INQUIRIES CONCERNING THE HADITHS OF MUSNAD AHMAD AND THEIR ANSWERS
Muti Syed: When a Companion came a little late on Friday, ʿUmar (RA), in a manner of speaking, reprimanded him. He offered the excuse that he was delayed while performing wuḍūʾ. ʿUmar (RA) also reprimanded him for this, asking why he had not performed ghusl [no. 199]. Did ʿUmar (RA) consider ghusl obligatory? Otherwise, what could be the reason for reprimanding? Ammar Nasir: This Companion was ʿUthmān (RA). This is a well-known incident; it is also found in Ṣaḥīḥ al- Bukhārī, no. 878. ʿUmar did not consider ghusl obligatory, but it is among the special etiquettes of Friday, and Muslims should generally make arrangements to perform ghusl. Especially such persons who are also leaders should be more attentive to it. From this aspect ʿUmar (RA) said, “So, you were so occupied that you did not even take time for ghusl, and you have also come late to the mosque!” Here the matter is not one of juristic obligation. Muti Syed: This report has come several times that the Prophet said that he would expel the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and would allow only Muslims to reside in it [no. 201]. Was this command not only for the polytheists—that they be expelled from the Arabian Peninsula? Ammar Nasir: No. As for the polytheists, the command was that they should believe, or else fighting would be waged against them. Their leaving the Arabian Peninsula, or being expelled from it, is not an option given by the Qurʾān. The Qurʾān is not saying that they should depart from here or believe. Yes, if they themselves leave in order to avoid that, that is another matter; but the Qurʾān itself has not stated this option. In contrast to them, concerning the People of the Book, God Most High had permitted that jizyah may be taken from them. In this, the Prophet is stating a political preference: that they are permitted to remain by paying jizyah, but in view of the special status of the Arabian Peninsula, my intention is that I will not allow even the People of the Book to remain in it. It will become an area exclusively for Muslims. Muti Syed: The Muslims at that time were at the height of their power; then what concerns for protection did they have from them? Does Islam not wish to accept another religion in this region, or can it not coexist with a pluralistic society? Ammar Nasir: The basis of this policy is the special status of this region. Apart from it, pluralism can be accepted in other regions, but not in the Arabian Peninsula. The most sacred centers of the Muslims are here; therefore, it has been reserved specifically for the Muslims. Muti Syed: Does “the Arabian Peninsula” mean the entire Arabia that we see on the map? Ammar Nasir: In the reports you will find different expressions. In some, the Ḥijāz is mentioned—that he said: I shall expel them from the Ḥijāz—because the actual central region where the Two Sanctuaries are is, in any case, the Ḥijāz itself. In some reports, the expression Jazīrat al-ʿArab is found. Now, which expression the Prophet (PBUH) used cannot be stated definitively. It is possible that he used Jazīrat al-ʿArab, and it is also possible that he used the Ḥijāz. Practically, what happened was that ʿUmar (RA), in his period, focused on the Ḥijāz and the areas near it, that Jews and Christians should not reside here. As for what is now called Jazīrat al-ʿArab, which includes the entire region up to Yemen, the Companions did not insist upon expulsion from it. In Najrān, Christians continued to live; later, in the time of ʿUmar (RA), some dispute arose among them, so at their own request they were transferred from here to some other region. In this way, the Jews who were exiled from Khaybar were also not expelled beyond the boundaries of Jazīrat al-ʿArab. In the regions of Syria there were some settlements—Taymā and Aylah and the like—where some Jews had already been living; they were sent there. The basic objective was that the central region of the Muslims, where their two sacred sites are, should not be exposed to any kind of risk. It should remain politically completely secure. There should be no non-Muslim population here. Muti Syed: Is the same ruling for today as well—that non-Muslims will not be settled around Mecca and Medina? Ammar Nasir: Yes; for this reason, permission is not granted in Saudi Arabia. In the Ḥijāz it is absolutely not allowed, but in some other regions they perhaps reside temporarily. In recent days, when the UAE—which is settled on one edge of Jazīrat al-ʿArab—permitted Hindus to build a temple there, then this discussion arose: should this restriction apply to the whole of Jazīrat al-ʿArab, that only Muslims will be here and non-Muslims will not be granted citizenship here? The government there has decided that we will grant it, but Javed Ahmed Ghamidi disagreed with this. He said that given the nature and sensitivity of the matter, there is room, as an ijtihād, to restrict this prohibition to the Ḥijāz and give a slight concession in other regions; however, it is better that it be applied to the whole of Jazīrat al-ʿArab. Muti Syed: If some non-Muslims settle there, what harm is there in it, after all? Ammar Nasir: Not in a religious sense; view it from the political aspect: if they live there, then tomorrow their numbers will also increase. In today’s democratic system, it then becomes difficult for you, politically, to maintain discrimination; you will have to grant them political rights as well. By reserving this region for the Muslims, the real objective is that there should be no presence of unbelief and polytheism here. So, given the status of this region—that only Muslims reside in it—there is a danger, in terms of outcomes, that this will be undermined. This is a ruling that is preventative in nature (sadd al-dharīʿah); otherwise, disbelievers and polytheists live elsewhere in the world as well—if they live there too, it makes no difference to Islam. But an arrangement has been made that the center of monotheism and the surrounding region remain secure, and that only Muslims be in it, so that there be no presence of unbelief—and especially polytheism—there. It is from this angle that this statement has been made. Muti Syed: In the expedition of Khaybar, regarding the martyrs, the Companions were saying that so-and-so is a martyr, and so-and-so is also a martyr; then regarding one of them the Prophet (PBUH) said that I saw him in Hell; he had stolen a cloak from the spoils of war (no. 203). But in the next report it is stated that two funeral processions passed before the Prophet (PBUH). Regarding one, some people said that he was a very good man, so the Prophet (PBUH) said: “Paradise has become obligatory for him” and regarding the other, upon hearing the Companions’ remarks, he said: “Hell has become obligatory” (no. 204). In this case, the testimony of the Companions is being accepted, whereas in the incident of Khaybar, their testimony is not considered sufficient. What is the reason for this difference? Ammar Nasir: There is no contradiction between the two. One point is that if people bear good testimony about someone, and according to Allah’s knowledge there is nothing that contradicts it—that is, there is no deed in his actions that opposes this outward testimony—then it is acceptable. In reality, the testimony of people is not itself the cause of forgiveness; rather, if people testify positively, it is an indication that the person’s inner state is likely sound, and from this we may infer that Allah has forgiven him. However, the ultimate reality is known only to Allah. If there exists something in a person’s deeds that people are unaware of, but which is known to Allah, then Allah will judge accordingly. Muti Syed: Regarding the prisoners at Badr, ʿUmar’s (RA) opinion was that they should be killed, but Abū Bakr (RA) and other Companions presented the opinion that they should be released after taking ransom. Then verses were revealed concerning this, in which the Prophet (PBUH) and the Companions were severely reproached for taking ransom from the prisoners. While mentioning this incident, ʿUmar (RA) links the defeat at Uḥud with this incident of taking ransom (no. 208). The discussion is about Badr; how is it being linked with Uḥud? Ammar Nasir: His meaning is that since releasing the prisoners of Badr and taking ransom was displeasing to God, it was said: very well—if you have taken ransom from seventy prisoners, then God will take its expiation from you in the form of your lives. Thereafter, when the battle of Uḥud occurred, God, exalted, granted martyrdom to the same number of Muslims. So ʿUmar (RA) is saying that the loss of the lives of seventy Muslims was the punishment given to the Muslims for taking ransom from the seventy prisoners of Badr. Muti Syed: Is he inferring this on his own, or did God, exalted, inform the Prophet (PBUH)? Ammar Nasir: In this report, this point has been stated only on the authority of ʿUmar (RA)—meaning, he is inferring that the loss of life at Uḥud was due to taking ransom at Badr. Perhaps, from the number seventy (70) in both incidents, he is making this inference. However, in some exegetical reports it also occurs that at the occasion of Badr, Gabriel (AS) came to the Prophet (PBUH) with a formal offer: that you should tell your Companions that if they wish they may kill the prisoners, and if they wish they may take ransom; but then, in exchange for the ransom, in the next battle the same number of Muslims will be killed. Upon this, the Companions chose taking ransom and said that in the next battle the same number among us may be martyred. Ibn Kathīr has transmitted this report, but he has also said that it is a very strange report—meaning, its content is very odd. It also seems to me that ʿUmar (RA) or some other Companions were only inferring that since at Uḥud our companions were martyred in the same number, this was probably, from God, a collective expiation for taking ransom at Badr. Muti Syed: Maulana Iṣlāḥī views these verses in an entirely different way. On what basis is his disagreement? Ammar Nasir: Yes; he interprets these verses in a completely different manner. He says that here the reprimand and rebuke were not directed at the Muslims; rather, they were directed at the polytheists. He says that permission to take the enemy as prisoners in war and to take ransom from them had already been granted earlier in Sūrah Muḥammad (47:4). So if, under that permission, the Muslims captured some prisoners at Badr and took ransom from them, then there is no justification for reproaching them for it. According to Maulana, the interpretation of the verse is that when the Prophet (PBUH) took prisoners and took ransom from them, the defeated polytheists, in order to remove their humiliation, tried to make it a means of propaganda: look, this is God’s Prophet who is shedding the blood of his people so that he may take them prisoner and then take ransom from them in exchange for their freedom. In response to this, the Qurʾān has vindicated the Prophet (PBUH): that it is not befitting for a prophet that he should shed blood for this purpose—that prisoners come into his hand; in reality, you are seekers of the wealth of the world. That is, the address is not to the people of faith; rather, it is to Quraysh: you are greedy for wealth—who, out of love for the world, are even denying the Messenger and have also come to wage war against him. For the moment, God has given you an opportunity to mend your ways; otherwise, had He willed, He could have sent down upon you a tremendous punishment in this very battle. That is, Maulana takes turīdūna ʿaraḍa al-dunya (You desire the goods of the world) (al-Anfāl, 8:67) and lamassakum fīmā akhadhtum ʿadhābun ʿaẓīm (A tremendous punishment could have touched you because of what you took) (al-Anfāl 8:68) as being addressed to Quraysh, and he takes akhadhtum not in the sense of taking ransom, but in the sense of “adopting a course of conduct.” Muti Syed: What is your opinion regarding this interpretation? Ammar Nasir: I have many objections to it. Fifteen or twenty years ago, I also stated them in an academic session of Al-Mawrid. In reality, there are two or three such matters that prevent acceptance of Maualan Iṣlāḥī’s reinterpretation. One is that the sentence turīdūna ʿaraḍa al-dunyā wa-llāhu yurīdu al-ākhirah (You desire the goods of the world, whereas God intends the Hereafter)—to imagine its addressee as Quraysh is entirely implausible. This can only be said to the Muslims: that at this occasion you inclined toward worldly benefit, whereas God’s intent was the Hereafter. This is a sentence of admonition and directing attention, whose addressees can only be the Muslims; it is not an appropriate occasion to say to the disbelievers: why has your attention turned away from the Hereafter? Then, along with it, there is the next sentence: lawlā kitābun mina llāhi sabaqa lamassakum fīmā akhadhtum ʿadhābun ʿaẓīm (Had there not been a prior decree from God, a tremendous punishment would have touched you because of what you took). This too cannot be said to Quraysh in the context of Badr. For them, the battle of Badr itself was a tremendous punishment. Their front-rank leadership was laid low, and they were afflicted with a crushing defeat by which, in the eyes of the whole of Arabia, their leadership status was left badly damaged. It is for this reason that the Qurʾān calls the battle of Badr yawm al-furqān. Likewise, taking akhadhtum in the sense of “adopting a course of conduct” is also a very rare meaning. In the Qurʾān, at the very least, there is no precedent for it. The verse to which Maulana has referred for this usage does not constitute a precedent: qad akhadhnā amranā min qablu (al-Tawbah 9:50). Here, the verb akhadha has not come alone; rather, it is the whole construction akhadhnā amranā. The lone verb akhadhtum readily conveys the meaning of taking something (Tadabbur-e Qurʾān 3/511). Muti Syed: What do you say about this argument: that permission to take prisoners and to take ransom had already been given in Sūrah Muḥammad, so how could the Muslims be reprimanded and rebuked because of it? Ammar Nasir: Yes, this is a valid question, and it is also before other exegetes. Maulana Mawdūdī answers this question by saying that, in reality, in Sūrah Muḥammad, God granted permission to take prisoners on the condition that first the enemy be thoroughly subjected to bloodshed, and then they be taken prisoner: ḥattā idhā athkhantumūhum fa-shuddū al-wathāq (until, when you have thoroughly subdued them, then bind them firmly). Maulana says that at Badr the Companions began taking the polytheists prisoner before thoroughly shedding their blood, and the motive for this was that by taking ransom from them we may improve our financial condition somewhat. So God in fact expressed displeasure at this shortcoming. In this connection, Maulana has also cited the opinion of Saʿd ibn Muʿādh, which Ibn Hishām has transmitted in the sīrah. When Saʿd ibn Muʿādh saw the Muslims seizing prisoners and tying them up, he did not like it. The Prophet (PBUH), sensing his reaction, asked him, and he said: this was our first encounter against the polytheists, so if, instead of taking prisoners, we had put all of them to the sword, that would have been better (Tafhīm al-Qurʾān 2/159). Muti Syed: This seems a fairly reasonable and weighty explanation. What is your opinion? Ammar Nasir: Yes, I too find this justification correct, with some slight modification. In reality, if one reflects upon the directive of Sūrah Muḥammad, it becomes clear that God, Exalted is He, has set forth a comprehensive policy concerning the entire sequence of wars that was to come with the polytheists, and has said that this policy is to be followed until the war lays down its burdens [i.e., until the polytheists’ capacity to resist is completely exhausted] (ḥattā taḍaʿa al-ḥarbu awzārahā). In this strategy, two stages of war have been described. Regarding the first stage, it is said that the polytheists are to be subjected to extensive bloodshed and their power is to be crushed (fa-idhā laqītumu alladhīna kafarū fa-ḍarba al-riqāb). In this stage, God, Exalted is He, has emphasized only striking the necks. Then, after that, in the second stage it is said that they are to be taken as prisoners of war (ḥattā idhā athkhantumūhum fa-shuddū al-wathāq). That is, here the intent is not, in one and the same battle, first to shed their blood and then to take them captive; rather, two stages of the entire anticipated sequence of wars have been stated, and it has been said that in the first stage all attention should remain focused on putting the polytheists to the sword. Yes, when a substantial number of them have already been killed in the wars, then in the next stage they may also be taken captive. In the report concerning Badr to which Maulana Mawdūdī has referred, from Saʿd ibn Muʿādh, he too is saying precisely this: that this was our first encounter with the polytheists, and in it we ought to have finished off, right there on the battlefield, all those who had come under our control; there would have been no occasion to spare anyone’s life such that the matter would reach the point of taking him captive. Muti Syed: ʿUmar (RA) relates that the Prophet (PBUH) forbade practicing coitus interruptus (ʿazl) without the consent of a free woman (no. 212). ʿAzl was a method of preventing pregnancy. Does this indicate that bearing a child is the woman’s right, and that if she wishes to have a child, the husband should not prevent her? Ammar Nasir: The commentators mention both aspects. One is that having children is the woman’s right, and if she wishes to have children, the husband should not prevent her from it unilaterally. However, this does not mean that it is only the woman’s right and that the husband has no right. It is a decision to be made by both together. If, for some reason, the husband does not wish to have a child, then obviously the wife, too, should not insist unilaterally. The second aspect the commentators mention is that, with reference to conjugal rights, it is also the woman’s right that ʿazl not be practiced without her consent, because through it the completion of sexual pleasure does not occur. Muti Syed: ʿUmar (RA) says that if I remain alive next year, then whatever territory is conquered, I shall distribute it among the conquerors as the Prophet (PBUH) distributed Khaybar (no. 213). We count it among ʿUmar (RA)’s very bold ijtihādī decisions that he did not distribute the lands of Iraq, and there was great foresight in it—what would remain for those who came later? His decision is regarded as being based on great wisdom, but in this report it seems as though he was not satisfied with his decision and wished to retract it. Ammar Nasir: No. In my view, here the transmitter has conflated the wording of two separate reports. One report pertains to the distribution of conquered lands; in it are the words lawlā ākhiru al-muslimīn (no. 284). That is, ʿUmar (RA) is saying that he too would have done the same and would have distributed all the conquered lands among the combatants, were it not for the question of what those who come later would do—how would the Bayt al-Māl provide for their needs? In that report he is saying this. But in many other matters he also expresses some intentions with the words la-in ʿishtu (if I remain alive). So it seems to me that some transmitter attached those words to the report about conquered lands. To the extent of my knowledge, there is no evidence in the reports that ʿUmar (RA) intended to reconsider that decision of his. Muti Syed: ʿUmar (RA) said to the people in a sermon that if the crowd is large, then perform prostration upon one another’s backs. He saw some people praying outside the mosque on the road and said: Pray in the mosque (no. 217). Why is he insisting on praying in the mosque? If there is crowding, is it not better, rather than prostrating on one another’s backs, that rows be formed outside the mosque? Ammar Nasir: In my view, perhaps he was saying this from the aspect of the virtue of the Prophet’s Mosque— that praying inside is better, even if one has to prostrate upon backs. Or it is possible that forming rows on the road caused difficulty for people. Muti Syed: ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr (RA) used to forbid clothing women as well in silk, and he would say that whoever wears it will be deprived of it in the Hereafter (no. 251). Although reports exist that the Prophet (PBUH) permitted even men a limited amount, and as for women, there was no issue at all. ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr (RA) himself is a prominent Companion. He would also have seen the practice of the Mothers of the Believers and Muslim women—so how could he be unaware of such a prominent practical matter? Or was he expressing his personal taste? Ammar Nasir: If you look at the narratives both types of reports are present in them. In many narratives it is forbidden unconditionally; women too have been forbidden; and in some, prohibition has been stated only for men. For this reason, these narratives are counted among the examples of mutually conflicting narratives. Those Companions before whom the reports of absolute prohibition were present would exhort people in accordance with them. ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr (RA), obviously, is speaking according to his knowledge. But the majority of jurists saw both types of reports and also observed the practice of the community, so their position is that perhaps the Prophet (PBUH) initially forbade everyone, but then that ruling was abrogated and women were granted permission for it. Muti Syed: ʿUmar (RA) met Uways al-Qaranī, and he requested from him that he supplicate for his forgiveness (no. 266). One thing is also said: that the Prophet (PBUH) told the Companions to tell him to supplicate for your forgiveness. Has anything like this come in ḥadīth, or has it merely become well-known among people? Ammar Nasir: No, rather this is a well-known report that Imām Muslim has transmitted. In it, it is stated that the Prophet (PBUH) mentioned Uways by name and said that there was a disease of vitiligo on his body, but he supplicated and God, Exalted is He, removed this disease. Mentioning that his supplications are answered, he urged the Companions to have him supplicate for them (Muslim, no. 2542). This is not some strange matter— that one should ask a chosen and near servant of God to supplicate. Muti Syed: What was so special about him that God, Exalted is He, formally informed His Prophet (PBUH) from the unseen, and he then informed the Companions that there would be such a person and that this would be his sign? Ammar Nasir: God, Exalted is He, would have informed the Prophet (PBUH) of many things, and it is not necessary that the Prophet (PBUH) would have informed the entire community of all of them. This was one of those matters that he (PBUH) informed the Companions of. It is possible that he (PBUH) was informed about many other people as well, but regarding a righteous man who was alive, and whose meeting with the Companions was expected, he (PBUH) informed them about him. Muti Syed: Does this not give the impression that a man from among the Successors has superiority over the Companions, and that the Companions are having him supplicate for their forgiveness? Ammar Nasir: The matter of superiority is, from one aspect, only from God, Exalted is He. If, partially, in some respect, a Successor has superiority over a Companion, that is not something astonishing. Yes, the superiority of being a Companion is, obviously, not attained by a Successor. In one ḥadīth it is mentioned that on the Day of Resurrection some people will be granted such a rank by God, Exalted is He, that even the prophets and the martyrs will envy them, although those people themselves will not be prophets (Abū Dāwūd, no. 3527). So, in a partial respect, God, Exalted is He, grants some superiority even to people other than prophets and Companions. Muti Syed: ʿUmar (RA) asked Kaʿb al-Aḥbār in Bayt al-Maqdis: Where should I perform ṣalāh? Kaʿb said: If you accept my opinion, then perform ṣalāh behind the Rock, for by doing so all of al-Quds will remain before you. But ʿUmar (RA) said: You are speaking the talk of Judaism (ḍāhayta al-yahūdiyyah). I shall pray in the place where the Messenger of God (PBUH) prayed. Then he proceeded forward toward the direction of the qiblah and performed ṣalāh there (no. 261). Presumably, Kaʿb al-Aḥbār wanted ʿUmar (RA) to perform ṣalāh with both qiblahs before him. The Rock was the Jews’ qiblah. If ʿUmar (RA) prayed behind the Rock, then he would be facing it as well and facing the Kaʿbah as well—so why did he deem it the talk of Judaism? Regarding the Prophet (PBUH) too, it is mentioned in reports that when he was in Mecca he would pray in such a way that the Kaʿbah was also before him and he would also be facing Bayt al-Maqdis. Ammar Nasir: In my view, ʿUmar (RA) refrained from doing so for two reasons. First, once the Muslims’ own distinct qiblah has been appointed, then one should avoid the outward resemblance that could arise from praying toward the Jews’ qiblah. If the reports about the Prophet’s (PBUH) praying toward Bayt al-Maqdis are sound, that was an incident of the early period. At that time, the command in the law to appoint Bayt Allāh definitively as the qiblah had not yet come. When he (PBUH) migrated to Medina, he continued for a year and a half to turn away from Bayt Allāh and perform ṣalāh toward Bayt al-Maqdis. These were acts of an interim period. But when the law was completed and Bayt Allāh was appointed as the Muslims’ qiblah, then after that ʿUmar (RA) did not deem it appropriate that, with deliberate arrangement, ṣalāh be performed while keeping the Jews’ qiblah before one. The second aspect, in my view, is that ʿUmar (RA) did not want an act to be done by which Muslims might later come to assert a claim over the Jews’ qiblah. You will have read that he also avoided praying in a Christian church for the reason that, tomorrow, Muslims might begin to assert a claim by saying that our caliph prayed here. In my view, due to this very apprehension he would have avoided it in Bayt al-Maqdis as well, and went forward to the southern side, to the corner, and performed ṣalāh there—where later the Muslims built Masjid ʿUmar. This is what nowadays is also called al-Masjid al-Aqṣā. Muti Syed: Nowadays there is also a very large dome over the Rock of Bayt al-Maqdis. If ʿUmar (RA) avoided it, then how did the Muslims later build a dome at that place? Ammar Nasir: This was built by ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān during his period of rule, and initially the purpose was that the Rock be made a place of visitation for the adherents of the three religions. For this reason he also appointed Jewish and Christian attendants here, who used to carry out the work of cleaning and maintenance of the building. Then, gradually, this entire place remained under the Muslims’ control alone. The Jews and the Christians no longer had any connection with it. Muti Syed: ʿUmar (RA) said in his sermon that when the Prophet (PBUH) was present among us, revelation would come to him and he would inform us of people’s affairs. Now, after his departure, the chain of revelation has ended; therefore, you people will appear to us as you appear outwardly, and we shall hold the same opinion about you, whereas the matter of your inner states is between you and God (no. 286). Here, what reports about people is he referring to that the Prophet (PBUH) used to inform the Companions of? Ammar Nasir: You will have seen in the reports that on some occasion the Companions, due to some outward reason, would suppose about a person that he was a bad man, but the Prophet (PBUH) would, by the knowledge of revelation, inform them that it was not so. Likewise, from someone’s outward action the Companions would suppose that he was a righteous man, but the Prophet (PBUH) would, through revelation, come to know that in reality he was not so—just as you have just related an incident that people were calling a man a martyr, but the Prophet (PBUH) stated that he had stolen a cloak from the spoils of war. Thus, ʿUmar (RA) is pointing to such incidents: after revelation has ceased, we now have no means of knowing people’s true conditions. Muti Syed: Concerning ʿUmar (RA), it is also related that the Prophet (PBUH) said: In the earlier communities there were people with whom speech would be held though they were not prophets; if there is any such man in my community, then he is ʿUmar (RA) (al-Tirmidhī, no. 3693). So was ʿUmar (RA) not granted this rank? Why, then, is he categorically negating the receipt of information from the unseen?
Ammar Nasir: No; this is not a matter of revelation or of information from the unseen. In this ḥadīth the word is muḥaddath, that is, one with whom speech is held. The commentators explain it in this manner: that the matter is made understood to them, or that the correct matter is cast into their heart and they are thereby guided. This does not occur in the form of revelation that descends upon the prophets in the form of speech, or which the angels convey to them by coming face to face. That is a certain matter. What occurs with a muḥaddath or mulham is only to the extent of an inner prompting, the result of which appears in the form of correctness of judgment. He cannot say with certainty that God Most High has informed him of this, nor can he, on that basis, claim that it constitutes a binding proof. It was precisely this correctness of judgment that was granted to ʿUmar (RA), the manifestation of which would appear upon his tongue during the Prophet’s (PBUH) lifetime as well as after him. For example, it was ʿUmar (RA) who proposed the opinion that the Mothers of the Believers should be kept in ḥijāb. God Most High caused him to understand that the Prophet’s wives should remain in seclusion from the general body of Muslims. Then, in support of this, the rulings of ḥijāb were also revealed in the Noble Qurʾān. The Prophet (PBUH) expressed this in another ḥadīth as follows: God has caused the truth to flow upon ʿUmar’s tongue and heart (al-Tirmidhī, no. 3682). Muti Syed: A well-known incident concerning ʿUmar (RA) is mentioned: that on one occasion, while delivering the Friday sermon, he called out to one of his army commanders: O Sāriyah, to the mountain, and that, from a distance of hundreds of miles, Sāriyah’s army heard his voice. (Kanz al-ʿUmmāl, no. 35788). What was the nature of this incident? Ammar Nasir: This is an interesting and important question. As far as I have had the opportunity to examine the historical reports related to this incident, the manner of the occurrence has been described in very different ways. In some reports it is stated that ʿUmar (RA) informed the people that he had seen in a dream at night that on that day and at that time Sāriyah’s army was in the field, and behind them was a mountain which was a safer place for them. Then he called out loudly, “O Sāriyah, to the mountain” and said that, if God willed, He would convey this voice to them through His angels. In some other reports it is stated that, while delivering the Friday sermon, he suddenly began calling out these words, and people looked on in astonishment as to what had happened to the Commander of the Faithful. Later, when he was asked, he said: I know nothing; these words simply flowed upon my tongue. Yet other reports state that when the people of Sāriyah’s army came to Medina and related the incident of the battlefield, the people informed ʿUmar (RA) that on that day you had uttered these words. In some reports it also appears that when ʿUmar (RA) was asked, he said: the scene of the battlefield came before me, and when I saw the situation I involuntarily cried out: Sāriyah, go toward the mountain. Now, which of these forms of the occurrence is more correct can be discussed; however, its nature is in any case not that of revelation. Rather, it is an incident of the type of a vision or unveiling, in which a scene came before him or was shown to him in a dream. It is not an incident of revelation or of conveying information from the unseen in a certain manner, upon which, in the religious sense, a decision can be based. [To be continued]