This excerpt is taken from Dr. Hafiz Muhammad Zubair's book "Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza: Thoughts and Ideas" .
Was Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) not a Rightly Guided Caliph? In the light of the Hadith of Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him)
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 1, quotes a narration from Musnad Ahmad attributed to Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه, in which he says that the Messenger of Allah صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم, while delivering a sermon, said that the period of prophethood among you will remain as long as Allah wills. After that, the period of caliphate according to the method of prophethood (Khilafat 'ala Minhaj al-Nubuwwah) will come, and it will also remain as long as Allah wills. After that, the period of predatory monarchy will come, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. Then the period of oppressive monarchy will come, and it will also remain as long as Allah wills. After that, once again, the period of caliphate according to the method of prophethood will come.
According to this narration, the Messenger of Allah صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم divided the time from his prophethood until the Day of Judgment into five eras: the first era is the prophetic period; the second era is the caliphate according to the method of prophethood, i.e., the era of the rightly guided caliphs; the third era is the period of predatory monarchy; the fourth era is the period of oppressive monarchy; and the fifth era is again the caliphate according to the method of prophethood, i.e., the era of the rightly guided caliphs.
The first point is that nowhere in Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith is it mentioned that Amir Muawiya رضي الله عنه could not be a rightly guided caliph. This hadith states that the caliphate according to the method of prophethood will remain as long as Allah wills. Now, how long Allah wills is not known to us.
If it is argued that the generality of Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith is specified by the hadith of Safinah رضي الله عنه, which states that the caliphate will last for thirty years, this argument is not acceptable. The reason is that the hadith of Safinah رضي الله عنه itself is not established, so how can you specify one narration by another weak narration? Therefore, Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith remains general that the caliphate according to the method of prophethood will remain as long as Allah wills.
The hadith of Safinah was narrated for the first time by Saeed bin Jumhan from Safinah رضي الله عنه in 73-75 AH, and this is Saeed bin Jumhan’s own narration recorded in Musnad Ahmad. This was during the time of Hajjaj bin Yusuf’s governorship over Hijaz, after the martyrdom of Abdullah bin Zubair رضي الله عنه. People were not only angry due to the martyrdom of Hussain رضي الله عنه under Yazid bin Muawiya’s rule but also due to the martyrdom of Abdullah bin Zubair رضي الله عنه under a governor like Hajjaj bin Yusuf. A large number of people were ready to revolt against Banu Umayyah, especially after the martyrdom of Abdullah bin Zubair رضي الله عنه, the situation was very bad. So it is highly probable that in these troubled times, someone pretended to be Safinah and narrated hadiths about Banu Umayyah to Saeed bin Jumhan, who took them as from Safinah and transmitted those narrations, while the real Safinah رضي الله عنه had died two years earlier.
The second point is that Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith itself states that the era of the rightly guided caliphate will come once again, which will be the fifth era. This hadith denies the limitation of the rightly guided caliphate to only four caliphs as stated in the hadith of Safinah رضي الله عنه. So the question arises: will the caliphate of Jesus son of Mary عليه السلام and Imam Mahdi رحمہ اللہ not be considered rightly guided caliphate? If you say no, then your position contradicts Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith, which states that the rightly guided caliphate will be established once again before the Day of Judgment. And if you say yes, then you must consider the hadith of Safinah رضي الله عنه weak or at least rejected because without it you cannot say yes.
The third point is: was Hasan رضي الله عنه not a rightly guided caliph after Ali رضي الله عنه? If you say yes, then the rightly guided caliphate is not limited to four, so the text of the hadith of Safinah رضي الله عنه is not established. Similarly, was Umar bin Abdul Aziz رحمہ اللہ not a rightly guided caliph? If he was, then how is the rightly guided caliphate limited to thirty years?
Some have resolved this by saying that the rightly guided caliphs are five. This expression also contradicts the hadith of Safinah رضي الله عنه’s narration in Sunan Abi Dawood, which our critics consider authentic, where the rightly guided caliphate is limited to four named individuals and Hasan رضي الله عنه’s name is not mentioned. So this is a glaring error to limit the rightly guided caliphate to only four, implying that it is impossible for any Muslim ruler to govern in the manner of prophethood until the Day of Judgment. This is such a great reproach against Islam that all the accusations of the enemies of Islam pale in comparison, that Muslims are such a learned nation that they will not find any righteous ruler other than these four until the Day of Judgment, and such nonsense is attributed to the Messenger of Allah صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم and even called religion. These statements seem contrary to the fundamentals of religion and are naturally rejected by sound human nature.
The fourth point is: if you want to limit Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith, then why do you do so by a weak or disputed narration like the hadith of Safinah رضي الله عنه? Why don’t you limit Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith by the narration of the twelve caliphs in Sahih Muslim? What prevents you from saying that the phrase "as long as Allah wills" in Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith means until the twelve caliphs? Why don’t you explain Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith by an agreed-upon authentic narration?
The fifth point concerns the chain of narration of Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith. The main narrator of this narration is Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti. There are several narrators named Dawood bin Ibrahim, such as Dawood bin Ibrahim, Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti, and Dawood bin Ibrahim Qadi Qazvin. We need to focus on whether these are three narrators, two, or one, and which narrator is meant in Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith:
First, the full name of the narrator of Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith is Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti, and among his students is Abu Dawood al-Tayalisi رحمہ اللہ, who wrote Musnad al-Tayalisi. He narrated Hudhaifa رضي الله عنه’s hadith from this narrator and called him trustworthy. However, Abu Dawood al-Tayalisi رحمہ اللہ is not among the scholars of Jarh wa Ta'dil (criticism and accreditation), so this endorsement is not reliable.
Reference: حَدَّثَنَا دَاوُدُ الْوَاسِطِيُّ، وَكَانَ ثِقَةً، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ حَبِيبَ بْنَ سَالِمٍ. (الطيالسي أبو داود سليمان بن داود، مسند أبي داود الطيالسي دار هجر، مصر، الطبعة الأولى، 1419هـ، 349/1)
Secondly, he narrated from this narrator, not that this narrator was among his teachers. We searched Musnad al-Tayalisi and found only this one narration of Abu Dawood al-Tayalisi رحمہ اللہ from Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti. Therefore, the endorsement of Abu Dawood al-Tayalisi رحمہ اللہ is not reliable because you cannot know much about a narrator from just one narration.Second, there was a Dawood bin Ibrahim who was a judge of Qazvin. Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi رحمہ اللہ and other scholars of Jarh wa Ta'dil called him a fabricator and liar.
Reference: داود بن إبراهيم قاضي قزوين روى عن شعبة ووهيب روى عنه محمد بن أيوب سمعت أبي يقول: داود بن إبراهيم هذا متروك الحديث كان يكذب. (الرازي، ابن أبي حاتم الجرح والتعديل، دار إحياء التراث العربي، بيروت، الطبعة الأولى، 1271هـ، 407/3)
Third, Imam Rafi'i mentioned in his book "Al-Tadwin fi Akhbar Qazvin" that Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti and Dawood bin Ibrahim Qadi Qazvin are the same person. Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti was the judge of Qazvin during the caliphates of Harun al-Rashid [170-193 AH], Al-Amin al-Rashid [193-198 AH], and Al-Ma'mun al-Rashid [198-218 AH].
Reference: داؤد بن إبراهيم العقيلي أبو سليمان الواسطي كان قاضيا بقزوين من قبل الرشيد ثم من قبل الأمين والمأمون (عبد الكريم بن محمد بن عبد الكريم الرافعي القزويني، التدوين في أخبار قزوين دار الكتب العلمية، بيروت، 1408ه، 1/3)
So the last two Dawood bin Ibrahim are the same.Fourth, Sulaiman bin Dawood al-Tayalisi [133-204 AH] was a contemporary of Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti Qadi Qazvin. Abu Dawood al-Tayalisi died in 204 AH, while Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti Qadi Qazvin died in 214 AH.
Reference: (أيضاً )
Fifth, it is most probable that Abu Dawood al-Tayalisi took this narration from Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti Qadi Qazvin and called him "trustworthy."
Sixth, apart from Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti Qadi Qazvin, no other Dawood bin Ibrahim’s biography is found in the books of Asma wa Rijal or history books, nor is it transmitted by scholars who considered them two separate personalities. However, the biography of this narrator is found in a dedicated book on the history of this city mentioned above, which counts both as one.
Seventh, some scholars of Jarh wa Ta'dil have differentiated between the two but have not provided details except that Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti narrated from Habib bin Salim, and Dawood bin Ibrahim Qadi Qazvin narrated from Shu'bah. This detail does not prevent them from being the same person, as Imam Rafi'i رحمہ اللہ counted them as one in his dedicated book.
Eighth, the detailed discussion about how many Dawood bin Ibrahim personalities exist and who they are is given by Khateeb Baghdadi رحمہ اللہ, whose book’s subject is precisely this: determining personalities based on agreement and disagreement in narrators’ names. According to Khateeb Baghdadi رحمہ اللہ, there are five narrators named Dawood bin Ibrahim: the first is Dawood bin Ibrahim al-San'ani, who narrated from Tawus; the second is Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Bahili, an unknown narrator; the third is Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti, who narrated from Shu'bah; the fourth is Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Anbari, who narrated from 'Abdah bin Sulayman; and the fifth is Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Antaki, who narrated from Hasan bin Shu'aib.
Reference: داود بن إبراهيم خمسة ① منهم داود بن إبراهيم الصنعاني رأى وهب بن منبه وسمع طاوس بن كيسان روى عنه عبد الله بن المبارك ومعتمر بن سليمان وعبد الرزاق ابن همام ... ② داود بن إبراهيم الباهلي رجل مجهول روى عنه محمد بن عيسى بن الطباع عن الزهري وإسماعيل ابن عياش ... ③ داود بن إبراهيم الواسطي حدث عن شعبة روى عنه محمد بن صالح الأشج الهمذاني ... ④ داود بن إبراهيم العنبري حدث عن عبدة بن سلميان الكلابي روى عنه محمد بن أحمد بن زهير النيسابوري ... ⑤ داود بن إبراهيم الأنطاكي حـدث عـن الحسن بن شبيب البغدادي المؤدب روى عنه علي بن سراج المصري. (الخطيب البغدادي أحمد بن علي بن ثابت المتفق ،والمفترق الطبعة الأولى، 1417هـ، 880/2)
Ninth, the Dawood bin Ibrahim who narrated from Tawus was called trustworthy by Yahya bin Ma'in. Imam Bukhari and Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi رحمہما اللہ differentiated between this Dawood bin Ibrahim who narrated from Tawus and the Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti who narrated from Habib bin Salim and was called trustworthy only by Abu Dawood al-Tayalisi. So there is a difference between the first and second.
Tenth, Imam Ibn Hibban رحمہ اللہ counted the first and second as one, which seems to be a confusion; therefore, his endorsement of Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti is not reliable because of this confusion, as he considered both narrators as one and applied the endorsement of one to the other.
Reference: دَاوُد بن إبْرَاهِيمَ الوَاسِطِي سكن الْبَصْرَة يروي عَن طَاوس وحبيب بن سالم روى عَنهُ بن الْمُبَارك وَأَبُو دَاوُد الطَّيَالِمي (محمد بن حبان بن أحمد الثقات، دائرة المعارف العثمانية، حيدر آباد الدكن، الطبعة الأولى، 1393هـ، 280/6)
Eleventh, in the books of Asma wa Rijal and history, there is mention of another Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Aqili, who is also Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti because both have the title "Qadi Qazvin," as Ibn Asakir رحمہ اللہ mentioned in one of his chain narrations Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Aqili as Qadi Qazvin.
Reference: أخبرنا أبو محمد بن حمزة ثنا أبو محمد الكتاني أنبأنا تمام ابـن محمـد أنـبـأنـا أبـو عـمـر محمد بن عيسى بن أحمد القزويني الحافظ وأبي رحمه الله قالا ثنا محمد بن أيوب بن يحيى بن الضريس الرازي ثنا داود بن إبراهيم العقيلي قاضي قزوين ثنا خالد بن عبد الله الواسطي عن الحريري عن أبي نضرة عن أبي سعيد الخدري ....(ابن عساکر، تاریخ دمشق، دار الفكر ، بيروت، 1415هـ، 60/65)
Similarly, Imam Sakhawi رحمہ اللہ also narrated that Imam Ja'far bin Muhammad bin Hammad of Jami' Qazvin said that Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Aqili Qadi Qazvin narrated to us.
Reference: أحمد بن قدامة أبو العباس القزويني الجمال شيخ ثقة سمع إسماعيل بن أبي أويس وعبد العزيز الأويسي المدينة وغيرهما بغيرها روى عنه إمام جامع قزوین جعفر بن محمد بن حماد حدثنا داود بن إبراهيم العقيلي القاضي بقزوين حدثنا موسى بن عمير سمعت أبا صالح يقول (التحفة اللطيفة في تاريخ المدينة الشريفة، دار الكتب العلمية، بيروت، الطبعة الأولى، 1414هـ، 126/1)
Twelfth, Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Aqili was also accused of lying.
Reference: داود بن إبراهيم العقيلي عن خالد بن عبد الله الطحان فهذا كذبه (الأزدي الذهبي، محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان ميزان الاعتدال في نقد الرجال، دار المعرفة للطباعة والنشر بيروت، الطبعة الأولى، 1382هـ، 4/2)
In summary, there are five Dawood bin Ibrahim narrators, among whom Dawood bin Ibrahim al-San'ani is a trustworthy narrator who narrated from Tawus, and there is a difference between him and Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti, as Imam Bukhari and Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi رحمہما اللہ differentiated between them, while Imam Ibn Hibban رحمہ اللہ mistakenly considered them one. Secondly, Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti who narrated from Habib bin Salim, Dawood bin Ibrahim Qadi Qazvin who narrated from Shu'bah, and Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Aqili who narrated from Khalid bin Abdullah are the same person and have been accused of lying. Therefore, Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti, Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti Qadi Qazvin, and Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Aqili Qadi Qazvin are the same narrator, as Imam Rafi'i رحمہ اللہ wrote his full name as ”داود بن إبراهيم العقيلي أبو سليمان الواسطي كان قاضيا بقزوين“. This narrator has been accused of lying, so due to the weakness of Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti Qadi Qazvin, he is weak. Moreover, Imam Bukhari رحمہ اللہ criticized Habib bin Salim from whom Dawood bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti narrated, and Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini says this criticism is very severe, but he does not know the reason.
Reference: حبيب بن سالم .. أما البخاري، فترجمه في ”الكبير“ .. وقال: ”فيـه نـظـر “ !. وهـو جـرح شديد عنده، لست أدري وجهه (أحمد بن عطية الوكيل نثل النبال بمعجم الرجال الذين ترجم لهم فضيلة الشيخ المحدث أبو إسحاق الحويني، دار ابن عباس، مصر، الطبعة الأولى، 1433هـ ، 404/1)
Although Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi رحمہ اللہ called this narrator trustworthy, my personal methodology in hadith research is to prioritize Imam Bukhari رحمہ اللہ’s opinion first, then Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal رحمہ اللہ, and then Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi رحمہ اللہ’s opinion if I understand it. This preferential order was established in my mind after studying the research and depth of these scholars, but I do not insist on its correctness.
Last edited:
