On the authority of a true series of narrators, Al-Bayhaqiy has narrated that after he had been nominated as caliph, Abū-Bakr isolated himself to his house as he was depressed. As soon as he was visited by `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, he began to blame him saying, “It is you who involved me with this matter.” He also complained about the difficulty in issuing judgments among people. Answering him, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb said, “You should have known that the Messenger of Allah said that a ruler who succeeds in inferring the actual judgment as regards the religious laws will be rewarded twice; but if his inference is proven as inaccurate, he will rewarded once only.”
It has been also narrated that even the Sahābah who had not been versed in the religious laws, such as Bilāl and Suhayb, used to object to some of Abū-Bakr’s judgments, which were inaccurate.
A commentary on this narration is left to the dear readers who will certainly compare it to the aforementioned arguments that Abū-Bakr and `Umar faced many scientific problems that caused them great embarrassment.
Dr. Muhammad Rawwās Qal`achiy says in the introduction of the book entitled Min Mawsū'at al-Salaf: Ibrāhīm al-Nakha`iy,
“The founder of the school of Opinionism is actually `Umar ibn al-Khattāb; he had to face many affairs of the Islamic legislation that had never been faced by any other caliph. At the hands of `Umar, many countries were conquered, new cities were established, and many civilized nations, such as Persia and Rome, were subjugated to the ruling of Islam.”
Ahmad Amīn, in Fajr al-Islām says,
“It seems to me that `Umar acted upon Opinionism in its largest meaning. Since Opinionism is generally used only in issues about which there is no sacred text from the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah, `Umar exceeded this principle and rested upon Ijtihād in order to identify the advantage (Maslahah) on bases of which a sacred text was revealed or said. He then used that advantage in issuing religious laws. This is very close to the so-called the reliance upon the spirit, not literalism, of the law. In any event, Opinionism was created; and many of the grand Sahābah have been reported to have issued verdicts depending upon their own opinions, such as Abū-Bakr, Zayd ibn Thābit, Ubayy ibn Ka`b and Mu`ādh ibn Jabal. Still, the carrier of the slogan of Opinionism, in my conception, was `Umar ibn al-Khattāb.”
Dr. Nādiah al-`Umariy, in Ijtihād al-Rasūl, says,
“Resting upon personal views, acting upon analogy, and observation of the advantage were not innovative sources invented by the Tābi'ūn who lived in Iraq; rather they were continuation of a trend followed by a number of the Sahābah on the top of whom was `Umar ibn al-Khattāb.”
In Manāhij al-Ijtihād, Dr. Muhammad Madkūr says,
“Because of the successive Islamic conquests during the age of the Sahābah, new questions originated from the nature of the conquered countries and others originated from the events of the warfare came out to force the Sahābah to act upon their personal opinions. The sacred texts were finite while the events were not. Besides, the Sunnah was not recorded yet.”
He also says,
“A saying of a Sahābiy that is issued on bases of his personal view in questions that are object to reason while other Sahābah oppose it is the object of discrepancy among the jurisprudents. A group of scholars have decided the acceptability of such sayings as sources of the Islamic legislation even if they oppose Qiyās, while others have decided such sayings as acceptable only when they are issued by Abū-Bakr and `Umar and none else. Yet, the Shī`ite scholars, al-Shāfi`iy in one of his opinions, Ahmad ibn Hanbal in one of two narrations that are reported from him, and al-Karkhiy, representing the opinion of the Hanafiyyah School of law—all these have decided the unacceptability of such a saying. On the other hand, Mālik ibn Anas, al-Shāfi`iy in another opinion, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal in one of the two narrations that are reported from him have decided that such a saying is an acceptable source of legislation that is preferred to Qiyās. Al-Āmudiy has decided the unacceptability of such a saying and also al-Ghazzāliy, in his book entitled al-Mustasfā, has justified the unacceptability of such a saying by confirming that evidence is not available on such sayings and that those Sahābah have not been proved as inerrant; rather it has been narrated that they disagreed with each other on various questions and that they declared that it is permissible not to act upon their opinions. Al-Shawkāniy, too, justifies the unacceptability of such sayings by saying that as Almighty Allah has sent for this nation one Prophet only, and all the peoples are commissioned to carry out the instructions of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah, there will be no difference between the Sahābah or any others as regards the question of the religious instructions.”
“Originally, each holy verse (Ayah) that is opposite to the opinion of any scholar must be decided as having been repealed or not preferred. Preferably, such verses must be interpreted on bases of identification of the advantage. Originally, each tradition that is opposite to the opinions of our scholars must be decided as having been repealed or opposed by another tradition of the same credence. Hence, the evidences used by our scholars must be preferred to any other proof or must be regarded as compatible to the other proofs.”
Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhāb Khallāf says,
“During the age of the Sahābah, the Muslims had to face new events that they had not faced during the age of the Holy Prophet. As a result, the adopters of Ijtihād acted upon their personal views in these issues; they therefore issued verdicts and judgments and enacted new laws out of their personal opinions that were added to the first group of religious laws. From this cause, the collection of the jurisprudential laws in the second stage consisted of the laws of Almighty Allah and His Holy Messenger in addition to the verdicts and judgments of the Sahābah whose sources were the Holy Qur'ān, Sunnah, and Ijtihād.”
From the previous quotations, we understand that Opinionism was not an innovative course that was invented by the Hanafiyyah or others; rather it was `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, the caliph, who founded the principles of this course. Again, the previous quotations prove the inaccuracy of the claim that `Umar used to reject Opinionism. In fact, he was the originator and legislator of Opinionism in the Muslim jurisprudence. However, if the narrations that report his having warned against Opinionism are decided as true, such warning must have been said by him in the earlier or the final period of his reign after he had realized the impossibility of stopping the Sahābah’s common dependence upon their personal opinions in the religious issues that developed after `Umar’s personal judgments. Yet, the most acceptable argument in this respect is that `Umar believed that the others should have complied with the sacred texts as well as his judgments while he along had the right to use his personal views because he was the most knowledgeable of all! It has been narrated that when he heard about the discrepancy among the Sahābah, he ascended the minbar and declared, “If two of you, the Sahābah, issue disagreeing verdicts about religious issues, whose verdict will the Muslims follow? Stop issuing disagreeing verdicts otherwise I will punish severely.”
The principles of the two trends are now clearly revealed; a group of the Sahābah decided Opinionism and Qiyās as sources of Islamic legislation while the other group rejected these two totally claiming that the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah are too perfect to need personal opinions and analogy since the Islamic legislation had never been imperfect. Nevertheless, the adopters of these two trend were always at variance; one who called for thorough compliance with the Holy Prophet’s words and deeds (Sunnah) forbade the issuance of personal judgments and declared the necessity of acting upon the Holy Sunnah completely confirming that the Holy Qur'ān had never been imperfect since it contained the explanation of all things. The followers of this trend used to report the Holy Prophet’s words and deeds even if this would cause them to face death.On the other hand, the adopters of Opinionism rejected the reporting and recordation of the Hadīth and opened as widely as possible the door of personal opinions in all issues.
Personalities Of Ijtihād And Caliphate
It is noticeable that those who adopted as acceptable facts the words of Abū-Bakr and `Umar, including these which openly opposed the sacred texts, did not accept the reporting from the Holy Prophet as they also rejected the reporting of Hadīth. A political fact can be easily concluded from a deep investigation of the pledges of the Shūrā Committee and the reason beyond `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s having given preference to the choice of `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf and submitted the members of that Committee to any decision taken by `Abd al-Rahmān. Reaching at this conclusion, Dr. Ibrāhīm Baydūn says,
“The sudden emergence of `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf immediately after the incident of the assassination of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb to stand in the line of the caliph who, in the proper time, ordered him to represent him in the congregational prayer requires a little discussion! `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf, the aristocratic Sahābiy, was suddenly presented as a star in the show of the political events after he had spent all his previous life away from the lights. He thus became the first nominator of the coming caliph!”
As a final conclusion, it has been proven that policy was the originator of some principles of the Islamic legislations that have been adopted up to now. One of these principles is the application of the laws that were enacted during the reigns of Abū-Bakr and `Umar. The source of this principle was the Shūrā Committee during which the stipulation of accepting the laws enacted by Abū-Bakr and `Umar was specified as sources of the Islamic legislation. If the candidate accepted this stipulation, he would be nominated as the new caliph otherwise his name would be erased from the list. On that day of Shūrā, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf said to Imam `Alī: “`Alī: Do you accept to swear that you, when being the caliph, will act upon the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger, and the acts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar?” Answering him, Imam `Alī said: “As for the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, I do; but as for the acts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar, I do not.”
It is now acceptable for every righteous person who seeks the truth to ask how such a nomination of the new caliph can be decided as based upon consultation while the future trend of the caliph was previously planned by a group of people who also identified the obligations that the caliph would carry out during his reign. Is the so-called Shūrā (consultation) Committee compatible with the decision that the members of that committee should be beheaded if they would not make a decision in a period of three days? Is it compatible with the decision that if four or three of the six members should be beheaded if they would oppose the choice of `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf? Can such a confusing formation that is surrounded by violence and threat be harmonious with the spirit of Islam or even the modern democracy? How is it acceptable to restrict a grand Sahābiy to such brutal constraints while he is chosen as one of the six members of the Shūrā Committee and one of the highly regarded Sahābah? How can those six grand Sahābah whom were chosen on bases of their having been supreme authorities of Islam (Ahl al-`Aqd wa’l-Hall) be incapable of making any decision except according to the pre-decided regulations? Can such an election be regarded as honest and free? How can the title of free election be given to the decision of that committee while swords were unsheathed on the heads of the members of it and they were forced to decide the matter in a period of three days and forced to accept the personal conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar in face of the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah?
If truth be told, that Shūrā (consultative Committee) lacked its meaning that is currently known for everybody and lacked the spirit of democracy and freedom. Besides, it was afflicted by the negativity of legislating the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar in face of the Holy Sunnah while it is familiar for everybody that the imposing of this restriction reveals that this very restriction was the one and only purpose beyond its formation even if such required compulsion and violence since the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah are not subjected to discrepancy or rejection and those grand Sahābah would not require such a big amount of insistence and threat to adopt them in the practice of decisions.
However, when `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf understood that Imam `Alī rejected the additional stipulation of the caliphate that had been intended to be intruded in the field of the Islamic law, he turned his face to `Uthmān and said, “Do you accept to swear that you, when being the caliph, will act upon the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Prophet, and the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar?’ `Uthmān immediately answered: “Yes, I do.” Hence, he pointed to his shoulders and said, “If you wish.” They then left the place towards the Masjid when a caller summoned people to a congregation… etc.
The last stipulation (i.e. the commitment to the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar) and `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf’s confirmation on it indicate that the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar were dissimilar to the Holy Prophet’s Sunnah, at least, from the viewpoint of Imam `Alī and the adopters of the trend of thorough compliance with the sacred texts. Had the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet been the same, it would have been meaningless for `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf to put Imam `Alī under the obligation of observing them and, similarly, Imam `Alī would not have differentiated between the two declaring that he would bind himself to the Holy Prophet’s Sunnah but he would not observe the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar. Besides, if the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar had been the same as or correspondent with the Holy Prophet’s Sunnah, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf would have accepted to nominate Imam `Alī as the caliph. In plain words, the facts that Imam `Alī refused to declare that he would commit himself to the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar and that `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf refused to nominate him as the caliph because of such prove that there has been a clear-cut contradiction between the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar from one side and the Holy Prophet’s Sunnah from the other.
Since the trend of the thorough compliance with the sacred texts opposed the other trend of Ijtihād and Opinionism, which was invented and supported by Abū-Bakr and `Umar, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf through the confirmation on the observance of the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar attempted to put Ijtihād and Opinionism on application and to give a legal color to the personal decisions that were issued during the reigns of the two in order to enforce the judgment of the impermissibility of violating the two caliphs’ opinions due to others’ Ijtihād or personal views. However, the adopters of the thorough compliance with the sacred texts did not consider the legality of the two caliphs’ personal judgments since they had not been inferred from sacred texts; rather they violated obviously the divine texts and the Holy Prophet’s decisions. They (the adopters of thorough compliance with the sacred texts) therefore tried their bests to report the Holy Prophet’s words and deeds that were opposite to the judgments and personal decisions of Abū-Bakr and `Umar.
On the other side, the fans of the caliphs used to forge fabricated sayings against the Holy Prophet in an attempt to support the opinions of the two caliphs. This was the main reason beyond the unambiguous contradiction in the Hadīth that are reported from those individuals.
The contradiction in Hadīth and the existence of many traditions that support the opinions of the School of the Ahl al-Bayt in the Sunnite reference books of Hadīth does not mean that these traditions were foisted by the “Rāfidah” or the “miscreants” as has been claimed by some scholars; rather these traditions are indicators on the existence of a genuine course believed by the Sahābah who reported these traditions from the Holy Prophet although valves were put in their throats. `Umar ibn al-Khattāb feared that such Sahābah would hold positions of authority and administration of justice after him, since if such authorities were given to such individuals, the big difference between them and him would be clear and thus his standing would be weakened since he would be vituperated.
Because of this obsession, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb had to adopt the course of opening wide the door of Opinionism and Ijtihād and attempt to decrease the reporting and recordation of the Hadīth in order to enact Opinionism and Ijtihād as irrefutable law. This obsession can also be noticed from the following narration of al-Muwaffaq ibn Ahmad on the authority of Muhammad ibn Khālid al-Dabbiy,
`Umar ibn al-Khattāb, once, delivered a sermon in which he said, “If we force you to deem wrong the right that you know, what will you do?” As the attendants kept silent and nobody answer him, `Umar repeated the question three times. Then, Imam `Alī answered, “`Umar: if you do so, we will ask you to repent from this act; and only if you do, we will accept you (as Muslim).” “What if I will not do,” asked `Umar. “We will certainly behead you,” answered Imam `Alī. `Umar then commented, “Praise be to Allah Who has made in this ummah persons who are ready to amend us when we go astray.”
From the previous text, the following points can be inferred:
1) Instead of saying “If we force you to deem wrong in my conception the right that we know” `Umar ibn al-Khattāb said, “If we force you to deem wrong the right that you know.” To ponder over this statement, a careful reader will discover many things.
2) The silence of the Muslims, although the caliph repeated his question three times, bears an obvious indication to the policy of violence and intellectual persecution that was practiced by `Umar on the Sahābah. This fact is correspondent to the procedures of detaining the Sahābah in the capital of the State and prohibiting them from reporting and recording the Hadīth.
3) The statement proves clearly that the adopters of the trend of thorough compliance with the sacred texts would never accept the issuance of decisions based upon personal opinions and Ijtihād; rather those Sahābah adhered to “the right that they knew” as inferred from the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah, not personal opinions and Ijtihād.
4) The concept of asking those who deviate from the religion to repent, and if they reject, they would be sentenced to death penalty, has been an Islamic concept that was adopted by the trend of thorough compliance with the sacred texts. Moreover, this concept would not be changed or misinterpreted. Hence, the claim of “missing the actual interpretation”, as well as the attempts to find justifiable excuses for everyone who makes mistakes as regards the issuance of religious judgment, was not acceptable at all. The Muslims applied this concept to `Uthmān, during his reign, but they stopped carrying it out when `Uthmān declared repentance. Yet, it was again carried out when `Uthmān, again, repeated the same mistakes by issuing personal judgments concerning the religious affairs and ordering to kill the followers of the trend of thorough compliance with the sacred texts.
It has been also said that if `Umar had lived for a longer life committing the same mistakes of issuing religious judgments inferred from his personal views, the Muslims would have killed him in the same way as they killed `Uthmān. In order to avoid the falling of the authority in the hands of the compliers with the sacred texts, `Umar made the words, or decision, of `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf the criterion in the selection of the coming caliph in case the members of the Shūrā Committee would disagree in order, first of all, that he would be able to guarantee the happening of what he (`Umar) desired as regards the next caliphate and, secondly, that `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf would lead the matter to the preferred outcome.
This fact can be more obvious if we ponder over his sighs and regrets when he missed very much Abū-`Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrāh and Sālim, the manumitted slave, and hoped that they had been alive so that he would have appointed one of them as his successor! In this respect, it is worth mentioning that Sālim was a slave while `Umar, on the day of Saqīfah, insisted on the stipulation that a caliph must be from the tribe of Quraysh. Ironically, in his final hours, he wished Sālim were present so that he would make him the caliph! Beyond dispute, this situation means that `Umar did not want the caliph to be held by those whom he disliked and those who disagreed with him in ideas.
In other words, `Umar did not want to deliver the position of caliphate to the promulgators of the spread of Hadīth and the reporters from the Holy Prophet, such as `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib, Abū-Dharr, `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, or `Ammār ibn Yāsir, because these persons and their likes would certainly find fault with his course and conducts and would support the adversary course.
`Abdullāh Ibn `Umar Disagrees With His Father
It is now clear that the secret beyond making the final decision in the issue of the Shūrā Committee in the hands of `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf was to guarantee the happening of what `Umar desired as regards the next caliphate. Besides, a deeper ponderation over the matter demonstrates, too, the secret beyond `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s having not selected his son, `Abdullāh, as his successor and having not chosen him as one of the six members of the Shūrā Committee. `Umar’s excuse in this regard was in fact directed to the scientific personality of `Abdullāh, his son; he claimed that his son did not have acquaintance with the Muslim jurisprudence and religious laws. Answering him who suggested that he would choose his son `Abdullāh for the coming caliphate, `Umar said,
“May Allah be your rival! By suggesting so, you have never sought the pleasure of Allah! Woe to you; how do you ask me to nominate for the caliphate a person who even did not know how to divorce his wife?”
Had this justification been true, `Umar should have said that it would not be feasible to choose `Abdullāh with the existence of grand personalities such as Imam `Alī, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf, `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, Sa`d ibn Abī-Waqqās, and others. As a matter of fact, the question had nothing to do with this justification; rather it referred to the existence of disagreement between the father and the son in notion and course.
`Umar said such about his son because the latter found fault with his father on many occasions. For instance, it has been previously cited that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, about the legality of the temporary marriage, said about a judgment issued by his father, “Will I follow the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet or the judgment of `Umar?” He also said, “I accept the reporting of `Umar and neglect his view.”
In, Mawsū`at `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, Muhammad Rawwās Qal`achiy has listed the questions about which `Abdullāh ibn `Umar disagreed with his father:
1) `Umar decided the permissibility of using or sitting under a shadow for a Muhrim for the Hajj or the `Umrah, while `Abdullāh decided the impermissibility of such.
2) `Umar decided the permissibility of singing, yet lawful songs, for a Muhrim for the Hajj or the `Umrah, while `Abdullāh decided the impermissibility of such.
3) `Umar decided that it is permissible for a Muhrim to eat the meat of a game that is hunted by a non-Muhrim person provided that the Muhrim has not ordered that person to hunt that very game or that the hunter has not hunted that game for the Muhrim personally, while `Abdullāh decided the impermissibility of such.
4) `Umar decided that it is unlawful to sell a land that is subjected to land tax, while `Abdullāh decided the permissibility of such.
5) `Umar decided that it is obligatory upon both the seller and the purchaser of a bondmaid to seek her acquitance, while `Abdullāh decided that only the purchaser is obligatorily required to seek such acquitance.
6) `Umar decided that it is lawful to kill the prisoners of war, while `Abdullāh decided the impermissibility of such.
7) `Umar decided that a person who, during a journey, intends to reside for three days should offer his prayers in the complete, not shortened, form, while `Abdullāh decided that such a person, in order to offer the complete form of prayers, must intend to reside for twelve days.
8) `Umar decided that it is allowable to drink water from a cup that is decorated with silver by putting the mouth on the parts where there is no sliver, while `Abdullāh used to break any cup that is decorated with silver whenever it was offered to him.
9) `Umar decided that it is unlawful to sell the impurified things that can be useful, while `Abdullāh decided the permissibility of such.
10) `Umar decided that it is obligatory to gift one’s sons equally, while `Abdullāh permitted preference in such a matter.
11) `Umar decided the forbiddingness of relations by marriage due to Tasarriy, while `Abdullāh did not consider such.
12) `Umar decided that it is discommended to offer the Prayer of Circumambulation at the times in which it is discommended to perform the ritual Circumambulation, while `Abdullāh did not consider such as discommended.
13) `Umar decided that it is possible to offer, as an offering for the Hajj of Tamattu` and Hajj of Qirān, a sheep, while `Abdullāh decided that the offered animal must be either a cow or a camel.
14) `Umar decided that the jewelry of women is subjected to the Zakāt, while `Abdullāh decided that the Zakāt of jewelry is to borrow it.
15) `Umar decided that Khul` (a kind of divorce) is as same as clear divorce, while `Abdullāh decided it as revocation (of the matrimonial contract), not divorce.
16) `Umar decided that the term of waiting (`Iddah) of a woman that is subjected to Khul` is as same as the term of waiting of a divorcee, while `Abdullāh decided that a woman that is subject to Khul` must practice Istibrā, not `Iddah.
17) `Umar decided that it is lawful for a lady who practices the ritual ablution (Wudū') to pass her hand over her head cover, while `Abdullāh decided the impermissibility of such.
18) `Abdullāh ibn `Umar decided that a fetus of a slaughtered animal must be slaughtered (in order that its meat be decided as lawfully eatable) provided that it has taken the form of an animal and hair has grown on its body, while `Umar decided that it is lawful to have the meat of a fetus (of a slaughtered animal) if that fetus has gone out of its mother’s womb dead or its movement has been as same as the movement of a slaughtered animal. Yet, if such a fetus has gone out of its mother’s womb alive, it is impermissible to have its meat unless it is slaughtered (legally).
19) `Umar decided that a single or two sucks are not considered ritual suckling, while `Abdullāh decided that even a single suck is considered ritual suckling.
20) `Umar decided that a mudabbar is manumitted from the capital, while `Abdullāh decided that a mudabbar is manumitted from the one-third share of an inheritance since it is considered as the will of the legator.
21) `Umar decided that a person who marries a divorced lady for a short period in order that, after he divorces her, it will be lawful for her ex-husband to marry her again is not subjected to the doctrinal provision of fornication (that is lashing), while `Abdullāh considered such a person fornicator that has to be sentenced to the doctrinal provision of fornication.
22) `Umar decided that a slave who marries before he obtains his master’s permission is a minor breach that does not put him (the slave) under the undergoing of the doctrinal provision, while `Abdullāh decided such a marriage as fornication due to which the slave has to undergo the doctrinal provision of fornication.
23) `Umar decided that it is not obligatory to prostrate oneself on the hearing of the Verses of Prostration unless one has recited these verses or listened to them deliberately, while `Abdullāh decided that it is obligatory upon everyone who recites or listens to these verses to prostrate himself.
24) `Umar decided that it is lawful to sing or listen to songs with certain conditions, while `Abdullāh decided singing and listening to songs as unlawful in all cases.
25) `Umar decided that it is not compulsory to observe fasting on the days that are doubted being from the holy month of Ramadān (the Doubt Day; the last day of Sha`bān or Ramadān), while `Abdullāh decided that to observe fasting on such days must be done when it is cloudy.
26) `Umar decided that a traveler must offer the single prayers on the ground, not on the backs of the riding animals, while `Abdullāh decided that it is allowable for travelers to offer such prayers on the backs of their riding animals.
27) `Umar used to practice Qunūt (raising the hands for supplication in the second Rak`ahs of the obligatory prayers) in the Fajr Prayers, while `Abdullāh decided such Qunūt in the Fajr Prayers as innovated heresy.
28) `Umar decided that a late from a congregational prayer may catch the first part of the prayer, while `Abdullāh decided that such a late person can catch the last part of the prayer only.
29) `Umar decided that the most preferred person in the offering of the Deceased Prayer for the body of a dead is his heir, while `Abdullāh decided that the most preferred person in such a case must be the ruling authority.
30) `Umar decided that the commencement of the holy month of Ramadān can be proved due to the testimony of two witnesses, while `Abdullāh decided that a single witness can prove (legally) the commencement of Ramadān.
31) `Umar decided that it is discommended to observe fasting ceaselessly (all the days of one’s age), while `Abdullāh observed such.
32) `Umar decided that the metonymic expressions of divorce, when the intention of divorce is present, are considered one divorce only, while `Abdullāh decided that the explicit metonymic expressions of divorce legalize it, and the implicit metonymic expressions also legalize it according to the intention of the sayer.
33) `Umar decided that the clear divorcee must enjoy alimony during her term of waiting, while `Abdullāh decided that such a divorcee does not deserve alimony.
34) `Umar decided the avowal of the son of the bondmaid whose master evidentially copulated with her, while `Abdullāh decided that such a son is not the master’s unless the latter avows him.
35) `Umar decided that the (legal) guardian of a lost husband must divorce the lady when the term of waiting terminates, while `Abdullāh decided that when the term of waiting terminates, the lady is automatically considered divorcee without the need for the guardian’s divorcing.
36) `Umar decided that the dead body must be coffined with three robes, while `Abdullāh decided five robes for the dead.
37) `Umar decided that the penance of the breach of vow and the penance of the breach of oath are both obligatory in the same degree, while `Abdullāh decided that only the penance of the confirmatory oath is obligatory.
38) `Umar decided that the penance of all kinds of oath is the same, while `Abdullāh decided that the oath is of two categories—confirmatory and non-confirmatory, and each category has a definite kind of penance.
39) `Umar specified the presence of witnesses as stipulation of the validity of matrimonial contracts, while `Abdullāh did not decide such.
Because of the aforesaid points of disagreement between `Umar ibn al-Khattāb and his son, `Abdullāh, the father accused the son of jurisprudential incompetence and mental ineptitude as regards the simplest religious laws. Now, what is the actual motivation beyond `Umar’s statement? The actual motivation is that `Umar did not accept his son’s objections, and his son did not agree to most of the father’s opinions, especially in the issue whether the three-time divorce is decided one divorce that requires two others to be valid or decided valid. `Umar used to insist on his opinion that such a divorce is decided valid for purpose of preventing the Muslims from divorcing their ladies, while `Abdullāh, the son, decided that the law of the Holy Qur'ān and the Sunnah must be regarded in this respect. From this cause, `Umar rejected to nominate his son as member of the Shūrā Committee confirming his rage by saying, “`Abdullāh did not even know how to divorce his wife.” Moreover, the rage of `Umar can be seen obviously through his statement that he addressed to the one who suggested that his son might be one of the members of the Shūrā Committee,“May Allah be your rival! By suggesting so, you have never sought the pleasure of Allah! Woe it you; how do you ask me to nominate for the caliphate a person who even did not know how to divorce his lady?”
`Abdullāh’s disagreement with his father manifested itself very clearly when `Umar (in his final ailment) said to him: “`Abdullāh: Give me that paper! Had Allah wanted for this question (the final judgment in the question of the share of grandfathers from inheritances) to be valid, He would have done it.”
When his son suggested to him to tear that paper himself, the father said: “No, you will not! None should erase it save me.”
Hence, `Umar erased the writing of that paper himself.
Despite Dr. Qal`achiy has listed a record of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar’s decisions in the issuance of which he had followed his father’s opinions, it is clear that these decisions are less than those about which `Abdullāh disagreed with his father. This fact also proves that `Umar took his son away from the position of caliphate because of such disagreement on the issuance of religious laws.
Yet, this discussion does not corroborate that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar stood with the trend of thorough compliance with the sacred texts or he was right in the finding faults with his father’s personal opinions. In fact, some of the decisions of `Umar that `Abdullāh rejected were acceptable as they were deduced from the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah. Hence, we do not criticize `Umar for the issuance of such decisions; rather we criticize him for the issuance of religious rulings that were contradictory to or violating the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah and for his insistence on the compliance with such rulings while the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah say another thing.
Like his father, `Abdullāh permitted Ijtihād, yet with restrictions more than these issued by his father. In the issuance of many questions, `Abdullāh ibn `Umar acted upon his personal views violating the Holy Sunnah or acted upon the course of severe abstinence that took him away from thorough compliance with the sources of legislation. Despite everything, the predominant color of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar’s religious decisions was the inspecting and the compliance with the Holy Sunnah, not Ijtihād and Opinionism.
Ibn Khallakān, as well as other historians, has stated that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar followed the tradition of the Holy Prophet noticeably. The Sahābah, including `Ā’ishah who is reported to have said that none exerted all efforts in the pursuance of the Holy Prophet’s tradition more than `Abdullāh ibn `Umar did, testified this fact.
Nāfi` also narrated that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar used to track the places where the Holy Prophet had sit to offer prayers therein. Whenever he found a tree under whose shadow the Holy Prophet had rested, he watered it so that it would not die.
Mālik ibn Anas narrated on the authority of somebody that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar used to follow the tradition and traces of the Holy Prophets very carefully. Because of such, his intellect was affected.
Previously, we have cited the biography of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar saying that before he died, he had agreed to the majority and followed the general cause of the caliphate and submitted to the decisions that were taken during his father’s reign out of his personal views. Furthermore, in my book entitled Wudū’ al-Nabiy, I have discussed in details all these affairs confirming that although he had argued that the feet in the ritual ablution must be rubbed, not washed, and thus had disagreed with those who validated the rubbing on sandals, he changed this opinion and agreed to the general course that deemed obligatory to wash, not rub, the feet in the ritual ablution. In this respect, al-Fakhr al-Rāziy has narrated on the authority of `Atā' that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar, finally, agreed with the publics in the question of rubbing the sandals during the ritual ablution while he had objected such before.
It is worth mentioning that some historians have confirmed that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar converted to Islam before his father. It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Shihāb that Hafsah and `Abdullāh ibn `Umar had converted to Islam before their father.
This text and its likes may indicate that `Abdullāh ibn `Umar’s opinions must be preferred to his father’s on account of precedence to Islam, since the more preceding to Islam the more pious and the nearer to the Holy Prophet.
In conclusion, some of `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s personal judgments in religious questions contradicted the Holy Sunnah while others agreed with it. On the other hand, Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib had full acquaintance with all the traditions of the Holy Prophet. This distinctive characteristic was testified by `Umar himself as well as grand Sahābah and Tābi`ūn. In this regard, Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy, in Fath al-Bārī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy, has recorded that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb said,
“If the bald (Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib) holds it (the position of caliphate), He shall lead them to the very way (Sunnah).”
Consequently, his son `Abdullāh asked him, “Why do you then not nominate him for it?” The father answered, “I do not want to burden its responsibility after my death as well as in my lifetime!”
 Nahj al-Balāghah 1:50 Sermon No. 18.
 Nahj al-Balāghah 1:50 Sermon No. 17.
 Nahj al-Balāghah 1:50 Sermon No. 50.
 Ibn Tāwūs: al-Lahūf fī Qatlā al-Tufūf 12.
 Al-Māwardiy: I`lām al-Nubuwwah 1:174; al-Āmudiy: al-Ihkām 4:244; Tafsīr al-Qurtubiy 15:162, 164; Tabaqāt al-Hanafiyyah 524; Muqaddimat Ibn Khuldūn 197; Kashf al-Ghitā' 1:184.
 Abu’l-Husayn al-Basriy: al-Mu`tamad 2:368-369 where he records that the Holy Prophet prayed to Almighty Allah, saying, “O Allah! Make the Right follow `Alī wherever he goes.” Also, al-Ghazzāliy: al-Mustasfā 170; al-Rāziy: al-Mahsūl 6:181; al-Gharnawiy al-Hanafiy: al-Ghurrah al-Munīfah 51; al-Haythamiy: Majma` al-Zawā'id 7:235. Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy, in Tārīkh Baghdād 14:320, has recorded on the authority of Ummu-Salamah that the Holy Prophet said, “`Alī is being with the Right, and the Right is being with `Alī; and they shall not separate from one another until they join at the Divine Pool on the Resurrection Day.”
 Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 10:304; Tafsīr al-Tabariy 6:43; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:223 H. 12043; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Tamhīd 5:196; Tafsīr al-Baghawiy 1:403; Tuhfat al-Muhtāj 2:323 H. 1350; Talkhīs al-Hubayr 3:89; Kitāb al-Taqrīr wa’l-Tahbīr 3:412; al-Durr al-Manthūr 2:756.
 Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fi’l-Islām 343.
 Dr. al-Rudayniy: al-Manāhij al-Usūliyyah 171.
 Al-Jassās: Ahkām al-Qur'ān 2:314; Sharh al-Nawawiy `Alā Sahīh Muslim 11:91; al-Suyūtiy: al-Jāmi` al-Saghīr 1:48 H. 288. However, al-`Ajalūniy, in Kashf al-Khafā’ 1:66 H. 153, says that many master scholars have decided this Hadīth as baseless.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 2:349 H. 2279, 3:1282 H. 3289; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:411 H. 3907, 3908; Musnad Ibn al-Ju`d 1:83 H. 464; Musnad Abū-Ya`liy 9:234 H. 5341.
 Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 10:156; Musnad Ahmad 3:145 H. 12501; Sunan al-Dārimiy 2:314 H. 2518; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 4:198 H. 4597; Sunan Ibn Mājah 2:1322 H. 3993.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 2:333 H. 4167.
 Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fi’l-Islām 142-3.
 Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fi’l-Islām 141 as quoted from al-Shātibiy: al-Muwāfiqāt.
 Referring to Hadīths that confirm the necessity of testing the Sunnah through the Holy Qur'ān, Ibn `Abd al-Barr says: “All these Hadīths have not been authentically reported from the Prophet according to the criteria of the experts…” (Jāmi`u Bayān al-`Ilm wa-Fadlihi 2:191 and ‘Āridat al-Ahwadhiy 10:132) In another place, he says: “The miscreants and the Khawārij have fabricated this Hadīth—concerning the necessity of testing the Sunnah through the Holy Qur'ān.” `Abd al-Ghaniy `Abd al-Khāliq, in Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 474, makes a study aimed at arousing doubts around the Hadīths involved.
 al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Taqyīd al-`Ilm 50; Ibn `Abd al-Rabb al-Qurtubiy: Jāmi`u Bayān al-`Ilm wa-Fadlih(i) 1:64; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 5:339; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3:287.
 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah: I`lām al-Muwaqqi`īn 4:148.
 Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 3:150 No. 77.
 Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 1:158; Sunan al-Nassā'iy 5:166 H. 8575; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 10:257 H. 10598; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Musatdrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 2:164 H. 2656 (al-Hakīm says that although this narration is authentic on the criterion of Muslim, neither he nor did al-Bukhāriy record it.) Hilyat al-Awliyā' 1:319; al-Ahādīth al-Mukhtārah 10:414.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Ihkām fi Usūl al-Ahkām 1:174.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 7:156; Sahīh Muslim 3:1259 H. 22; al-Kifāyah fī `Ilm al-Riwāyah 1:15.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:420 H. 7500; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 3:185 H. 824; Sharh Ma`ānī al-Āthār 2:231 (In this reference book, it is written that `Ā'ishah said, “Certainly, the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet should be adopted rather than `Umar’s.”) al-Furū` 3:224; Sharh Sunan Ibn Mājah 214 H. 2978.
 Al-Jawziy: Zād al-Ma’ād 1:212-213; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:327; al-San’āniy: Irshād al-Nuqqād 24-25.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Ihkām fī Usūl al-Ahkām 6:208.
 Dr. Muhammad Yūsuf Mūsā: Muhādarāt fī Tārīkh al-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 24 as found in Sayyid Muhammad Taqiy al-Hakīm’s introduction to Sayyid Sharaf al-Din’s al-Nass wa’l-Ijtihād 52.
Dr. Muhammad Yūsuf Mūsā: Muhādarāt fī Tārīkh al-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 24 as found in Sayyid Muhammad Taqiy al-Hakīm’s introduction to Sayyid Sharaf al-Din’s al-Nass wa’l-Ijtihād 52.
 Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 3:357.
 The doctrinal provision of fornication is stoning; therefore, `Umar decided Khālid ibn al-Walīd as have committed fornication since he violated the Islamic law of the defined term of waiting for widows.
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:273; Ibn Habbān: al-Thuqāt 2:169; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 2:255; al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A`lām al-Nubalā' 1:378; Shadhrāt al-Dhahab 1:15.
 Al-Wāfī al-Mahdiy: al-Ijtihād fi’l-Sharī’ah al-Islāmiyyah 47. Notice how he tries to legalize Opinionism for the Sahābah and how he adds the name of Imam `Alī to the list although the latter is well-known for having thoroughly complied with the Sacred Texts.
 Al-Wāfī al-Mahdiy: al-Ijtihād fi’l-Sharī’ah al-Islāmiyyah 47.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Ihkām fi Usūl al-Ahkām 2:188.
 Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 299-300.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:126; Musnad al-Hamīdiy 1:214 H. 449; al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 4:140 H. 3816; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:153.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:126; Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:57 H. 95; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 5:44 H. 2676; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 4:200 H. 4607; Sunan Ibn Mājah 1:15, 16 H. 42, 43.
 Al-Shawkaniy: Fath al-Qadīr 2:373.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:245 H. 12192 (It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Sīrīn that `Ubaydah said, “Indeed, I have memorized one hundred contradictory verdicts about the share of grandfathers from inheritances all issued by `Umar ibn al-Khattāb.”) See also Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 12:21; Sharh al-Zarqāniy 3:142.
 Sahīh Muslim 2:1099 H. 1472; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 2:213 H. 2793; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1: 314 H. 2877.
 Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 7:292 H. 13225; Sunan al-Dārqutniy 4:134 H. 33, 34; al-Sarakhsiy: al-Mubsūt 13:5; Subul al-Salām 3:12.
 Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 4:378 H. 7985; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:253 H. 12237; Ibn Qudāmah: al-Mughni 6:175; Manār al-Sabīl 2:76.
 Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 1:238 H. 915; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:319; Sunan al-Nassā'iy al-Kubrā 1:133 H. 302.
 Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 2:133 H. 7342; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 2:433 H. 3974; al-Musnad al-Mustakhraj `Alā Sahīh Muslim 2:428 H. 1885.
 Sharh Ma`ānī al-Āthār 1:499; Musnad Abī-Hanīfah 1:82; al-Muhallā 5:124.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:126; Sunan Ibn Mājah 1:15 H. 42, 43; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 1:174-177 H. 329, 331, 332, 333.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 1: 221 No. 29167; Mustadrak al-Wasā’il wa-Mustanbat al-Masā’il 17:300; al-Firdaws bi-Ma’thūr al-Khitāb 1:479; Fayd al-Qadīr 2:149.
 Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: al-Sawā`iq al-Muhriqah 148 (in the edition of al-Muhammadiyyah Press) and 90 (in Al-Maymaniyyah Press – Egypt); al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr 5:166 H. 497.
 Al-Fayrūz'ābādiy: al-Tabsirah 369; al-Sarakhshiy: al-Mabsūt 16:69; al-Usūl 314.
 Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 2:486 H. 3676, 3:162 H. 4715, 3:517 H. 5926 (al-Hakīm says, “These Hadīths are authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhāriy and Muslim; yet, they have not recorded them.”) See also Musnad al-Rūyāniy 2:253 H. 152.
 Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: al-Ijtihād fī’l-Islam 104.
 Dr. Turkiy: Munādharāt if Usūl al-Sharī’ah bayna Ibn Hazm wa’l-Bājiy 333.
 Al-Wāfi al-Mahdiy: al-Ijtihād fi’l-Shari’ah al-Islāmiyyah 208.
 Dr. Turkiy: Munādharāt if Usūl al-Sharī’ah bayna Ibn Hazm wa’l-Bājiy 330 (as quoted from Loqique p.23)
 Hāshiyat al-Sāwiy `Alā Tafsīr al-Jalālayn 3:10 (Beirut: Dār Ihyā' al-Turāth al-`Arabiy). The Chief Judge in the Legislative Court of Qatar, Shaykh Ahmad ibn Hajar Āl-Butāmiy, refuted the quoted words of al-Sāwiy in a book entitled ‘Tanzīh al-Sunnah wa’l-Qur'ān `An Kawnihimā Masdar al-Dalāl wa’l-Kufrān’, as quoted from al-Haqq al-Dāmigh 10 by `Allāmah al-Khalīliy, the Mufti of Oman Sultanate.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 11:25 H. 30481; Al-Jassās: Ahkām al-Qur'ān 2:111.
 Al-Shaybāniy: al-Diyāt 1:54 (It has been narrated on the authority of `Amr ibn Shu`ayb on the authority of his father that his grandfather said that Abū-Bakr and `Umar decided that a free man who kills a slave must be killed as retaliation.)
 Sunan al-Dārqutniy 3:133 H. 158, 160; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 8:35; Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 5:409 H. 27477; Mālik ibn Anas: al-Muwatta' 2:873.
 Nahj al-Balāghah; 2:114 Sermon No. 175.
 Nahj al-Balāghah; 2:114 Sermon No. 85.
 Mu`ammar ibn Rāshid: al-Jāmi` 2:328; Ahmad ibn Hanbal: Fadā'il al-Sahābah 1:180 H. 185; Shu`ab al-Īmān 6:73 H. 7530.
 Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 20:27.
 Ahmad Amīn: Fajr al-Islām 240.
 Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 321.
 Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fī’l-Islam 77.
 It has been confirmed that al-Shāfi`iy, after his migration to Egypt, changed many of his opinions in the Muslim jurisprudence and decided others.
 Two different narrations have been reported from Ahmad ibn Hanbal as regards his verdicts in jurisprudential issues.
 Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fī’l-Islam 244. See also page 347.
 Al-Karkhiy: al-Usūl. This book is printed with al-Dabbūsī’s Ta’sīs al-Nadhar as quoted from Dr. Mustafā Sa'īd al-Hasan: Athar al-Ikhtilāf fī’l-Qawā`id al-Usūliyyah (Effects of Discrepancy in the Foundations of Usūl). Publisher: Al-Hasan Foundation – Second edition, AH 1402.
 `Abd al-Wahhāb Khallāf: `Ilm Usūl al-Fiqh 15.
 Al-Ghazzāliy: al-Mustasfā 1:296; al-Āmudiy: al-Ihkām 4:13; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah: I`lām al-Muwaqqi`īn 1:260.
 Abū-Dharr al-Ghifāri openly declared this principle. See Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:136; Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:27; `Abd al-Ghaniy `Abd al-Khāliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 3:464.
 Dr. Ibrāhīm Baydūn: Malāmih al-Tayyārāt al-Siyāsiyyah fī’l-Qarn al-Awwal al-Hijriy (The Features of the Political Trends in the First Hijri Century) 103.
 For thorough details about the Shūrā (consultative) Committee decided by `Umar, the following essay has been excerpted from the commentary on the Shaqshaqiyyah Sermon (No. 3) in Nahj al-Balāghah:
When `Umar was wounded by Abū- Lu’lu’ah and he saw that it was difficult for him to survive because of the deep wound, he formed a consultative committee and nominated for it `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib, `Uthmān ibn `Affān, `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf, al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwām, Sa`d ibn Abī-Waqqās and Talhah ibn `Ubaydullāh and bound them that after three days of his death they should select one of themselves as the Caliph otherwise they would be beheaded while for those three days, Suhayb should act as Caliph. On receipt of these instructions, some members of the committee requested him to indicate what ideas he had about each of them to enable them to proceed further in their light. `Umar therefore disclosed his own view about each individual. He said that Sa`d was harsh-tempered and hot headed; `Abd al-Rahmān was the Pharaoh of the community; al-Zubayr was, if pleased, a true believer but if displeased an unbeliever; Talhah was the embodiment of pride and haughtiness, if he was made caliph he would put the ring of the caliphate on his wife’s finger while `Uthmān did not see beyond his kinsmen. As regards `Alī, he is enamored of the Caliphate although I know that he alone can run it on right lines. Nevertheless, despite this admission, he thought it necessary to constitute the consultative Committee and in selecting its members and laying down the working procedure, he made sure that the Caliphate would take the direction in which he wished to turn it. Thus, a man of ordinary prudence can draw the conclusion that all the factors for `Uthmān’s success were present therein. If we look at its members we see that one of them namely `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf is the husband of `Uthmān’s sister, next Sa`d ibn Abī-Waqqās besides bearing malice towards `Alī is a relation and kinsman of `Abd al-Rahmān. Neither of them can be taken to go against `Uthmān. The third Talhah ibn `Ubaydullāh about whom Professor Muhammad `Abduh writes in his annotation on Nahj al-Balāghah:
Talhah was inclined towards `Uthmān and the reason for it was no less than that he was against `Alī, because he himself was at al-Taymiy and Abū-Bakr’s accession to the Caliphate had created bad blood between Banū-Taym and Banū-Hāshim.
As regards al-Zubayr, even if he had voted for `Alī, what could his single vote achieve. According to al-Tabariy’s statement, Talhah was not present in al-Madīnah at that time but his absence did not stand in the way of `Uthmān’s success. Rather even if he were present, as he did actually reach at the meeting (of the Committee) , and he is taken to be `Alī’s supporter, still there could be no doubt in `Uthmān’s success because `Umar’s sagacious mind had set the working procedure that:
If two agree about one and the other two about another, then `Abdullāh ibn `Umar should act as the arbitrator. The group whom he orders should choose the Caliph from among themselves. If they do not accept `Abdullāh ibn `Umar’s verdict, support should be given to the group which includes `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf, but if the others do not agree, they should be beheaded for opposing this verdict. (al-Tabariy, vol.1, pp.2779-2780; Ibn al-Athīr, vol.3, p.67).
Here, disagreement with the verdict of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar has no meaning since he was directed to support the group which included `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf. He had ordered his son `Abdullāh and Suhayb that:
If the people differ, you should side with the majority, but if three of them are on one side and the other three on the other, you should side with the group including `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf. (al-Tabariy, vol.1, pp.2725, 2780; Ibn al-Athīr, vol.3, pp.51, 67).
In this instruction, the agreement with the majority also means support of `Abd al-Rahmān because the majority could not be on any other side since fifty blood-thirsty swords had been put on the heads of the opposition group with orders to fall on their heads on `Abd al-Rahmān’s behest. Amīr al-Mu’minīn’s eye had fore-read it at that very moment that the Caliphate was going to `Uthmān as appears from his following words which he spoke to al-'Abbās ibn `Abd al-Muttalib:
The Caliphate has been turned away from us” al-'Abbās asked how he could know it. Then he replied, “`Uthmān has also been coupled with me and it has been laid down that the majority should be supported; but if two agree on one and two on the other, then support should be given to the group which includes `Abd al-Rahmān ibn `Awf. Now Sa`d will support his cousin `Abd al-Rahmān who is of course the husband of `Uthmān’s sister” (ibid)
However, after `Umar’s death, this meeting took place in the room of `Ā’ishah (the Holy Prophet’s widow and Abū-Bakr’s daughter) and on its door stood Abū-Talhah al-Ansāriy with fifty men having drawn swords in their hands. Talhah started the proceedings and inviting all others to be witness said that he gave his right of vote to `Uthmān. This touched al-Zubayr’s sense of honor as his mother Safiyyah daughter of `Abd al-Muttalib was the sister of the Holy Prophet’s father. So, he gave his right of vote to `Alī. Thereafter, Sa`d ibn Abī-Waqqās made his right of vote to `Abd al-Rahmān. This left three members of the consultative committee out of whom `Abd al-Rahmān said that he was willing to give up his own right of vote if Imam `Alī and `Uthmān gave him the right to choose one of them or one of these two should acquire this right by withdrawing. This was a trap in which `Alī had been entangled from all sides namely that either he should abandon his own right or else allow `Abd al-Rahmān to do as he wished. The first case was not possible for him; that is, to give up his own right and elect `Uthmān or `Abd al-Rahmān. So, he clung to his right, while `Abd al-Rahmān separating himself from it assumed this power and said to Amīr al-Mu’minīn, “I pay you allegiance on your following the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of the Prophet and the conduct of the two Shaykhs, (Abū-Bakr and `Umar). `Alī replied, “Rather on following the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet and my own findings.” When he got the same reply even after repeating the question thrice he turned to `Uthmān saying, “Do you accept these conditions” He had no reason to refuse and so he agreed to the conditions and allegiance was paid to him. When Amīr al Mu’minīn saw his rights being thus trampled he said:
This is not the first day when you behaved against us. I have only to keep good patience. Allah is the Helper against whatever you say. By Allah, you have not made `Uthmān Caliph but in the hope that he would give back the Caliphate to you. “
After recording the events of the Shūrā Committee , Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd has written that when allegiance had been paid to `Uthmān, `Alī addressed `Uthmān and `Abd al-Rahmān saying, “May Allah sow the seed of dissension among you” and so it happened that each turned a bitter enemy of the other and `Abd al-Rahmān did not ever after speak to `Uthmān till death. Even on death-bed, he turned his face on seeing him.
On seeing these events, the question arises whether the Shūrā committee means confining the matter to six persons, thereafter to three and finally to one only. Also whether the condition of following the conduct of the two Shaykhs (Abū-Bakr and `Umar) for Caliphate was put by `Umar or it was just a hurdle put by `Abd al-Rahmān between Imam `Alī and the Caliphate, although the first Caliph did not put forth this condition at the time of nominating the second Caliph, namely that he should follow the former’s footsteps. What then was the occasion for this condition here?
However, Amīr al-Mu’minīn had agreed to participate in it in order to avoid mischief and to put an end to arguing so that others should be silenced and should not be able to claim that they would have voted in his favor and that he himself evaded the consultative committee and did not give them an opportunity of selecting him.
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:586; Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 7:146; Subul al-Hudā wa’l-Rashād 11:278.
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:581.
 Refer to the story of the Shūrā Committee in Tārīkh al-Tabariy 4:190, 227-238; al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah 7:147.
 See the introduction of Ibn Abī-Shaybah: al-Musannaf.
 Al-Khawārzmiy: al-Manāqib 52.
 See Sālīm’s biography in Ibn Sa`d’s al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3:85; Ibn `Abd al-Barr’s al-Istī`āb 4:1799 No. 3265; al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Sahābah 3:13 No. 3054.
 Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 6:2506 H. 6442; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:55 H. 391; Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:235.
 Tārīkh al-Tabariy 2:580; Muqaddimat Ibn Khuldūn 1:194.
 Muhammad Rawwās Qal`achiy: Mawsū`at `Abdullāh ibn `Umar 24 as quoted from Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 4:145; Tārīkh al-Tabariy 4:228; Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 1:190.
 See Mawsū`at Fiqh Ibn `Umar 33-39.
 Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb: al-Sunnah qabl al-Tadwīn 311 as quoted from Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3:247 (Part II).
 Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 4:145; Ibn Khallakān: Wafiyyāt al-A`yān 3:29.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan 5:245; al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’ 3:213; Ibn al-Athīr: Usd al-Ghābah fī Ma`rifat al-Sahābah 3:227.
 Al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’ 3:213; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 4:144; Abū-Na`īm: Hilyat al-Awliyā’ 1:310; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:247 H. 6376.
 Al-Fakhr al-Rāziy: al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr 11:164.
 al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’ 3:209.
 Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bārī fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 7:68; Tārīkh al-Tabariy; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3:342; Abū-Na`īm: Hilyat al-Awliyā' 4:152; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb 3:1154.
The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith, Causes and Effects
A Glance at the Methodologies and Principles of the two Muslims Schools of Hadith
By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani