Authored by: Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad Anwar Zāhid (ḥafiẓahullāh)
It is narrated that ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (رضي الله عنه) stated:
“I worshipped Allah alongside the Messenger of Allah ﷺ at a time when no one else from this Ummah was worshipping Him. That worship continued for five or seven years.”
This report is used by some to claim that ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) was a believer and worshipper before Islam was even declared, implying a special status or pre-eminence.
Such a story aligns with Shīʿa fabrications, like that found in Mullā Bāqir Majlisī’s Jilāʾ al-ʿUyūn, where it's claimed that:
Such tales are logically impossible, textually unsupported, and represent clear examples of Shīʿī exaggeration.
The primary narrator is Ḥibbah ibn Juwayn, who attributes the statement to ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه). However, the chain contains severe weaknesses:
Taqrīb: 1/148, al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl: 3/1130, Tahdhīb al-Kamāl: 1/220
Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl: 1/209, Tahdhīb al-Kamāl: 1/71, Taqrīb: 1/49, al-Kāshif: 1/99
This narration directly contradicts:
✔ The widely accepted early converts to Islam:
✔ Ibn al-Jawzī stated:
If ʿAlī had been worshipping secretly for seven years before Islam, how was he unknown to others—when even ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) was the 40th Muslim only 6 years into prophethood?
Al-Mawḍūʿāt: 1/342
✔ Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn observed:
Out of tens of thousands of Companions, less than thirty were involved in later fitan (civil strife).
Minhāj al-Sunnah: 3/86
Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed:
This is the most authentic chain on the face of the earth.
The claim that ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) worshipped Allah before the Ummah for five or seven years is:
Conclusion:
This story is a Shīʿī fabrication with no authentic chain, and it serves only to distort established Islamic history. It must be rejected outright.
❖ The Claim
It is narrated that ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (رضي الله عنه) stated:
“I worshipped Allah alongside the Messenger of Allah ﷺ at a time when no one else from this Ummah was worshipping Him. That worship continued for five or seven years.”
This report is used by some to claim that ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) was a believer and worshipper before Islam was even declared, implying a special status or pre-eminence.
❖ Its Fabricated Nature and Shi‘i Roots
Such a story aligns with Shīʿa fabrications, like that found in Mullā Bāqir Majlisī’s Jilāʾ al-ʿUyūn, where it's claimed that:
- After ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) was born, he suckled the Prophet’s fingers, absorbing oceans of knowledge.
- On the third day after his birth, he allegedly recited Qur’anic verses from Sūrat al-Muʾminūn—despite the Prophet ﷺ not even being commissioned with revelation yet.
Such tales are logically impossible, textually unsupported, and represent clear examples of Shīʿī exaggeration.
❖ Chain of Narration and Its Weakness
The primary narrator is Ḥibbah ibn Juwayn, who attributes the statement to ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه). However, the chain contains severe weaknesses:
① Ḥibbah ibn Juwayn:
- Ibn al-Jawzī: Fabricated Hadith attributed falsely to ʿAlī.
- Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: "His Hadith is worthless."
- Al-Saʿdī: "Not trustworthy."
- Ibn Ḥibbān: "An extremist Shīʿī and very weak in Hadith."
② Ajlaḥ ibn ʿAbd Allāh:
- Imām Aḥmad: Narrates many rejected (munkar) ahādīth.
- Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī: "Not a proof."
- Ibn Ḥibbān: "Doesn’t even know what he’s narrating."
- Al-Nasāʾī: "Weak, held poor opinions."
- Jūzjānī: "A liar."
❖ Contradiction with Established Narratives
This narration directly contradicts:
✔ The widely accepted early converts to Islam:
- Abū Bakr, Khadījah, Zayd ibn Ḥārithah, and ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه)
✔ Ibn al-Jawzī stated:
If ʿAlī had been worshipping secretly for seven years before Islam, how was he unknown to others—when even ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) was the 40th Muslim only 6 years into prophethood?
✔ Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn observed:
Out of tens of thousands of Companions, less than thirty were involved in later fitan (civil strife).
Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed:
This is the most authentic chain on the face of the earth.
❖ Summary
- Unfounded
- Based on fabricators and Shīʿī extremists
- Contradicted by authentic historical and hadith reports
Conclusion:
This story is a Shīʿī fabrication with no authentic chain, and it serves only to distort established Islamic history. It must be rejected outright.