī utters his famous line:
A fitna struck us so we were neither righteous innocents nor capable sinners![44]
Al-Ṭabarī reports that al-Shaʿbī also said:
Allah has aided you against us, and given you victory over us, so if you choose to punish us then it is because of our sins and what our own hands have wrought, but if you choose to forgive us then that is because of your clemency and having completed the proof against us![45]
Al-Ḥajjāj forgives al-Shaʿbī.
This is in stark contrast to individuals like Saʿīd b. Jubayr and Kumayl b. Ziyād who stood firm at this same juncture and were duly put to death.
In fact, al-Ḥajjāj not only re-employs al-Shaʿbī but when the Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik wants a tutor for his son, the future Caliph al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik, al-Ḥajjāj sends al-Shaʿbī to Damascus and al-Shaʿbī becomes part of the royal entourage.[46]
Al-Shaʿbī was sent as an envoy to the Byzantine emperor who after witnessing al-Shaʿbī’s sharp intelligence writes to Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik:
I wonder at your co-religionists – how did they not make this messenger of yours the Caliph?!
When ʿAbd al-Malik shares this with al-Shaʿbī, the latter responds with a good sense of self-preservation:
That is only because he saw me and has not yet seen amīr al-muʾminīn (i.e. ʿAbd al-Malik)![47]
ʿAbd al-Malik grew so fond of al-Shaʿbī that when he loaned out al-Shaʿbī’s services to his own brother, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān, the semi-autonomous governor of Egypt, he made it clear that this was only temporary and al-Shaʿbī should be sent back to the capital within 30 days.[48]
Al-Shaʿbī would finally be appointed the official qāḍī (judge) of Kufa during the short-lived reign of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (r. 99-101)[49] and would die in office around the year 105 at the age of 77 years old.[50]
All this demonstrates that al-Shaʿbī was a creation of the Umayyads and enjoyed their patronage for a large part of his life. This would not be possible if al-Shaʿbī showed any pro-Alid sympathies.
It is this background that helps explain some of al-Shaʿbī’s controversial claims, for instance, that only four companions participated in the battle of Jamal with all the rest sitting it out:
No one participated in (the battle of) Jamal from among the companions of the Messenger of Allah from among the muhājirīn and the anṣār except for ʿAlī, ʿAmmār, Ṭalḥa, and al-Zubayr, so if they can bring a fifth then I am a liar![51]
Or that Fāṭima agreed to forgive Abū Bakr after their infamous quarrel.
When Fāṭima fell sick Abū Bakr came to her and sought permission (to enter). ʿAlī said: “O Fāṭima this is Abū Bakr seeking permission.” She said: “Do you wish me to grant him permission?” He said: “Yes.” So she gave him permission. He entered seeking to please her and said: “I swear by Allah that I did not abandon my home, wealth, family, and tribe except seeking the pleasure of Allah, the pleasure of His messenger, and your pleasure O ahl al-bayt!” Then he kept attempting to please her until she was pleased[52]
Al-Shaʿbī does not give his source for this account and it is something which contradicts what is found in the canonical collections where Fāṭima dies angry with Abū Bakr.
The fact that al-Shaʿbī had a pro-Umayyad and anti-Alid bias is not a modern discovery but is something that was known to earlier scholars. It is sufficient to quote here what al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (d. 405) records in the introduction to his treatise about the faḍāʾil (merits) of Fāṭima al-Zahrāʾ:
Our age has left us in the hands of shepherds (rulers) to whom people draw near via hatred of the family of the Messenger of Allah and fabricating (reports) against them. Thus, whoever attempts to ingratiate himself to them (i.e. rulers) does so by mentioning the family by that which Allah has absolved them of, and by rejecting every merit that is relayed among their merits – Allah is the support against that, and the (One) requested to bless Muḥammad the Prophet and his family, and to replace[53] the khawārij by those who are better than them, He is the guardian and capable of that.
What prompted me to author this treatise is that I attended a gathering which was also attended by the notable fuqahāʾ (jurists), quḍāt (judges), umanāʾ (trusted ones), including the muzakkīn (who vouch for others) and others, when there arose in their midst a discussion concerning the Commander of the Faithful ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, so a notable among the notable jurists latched onto it and said: “ʿAlī had not memorized the Qur’an. This is explicitly stated by al-Shaʿbī”
I responded: “Not so, for the companions who would be more aware of that than al-Shaʿbī have testified about his (i.e. ʿAlī’s) memorization of the Qur’an. Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbdallāh b. Ḥabīb al-Sulamī, the chief of the qurrāʾ (reciters) from among the tābiʿīn learnt the Qur’an from him (i.e. ʿAlī) and transmits from him (i.e. ʿAlī) a complete ḥarf, with one of the transmitters from him (i.e. al-Sulamī) being ʿĀṣim b. Bahdala”[54]
He said: “Al-Shaʿbī is more aware of that than the rest!”
I said: “Al-Shaʿbī did not hear (hadith) from him (i.e. ʿAlī), he only saw him a single time,[55] then his inclination towards his (i.e. ʿAlī’s) enemies became manifest out of greed for the world! However, all that which I put to him did nothing but add to his obstinacy upon falsehood.
The discussion in the gathering turned to the daughters of the Prophet …[56]
Evidence to the Contrary
It is significant in light of the above, therefore, that not all early critics agreed with al-Shaʿbī’s criticism of al-Ḥārith.
When al-Dārimī (d. 280) asks Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn (d. 233):
What is the status of al-Ḥārith (when he narrates) from ʿAlī?
Yaḥyā responds that he is thiqa[57]
Ibn Abī Khaythamā (d. 279) also reports that Yaḥyā was asked whether al-Ḥārith’s reports can be used as evidence and responded:
The muḥaddithūn never ceased accepting his hadith[58]
The Egyptian critic, Aḥmad b. Ṣāliḥ al-Miṣrī (d. 248), states:
Al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar is thiqa (trustworthy). How accurate he is and what good (content) he narrated from ʿAlī![59]
Tirmidhī (d. 279), as has already been pointed out, grades chains containing al-Ḥārith to be ‘ḥasan’ (fair) and reveals that there was no consensus on al-Ḥārith when he comments the following after including a report with al-Ḥārith in the chain:
Some of the people of knowledge weakened al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar[60]
Elsewhere:
Some of them spoke against al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar[61]
This conflicting evidence in the case of al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar puzzled a critic of the stature of al-Dhahabī (d. 748) as he freely confesses:
I have expanded al-Ḥārith’s entry in Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl and I am perplexed about him (i.e. his status)[62]
How could it be that despite being labelled a ‘liar’ yet the muḥaddithūn in Yaḥyā’s time accepted his hadith and narrated them in their works? In fact, al-Shaʿbī himself who labelled al-Ḥārith a liar still narrates from him.
Tirmidhī states:
It is transmitted from al-Shaʿbī (the statement): “al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar narrated to us and he was a liar” yet he (al-Shaʿbī) (still) narrated from him, and most of the (rules concerning) inheritance shares which he (i.e. al-Sha’bi) transmits from ʿAlī and others is on his (i.e. al-Ḥārith’s) authority. Al-Shaʿbī is known to have said: “al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar taught me calculating the inheritance shares and he was among the best of people at it”[63]
Al-Dhahabī proposes the following reconciliation:
It is evident that he (i.e. al-Ḥārith) would lie in his normal conversation and retelling of anecdotes but not when it comes to Prophetic hadith. He was a container of knowledge[64]
But can someone who lies in conversation and anecdotes be trusted in Prophetic hadith?! Can lies be differentiated in this way such that one is a liar in one thing and truthful in another?!
Al-Dhahabī seems to have recognized the flaw in his thinking and proposes a different reconciliation in a later work:
As for al-Shaʿbī’s words “Al-Ḥārith was a liar” then it is interpreted to mean that he meant by kadhib ‘mistake’ not deliberate (lies), otherwise, how could he (i.e. al-Shaʿbī) (still) narrate from him whilst believing him to be deliberately lying in the religion?![65]
However, this proposal does not apply to our case for while it is possible that ‘kadhaba’ is used to mean ‘he made a mistake’[66] al-Shaʿbī’s exact words “innahu aḥad al-kadhdhābīn” make this interpretation unlikely.
What did al-Shaʿbī mean exactly when he labelled al-Ḥārith a liar?
When a Liar is Not
The solution to this puzzle may lie in a comment made by the aforementioned critic Aḥmad b. Ṣāliḥ. When it was pointed out to him that al-Shaʿbī had declared al-Ḥārith a liar Aḥmad responds:
He would not lie in hadith. His lie was in his doctrine[67]
The Andalusian scholar Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463) expands on this:
I believe that al-Shaʿbī suffered divine retribution [when Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī labelled him a ‘liar’][68] because of his own words about al-Ḥārith al-Hamdānī “Narrated to me al-Ḥārith and he was one of the liars” whereas no lie manifested from al-Ḥārith.
Rather, what he (i.e. al-Shaʿbī) took issue with him (i.e. al-Ḥārith) was his going to extreme in his love for ʿAlī, and his giving precedence (tafḍīl) to ʿAlī over all others, and it because of this, and Allah knows best, that al-Shaʿbī labelled him a liar, because al-Shaʿbī subscribed to the tafḍīl of Abū Bakr and that he (i.e. Abū Bakr) was the first to embrace Islam[69]
If this is correct then it has far-reaching implications for Sunni narrator criticism (ʿilm al-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl) because it means that certain narrators were labelled ‘liars’ in this very early period before the formative period of Sunni hadith criticism[70] not because they were dishonest or deliberately making up false reports as universally understood but because they subscribed to what were considered false doctrines!
But is there any evidence to support this usage of the term ‘liar’ as a polemically-charged theological label instead of a description of a person’s mendacious character?
I believe that I have found it.
Consider the following statement by the important Kufan narrator al-Aʿmash (d. 148):
حَدَّثَنَا السَّاجِيُّ، حَدَّثَنا ابْنُ الْمُثَنَّى، حَدَّثَنا أَبُو معاوية، قَال: قَال الأَعْمَش اتق هذه السبئية فإني أدركت الناس وإنما يسمونهم الكذابين
Beware of these Sabaʾiyya for I encountered the people and they were calling them ‘al-kadhdhābīn’[71]
Al-Aʿmash reveals that the people of Kufa in his time would refer to the Sabaʾiyya as the kadhdhābīn. Al-Aʿmash was a junior contemporary of al-Shaʿbī[72] so it is reasonable to infer that al-Shaʿbī was one of these people who referred to the Sabaʾiyya with this label. Sabaʾiyya was another name for the Rafiḍa.[73]
Now al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar’s madhhab is no secret. Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354) calls him a ‘ghālī’ or ‘extremist’ in tashayyuʿ.[74] Ibn Ḥajar states that al-Ḥārith was accused of rafḍ.[75]
Putting all this together allows us to understand al-Shaʿbī’s statement in its original light. When al-Shaʿbī testified that al-Ḥārith was “one of the kadhdhābīn” he was noting that al-Ḥārith was “one of the Sabaʾiyya/Rāfiḍa”, thereby identifying his madhhab and not accusing him of speaking lies, just as Aḥmad b. Ṣāliḥ and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr had proposed.
Just because the Rafiḍa were collectively labelled ‘liars’ because of the doctrine they espoused, a practice that seems to have its origins in Umayyad-era propaganda,[76] does not mean that every single Rāfiḍī should be considered a liar in speech!
This is also how we should understand Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī’s (d. 96) supposed criticism of al-Ḥārith.
Recall that Mughīra b. al-Miqsam had stated that Ibrahim had “accused al-Harith”.
Many have understood this to mean that Ibrāhīm accused al-Ḥārith of lying but then I found Ibrāhīm’s original statement as preserved by al-ʿIjlī (d. 261) wherein Mughīra quotes Ibrāhīm directly as saying:
حدثني هاشم العرفطي، أنبأنا زائدة، عن مغيرة، عن إبراهيم، قال: كان الحارث متهمًا في التشيع
Al-Ḥārith was accused of tashayyuʿ[77]
This reveals that Ibrāhīm did not himself accuse al-Ḥārith of anything, let alone lying, but was noting that al-Ḥārith stood accused not of lying but of subscribing to tashayyuʿ.
What this means is that later critics understood from al-Shaʿbī and Ibrāhīm a different thing than what they originally intended.
If al-Ḥārith is not accused of lying in the conventional sense then the case against him collapses as no other critic has explained why he is weak!
A Written Source?
Even if al-Ḥārith’s reputation is rehabilitated by what has been presented herein, the reality is that the damage has been done in so far as the original criticism against al-Ḥārith meant that his reports came to be abandoned and most are now lost to us barring a few exceptions[78] which are also not deemed authoritative by most Sunni scholars.
What exacerbates this loss even further is the realization that al-Ḥārith had actually recorded the knowledge he received from ʿAlī in written form!
Recall how he had bought ṣuḥuf (sheets) for a dirham and ʿAlī had:
Dictated for him a lot of knowledge[79]
Thus, Abū Bakr b. ʿAyyāsh (d. 193) calls al-Ḥārith a possessor of books (ṣāḥib kutub)[80] and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241) states:
Abū Isḥāq married the wife of al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar (i.e. after al-Ḥārith’s death) so he (i.e. Abū Isḥāq) obtained his (i.e. al-Ḥārith’s) books.[81]
Abū Isḥāq was the principal transmitter of al-Ḥārith’s hadith. Did Abū Isḥāq marry his teacher’s wife to gain access to the precious books?[82]
Although Aḥmad’s statement may seem neutral at first glance it is not. Narrating from a book as opposed to hearing hadith directly was attacked by early critics who preferred oral transmission to written.
In our particular case, the critic Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj commented that Abū Isḥāq had only heard 4 reports directly from al-Ḥārith with the rest being from al-Ḥārith’s books.[83]
This is the reason Abū Dāwūd gives for excluding this particular chain (Abū Isḥāq > al-Ḥārith > ʿAlī) in his Sunan.[84]
Abū Isḥāq did attempt to defend himself against this particular criticism. When Sufyān b. ʿUyayna came to visit Abū Isḥāq in his old-age and probed him about whether he heard hadith from al-Ḥārith, Abū Isḥāq’s son Yūsuf interjects:
He saw ʿAlī so how can he not have heard from al-Ḥārith?![85]
Abū Isḥāq goes on to confirm that he had seen ʿAlī as a child.
When Shuʿba himself asks Abū Isḥāq whether he was older than al-Shaʿbī, Abū Isḥāq responds:
Al-Shaʿbī was elder to me by a year or two[86]
If Abū Isḥāq and al-Shaʿbī are almost exact equals in age then there is no reason why Abū Isḥāq cannot have heard all those hadith directly from al-Ḥārith before also obtaining the books!
The fact that al-Ḥārith possessed ʿAlī’s hadith in written form is another piece of evidence showing how ʿAlī himself supported the writing down of hadith from the earliest of times, viewing the written record as more capable of preserving knowledge than oral transmission. The same stance was adopted by al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar who similarly encouraged their companions to write down hadith.
A Striking Correspondence
No one had thought of comparing the tashahhud narrated by al-Ḥārith from ʿAlī with the tashahhud found in the Imāmī corpus which claims to preserve the legal positions of ʿAlī.
Until now.
The table below presents the tashahhud narrated by al-Ḥārith from ʿAlī (as found in al-Jūzjānī) side-by-side with the tashahhud narrated by Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (as quoted by Ṭūsī).[87]
|
ʿAlī’s Tashahhud (al-Ḥārith) |
Jaʿfar’s Tashahhud (Ṭūsī) |
|
|
بسم الله خير الأسماء |
بسم الله وبالله والحمد لله وخير الاسماء لله |
|
|
|
أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له وأشهد أن محمدا عبده ورسوله أرسله بالحق بشيرا ونذيرا بين يدي الساعة اشهد انك نعم الرب وان محمدا نعم الرسول |
|
|
التحيات لله |
التحيات لله والصلوات الطاهرات الطيبات الزاكيات الغاديات الرايحات السابغات الناعمات لله |
|
|
ما طاب فلله وما خبث فلغيره |
ما طاب وزكا وطهر وخلص وصفا فلله |
|
|
أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا عبده ورسوله |
وأشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له وأشهد أن محمدا عبده ورسوله أرسله بالحق بشيرا ونذيرا بين يدي الساعة |
|
|
أشهد أنه نعم الرب ونعم الرسول محمد |
أشهد أن ربي نعم الرب وان محمدا نعم الرسول واشهد أن الساعة آتية لا ريب فيها وان الله يبعث من في القبور |
|
|
|
… |
|
|
السلام على نبي الله السلام على أنبياء الله السلام على المؤمنين والمؤمنات من غاب منهم ومن شهد |
السلام عليك ايها النبي ورحمة الله وبركاته السلام على انبياء الله ورسله السلام على جبرئيل وميكائيل والملائكة المقربين السلام على محمد بن عبدالله خاتم النبيين لا نبي بعده والسلام علينا وعلى عباد الله الصالحين |
|
The correspondence is striking!
The two formulas evidently share the same basic structure with Jaʿfar’s version expanding on the terser version al-Ḥārith attributes to ʿAlī.
Note that the part highlighted in blue is deemed a mistaken interpolation by the contemporary scholar Muḥammad Taqī al-Tustarī (d. 1415) who points out that there is no reason why the shahādatayn should be repeated twice in the tashahhud as is done in the ādhān and iqāma.[88]
Indeed, the tashahhud given by al-Mufīd (without giving a chain) in his important manual al-Muqniʿa (which is the base-text for Ṭūsī’s Tahdhīb)[89] does not have this part bringing the two formulas in even closer alignment as seen below.
|
ʿAlī’s Tashahhud (al-Ḥārith) |
Imāmī Tashahhud (Mufīd) |
|
|
بسم الله خير الأسماء |
بسم الله وبالله والحمد لله والأسماء الحسنى كلها لله |
|
|
التحيات لله |
التحيات لله والصلوات الطيبات الطاهرات الزاكيات الناعمات السابغات التامات الحسنات |
|
|
ما طاب فلله وما خبث فلغيره |
لله ما طاب وطهر وزكا ونما وخلص وما خبث فلغير الله |
|
|
أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا عبده ورسوله |
أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له وأشهد أن محمدا عبده ورسوله أرسله بالحق بشيرا ونذيرا بين يدي الساعة |
|
|
أشهد أنه نعم الرب ونعم الرسول محمد |
أشهد أن ربي نعم الرب وأن محمدا نعم الرسول |
|
|
|
… |
|
|
السلام على نبي الله السلام على أنبياء الله السلام على المؤمنين والمؤمنات من غاب منهم ومن شهد |
السلام عليك أيها النبي ورحمة الله وبركاته السلام على الأئمة الراشدين السلام علينا وعلى عباد الله الصالحين |
|
Significant parallels include the shahādatayn being recited before the salām upon the Prophet, something which is reversed in the tashahhud of Ibn Masʿūd, ʿUmar, and Ibn ʿAbbās (more about this later), as well as the presence of the distinctive phrase: mā ṭāba fa-lillāh wa mā khabatha fa-lighayrih.[90]
The fact that the same basic formula is transmitted by two independent routes is good evidence to support the claim that the Imāmī corpus does indeed preserve the historical positions of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.
The ṣuḥuf of ʿAlī
How did Jaʿfar access ʿAlī’s tashahhud?
The answer is found in an important report which has Muʿattib (d. before 158), a mawla of Jaʿfar, state:
Abū ʿAbdillāh took out for us an ancient ṣaḥīfa (sheet) from the ṣuḥuf of ʿAlī and we found in it (written) what we have to say when we sit to make the tashahhud[91]
The ṣuḥuf (or ṣaḥīfa) of ʿAlī refers to an ancient document containing what ʿAlī wrote down in his own hand from the dictation Messenger of Allah covering all aspects of the law. This document is said to have been passed down in the family and the Husaynid Imams, such as al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar, are known to have claimed possession of the document to which they attribute the superiority of their knowledge over contemporaries.
A study of all the reports referencing the ṣaḥīfa throughout both the Sunni and Shīʿī corpus is a lacuna that the present writer hopes to fill at some point in the future.
A Distinctive Phrase
Both al-Ḥārith and Jaʿfar’s reports contain the distinctive phrase: mā ṭāba fa-lillāh wa mā khabatha fa-lighayrih in the tashahhud, but it is only the Imāmī corpus which preserves additional information about this phrase.
A companion asks Jaʿfar whether the phrase should be recited in tashahhud.
Jaʿfar responds:
This is what ʿAlī used to say![92]
Another report contained in the partially surviving fragment of an early hadith work by a direct companion of Jaʿfar called Durust b. Abī Manṣūr has someone repeatedly asking Jaʿfar about the interpretation of the second half of the phrase wa mā khabatha fa-lighayrih, literally, “whatever is impure is for other than Him”. Jaʿfar responds:
Whatever is impure will not be accepted by Allah[93]
Any act of worship, such as prayer, if performed without concentration or with the intention to show-off will be deemed impure and not accepted by Allah.
Another report has Jaʿfar being questioned about the meaning of the phrase and he responds:
mā ṭāba refers to what has been lawfully obtained of rizq whereas mā khabatha refers to usury[94]
This distinctive phrase has a very good historical claim of going back to ʿAlī since it is not attributed to any individual other than him in the whole of the Islamic literary tradition, be it Sunni or Shīʿī.
Having random companions inquire about the meaning of this rare phrase of their own prompting indicates that ʿAlī’s tashahhud was in usage in the Imāmī community. The reports also reveal how seriously al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar took their role as preservers and interpreters of ʿAlī’s positions.
The Prophet’s Tashahhud: Fixed or Variable?
The fact that ʿAlī’s tashahhud differed from that of other companions, who also differed amongst themselves, raises a greater question: Did the Prophet teach his companions a fixed tashahhud or not?
Some reports in the Sunni corpus have different companions emphasizing that the Prophet gave the same attention to the tashahhud that he gave a sūra of the Qur’an.
Consider the statement of Ibn Masʿūd:
The Messenger of Allah taught me the tashahhud, with my hand clasped in his, the way he would teach me a sūra from the Qur’an …[95]
Or the statement of Ibn ʿAbbās:
The Messenger of Allah would teach us the tashahhud the way he would teach us a sūra from the Qur’an[96]
Or the statement of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī:
We would not write down anything (in the time of the Prophet) other than the tashahhud and the Qur’an[97]
But if this is the case then how can the variation in the different formulas attributed to different companions be explained?
There has been a tendency to compare the different formulas in an attempt to identify the original version without much success.
The solution presented by Muḥammad al-Bāqir, as preserved in the Imāmī corpus, is to propose that the tashahhud was never absolutely fixed and there was some flexibility in what someone could recite.
When someone asks al-Bāqir about the tashahhud he responds:
If it were as they (i.e. the proto-Sunni scholars) say – mandatory upon the people (i.e. to recite the one true formula) – then the people would be destroyed (i.e. as they cannot accomplish this)!
Rather, the group (i.e. companions) would recite the easiest of what they knew (i.e. memorize). If you praise Allah it suffices you[98]
In a variant of the same report, al-Bāqir is asked what one should say in the tashahhud and the qunūt.
He responds:
Recite the best of what you know (memorize) for if it were fixed then the people would be destroyed![99]
The people would be destroyed since their ṣalāt would become invalidated as a result of reciting a formula other than the correct one.
The flexibility towards tashahhud shown by al-Bāqir can only be understood in context of how rigid Ibn Masʿūd was about the tashahhud which he imparted to his Kufan students and which he wanted them to recite precisely down to the last letter.
Al-Aswad recalls:
ʿAbdallāh would teach us the tashahhud for the ṣalāt the same way he would teach us a sūra from the Qur’an, he would take us to task (for missing) an alif or a wāw[100]
Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī states:
They would memorize this tashahhud, that is the tashahhud of ʿAbdallāh, and would abide by it letter for letter[101]
In another statement:
He would take us take us to task for a wāw in the tashahhud (when saying) al-ṣalawāt wa-l-ṭayyibāt[102]
This is diametrically opposed to how the Imams conceived of the tashahhud. Jaʿfar taught that the absolute minimum requirement in the tashahhud was the two clauses of the shahādatayn with anything beyond this left to the individual to decide. This is what is meant by Jaʿfar’s statement:
The tashahhud in the book of ʿAlī is a pair (of clauses)[103]
Jaʿfar iterates the same message to his long-term companion, Muḥammad b. Muslim, telling him:
When you are settled after sitting then say: ashhadu an lā ilāha illa-llāh waḥdahu lā sharīka lah wa ashhadu annā Muḥammadan ʿabduhu wa rasūluh. Then you depart (i.e. by giving the salām).
When Muḥammad b. Muslim asks about the phrase ‘al-taḥiyyāt li-llāh …’ which Sunni authorities consider an integral part of the formula, Jaʿfar responds:
This is courtesy as part of supplication (duʿāʾ) by which a servant softens his Lord[104]
Supplication normally begins by lauding Allah and magnifying Him and this is what the phrase which begins ‘al-taḥiyyāt li-llāh’ is meant to do. Since it is a part of supplication then it comes under the general principle undergirding supplication in prayer which is that it is left for a person to settle upon preferred wording and not rigidly fixed.
Thus one finds that the tashahhud attributed to Jaʿfar exhausts all different kinds of synonymous words when it comes to this part, as if to indicate that there is no requirement to stick to one word.
التحيات لله والصلوات الطاهرات الطيبات الزاكيات الغاديات الرايحات السابغات الناعمات لله
This is very close to a report preserved by Ṭabarānī (d. 360)[105] in which someone asks al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī to inform him about the tashahhud of ʿAlī from the Prophet and is told it was:
التَّحِيَّاتُ لِلَّهِ وَالصَّلَوَاتُ وَالطَّيِّبَاتُ وَالْغَادِيَاتُ وَالرَّائِحَاتُ وَالزَّاكِيَاتُ وَالنَّاعِمَاتُ السَّابِغَاتُ الطَّاهِرَاتُ لِلَّهِ
Notice how the same 9 words re-appear in both lists with the only difference being their order.
Based on this analysis, it is likely that the Messenger of Allah taught different companions different versions since there was no requirement to stick to one formula. It is also possible that some companions realized the permissibility of using their own words as is attributed to Ibn ʿUmar who admits to have added a few words like wa-barakātuh and waḥdahu lā sharīka lahu beyond what the Prophet had taught him[106]
It is by breaking up the tashahhud into its constituent parts in this way, and revealing the different nature of the different parts, that the Imams of the ahl al-bayt solve this quandary of the variation in tashahhud. I have not encountered an earlier scholar before them addressing this problem in such an authoritative manner which speaks to both the superiority of their knowledge but also the value of the Imāmī corpus.
A Disputed Phrase
Despite the flexibility in tashahhud promulgated by al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar, there was a phrase which was recited by the majority which they did take issue with if recited at the wrong time and in the wrong place.
Consider the formulas attributed to Ibn Masʿūd[107] (adopted by Ḥanafīs and Ḥanbalīs), ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb[108] (adopted by Mālikīs), and Ibn ʿAbbās[109] (adopted by Shāfiʿīs) respectively which are reproduced below:
|
Ḥanafīs and Ḥanbalīs |
Mālikīs |
Shāfiʿīs |
|
ٱلتَّحِيَّاتُ لِلَّٰهِ وَٱلصَّلَوَاتُ وَٱلطَّيِّبَاتُ ٱلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكَ أَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِيُّ وَرَحْمَةُ ٱللَّٰهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ ٱلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْنَا وَعَلَىٰ عِبَادِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلصَّالِحِينَ أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّٰهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ
|
التَّحِيَّاتُ لِلَّهِ الزَّاكِيَاتُ لِلَّهِ الطَّيِّبَاتُ الصَّلَوَاتُ لِلَّهِ السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكَ أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ وَرَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْنَا وَعَلَى عِبَادِ اللَّهِ الصَّالِحِينَ أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ
|
التَّحِيَّاتُ الْمُبَارَكَاتُ الصَّلَوَاتُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ لِلَّهِ السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكَ أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ وَرَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْنَا وَعَلَى عِبَادِ اللَّهِ الصَّالِحِينَ أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّه |
This same formula is repeated the first time (after two units) and in the last unit (with additions). Note how the phrase as-salāmu ʿalayna wa ʿalā ʿibādi-llāh al-ṣāliḥīn appears before the shahadatayn. This feature is found in all three formulas thus becoming the consensus of all four madhhabs.
Yet the tashahhud of ʿAlī as transmitted by al-Ḥārith and the formula recommended by Jaʿfar (as seen above) have the shahadatayn preceding this phrase. The reason is that al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar did not see this phrase as part of the tashahhud rather the taslīm which follows the tashahhud and marks the end of the ṣalāt.
Al-Ḥalabī reports from Jaʿfar:
Whatever (wording) with which you mention Allah and the Prophet then that is from the ṣalāt, but when you say ‘as-salāmu ʿalayna wa ʿalā ʿibādi-llāh al-ṣāliḥīn’ then you have departed (i.e. completed the ṣalāt)[110]
It is for this reason that al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar did not recite this phrase in the first tashahhud (after two units) and considered someone reciting it in the first tashahhud (as all four madhhabs do) to be bringing their ṣalāt to a premature end!
Consider this report which is transmitted by Ṭūsī with a reliable chain from al-Bāqir:
Two things by which the people corrupt their ṣalāt: … the saying of a man as-salāmu ʿalayna wa ʿalā ʿibādi-llāh al-ṣāliḥīn[111]
The same content is transmitted in mursal fashion by Ibn Bābawayh who attributes it to Jaʿfar and this time it is Ibn Masʿūd who is held responsible:
Ibn Masʿūd corrupted for the people their ṣalāt by two things: … and his saying as-salāmu ʿalayna wa ʿalā ʿibādi-llāh al-ṣāliḥīn
Ibn Bābawayh clarifies:
Meaning (saying this) in the first tashahhud[112]
Then I found this same concept attributed to Ibn ʿUmar in the Muṣannaf of ʿAbd al-Razzāq:
ʿAbd al-Razzāq from Maʿmar from al-Zuhrī from Sālim (b. ʿAbdallāh b. ʿUmar) who said: Ibn ʿUmar would not make salām in the tashahhud the first time round (i.e. after two units), he would consider that to be a dissolution of his ṣalāt.
Al-Zuhrī comments: As for me than I do make the salām[113]
The counterpart to this report is found in the Muṣannaf of Ibn Abī Shayba:
Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar from Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd from Nāfiʿ from Ibn ʿUmar that he would not say after two units as-salāmu ʿalayka ayyuhan-nabiyy as-salāmu ʿalaynā wa ʿala ʿibādi-llāh aṣ-ṣāliḥīn[114]
This is such an incredible report,[115] flying in the face of what millions of Muslims around the world think they know about the tashahhud. What we have here is an ancient position in the law which has been totally obscured after the canonization of hadith and the standardization of the formula within the madhhabs. It is only when exposed to the complexity of even such matters that are taken for granted that one realizes the importance of having the Imams of the ahl al-bayt who broke all this down for us!
It is true that the tashahhud that Mālik transmits from Ibn ʿUmar (which differs from that of his father ʿUmar!) in the Muwaṭṭaʾ[116] does have these salām phrases in the first tashahhud, but Nāfiʿ adds in the same report that Ibn ʿUmar would displace these phrases and relocate them after the shahādatayn in the final unit.
The only conceivable reason Ibn ʿUmar would do this is if he saw these phrases as part of the taslīm, but if this is the case then why would he recite these same phrases after two units when there is no taslīm then!
Note that the tashahhud Mālik transmits from al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr from ʿĀʾisha also has these salām phrases after the shahādatayn just like the Imams taught.[117]
Excursus 1: Al-Ḥārith’s Theological Reports
The handful of al-Ḥārith’s reports that survive in Sunni hadith works predominantly deal with legal issues, but we know that al-Ḥārith also reported matters of theological nature from ʿAlī. The unwarranted criticism against al-Ḥārith as well as the contents of these reports means that they leave no trace behind in the Sunni corpus and one needs to turn to the Imāmī corpus to catch a glimpse of them.
A good example of this is the following report that al-Shaʿbī had heard from al-Ḥārith and which he initially censored before going on to selectively narrate to someone he knew possessed Shīʿī inclinations.
Abū ʿUmar al-Bazzāz[118] reports:
When he (i.e. al-Shaʿbī) would set out in the morning to his job as a qāḍī he would (first) sit at my place (market-stall) and do the same when he returns.
He said to me one day: “O Abū ʿUmar, I have a hadith for you that I will narrate to you (sometime)”
I said to him (i.e. later the same day): “O Abū ʿAmr, you still have a lost-property of mine in your possession!” He replied: “Woe upon you! What lost-property of yours do I have with me?!” and he refused to narrate it to me that day.
Then I asked him after (some days): “O Abu ʿAmr, narrate to me the hadith that you had alluded to”
He said: “I heard al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar say: ‘I came to the Commander of the Faithful ʿAlī one night so he (i.e. ʿAlī) said: ‘O Aʿwar what has brought you?’ I replied: ‘(I swear) by Allah it is your love that has brought me O Commander of the Faithful!’ He (i.e. ʿAlī) said: ‘As for me I will narrate to you so that you may give thanks. Verily no slave who loves me dies and his soul comes out before seeing me where he loves, and no slave who hates me dies and his soul comes out before seeing me where he detests’”.
Al-Shaʿbī then commented: “Verily loving him (i.e. ʿAlī) will not benefit you and hating him will not harm you!”[119]
It is this incident which inspired the poet al-Sayyid al-Ḥimyarī (d. 173) to compose his famous poem that contains the lines:[120]
يا حار همدان من يمت يرني * من مؤمن كان أو منافق قبلا
يعرفني طرفه وأعرفه * بنعته واسمه وما فعلا
O Ḥār[ith] of Hamdān, whoever dies sees me Be he a believer or a hypocrite, face-to-face
His glance recognizes me and I do recognize him By his description, his name, and what he did
ʿAlī’s words bring to mind the early interpretation of Q. 4:159 which was seen as fulfilled by every Jew believing in Jesus before their death at a time when such faith will be of no benefit. It is this which led al-Ḥajjāj to question Shahr b. Ḥawshab (d. c. 100) why he does not hear Jewish prisoners confessing belief in Jesus before he executes them. Shahr explains that this happens when the angels comes to take the soul without us being able to witness it.[121]
Another example is the following report with a reliable chain by Imāmī standards all the way to Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī who narrates it from someone he “trusts from among the companions of the Commander of the Faithful”, a likely allusion to al-Ḥārith, that ʿAlī said:
علي بن محمد، عن سهل بن زياد، عن الحسن بن محبوب، عن أبي أسامة وعلي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن الحسن بن محبوب، عن أبي أسامة وهشام بن سالم، عن أبي حمزة، عن أبي إسحاق، عمن يثق به من أصحاب أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام أن أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام قال: اللهم إنك لا تخلي أرضك من حجة لك على خلقك
O Allah, you do not leave the earth devoid of a ḥujja of yours over your creation[122]
Excursus 2: The Label kadhdhāb in Umayyad Political Propaganda
It is likely that the application of the label ‘kadhdhābīn’ for the Rāfiḍa goes back to early Umayyad political propaganda for it is they who are known to have applied the label ‘kadhdhāb’ for the figureheads of the Rāfiḍa such as ʿAlī and al-Huṣayn.
Ṭabarī (d. 310) reports that the Kufan governor ʿUbaydallāh b. Ziyād (d. 67) instructed al-Huṣayn’s captured envoy to:
اصعد إِلَى القصر فسب الكذاب ابن الكذاب
Ascend the governor’s mansion and abuse al-kadhdhāb (i.e. al-Huṣayn) the son of al-kadhdhāb (i.e. ʿAlī)[123]
Similarly, after the battle of Karbala and when the captives, mostly ladies, from al-Huṣayn’s household were brought to the masjid, ʿUbaydallāh stood to make a speech and said:
الحمد لِلَّهِ الَّذِي أظهر الحق وأهله، ونصر أَمِير الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَزِيد بن مُعَاوِيَة وحزبه، وقتل الكذاب ابن الكذاب، الْحُسَيْن بن علي وشيعته
All praise belongs to Allah who manifested the truth and its people, aided the Commander of the Faithful Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya and his party, and killed al-kadhdhāb the son of al-kadhdhāb, al-Huṣayn and his Shia …[124]
This labelling continued to the time of al-Ḥajjāj (a contemporary of al-Shaʿbī as we have seen). Al-Aʿmash recounts in an authentic report:
حدثنا أبو معاوية عن الأعمش قال: رأيت عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى ضربه الحجاج ووقفه على باب المسجد، قال: فجعلوا يقولون له: العن الكذابين قال: فجعل يقول: لعن اللَّه الكذابين، ثم يسكت، ثم يقول: عليُّ بن أبي طالب وعبد اللَّه بن الزبير والمختار بن أبي عبيد، فعرفت حين سكت ثم ابتدأهم فرفعهم أنه ليس يريدهم
I witnessed ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Laylā being punished by al-Ḥajjāj. He was made to stand at the gate of the masjid and they said to him: “Curse the kadhdhābīn!’ So he would say: “May Allah curse the kadhdhābīn” Then he would pause. Then he would say: “ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, ʿAbdallāh b. al-Zubayr, and al-Mukhtār b. Abī ʿUbayd” So I realized when he paused before beginning anew that he does not intend them[125]
Footnotes
[1] Al-Muṣannaf (ʿAbd al-Razzāq), v. 2, p. 489, n. 3182 (https://shamela.ws/book/84/1040).
[2] Al-Muṣannaf, v. 3, p. 146, n. 3042 (https://shamela.ws/book/333/3507).
[3] Al-Sunan al-Kubrā, v. 3, p. 658, n. 2874 (https://shamela.ws/book/148486/1810).
[4] Al-Muṣannaf, v. 3, p. 146, n. 3043 (https://shamela.ws/book/333/3508).
[5] Note that the formula transmitted by Jābir b. ʿAbdallāh does begin with bismillāh wa-billāh. See Sunan al-Nasāʾī, n. 1175 (https://sunnah.com/nasai:1175); Sunan al-Nasāʾī, n. 1281 (https://sunnah.com/nasai:1281).
[6] Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 318) likely had access to al-Ḥārith’s report. See Al-Awsaṭ, v. 3, pp. 380-381 (https://shamela.ws/book/1568/1297). He must have quoted it in full in his big book Al-Mabsūṭ where he collected formulas attributed to different companions. See Al-Awsaṭ, v. 3, p. 376 (https://shamela.ws/book/1568/1292). Unfortunately, this book is lost. Ibn Ḥajar had seen al-Ḥārith’s full report in a slim volume authored by Ibn Marduwayh (d. 410) called Al-Tashahhud Ṭuruquhu wa-Alfāẓuh. See Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr, v. 2, p. 765 (https://shamela.ws/book/123608/865). Unfortunately, this book is also lost.
[7] Aḥwāl al-Rijāl, p. 31 (https://shamela.ws/book/25803/28).
[8] This is based on the fact that al-Jūzjānī gives the formula and then comments: wa naḥw hadha (‘and the like’) which indicates that he is not being exact in quotation and likely leaving out stuff.
[9] Al-Barqī lists al-Ḥārith among the awliyāʾ (close disciples) of ʿAlī. See Rijāl al-Barqī, p. 4 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/6422/12).
[10] Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 6, p. 168 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/2616).
[11] Jābir al-Juʿfī narrates from al-Shaʿbī who claims to have seen al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn questioning al-Ḥārith about the hadith of ʿAlī. See Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 6, p. 168 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/2616).
[12] Kitāb al-ʿIlal, p. 43 (https://shamela.ws/book/6038/9).
[13] Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, v. 5, p. 252 (https://shamela.ws/book/3722/2330).
[14] Al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl, v. 2, p. 451 (https://shamela.ws/book/12579/920).
[15] Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 6, p. 168 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/2616).
[16] Taʾrīkh Ibn Maʿīn (Riwāyat al-Dūrī), v. 3, p. 495, n. 2419 (https://shamela.ws/book/3508/479).
[17] Al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl, v. 2, p. 450 (https://shamela.ws/book/12579/919).
[18] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, v. 1, p. 19 (https://shamela.ws/book/1727/34).
[19] Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, v. 3, pp. 11-12 (https://shamela.ws/book/12042/2014). Seee also Ikmāl al-Muʿallim bi-Fawāʾid Muslim, v. 1, pp. 138-139 (https://shamela.ws/book/122406/132).
[20] Al-ʿIlal wa-Maʿrifat al-Rijāl li-Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (Riwāyat ʿAbdallāh), v. 1, p. 244, n. 321 (https://shamela.ws/book/2331/235).
[21] Al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl, v. 2, p. 451 (https://shamela.ws/book/12579/920).
[22] See Excursus 1 for a fascinating example of a report that al-Shaʿbī censored and which is preserved in the Imāmī hadith corpus.
[23] Thus, we are told that Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān only narrated those reports of al-Ḥārith that were transmitted by al-Shaʿbī. See Al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl, v. 2, p. 450 (https://shamela.ws/book/12579/919).
[24] We have an example where al-Shaʿbī narrates a report quoting the Prophet directly. It is only when he is pressed that he goes on to name his source as being al-Ḥārith. See Musnad Ahmad, n. 1120 (https://sunnah.com/ahmad:1120).
[25] Al-Taʾrīkh al-Awsaṭ, v. 1, p. 156, n. 707 (https://shamela.ws/book/5782/156).
[26] This passage is from the beginning part of Tirmidhī’s Kitāb al-ʿIlal, the final chapter of his celebrated canonical work. See Sunan al-Tirmidhī, v. 6, pp. 230-231 (https://shamela.ws/book/7895/6654).
[27] Al-Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Kabīr (al-ʿUqaylī), v. 1, p. 208 (https://shamela.ws/book/13041/603).
[28] Aḥwāl al-Rijāl, p. 42 (https://shamela.ws/book/25803/39).
[29] Al-Taʾrīkh al-Kabīr, v. 3, p. 121, n. 2423 (https://shamela.ws/book/113/1605). See also his Al-Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Ṣaghīr, p. 40, n. 61 (https://shamela.ws/book/8632/34).
[30] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, v. 1, p. 19 (https://shamela.ws/book/1727/34).
[31] Risāla Abī Dāwūd ilā Ahl Makka, p. 31 (https://shamela.ws/book/6013/11).
[32] Al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-l-Matrūkīn, p. 29, n. 114 (https://shamela.ws/book/10805/19).
[33] Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, v. 5, p. 249 (https://shamela.ws/book/3722/2327). This is what al-Mizzī attributes to al-Nasāʾī, but what I found is al-Nasāʾī saying “he is not all that in hadith” (laysa bi-dhāk fī al-ḥadīth). See Al-Sunan al-Kubrā, v. 7, p. 419, n. 8361 (https://shamela.ws/book/8361/11595).
[34] See for example: Sunan al-Tirmidhī, n. 530 (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:530); Sunan al-Tirmidhī, n. 2736 (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2736); Sunan al-Tirmidhī, n. 3565 (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3565).
[35] See for example: Sunan al-Tirmidhī, n. 282 (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:282); Sunan al-Tirmidhī, n. 2095 (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2095).
[36] Ibn Saʿd says: “He was Ṣhīʿī (at first) then he saw from them some matters and heard their words and extremism so he abandoned their creed and began exposing their flaws” See Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 6, p. 248 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/2696).
[37] Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 6, p. 248 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/2696). But note a report from Mujālid quoting al-Shaʿbī: “Al-Mukhtār presented to us a sāḥīfa (document) and announced ‘this came to me yesterday from ʿAlī (!)’ so we abandoned him and left for Madāʾin”. See Taʾrīkh Baghdād, v. 14, pp. 143-144 (https://shamela.ws/book/736/7799). This is likely a transcription issue where Medina becomes Madāʾin.
[38] Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, v. 7, p. 130 (https://shamela.ws/book/36515/2537). For al-Shaʿbī’s famous comment on the Shia, see Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 6, p. 248 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/2696); Al-Sunna (ʿAbdallāh b. Aḥmad), v. 2, p. 548, n. 1276 (https://shamela.ws/book/323/1206).
[39] An ʿarīf would act as the interface between the governor or Caliph and a tribal unit. He would perform administrative tasks such as reporting enemies of the Caliph, maintaining registers of warriors participating in the conquests, and distributing stipends.
[40] The mankib was the overall head or superintendent of all the ʿurafāʾ in a certain tribe.
[41] Taʾrīkh Madīnat Dimashq, v. 25, pp. 394-395 (https://shamela.ws/book/71/11511).
[42] Ibid., v. 25, p. 395 (https://shamela.ws/book/71/11512).
[43] Ta’rikh al-Tabari, v. 6, p. 374 (https://shamela.ws/book/9783/3454).
[44] Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 6, p. 249 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/2697).
[45] Ta’rikh al-Tabari, v. 6, p. 375 (https://shamela.ws/book/9783/3455).
[46] Taʾrīkh Madīnat Dimashq, v. 25, pp. 384-385 (https://shamela.ws/book/71/11501).
[47] Taʾrīkh Baghdād, v. 14, p. 147 (https://shamela.ws/book/736/7803).
[48] Taʾrīkh Madīnat Dimashq, v. 25, pp. 342 (https://shamela.ws/book/71/11459).
[49] Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 6, p. 252 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/2700). The author, Muḥammad b. Khalaf (d. 306), also know as Wakīʿ, gives numerous accounts of Shaʿbī deciding cases in Kufa, including implementing a ḥadd punishment in the masjid. See Akhbār al-Quḍāt (ed. Maṭbaʿa al-Saʿāda), v. 2, pp. 413-416 (https://shamela.ws/book/150/785).
[50] There are numerous years given for his death but I prefer the date transmitted by al-Wāqidī from Isḥāq b. Yaḥyā b. Ṭalḥa (d. 164) who states: “al-Shaʿbī died in Kufa in the year 105 at the age of 77.” See Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 6, p. 255 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/2703).
[51] Al-Muṣannaf (Ibn Abī Shayba), v. 21, p. 487, n. 40586 (https://shamela.ws/book/333/46201).
[52] Sunan al-Kubrā, v. 13, p. 127, n. 12863 (https://shamela.ws/book/148486/7280). See also Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 8, p. 27 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/3405).
[53] Reading ‘yubaddil lanā’ instead of ‘yubaddilunā’
[54] There is a scribal error here since the Arabic in both modern published editions reads: wa huwa aḥad al-ruwāt ʿan ʿĀṣim b. Bahdala which taken literally means that al-Sulamī is one of the transmitters from ʿĀṣim b. Bahdala when in fact the opposite is the case. I have emended this to: wa aḥad al-ruwāt ʿanhu ʿĀṣim b. Bahdala.
[55] When someone asks al-Dāraquṭnī (d. 385) whether al-Shaʿbī narrates directly from ʿAlī (al-Shaʿbī would be around 13 at ʿAlī’s death) he responds: “He heard from him a single ḥarf (statement) and nothing else”. See Al-ʿIlal, v. 4, p. 97 (https://shamela.ws/book/9082/926). This is likely an allusion to a report about ʿAlī’s judgment combining two ḥadd punishments for a pregnant married adulterer, see Musnad Aḥmad, n. 1185 (https://sunnah.com/ahmad:1185); Musnad Aḥmad, n. 1190 (https://sunnah.com/ahmad:1190); Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, n. 6812 (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6812). It is possible that al-Shaʿbī got this from al-Ḥārith but concealed his intermediary as he is known to have done elsewhere.
[56] Faḍāʾil Fāṭimat al-Zahrāʾ (ed. Dār al-Furqān), pp. 30-31 (https://ketabonline.com/ar/books/16166/read?part=1&page=2&index=3856328).
[57] Taʾrīkh Ibn Maʿīn (Riwāyat al-Dārimī), p. 90, n. 233 (https://shamela.ws/book/148/50). Note that in the transmission of ʿAbbās al-Dūrī, Yaḥyā is quoted as saying about him laysa bihi baʾs (there is no harm in him). See Taʾrīkh Ibn Maʿīn (Riwāyat al-Dūrī), v. 3, p. 360, n. 1751 (https://shamela.ws/book/3508/350).
[58] Taʾrīkh Asmāʾ al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-l-Kadhdhābīn (Ibn Shāhīn), p. 69, n. 104 (https://shamela.ws/book/1278/1837); Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, v. 2, p. 737 (https://shamela.ws/book/1278/1837). Note that there is yet another transmission by Ibn Abī Khaythama where Yaḥyā grades al-Ḥārith as Ḍaʿīf (weak). See Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, v. 5, p. 249 (https://shamela.ws/book/3722/2327).
[59] Taʾrīkh Asmāʾ al-Thiqāt (Ibn Shāhīn), p. 71, n. 282 (https://shamela.ws/book/5818/47).
[60] Sunan al-Tirmidhī, 282 (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:282).
[61] Ibid., 2736 (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2736).
[62] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, v. 4, p. 155 (https://shamela.ws/book/10906/3308).
[63] Sunan al-Tirmidhī, v. 6, p. 248 (https://shamela.ws/book/7895/6714).
[64] Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, v. 1, p. 437 (https://shamela.ws/book/1692/437).
[65] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, v. 4, p. 153 (https://shamela.ws/book/10906/3306).
[66] Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354) claims that the Ḥijāzīs would refer to mistake (khaṭaʾ) as lie (kadhib). See Al-Thiqāt, v. 6, p. 114 (https://shamela.ws/book/5816/2226). One of the classical examples cited to substantiate this is when ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit is quoted as saying about a companion “kadhaba Abu Muḥammad” (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:425) and this is interpreted to mean that the companion made a mistake not that he lied. See ibid., v. 3, p. 397 (https://shamela.ws/book/5816/1049); al-Khaṭṭābī’s (d. 388) Maʿālim al-Sunan (Sharḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd), v. 1, p. 134 (https://shamela.ws/book/1442/133).
[67] Taʾrīkh Asmāʾ al-Thiqāt (Ibn Shāhīn), p. 71, n. 282 (https://shamela.ws/book/5818/47). Ibn Shāhīn (d. 385) discusses the positive and negative statements about al-Ḥārith and concludes that he was thiqa. See Dhikr man Ikhtalafa al-ʿUlamāʾ wa Nuqqād al-Ḥadīth fīhi, pp. 53-55, n. 12 (https://shamela.ws/book/5800/16).
[68] Al-Aʿmash reports that Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī was once brought up in the presence of al-Shaʿbī whereupon al-Shaʿbī remarked: “That one-eyed man who asks me questions by night and sits giving out fatwa to the people by day!” When Ibrāhīm was told of this he responded: “That liar who did not hear from Masrūq anything whatsoever!” See Jāmiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm wa Faḍlih, v. 2, p. 1098, n. 2144 (https://shamela.ws/book/22367/1429). This report was present in the book of al-Aʿmash’s student, Abū Muʿāwiya, but its sensitive contents meant that the latter refused to narrate it. See ibid., v. 2, p. 1098, n. 2145 (https://shamela.ws/book/22367/1429). Al-Shaʿbī narrates copious amounts of material from Masrūq who was one of the main students of the companion ʿAbdallāh b. Masʿūd. If Ibrāhīm’s words are taken at face-value then this raises serious doubts as far as the reports of al- Shaʿbī are concerned!
[69] Ibid., v. 2, p. 1098, n. 2145 (https://shamela.ws/book/22367/1429).
[70] This would be especially true for al-Shaʿbī’s lifetime as the practise of Sunni narrator criticism was just beginning and had not yet developed stable terminology. The first critic is generally considered to be Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160) who belongs to the generation after al-Shaʿbī. Al-Shaʿbī himself is considered by some to have been the first to have investigated a chain. See Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān’s comment in Al-Muḥaddith al-Fāṣil (al-Rāmahurmuzī), p. 208 (https://shamela.ws/book/13059/100).
[71] Al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl, v. 7, p. 277 (https://shamela.ws/book/12579/3486).
[72] When someone asks al-Aʿmash why he did not attach himself to al-Shaʿbī when he had the opportunity to do so, al-Aʿmash responds: “Woe be upon you! How could I have frequented going to him (i.e. al-Shaʿbī) when he would mock me whenever he would see me saying: ‘This is the bearing of a scholar?! Your bearing resembles that of a weaver!’ Whereas when I would go to Ibrāhīm (al-Nakhaʿī) he would honour me and draw me close” See Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, v. 4, p. 307 (https://shamela.ws/book/10906/3460).
[73] Consider for an early attestation the remark by al-Zuhrī (d. 124): “I have not seen a group resemble the Christians more than the Sabāʾiyya” The transmitter Aḥmad b. Yūnus (d. 227) glosses: “They are the Rāfiḍa”. See Al-Sharīʿa (al-Ājurī), v. 5, p. 2530 (https://shamela.ws/book/13035/2335); Qubūl al-Akhbār wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, v. 2, p. 167 (https://shamela.ws/book/14538/577); Al-Taʾrīkh al-Kabīr li Ibn Abī Khaythama (al-Sifr al-Thālith), v. 2, p. 253, n. 2747 (https://shamela.ws/book/8477/553).
[74] Al-Majrūḥīn, v. 1, p. 222 (https://shamela.ws/book/5834/127).
[75] Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, p. 146, n. 1029 (https://shamela.ws/book/8609/72).
[76] See Excurses 2 for substantiation.
[77] Al-Thiqāt, p. 103, n. 233 (https://shamela.ws/book/9170/100).
[78] It would be a rewarding exercise to collect all the surviving reports of al-Ḥārith from ʿAlī that are scattered in non-canonical collections of hadith. Comparing these reports with what is attributed to ʿAlī in the Imāmī corpus can further support the thesis in this article.
[79] Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 6, p. 168 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/2616).
[80] Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, v. 5, p. 247 (https://shamela.ws/book/3722/2325).
[81] Taʾrīkh al-Islām, v. 3, p. 474 (https://shamela.ws/book/35100/2845). Dhahabī’s rendering of the word as kutubuhu should be preferred over the modern edition of Jūzjānī which has ḥadīthuhu. See Aḥwāl al-Rijāl, p. 34 (https://shamela.ws/book/25803/31).
[82] It would not be the first time an ambitious student marries someone’s widow merely to gain access to such works! A similar example is how Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh married a man’s widow just in order to access al-Shāfiʿī’s books which the man had possessed. See Ādāb al-Shāfiʿī wa Manāqibuh (Ibn Abī Ḥātim), pp. 48-49 (https://shamela.ws/book/1485/32).
[83] Al-Taʾrīkh al-Awsaṭ, v. 1, p. 156, n. 706 (https://shamela.ws/book/5782/156); Suʾālāt Abī ʿUbayd al-Ājurī Abā Dāwūd al-Sijistānī fī al-Jarḥ wa-l-Taʿdīl (ed. al-Fārūq), p. 44, n. 95 (https://ketabonline.com/ar/books/102950/read?part=1&page=46&index=13913).
[84] Risāla Abī Dāwūd ilā Ahl Makka, p. 31 (https://shamela.ws/book/6013/11).
[85] Al-ʿIlal wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl li Aḥmad (Riwāyat ʿAbdallāh), v. 1, p. 446, n. 1004 (https://shamela.ws/book/2331/434); Musnad Ibn al-Jaʿd, p. 74, n. 399 (https://shamela.ws/book/4407/401).
[86] Taʾrīkh Ibn Maʿin (Riwāyat al-Dūrī), v. 3, p. 395, n. 1922 (https://shamela.ws/book/3508/382), Muʿjam al-Kabīr (al-Ṭabarānī), v. 1, p. 94, n. 159 (https://shamela.ws/book/1733/172); Maʿrifat al-Ṣaḥāba (Abū Nuʿaym), v. 1, p. 78, n. 297 (https://shamela.ws/book/10490/325).
[87] Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, v. 2, pp. 99-100, n. 141/373 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/4866/100). Ṭūsī is quoting from the early work of al-Ḥusayn b. Saʿīd al-Ahwāzī.
[88] Al-Akhbār al-Dakhīla, v. 4, pp. 244-245 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/14274/245).
[89] Al-Muqniʿa, pp. 113-114 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/3119/113).
[90] Ibn Ḥajar had seen this phrase in al-Ḥarith’s report contained in the now-lost book of Ibn Marduwayh (d. 401) entitled: Al-Tashahhud Ṭuruquhu wa-Alfāẓuh. Ibn Ḥajar says: “And it (i.e. the tashahhud) has other routes on the authority of ʿAlī. It was transmitted by Ibn Marduwayh via the chain of Abū Isḥāq from al-Ḥarith. He did not raise it to the Prophet. It contains additions such as: mā ṭāba fa-huwa lillāh wa mā khabatha fa-lighayrih” See Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr, v. 2, p. 765 (https://shamela.ws/book/123608/865).
[91] Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt, p. 165, n. 14 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/657/165). Reading ‘naqūlu’ instead of ‘taqūlu’. See Biḥār al-Anwār, v. 26, pp. 24-25, n. 21 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/718/26).
[92] Al-Kāfī, v. 6, pp. 218-219, n. 4/5091 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/10567/219).
[93] Al-Uṣūl al-Sitta ʿAshar, p. 285, n. 22/413 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/6399/285).
[94] Maʿānī al-Akhbār, p. 269 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/2341/269).
[95] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, n. 402e (https://sunnah.com/muslim:402e).
[96] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, n. 403a (https://sunnah.com/muslim:403a).
[97] Sunan Abī Dāwūd, n. 3648 (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3648).
[98] Al-Kāfī, v. 6, p. 217, n. 1/5088 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/10567/217).
[99] Ibid., v. 6, pp. 217-218, n. 2/5089 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/10567/218).
[100] Al-Muṣannaf (Ibn Abī Shayba), v. 3, p. 145, n. 3036 (https://shamela.ws/book/333/3500).
[101] Ibid., v. 3, p. 145, n. 3032 (https://shamela.ws/book/333/3496).
[102] Ibid., v. 3, p. 145, n. 3038 (https://shamela.ws/book/333/3502).
[103] Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, v. 2, p. 102, n. 148/380 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/4866/102).
[104] Ibid., v. 2, pp. 101-102, n. 147/379 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/4866/102).
[105] Al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ, v. 3, p. 200, n. 2917 (https://shamela.ws/book/28171/3015).
[106] Sunan Abī Dāwūd, n. 971 (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:971).
[107] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, n. 831 (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:831).
[108] Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, v. 1, p. 90, n. 53 (https://shamela.ws/book/1699/259).
[109] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, n. 403a (https://sunnah.com/muslim:403a).
[110] Al-Kāfī, v. 6, pp. 219-220, n. 6/5093 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/10567/219).
[111] Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, v. 2, p. 316, n. 146/1290 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/4866/316).
[112] Man Lā Yaḥḍuruhu al-Faqīh, v. 1, p. 401, n. 1191 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/1340/433).
[113] Al-Muṣannaf (ʿAbd al-Razzāq), v. 2, p. 488, n. 3179 (https://shamela.ws/book/84/1039).
[114] Al-Muṣannaf (Ibn Abī Shayba), v. 3, p. 143, n. 3026 (https://shamela.ws/book/333/3489).
[115] The editor of the latest edition of the Muṣannaf of Ibn Abī Shayba (2015), the distinguished Saudi scholar Saʿd b. Nāṣir al-Shathrī, proposes that the word لا here is an interpolation and should be expunged even if all the many manuscripts he consulted are unanimous in including it! He has obviously not read this report side-by-side with what I consider its counterpart in the Muṣannaf of ʿAbd al-Razzāq. Another argument against his emendation is that if the report is merely saying that Ibn ʿUmar would recite this after two units then there would be no significance or point in transmitting this report since everyone does that, it would be conveying zero knowledge!
[116] Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, v. 1, p. 91, n. 54 (https://shamela.ws/book/1699/260). Note that the tashahhud does begin with bismillāh. Note also that it deviates from the tashahhud attributed to Ibn ʿUmar himself in Sunan Abī Dāwūd! (See footnote 106).
[117] Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, v. 1, p. 91, n. 55 (https://shamela.ws/book/1699/261); Ibid., v. 1, p. 91, n. 56 (https://shamela.ws/book/1699/262).
[118] I identify this Abū ʿUmar to be Zādhān (d. 82), a Kufan tābiʿī who is known to have narrated from several companions such as ʿAlī, Salmān, Ibn Masʿūd etc. and to have possessed Shīʿī inclinations. See Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, p. 213, n. 1976 (https://shamela.ws/book/8609/139).
[119] Rijāl al-Kashshī, v.1, p. 299, n. 142 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/2091/339).
[120] Dīwān al-Sayyid al-Ḥimyarī, p. 155 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/13591/155). Reading bi-naʿtihi instead of bi-ʿaynihi as found in Kashf al-Ghumma.
[121] Tafsīr ʿAbd al-Razzāq, v. 1, p. 487, n. 663 (https://shamela.ws/book/21791/657). Note that Shahr informs al-Ḥajjāj that he got this explanation from Muḥammad b. ʿAlī just to infuriate al-Ḥajjāj who hated the Alids vehemently whereas he had actually got it from Umm Salama.
[122] Al-Kāfī, v. 1, p. 436, n. 7/457 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/10562/678). This statement is part of a lengthier sermon that ʿAlī gave on the pulpit in Kufa and which has been transmitted with the same chain (i.e. Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī from a trusted one among the companions of ʿAlī). See Al-Kāfī, v. 2, pp. 141-143, n. 3/890 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/10563/142); Ibid., v. 2, pp. 155-157, n. 13/903 (https://ablibrary.net/#/reading/booklist/10563/156).
[123] Taʾrīkh al-Ṭabarī, v. 5, p. 395 (https://shamela.ws/book/9783/2855) where the envoy is named as Qays b. Mushir al-Ṣaydāwī. But see also the parallel account in Taʾrīkh al-Ṭabarī, v. 5, p. 398 (https://shamela.ws/book/9783/2858) where the same phrase is employed but the envoy is named al-Ḥusayn’s foster brother ʿAbdallāh b. Yuqṭur (sic. Buqṭur).
[124] Ibid., v. 5, p. 458 (https://shamela.ws/book/9783/2918).
[125] Al-Muṣannaf (Ibn Abī Shayba), v. 17, p. 129, n. 32644 (https://shamela.ws/book/333/37503); Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, v. 6, pp. 112-113 (https://shamela.ws/book/9351/2560); Al-Maʿrifa wa-l-Taʾrīkh, v. 2, p. 617 (https://shamela.ws/book/12403/1336).
Shiitic Studies 