It is unexaggerated to authorize that thoughtful study of the events incited revelation of the Quranic texts contributes in contriving objective movement since it unveils a good deal of facts, and repeals many postulates people adopted as facts for ages. This is by reason that statistical aspect in events incited revelation of the Quranic texts is more elucidative that the other aspects of exegesis of the Holy Quran. When there are five contrary narratives; each mentions a definite event, place and date for revelation of a Quranic text,
then it will be unacceptable to receive them all as their narrators are so trustful that prosperity is attained when any is followed! The fact in such a situation is that only one of these five is correct, and the others should be thrown away. This distinct feature made the events incited revelation of the Quranic texts a decisive theme in exegesis. Nevertheless, the task of studying such a matter is as emphatic as its importance. Furthermore, it is more emphatic and arduous because of the confusion and contrast in the narratives.
At any rate, exegesists of the Quranic texts have to knock this door so actively and tolerably in order that they will serve nations and coming generations with the results of their searches that should be modish and useful in course of understanding the Quranic and prophetic texts, in specific, and the entire concepts of the creed, jurisprudence and the other Islamic aspects in general.
The forecited introductory should be acceptably sufficient for the coming thesis in the events incited revelation of the Quranic texts.
It is not unfamiliar that Muslims are engaged in inconsistency regarding defining the earliest Quranic texts, for they were not Muslims then, and they, except few, did not record the Prophet’s words. That was the reason beyond their discrepancies about such prophetic words and deeds.
In due course, it is not unaccustomed to propose four Quranic texts as the earliest. As-Suyouti, in his Al-Itqan; 1/91, mentions four texts defined as being the earlier Quranic revelation. They are sura of Alaq, sura of Muddethir, sura of Fatiha and ‘In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.’ The most unfamiliar matter is their discrepancy about the latest revealed text. When the latest Quranic text was revealed, Muslims were united nation that encompassed their Prophet who had predicted the imminence of his final departure, and accompanied them during their ritual pilgrimage, and they bid his farewell. All that and they are engaged in discrepancy regarding defining the latest Quranic text.
That was because of the fact that political purposes had nothing to do with the earliest Quranic text, while they had many things to do with the latest.
SURA OF MAIDA IS THE FINAL QURANIC CHAPTER
Reference books of hadith, jurisprudence and exegesis prove that sura of Maida was the latest Quranic chapter, and Verse of Ikmaluddin, which was revealed after revealing the entire precepts, was the latest Quranic text. It is also emphasized that some of the Prophet’s companions attempted to cite other suras and Verses as the latest.
THE PROPHET’S PROGENY’S OPINION
Al-Ayashi’s Tafsir; 1/288:
… Ali stated: Quranic texts were repealed by the newer ones. The Prophet used to adopt the latest. Sura of Maida repealed the other chapters since it was the latest. The sura was revealed to the Prophet while he was riding that brown-red mule. The revelation was so ponderous that the pack animal had to stop, and its abdomen was about to touch the ground. The Prophet was fainted that he placed his hand on Sheiba Bin Wahab Al-Jamhi’s braid. After a while, he raised his head and recited sura of Maida. He carried out, and we did, too.
Ali (peace be upon him) intends to assert that passing the hand over the feet during performing the ritual ablution is the obligatory form, and that washing them totally is invalid, since the earlier form was revealed in the latest sura, without any repeal, and practiced by the Prophet and Muslims.* Al-Kafi; 1/289:
… Abu Jafar (peace be upon him): Allah; the Powerful the Elevated, imposed loyalty to Ali as He revealed: (Only Allah is your guardian and His Apostle and those who believe, those how keep prayers and pay the poor rate while they bow.)
People were not aware of loyalty to the Guardians’ leadership. Hence, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was commanded of explicating that loyalty in the same way he had explicated the obligatory rites of prayer, poor rate, fasting and pilgrimage. As he anticipated that people would apostatize or belie him if he would nominate the Guardians, the Prophet sought the Lord’s more instructions. The Lord revealed: (O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do it not, then you have not revealed His message. And God will protect you from the people.)
immediately, he carried out the Lord’s mandate when he called people to gather, and conveyed the divinely imposed leadership of Ali, and instructed the attendants to carry the mandate to the absent. That was in Ghadir Khum.
…Precepts were revealed consecutively. Precept of loyalty to the Guardians was the sealing; therefore, closely after the Prophet’s declaration of Ghadir, God revealed: (This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.) By this Verse, the Lord meant that He should not reveal any more precept, since He had perfected them.
Al-Yaqubi’s Tarikh; 2/43:
… It is also stated that Verse of Ikmaluddin was the final. This is the most accurate and authentic saying.
SUNNI NARRATIVES CONCORDANT TO THE PROPHET’S PROGENY’S OPINION
Ad-Durrul Manthour; 2/252:
… Abu Meysara: The final revealed sura was Maida. Seventeen precepts were revealed in that sura. Al-Muhella; 9/407:
Aisha: “Sura of Maida was the last. You should deem lawful whatever you find sanctioned in it, and you should deem unlawful whatever you find prohibited.” On that account, the Verse is in sura of Maida. Whence it is invalid to reckon it with the repealed. It is decisive, then. Al-Muhella; 7/389:
… Aisha: “Sura of Maida is the last. You should deem unlawful whatever you find prohibited in this sura.”* Majmauzzawaid; 1/256:
Sa’d mentioned legitimacy of passing the hand over the sandals during the ritual ablution… Abdullah Bin Abbas addressed at Sa’d: “None can deny that the Prophet did pass his hands over them. But it is unproved that he kept this deed after revelation of sura of Maida. This sura decided everything. It was the final…” Hence, non could replied.
Al-Heithami comments that the same report is registered in At-Tabarani’s Al-Mujamul Awset, and a part of it is recorded in Ibn Madga’s. He also cites Ibn Hebban’S opinion in Ubeid Bin Ubeida At-Temmar; one of the reporters. Ibn Hebban decided the man as trustful but reports strange narratives.
Al-Heithami aims at regarding dubiety of the report since that trustful narrator, who reports strange narrators, is one of the series. The strange reports carried by that narrator stand for the prophetic texts opposing the ruling authorities’ regulations and laws that decided the obligation of washing the feet during the ritual ablution, and named other suras as the final.
Ad-Durrul Manthour; 2/252:
…The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated: Sura of Maida is one of the last revealed Quranic texts. You should regard what was revealed in it respecting questions of the licit and the illicit.
This narration was unique in adding ‘one of’ to the prophetic saying. This additional word seems doubtful since it is perceived that it is added for reconciling actuality and regulations adopted by the ruling authorities. Tafsirul Bayan; 3/413:
Abdullah Bin Omar: Sura of Maida was the final. Al-Ghadir; 1/228:
Ibn Kutheir, Ahmed, Al-Hakim and An-Nisai record Aisha’s saying: “Sura of Maida was the final.”
It is conclusive that the Prophet’s progeny attest that Sura of Maida was the final. This fact is supported by numerous authentic narratives entered in the reference books depended by the Sunnis; our brothers. Moreover, it is not unacceptable to maintain that Verse of Ikmaluddin stands idiosyncratically as an evidence on our claim. This Verse implies that the entire precepts have been consummated, and no more would be revealed. In addition, like the forecited report ascribed to imam Al-Baqir, there are many texts providing for this meaning. The coming narratives of At-Tabari, Al-Beihaqi and As-Seddi support so.
Subject to the previous, any saying claiming revelation of any precept after the Verse should be refuted. Similarly, every Quranic text claimed to be revealed after it should be bare of precepts and rulings.
THE CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS
This clear-cut identified matter became so ambiguous that many narratives discussed it so contradictorily and oppositely. It became worse when such contradictory narratives were decided as authentic since they were opinions of the grand Sahaba -the Prophet’s companions- that none can criticize. Due to his embarrassment, As-Suyouti has to abbreviate the copious opinions respecting the final vevelation. Unlike the four opinions regarding the earliest revealed text, As-Suyouti, in Al-Itqan; 1/101, can not even list those respecting the final. Hence, we are to list them so that the reader will notice the origination of such opinions.
1. The final is Verse of Riba -usury-; sura of Baqara, Verse 278.
2. The final is Verse of Kelala; sura of Nisa; Verse 176.
3. The final is Verse 281 of sura of Baqara.
4. The final is Verse 128 of sura of Tawba.
5. The final is Verse 25 of sura of Anbiya.
6. The final is Verse 110 of sura of Kahf.
7. The final is Verse 93 of sura of Nisa.
8. The final is sura of Tawba.
9. The final is sura of Nasr.
At any rate, the actual contradictory opinions regarding identifying the final revealed text, amount twice as much this number.
ORIGINATION OF THIS CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS
The following story may focus light on the origination of such a contradiction and confusion: As he could not cite the exegesis of Verse of usury, Omar excused that the Verse was the final, and the Prophet was deceased before he had explained. Since then, this Verse found itself a place in the opinions regarding the final Quranic text, and vied with sura of Maida.
In any event, usury is discussed in four Quranic Verses some of which were revealed in Mecca. Which one was intended to be the final? As usual, the justifiers of Omar contributed in absolving the problem. They introduced the Verse 278 of sura of Baqara as the very one intended by the caliph. For this cause, they believed that the final Quranic Verse was arranged in sura of Baqara which was revealed in the earliest stage of the Prophet’s immigration. They also instructed that prohibition of usury was an additional legislation, since it was revealed after Verse of Ikmaluddin. Seemingly, they conceive that such an irony is acceptable, since it restrictively aims at defending the caliph! Ahmed’s Al-Musnad; 1/36:
…Omar (God be pleased to him) said: “Verse of usury was the final. The Prophet was deceased before he had explained it. Therefore, you should leave usury and suspect.”
The same is recorded in Kenzul Ummal; 4/186.
As-Serakhsi’s Al-Mabsut; 2/51 and 12/114: Omar (God be pleased to him) said: “Verse of usury was the final. The Prophet was deceased before he had elucidated it.” As-Suyouti’s Al-Itqan; 1/101:
Ibn Abbas: “Verse of usury was the final.” Al-Beihaqi relates that Omar said the same statement. Ahmed and Ibn Madga record that Omar said that Verse of usury was one of the final revealed texts.
Like that of sura of Maida, this (one of) cannot settle the problem, since the other narratives identify Verse of usury as the final. Another story: One day -many days in fact-, Omar; the caliph, could not perceive the meaning of Kelala. He was perplexed because he could not understand it till death!! Consequently, he had to stated that the Verse was the final, and the Prophet was deceased before he had explained it, or he explained it insufficiently. Al-Bukhari’s Sahih; 5/115:
Al-Bera Bin Azib: “Sura of Tawba was the final. The final Verse in sura of Nisa was the final revealed Verse.”
Al-Bukhari records similar narrative on page 185 of part 5.
As-Suyouti’s Al-Itqan; 1/101:
Al-Bera Bin Azib: “The final Verse in sura of Nisa was the final revealed Verse. The final revealed sura was that of Tawba.” Ahmed’s Al-Musned; 4/298:
Al-Bera: “Sura of Tawba was the final. The final Verse in sura of Nisa was the final revealed Verse.” Since then, Verse of Kelala pushed its way in the opinions regarding the final Quranic text, and vied with sura of Maida. The final Quranic text became either Verses of usury and Kelala or sura of Maida that comprises Verse of Isma and Ikmaluddin.
During observing the Sunni reference books of hadith concerning the question of usury and Kelala, I was shocked by Omar’s problem with these two matters generally and the latter specifically. The caliph reckoned it with the most remarkable questions of the Islamic nation. He used to provide it from the Prophet’s pulpit. He kept on providing it as a grand problem till his final hours when he willed Muslims to find it a solution. This inexplicable matter unveils Omar’s deep feeling of embarrassment before Muslims, because he could not perceive the question. Al-Bukhari’s Sahih; 6/242:
Ibn Omar: From the Prophet’s pulpit, Omar orated:
“Prohibition of intoxicants was revealed. Sources of intoxicants are resrictedly five materials; grapes, dates, wheat, barley and honey. Intoxicants are only what stuns the mind. Three questions if only had the Prophet (peace be upon him) established a rule to which we would refer in understanding them. They are -the inherited shares of - the forefather, the Kelala and molds of usury.”
The same is recorded in Muslim’s Sahih; 2/81 more detailedly. Like narratives are recorded in the same book; 5/61 and 8/245. Ibn Madga also records it in As-Sunan; 2/910. As-Suyouti, in Ad-Durrul Manthour; 2/2249, avers that Abdurrezaq, Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Jarir and Ibnul-Munthir relate the narrative to Omar. This authentic narrative proves that Omar did not seek the Prophet’s explanation of the Kelala. This meaning is obviously asserted by the following narrative recorded in Al-Hakim’s Al-Mustedrak; 2/303:
… Omar stated: “I would prefer my seeking the Prophet’s naming his successor, and judging of those who admit the poor rate but refrain from defraying it, and explaining the Kelala, to having the best kind of camels.” Unlike the previous, Muslim reports that Omar did seek the Prophet’s explaining the Kelala. Muslim’s Sahih; 5/61:
Madan Bin Abi Talha: One Friday, Omar Bin Al-Khattab addressed an oration, in which he praised the Prophet and Abu Bakr, and said: I shall leave nothing more significant than Kelala. I have never consulted the Prophet (peace be upon him) in a matter more importunately than this. He was never been cruel to me for any matter like that of Kelala. It reached the degree that he fixed his finger in my chest and said: “O Omar! Is Verse of Summer -the final of sura of Nisa- not sufficing you?”
I should enucleate it so evidently that every one, whether a reciter of the Quran or not, will take in, provided that I shall be alive. This indicates that Omar did ask the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) an explanation so repeatedly that the Prophet was enraged for Omar’s lack of cognition.
Furthermore, the coming authentic narratives point that the Prophet did foretell of Omar’s lack of cognition, or did supplicate the Lord for disabling Omar to understand it.
Ad-Durrul Manthour; 2/250: Hutheifeh: During a journey, Verse of Kelala was revealed to the Prophet. He stopped and recited it to me that I memorized. I recited it to Omar. In his caliphate, Omar summoned me to explain Kelala. “I tutored you exactly as the same as the Prophet (peace be upon him) had tutored me. I am not to add anything to that explanation,” I said.
Kenzul Ummal; 11/80:
30688 ~ Sa’eed Bin Al-Museyyeb: Omar asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) how those who have neither parents nor offspring would be inherited. The Prophet denoted to the Verse: (And if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited..) As if he could not grasp the meaning, Omar requested his daughter to ask the Prophet, as soon as she notices his being comfortable, about the question. “Was it your father who incited you asking this question? I see he shall not conceive it at all,” stated the Prophet.
Omar used to point to this prophetic statement and admit that he should not understand it at all. As-Suyouti, in Ad-Durrul Manthour; 2/249, avers that the Prophet wrote down the explanation of Verse of Kelala on a paper: Tawus: Omar requested Hafsa to ask the Prophet (peace be upon him) about question of Kelala. Having recorded it on a parchment, the Prophet said to her: “Who asked you so? Is it Omar? I see he shall not understand it. Is he not sufficed by Verse of Summer?”
Ostensibly, these authentic reports are so contradictory. Al-Bukhari discerns that Kelala was one of three questions the Prophet had neither explicated nor had Omar asked him about. Meanwhile, their authentic narratives contend that the Prophet did write the explanation of the question on a parchment. This is a charge of the Prophet’s showing blemish in explicating the Quran the interpretation of which is a divine mandate addressed at him. This charge has been proved as inaccurate by the claimants themselves. We have previously discussed the Sunnis’ accusing Shias of claiming the Prophet’s concealing the explication of some Quranic Verses.
The second question is the Prophet’s succession. Al-Bukhari himself records that Omar rejected importunately the Prophet’s demand with a pen and a paper so that he would record a document protecting the Muslims against deviation forever. That was during the Prophet’s final disease. The third question is Al-Bukhari’s claiming the Prophet’s showing blemish in explicating some parts of usury. The Prophet did explicate this question and Omar might have recorded in on a parchment or the like.
INDICATION OF THE TWO STORIES
The previous stories indicate that reference books of the Sunnis; our brothers, are too contradictory to be accepted totally. It is essential to admit only some of them. It is utterly inadmissible to conceive that Omar did not seek the Prophet’s explication of the Verse just because it was the final, or that he did seek so repeatedly that the Prophet fixed his finger in his chest, and pushed away, and was enraged… etc. It is also impracticable to perceive that Verses of Kelala or usury were the final. In fact, Sunni reference books of hadith are filled in with such contradictory matters.
In due course, the stories imply that Omar had prevalence on Sunnis to the degree that he could turn his unreasonable claims into undiscussible facts! For Sunnis, the most important matter is adapting exegesis of the holy Quran and events incited revelation to Omar’s statements, even though such statements are contradictory, or even this may lead to accusing the Prophet of showing blemish in the mission of conveyance, or this may invent an incompatible confusion in God’s religion or deeds.
Those who reject such matters should be, in Sunni’s logic, decided as Rafidites who are foes of Islam, the Prophet and the companions! Correspondingly, the stories, according to Omar’s opinion, denote that Verses of usury and Kelala, and perhaps many other subjects, were revealed after Verse of Ikmaluddin. This means that Allah; the Elevated, informed the Muslims of perfection of the religion while there were still many questions to be revealed later on. This is unacceptable. The respectful should never accept to accuse the Lord and His Apostle for nothing more than acquitting an ordinary man.
OTHER OPINIONS
We are to mention the other opinions regarding the final revealed Quranic text in brief. Al-Bukhari’s Sahih; 5/182: Sa’eed Bin Jubeir: … Ibn Abbas stated: “God’s saying: (And whoever kills a believer intentionally…,) was not repealed by any other Quranic text since it was the final.”
Al-Bukhari’s Sahih; 6/15, and Ad-Durrul Manthour; 2/196:
Sa’eed Bin Jubeir: People of Kufa were engaged in discrepancy respecting the Verse discussed murderers of the believers. I asked Ibn Abbas about it. “This Verse was not repealed by any other Quranic text since it was the final,” asserted Ibn Abbas. An-Nawawi’s Al-Majmu;18/345:
In Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, it is recorded that the Verse: (And whoever kills a believer intentionally…,) was not repealed by any other Quranic text since it was the final. The same is recorded in Muslim’s Sahih and An-Nisai’s As-Sunan. It is also recorded in Abu Dawud’s As-Sunan. It is inappropriate for Muslims to accept such (authentic) narratives recorded by Al-Bukhari and others, and related to Ibn Abbas and others, and it is unsuitable to admit that prohibition of killing believers was an additional legislation since it was revealed after Verse of Ikmaluddin. Al-Hakim’s Al-Mustedrak; 2/338:
Ubey Bin Ka’b: God’s saying: (Certainly an Apostle has come to you…) was the last revealed Quranic text. This (authentic) narrative indicates that the last two Verses of sura of Tawba were the final. Ad-Durrul Manthour; 3/295:
…Ubey Bin Ka’b: God’s saying: (Certainly an Apostle has come to you…) was the last revealed Quranic text.
…Ubey Bin Ka’b: The nearest Verses to God are His saying: (Certainly an Apostle has come to you…)
…Ubey Bin Ka’b: The Prophet recited the Verses: (Certainly an Apostle has come to you…) These were the final.
…Ubey Bin Ka’b stated that he had received these two Verses from the Prophet. Othman attested. Ubey suggested to place them at the end of the last revealed sura. Sura of Tawba was the last revealed sura.*
Similar narratives are recorded in Abu Dawud’s As-Sunan; 1/182. Muslim’s Sahih; 8/243:
Ibn Abbas: Do you know what was the last revealed sura? Ubeidullah: Yes, I know. It is sura of Nasr.
Ibn Abbas: Yes, that is it. At-Tirmithi’s As-Sunan; 4/326: Ibn Abbas: Sura of Nasr was the final. Al-Ghadir; 1/228:
Abdullah Bin Omar: Suras of Maida and Fath (Nasr) were the final. This narration is recorded in Ibn Kutheir’s Tafsir; 2/2. Ad-Durrul Manthour; 6/407:
Abu Hureira: God’s saying: (When there comes the help of Allah and the victory…,) was the Lord’s knowledge and appointment given to the Apostle. It indicated that the Prophet would not spend a long age after conquest of Mecca. Ibn Abbas: Sura of Nasr was the final.
At-Tabarani’s Al-Mujamul Kabir; 12/19:
Ibn Abbas: The final revealed Verse was God’s saying: (And guard yourselves against a day in which you shall be returned to Allah…) At length, let us refer to the last claim regarding identifying the final revealed Verse. Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian found himself suitable enough to provide his opinion in this regard. On the pulpit, he denied that Verse of Ikmaluddin had been the final. He issued that the last verse of sura of Kahf was the final. He added that it was revealed as a discipline directed to the Prophet.
At-Tabarani’s Al-Mujamul Kabir; 19/392:
Amr Bin Qeis: Muawiya was on the pulpit when he recited God’s saying: (This day have I perfected for you your religion…) He commented that the Verse was revealed on day of Arafa, which was Friday. Afterwards, he recited the last Verse of sura of Kahf and commented that it was the final revealed Quranic text. He added that it was revealed as a discipline directed to the Prophet.
As he noticed the excessive contradiction intentionally stated for moving Verse of Ikmaluddin away from sealing of the Quran and the Farewell Pilgrimage and Ghadir Khum, As-Suyouti decided the sayings of Omar and Muawiya as problematic. Without avoiding the custom of covering up contradiction of their dearest ones, As-Suyouti passed by the matter so quickly in order that none would wonder.
As-Suyouti’s Al-Itqan; 1/102:
Despite the fact that many narratives asserted the revelation of Verses of usury, debt and Kelala after that of Ikmaluddin, many scholars, such as As-Seddi, proved that no licit or illicit matters were revealed after Verse of Ikmaluddin which was revealed on day of Arafa during the Farewell Pilgrimage. Therefore, it is problematic to regard such claims.
Ibn Jarir says: It is preferable to state that Verse of Ikmaluddin dedicated rites of the pilgrimage and banishment of the non Muslims to perfection of the religion. Ibn Jarir, whose words might be admitted by As-Suyouti, wants to say that the only solution for the Prophet’s companions’ contradictory opinions respecting the final revealed Verse should be restricting perfection of the religion and completion of the divine grace to the liberation of Mecca, in order that Omar’s sayings about Verses of Kelala and usury, and Muawiya’s sayings about the final disciplinary Verse would be saved.
Such sorts of verdicts are repeatedly issued for the sake of admitting the Prophet’s companions’ words even if this would lead to disregarding the denotations of the Lord’s Verses and the Prophet’s words. Conditionally, the Prophet’s household are excluded.
In due course, the Prophet’s companions are granted the degree of sinlessness, and the veto against the words of God and His Apostle. In other words, the Prophet’s companions’ words are the final judgment with the existence of rulings of God and His Apostle. After all, the followers are imposed to admit such judgment, and close the eyes before the facts, and keep the ears off limits so that screams of evident and authentic divine and prophetic words shall not be heard.
The result of such a course is that they concluded that Verse of Ikmaluddin was not the final, nor was sura of Maida the seal of the Quran. The Verse does not mean perfection of the religious rulings. It means perfection of conquest of Mecca. This means that (This day) mentioned in the Verse stands for two years ago. Later on, the reader will receive that Omar asserted that (This day) refers to the day on which the Verse was revealed. Moreover, Al-Qurtubi recognizes that it refers to the very hour in which the Verse was revealed.
VERSE OF IKMALUDDIN
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful O you who believe! Do not violate the signs appointed by Allah nor the sacred month, nor interfere with the offerings, nor the sacrificial animals with garlands, nor those going to the sacred house seeking the grace and pleasure of their Lord; and that you are free from the obligations of the pilgrimage, then hunt, and let not hatred of a people because they hindered you from the Sacred Masjid incite you to exceed the limits, and help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression; and be careful of your duty to Allah; surely Allah is severe in requiting evil.
Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled animal and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up for idols and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression. This day have those who disbelieve despair of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
VERSE OF IKMALUDDIN AND THE FORBIDDEN MEAT
In the first place comes the unusual situation of the Verse. Hadithists and exegesists record that it was revealed during the Farewell Pilgrimage as an independent Verse, while the reader notice its being a part of a Verse concerning the forbidden meat. It seems the Verse was unsuitably interpolated in this place that if it is removed, meaning of the whole Verse would be full and uninterrupted. What is the purpose beyond such a text?
Was this situation the original place of the Verse, or was it some of the Prophet’s companions who intended to place it here? In any form, we do renounce any statement claiming occurrence of any distortion in the Lord’s Book. We only put this question hoping that some will provide an answer for the relationship between perfection of the religion and the forbidden meat.
It is likely that the position of the Verse was in the end of sura of Maida, but compilers of the Quranic Verses could not show deference to this matter; therefore, they fixed it in this position. Furthermore, it is rather acceptable to settle the Verse after those concerning the forbidden meat, but it is definitely unsatisfactory to accept that the Wisest Lord might reveal this sealing Verse in the middle of others concerning the forbidden meat. the Lord says that the religion has been perfected to people, how is it acceptable to follow this statement with numerous canons and rulings?
Ad-Durrul Manthour; 2/259:
As-Seddi: God’s saying: (This day have I perfected for you your religion…,) was revealed on day of Arafa. No licit or illicit matter was revealed afterwards. Ad-Durrul Manthour; 2/257:
Ibn Abbas: …The Prophet stopped at Mountain Arafat when God revealed: (This day have I perfected for you your religion…) No licit or illicit matter was revealed afterwards. So copious are sayings and reports supporting the fact that no rulings or regulations were revealed after Verse of Ikmaluddin. Besides, this meanings is understood from the Verse itself. Lexicologists go through this meaning when they discuss the purports of perfection and completion.
MEANINGS OF PERFECTION AND COMPLETION THROUGH THE QURAN AND NAHJUL BALAGHA
There are three opinions pertaining to meanings and events incited the revelation of the Verse. First: The Prophet’s progeny’s opinion:
The Prophet’s progeny consign Thursday, the eighteenth of Dhu’l-Hijja as the date of the revelation. That was in Al-Juhafa while the Prophet was in his way back from the Farewell Pilgrimage. The Lord revealed the mandate of causing the Muslims to halt in Ghadir Khum, just before the cross road, and conveying the obligatory fealty to Ali’s leadership after him. The Prophet did. The following are models of the Prophet’s progeny’s reports:
Al-Kuleini’s Al-Kafi; 1/289:
…Abu Jafar spoke: “The precepts were revealed consecutively. The mandate of fealty to Ali’s leadership was revealed. Hence, God revealed: (This day have I perfected for you your religion…)”
…A man asked Imam Al-Baqir whether the Prophet’s nominating Ali was a personal act or according to a divine mandate. “Woe is you!” Imam Al-Baqir said angrily, “The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was too reverent to say what God did not order of. Like precepts of prayer, poor rate, fasting and pilgrimage, Ali’s nomination for leadership was a precept of Allah.
Al-Kuleini’s Al-Kafi; 1/198:
…Imam Ar-Rida stated: “People ignore the fact, and their notions are deceptive. The Lord had completed the religion before he took His Apostle (peace be upon him and his family) to Him. The Lord revealed the Quran that comprised the elucidation of everything; the licit, the illicit, the doctrinal provisions, the rulings and whatever people need. This is God’s saying: (We have not neglected anything in the Book.) During the Farewell Pilgrimage, which was in the final days of the Prophet’s lifetime, God revealed: (This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.)
The affair of imamate is a part of completion of the religion. The Prophet had proclaimed the signs of the religion before he left people. He showed them the straight way and left them on the path of right. Finally, he nominated Ali as their leader and imam. The Prophet had not left any needed matter without explication. He is refuting Allah’s book that whoever claims that the Lord had not perfected His religion. Accordingly, he is an atheist that whoever refutes Allah’s book. How dare they opt for their own opinions while they do not recognize the substance of imamate and its role in the nation?
Imamate is too noble, eminent, elevated, fortified and deep to be attained by people’s minds or notions. People are too short to select their imams. Allah; the Powerful the Elevated, gave imamate exclusively to Abraham the confidant (peace be upon him), as a third competency and honorable virtue added to prophesy and confidence. The Lord praised this competency as He said: (He said: Surely I will make you an imam of men. Abraham said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.)
Abraham the confidant was delighted for this competency, and asked it for his offspring. This Verse invalidates imamate of every unjust till the Resurrection Day. It was given to the choice exclusively. Abraham was newly dignified by the Lord Who granted his choice and immaculate offspring this imamate. He said: (And We gave him Isaaq and Jacob, a son’s son, and We made them all good. And We made them imams who guided people by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of the alms, and Us alone did they serve.)
This imamate has been kept in Abraham’s offspring successively. The Lord gave it to the Prophet in heritage. He said: (Most surely the nearest of people to Abraham are those who followed him and this Prophet and those who believe, and Allah is the guardian of the believers.) Imamate were peculiarly enjoyed by the Prophet who gave it to Ali (peace be upon him) according to the mandate of Allah; the Exalted, in a form designated by Him. It moved to Ali’s choice offspring whom were given knowledge and faith by Allah. This is God’s saying: (And those who are given knowledge and faith will say: Certainly you tarried according to the ordinance of Allah till the day of resurrection.)
This imamate will be kept in Ali’s progeny exclusively till the Resurrection Day, since there shall be no prophet after Mohammed (peace be upon him and his family). Then, how is it possible for those ignorant to select?”
Second: Sunnis’ Opinion concordant to the Prophet’s progeny’s:
Sunnis relate tens of narratives regarding the declaration of fealty in Ghadir. Some of these are first class reports, according to their criteria. At-Tabari compiled the texts and ways of narrating that declaration of fealty in a two-volumed book. This book was titled ‘Al-Wilayai’. Ibn Asakir and many others recorded like reports. These reports entirely refer to the Prophet’s raising Ali’s hand as elevated as possible, and conveying the Lord’s mandate of declaring fealty to his next leadership and imamate. A number of the fanatic Sunnis criticized At-Tabari, whom is highly honored, for that work, since they anticipated that Shias would constitute it as an evidence, and would refer to it during argument.
A great deal of these narratives assert that Verse of Ikmaluddin was revealed on that day in Ghadir just after the Prophet’s conveying the Lord’s mandate of declaring fealty to the coming leadership of Ali (peace be upon him).
Unfortunately, most of Sunni scholars who admit reports of Ghadir, reject that Verse of Ikmaluddin was revealed on that occasion. Instead, they admit sayings of Omar and Muawiya who claimed its revelation on day of Arafa. A good number of Shiite former and recent scholars compile the narratives respecting the Ghadir declaration of fealty. The following compilers and books are among the most famed recent ones:
An-Naqawi Al-Hindi in Abaqatul Anwar.
Sheik Al-Amini in Al-Ghadir.
Sayyid Al-Marashi in Sharhu Ihqaqil Haq.
Sayyid Al-Milani in Nafahatul Azhar.
A good deal of narratives recorded in the Sunni reference books of hadith; all attested that Verse of Ikmaluddin was revealed on that day in Ghadir after the Prophet’s nominating Ali as the coming leader and imam, are compiled in Al-Amini’s Al-Ghadir. The following is a brief quotation from Al-Ghadir; 1/230:
God’s saying: (This day have I perfected…,) was one of the Verses revealed for Amirul Muminin (peace be upon him) on that day in Ghadir. The following are some of Sunni scholars who attest this concern:
1. At-Tabari, Abu Jafar Mohammed Bin Jarir. …-310. In Al-Wilaya, he relates the narration that the Verse was revealed for Amirul Muminin Ali (peace be upon him) on that day in Ghadir, to Zeid Bin Arqam.
2. Alisfahani, Ibn Merdawayih. …-410. He relates the narration to Abu Sa’eed Al-Khidri, and relates another to Abu Hureira.
3. Alisbahani, Abu Nueim. …-430. In Ma nazala Minel Qur’ani Fi Ali, he relates the following to Abu Sa’eed Al-Khidri: The Prophet summoned people to declare fealty to Ali in Ghadir Khum. He gave the orders of sweeping thorns under a tree, and raised Ali from the arms as elevated as possible… Before people’s scattering, God revealed: (This day have I…
4. Al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr Al-Khatib. …-463. In his Tarikh; 8/290, he records:
Abu Hureira: When the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master,” Omar addressed at Ali: “Congratulations, son of Abu Talib! You have become my master, and the master of every Muslim.” Thence, God revealed: (This day have I…
5. As-Sejistani, Abu Sa’eed. …-477. In Al-Wilaya, he relates the narrative to… Abu Sa’eed Al-Khidri.
6. Ashafii, Abul-Hassan Ibnul-Meghazili. …-483. In Al-Menaqib, he relates it to… Abu Hureira.
7. Al-Hasakani, Abul-Qasim Al-Hakim. He relates the following to Abu Sa’eed Al-Khidri:
With the revelation of Verse of Ikmaluddin, the Prophet shouted: “Allah be the Greatest for perfection of the religion, and completion of the grace, and the Lord’s satisfaction with my conveyance and leadership of Ali Bin Abi Talib after me.”
8. Ad-Dimeshqi, Abul-Qasim Bin Asakir Ashafi. …-571. He relates a narrative to Abu Sa’eed and Abu Hureira, as it is mentioned in Ad-Durrul Manthour; 2/259.
9. Al-Khawarzmi. …-568. In Al-Menaqib; 80, he records:
Abu Sa’eed Al-Khidri: The Prophet summoned people to declare fealty to Ali in Ghadir Khum. He gave the orders of sweeping thorns under a tree, and raised Ali from the arms as elevated as possible… Before people’s scattering, God revealed: (This day have I… On page 94 of the same book, Al-Khawarzmi records:
…Abu Hureira: When the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master,” Omar addressed at Ali: “Congratulations, son of Abu Talib! You have become my master, and the master of every Muslim.” Thence, God revealed: (This day have I… 10. An-Natnazi, Abul-Fetih. In Al-Khassaisul Alawiya, he relates a narrative to Abu Sa’eed Al-Khidri, and relates another to Abu Sa’eed and Jabir Al-Ansari. 11. As-Salihani, Abu Hamid Sa’duddin. In Tawdihud Delail Ela Tarjihil Mesail, Shihabuddin Ahmed relates the following to As-Salihani:
Mujahid: With the revelation of Verse of Ikmaluddin, the Prophet shouted: “Allah be the Greatest for perfection of the religion, and completion of the grace, and the Lord’s satisfaction with my conveyance and leadership of Ali.” 12. Al-Hamawini, Sheikul Islam Al-Hanafi. …-722. In Feraidus Simtein; Section Twelve, he relates the narration…etc.
Third: Omar’s Opinion.
Omar; the caliph, stated that the Verse was revealed on day of Arafa, which was Friday, during the Farewell Pilgrimage. This is the Sunnis’ most notable opinion. Al-Bukhari’s Sahih; 1/16:
Tariq Bin Shihab: A Jew said to Omar Bin Al-Khattaab: “Had the verse: (This day have I..,) been revealed to us, we would have celebrated on the day of revelation for good.” Omar answered: “We do recognize the day and the hour of revelation. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was halting at Arafa when this Verse was revealed.” Al-Bukhari’s Sahih; 5/127:
Tariq Bin Shihab: Jews said: “Had the verse: (This day have I..,) been revealed to us, we would have celebrated on the day of revelation for good.” Omar answered: “I do recognize where it was revealed. The Prophet was halting in Arafa when this Verse was revealed.” Similar reports are recorded on page 137 of part 8 of the same book.
Almost, the entire Sunni reference books of hadith copy this narrative and its likes in different ways of narration. Most of the scholars adopt it disregarding rings of suspect Sufian Athawri, An-Nisai and many others arouse around it. They distrusted that day of Arafa during the Farewell Pilgrimage had fallen on Friday. Similarly, the other Sunni narratives that support the Prophet’s progeny’s opinion are totally disregarded. That was for one reason only; Omar stated that the Verse was revealed nine days before day of Ghadir. As a rule, Omar’s statement should be beyond any dispute, and preceded to every everything.
As he refers to the Quranic Verses revealed during the Prophet’s journeys, As-Suyouti, in Al-Itqan; 1/75, mentions Verse of Ikmaluddin. He comments: Authentic narratives report that Omar specified Friday which fell on day of Arafa during the Farewell Pilgrimage as the hours in which the Verse was revealed. This report has many ways of narrations. On the other side, Ibn Merdawayih records that Abu Sa’eed Al-Khidri narrated that the Verse was revealed on that day in Ghadir Khum. Abu Hureira stated that it was the eighteenth of Dhu’l-Hijja when the Verse was revealed to the Prophet who was on his way back from the Farewell Pilgrimage. Both are inaccurate.
In Ad-Durrul Manthour; 2/259, As-Suyouti records:
Doubtfully, Ibn Merdawayih and Ibn Asakir, relate the following to Abu Sa’eed Al-Khidri: When the Prophet (peace be upon him) nominated Ali as the coming leader on that day in Ghadir Khum, Gabriel descended with God’s saying: (This day have I… Doubtfully, Ibn Merdawayih and Al-Khatib and Ibn Asakir relate the following to Abu Hureira: In Ghadir Khum on the eighteenth of Dhu’l-Hijja, the Prophet (peace be upon him) declared: “He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master.” Hence, God revealed: (This day have I…
As-Suyouti adopts the general situation adopted by most of Sunni scholars. This does not mean that the other scholars decide dubiety of the narrative of Ghadir. On the contrary, they decide authenticity of such reports. Meanwhile, they insist that Verse of Ikmaluddin was revealed before that day. This situation is taken up for their adherence to Omar’s statement recorded in their reference books of hadith, even if this statement is opposed by the other authentic narratives, and opposed by calculation and date.
Ibn Kutheir is one of those who adhere fanatically to Omar’s opinion. The following is a brief quotation from his Tafsir; 2/14: As-Seddi: The Verse was revealed on day of Arafa. No licit or illicit matter was revealed afterwards. Ibn Jarir and many others: The Prophet was deceased eighty one days after day of Arafa.
As he refers to the forecited narrative of Ahmed, At-Tirmithi and An-Nisai, Ibn Kutheir comments: Sufian’s suspect should be seen as sort of piety if he intends the way of narration. In other words, if Sufian suspects whether his master informed him of this point or not, this should be regarded as piety. If he suspects whether day of Arafa, during the Farewell Pilgrimage, was Friday or not, this is undiscussible since no single historian or jurisprudent suspects it. Sufian, however, is too noble to suspect so. Many decisive narratives respecting this matter are recorded. This narrative was related to Omar in another form.
… “I do recognize the place and time of the revelation of this Verse. It was Friday and day of Arafa. Both are festivities for us,” affirmed Omar.* … Amr Bin Qeis: From the pulpit, I heard Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian recite God’s saying: As-Suyouti, in Al-Itqan; 1/75, mentions Verse of Ikmaluddin. He comments: (This day have I…) He then commented: “This Verse was revealed on Friday, on day of Arafa.”
Ibn Jarir: It is said that that day is not identified for people. … Ibn Abbas: Day of the revelation of God’s saying: (This day have I…,) is not identified by people.
Some mention that the Verse was revealed during the Prophet’s journey to Mecca for performing the Farewell Pilgrimage.
(Ibn Kutheir) Ibn Merdawayih records that Abu Harun Al-Abdi relates the following to Abu Sa’eed Al-Khidri: God’s saying: (This day have I…,) was revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) on that day in Ghadir Khum, when he said: “He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master.”
Abu Hureira recounts that the Verse was revealed on the eighteenth of Dhu’l-Hijja while the Prophet was back from the Farewell Pilgrimage. These two are inaccurate. The most accurate and indisputable thing is that the Verse was revealed on day of Arafa which fell on Friday. This is asserted by Omar Bin Al-Khattab; emir of the believers, and Ali Bin Abi Talib, and Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian; the first king of Islam, and Abdullah Bin Abbas; translator of the Quran, and Samara Bin Jundub (God be pleased to him)…
It is patent that Ibn Kutheir tries to avoid referring to the suspect arisen in the area of identifying Friday as day of Arafa. This is by reason that this suspect may oppose Omar’s claim. As he could not stand Sufian Athawri’s clear-cut suspect, Ibn Kutheir attempts to degrade that suspect by using deceptive words. Ibn Kutheir avoids referring to the reports recorded by At-Tabari since such reports emanate the suspect of day of Arafa’s being Friday. At-Tabari’s Tafsir; 4/111:
… Amir attested that God’s saying: (This day have I…,) was revealed on day of Arafa which fell on Friday. Others declared that the day at which the Verse was revealed was Monday. Others stated that sura of Maida was revealed in Al-Madina. … Ibn Abbas: Your Prophet was born on Monday. He left Mecca on Monday, and arrived in Al-Madina on Monday. Sura of Maida and God’s saying: (This day have I…,) was revealed on Monday. The Remembrance -the Quran- was ceased on Monday. (At-Tabari) The earliest opinion, which is Omar Bin Al-Khattab’s, is the most preferable for authenticity of its documentation while the others’ documentations are fictitious.
THE OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE
It is tractable to search for the actual event incited the revelation of Verse of Ikmaluddin through the copious narratives of the Farewell Pilgrimage. Previous divine declaration and enormous prophetic arrangements were prepared for this distinguished farewell. It was attended by about 70000-120000 individuals most of whom narrated, somewhat detailedly, most of the events, the prophetic deeds and words and the five sermons addressed there. They also recorded the day on which the Prophet left Al-Madina, and the placed he passed by or halt at, and the date of arrival in Mecca and the date and ways of performing the rituals of pilgrimage. Moreover, they described his journey back to Al-Madina and whatever he met till he entered it. He lived there only two months when he responded his Lord’s summons.
Accordingly, elements of timing and date are decisive arbiters in the question of identifying the day in which Verse of Ikmaluddin was revealed. In addition to other objective factors which will be soon provided, element of timing prefers the Prophet’s progeny’s opinion and the concordant Sunni narratives. First: Unlike imagination of At-Tabari and his likes, the contradiction in this subject is not cited between two narratives one of which is of more authentic documentation or many ways of narration. The matter here is a contradiction between the Prophet’s saying and Omar’s.
The reports, they had ruled as doubtful, are documented prophetic sayings, while the other reports recorded by Al-Bukhari and his likes are only Omar’s saying. They are not related to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).
Omar’s saying is not adequate enough for refuting a hadith indicating the event incited revelation of a Verse. It is essential for Sunni scholars to scrutinize the text and documentation of such a hadith. If it is authentic, they should throw Omar’s saying away and adhere to that prophetic tradition. If it is not, they should see the other companions’ contradictory opinions and accord them, otherwise he should prefer some to others. Unfortunately, Sunnis did not practice so. Second: Supposing we concede and regard the Prophet’s progeny’s opinion and Sunnis’ concordant ones are no more than opinions of a party opposing the other, and that the contradiction is no more than a contrary opinions of two of the Prophet’s companions, or a companion and an imam from that Prophet’s progeny; supposing this, we should affirm that the Prophet instructed his nation to take the religion from his household, not companions.
This meaning is so undeniable since it is warranted by the famous prophetic saying of the two weighty things, that is commonly recounted by the entire Muslims. Ahmed’s Al-Musnad; 3/14:
Abu Sa’eed: The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated: “I am leaving among you the two weighty things. One of them is greater than the other. They are the Book of Allah. It is a rope extended from the heavens to the earth. The other is my progeny; my household. They shall not be separated till they meet me on the Divine Pool.* Unmistakably, this authentic prophetic saying implies that source of this religion is restricted to the Prophet’s household after him, or, in less extent, indicates that the Prophet’s household’s opinion should be preferred when contradicted with others’.
Third: Omar’s narration is basically contradictory in such a way that it is obligatory to neglect. Some related Omar’s mentioning Thursday as day of Arafa, while others related his assigning Friday. An-Nisai’s As-Sunan; 5/251:
…Tariq Bin Shihab: A Jew said to Omar: “Had the verse (This day have I..,) been revealed to us, we would have celebrated on the day of its revelation for good.” Omar answered: “We do recognize the day and night of its revelation. We were with the Prophet in Arafat on that night before Friday when this Verse was revealed.” An-Nisai, on page 114 of part 8 of the same book, asserts that the Verse was revealed on Friday.
Fourth: Sufian Athawri doubted whether day of Arafa was Friday or not. Sufian is one of Sunni master scholars and hadithists. There is a good deal of reports supporting Sufian’s suspect. Furthermore, it seems that he was sure that day of Arafa was not Friday, but he used ‘suspect’ for wheedling Omar’s devotees who re sorted the entire narratives of the Farewell Pilgrimage and, in further extent, the Islamic history so that day of Arafa would be Friday. Fifth: The Muslims’ festivity is being on day of sacrifice, not that of Arafa. I could not find a single narrative supports that day of Arafa is an authorized festival. Hence, no single Muslim agrees with Omar on that odd saying. For the Muslim radicalists, this is a heresy.
An-Nisai reports that the Verse was revealed on the night just before day of Arafa which fell on Thursday. In case this narrative is regarded, there will be no festivity opposed by that revealed from the heavens. Hence, the matter does not require a law of merging the opposed divine festivals, as the caliph claimed. There will be only one interpretation for the caliph’s words: The day on which the Verse was revealed is worthy enough to be taken as festivity. Because it was revealed two days before the festivity, we could not celebrate it. This is meaningless wording.
Sixth: Omar’s wording opposes wording authentically ascribed to him. That Jew, who asked Omar, understood that the Lord perfected Islam and sealed it on that day when the Verse was revealed. Omar admitted this understanding. Therewith, the Verse must have been revealed after the revelation of the entire precepts. Considering the previous, the opinion adopted by the Prophet’s progeny, As-Seddi, Ibn Abbas et al, should be the most accurate. Meanwhile, Omar claimed the revelation of Verses of Kelala, heritage and others after that of Ikmaluddin. On that account, Omar should have told that Jew that the Verse did not mean consummation of the Islamic ordinance since there was a number of laws revealed thereafter. Hence, the day on which the other laws was revealed, must have been taken as the festival. As a rule, in case reports oppose each other, they all should be invalidated and disregarded. From this cause, Omar’s wording respecting the seal of the Quranic Verses and those respecting the revelation of Verse of Ikmaluddin should be totally neglected and suspended.
Furthermore, the caliph admits, through the reports involved, that (This day) mentioned in the Verse stands for the identified day on which the Verse was revealed. He denies its being implying a general time, or a day fell two years ago, or a day to come several months later. This admission negates At-Tabari’s opinion, which was invented mainly for befitting Omar’s wording. It also negates the entire narratives aiming at generalizing (This day) mentioned in the Verse or dedicating it to conquest of Mecca.
Al-Qurtubi’s Tafsir; 1/143:
‘Day’ may be expressing a definite hour. This is clear through God’s saying: (Today have I perfected…)
Al-Qurtubi’s Tafsir; 2/61:
A part of a day may be expressed as the whole day… Seventh: Omar’s answer is unconvincing for the Jews as well as Muslims. If Omar intended that that day had not been taken as a festival because it occurred on a day of festivity, the Jew could have asked the reason beyond the Lord’s ruining that festivity when He revealed the Verse during a day of previous festivity. If he intended that festivity of the religion perfection had been merged with that of Arafa, then the following question would be cited: This means that you considered the day on which the Verse was revealed as a half festivity when you merged it with that of Arafa; then can you lead us to a single trace of that festivity which is annually celebrated by Shias?
If Omar intended that that noble day and glorious festival had been merged or fused by Friday and day of Arafa on which it occurred, then was it a matter of God’s intentional plan to melt that day, but Muslims could save the situation when they opted for the decision of merging or halving? Furthermore, who adopted that decision of merging? Who had the right of merging, or feeding a divine festivity to another? How come were Muslims unaware of the event of such a concurrence of the divine festivities till a Jew provided the question in Omar’s reign? Omar, at any rate, agreed to the Jews’ question, and answered that the ruling appertained to such a concurrence should be either merging the latter to the previous or feeding one to the other.
Was such a ruling revealed from the heavens, or was it a personal postulate favored by Omar; the caliph?
As a matter of fact, this question, cited by that Jew, is still unanswerable for Omar and his devotees. The caliph provided nothing more than his admission and recognition or its being a serious question. He then issued inapplicable rulings he had not received from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).
He confessed that the day on which the Verse was revealed had been a noble and great day for Muslims, and it had been determinative and historian day on which the Lord had perfected revelation of Islam, and completed His grace and chosen Islam for people as a religion they should follow and solicit. In addition, the caliph confessed that that great day had been suitable enough to be celebrated and commemorated as same as the three festivities of Muslims; the Fitr day -festivity of consummating the ritual fasting-, the Adha day -festivity of consummating the ritual pilgrimage- and Friday. He also recognized that if any other nation had such a day, they would have certainly taken as a divine festival.
In view of the caliph’s subjection to the Jew’s question, the day of the religion perfection should be, in the light of the Sunnis’ jurisprudence, an annual legal festivity, just like the Fitr day, the Adha day and Friday.
A deep look at the question divulges that Omar is engaged in two matters regarding the Verse of Ali Bin Abi Talib. He contradicted himself when he identified the final revealed Verse. He also engaged himself in burdening Muslims’ demanding with festivity of the Verse till the Resurrection Day. Muslims, now, had the right of demanding Omar’s devotees with that festivity which is not existed in their reference books of history, hadith and jurisprudence, but at Shias’.
Islamic festivities are fixed that none is permissible to invent another. Shias’ evidence in taking the Ghadir day as a festivity, is their adherence to the sayings of their imams who recounted that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had assigned that day as a doctrinal festivity, and Gabriel had informed that the previous nations used to take the day on which the prophet’s successors are named, as a festivity.
What was then the caliph’s claim after he had supported the Jews’ wording and agreed upon the liability of taking the day on which Verse of Ikmaluddin was revealed as a legal festivity for the Islamic nation? The caliph excused that because of its occurrence on two festivities; Friday and day of Arafa, that day was not taken as an independent festival.
Granting the caliph had issued that decision personally, this would have been seen as heretic legislation. If he had received it from the Prophet, what for would he have not referred to? In the same way, no single Muslim referred to that festivity except Shias. Eighth: An-Nisai and others record that the Prophet performed the Dhuhr and Asr prayers on that day of Arafa. If Omar’s claim of the concurrence of that day and Friday had been accurate, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) would have led the Friday, not the Dhuhr and Asr, prayer. In addition, no single narrative communicates that the Prophet performed the Friday prayer on that day.
It is conclusive that An-Nisai corresponds Sufian Athawri and disagrees with Omar in this regard.
An-Nisai’s As-Sunan; 1/290:
Title: Joining the Dhuhr to the Asr on day of Arafa. Jabir Bin Abdillah: … In Arafa, the Prophet performed the Asr prayer as soon as he accomplished the Dhuhr. Abu Dawud’s As-Sunan; 1/429:
Ibn Omar: …The Prophet joined the Asr prayer to the Dhuhr. Afterwards, he sermonized and performed the rite of halting on Arafa. It may be answered that the Friday prayer is lapsed during traveling. Sunni jurisprudents have disagreeing opinions in this point. Granting it was true that day of Arafa had fallen in Friday, and the Prophet had left the Friday prayer, thousands of Muslims who were attending the Farewell Pilgrimage would have certainly referred to this ruling.
Ibn Hazm, in Al-Muhella; 7/272, does his best to find a suitable answer: The imam is to recite the prayer audibly when day of Arafa occurs on Friday. This is the Friday prayer. It is permissible to perform the Friday prayer in Mina and Mecca, too…
Al-Hassan Bin Muslim: Day of Tarwiya occurred on Friday during the Prophet’s pilgrimage. Therefore, he allowed people to perform the Dhuhr prayer in Mina. (Ibn Hazm) This report is filled in to excess with lies… Day of Tarwiya occurred on Thursday, and that of Arafa occurred on Friday, as Al-Bukhari records… It is arisen that the entire reports mention that the Prophet joined the Asr prayer to the Dhuhr on day of Arafa. As an answer we should cite that the Prophet did so, since the Dhuhr prayer is as same as the Friday. Besides, no single narrative mentions that he (peace be upon him) did not recite audibly…
Ibn Hazm used the petitio principii. He refuted that narrative because it opposed Omar’s saying that day of Arafa fell on Friday. What for did he not refute Omar’s saying for its opposing his other saying that day of Arafa occurred on Thursday? What for did he not refute sayings of An-Nisai, Athawri and the others mentioned by At-Tabari et al? Granting the Prophet had recited that Dhuhr prayer audibly, Muslims would have referred to this ruling. As a rule, it is illicit to recite the Dhuhr prayer audibly while it is permissible to recite that of Friday audibly.
In respect to the Prophet’s journey to Mecca which commenced on Thursday; the fourth of Dhu’l-Hijja, the narration refuted by Ibn Hazm because of its opposing Omar’s saying, is being more acceptable and due. Dhu’l-Hijja began on Monday; therefore, day of Arafa must have occurred on Tuesday, and the Adha festivity on Wednesday. On that account, Friday must have been the twelfth of Dhu’l-Hijja. The narrator’s claiming the Prophet’s having been in Mina on Friday should be accurate. Nevertheless, he confused when he made it before the rite of halting on Arafat.
Ninth: Narrations of the Prophet’s having lived only eighty one nights after day of Arafa oppose the others that made day of Arafa occur on Friday. More than ninety days fall between the ninth of Dhu’l-Hijja and the twelfth of Rabi I. Therefore, Sunnis should either agree upon our narratives that identified the twenty eighth of Safar as the date on which the Prophet was deceased, or agree upon our narratives that identified the eighteenth of Dhu’l-Hijja; day of Ghadir, as the date on which Verse of Ikmaluddin was revealed.
As-Suyouti’s Ad-Durrul Manthour; 2/259:
… Ibn Jureij: The Prophet spent eighty one nights only after the revelation of God’s saying: (This day have I… An alike narrative is repeated on page 257 of part 2. It is quoted from Al-Beihaqi’s Shiebul Iman. Ibn Hajar’s Talkhissul Hubeir; 7/3:
… Ibn Jureij: The Prophet spent eighty one nights only after the revelation of God’s saying: (This day have I… The same is recorded in At-Tabarani’s Al-Mujamul Kabir; 12984, and At-Tabari’s Tafsir; 4/106. Al-Qurtibi’s Tafsir; 20/223:
Ibn Omar: Sura of Nasr was revealed in Mina during the Farewell Pilgrimage. Then, the Verse: (Today have I…) was revealed. After this Verse, the Prophet (peace be upon him) lived for eighty days. He lived fifty days after the revelation of Verse of Kelala, and thirty five after the revelation of God’s saying: (There comes to you an Apostle…)
After eleven days from the revelation of God’s saying: (And beware of that day on which…,) the Prophet was deceased. Ibn Omar’s narrative supports his father’s claiming the revelation of Verse of Kelala after that of Ikmaluddin. It seems he disremembered Verse of usury his father considered as the final. He also violated his father when he stated that Verse of Ikmaluddin was revealed after sura of Nasr which was revealed in Mina. This indicates that Verse of Ikmaluddin must have been revealed after consummation of the Farewell Pilgrimage and during the Prophet’s journey back to Al-Madina. While the father identified day of Arafa as the date on which the Verse was revealed, his son was about to say that it was revealed in Ghadir.
Ibn Omar mended one side and spoiled many others.
Al-Amini’s Al-Ghadir; 1/230:
This matter is supported by logic and authentic narrations. Ar-Razi, in Tafsir; 3/529, relates the following to the most remarkable hadithists: The Prophet (peace be upon him) spent eighty one or two days after the revelation of God’s saying: (This day have I…) This is emphasized by Abus-Saud in the margin of Ar-Razi’s Tafsir; 3/523. Historians identify the twelfth of Rabi I as the date of the Prophet’s decease. Accordingly, there is only one day added to the eighty two day period if day of Ghadir and that of decease are excluded.
Because of the disorder of the number of days, this opinion, at any rate, is nearer to the actuality than that stating its revelation on day of Arafa, and recorded in books of Al-Bukhari, Muslim and others. Furthermore, their narratives identifying Monday as the day on which the Verse was revealed, contradict Omar’s saying. Al-Beihaqi’s Delailun Nubuwa; 7/233: Ibn Abbas: Your Prophet was born on Monday. He was prophesied on Monday, and left Mecca on Monday, and conquered Mecca on Monday. Sura of Maida was revealed on Monday. He was deceased on Monday.
Al-Heithami, in Majmauzzawaid; 1/196, comments that Ahmed and At-Tabarani record the same narrative that one of its narrators is Ibn Luheia; the doubtful. As a matter of fact, the problem is not Ibn Luheia’s doubtfulness. It is the contradiction to Omar’s saying. This fact is stated frankly by As-Suyouti and Ibn Kutheir who added, on page 198 of part 1 of his book:
This is totally forlorn since the battle of Badr and the revelation of the Verse occurred on Friday. Ibn Asakir, however, is more impartial as he disregards doubtfulness and forlornness of the narrative and describes it as opposite to the common opinion, which is Omar’s saying.
It is imperative to allude that citing their narratives identifying Monday as the day on which the Verse was revealed, is reckoned with the rule of constraining them to what they committed themselves to. In truth, we do not admit that the Prophet spent only eighty days after the revelation of the Verse. We believe, according to our authenticated reports, that the Verse was revealed on the eighteenth of Dhu’l-Hijja and the Prophet was deceased on the twenty eighth of Safar. The period, hence, is about seventy days only.
We also believe that the Verse was revealed on Thursday or Friday, and the Prophet’s mission commenced on Monday, and Ali prayed with him on Tuesday, and his decease was on Monday, too. Hence, it is possible that most of sura of Maida was revealed on Monday, while the rest, including Verses of Isma and Ikmaluddin, were revealed afterwards.
Tenth: Reports regarding the Prophet’s movement from Al-Madina are contradictory to those identifying Friday as the day on which day of Arafa occurred. Thursday, the twenty seventh of Dhu’l-Qada is the date identified for the Prophet’s journey to Mecca. This date is recorded in Shias’ common narratives. It accords date of revelation, which is the eighteenth of Dhu’l-Hijja. On that account, Monday was the first of Dhu’l-Hijja, and Thursday was the day of the Prophet’s arrival in Mecca. This date is mentioned in a narrative recorded in ¬Al-Kafi; 4/245. Tuesday then was day of Arafa, and Thursday was day of Ghadir. The following are models of the Prophet’s progeny’s narratives in this regard:
Wesailu Shia; 9/318:
… On the twenty seventh of Dhu’l-Qada, the Prophet left Al-Madina. He arrived in Mecca on the fourth of Dhu’l-Hijja. Al-Kafi; 4/245:
Abu Abdillah (peace be upon him): …On the twenty seventh of Dhu’l-Qada, the Prophet left Al-Madina… He arrived in Mecca on the fourth of Dhu’l-Hijja… Al-Mustershid; 119:
Abu Sa’eed: The Prophet summoned people to declare fealty to Ali in Ghadir Khum. That was on Thursday. He gave the orders of sweeping thorns under a tree, and raised Ali from the arms as elevated as possible… Before people’s scattering, God revealed: (This day have I… The Prophet’s progeny’s opinion is asserted by reports recorded in the reference books of hadith of both Sunnis and Shias. These reports affirm that the Prophet used to travel on Thursdays, or was seldom traveling on other than Thursdays. Such reports are recorded in Al-Bukhari’s Sahih; 4/6, and Abu Dawud’s As-Sunan; 1/586. The report of Seyidunnans recorded in Uyounul-Athar; 2/341 approves that the Prophet’s journey started on Thursday.
In Biharul Anwar; 16/272, it is recorded that Abu Abdillah (peace be upon him) said: “During Summer, the Prophet used to travel on Thursdays, while in Winter he used to opt for Fridays.”
The Prophet’s progeny’s opinion is also ratified by Jabir’s narrating that the Prophet’s journey commenced four days before the end of Dhu’l-Qada. This narrative is recorded by Ibn Kutheir.
Moreover, Al-Bukhari, as well as most of the most remarkable reference books of hadith, refers to many narratives in which the day on which the Prophet’s journey to Mecca commenced is not identified. They only mention that it began five days before the end of Dhu’l-Qada. Such narratives are recorded in Al-Bukhari’s; 2/146-8 and 187. A narrative stating that the Prophet’s arrival in Mecca was after the lapse of four nights from Dhu’l-Hijja, is recorded on page 7 of part 4 of the same book. Such narratives are also recorded in the following books:
An-Nisai’s As-Sunan; 1/154, 208 and 5/121.
Muslim’s Sahih; 4/32.
Ibn Madga’s As-Sunan; 2/993.
Al-Beihaqi’s As-Sunan; 5/33.
The following points regarding the Prophet’s journey to Mecca prove accuracy of the Prophet’s progeny’s opinion:
- Ordinary journeys from Al-Madina to Mecca take eight days in maximum.
- The Prophet took the shortest way, which was about four hundred kilometers.
- The Prophet and the companies were so speedy that some complained the fatigue they were suffering, and the Prophet instructed that they would be healed from such a foot ache if they tied them.
- No single narrative refers to any sort of stopping during the Prophet’s journey.
- Narrations that recount the Prophet’s journey back to Al-Madina and his relative cessation in Ghadir support that the journey took eight days only.
- Many narratives affirm that the Prophet arrived in Mecca on the fourth of Dhu’l-Hijja.
In due course, the narrative identifies the twenty fifth of Dhu’l-Qada as the day on which the Prophet began his journey to Mecca should be discredited since it made the journey take about ten days. This narrative, however, is recorded in Umdetul Qari, Irshadus Sari. It is also recorded by Ibn Hazm and in the margin of As-Siretul Halabiya; 3/257.
The previous points show the real value of the narratives opposite to the Prophet’s progeny’s opinion. Adopters of such ineffective narratives, that identified the twenty fourth of Dhu’l-Qada as the date on which the Prophet began his journey to Mecca, tried to apply it to Saturday so that the first of Dhu’l-Hijja would be Thursday, and day of Arafa Friday for nothing rather than supporting Omar’s saying. They exceeded in this regard as they overlooked the other narratives that related Omar’s identifying Thursday.
The following reference books adopted the narrative that identified Saturday as the day on which the Prophet started his journey:
Ibn Sa’d’s At-Tabaqat; 2/124.
Al-Waqidi’s Al-Meghazi; 2/1089.
(Margin of) As-Siretul Halabiya; 3/3.
At-Tabari’s; 3/148.
At-Thehbi’s Tarikh; 2/701… etc.
Taking these narratives in consideration leads to believe that Thursday was the first of Dhu’l-Hijja, and Friday was day of Arafa, and the Prophet’ journey took nine days provided that the narrator considered, mistrustfully, that Dhu’l-Qada as thirty days.* Ibn Kutheir attempts to defend this opinion. He records, in As-Sira; 4/217:
… Anas related that the Prophet led the Dhuhr prayer in his mosque in Al-Madina, and the Asr, in the shortened from, in Dhilhalifa.
This narrative denies the claim that the Prophet began his journey on Friday. Similarly, it invalidates Ibn Hazm’s assertion that the journey began on Thursday. Indisputably, first of Dhu’l-Hijja occurred on Thursday. This fact is proved through incessant and unanimous narratives that affirmed the occurrence of day of Arafa, which is the ninth of Dhu’l-Hijja, on Friday. Six nights of Dhu’l-Qada would certainly remain if the Prophet’s journey was started on Thursday; the twenty fourth.
Ibn Abbas, Aisha and Jabir assigned commencement of the Prophet’s journey to five nights before the end of Dhu’l-Qada, and this should never be Friday, for Anas’s saying; hence, the Prophet’s journey was started on Saturday. The narrator miscalculated when he identified thirty days for Dhu’l-Qada which was only twenty nine that year. So, Wednesday was not accounted with Dhu’l-Qada. The night before Thursday became first of Dhu’l-Hijja… This prognosis should be considered, since there is no other opinion.
It seems that Ibn Kutheir is not sure of such prognosis, because he had to notice the uncertainty arisen by Omar himself, Sufian At-Thawir and An-Nisai. He also had to regard Ibn Hazm’s emphasis that the Prophet’s journey was started on Thursday. It is also noticeable that Ibn Kutheir used the petitio principii as he attempts to prove that the Prophet’s journey to Mecca was started on Thursday. He was in the first lines of his thesis when he referred to incessancy and unanimity of the Prophet’s halting in Arafa on Friday. He should have explicated sort of that incessancy and unanimity.
He cited Anas’s narration stating that the Prophet performed the Dhuhr and Asr, not Friday, prayers, as another evidence on his claim. As a matter of fact, this narrative supports the Prophet’s progeny’s opinion that fix Thursday as the day on which the Prophet’s journey was started. Previously, we have referred to the narration dealing with the Prophet’s performing the Dhuhr and Asr prayers in Dhilhalifa. At length, Anas’s narrative, if accurate, does not oppose identifying Thursday as the day on which the Prophet journeyed to Mecca. It may hint at the fact that the Prophet attired the pilgrims garb after the Asr prayer in Dhilhalifa, and kept on his journey.
The abstract is that there are numerous cruxes standing in the face of admitting the opinion that Verse of Ikmaluddin was revealed on day of Arafa. These cruxes are proceeded in the style, date and timing of that opinion. Accordingly, accurate researchers are logically deprived of adopting such a poor opinion. There remains the Prophet’s progeny’s opinion. The existence of disabled opposite is as same as its nothingness. Similarly, helpless texts cannot be backed by authentic documentation.
The entire Muslims agree that the day on which Verse of Ikmaluddin was revealed is being a great divine festivity. It is festivity of perfection of the religion and completion of the divine grace. For the Prophet’s progeny, this day is being the most remarkable Islamic festivity. This can be proved manifestly and easily. The weekly Islamic festivity is involved in the Friday prayer. The Fitr day is engaged in the rite of fasting. The Adha day is engaged in the ritual pilgrimage. In a like manner, the Ghadir festivity is engaged in the Lord’s completing His grace on the nation.
For Sunnis, this completion was achieved by the consummatory revelation of the religious rulings without identifying any process for assigning the coming leadership. For Shias, this was achieved be perfection of the religious rulings, and completion of the divine grace that settled the problem of the leadership and dedicating the Prophet’s progeny to the imamate till the Resurrection Day.
As a bonus, the entire Muslims agree on considering that day as a legal festivity. What for then are the chiefs, scholars and intellects of the Muslims accepting this nation’s losing such a great day? What for do they accept that no festival or ceremonies that must become legality and sacredness of such a day, are made? Sunni scholars should respond to our bidding of studying the legal and doctrinal faces of this ‘wronged’ festivity, and reviving it in the Muslims’ lives in a form accordant to the beliefs and jurisprudence of each sect.