(1) Mu`Ādh Ibn Jabal
(A) A man complained to `Umar ibn al-Khattāb that after he had been away from his wife for two years, he found her pregnant. `Umar consulted people whether he would sentence her to the punishment of stoning. Mu`ādh ibn Jabal said, “If she is guilty, the fetus in her womb is not. You should leave her until she gives birth. `Umar did and the woman gave birth of a baby whose father avowed for the similarity between them. Commenting on the matter, `Umar said, “Women are too inadequate to give birth of one like Mu`ādh. Without Mu`ādh, `Umar would have perished.”[326]
(B) `Umar decided to sentence a retaliation punishment against a Muslim who had broken the head of a Dhimmi (a non-Muslim enjoying the protection of the Islamic state). Mu`ādh intruded, “As much as I know, you are not allowed to decided such according to a report from the Holy Prophet.” `Umar therefore gave the Dhimmi one dīnār[327] as recompense, and he accepted it.[328]
(2) Zayd Ibn Thābit
(A) Mujāhid narrated that when he was in Syria, `Umar decided to sentence the retaliation punishment to a Muslim who had killed a Dhimmi. But Zayd intruded, “You should not make your slave retaliate upon your brother!” `Umar therefore decided that the Muslim would undergo blood money.[329]
(B) Makhūl narrated that `Abādah ibn al-Sāmit, once, asked a non-Muslim Bedouin to guard his riding animal while he would offer a prayer in the holy Mosque of Jerusalem. The man rejected and `Abādah, out of rage, hit him on the head. The man complained before `Umar who decided to sentence retaliation punishment to `Abādah who claimed that his temper was so bad that he could not control himself. Yet, Zayd ibn Thābit intruded, “You should not allow your slave to retaliate upon your brother.” Hence, `Umar decided that `Abādah would undergo blood money.[330]
(C) Zayd ibn Thābit narrated that `Umar, once, visited him… and said, “I visited you to counsel me about the share of a grandfather from his grandson’s inheritance. Zayd apologized because he had known nothing about the matter. Once again, `Umar visited Zayd for the same matter. As he insisted, Zayd decided to write down his opinion. He also cited the following example, “This issue is like a tree that grew up on one trunk, which, later on, produced a branch. That branch also produced another. The trunk thus supplies the first branch with water. If the first branch is cut, water will directly go to the second branch and if the second is cut, the water will directly go to the first.” `Umar recited this before people and decided to depend upon Zayd’s verdict.[331]
(3) Abū-‘Ubaydah Ibn Al-Jarrāh
`Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz narrated that `Umar decided to kill the Muslim individual who had killed a Dhimmi in Syria when he was there. Objecting to him, Abū-`Ubaydah said, “You are not allowed to do this.” “Why am I not allowed to do it?” asked `Umar. “Is it lawful to kill a master as retaliation for his having killed his slave?” Abū-`Ubaydah asked. `Umar could not find a reply; he therefore decided that the Muslim should undergo one thousand dīnārs as blood money.[332]
(4) Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yamān
One morning, `Umar met Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān and greeted him. Hudhayfah said, “How do you expect me to be! Indeed, I dislike the right, love the temptation, testify the existence of a thing that I have not seen, learn by heart what has not been created, offer the prayer without ablution, and possess on this earth that which is not possessed by Almighty Allah in the Heavens.”
On hearing this reply, `Umar became so enraged that he left hastily as he decided to harm Hudhayfah for such saying. On his way, he passed by `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib who noticed his rage and thus asked, “What for are you so enraged, `Umar?”
“As I greeted Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān, he said to me that he dislikes the right,” said `Umar.
“This is true,” said `Alī, “the man dislikes death, which is right!”
“He also said that he liked temptation!” added `Umar.
“This is true,” said `Alī, “the man liked his fortune and sons; and Almighty Allah says,
‘Your wealth and your children are only a temptation.’ [Holy Qur’ān: 64/15]”
“`Alī: he also claimed that he testified the existence of things that he had not seen!” added `Umar.
“This is also true,” said `Alī, “He testifies of Allah’s Oneness, the death, the Resurrection, the Judgment Day, Paradise, Hell, and the Path (al-Sirāt) while he had not seen any of these.”
“`Alī: he also said that he learnt by heart that which was not created!” added `Umar.
“This is also true,” said `Alī, “He has learnt by heart the Holy Book of Almighty Allah—the Qur'ān that is not created.”[333]
“He also claimed that he offered prayer without performing the ritual ablution!” said `Umar.
“This is also true,” said `Alī, “He prays to Almighty Allah to send blessings upon my cousin, the Messenger of Allah, without need for performing the ritual ablution. This is of course permissible.”
“Abu’l-Hasan: he said a more serious thing,” said `Umar.
“What was that?” asked `Alī.
“He said that he possesses on this earth what is not possessed by Almighty Allah in the heavens!” explained `Umar.
“This is also true,” said `Alī, “the man has a wife and sons on this earth while Almighty Allah is too Exalted to have a wife and sons.”
Pondering over the answers of `Alī, `Umar confessed, “Son of al-Khattāb would have perished were it not there `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib.”[334]
(5) `Abdullāh Ibn Mas`Ūd
Ibrāhīm al-Nakha`iy narrated that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb decided to sentence death penalty to a man who had murdered another premeditatedly although some of the victim’s heirs pardoned the murderer. `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd intruded, “The soul of the murderer was in the hand of all of the victim’s heirs, but when one of them allowed him to keep it, it was thus given life. This one cannot take his due unless the others do.”
“What do you think the judgment must be then?” asked `Umar.
“I think that you must decide that the murderer will undergo the blood money and then you can exempt him from the share of the heir who pardoned him.” `Umar then agreed to this judgment.[335]
(6) Ubayy Ibn Ka`b
(A) Al-Hasan al-Basriy narrated that when `Umar ibn al-Khattāb decided to distribute all the gold and silver that were in the Holy Ka`bah, Ubayy ibn Ka`b objected.
“What for do you object?” asked `Umar.
“Almighty Allah, through the Holy Prophet, has explained the expenditure of each and every fortune,” answered Ubayy.
“This is true,” confirmed `Umar.[336]
(B) Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah has reported that `Umar intended to seize the fortunes of the Holy Ka`bah claiming that it did not need them. He also intended to order the people of the Yemen to stop dying their clothes with the urination of camels and to forbid the Muslims from the Mut`at al-Hajj.[337]
Objecting to all of these, Ubayy ibn Ka`b said, “Although they needed the fortune of the Holy Ka`bah, neither the Holy Prophet nor did the Sahābah take it. Accordingly, you must not take it. The Holy Prophet and the Sahābah used to use the Yemeni clothes while they knew that they were dyed with the urination of camels. Yet, they did not warn people against using them. In the presence of the Holy Prophet, we practiced the Mut`at al-Hajj about the forbiddingness of which the Holy Qur'ān has not said anything.”[338]
(7) Al-Dahhāk Ibn Sufyān Al-Kilābiy
Sa`īd ibn al-Musayyab narrated that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb decided that the blood money in an issue of slaughter would be distributed among the victim’s kinsmen while the widow’s share is nothing. But when al-Dahhāk ibn Sufyān informed him that the Holy Prophet had ordered him to give the widow of Ashyam al-Dhabābiy a share of his blood money, `Umar retracted his decision.[339]
(8) Shaybah Ibn `Uthmān
Shafīq reported from Shaybah ibn `Uthmān that `Umar, once, sat down and decided to distribute all the fortunes of the Holy Ka`bah among the poor Muslims.
“You are not allowed to do so,” said Shaybah.
“What for?” asked `Umar.
“This is because neither the Holy Prophet nor did Abū-Bakr take anything of these fortunes although they need them more than you,” explained Shaybah.
On hearing this, `Umar left the place.[340]
(9) `Abdullāh Ibn `Abbās
Nāfi` ibn Jubayr narrated on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās that he witnessed the event when a lady that had given birth of a child only six months after her marriage was brought before `Umar to judge. All the attendants disapproved of her but `Abdullāh said to `Umar, “Do not be unfair!”
“How is that?” asked `Umar.
`Abdullāh answered, “You should consider Almighty Allah’s sayings (in the Holy Qur'ān),
‘And the bearing of him and the weaning of him is thirty months.’ [Holy Qur’ān: 46/15]
and
‘Mothers shall suckle their children for two whole years.’ [Holy Qur’ān: 2/233]
As twenty four months is the period of the two whole years, six months remains for pregnancy as a minimum. Almighty Allah advances and delays the periods of pregnancy as He desires.” On hearing this answer, `Umar accepted it.[341]
(10) `Alī Ibn Abī-Tālib
(A) `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās narrated that `Umar, once, decided to sentence to stoning punishment an insane woman who had committed fornication. While she was led to the place where she would undergo the punishment, `Alī passed by her and asked about the matter, “This is so-and-so, the insane. `Umar decided to sentence her to stoning punishment after he had consulted people.”
`Alī asked them to take her back to `Umar. He then followed them and said to `Umar, “You should have known that the Messenger of Allah said that three categories of people are not condemned for any deed they would commit—these are the immature, the asleep, and the insane. This lady is insane. Perhaps, she committed this crime while she was in a brainstorm.”
`Umar thus released the lady and repeated saying ‘Allāhu Akbar’ as sign of his admiration of `Alī’s answer.[342]
(B) A young woman was fond of one of the Ansār’s youths but he did not respond to her. She therefore decided to resort to trickery; she took an egg, threw away its yolk, and poured the albumen on her dress and thighs. She then came towards `Umar screaming and claiming that she had been abused by that young man. `Umar intended to punish that young man as soon as some women, whom he had appointed to see the traces of the crime, confirmed the existence of sperms on the young woman’s dress and body. Defending himself, the young man began shouting at `Umar to be sure of the question since he had not done it although she had sought to seduce him but he rejected. When `Umar referred the question to (Imam) `Alī, he looked at the traces on the dress, asked for a boiling water, poured it on the dress, and then the albumen solidified. As he smelled and tasted it, he knew that it was the white of an egg; therefore he scolded the young woman and she confessed of everything.[343]
(11) `Abd Al-Rahmān Ibn `Awf
(A) `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās narrated that `Umar, once, asked him whether he had heard anything from the Holy Prophet or the Sahābah as regards the doubts of the prayers. Meanwhile, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf cam and asked about the question, “I heard the Messenger of Allah saying that if one doubts in the prayer… etc.”[344]
(B) Qatādah reported that `Umar, once, was asked about the ruling if a lady was divorced twice in the pre-Islamic era and then divorced once in Islam. As `Umar excused, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf said, “I have the solution. Divorce before Islam is ineffective.”[345]
Finally, even his wife corrected `Umar’s information and cancelled his verdict when he wanted to forbid rise in dowries.[346]
The aforementioned examples prove evidently that the accurate course that should have been followed by the Sahābah was the full compliance with the judgments of Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet and caliphs should have referred to the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah in the issuance of verdicts. This fact seemed to be firmly present in the mentalities of the Sahābah who corrected for the caliph his errors depending upon the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah. These events also confirm that `Umar did not claim special rank in the knowledge of the religious laws or having a distinctive mentality that enabled him to extract the religious laws in such an idiosyncratic manner that bespoke his unique mastermind due to which the Divine Revelation used to depend his opinion and reproach the Holy Prophet for not having acted upon `Umar’s opinions, and the Holy Prophet said, ‘the Right is following `Umar wherever he would go’[347] and `Umar carried the whole knowledge of the Holy Prophet as well as many alike fabrications that `Umar himself would have certainly denied had he heard them!
As has been previously demonstrated, `Umar’s compliance with the Sahābah’s opinions appertained to the religious laws, as well as the evidences that they used to infer from the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah, proves that he, on the first days of his reign, did not argue with them on their verdicts and proofs; yet, he, later on, changed his trend by confirming his personal opinions. He thus granted the caliphs a distinctive feature due to which they alone have had the right to issue religious verdicts. This issue will be discussed in details shortly.
The previous discussion can be summarized in the following three points:
1) `Umar ibn al-Khattāb did not have full acquaintance with the Holy Qur'ān and the Holy Prophet’s instructions. Also, the Sahābah did not submit to his personal opinions.
2) The Holy Qur'ān and the Holy Sunnah are the one and only sources of the Islamic legislation and, in the conception of the Sahābah including `Umar himself, nothing can ever replace or be as important as them.
3) From the aforecited texts, we conclude that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb was about to be engaged in the most intense embarrassment, since it was not easy for the absolute ruler of the Islamic State to confess of his lack, in the field of knowledge, at all times, especially when we know that the majority of those who were experienced in the knowledge of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah did not agree with `Umar in principle, conceptions, and values. The coming discussions will demonstrate these facts more obviously.
(A) A man complained to `Umar ibn al-Khattāb that after he had been away from his wife for two years, he found her pregnant. `Umar consulted people whether he would sentence her to the punishment of stoning. Mu`ādh ibn Jabal said, “If she is guilty, the fetus in her womb is not. You should leave her until she gives birth. `Umar did and the woman gave birth of a baby whose father avowed for the similarity between them. Commenting on the matter, `Umar said, “Women are too inadequate to give birth of one like Mu`ādh. Without Mu`ādh, `Umar would have perished.”[326]
(B) `Umar decided to sentence a retaliation punishment against a Muslim who had broken the head of a Dhimmi (a non-Muslim enjoying the protection of the Islamic state). Mu`ādh intruded, “As much as I know, you are not allowed to decided such according to a report from the Holy Prophet.” `Umar therefore gave the Dhimmi one dīnār[327] as recompense, and he accepted it.[328]
(2) Zayd Ibn Thābit
(A) Mujāhid narrated that when he was in Syria, `Umar decided to sentence the retaliation punishment to a Muslim who had killed a Dhimmi. But Zayd intruded, “You should not make your slave retaliate upon your brother!” `Umar therefore decided that the Muslim would undergo blood money.[329]
(B) Makhūl narrated that `Abādah ibn al-Sāmit, once, asked a non-Muslim Bedouin to guard his riding animal while he would offer a prayer in the holy Mosque of Jerusalem. The man rejected and `Abādah, out of rage, hit him on the head. The man complained before `Umar who decided to sentence retaliation punishment to `Abādah who claimed that his temper was so bad that he could not control himself. Yet, Zayd ibn Thābit intruded, “You should not allow your slave to retaliate upon your brother.” Hence, `Umar decided that `Abādah would undergo blood money.[330]
(C) Zayd ibn Thābit narrated that `Umar, once, visited him… and said, “I visited you to counsel me about the share of a grandfather from his grandson’s inheritance. Zayd apologized because he had known nothing about the matter. Once again, `Umar visited Zayd for the same matter. As he insisted, Zayd decided to write down his opinion. He also cited the following example, “This issue is like a tree that grew up on one trunk, which, later on, produced a branch. That branch also produced another. The trunk thus supplies the first branch with water. If the first branch is cut, water will directly go to the second branch and if the second is cut, the water will directly go to the first.” `Umar recited this before people and decided to depend upon Zayd’s verdict.[331]
(3) Abū-‘Ubaydah Ibn Al-Jarrāh
`Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz narrated that `Umar decided to kill the Muslim individual who had killed a Dhimmi in Syria when he was there. Objecting to him, Abū-`Ubaydah said, “You are not allowed to do this.” “Why am I not allowed to do it?” asked `Umar. “Is it lawful to kill a master as retaliation for his having killed his slave?” Abū-`Ubaydah asked. `Umar could not find a reply; he therefore decided that the Muslim should undergo one thousand dīnārs as blood money.[332]
(4) Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yamān
One morning, `Umar met Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān and greeted him. Hudhayfah said, “How do you expect me to be! Indeed, I dislike the right, love the temptation, testify the existence of a thing that I have not seen, learn by heart what has not been created, offer the prayer without ablution, and possess on this earth that which is not possessed by Almighty Allah in the Heavens.”
On hearing this reply, `Umar became so enraged that he left hastily as he decided to harm Hudhayfah for such saying. On his way, he passed by `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib who noticed his rage and thus asked, “What for are you so enraged, `Umar?”
“As I greeted Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān, he said to me that he dislikes the right,” said `Umar.
“This is true,” said `Alī, “the man dislikes death, which is right!”
“He also said that he liked temptation!” added `Umar.
“This is true,” said `Alī, “the man liked his fortune and sons; and Almighty Allah says,
‘Your wealth and your children are only a temptation.’ [Holy Qur’ān: 64/15]”
“`Alī: he also claimed that he testified the existence of things that he had not seen!” added `Umar.
“This is also true,” said `Alī, “He testifies of Allah’s Oneness, the death, the Resurrection, the Judgment Day, Paradise, Hell, and the Path (al-Sirāt) while he had not seen any of these.”
“`Alī: he also said that he learnt by heart that which was not created!” added `Umar.
“This is also true,” said `Alī, “He has learnt by heart the Holy Book of Almighty Allah—the Qur'ān that is not created.”[333]
“He also claimed that he offered prayer without performing the ritual ablution!” said `Umar.
“This is also true,” said `Alī, “He prays to Almighty Allah to send blessings upon my cousin, the Messenger of Allah, without need for performing the ritual ablution. This is of course permissible.”
“Abu’l-Hasan: he said a more serious thing,” said `Umar.
“What was that?” asked `Alī.
“He said that he possesses on this earth what is not possessed by Almighty Allah in the heavens!” explained `Umar.
“This is also true,” said `Alī, “the man has a wife and sons on this earth while Almighty Allah is too Exalted to have a wife and sons.”
Pondering over the answers of `Alī, `Umar confessed, “Son of al-Khattāb would have perished were it not there `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib.”[334]
(5) `Abdullāh Ibn Mas`Ūd
Ibrāhīm al-Nakha`iy narrated that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb decided to sentence death penalty to a man who had murdered another premeditatedly although some of the victim’s heirs pardoned the murderer. `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd intruded, “The soul of the murderer was in the hand of all of the victim’s heirs, but when one of them allowed him to keep it, it was thus given life. This one cannot take his due unless the others do.”
“What do you think the judgment must be then?” asked `Umar.
“I think that you must decide that the murderer will undergo the blood money and then you can exempt him from the share of the heir who pardoned him.” `Umar then agreed to this judgment.[335]
(6) Ubayy Ibn Ka`b
(A) Al-Hasan al-Basriy narrated that when `Umar ibn al-Khattāb decided to distribute all the gold and silver that were in the Holy Ka`bah, Ubayy ibn Ka`b objected.
“What for do you object?” asked `Umar.
“Almighty Allah, through the Holy Prophet, has explained the expenditure of each and every fortune,” answered Ubayy.
“This is true,” confirmed `Umar.[336]
(B) Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah has reported that `Umar intended to seize the fortunes of the Holy Ka`bah claiming that it did not need them. He also intended to order the people of the Yemen to stop dying their clothes with the urination of camels and to forbid the Muslims from the Mut`at al-Hajj.[337]
Objecting to all of these, Ubayy ibn Ka`b said, “Although they needed the fortune of the Holy Ka`bah, neither the Holy Prophet nor did the Sahābah take it. Accordingly, you must not take it. The Holy Prophet and the Sahābah used to use the Yemeni clothes while they knew that they were dyed with the urination of camels. Yet, they did not warn people against using them. In the presence of the Holy Prophet, we practiced the Mut`at al-Hajj about the forbiddingness of which the Holy Qur'ān has not said anything.”[338]
(7) Al-Dahhāk Ibn Sufyān Al-Kilābiy
Sa`īd ibn al-Musayyab narrated that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb decided that the blood money in an issue of slaughter would be distributed among the victim’s kinsmen while the widow’s share is nothing. But when al-Dahhāk ibn Sufyān informed him that the Holy Prophet had ordered him to give the widow of Ashyam al-Dhabābiy a share of his blood money, `Umar retracted his decision.[339]
(8) Shaybah Ibn `Uthmān
Shafīq reported from Shaybah ibn `Uthmān that `Umar, once, sat down and decided to distribute all the fortunes of the Holy Ka`bah among the poor Muslims.
“You are not allowed to do so,” said Shaybah.
“What for?” asked `Umar.
“This is because neither the Holy Prophet nor did Abū-Bakr take anything of these fortunes although they need them more than you,” explained Shaybah.
On hearing this, `Umar left the place.[340]
(9) `Abdullāh Ibn `Abbās
Nāfi` ibn Jubayr narrated on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās that he witnessed the event when a lady that had given birth of a child only six months after her marriage was brought before `Umar to judge. All the attendants disapproved of her but `Abdullāh said to `Umar, “Do not be unfair!”
“How is that?” asked `Umar.
`Abdullāh answered, “You should consider Almighty Allah’s sayings (in the Holy Qur'ān),
‘And the bearing of him and the weaning of him is thirty months.’ [Holy Qur’ān: 46/15]
and
‘Mothers shall suckle their children for two whole years.’ [Holy Qur’ān: 2/233]
As twenty four months is the period of the two whole years, six months remains for pregnancy as a minimum. Almighty Allah advances and delays the periods of pregnancy as He desires.” On hearing this answer, `Umar accepted it.[341]
(10) `Alī Ibn Abī-Tālib
(A) `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās narrated that `Umar, once, decided to sentence to stoning punishment an insane woman who had committed fornication. While she was led to the place where she would undergo the punishment, `Alī passed by her and asked about the matter, “This is so-and-so, the insane. `Umar decided to sentence her to stoning punishment after he had consulted people.”
`Alī asked them to take her back to `Umar. He then followed them and said to `Umar, “You should have known that the Messenger of Allah said that three categories of people are not condemned for any deed they would commit—these are the immature, the asleep, and the insane. This lady is insane. Perhaps, she committed this crime while she was in a brainstorm.”
`Umar thus released the lady and repeated saying ‘Allāhu Akbar’ as sign of his admiration of `Alī’s answer.[342]
(B) A young woman was fond of one of the Ansār’s youths but he did not respond to her. She therefore decided to resort to trickery; she took an egg, threw away its yolk, and poured the albumen on her dress and thighs. She then came towards `Umar screaming and claiming that she had been abused by that young man. `Umar intended to punish that young man as soon as some women, whom he had appointed to see the traces of the crime, confirmed the existence of sperms on the young woman’s dress and body. Defending himself, the young man began shouting at `Umar to be sure of the question since he had not done it although she had sought to seduce him but he rejected. When `Umar referred the question to (Imam) `Alī, he looked at the traces on the dress, asked for a boiling water, poured it on the dress, and then the albumen solidified. As he smelled and tasted it, he knew that it was the white of an egg; therefore he scolded the young woman and she confessed of everything.[343]
(11) `Abd Al-Rahmān Ibn `Awf
(A) `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās narrated that `Umar, once, asked him whether he had heard anything from the Holy Prophet or the Sahābah as regards the doubts of the prayers. Meanwhile, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf cam and asked about the question, “I heard the Messenger of Allah saying that if one doubts in the prayer… etc.”[344]
(B) Qatādah reported that `Umar, once, was asked about the ruling if a lady was divorced twice in the pre-Islamic era and then divorced once in Islam. As `Umar excused, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf said, “I have the solution. Divorce before Islam is ineffective.”[345]
Finally, even his wife corrected `Umar’s information and cancelled his verdict when he wanted to forbid rise in dowries.[346]
The aforementioned examples prove evidently that the accurate course that should have been followed by the Sahābah was the full compliance with the judgments of Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet and caliphs should have referred to the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah in the issuance of verdicts. This fact seemed to be firmly present in the mentalities of the Sahābah who corrected for the caliph his errors depending upon the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah. These events also confirm that `Umar did not claim special rank in the knowledge of the religious laws or having a distinctive mentality that enabled him to extract the religious laws in such an idiosyncratic manner that bespoke his unique mastermind due to which the Divine Revelation used to depend his opinion and reproach the Holy Prophet for not having acted upon `Umar’s opinions, and the Holy Prophet said, ‘the Right is following `Umar wherever he would go’[347] and `Umar carried the whole knowledge of the Holy Prophet as well as many alike fabrications that `Umar himself would have certainly denied had he heard them!
As has been previously demonstrated, `Umar’s compliance with the Sahābah’s opinions appertained to the religious laws, as well as the evidences that they used to infer from the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah, proves that he, on the first days of his reign, did not argue with them on their verdicts and proofs; yet, he, later on, changed his trend by confirming his personal opinions. He thus granted the caliphs a distinctive feature due to which they alone have had the right to issue religious verdicts. This issue will be discussed in details shortly.
The previous discussion can be summarized in the following three points:
1) `Umar ibn al-Khattāb did not have full acquaintance with the Holy Qur'ān and the Holy Prophet’s instructions. Also, the Sahābah did not submit to his personal opinions.
2) The Holy Qur'ān and the Holy Sunnah are the one and only sources of the Islamic legislation and, in the conception of the Sahābah including `Umar himself, nothing can ever replace or be as important as them.
3) From the aforecited texts, we conclude that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb was about to be engaged in the most intense embarrassment, since it was not easy for the absolute ruler of the Islamic State to confess of his lack, in the field of knowledge, at all times, especially when we know that the majority of those who were experienced in the knowledge of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah did not agree with `Umar in principle, conceptions, and values. The coming discussions will demonstrate these facts more obviously.
Notes:
[326] Sunan al-Dāraqutniy 3:322 H. 281; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 7:443 H. 15335; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 7:354 H. 13454; Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 5:543 H. 28812; Al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’ 1:452; al-Muzziy: Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 28:111;Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 12:202; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bārī fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 12:120; al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 3:427.
[327] A currency
[328] Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 15:97; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 10:100 H. 18511.
[329] Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 15:97 H. 40242; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 10:100 H. 18509.
[330] Al-Dhahbiy: Tadhkirat al-Huffādh 1:31 No. 16;al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:32; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 15:94 H. 40232;
[331] Sunan al-Dāraqutniy 4:93 H. 80; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:247; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 12:21.
[332] Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:32; Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 15:94 H. 40234.
[333] The question whether the Qur'ān was created or was existent since eternity is one of the issues of disagreement between the Muslim theologians. For details, refer to books of Islamic theology.
[334] Ibn al-Sabbāgh al-Mālikiy: al-Fusūl al-Muhimmah 35; al-Kinjiy: Kifāyat al-Tālib 218-9.
[335] Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:60; al-Shāfi`iy: Kitāb al-Umm 7:329; al-Shaybāniy: al-Hujjah 4:385. In al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 11:33 H. 30513, there is another issue that occurred between `Umar and `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd. In the world of Ibn al-Qayyim (in I`lām al-Muwaqqi`īn 2:237, `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd disagreed with `Umar in more than one hundred issues.
[336] Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 5:159; al-Tabariy: al-Riyād al-Nadirah 1-2:339; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 5:88 H. 9084; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 14:100 H. 38052.
[337] For details on Mut`at al-Hajj, refer to the books of the Islamic laws.
[338] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyya: Zād al-Ma’ād 2:208.
[339] Al-Shāfi`iy: Kitāb al-Umm 6:88; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 3:129 H. 2927; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:452; Sunan Ibn Mājah 2:883 H. 2642; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 434; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:134; Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Tārīkh Baghdad 8:343.
[340] Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 2:215 H. 2031; Sunan Ibn Mājah 2:104 H. 3116; al-Tabariy: al-Riyād al-Nadirah 1-2:339; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 7:300 H. 7195; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 3:456; Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 2:578 H. 1517, 6:2655 H. 6847; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 5:159 H. 9511; Musanaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 6:466 H. 32976; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:410.
[341] Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 7:352 H. 13449; al-Suyūtiy: al-Durr al-Manthūr 7:442; Fath al-Qadīr 5:19.
[342] Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 4:140 H. 4399, 4402; al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn 2:68 H. 2351; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 4:269, 8:264; Sunan al-Dāraqutniy 3:138 H. 173; Sunan al-Nassā'iy 4:324 H. 7347.
[343] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyyah: al-Turuq al-Hikamiyyah 47 [as reported in al-`Āmiliy: al-Ghadīr 6].
[344] Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:190; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 2:332.
[345] Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:482; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 7:181 H. 16289.
[346] Al-Zamakhshariy: Tafsīr al-Kashshāf 1:258; Tafsīr al-Qur'ān al-`Adhīm 1:467; Tafsīr al-Qurtubiy 5:99; al-Suyūtiy: al-Durr al-Manthūr 2:446.
[347] Dr. Nādiah al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 299.
Source:
The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith, Causes and Effects
A Glance at the Methodologies and Principles of the two Muslims Schools of Hadith
By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani
The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith, Causes and Effects
A Glance at the Methodologies and Principles of the two Muslims Schools of Hadith
By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani
No comments:
Post a Comment
براہ مہربانی شائستہ زبان کا استعمال کریں۔ تقریبا ہر موضوع پر 'گمنام' لوگوں کے بہت سے تبصرے موجود ہیں. اس لئےتاریخ 20-3-2015 سے ہم گمنام کمینٹنگ کو بند کر رہے ہیں. اس تاریخ سے درست ای میل اکاؤنٹس کے ضریعے آپ تبصرہ کر سکتے ہیں.جن تبصروں میں لنکس ہونگے انہیں فوراً ہٹا دیا جائے گا. اس لئے آپنے تبصروں میں لنکس شامل نہ کریں.
Please use Polite Language.
As there are many comments from 'anonymous' people on every subject. So from 20-3-2015 we are disabling 'Anonymous Commenting' option. From this date only users with valid E-mail accounts can comment. All the comments with LINKs will be removed. So please don't add links to your comments.