Regarding Hujr bin Adi, Muhammad Ali Mirza says that he was one of the eminent Companions of the early period and among the first Muslims, and that he was extremely pious and God-fearing. He presents a few narrations in support of this position and tries to argue that Hujr bin Adi was martyred with extreme cruelty. According to him, Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was severely angered on the basis of this very killing.
Muhammad Ali Mirza claims that Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), we seek refuge in Allah, wanted to have Amir Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) killed because he had had Hujr bin Adi killed.
Hujr bin Adi was a Tabi’i; he was not a Companion of the Messenger. He was creating disorder and unrest in Islamic society, and when a person commits rebellion or a serious crime against the Shariah and the peace of the state, then however devout he may appear, he cannot be above the law. He was only a Tabi’i, whereas Ali Mirza himself repeatedly presents the sahih hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ said that if even my daughter Fatimah were to steal, I would cut off her hand too. So when divine law and justice are equal for everyone, what standing does Hujr bin Adi have?
In this article we will examine all these narrations in detail and with research. Alongside that, we will also bring out the double standard of Muhammad Ali Mirza, who always claims that he narrates only sahih narrations and takes evidence only from them. From this examination the readers will come to know well how many sahih and authentic narrations he has relied on for this position of his, and what the facts are in this whole matter. We present all the points one by one, with full order and clarity.
Narration No. 1
Imam Ahmad narrates:
حَدَّثَنَا عَفَّانُ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ، أَنَّ مُعَاوِيَةَ دَخَلَ عَلَى عَائِشَةَ، فَقَالَتْ لَهُ: أَمَا خِفْتَ أَنْ أُقْعِدَ لَكَ رَجُلًا فَيَقْتُلَكَ؟ فَقَالَ: مَا كُنْتِ لِتَفْعَلِي، وَأَنَا فِي بَيْتِ أَمَانٍ، وَقَدْ سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ ـ يَعْنِي ـ: «الْإِيمَانُ قَيْدُ الْفَتْكِ»، كَيْفَ أَنَا فِي الَّذِي بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَكِ، وَفِي حَوَائِجِكِ؟ قَالَتْ: صَالِحٌ. قَالَ: فَدَعِينَا وَإِيَّاهُمْ حَتَّى نَلْقَى رَبَّنَا عَزَّ وَجَلَّ.
Affan narrated to us, Hammad bin Salamah narrated to us, he said: Ali bin Zayd informed us from Sa’id bin al-Musayyib that Muawiyah came to Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said to him: Were you not afraid that I would seat a man for you who would kill you? He replied: You would not do that, while I am in a place of safety. And I heard the Prophet ﷺ say: “Faith restrains sudden, treacherous killing.” Then he said: How am I in my relations with you and in the matter of your needs? Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: Good. He said: Then leave us and them alone, until we meet our Lord.
The same incident is also narrated in Mustadrak al-Hakim. There the words of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) appear explicitly as:
يَا مُعَاوِيَةُ، قَتَلْتَ حُجْرًا وَأَصْحَابَهُ، وَفَعَلْتَ الَّذِي فَعَلْتَ، أَمَا تَخْشَى أَنْ أُخَبِّئَ لَكَ رَجُلًا فَيَقْتُلَكَ؟
Translation: O Muawiyah! You killed Hujr and his companions, and you did what you did. Do you not fear that I would hide a man for you who would kill you?
After narrating this narration, Muhammad Ali Mirza claims that Imam al-Hakim declared this narration sahih. But this is his plain and open lie. Where did Imam al-Hakim declare this narration sahih? If the followers of Mirza present any proof of it, we will accept; otherwise they should repent of this and acknowledge that Muhammad Ali Mirza spreads plain lies before the public.
In addition, Mirza also says that Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut declared this narration sahih. This too is a very great deception of his. Shaykh Shu’ayb did not declare this entire narration sahih in the absolute sense, but rather sahih li-ghayrihi. According to the principles of hadith, there is a very great and fundamental difference between sahih and sahih li-ghayrihi. Sahih li-ghayrihi is a narration that is not in itself sahih in terms of its original chain but is weak, yet reaches this level when strengthened by the support of other corroborating evidence and narrations. Shaykh Shu’ayb did not declare this entire narration sahih li-ghayrihi either, but only that specific part where Muawiyah narrated a hadith to Aisha, and that hadith is established through other books and sahih chains. Shaykh Shu’ayb himself did not accept the chain of this incident as sahih; rather, he criticised it and made its weakness clear, and declared only that one part sahih li-ghayrihi because of other corroborating evidence. Thus, in this matter of grading, Muhammad Ali Mirza has resorted to plain deception and distortion in two places.
In the text of Musnad Ahmad the name of Hujr bin Adi (may Allah be pleased with him) is not explicitly present; this addition is in the text of Mustadrak al-Hakim. In the chain of both narrations, Ali bin Zayd bin Jud’an is common.
The Fundamental Defect in the Chain of This Narration
In the chain of Musnad Ahmad these narrators are present:
عَلِيُّ بْنُ زَيْدِ بْنِ جُدْعَانَ
This same narrator is also present in the narration of Mustadrak al-Hakim. The imams of criticism have criticised him for weakness, frequent error, and mistakes in hadith.
1. Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH) — Explained Criticism
كَانَ شَيْخًا جَلِيلًا، وَكَانَ يَهِمُ فِي الْأَخْبَارِ، وَيُخْطِئُ فِي الْآثَارِ، حَتَّى كَثُرَ ذَلِكَ فِي أَخْبَارِهِ، وَتَبَيَّنَ فِيهَا الْمَنَاكِيرُ الَّتِي يَرْوِيهَا عَنِ الْمَشَاهِيرِ، فَاسْتَحَقَّ تَرْكَ الِاحْتِجَاجِ بِهِ.
He was an eminent man, but he used to err in narrations and make mistakes in the reports, until these mistakes became very numerous in his narrations. Rejected narrations began to appear in his narrations, which he transmitted from well-known narrators. Therefore he became deserving of having the use of him as evidence abandoned.
2. Imam Hammad bin Zayd (d. 179 AH)
حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، وَكَانَ يَقْلِبُ الْأَحَادِيثَ.
Translation: Ali ibn Zayd narrated to us, and he used to turn hadiths upside down.
3. Imam Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub al-Juzajani (died 259 AH)
وَاهِي الْحَدِيثِ، ضَعِيفٌ، فِيهِ مَيْلٌ عَنِ الْقَصْدِ، لَا يُحْتَجُّ بِحَدِيثِهِ.
Translation: He is weak in hadith, da’if (weak), there is a deviation from moderation in him, and his hadith is not to be taken as evidence.
4. Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi (died 277 AH)
لَيْسَ بِقَوِيٍّ، يُكْتَبُ حَدِيثُهُ، وَلَا يُحْتَجُّ بِهِ.
Translation: He is not strong. His hadith is written down, but it is not to be taken as evidence.
5. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (died 241 AH)
عَلِيُّ بْنُ زَيْدٍ ضَعِيفُ الْحَدِيثِ.
Translation: Ali ibn Zayd is da’if (weak) in hadith.
Therefore, because of Ali ibn Zayd, this chain of narration of the report is da’if (weak).
Report No. 2
Imam al-Bayhaqi has narrated this report through Ya’qub ibn Sufyan:
قَالَ يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ سُفْيَانَ: ثَنَا ابْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، ثَنَا ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ، حَدَّثَنِي الْحَارِثُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ زُرَيْرٍ الْغَافِقِيِّ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ يَقُولُ:يَا أَهْلَ الْعِرَاقِ، سَيُقْتَلُ مِنْكُمْ سَبْعَةُ نَفَرٍ بِعَذْرَاءَ، مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ أَصْحَابِ الْأُخْدُودِ. فَقُتِلَ حُجْرٌ وَأَصْحَابُهُ.
Translation: Abdullah ibn Zurayr al-Ghafiqi says: I heard Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) say: “O people of Iraq! Seven men from among you will be killed at Adhra’, and their example will be like that of the People of the Ditch.” Then Hujr and his companions were killed.
Statements of the Imams on Ibn Lahi’ah’s Ikhtilat
Imam al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him):
احْتَرَقَ مَنْزِلُ ابْنِ لَهِيعَةَ وَكُتُبُهُ فِي سَنَةِ سَبْعِينَ وَمِائَةٍ.
Translation: The house of Ibn Lahi’ah and his books burned down in the year 170 AH.
Imam Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him):
وَكَانَ ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ شَيْخًا صَالِحًا، وَلَكِنَّهُ كَانَ يُدَلِّسُ عَنِ الضُّعَفَاءِ قَبْلَ احْتِرَاقِ كُتُبِهِ، ثُمَّ احْتَرَقَتْ كُتُبُهُ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ بِأَرْبَعِ سِنِينَ.
Translation: Ibn Lahi’ah was a righteous man, but even before his books burned he used to practise tadlis from weak narrators; then his books burned four years before his death.
And he writes further:
وَمَنْ سَمِعَ مِنْهُ بَعْدَ احْتِرَاقِ كُتُبِهِ فَسَمَاعُهُ لَيْسَ بِشَيْءٍ.
Translation: Whoever heard from him after his books burned, his hearing is of no account.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him):
صَدُوقٌ مِنَ السَّابِعَةِ، خَلَطَ بَعْدَ احْتِرَاقِ كُتُبِهِ.
Translation: He was a saduq (truthful) narrator, but after his books burned, confusion (ikhtilat) arose in his memory.
The narrator from Ibn Lahi’ah in this chain is Ibn Bukayr, that is, Yahya ibn Abdullah ibn Bukayr.
Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote about his birth:
وُلِدَ سَنَةَ خَمْسٍ وَخَمْسِينَ وَمِائَةٍ.
Translation: He was born in the year 155 AH.
Whereas Ibn Lahi’ah’s books burned in 170 AH. On this reckoning, Ibn Bukayr was about 15 years old at that time.
But whether Ibn Bukayr heard this particular report from Ibn Lahi’ah before the books burned or afterwards, no explicit and specific evidence is available for it.
Imam Ibn al-Salah (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote in معرفة من خلط في آخر عمره من الثقات:
وَالْحُكْمُ فِيهِمْ: أَنَّهُ يُقْبَلُ حَدِيثُ مَنْ أَخَذَ عَنْهُمْ قَبْلَ الِاخْتِلَاطِ، وَلَا يُقْبَلُ حَدِيثُ مَنْ أَخَذَ عَنْهُ بَعْدَ الِاخْتِلَاطِ، أَوْ أُشْكِلَ أَمْرُهُ، فَلَمْ يُدْرَ هَلْ أَخَذَ عَنْهُ قَبْلَ الِاخْتِلَاطِ أَوْ بَعْدَهُ.
Translation: The ruling concerning them is that the hadith of whoever took from them before the ikhtilat is accepted; and the hadith of whoever took from them after the ikhtilat, or whose case is unclear, so that it is not known whether he took from them before the ikhtilat or after it, is not accepted.
Conclusion
According to the principle, when the time of hearing cannot be determined, such a report is not accepted.
Therefore, in order to declare this report sahih (authentic), it is necessary to prove that Ibn Bukayr heard this report from Ibn Lahi’ah before his books burned and before the ikhtilat. Until this is proven, the report through this route of Ibn Lahi’ah cannot be declared sahih (authentic).
Report No. 3
Imam Abu al-Arab al-Tamimi has also narrated this same report in his book al-Mihan through another chain of narration:
وَحَدَّثَنِي عِيسَى بْنُ مِسْكِينٍ عَنْ سُحْنُونَ عَنِ ابْنِ وَهْبٍ عَنِ ابْنِ لَهِيعَةَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي الْحَارِثُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ زُرَيْقٍ الْغَافِقِيِّ أَنَّ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ: يَا أَهْلَ الْعِرَاقِ سَيُقْتَلُ مِنْهُمْ سَبْعَةٌ كُلُّهُمْ كَمَثَلِ أَصْحَابِ الْأُخْدُودِ قَالَ فَقُتِلَ حُجْرٌ وَأَصْحَابُهُ.
Ibn Wahb Being a Mudallis
Imam Ibn Sa’d (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote about Abdullah ibn Wahb:
كَانَ كَثِيرَ الْعِلْمِ، ثِقَةً فِيمَا قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا، وَكَانَ يُدَلِّسُ.
Translation: He had abundant knowledge and was thiqa (reliable) in what he said “haddathana”, and he used to practise tadlis.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) also counted Ibn Wahb among the mudallisin, writing:
عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ الْمِصْرِيُّ الْفَقِيهُ الْمَشْهُورُ، وَصَفَهُ بِذَلِكَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ فِي الطَّبَقَاتِ.
Translation: Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Misri is the famous jurist; Muhammad ibn Sa’d described him with tadlis in al-Tabaqat.
Conclusion
In this chain of narration, Ibn Wahb narrates from Ibn Lahi’ah with “‘an”, and does not state explicitly that he heard from him. Therefore, if this report of his is counted as a mu’an’an report of tadlis al-isnad, then according to the aforementioned principle of the science of hadith, it will not be made an evidence without an explicit statement of hearing or some other established indication.
Report No. 4
Hafiz Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) has narrated this report in البداية والنهاية:
وَقَالَ يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ سُفْيَانَ: حَدَّثَنَا حَرْمَلَةُ، ثَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي الْأَسْوَدِ قَالَ: دَخَلَ مُعَاوِيَةُ عَلَى عَائِشَةَ فَقَالَتْ: مَا حَمَلَكَ عَلَى قَتْلِ أَهْلِ عَذْرَاءَ حُجْرٍ وَأَصْحَابِهِ؟ فَقَالَ: يَا أُمَّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، إِنِّي رَأَيْتُ قَتْلَهُمْ صَلَاحًا لِلْأُمَّةِ، وَأَنَّ بَقَاءَهُمْ فَسَادٌ. فَقَالَتْ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: «سَيُقْتَلُ بِعَذْرَاءَ نَاسٌ يَغْضَبُ اللَّهُ لَهُمْ وَأَهْلُ السَّمَاءِ».
Translation: Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) asked Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him): What made you resolve to kill the people of Adhra’, that is, Hujr and his companions? He replied that he considered their killing to be for the good of the Ummah, and their remaining to be corruption for the Ummah. At this Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: Some people will be killed at Adhra’ because of whom Allah and the inhabitants of the heavens will be angry.
Ibn Lahi’ah the Mudallis
Imam Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
كَانَ شَيْخًا صَالِحًا، وَلَكِنَّهُ كَانَ يُدَلِّسُ عَنِ الضُّعَفَاءِ قَبْلَ احْتِرَاقِ كُتُبِهِ.
Translation: He was a righteous man, but before his books burned he used to practise tadlis from weak narrators.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) has also counted him among the mudallisin:
عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ لَهِيعَةَ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ قَاضِي مِصْرَ، اخْتَلَطَ فِي آخِرِ عُمُرِهِ، وَكَثُرَتْ عَنْهُ الْمَنَاكِيرُ فِي رِوَايَتِهِ، وَقَالَ ابْنُ حِبَّانَ: كَانَ صَالِحًا وَلَكِنَّهُ كَانَ يُدَلِّسُ عَنِ الضُّعَفَاءِ.
Translation: Abdullah ibn Lahi’ah was the judge of Egypt. In his later life he became confused (ikhtilat), and rejected narrations (munkar) became frequent in his reports. Ibn Hibban said that he was a righteous man, but he used to commit tadlis from weak narrators.
The fundamental ruling on the mu’an’an report of a mudallis
Imam Ibn al-Salah (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
وَالصَّحِيحُ التَّفْصِيلُ، وَأَنَّ مَا رَوَاهُ الْمُدَلِّسُ بِلَفْظٍ مُحْتَمَلٍ لَمْ يُبَيِّنْ فِيهِ السَّمَاعَ وَالِاتِّصَالَ حُكْمُهُ حُكْمُ الْمُرْسَلِ وَأَنْوَاعِهِ.
Translation: The correct view is that it depends on the details: when a mudallis narrates with wording that does not make clear hearing (sama’) and connection (ittisal), the ruling on that report is the ruling on a mursal report.
Conclusion
In this report, Ibn Lahi’ah narrates from Abu al-Aswad with «عن» and does not state that he heard it directly. Since Ibn Lahi’ah is a mudallis, this mu’an’an report of his is not established, according to the principles of hadith, as connected and fit to be used as evidence.
Furthermore, Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) himself said about this report:
وَهَذَا إِسْنَادٌ ضَعِيفٌ مُنْقَطِعٌ.
That is: This chain is da’if (weak) and munqati’ (broken).
Report No. 5
Imam Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated this report in Kitab al-Zuhd:
أَنْبَأَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍ قَالَ: دَخَلَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ يَزِيدَ بْنِ أَسَدٍ عَلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ وَهُوَ فِي مَرَضِهِ الَّذِي مَاتَ فِيهِ، فَرَأَى مِنْهُ جَزَعًا، فَقَالَ: يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، مَا يُجْزِعُكَ؟ إِنْ مُتَّ فَإِلَى الْجَنَّةِ، وَإِنْ عِشْتَ فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ حَاجَةَ النَّاسِ إِلَيْكَ. فَقَالَ: رَحِمَ اللَّهُ أَبَاكَ، إِنَّهُ كَانَ لَنَا نَاصِحًا، نَهَانِي عَنْ قَتْلِ ابْنِ الْأَدْبَرِ، يَعْنِي حُجْرَ بْنَ عَدِيٍّ.
Translation: Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash says that Abdullah ibn Yazid ibn Asad went to Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) during the illness in which he died. He saw him in a state of distress and said: O Commander of the Faithful! Why are you distressed? If you die, then there is Paradise, and if you live, you know that the people need you. Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) replied: May Allah have mercy on your father, he was a sincere adviser to us; he forbade me from killing Ibn al-Adbar, meaning Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him).
The date of birth of Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash
Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote:
قَالَ هَارُونُ بْنُ حَاتِمٍ: سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ: وُلِدْتُ سَنَةَ خَمْسٍ وَتِسْعِينَ.
Translation: Harun ibn Hatim says: I heard Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash say: I was born in the year 95 AH.
Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) also narrated this same date in another of his books:
The date of death of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him)
Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:
قَالَ اللَّيْثُ وَأَبُو مَعْشَرٍ وَعِدَّةٌ: مَاتَ مُعَاوِيَةُ فِي رَجَبٍ سَنَةَ سِتِّينَ.
Translation: Al-Layth, Abu Ma’shar and a number of others said: Mu’awiyah died in Rajab of the year 60 AH.
Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) also mentioned his death in the year 60 AH in تاريخ الإسلام.
The break in the chain and the conclusion
Now look at a comparison of the two dates:
Death of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him): 60 AH
Birth of Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash: 95 AH
Difference between the two: 35 years
This makes it clear that Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash was born 35 years after the death of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). Therefore he could neither have witnessed the final moments of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), nor could he have heard this incident directly from him or from Abdullah ibn Yazid ibn Asad, who was present at that time.
Because of this break in the chain, this report is weak in its chain, and it cannot be made independent evidence for the incident of the final moments of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him).
Report No. 6
Hafiz Ibn Asakir (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated this report in تاريخ مدينة دمشق:
قال: وحدَّثنا عبد الله قال: أُخْبِرْتُ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ حُمَيْدٍ، نَبَّأَنَا جَرِيرٌ عَنْ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ قَالَ: قَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ: مَا قَتَلْتُ أَحَدًا إِلَّا وَأَنَا أَعْرِفُ فِيمَ قَتَلْتُهُ وَمَا أَرَدْتُ بِهِ، مَا خَلَا حُجْرَ بْنَ عَدِيٍّ فَإِنِّي لَا أَعْرِفُ فِيمَ قَتَلْتُهُ.
Translation: Sufyan al-Thawri says that Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I have not killed anyone except that I knew for what reason I killed him and what I intended by it; except Hujr ibn Adi, for I myself do not know for what reason I killed him.
Identification of Muhammad ibn Humayd and the criticism of him
In this chain the narrator is named only as Muhammad ibn Humayd. His full attribution (nisbah) is not stated here.
If what is meant is the well-known narrator Muhammad ibn Humayd al-Razi, then there is severe criticism of him from the hadith scholars.
Imam Abu Zur’ah al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about Muhammad ibn Humayd:
سُئِلَ أَبُو زُرْعَةَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ حُمَيْدٍ … فَقِيلَ لَهُ: كَانَ يَكْذِبُ؟ فَقَالَ بِرَأْسِهِ: نَعَمْ … فَقَالَ: لَا يَا بُنَيَّ، كَانَ يَتَعَمَّدُ.
Translation: Abu Zur’ah was asked: Did he lie? He nodded his head and said: Yes. Then it was asked: Perhaps he made mistakes? He said: No, my son! He used to do it deliberately.
Therefore, if Muhammad ibn Humayd in this chain is this same Muhammad ibn Humayd al-Razi, his report cannot be used as evidence.
If he is not Muhammad ibn Humayd al-Razi, then the full identity of this narrator and his authentication (tawthiq) by reliable hadith scholars should be presented; until this is done, the report cannot be accepted by declaring this narrator trustworthy (thiqah).
The break between Sufyan al-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) and Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him)
In this report there is the statement of Sufyan al-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him):
عَنْ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ قَالَ: قَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ.
That is, Sufyan al-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) is narrating the statement of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) directly, but no intermediary is mentioned between them.
Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote about the birth of Sufyan al-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him):
وُلِدَ سَنَةَ سَبْعٍ وَتِسْعِينَ اتِّفَاقًا.
Translation: He was born in the year 97 AH, by agreement.
And about the death of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:
قَالَ اللَّيْثُ وَأَبُو مَعْشَرٍ وَعِدَّةٌ: مَاتَ مُعَاوِيَةُ فِي رَجَبٍ سَنَةَ سِتِّينَ.
Translation: According to al-Layth, Abu Ma’shar and a number of other scholars, Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) died in Rajab of the year 60 AH.
According to this calculation, Sufyan al-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) was born 37 years after the death of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). Therefore, his direct hearing from Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) is not possible. The link between Sufyan al-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) and Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) is missing from the chain.
Final Conclusion
There are two fundamental defects in this narration:
● The identification of Muhammad ibn Humayd: If he is Muhammad ibn Humayd al-Razi, then severe criticism from the hadith scholars exists against him. And if he is some other Muhammad ibn Humayd, then it is necessary to present his full identification and authentication. Without authentication, his narration cannot be accepted.
● Sufyan al-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) was born 37 years after the death of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). Therefore, it is impossible for him to have heard this statement directly from Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). The intermediary link is not present in the chain.
Therefore, this narration is munqati’ (broken) in its chain, and the issue of identifying and authenticating Muhammad ibn Humayd has also not been resolved. The attribution of this statement to Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) cannot be established from this narration, nor can it be presented as evidence.
Narration No. 7
Imam Abu al-Arab al-Tamimi (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated this report in al-Mihan, in connection with the incident of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him) and his companions:
قَالَ ابْنُ تَمِيمٍ: حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أُسَامَةَ وَعُمَرُ بْنُ يُوسُفَ قَالَا: حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عُبَيْدِ بْنُ سَلَّامٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا حَجَّاجٌ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مَعْشَرٍ، قَالَ: كَانَ حُجْرُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ رَجُلًا مِنْ كِنْدَةَ، وَكَانَ عَابِدًا..
فَجَعَلَ الرَّسُولُ يَعْرِضُ عَلَيْهِمُ التَّوْبَةَ وَالْبَرَاءَةَ مِنْ عَلِيٍّ، فَأَبَى عَشَرَةٌ وَتَبَرَّأَ عَشَرَةٌ، فَقَتَلَ الَّذِينَ أَبَوْا وَتَرَكَ الَّذِينَ تَبَرَّؤُوا.
Translation: The messenger kept presenting to those people the offer to repent and to disavow Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Ten persons refused and ten persons disavowed. So those who refused were killed, and those who disavowed were left alone.
Identification of Abu Ma’shar
Imam Ibn Sa’d (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote about him:
أَبُو مَعْشَرٍ نَجِيحٌ … وَكَانَ كَثِيرَ الْحَدِيثِ ضَعِيفًا.
Translation: Abu Ma’shar Najih narrated a great many hadiths, but he was weak.
Imam al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said about Abu Ma’shar:
مُنْكَرُ الْحَدِيثِ.
Translation: He is munkar al-hadith (narrates rejected hadiths).
Imam Ali ibn al-Madini (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
كَانَ شَيْخًا ضَعِيفًا ضَعِيفًا.
Translation: He was a weak, weak narrator.
Abu Ma’shar’s Ikhtilat (Confusion)
Imam Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote about Abu Ma’shar:
وَكَانَ مِمَّنِ اخْتَلَطَ فِي آخِرِ عُمُرِهِ، وَبَقِيَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَمُوتَ سَنَتَيْنِ فِي تَغَيُّرٍ شَدِيدٍ، لَا يَدْرِي مَا يُحَدِّثُ بِهِ، فَكَثُرَتِ الْمَنَاكِيرُ فِي رِوَايَتِهِ مِنْ قَبْلِ اخْتِلَاطِهِ، فَبَطَلَ الِاحْتِجَاجُ بِهِ.
Translation: He fell into ikhtilat (confusion of memory) in the last part of his life. For two years before his death, his condition underwent a severe change, to the point that he did not know what he was narrating. Because of his ikhtilat, rejected narrations became numerous in his reports, so relying on him as evidence became invalid.
Conclusion
Therefore, this narration cannot be used as evidence because of Abu Ma’shar’s weakness and ikhtilat.
Summary of the Discussion
We have examined all these narrations in detail, and it has become completely clear that not one of them is fit to be made the basis for criticising the person of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him).
We have also exposed the double standard of Muhammad Ali Mirza: how, in order to prove his position, he blindly accepts narrations consisting of broken chains, weak narrators and mudallis narrators. Yet when he taught the introduction to Sahih Muslim, he himself explained all these principles, that those who narrate such reports are ignorant and that narrations of this kind can never become proof. But when those same weak and broken narrations agree with his own view, he tramples the very principles he himself stated and makes them his evidence.
Was Hujr ibn Adi a Companion?
As we clarified earlier, the opinion of the majority of scholars and hadith scholars is that Hujr ibn Adi was not a Companion but a Tabi’i. However, some Imams inclined toward the view that he was a Companion, and the evidences on which their position was based are also presented by Muhammad Ali Mirza himself.
Now here we examine these narrations and evidences scientifically, so that it may be known whether these narrations are reliable according to the principles of hadith at all. If these narrations themselves fail to reach the level of proof and are shown to be unreliable, then his being a Companion will automatically be unproven and baseless.
Narration No. 8
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ بَالَوَيْهِ، ثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ الْحَرْبِيُّ، ثَنَا مُصْعَبُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الزُّبَيْرِيُّ قَالَ: حُجْرُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ الْكِنْدِيُّ يُكْنَى أَبَا عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، كَانَ قَدْ وَفَدَ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَشَهِدَ الْقَادِسِيَّةَ، وَشَهِدَ الْجَمَلَ، وَصِفِّينَ مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَتَلَهُ مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ بِمَرْجِ عَذْرَاءَ، وَكَانَ لَهُ ابْنَانِ: عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ، قَتَلَهُمَا مُصْعَبُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ صَبْرًا، وَقُتِلَ حُجْرٌ سَنَةَ ثَلَاثٍ وَخَمْسِينَ.
Mus’ab ibn Abdullah al-Zubayri says that the kunya of Hujr ibn Adi al-Kindi was Abu Abd al-Rahman. He came to the Prophet ﷺ as part of a delegation, took part in the Battle of Qadisiyyah, and was with Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in the battles of Jamal and Siffin. Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan killed him at Marj Adhra. He had two sons, Abdullah and Abd al-Rahman, whom Mus’ab ibn al-Zubayr killed. Hujr was killed in 53 AH.
In this narration, the chain of Imam al-Hakim reaches Mus’ab ibn Abdullah al-Zubayri. After that, Mus’ab al-Zubayri describes the circumstances of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him), but he does not mention any chain of his own up to Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him).
Age and Death of Mus’ab ibn Abdullah al-Zubayri
Zubayr ibn Bakkar said about the death and age of Mus’ab al-Zubayri:
وَتُوُفِّيَ مُصْعَبُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ لِيَوْمَيْنِ خَلَوَا مِنْ شَوَّالَ سَنَةَ ٢٣٦، وَهُوَ ابْنُ ثَمَانِينَ سَنَةً.
Mus’ab ibn Abdullah died after the first two days of Shawwal 236 AH had passed, and at that time his age was 80 years.
According to this text, Mus’ab al-Zubayri died in 236 AH and his age was 80 years.
The year of Musab al-Zubayri’s birth is not stated explicitly in the above text. However, it can be estimated from his death and his age:
● Death: 236 AH
● Age: approximately 80 years
● Expected birth: 156 AH
Regarding the death of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:
قَالَ اللَّيْثُ وَأَبُو مَعْشَرٍ وَعِدَّةٌ: مَاتَ مُعَاوِيَةُ فِي رَجَبٍ سَنَةَ سِتِّينَ.
Translation: According to al-Layth, Abu Ma’shar and a number of other scholars, Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) died in Rajab 60 AH.
Now compare the expected birth of Musab al-Zubayri with the death of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him):
● Expected birth of Musab al-Zubayri: 156 AH
● Death of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him): 53 AH
So the gap between the two comes to approximately 103 years.
This makes it clear that Musab al-Zubayri was not a contemporary of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him), and that direct hearing from him or direct observation was not possible.
Conclusion
● The chain of Imam al-Hakim reaches Musab ibn Abdullah al-Zubayri.
● In describing the circumstances of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him), Musab al-Zubayri did not mention any chain of narration up to him.
● There is a gap of approximately 103 years between Musab al-Zubayri and Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him).
Therefore, this statement of Musab al-Zubayri is not transmitted to Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him) with a connected chain. On the basis of this narration, it cannot be made an independent, chained proof for establishing the companionship of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him) with the Prophet ﷺ.
Narration No. 9
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَلِيٍّ الْحَافِظُ، أَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ قُتَيْبَةَ الْعَسْقَلَانِيُّ، ثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مِسْكِينٍ الْيَمَامِيُّ، ثَنَا عَبَّادُ بْنُ عُمَرَ، ثَنَا عِكْرِمَةُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ، ثَنَا مَخْشِيُّ بْنُ حَجَرِ بْنِ عَدِيٍّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ: أَنَّ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خَطَبَهُمْ، فَقَالَ: أَيُّ يَوْمٍ هَذَا؟ قَالُوا: يَوْمٌ حَرَامٌ، قَالَ: فَأَيُّ بَلَدٍ هَذَا؟ قَالُوا: الْبَلَدُ الْحَرَامُ، قَالَ: فَأَيُّ شَهْرٍ؟ قَالُوا: شَهْرٌ حَرَامٌ، قَالَ: فَإِنَّ دِمَاءَكُمْ وَأَمْوَالَكُمْ وَأَعْرَاضَكُمْ حَرَامٌ عَلَيْكُمْ كَحُرْمَةِ يَوْمِكُمْ هَذَا، كَحُرْمَةِ شَهْرِكُمْ هَذَا، كَحُرْمَةِ بَلَدِكُمْ هَذَا، لِيُبَلِّغِ الشَّاهِدُ الْغَائِبَ، لَا تَرْجِعُوا بَعْدِي كُفَّارًا يَضْرِبُ بَعْضُكُمْ رِقَابَ بَعْضٍ.
The Prophet ﷺ, while delivering a sermon, said: “What day is this?” The people said: “A sacred day.” Then he said: “What city is this?” The people said: “A sacred city.” Then he said: “What month is this?” The people said: “A sacred month.” Then the Prophet ﷺ said: “Your blood, your wealth and your honour are forbidden to you, just as the sanctity of this day, this month and this city. Let the one present convey this message to the one absent. Do not become disbelievers after me, striking one another’s necks.”
Investigation of the Name and Lineage of Makhshi
In the copy of Imam al-Hakim, this is the name:
مَخْشِيُّ بْنُ حَجَرِ بْنِ عَدِيٍّ.
But in the narration of Imam al-Tabarani, the name appears as follows:
حَدَّثَنَا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ التُّسْتَرِيُّ، ثَنَا الْعَبَّاسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَظِيمِ الْعَنْبَرِيُّ، ثَنَا النَّضْرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، ثَنَا عِكْرِمَةُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنِي مَخْشِيُّ بْنُ حُجَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي…
This makes it clear that there is a difference in the wording of the name in different sources, but in the chain of al-Tabarani there is «مخشي بن حجير» and in the chain of Ibn Abi Asim there is «مخشي بن حجير بن مخشي». In neither text is he called «ابن عدي».
Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s Introduction of Makhshi’s Father
Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani wrote in الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة:
حُجَيْرُ بْنُ أَبِي حُجَيْرٍ الْهِلَالِيُّ، أَوِ الْحَنَفِيُّ، وَيُقَالُ حَجَرٌ بِغَيْرِ تَصْغِيرٍ. رَوَى الطَّبَرَانِيُّ مِنْ طَرِيقِ عِكْرِمَةَ بْنِ عَمَّارٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي مَخْشِيُّ بْنُ حُجَيْرٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ فِي حَجَّةِ الْوَدَاعِ… وَإِسْنَادُهُ صَالِحٌ.
Translation: Hujayr ibn Abi Hujayr al-Hilali, or al-Hanafi, and he is also called Hajar without the diminutive. Al-Tabarani narrated, through the route of Ikrimah ibn Ammar, the narration of Makhshi ibn Hujayr, who narrates from his father that he heard the Prophet ﷺ say during the Farewell Pilgrimage… and its chain is acceptable.
Here two things become clear from the text of Hafiz Ibn Hajar:
● The name of Makhshi’s father is Hujayr ibn Abi Hujayr.
● Hujayr is also called Hajar without the diminutive.
But there is no mention here of Hujr ibn Adi.
Investigation of the Authentication of Makhshi ibn Hujayr
In the available books of narrator biography and in the sources mentioned, no explicit authentication of Makhshi ibn Hujayr by any hadith scholar was found.
● No independent authentication of his integrity and precision is available.
Conclusion
It is not correct to declare Makhshi ibn Hajar ibn Adi to be the son of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him). According to the available sources, the narrator here is Makhshi ibn Hujayr, whose father is Hujayr ibn Abi Hujayr al-Hilali. Makhshi’s own authentication is not established, so he will be counted as an unknown narrator (majhul).
Narration No. 10
سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَلِيٍّ الْحَافِظَ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ قُتَيْبَةَ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنَ يَعْقُوبَ يَقُولُ: قَدْ أَدْرَكَ حُجْرُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ الْجَاهِلِيَّةَ، وَأَكَلَ الدَّمَ فِيهَا، ثُمَّ صَحِبَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَسَمِعَ مِنْهُ، وَشَهِدَ مَعَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ الْجَمَلَ، وَصِفِّينَ، وَقُتِلَ فِي مُوَالَاةِ عَلِيٍّ.
Translation: I heard Abu Ali al-Hafiz say that he said: I heard Ibn Qutaybah say that he said: I heard Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub say that Hujr ibn Adi lived in the Jahiliyyah and ate blood in it, then accompanied the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and heard from him. He took part with Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) in the Battle of the Camel and at Siffin, and was killed because of his love and loyalty to Ali (may Allah be pleased with him).
The Break in the Chain in This Statement
After Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub, no narrator is named in the account concerning Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him). It is not stated from whom he heard this report, nor is the intermediary mentioned of any person who heard this from Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him).
The Date of Death of Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub al-Juzajani
Imam Ibn Hibban wrote:
مَاتَ بَعْدَ سَنَةِ أَرْبَعٍ وَأَرْبَعِينَ وَمِائَتَيْنِ.
Translation: He died after 244 AH.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani wrote:
إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ الْجَوْزَجَانِيُّ، ثِقَةٌ حَافِظٌ، رُمِيَ بِالنَّصْبِ، مِنَ الْحَادِيَةِ عَشْرَةَ، مَاتَ سَنَةَ تِسْعٍ وَخَمْسِينَ.
Translation: Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub al-Juzajani was thiqah (trustworthy) and a hafiz; he was accused of nasb. He was of the eleventh generation and died in 259 AH.
The Date of Death of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him)
Regarding the death of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:
قَالَ اللَّيْثُ وَأَبُو مَعْشَرٍ وَعِدَّةٌ: مَاتَ مُعَاوِيَةُ فِي رَجَبٍ سَنَةَ سِتِّينَ.
Translation: According to al-Layth, Abu Ma’shar and a number of other scholars, Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) died in Rajab 60 AH.
Comparison of the Dates of Death of Both
According to Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s statement, the year of Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub al-Juzajani’s death comes out as 259 AH, whereas regarding the death of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him), there is the statement of Imam al-Tabari of 51 AH and of Imam Ibn Hibban of 53 AH.
If Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub had heard directly from Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him), he would necessarily have had to be alive before the death of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him).
By this reckoning:
If the death of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him) was in 53 AH, then up to 259 AH there is a gap of 206 years.
Statements of the Imams of Hadith: Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him) was a Tabi’i
Imam Khalifa ibn Khayyat counted him among the Tabi’in:
خَلِيفَةُ بْنُ خَيَّاطٍ فِي التَّابِعِينَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكُوفَةِ، قَالَ: حَجَرُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، قُتِلَ سَنَةَ إِحْدَى وَخَمْسِينَ، يُكَنَّى أَبَا عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ.
Translation: Khalifa ibn Khayyat said, in the mention of the Tabi’in of the people of Kufa: Hujr ibn Adi was killed in 51 AH; his kunya was Abu Abd al-Rahman.
Imam Ibn Hibban wrote:
مِنْ عُبَّادِ التَّابِعِينَ.
Translation: He was among the devout worshippers of the Tabi’in.
The statement of Abu Ahmad al-Askari:
أَكْثَرُ الْمُحَدِّثِينَ لَا يُصَحِّحُونَ لَهُ صُحْبَةً.
Translation: Most of the hadith scholars do not hold that companionship is established for Hujr ibn Adi.
Conclusion
The gap between the two is 206 to 208 years. Therefore, to accept that Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub heard directly from Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him), an exceptionally long lifespan and reliable proof of a meeting would be required.
On this basis, Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub’s statement without a chain of narration is not an independent, connected proof for establishing the companionship of Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him).
Why was Hujr ibn Adi killed?
As it has become fully clear that it is not established that Hujr ibn Adi was a Companion, let alone an early Companion, or even among the later Companions, we now quote here a few reports and hadiths which will make it perfectly clear for what reasons he was in fact put to death.
وَقَدْ ذَكَرَ ابْنُ جَرِيرٍ وَغَيْرُهُ عَنْ حُجْرِ بْنِ عَدِيٍّ وَأَصْحَابِهِ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يَنَالُونَ مِنْ عُثْمَانَ، وَيُطْلِقُونَ فِيهِ مَقَالَةَ الْجَوْرِ، وَيَنْتَقِدُونَ عَلَى الْأُمَرَاءِ، وَيُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْإِنْكَارِ عَلَيْهِمْ، وَيُبَالِغُونَ فِي ذَلِكَ، وَيَتَوَلَّوْنَ شِيعَةَ عَلِيٍّ، وَيَتَشَدَّدُونَ فِي الدِّينِ.
Translation: Ibn Jarir and other historians have mentioned about Hujr ibn Adi and his companions that they used to speak harshly about Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), would say unjust things about him, would criticize the rulers, would hasten to object to them and exaggerate in that, would be affiliated with the supporters of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and would be strict in religion.
عَنْ عَرْفَجَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ:
«إِنَّهُ سَتَكُونُ هَنَاتٌ وَهَنَاتٌ، فَمَنْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يُفَرِّقَ أَمْرَ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ وَهِيَ جَمِيعٌ، فَاضْرِبُوهُ بِالسَّيْفِ كَائِنًا مَنْ كَانَ».
Arfaja (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say:
“Soon there will be many trials and events. So whoever wants to cause division in the collective affair of this Ummah while it is united, strike him with the sword, whoever he may be.”
In Al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn, this report comes about Hujr ibn Adi (may Allah be pleased with him):
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو إِسْحَاقَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى، ثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ الثَّقَفِيُّ، ثَنَا الْمُفَضَّلُ بْنُ غَسَّانَ الْغَلَّابِيُّ، ثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ مَعِينٍ وَهِشَامٌ، ثَنَا دَاوُدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ بِشْرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْحَضْرَمِيِّ، قَالَ:
لَمَّا بَعَثَ زِيَادٌ بِحُجْرِ بْنِ عَدِيٍّ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ أَمَرَ مُعَاوِيَةُ بِحَبْسِهِ بِمَكَانٍ يُقَالُ لَهُ: مَرْجُ عَذْرَاءَ، ثُمَّ اسْتَشَارَ النَّاسَ فِيهِ، قَالَ: فَجَعَلُوا يَقُولُونَ: الْقَتْلَ الْقَتْلَ. قَالَ: فَقَامَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسَدٍ الْبَجَلِيُّ، فَقَالَ: يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، أَنْتَ رَاعِينَا وَنَحْنُ رَعِيَّتُكَ، وَأَنْتَ رُكْنُنَا وَنَحْنُ عِمَادُكَ، إِنْ عَاقَبْتَ قُلْنَا: أَصَبْتَ، وَإِنْ عَفَوْتَ قُلْنَا: أَحْسَنْتَ، وَالْعَفْوُ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى، وَكُلُّ رَاعٍ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ. قَالَ: فَتَفَرَّقَ النَّاسُ عَنْ قَوْلِهِ.
Bishr ibn Abd al-Hadrami narrates:
When Ziyad sent Hujr ibn Adi to Mu’awiya, Mu’awiya ordered that he be imprisoned in a place called Marj Adhra. Then Mu’awiya consulted the people about him.
The narrator says that the people began to say: “Let him be killed, let him be killed.”
At that point Abdullah ibn Zayd ibn Asad al-Bajali stood up and said:
“O Commander of the Believers! You are our shepherd and we are your flock. You are our support and we are your pillars. If you punish, we will say that you did right, and if you pardon, we will say that you did well. Pardoning is closer to piety, and every shepherd will be questioned about his flock.”
The narrator says that upon hearing his words, the people dispersed.
Summary
From all these reports, it becomes as clear as the bright day that Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him) did not have Hujr ibn Adi killed merely on his own whim or personal desire; rather, Hujr had committed such grave and intolerable acts that the peace of the Ummah had been put at risk. Moreover, before imposing the punishment, Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him) formally consulted the people of knowledge and responsible people, and all of them agreed that he should be killed. As for the one person who did give the opinion not to kill, the people rejected his statement and disagreed with him.
These are completely authentic and historically established reports. Even if, hypothetically, the chains of narration of these quoted reports are not brought into discussion, or someone does not accept them at all, it still stands as established that Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him) was a Muslim ruler and the Commander of the Believers of his time. The default principle and good presumption regarding a ruler is that if he has given someone a legal punishment or a discretionary punishment, he must have given it only after full deliberation and with the requirements of justice in view.
If someone has a clear and irrefutable proof to the contrary, that he was killed merely out of personal enmity or to satisfy personal ego, then he will have to prove this with solid evidence. Otherwise, the caliph and the ruler of the time has full legal authority to punish serious criminals in order to maintain peace and order. Had this been a matter of personal grudge, Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him) would never have consulted openly about it. Therefore, whatever the decision was, all of it was made through mutual consultation and with legal and state interests in view.
