Читать книгу Sahih Muslim (Volume 2) - Imam Abul-Husain Muslim - Страница 10

CHAPTER 21

FORBIDDING WHAT IS WRONG IS PART OF FAITH; FAITH MAY INCREASE OR DECREASE; TO ENJOIN WHAT IS RIGHT AND FORBID WHAT IS WRONG ARE DUTIES

[81–78]. (Dar al-Salam 0079) Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah narrated:ⁱ Waki[ narrated; from Sufyan [H]. Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna narrated; Muhammad ibn Ja[far narrated; Shu[bah narrated: both from Qays ibn Muslim; from Tariq ibn Shihab. The following is the narration by Abu Bakr who said: ‘The first to start with the speech, i.e. the khutbah, before the prayer on an Eid Day was Marwan. A man stood up and said to him: “The prayer is offered before the speech”. He said: “This has been left out”. Abu Sa[id said: “This one (meaning the man) has discharged his duty. I heard God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) say: ‘Whoever of you sees a wrongful action should change it with his hand; and if he is unable to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is unable to do that, then with his heart. This [last one] is the weakest degree of faith’.”’¹

حدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ، ح. وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْـمُثَنَّى، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، كِلاَهُمَا عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ، عَنْ طَارِقِ بْنِ شِهَابٍ، - وَهَذَا حَدِيثُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ – قَالَ: أَوَّلُ مَنْ بَدَأَ بِالْخُطْبَةِ يَوْمَ الْعِيدِ قَبْلَ الصَّلاَةِ مَرْوَانُ فَقَامَ إِلَيْهِ رَجُلٌ فَقَالَ الصَّلاَةُ قَبْلَ الْخُطْبَة. فَقَالَ: قَدْ تُرِكَ مَا هُنَالِكَ. فَقَالَ أَبُو سَعِيدٍ: أَمَّا هَذَا فَقَدْ قَضَى مَا عَلَيْهِ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: «مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِقَلْبِهِ، وَذَلِكَ أَضْعَفُ الإِيمَان».

[82–79]. (Dar al-Salam 0080) Abu Kurayb Muhammad ibn al-[Ala’ narrated: Abu Mu[awiyah narrated; al-A[mash narrated; from Isma[il ibn Raja’; from his father; from Abu Sa[id al-Khudri; also from Qays ibn Muslim; from Tariq ibn Shihab; from Abu Sa[id al-Khudri: He mentioned the story of Marwan, and Abu Sa[id’s narration of the Prophet’s hadith as already reported by Shu[bah and Sufyan.

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو كُرَيْبٍ، مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْعَلاَءِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا الأَعْمَشُ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ رَجَاءٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، وَعَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ، عَنْ طَارِقِ بْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، فِي قِصَّةِ مَرْوَانَ وَحَدِيثِ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، بِمِثْلِ حَدِيثِ شُعْبَةَ وَسُفْيَانَ.

Text Explanation

1. Qadi [Iyad said: ‘Different reports speak about the first to deliver the sermon before the Eid Prayer. It is said that the first was [Uthman, while other reports suggest that it was [Umar, because he noticed that people left the mosque when the prayer was over, and did not stay to listen to the speech that followed. It is also suggested that he did so to allow time for people who lived some distance from the mosque to arrive so that they could catch the prayer. Further suggestions mention Mu[awiyah or [Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr as the first to do it. What is confirmed is that the Prophet, Abu Bakr, [Umar, [Uthman and [Ali started with the prayer. Scholars of all areas agree that this is the right order, and some scholars consider it to be a case of unanimous agreement’. He meant that the unanimity was subsequent to the disagreement, but God knows best. Or it may be that the disagreement by Umayyad rulers was discounted, because of the unanimity of the earlier generations.

Abu Sa[id al-Khudri, the Prophet’s companion, said in reference to the man who objected: ‘This one has discharged his duty’. He said it in the presence of a large audience, which makes clear that the recognized Sunnah at the time was the opposite to that of Marwan ibn al-Hakam, then governor of Madinah. He confirmed this by citing the evidence, stating that he heard the Prophet say: ‘Whoever of you sees a wrongful action …’. It would not be considered a wrongful action if he and those present thought it right, or it was done or practised earlier. This confirms that no caliph had done so before Marwan, and that what was mentioned about it being done by [Umar, or [Uthman or Mu[awiyah is incorrect, but God knows best.

The hadith mentions that a man objected but Marwan told him that it was left out. Abu Sa[id endorsed the man’s objection by quoting the Prophet’s hadith. It may be wondered why Abu Sa[id was not the first to object. It may be that he was not present when Marwan started his move to deliver the speech first, so the man objected and Abu Sa[id came in later as the discussion progressed. Alternatively, Abu Sa[id might have been present at the beginning but he feared some strife might affect him or others if he voiced his objection to the governor. In such a situation, he would not have been required to object. The other man might not have felt such fear for raising his objection because he might have had support, or he might have not cared what happened to him, which would be commendable. A third possibiliy is that Abu Sa[id might have been about to raise his objection but the man beat him to it; so Abu Sa[id supported him, but God knows best.

Another hadith related by both al-Bukhari and Muslim in the chapter on the Eid Prayer mentions that it was Abu Sa[id who pulled Marwan by the hand when he saw him going up onto the platform, i.e. minbar. Both Marwan and Abu Sa[id arrived at the same time. Marwan answered him as he answered the man in this hadith. So, it may be that these were two different cases with one speaking of Abu Sa[id’s objection and the other of the man’s objection in Abu Sa[id’s presence, but God knows best. Indeed, Abu Sa[id’s comment that the man had discharged his duty serves as a statement of censure of what Marwan did.

The Prophet said that whoever sees a wrongful action he ‘should change it’. This is a compulsory order according to unanimous understanding. That enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong are duties is endorsed by the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the unanimous verdict of the Muslim community. Furthermore, it is an aspect of sincere counselling, which is the essence of the Islamic religion.

The only people who dissent from this view are a minority of Shia, and their disagreement is not taken into account. Imam al-Haramayn said: ‘Their disagreement is discounted, because the Muslim community were unanimous on this before such people came into existence. That this is a duty is determined by Islam, not by reason as the Mu[tazilah claim. A Qur’anic verse says: ‘Believers, it is but for your own souls that you are accountable. Those who go astray can do you no harm if you [yourselves] are on the right path’. (5: 105) This is not contrary to what we have just said. According to most scrupulous scholars, the verse means that when you have done your duties, then the failure of others to do their duties will not cause you any harm. This is the same as the Qur’anic principle: ‘No soul will bear the burden of another’. (35: 18) As it is so, then one of the duties of every Muslim is to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. If one does so but the addressee pays no heed, no blame attaches to the one who has done it because he has discharged his duty, which is to enjoin and forbid, without ensuring acceptance. It is God who knows best.

Besides, enjoining right and forbidding wrong is a collective duty: when some people do it, the others are exempt, but if all people ignore it, every one of them who is able to do so, with neither excuse for failure nor fear, incurs a sin. Moreover, it may become a personal duty when someone is the only person who is aware of the wrongful action, or the only one who can change it. This is the case of someone who sees his wife, or child, or servant doing some wrong or failing to do what is right. Scholars say that a person is not exempt from enjoining right and forbidding wrong because he believes that it will be useless. Even in this case the duty is binding, because reminders benefit believers. As we have already stated, his duty is to give the advice, but he is not responsible for its acceptance. It is as God says: ‘The Messenger’s duty is but to deliver the message [entrusted to him]’. (5: 99) Scholars cite the example of a person in a public bath or a swimming pool who sees someone with an area of his body that must be covered being uncovered; but God knows best.

Scholars say that it is not a condition that the one who enjoins what is right and forbids what is wrong should himself be in a perfect state, doing what he enjoins others to do and refraining from what he forbids them. He should do so, even though he fails to do what he enjoins or does what he forbids. The point here is that he has two duties: to give such instructions to himself and to give the same instructions to others. If he fails to do one of these two duties, does such failure make it permissible to fail in the other duty?

Scholars add that enjoining right and forbidding wrong is not incumbent only on those who are in authority. It is applicable to all Muslim individuals. Imam al-Haramayn said: ‘The evidence in support of this is the unanimity of the Muslim community. In the early period of Islam and the following generations, ordinary people used to enjoin governors and people in authority to do what is right and voice their disapproval of any wrong they may do’. The Muslim community approved their deeds and none was criticized for so doing, even though they held no position of authority, but God knows best.

Moreover, a person must know what he is enjoining or forbidding, and this differs according to the matter in question. If it is one of the obvious duties or the well-known prohibitions, such as prayer and fasting or adultery and drinking, all Muslims are aware of these. If it is a question of subtle details or something that is subject to scholarly discretion, i.e. ijtihad, lay people cannot address such matters and they may not speak about them. It is left to scholars who should express their criticism only on what is unanimously agreed. If something is controversial, they may not speak against it. According to one view, every scholar who exercises discretion, or ijtihad, is correct. This is the view chosen by the majority of scrupulous scholars. The other view is that only one is correct, while the incorrect one is unknown to us. No sin attaches in this case. However, if it is done by way of advice so as to avoid controversy, then it is perfectly appropriate, provided it is done gently. Scholars agree that steering away from what is subject to disagreement is to be encouraged, provided that it does not lead to neglecting a Sunnah or involves another type of disagreement.

In his book al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, Chief Justice (Qadi al-Qudat) Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi al-Basri al-Shafi[i mentions disagreement among scholars on the case of a person appointed as controller (muhtasib).ⁱ The situation is this: if the controller is a scholar who is competent to exercise ijtihad, may he enforce his own view or should he allow people to follow the views of their own schools of thought? The correct view is that he should allow people this freedom. In matters of detail, disagreement existed between the Prophet’s companions, the Tabi[in and later generations. No controller or other officer objected to a practice that was at variance with his own view. Scholars also say that a mufti or a judge may not object to a person who is in disagreement with him, if that person does not contravene a clear text, unanimous verdict or a clear analogy, but God knows best.

It must be known that this aspect of Islam, i.e. the enjoining of what is right and forbidding of what is wrong, has largely been neglected for a very long time and very few aspects of it remain. Yet it is very important, indeed it is the principle that ensures society remains on the right course. When evil spreads, punishment is inflicted on the good and the bad alike. Unless people stop injustice, God may well extend His punishment to all of them. He says: ‘Let those who would go against His bidding beware, lest some affliction or painful suffering befall them’. (24: 63) Its benefit is great indeed, particularly because it has been largely neglected, and a person who seeks success in the life to come and hopes to earn God’s pleasure should be keen to undertake this duty. He should be sure of the sincerity of his intention and fear no one, regardless of his authority. God says: ‘God will most certainly succour him who succours God’s cause’; (22: 40) ‘He who holds fast to God has already been guided along a straight path’; (3: 101( ‘As for those who strive hard in Our cause, We shall most certainly guide them to paths that lead unto Us’; (29: 69) ‘Do people think that once they say: “We are believers”, they will be left alone and will not be put to a test? We certainly tested those who lived before them; and so most certainly God knows those who speak the truth and most certainly He knows those who are liars.’ (29: 2–3)

Everyone should know that God’s reward is commensurate with the effort exerted for His sake. A person should not refrain from undertaking this duty because of his friendship with the person to be advised or in order to please him or to gain favour with him, or to ensure that he retains his position with him. The fact that he is a friend indicates, by virtue of that friendship, a right due to him, which is to be given sincere advice and to be shown the way that enhances his position in the life to come or spares him an adverse effect there. A true friend, who sincerely loves his friend, tries to improve his position in the life to come, even if this involves some loss in this life. A person’s enemy is one who leads him to a loss in the Hereafter, even though it brings him some advantage in this life. Satan is our enemy because of this, while all prophets were friends and protectors of believers because they guided them to what improves their position in the life to come. We pray to God to guide us and our loved ones and all Muslims to what pleases Him and to bestow His generosity and mercy on us all.

A person who enjoins what is right and forbids what is wrong should be gentle in his approach, so that he is better able to achieve his purpose. Imam al-Shafi[i said: ‘Whoever admonishes his brother in private gives him advice in a respectful manner, but the one who admonishes his brother in public exposes his failure and puts him to shame’. In this connection, people often turn a blind eye when they see someone selling another a faulty article without mentioning the fault. They neither declare their disapproval of this practice, nor inform the buyer of the fault in the article to be purchased. This is clearly wrong and scholars declare that whoever is aware of any such fault should make his disapproval clear to the seller and inform the buyer, and God knows best.

The prohibition of what is wrong should be exercised and its degrees have been outlined by the Prophet, as he said: ‘Whoever of you sees a wrongful action should change it with his hand; and if he is unable to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is unable to do that, then with his heart’. That the Prophet said, ‘then with his heart’, means that a person should mentally dislike the wrong action, even if he cannot do anything about it. This does not mean that he actually changes it, but he does what he can. The Prophet describes this last attitude as ‘the weakest degree of faith’. This means that it yields the least result, but God knows best.

Qadi [Iyad said: ‘This hadith gives us a clear statement of how change should be affected. The one who undertakes such a change should resort to everything he can in order to achieve his purpose, whether by word or deed. He may break the tools used to do what is wrong, or pour an intoxicant drink down the drain, or return to the rightful owners what was wrongfully taken away from them, doing any of these himself or giving orders for it to be done. When a person undertakes such a change, he should be gentle with the one who is ignorant of the perpetrated wrong, and with the one who is in a strong position to cause harm. A gentle approach is more likely to make his advice acceptable. It is also recommended that the one who undertakes such a change should be known as a God-fearing and pious person. He may rebuke the one who is persistent with wrongdoing if he feels that such a rebuke would not lead to an even worse evil than the one he is changing. If he thinks that a physical change could lead to a worse evil, such as endangering his own life or the life of someone else, then he should refrain from physical change and resort to verbal advice, reminding the person concerned of the consequences of his wrongful action. If he again fears that such admonition may bring about bad results, then he should stop at mental disapproval. This is the message given in this hadith. However, if the one who wants to change a wrongful action is able to find support for his purpose, he should call on this support, unless this leads to the use of arms and to a fight. He may also put the matter to the relevant authorities, or limit himself to mental disapproval. This is the right understanding of this issue and how it should be implemented, as suggested by eminent and scrupulous scholars. This is contrary to the view that requires speaking out against wrongful action in all situations, even if it causes physical injury or the death of the person who so speaks’.

Imam al-Haramayn said: ‘It is perfectly permissible for any citizen to physically prevent a person who intends to commit a major sin, if he will not take heed of verbal advice. This is so, provided that the matter does not end in a fight and drawing arms. If it becomes so, the matter should be referred to the authorities. If a ruler enforces measures of injustice and this becomes clear and he does not pay heed to advice but persists in wrongdoing, it is permissible for the leading figures in the community to collaborate to remove him, even if this requires the drawing of arms and a fight’. What Imam al-Haramayn suggests is strange indeed, but it is understood to be conditional on being sure that it would not lead to a worse situation. Imam al-Haramayn further adds: ‘It is not open to the one who undertakes enjoining right and forbidding wrong to search or spy on people, or force his way into homes on suspecting the commitment of wrongful action. Only when he sees or finds something wrong does he change it’.

Chief Justice al-Mawardi said: ‘A controller may not search for what is unknown of forbidden practices. However, if he suspects on the basis of clear indications that some people will be committing such practices in private, this may take one of two forms. The first is that an offence is intended but can be prevented, as in the case of being told by some reliable person that a man is about to kill another, or a man is about to commit adultery with a certain woman. Then he may check, watch or spy so as to prevent the intended crime. The same applies to volunteers who may take the necessary action to expose and prevent what is intended. The second form includes whatever is less than this, and in such a case no spying or exposure is permissible. Suppose a person hears sounds of what is forbidden being committed inside a house. He should protest against it outside, without forcing his way into the house. The wrong is quite apparent, but he may not seek to expose what is not seen’.

At the end of his book al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, al-Mawardi devotes a fine chapter to what is involved in the work of the controller, which includes a number of the regulations applicable to enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong. I have referred here to the objectives of this principle, speaking about it at length because of its great importance and the need for it. It is, indeed, one of the most important principles of Islam, but God knows best.

[83–80]. (Dar al-Salam 0081) [Amr al-Naqid, Abu Bakr ibn al-Nadr and [Abd ibn Humayd narrated to me, and the wording here is [Abd’s. They said: Ya[qub ibn Ibrahim ibn Sa[d narrated: my father narrated to me; from Salih ibn Kaysan; from al-Harith; from Ja[far ibn [Abdullah ibn al-Hakam; from [Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Miswar; from Abu Rafi[; from [Abdullah ibn Mas[ud that God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: ‘Every Prophet God sent to a community before me had some disciples and companions from among his community who followed his way and fulfilled his bidding. After them there came groups who promised what they did not fulfil and did what they were not bidden. Whoever strives against them physically is a believer, and whoever strives against them verbally is a believer, and whoever strives against them mentally is a believer. Beyond this there is not the equivalent of a single mustard seed of faith’.

Abu Rafi[ said: ‘I reported this to [Abdullah ibn [Umar and he questioned it. Then Ibn Mas[ud came and stopped at Qanah. [Abdullah ibn [Umar asked me to accompany him to visit Ibn Mas[ud and I went with him. When we sat down, I asked Ibn Mas[ud about this hadith and he narrated it as I reported it to Ibn [Umar. Salih said: A similar report has been attributed to Abu Rafi[.

حَدَّثَنِي عَمْرٌو النَّاقِدُ، وَأَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ النَّضْر،ِ وَعَبْدُ بْنُ حُمَيْدٍ - وَاللَّفْظُ لِعَبْدٍ - قَالُوا حَدَّثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، عَنْ صَالِحِ بْنِ كَيْسَانَ، عَنِ الْحَارِثِ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ الْحَكَمِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْـمِسْوَرِ، عَنْ أَبِي رَافِعٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: «مَا مِنْ نَبِيٍّ بَعَثَهُ اللهُ فِي أُمَّةٍ قَبْلِي إِلاَّ كَانَ لَهُ مِنْ أُمَّتِهِ حَوَارِيُّونَ وَأَصْحَابٌ يَأْخُذُونَ بِسُنَّتِهِ وَيَقْتَدُونَ بِأَمْرِهِ، ثُمَّ إِنَّهَا تَخْلُفُ مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ خُلُوفٌ يَقُولُونَ مَا لاَ يَفْعَلُونَ، وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا لاَ يُؤْمَرُونَ. فَمَنْ جَاهَدَهُمْ بِيَدِهِ فَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ، وَمَنْ جَاهَدَهُمْ بِلِسَانِهِ فَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ، وَمَنْ جَاهَدَهُمْ بِقَلْبِهِ فَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ، وَلَيْسَ وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ مِنَ الإِيمَانِ حَبَّةُ خَرْدَلٍ». قَالَ أَبُو رَافِعٍ: فَحَدَّثْتُهُ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ فَأَنْكَرَهُ عَلَىَّ. فَقَدِمَ ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ فَنَزَلَ بِقَنَاةَ، فَاسْتَتْبَعَنِي إِلَيْهِ عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ يَعُودُهُ، فَانْطَلَقْتُ مَعَهُ فَلَمَّا جَلَسْنَا سَأَلْتُ ابْنَ مَسْعُودٍ عَنْ هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ، فَحَدَّثَنِيهِ كَمَا حَدَّثْتُهُ ابْنَ عُمَرَ. قَالَ صَالِحٌ وَقَدْ تُحُدِّثَ بِنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ عَنْ أَبِي رَافِعٍ .

[84–000]. (Dar al-Salam 0082) This hadith was also narrated to me by Abu Bakr ibn Ishaq ibn Muhammad: Ibn Abi Maryam reported; [Abd al-[Aziz ibn Muhammad narrated; al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl al-Khatmi reported to me; from Ja[far ibn [Abdullah ibn al-Hakam; from [Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Miswar ibn Makhramah; from Abu Rafi[, the Prophet’s servant; from [Abdullah ibn Mas[ud that God’s Messenger said: ‘Every prophet God sent before me had some disciples and companions who followed his way and fulfilled his bidding …’. This is the same as Salih’s hadith, but does not mention Ibn Mas[ud’s arrival and his meeting with Ibn [Umar.²

وَحَدَّثَنِيهِ أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي الْحَارِثُ بْنُ الْفُضَيْلِ الْخَطْمِيُّ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ الْحَكَمِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْـمِسْوَرِ بْنِ مَخْرَمَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي رَافِعٍ، مَوْلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ «مَا كَانَ مِنْ نَبِيٍّ إِلاَّ وَقَدْ كَانَ لَهُ حَوَارِيُّونَ يَهْتَدُونَ بِهَدْيِهِ وَيَسْتَنُّونَ بِسُنَّتِهِ». مِثْلَ حَدِيثِ صَالِحٍ وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ قُدُومَ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ وَاجْتِمَاعَ ابْنِ عُمَرَ مَعَهُ.

Text Explanation

2. The Prophet mentions that every earlier prophet had disciples and companions. For disciples the Prophet uses the Arabic word hawariyyun, and commentators give different explanations of it. Al-Azhari and others explain it as ‘their closest followers’ who are ‘free of all negative characteristics’. Others say that it means ‘their sincere supporters’, or those who fight for the cause, or those who are qualified to succeed the prophets.

The hadith mentions that Ibn Mas[ud stopped at Qanah, which is a valley close to Madinah, which produced some of its resources.

Transmission

The chain of transmission of hadith No. 82 mentions the following: ‘al-A[mash narrated; from Isma[il ibn Raja’; from his father; from Abu Sa[id al-Khudri; also from Qays ibn Muslim; from Tariq ibn Shihab; from Abu Sa[id al-Khudri’. This means that al-A[mash narrated this hadith from both Isma[il ibn Raja’ and Qays ibn Muslim. Each of these two learned it from a different teacher: Isma[il from his father and Qays from Tariq ibn Shihab, but they both heard it from Abu Sa[id.

The chain of transmission of hadith No. 84 includes Abu [Abdullah al-Harith ibn Fudayl al-Khatmi, who was from Madinah and belonged to the Ansar. He narrated from [Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Qirad, a companion of the Prophet. Yahya ibn Ma[in graded al-Harith as reliable. This chain also includes Abu Rafi[, who was the Prophet’s servant. According to the best reports his name was Aslam, but other suggestions give his name as Ibrahim, Hurmuz, Thabit or Yazid. This last suggestion is strange, but it is stated by Ibn al-Jawzi in his book Jami[ al-Masanid.

An interesting point about this chain of transmission is that it includes four reporters from the Tabi[in generation reporting from each other: Salih, al-Harith, Ja[far and [Abd al-Rahman, and similar cases have been pointed out earlier. I have written a treatise citing hadiths that include four reporters of the same generation. Some of these feature four companions of the Prophet and some four from the Tabi[in generation reporting from one another.

At the end of this hadith we have the statement: ‘Salih said: A similar report has been attributed to Abu Rafi[’. Qadi [Iyad said: ‘This means that Salih ibn Kaysan said that this hadith has been narrated from Abu Rafi[ who directly quoted the Prophet without mentioning Ibn Mas[ud. In his al-Tarikh, al-Bukhari also mentions it in a shorter form, attributing it to Abu Rafi[ quoting the Prophet. Abu [Ali al-Husayn ibn Muhammad al-Jayyani, reports that Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that this hadith is not recorded (ghayr mahfuz), and that its wording is unlike Ibn Mas[ud’s speech. Ibn Mas[ud said: “Wait until you meet me”.’

Shaykh Abu [Amr ibn al-Salah said: ‘This hadith is discounted by Ahmad ibn Hanbal. It is reported by al-Harith from a number of reliable reporters. We find no mention of al-Harith in the books listing unreliable reporters. On the contrary, we find in Ibn Abi Hatim’s book a statement that Yahya ibn Ma[in graded him as reliable. Moreover, al-Harith is not the only one reporting it. The words of Salih ibn Kaysan suggest that it has been endorsed by other reports’.

Imam al-Daraqutni mentions in his book al-[Ilal, that ‘this hadith is reported with other chains of transmission, including one that includes “Abu Waqid al-Laythi from Ibn Mas[ud from the Prophet”. As for his advice, “Wait until you meet me”, this applies where the situation is likely to lead to bloodshed or to strife or similar problems. The hadith speaks about striving, both physically and verbally, against people who are in the wrong. This applies in situations where there is no fear of causing strife. Moreover, this hadith speaks about past communities. There is nothing in it that mentions the Muslim community’.

What Shaykh Abu [Amr ibn al-Salah said is very clear. The fact that Imam Ahmad questions and discounts this hadith is amazing, but God knows best.

i.Related by Abu Dawud, 1140, and in a shorter form, 4340; al-Tirmidhi, 2172; al-Nasa’i, 5023 and 5024 (without mentioning the event); Ibn Majah, 4013.

i.A controller was a position in early Muslim states ensuring that people remained law-abiding. His authority extended to control of markets and public practices.