السلام عليكم ورحمة الله
As-Salamu Alaykum wa Rahmatu Llahi,
I noticed that doubts keep being raised and judgments keep getting delivered by someone who claims to be a student of knowledge, yet they don’t show the requisite fear of speaking without knowledge and delivering verdicts without the necessary qualifications.
A person’s fear in delivering verdicts should be towards Allah and not the creation. And that fear is evident when you find them adhering to scholarly precedents and when they avoid offering their own opinion on matters.
So once again I find myself compelled to respond and In Sha’ Allah, this will be the last effort I make to clarify the confusion that this brother, Nazeelu Chinguetti, has fallen into and is dragging others into along with him.
1) Another point I want to add is that Uthman also rejected this and said it didn’t occur in the lifetime of Rasulullah.
Ibn Ḥajar mentions the view of `Uthmān RA in his Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr without a chain and attributes it to the `Iraqīyūn. Without an ‘Isnād it’s not possible to ascertain the strength or weakness of the report. Please bring forward a chain of narration if you want this to serve as evidence, since you yourself criticize evidence submitted from historical records.
2) Abu Dawud also said that there are narrations in this topic but nothing is authentic from it! And Ibn Hajr mentioned the statement of Abu Dawud to refute the narration that Ali carried the head of Mirhab the Jewish warrior to Rasulullah.
That’s fine, however it’s your opinion of the intention of the author. The point is to stick to the understanding of the scholars and they discussed this matter thoroughly.
An-Nawawī, ar-Rāfi’ī, aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī, al-Juwaynī and Ibn al-Mulqin all discussed it in depth and the result was that they held the transport of heads to be permissible. Also, it appears that Ibn ‘Abī Shaybah and al-Bayhaqī held it to be permissible as well. In fact any scholar who discussed the matter in depth appears to have permitted the transport of heads, although some placed conditions on it based on their understanding of the reports, for example, they understood the objection of ‘Abū Bakr to be related to transporting heads or cadavers of polytheists to Madīnah. Some of them mentioned that there should be some Maṣlaḥah in it.
You have yet to produce a single scholar saying that it is Ḥarām. Yet you keep repeating it. Doesn’t that concern you? It should concern readers.
Here’s what Ibn al-Mulqin said after quoting ‘Abū Dāwud’s statement about the lack of authenticity in the reports:
I [Ibn al-Mulqin] say: As for the famous Ḥadīth in an-Nasā’ī and other collections, from Abd Allah bin Fayrūz ad-Daylamī, on authority of his father: ‘I came to the Prophet SAWS with the head of al-‘Aswad al-`Ansī’, then its transmitter Ḍamrah is trustworthy, however he is not corroborated in it.
Al-Ḥākim ‘Abū ‘Aḥmad said in al-Kunā: ‘He is mistaken from two perspectives- 1) He AS mentioned the rebellion of al-`Ansī from Ṣan`ā’ and Musaylimah from Yamāmah after him, not in his lifetime; 2) Al-‘Aswad bin Ka`b al-`Ansī was killed in 11AH in the time of ‘Abū Bakr and Fayrūz ad-Daylamī killed him’.
Ibn al-Qaṭṭān disagreed and said: ‘Its narrators are all trustworthy and it is not said that Ḍamrah is not corroborated in it, for indeed he is trustworthy. With regards to his being unique in reporting it, then it is Gharīb.
As for the statement of `Abd al-Ḥaqq right after this Ḥadīth, saying that the report of the killing of al-‘Aswad did not come until after the death of the Messenger of Allah SAWS, then it is not correct. The historians said it on the basis that there is no text saying that he actually met the Messenger of Allah SAWS, rather it is possible that it means that he came with [the head] to the Messenger of Allah SAWS setting out to reach him and surprise him with the glad tidings of the conquest, then the Messenger of Allah SAWS happened to die [before he reached him]. [Al-Badr al-Munīr 9/109]
And this is btw a good example of how scholars of Sirah oppose the scholars of Hadith! Many scholars of Sirah narrate that it wasn’t Ali who killed Mirhab but rather if was Muhammad Ibn Maslamah and there’s other opinions as well among them while Muslim and others narrated that it was Ali!
That’s why it’s important to rely on the views of scholars and not try to reach our own conclusions. Even if we can get to the bottom of historical events which do not have any primary texts which discuss them, we can at least rely on scholars to put each element of evidence in its proper perspective. They bring to bear their knowledge of history, Ḥadīth, Uṣūl and Fiqh to determine a Ḥukm. Your attempts at flexing your muscles in those areas appears to be amateur at best.
The incident of Mirhab is mentioned in authentic narrations without the addition of ‘he went the head’ and the narration that adds it doesn’t equal the other one in strength while all of Sahabah didn’t object to Abu Bakr’s Inkar on this and therefore it’s weakened by these Qara’in.
That’s fine, however Ibn Ḥajar declared the narration of Ibn ‘Abī ‘Awfā’ to be Ḥasan, and it mentions the head of ‘Abū Jahl being brought to him SAWS. As for ‘Abū Bakr’s rejection of the head brought to him, then you have yet to address the reason for his rejection. If there are Qarā’in which indicate his rejection was due to the head being brought to Madīnah as some scholars suggest, then you have to submit that it is possible.
3) al-Sha’bi also denied that any head was carried to Rasulullah.
What does this prove except ash-Sha`bī was not aware of any authentic narration on the matter, just like az-Zuhrī?
4) This in an action that didn’t occur in the lifetime of Rasulullah but since people started doing it in the time of Sahabah and Tabi’in they rejected this action. This is why we see Abu Bakr, Uthman, al-Zuhri and others rejecting it.
You have made a judgment of ‘weakness’ on narrations that scholars consider authentic/fair. That does not give you the right to declare that something did or did not occur in the lifetime of the Prophet SAWS based on your own judgment. This is not the behavior of a student of knowledge. Scholars have authenticated narrations which indicate heads were brought to the Prophet SAWS, among them Ibn Hajar and al-‘Albani. The most you can do or say is that you adhere to the views of other scholars on those narrations, but you have yet to bring those scholars forward.
Aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī made the argument that all the commanders of the armies and Companions RA who were in ash-Shām when the head of Yannāq was sent to ‘Abū Bakr RA agreed on doing so. ‘Abū Bakr RA used his ‘Ijtihād and they used theirs. The Companions RA also did not object when a head was sent to Ibn az-Zubayr RA. You named az-Zuhrī and ash-Sha’bī from the Tābi’īn, however there were far more Companions RA whose agreement is implied in dispatching the head to ‘Abū Bakr RA and far more Tābi’īn whose agreement is implied by not rejecting the head being sent to Ibn az-Zubayr RA.
Please stop making a fool of yourself in the areas of Usul, Fiqh and Hadith, In Sha’ Allah. And stick to the views of qualified scholarship instead of inventing your own.
Leave a Reply