This excerpt is taken from Dr. Hafiz Muhammad Zubair's book "Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza: Thoughts and Ideas".
Was Amir Muawiya رضي الله عنه not a Rightly Guided Caliph? In the Light of Hadith Safinah رضي الله عنه
Muhammad Ali Mirza Sahib, in his research paper known as the Hydrogen Bomb "The True Background of the Event of Karbala," under the first chapter on page 2, quotes a narration from Sunan Abi Dawood in which it is stated that Hazrat Safinah, the servant of Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her), said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said that the caliphate in the manner of prophethood will last for thirty years, then Allah will grant governance to whomever He wills. This narration is the fundamental narration of Mirza Sahib's booklet. Mirza Sahib's entire argument rests solely on this one narration, and if this narration is removed, the entire structure of Mirza Sahib's argument collapses like a heap of sand. The fact is that Mirza Sahib has no explicit evidence in support of his position other than this narration.
Mirza Sahib's argument is that in this Ummah, the "caliphate in the manner of prophethood" lasted for thirty years, after which monarchy began from the time of Amir Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). This was also the argument of Maulana Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him), which he presented in his book "Caliphate and Monarchy," but the difference is that Maulana Maududi tried to prove his argument from historical books, whereas Mirza Sahib tried to show the same argument from the books of hadith. The biggest objection to this position is that the system and structure of Islam established by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) through the company of the Companions barely lasted thirty years according to you. And now your assumption and belief is that the Islamic system established by your movement and revolutionary struggle through your group’s workers will last more than thirty years. So, it means the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was not as successful in his mission as you will be.
The point is that you should reflect on what results your narrative produces. Meaning, after this claim, how can you invite non-Muslims to adopt the Islamic system that could not even last thirty years, yet you are saying to implement it over the entire world? What stronger evidence of the failure of this system could there be? Even communism lasted seventy years. This is a great insult to this religion, to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and to the company of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) that the Islamic system established by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was destroyed within thirty years. The fortress and structure of Islam that the Prophet (peace be upon him) built with the Companions had turned into a heap of dust within thirty years. What stronger evidence of the failure of this system and religion can you give to your enemies? Along with the boast that when we establish it the second time, it will last more than thirty years! And if the group trained by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) could not maintain this system for more than thirty years, what will be the condition of the later groups? If the later trained group manages to maintain this system for more than thirty years, then they would be better teachers than the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)! This narrative is very superficial. Anyway, we have taken some good news about Maulana Maududi’s (may Allah have mercy on him) position in our book "Mukalama," which can be googled.
As for the narration of Safinah, in our view, this narration is not authentic. This narration was transmitted by Hashraj from Saeed bin Jumhan, and Saeed bin Jumhan from Safinah. The central narrator of this narration is Saeed bin Jumhan. In Musnad Ahmad, it is mentioned that Hashraj asked Saeed bin Jumhan where he met Safinah, and Saeed bin Jumhan replied:
لقيته ببطن نخلة فى زمن الحجاج، فأقمت عنده ثمان ليال أسأله عن أحاديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، قال: قلت له: ما اسمك؟ قال: ما أنا بمخبرك، سماني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سفينة
"I met Safinah in Wadi Nakhlah during the time of Hajjaj. I stayed with him for eight nights and kept asking him about the hadiths of the Messenger. I (Saeed bin Jumhan) also asked him what his name was, and he said that he would not tell me his name, and that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) named him Safinah, meaning 'ship.'"
Reference: (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal: 36/256)
Shuaib Arna'ut graded this narration as "Hasan."
Reference: (also)
Now, two important points in this narration are that Saeed bin Jumhan specified both the time and place of meeting Safinah. The place is Wadi Nakhlah, which is between Makkah and Taif, and the time is the era of Hajjaj. Hajjaj was appointed by Abdul Malik bin Marwan as the commander of the army towards Makkah on 1st Dhu al-Hijjah 72 AH to besiege Abdullah bin Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him). This siege lasted until 17th Jumada al-Awwal 73 AH, approximately five to six months.
Reference: Then the year 73 AH came in which Abdullah bin Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him) was killed by Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi, may Allah disgrace him. Al-Waqidi said: Mus'ab bin Nayb narrated to me from Nafi', the freed slave of Bani Asad, who was knowledgeable about the fitnah of Ibn Zubair, that Ibn Zubair was besieged on the night of the crescent of Dhu al-Hijjah in the year 72 AH and was killed on the seventeenth night before Jumada al-Awwal in the year 73 AH, so the siege by Hajjaj lasted five months and seventeen nights (Ibn Kathir, Ismail ibn Umar, Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, Dar al-Fikr, 1407 AH, 329/8)
After the end of the caliphate of Abdullah bin Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him), Hajjaj was appointed governor of Hijaz by Abdul Malik bin Marwan and served as governor of Hijaz from 73-75 AH. Due to many complaints, he was removed from the governorship of Hijaz and appointed governor of Iraq.
Reference: Then the year 75 AH came in which Muhammad bin Marwan, brother of Abdul Malik bin Marwan and father of Marwan al-Himar, campaigned against the Romans when they left from near Mar'ash. In this year, Abdul Malik appointed Yahya bin Abi al-As, his uncle, as deputy of Medina and dismissed Hajjaj. Abdul Malik appointed Hajjaj ibn Yusuf as governor of Iraq, Basra, Kufa, and the surrounding major regions after the death of his brother Bishr. Abdul Malik saw that no one could control the people of Iraq except Hajjaj due to his power, severity, and courage, so he wrote to him while he was in Medina to take over the governorship of Iraq, and he traveled from Medina to Iraq (Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya: 7/9)
So, the time of Hajjaj’s governorship in Wadi Nakhlah, i.e., Hijaz, is 73-75 AH, and Safinah had died in 71 AH. So how could Saeed bin Jumhan meet Safinah in Wadi Nakhlah during the time of Hajjaj when she had died two years earlier?
Imam Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) mentions in his history "Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya" that among those who died in 71 AH was Safinah, the servant of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), who was also known by the kunya Abu Abdur-Rahman and was a servant of Hazrat Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her). He writes:
ثم دخلت سنة إحدى وسبعين ففيها كان مقتل مصعب بن الزبير ومن توفي فيها من الأعيان إبراهيم بن الأشتر سفينة مولى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أبو عبد الرحمن كان عبدا لأم سلمة
"Then the year 71 AH began, in which Mus'ab bin Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him) was martyred, and in the same year, among the great people who died were Ibrahim bin Ashtar and Safinah, the servant of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), whose kunya was Abu Abdur-Rahman, and she was the servant of Hazrat Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her)."
Reference: (Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya: 314/8, 323)
Allama Mujir al-Din al-Alimi mentions the date of death of Safinah (may Allah be pleased with her) as 71 AH in his book "التاريخ المعتبر فى أنباء من غبر". He writes:
أبو عبد الرحمن سفينة: مولى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، توفي سنة إحدى وسبعين من الهجرة
"Abu Abdur-Rahman Safinah, servant of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), died in 71 AH."
Reference: (Mujir al-Din al-Alimi, Al-Tarikh al-Mu'tabar fi Anba' man Ghabar, Dar al-Nawadir Syria, First Edition, 1431 AH, 376/3)
Some scholars have mentioned that Safinah (may Allah be pleased with her) died during the time of Hajjaj, but this is also mentioned by Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) in his history, and when he specifies the date of death, he states it as 71 AH, as referenced above. This shows that the claim that Safinah died during the time of Hajjaj was a misunderstanding that some historians transmitted based on Saeed bin Jumhan’s narration, which itself is disputed. How can a disputed narration be used as evidence? Therefore, the historians who say that Safinah died during the time of Hajjaj did not mention the year of death, indicating that they derived this from Saeed bin Jumhan’s narration. In our view, the more reliable opinion is that Safinah died in 71 AH because it is more detailed and specific, and the wording indicates that this opinion was not influenced by Saeed bin Jumhan’s narration.
Therefore, the meeting between Saeed bin Jumhan and Safinah is not established. When the meeting is not established and according to Saeed bin Jumhan, there was only one meeting in life which is not proven, then how can this narration be authentic? However, it is possible that Saeed bin Jumhan met someone in Wadi Nakhlah during the time of Hajjaj (73-75 AH), but that person was not Safinah but someone else who presented himself as Safinah, though he was not among the well-known Companions. This period was one of turmoil, so it is highly likely that someone deceived Saeed bin Jumhan by claiming to be Safinah. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that the person hesitated to reveal his real name and said in response to Saeed bin Jumhan’s question that he would not tell his real name and that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) named him Safinah.
In any case, Saeed bin Jumhan can be doubted as his statement may not be accurate, and there is room for criticism as some scholars of Jarh wa Ta'dil have criticized him. For example, Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) said about him that يكتب حديثه، ولا يحتج به that his hadith will be recorded but will not be used as evidence.
Reference: (Al-Mizzi, Yusuf bin Abdul Rahman, Tahdhib al-Kamal fi Asma' al-Rijal, Mu'assasat al-Risalah, Beirut, First Edition, 1400 AH, 377/10)
Narrations in which such a narrator is unique are not considered evidence, and this narrator is unique in narrating this hadith from Safinah (may Allah be pleased with her), so this narration is not evidence.If someone objects that Imam Ahmad, Imam Abu Dawood, and Yahya bin Ma'in (may Allah have mercy on them) considered Saeed bin Jumhan trustworthy
Reference: (also)
, then why do you rely on Abu Hatim al-Razi’s statement and not on these muhaddithin? The answer has been given above that in our view Saeed bin Jumhan is suspicious because his meeting with Safinah (may Allah be pleased with her) is not established or at least doubtful, so caution requires that his narration be recorded but not used as evidence. Ibn Adi (may Allah have mercy on him) also objected to Saeed bin Jumhan because he narrates from Safinah (may Allah be pleased with her) hadiths that no one else narrated, which also makes him suspicious. Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) also criticized this narrator by saying ”في حديثه غرائب“.
Reference: (Ibn al-Wazir, Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Ali, Al-Awasim wal-Qawasim fi al-Dhif' an Sunnat Abi al-Qasim, Mu'assasat al-Risalah, Beirut, Third Edition, 1415 AH, 385/2)
This is why Ibn Adi (may Allah have mercy on him) said about him ”وأرجو أنه لا بأس به“. Imam Nasai (may Allah have mercy on him) also used the words ”ليس به بأس“.
Reference: (Tahdhib al-Kamal fi Asma' al-Rijal: 377/10)
Allama al-Saji also said ”لا يتابع على حديثه“.
Reference: (Al-Awasim wal-Qawasim: 385/2)
These terms relate to a level of "Ta'dil" where the hadith is recorded but not considered evidence.
Reference: (Al-Sakhawi, Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman, Fath al-Mughith bi Sharh Alfiya al-Hadith lil-Iraqi, Maktabat al-Sunnah, Egypt, First Edition, 1424 AH, 121/2)
The response to this criticism is that there is a supporting narration for Saeed bin Jumhan’s narration, which Imam Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) transmitted in his book "Dala'il al-Nubuwwah," but in Imam Bayhaqi’s narration, Ali bin Zaid bin Jud'an is a weak narrator. The response to this is that a weak narration combined with another weak narration can become strong and "Hasan Lighayrihi" (good due to others), so these two together become strong. The answer is that a weak narration becomes strong with another weak narration only if their weakness is slight; if their weakness is severe, it does not become Hasan Lighayrihi. Ali bin Zaid bin Jud'an is accused of being Shia or Rafidi, so his weakness is strong. Another important point is that even if a weak narration reaches the level of Hasan Lighayrihi, it does not establish the exact wording but only the general meaning, which we have discussed in our PhD thesis.
Thirdly, Allama Ibn Khaldun (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his history about the narration of the thirty-year caliphate that it is not authentic because Amir Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was also among the caliphs.
Reference: It was necessary to include the state of Muawiyah and his news among the caliphs and their news, for he followed them in virtue, justice, and companionship. The hadith of the caliphate lasting thirty years after me is not authentic. The truth is that Muawiyah is counted among the caliphs. (Ibn Khaldun, Abdul Rahman bin Muhammad bin Muhammad, Diwan al-Mubtada wal-Khabar fi Tarikh al-Arab wal-Barbar wa Man Asarahum min Dhawi al-Sha'n al-Akbar, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, Second Edition 1408 AH, 650/2)
Similarly, Imam Ibn Arabi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote in العواصم من القواصم that this narration is not authentic. He gives the reason for its inauthenticity, saying:حديث الخلافة ثلاثون سنة ينقضه حديث اثنا عشر خليفة فإن قيل: فقد روي عن سفينة أن النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: الخلافة ثلاثون سنة، ثم تعود ملكا فإذا عددنا من ولاية أبى بكر إلى تسليم الحسن كانت ثلاثين سنة لا تزيد ولا تنقص يوما ... وهذا حديث لا يصح. ولو صح فهو معارض لهذا الصلح المتفق عليه، فوجب الرجوع إليه
"The narration of the thirty-year caliphate contradicts the narration of the twelve caliphs, so it is not acceptable. If it is said that Hazrat Safinah (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) that the caliphate will last thirty years and then monarchy will come, and if we count from the day Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) became caliph until the day Hazrat Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) handed over the caliphate to Amir Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), it completes exactly thirty years, neither a day less nor more... then this narration, i.e., the hadith of Safinah (may Allah be pleased with her), is not authentic (because in Safinah’s narration Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali are counted but Hasan bin Ali (may Allah be pleased with them) is not). Even if it were authentic, it contradicts the treaty between Hazrat Hasan and Amir Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with them), and the authenticity of the treaty narration is agreed upon, so in case of contradiction, the treaty narration must be preferred because it is mutawatir."
Reference: (Ibn al-Arabi al-Maliki, Al-Awasim min al-Qawasim fi Tahqiq Mawaqif al-Sahaba ba'd Wafat al-Nabi (peace be upon him), Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wah and Guidance, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, First Edition, 1419 AH, 200/1-202)
Fourthly, there is inconsistency in the various chains of the hadith of Safinah (may Allah be pleased with her). In Musnad Ahmad’s narration, it is mentioned that the "caliphate" will last thirty years. In Sunan al-Kubra of al-Nasa’i, the term "caliphate" is also mentioned. Similarly, in Sunan al-Tirmidhi and Musnad Abi Dawood al-Tayalisi, only the word "caliphate" is mentioned, whereas in Sunan Abi Dawood’s narration, the phrase "caliphate in the manner of prophethood" is mentioned. So, are the original words of the hadith merely "caliphate" as in most sources, or "caliphate in the manner of prophethood" as in Sunan Abi Dawood? How will this be determined? Is there any principle or rule to accept or reject these words? The narrator is the same, so it cannot be said that one narration explained the other.
When the same narrator transmits the same narration with differing words, this is called "idtirab" (self-contradiction) in terminology, which indicates weakness or suspension in the hadith or at least in the words where the contradiction occurred. Even if this contradiction is resolved, according to the principle of preference, the hadith of Safinah (may Allah be pleased with her) would mean "caliphate" and not "caliphate in the manner of prophethood." And "caliphate" alone is not considered to last thirty years by anyone.
Fifthly, the hadith of Safinah contradicts the authentic narration of Sahih Muslim, as mentioned by Ustadh Muhib al-Din al-Khatib (may Allah have mercy on him).
Reference: (Al-Awasim min al-Qawasim: 201/1)
Sahih Muslim’s narration mentions twelve caliphs, whereas the hadith of Safinah mentions four.Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) responded to Ustadh al-Khatib (may Allah have mercy on him) by saying that both narrations can be reconciled, so the contradiction is removed. The reconciliation is that the hadith of Safinah mentions "caliphate of prophethood," and Sahih Muslim’s narration mentions only "caliphate." However, when Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) quoted this response in ”سلسلة الأحاديث الصحيحة“, he did not quote the version of Sahih Muslim in which it is mentioned that Sahih Muslim’s narration also refers to "caliphate of prophethood," so the contradiction remained.
Reference: (Al-Albani, Muhammad Nasiruddin, Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah wa Shay' min Fiqhha wa Fawa'idha, Maktabat al-Ma'arif lil-Nashr wa al-Tawzi', Riyadh, 1415 AH, 827/1)
When the contradiction remains, Sahih Muslim’s narration is preferred because the other narration is weak or at least its authenticity is disputed.In one narration of Sahih Muslim, the words are:
لا يزال الدين قائما حتى تقوم الساعة، أو يكون عليكم اثنا عشر خليفة، كلهم من قريش
"Islam will remain established until the Day of Resurrection or until twelve caliphs have passed, and they will all be from Quraysh."
Reference: (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Imarah, Bab al-Nas Tabi' li Quraysh, wal-Khilafah fi Quraysh, 1453/3)
So, the words "the religion will remain established" explicitly mean that the caliphate of twelve caliphs refers to the prophetic caliphate in which Islam will remain established. In another narration of Sahih Muslim, the words are:
لا يزال هذا الدين عزيزا منيعا إلى اثني عشر خليفة
"This religion will remain dominant and preserved until the twelve caliphs."
Reference: (also)
The religion here refers to the religion established during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). He informed that this religion will remain with all its glory ("عزيزا") and complete protection ("منيعا") until the twelve caliphs.
Now, to say that such and such muhaddith considered the hadith of Safinah authentic is true that a group of muhaddithin considered it authentic, but some scholars have said it is not authentic and have given reasons for its inauthenticity. Insisting on acceptance just because some said it is authentic is not a scholarly approach. We have given a detailed discussion on the inauthenticity of this narration; if you can provide reasonable answers to each point, that will suffice. We believe we are addressing someone who is not a "Babi," whose slogan is "Neither Babi nor Wahhabi, I am a Muslim, scholarly, and bookish." So, a Muslim scholarly bookish person should argue with evidence against evidence.
Our summary of the evidence is that the central narrator of the hadith of Safinah, Saeed bin Jumhan’s meeting with Safinah (may Allah be pleased with her) is not established; secondly, Saeed bin Jumhan’s narration is not reliable enough to be used as evidence; thirdly, the hadith of Safinah contradicts agreed authentic hadiths; fourthly, the text of the hadith of Safinah contradicts itself; fifthly, there is textual contradiction in the various chains of this hadith; sixthly, the narrative of caliphate and monarchy derived from the hadith of Safinah insults the person of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him); therefore, this narration is against the fundamentals of religion and is not established.
Last edited:
