Abu al-Khattab


Brother Ammar Muslim has written a response to my series of posts regarding al-Mufaddal ibn Umar, and in his post focus specifically on targetting al-Mufaddal’s teacher Abu al-Khattab.

Upon close inspection, the reader will find that brother Ammar’s post lacks introspective analysis on the subject, does not address crucial points, and presents superficial information.

All points will be addressed in this post iA, through quoting them directly and responding.

Note: This series will focus on academically analyzing the personality of Abu al-Khattab, it is not to ‘defend’ him but to raise questions that can be a source of doubt.


Abu al-Khattab

A) Ammar’s introduction

AA) Abu al-Khattab, a fool or a most knowledgeable jurist?

Ammar begins by quoting Imam al-Sadiq’s words below, attempting to present Abu al-Khattab as depicted in the hadith.

كان أبو الخطاب أحمق فكنت أحدثه فكان لا يحفظ، و كان يزيد من عنده

Abu al-Khattab was a fool – I would narrate to him so he would not memorize it, and he would add from himself[1]

Imam al-Sadiq

Brother Ammar fails to read between the lines when he cites this hadith as evidence of his conception of Abu al-Khattab.

His post shows lack of awareness that Abu al-Khattab was not simply just someone who preserved the ahadith of the Imam.

He was more than that - he was a faqih, with tafaqquh (juristic reasoning) more advanced than Muhammad ibn Muslim, one of the “4 pillars” of the Imam (as Ammar views it).

In fact, Muhammad ibn Muslim accepted his judgement without argument! If Abu al-Khattab’s knowledge was that of a jahil (ignorant with no knowledge), there would be argument.

Is this logical for the ‘faqih’ Muhammad ibn Muslim to accept the judgement of a man who would not memorize hadith and adds to it from himself? 

(Al-Kafi, vol 2, page 401)

Ali ibn Ibrahim on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ibn Abi Umair, on the authority of Abdul Rahman ibn Al-Hajjaj, on the authority of Hashem, Sahib al-Bareed, who said: 

I (Hashim) Muhammad ibn Muslim and Abu Al-Khattab were gathered together, and Abu Al-Khattab said to us: 

What do you say about those who did not know this matter? 

So I (Hashim) said: He who does not know this matter (i.e, not aware of the Imam’s Imamate) is an infidel. 

Abu Al-Khattab said: He is not an infidel until the proof (hujja) is established against him. 

If the hujja is established against him and he does not know, then he is an infidel. 

So Muhammad ibn Muslim said to him: Subhan Allah! (in agreement)

How is it that if he does not know (of the matter) and does not deny it - he is a disbeliever?! He is not an infidel if he does not deny in defiant disobedience.

‎ علي بن إبراهيم عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن عبد الرحمن بن الحجاج، عن هاشم صاحب البريد قالكنت أنا ومحمد بن مسلم وأبوالخطاب مجتمعين فقال لنا أبو الخطابما تقولون فيمن لم يعرف هذا الامر؟ فقلتمن لم يعرف هذا الامر فهو كافر، فقال أبو الخطابليسبكافر حتى تقوم عليه الحجة، فإذا قامت عليه الحجة فلم يعرف فهو كافر، فقال له محمد بن مسلمسبحان الله ماله إذا لم يعرف ولم يجحديكفر؟ليس بكافر إذا لم يجحد

  • Evaluation: 

We can see Abu al-Khattab’s reasoning in the hadith to be level headed and evidence based. 

It shows the ability to analyze the Imam’s ahadith to arrive at a correct conclusion (as confirmed by the Imam later in the hadith) of whether a person who does not know the Imam is a kafir. 

Only with this level of reasoning can Abu al-Khattab be appointed by the Imam to his level of spiritual leadership - such that when the Imam removed him from his position, the Shi’a were left in shock. 

(Rijal al-Kashi)

Authentic hadith, graded as mu’tabar by Sh Asif Mohseni:

He [al-Ridha] also said: A man asked Aba al-Hasan [al-Kadhim] عليه السلام and said: How did it happen that Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said about Abi al-Khattab what he said about him at first [in commissioning him] and then came the command to disassociate from him? So he said to him: Is it only for Abi Abdillah عليه السلام to appoint but not to depose!”

233] رجال الكشيمحمد بن مسعود، عن علي بن الحسن، عن معمر بن خلاد قالقال أبو الحسن عليه السلامإن أبا الخطاب أفسد أهلالكوفة فصاروا لا يصلون المغرب حتى يغيب الشفق و لم يكن ذلك إنما ذاك للمسافر و صاحب العلة، و قالإن رجلا سأل أبا الحسن عليهالسلام فقالكيف قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام في أبي الخطاب ما قال ثم جاءت البراءة منه؟ فقال لهأكان لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام أنيستعمل و ليس له أن يعزل

Thus, Ammar’s presentation of the hadith of Abu al-Khattab not preserving hadith and adding it is superficial information presented with no critical inspection.

As the above show, Abu al-Khattab’s scholarly status was too well known such that taqiyya is the only possible answer to how the Imam could have described Abu al-Khattab in such a way (not memorizing it and adding from his own) 


Ammar proceeds to proclaim that:

My responsibility would then merely be to alert readers that his is a lone voice going against centuries-strong consensus of Twelver scholars from the earliest times to the present-day

This is a very interesting statement, indeed.

It is also my responsibility to highlight the fact that Brother Ammar’s views regarding Mufaddal do not represent the the “centuries-strong consensus of Twelver scholars from the earliest times to the present-day”. 

It is academic honesty for brother Ammar to clarify to the readers that his view that Mufaddal was always a ghali and remained so his entire life is very much a lone and innovative view. 

By doing so, given that Ammar is of the view that Mufaddal & his companions fabricated ahadith - his comes with the implicit implication that all of Mufaddal’s ahadith shedding light on the high and mysterious status of our Imams are fabricated.

Even al-Kashi who believed al-Mufaddal was a Khattabi did not believe the ahadith praising him were fabricated by Mufaddal’s own supporters

Asad ibn Abi al-‘Ula narrates wickedry. Perhaps this report was narrated when al-Mufaddal was on a state of righteousness before becoming a Khattabite

قال الكشيأسد بن أبي العلا يروي المناكير، لعل هذا الخبر انما روى في حال استقامة المفضل قبل أن يصير خطابيا.

Brother Ammar does not mention to the readers that:

  • Shaykh al-Tusi labeled Mufaddal as a praised safeer of the Imams. Zurara is not mentioned (as he was not a safeer).

(Al-Ghayba, vol 1, page 366-367)

And before mentioning who was a safeer during al-Ghayba, we mention a part of the reports on (safeers) specific to each imam, and and how they was deputized by the Imam to excercise his functions - in a summarized fashion


And among the praised of (these sufara’) is al-Mufaddal ibn Umar”

وقبل ذكر من كان سفيرا حال الغيبة نذكر طرفا من أخبار من كان يختص بكل إمام، ويتولى له الامر على وجه من الايجاز

ومن الممدوحين المفضل بن عمر

  • Shaykh al-Mufid says

Among those who narrated the Nass (succession will) of the Imamate from Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq, peace be upon him, to his son Abu al-Hasan Musa, peace be upon him, from the sheikhs of Abu Abdullah’s companions, his elite, his innermost and trustworthy, righteous jurists - may God be pleased with them - include al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju’fi

فممن روى صريح النص بالإمامة من أبي عبد الله الصادق عليه السلام على ابنه أبي الحسن موسى عليه السلام من شيوخ أصحاب أبيعبد الله وخاصته وبطانته وثقاته الفقهاء الصالحين - رضوان الله عليهم - المفضل بن عمر الجعفي

AC) Violating Consensus

question to ask:

Is brother Ammar claiming he can analyze the status of companions independently in the 21st century, while not having the resources and knowledge of classical scholar giants such as al-Tusi and al-Mufid who viewed al-Mufaddal in a positive light?

And doing so while not taking into account whether or not the scholars who did believe Mufaddal was a deviator, saw him as always having been a deviator (as Ammar views the matter)?

Personally speaking, I believe Ammar has the right to re-examine the character of Mufaddal regardless of him going against the consensus. Knowledge should be sought, even if it goes against the consensus of fallibles.

After all, others have challenged centuries-long consensus in Shi’i circles and these new views have become the mainstream way for scholars to understand our Imams.

Al-Hurr al-‘Amili says with regards to ‘Ilm al-Diraya studies introduced by Shahid al-Thani and with great influence on modern Shi’i fiqh:

(Wasa’il al-Shi’a, vol 30, 263)

The consensus of the righteous sect - which was transmitted by the Sheikh (al-Tusi), Al-Muhaqqiq (al-Hilli) and others - is the opposite of this terminology (‘Ilm al-Diraya)

And their work continued in opposition to it, from the time of the imams, peace be upon them, to the time of the Allama, in a period of nearly seven hundred years.

It is also known that the infallible, peace be upon him, entered into that consensus, as you know.

إجماع الطائفة المحقة - الذي نقله الشيخ والمحقق وغيرهما - على نقيض هذا الاصطلاح، واستمر عملهم بخلافه، من زمن الأئمة عليهم السلامإلى زمن العلامة، في مدة تقارب سبعمائة سنة.

وقد علم دخول المعصوم عليه السلام في ذلك الإجماع كما عرفت.

Thus, even if my research on Abu al-Khattab goes against centuries held-consensus. It does not decrease the validity of it in anyway, and does not mean the research would not be binding if it is not found to be the truth.

Just like it is also within Ammar’s right to publish his views which can, at best, be termed “revisionist” on the Imam’s companions and do not represent the overall consensus Shi’i scholars.

B) “The Charge of Antinomianism

BA) An affirmation of al-Sadiq?

Ammar says:

My linking of Abu al-Khattab and antinomianism is not ‘based on the view of Mukhalif heresiographers distant from Tashayyu’ as he claims but rather on a letter from the Imam al-Sadiq himself:

 كتب أبو عبد الله عليه السلام إلى أبي الخطاب بلغني أنك تزعم أن الزنا رجل و أن الخمر رجل و أن الصلاة رجل و أنالصيام رجل و أن الفواحش رجل، و ليس هو كما تقول أنا أصل الحق و فروع الحق طاعة الله، و عدونا أصل الشر وفروعهم الفواحش، و كيف يطاع من لا يعرف و كيف يعرف من لا يطاع

Abu Abdillah wrote to Abi al-Khattab saying: It has reached me that you claim that Zina (adultery) is a man, Khamr (wine) is a man, Salat (daily prayer) is a man, Sawm (fasting) is a man, and the Fawahish (abominable acts) is a man, but it is not as you say!

Verily we (the Imams) are the root of Truth and the branches of Truth is obedience to Allah (by performing all the Wajibat and abstaining from the Muharramat), and our enemy is the root of Falsehood and its branches are the abominable acts.

How can He be obeyed One who is not recognized? And how can He be recognized One who is not obeyed?”

  • Evaluation

Before we get to the true meaning of the hadith, we will for the purpose of section BA, go with brother Ammar’s conception of it - that Imam al-Sadiq is condemning the belief in prayer, fasting, etc = men.

An introspective analysis would show that this type of response does not affirm the attribution of the claim (to Abu al-Khattab), but is more on the lines of:

If you have in fact said this (with such interpretation), then it is not as you say - because the correct interpretation is so and so.

It is a style all too common to the Imams, as Imam al-Kadhim does the same to his undoubtedly righteous companion Hisham when people informed the Imam that he (Hisham ibn al-Hakam) espouses anthropomorphism:


8. `Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn `Imran al-Daqqaq (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Muhammad ibn Abu `Abd Allah al-Kufi said: on the authority of Muhammad ibn Isma`il alBarmaki, on the authority of `Ali ibn al-`Abbas, on the authority of al-Hasan ibn `Abd alRahman al-Hammani that I said to Abu al-Hasan Musa ibn Ja`far (AS): Hisham ibn al-Hakam thinks that Allah is a body. 


So he (AS) said: May Allah kill him! Does he not know that a body is limited, and that speech is other than the speaker?

وروى عن محمد بن أبي عبد الله، عن محمد بن إسماعيل، عن علي بن العباس، عن الحسن بن عبد الرحمان الحماني، قالقلت لأبي الحسنموسى بن جعفر عليهما السلامإن هشام بن الحكم زعم أن الله جسم ليس كمثله شئ (إلى أن قالفقال عليه السلامقاتله الله، أما علم أنالجسم محدود

If meant literally, it would mean that Imam al-Kadhim was addressing Hisham and asking Allah to kill him. And asking “does he not a body is limited?” is affirming Hisham’s anthropomorphism.

However, we know that Hisham was guaranteed heaven by Imam al-Sadiq. 

We also know that Hisham’s companions conjured false claims about his beliefs, in envy of his deputy position.

(Rijal al-Kashi, vol 2, page 547)

I asked Aba al-Hasan al-Ridha, peace be upon him, about Hisham ibn al-Hakam, he said: He (may God have mercy on him) said: He was a sincere slave and was harmed by his companions, out of envy from them.

سألت أبا الحسن الرضا عليه السلام عن هشام بن الحكم، قالفقال (رحمه اللّه): كان عبداً ناصحاً وأوذى من قبل أصحابهحسداً منهم له.

In light of this, one might not see the words of al-Kadhim literally asking Allah to kill Hisham for anthropomorphic beliefs, nor affirming Hisham had him.

The Imam saying this to his companion would thus be along the lines of “If you interpretation of what he said is correct; then may Allah kill him. Does he not know that a body is limited?”

And the same applies for al-Sadiq with Abu al-Khattab’s alleged anthropomorphism as we will see in section BB.

BB) Meaning of the Letter & Implications

However, Ammar’s idea of the hadith is simply wrong.

He must look at the hadith he cited with an introspective lens, and must look at the hadith in its entirety. 

In fact, the Imam affirms that prayer, fasting, etc is a man and that man is the Imam - when he says the following part of the hadith:

Verily we (the Imams) are the root of Truth and the branches of Truth is obedience to Allah (by performing all the Wajibat and abstaining from the Muharramat), and our enemy is the root of Falsehood and its branches are the abominable acts.

The ‘roots of truth’ mentioned - is a man who is the Imam, as hadith says, consists of prayer, fasting, etc.

While the root of evil consists of the Imams’ enemies. And every immorality such as zina = are men who Imam’s enemies

As the following al-Kafi hadith confirms:

(Al-Kafi, vol 8, page 242)

Ali bin Muhammad bin Abdullah, on the authority of Ibrahim bin Ishaq, on the authority of Abdullah bin Hammad, on the authority of Ibn Miskan, on the authority of Abi Abdullah (peace be upon him) he said: 

We are the root of all good and our branches are all righteousness. 

The righteousness consists of Tawhid (oneness of Allah), prayer, fasting, forgiveness of abuser, the mercy towards the poor, the righteousness towards neighbor and the recognition of the grace to whom deserves it. 

And our enemy is the root of all evil, and from their branches are all evil and obscenity (fahisha) such as liesgreed, gossip, estrangement, consuming usury, consuming an orphan’s wealth without right, transgressing the limits that God has commanded, engaging in immorality - what is apparent and what is hidden, fornication (zina), theft, and everything that agrees with that of the wicked. So whoever claimed that he is with us and is related to the branches of others, lied.”

علي بن محمد بن عبد الله، عن إبراهيم بن إسحاق، عن عبد الله بن حماد، عن ابن مسكان، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلامقالنحن أصلكل خير ومن فروعنا كل بر فمن البر التوحيد والصلاة والصيام وكظم الغيظ والعفو عن المسئ ورحمة الفقير وتعهد الجار والإقرار بالفضللأهله، وعدونا أصل كل شر ومن فروعهم كل قبيح وفاحشة فمنهم الكذب

والبخل والنميمة والقطيعة وأكل الربا وأكل مال اليتيم بغير حقه وتعدي الحدود التي أمر الله وركوب الفواحش ما ظهر منها وما بطن والزناوالسرقة وكل ما وافق ذلك من القبيحفكذب من زعم أنه معنا وهو متعلق بفروع غيرنا

Therefore, what Imam al-Sadiq meant when he said the following

How can He be obeyed One who is not recognized? And how can He be recognized One who is not obeyed?”

Is that there is no obedience to Allah without ma’rifa / recognition of the Imam’s status as, “deeds are not accepted with out our ma’rifa” لا يقبل الله من العباد عملا إلا بمعرفتنا (al-Kafi, vol 1, page 144)

And that ma’rifa cannot happen without obedience to the Imam.

BC) A further introspection. Truth of the matter? 

As made clear, the Imam was not condemning Abu al-Khattab’s idea of prayer, fasting equaling men. He was actually affirming it

However, he is telling Abu al-Khattab that ma’rifa of the Imam is by obeying him.

It is likely that out of passion for the Imam, Abu al-Khattab disseminated the Imam’s secret teachings to some people who do not deserve to know it.

As such, when the Imam says - “it is not as you say”. It means that ma’rifa of the Imam is preserving their secrets, not disseminating it.

Hence, the Imam ordered his cursing and disassociation - to protect himself and Abu al-Khattab.

The following hadith clarifies:

(Al-Ghayba of al-Nu’mani, vol 1, page 41)

Abu Abdillah [al-Sadiq] said:

I share a hadith to a man, and he goes on to share the hadith with another man the way he heard it from me.

This leads me to permit cursing him and disassociating from him

7 - وبهذا الإسناد، عن الحسن بن علي بن أبي حمزة، عن الحسن بن السري، قال:

قال أبو عبد الله (عليه السلام): إني لأحدث الرجل الحديث فينطلق فيحدث به عني كما سمعه فاستحل به لعنه والبراءة منه 

As we know, Abu al-Khattab was the safeer of Imam al-Sadiq.

Before Abu al-Khattab, a safeer of Imam al-Sadiq by the name of al-Mu’ala ibn Khunays  also disseminated some of the Imams’ secrets (such as the concept of reincarnation as discussed in my Mufaddal post part 2).

He was a praised safeer and loved by Imam al-Sadiq who had his son Ismail execute Mu’ala’s killer (Ismail ibn Ja’far series part 1).

Out of eagerness to support Imam al-Sadiq’s cause, al-Mu’ala shared these secret concepts despite Imam al-Sadiq warning him repeatedly. However, al-Muala was still praised regardless (as he did so out of affection).

Al-Mu’ala likely disseminated the Imam’s secrets because he believed there is justification to do so. But this justification was incorrect - but not intentional disobedience.

Similar, to how Hisham ibn al-Hakam believed there is justification to continue debating even after Imam al-Kadhim forbid him from doing so. It was an incorrect justification that was a cause in the Imam’s persecution, but not intentional disobedience

One mistake can create a whole reputation for the Imam’s movement, that even if not repeated - will still harm the movement. The most harmful reputation is ‘ghuluw’ which would have very devestating consequences from the Abbasids.

Accordingly, the dissemination of secrets eventually led to Muala’s unfortunate and very brutal death at hands of the Abbasids:

(Rijal al-Kashi)

Narrated al-Mufaddal

I entered upon Abi Abdullah, peace be upon him, on the day on which Al-Mu’alla was crucified, and I said to him: 

O son of the Messenger of God, do you not see these glorious sermons that were revealed to the Shiites on this day? He said: What is it? He said: I said: 

Al-Muala ibn Khunays was killed. He said: May God have mercy on Al-Muala. 

I was expecting that because he disclosed our secret, and the one who waged war against us was not the greatest burden on us than the one who announced our secret. 

Whoever discloses our secret to someone other than his family will not leave this world until the weapon bites him”

2 - رجال الكشيأحمد بن علي السكري، عن الحسين بن عبد الله، عن ابن أورمة (1) عن ابن يزيدعن ابن عميرة، عن المفضل، قالدخلتعلى أبي عبد الله عليه السلام يوم صلب فيه المعلى فقلت لهيا ابن رسول الله، ألا ترى هذا الخطب الجليل الذي نزل بالشيعة في هذا اليوم؟قالوما هو؟ قالقلتقتل المعلى بن خنيس قالرحم الله المعلى قد كنت أتوقع ذلك لأنه أذاع سرنا وليس الناصب لنا حربا بأعظم مؤونةعلينا من المذيع علينا سرنافمن أذاع سرنا إلى غير أهله لم يفارق الدنيا حتى يعضه السلاح

C) “The Crimes of Abu al-Khattab”

CA) Labbayk Ja’far!

Ammar Muslim says:

What led al-Sadiq to curse and disassociate from Abu al-Khattab to such an extent that he was totally abandoned by the Shia (apart from the Khattabiyya who stuck with him)?

Abu al-Khattab’s primary crime was attributing divinity to the Imam.

Musadif a Mawla of Imam al-Sadiq reports:

لما لبى القوم الذين لبوا بالكوفة دخلت على أبي عبد الله عليه السلام فأخبرته بذلك، فخر ساجدا و ألزق جؤجؤه بالأرض و بكى، و أقبل يلوذبإصبعه و يقول بل عبد الله قن داخر مرارا كثيرة، ثم رفع رأسه و دموعه تسيل على لحيته فندمت على أخباري إياه …

When the group who called out the Talbiyya in Kufa did so (i.e. aiming it to al-Sadiq and proclaiming him as their Lord) – I entered upon Abi Abdillah and informed him of it, so he dropped himself into prostration, clung his chest onto the ground and began crying, after which he raised his fingers (to the sky) and began saying – ‘rather a mere slave of Allah and a humble bondman’ – repeating it constantly, then he raised his head (from prostration) and his tears were flowing down to his beard, so I felt regret at having informed him of it …

The report ends with the Imam stating:

يا مصادف إن عيسى لو سكت عما قالت النصارى فيه لكان حقا على الله أن يصم سمعه و يعمى بصره، و لو سكت عما قال في أبوالخطاب لكان حقا على الله أن يصم سمعي و يعمى بصري

O Musadif, if Isa had remained silent after what the Christians had said about him then it would have been appropriate for Allah to deafen his hearing and blinden his sight, and If I remain silent after what Abu al-Khattab has said about me then it would be appropriate for Allah to deafen my hearing and blinden my sight![2]

  • Response:

One hadith would be enough to deconstruct brother Ammar’s conception of this hadith.

(Asl Zayd al-Narsi, found in the 16 Usul p 192)

I entered upon Abi Abdullah (peace be upon him) with Ubaid bin Zurara, and I said to him: May I be your ransom, Abu Al-Khattab and his companions have claimed a great matter about you.

In which, he did talbiya with ‘Labbayk Jaafar, Labayk Mi’raj (Abu al-Khattab)’.

And his companions claimed that Aba Al-Khattab teleported to you (through a winged animal similar to al-Israa’ journey).

So I saw Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) sending a tear from his eyes while he was saying: ‘O Lord, I am innocent to you of what al-Ajda’, slave of Banu Asad claimed.

My hair and my human being bowed to you (O Lord).

I am your servant, the son of your servant, and submissive to you’

Then the Imam prostrated for an hour on the ground as if he was saying something, then he raised his head and said:

Yes, yes, I am a servant who is submissive to to his Lord, subordinate to his Lord

I worship him and I do not associate anything with him. 

May Allah destroy him (i.e, Abu al-Khattab). The prophets’ talbiya was not like this, and nor was the messengers’.

Rather, it was ‘Labbayk Allahuma Labbayk. Labbayk La Shareeka Lak.’

Then we got up from him. And he (the Imam) said:

O Zayd! Rather, I told you this to settle in my grave, O Zayd! Conceal it from the enemies.”

ادعى (3)، دخلت على أبي عبد الله (عليه السلاممع عبيد بن زرارة، فقلت لهجعلت فداك لقد ادعى أبو الخطاب وأصحابه فيك أمرا عظيماإنه لبى ب‍ " لبيك جعفر " لبيك معراج، وزعم أصحابه أن أبا الخطاب أسري به إليك فلما هبط (4) إلى الأرض من ذلك (5) دعي إليك ولذلكلبى بك.


فرأيت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلامقد أرسل دمعته من حماليق عينيه وهو يقوليا رب برئت إليك مما ادعى في الأجدع (6) عبد بني أسد،خشع لك شعري وبشري، عبد لك، ابن عبد لك، خاضع، ذليل، ثم أطرق ساعة في الأرض (7) كأنه يناجي شيئا، ثم رفع رأسه وهو يقول:

أجل أجل (8)، عبد خاضع خاشع ذليل لربه، صاغر راغم من ربه، خائف وجل، لي - والله - رب أعبده لا أشرك به شيئا، ما له - خزاه الله (9) وأرعبه، ولا أمن روعته يوم القيامة - ما كانت تلبية الأنبياء هكذا، ولا تلبية الرسل، إنما لبت ب‍ " لبيك اللهم لبيك، لبيك لا شريك لك ".

ثم قمنا من عنده، فقاليا زيدإنما قلت لك (10) هذا لأستقر في قبري، يا زيداستر ذلك عن الأعداء. (11)

  • Evaluation of hadith:

A careful reader will notice something intriguing about the hadith of Zayd.

In it, the Imam cries in both ahadith after hearing of the Talbiya of Abu al-Khattab’s followers.

In Ammar’s hadith, he says - “If I remain silent after what Abu al-Khattab has said about me then it would be appropriate for Allah to deafen my hearing and blinden my sight”.

But in Zayd’s hadith, the Imam tells Zayd to conceal what he said from the enemies?! 

It is almost as if.. the Imam wanted the Khattabiya to continue doing their talbiya and activities. And did not publicly condemn them, as evident by him wanting this condemnation to be concealed.

Rather, he only privately condemned them to companions who were going to be a source of problem due to low ma’rifa of the Imams.

The Imam likely only cried because he expected Abu al-Khattab’s fate was to be killed (as he expected Muala’s death due to publicly proclaiming the Imam’s secrets). 

To be continued..