Refuting the argument that during the khilâfah of Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr (r) , Khâlid ibn al-Walîd, the Sahâbî military commander, killed Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, and married his widow on the very eve of his murder, without even waiting for her ‘iddah to expire.
The incident of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah is one of those cases which are frequently cited by Shî‘î propagandists whose first step in the direction of convincing and converting the Ahl as-Sunnah almost invariably assumes the form of an attempt to prove how innately corrupt and evil the Sahâbah were (na‘ûdhu billâh).
These are historical issues, and must be treated as such. This means that in judging their historicity one should firstly include all the evidence which exists around the issue, both general and specific, and secondly, be objective enough to look critically at the authenticity of one’s material. Seeking to brand persons, and more especially the Sahâbah , as corrupt and irreligious on grounds of only one side of the available evidence, and stubbornly refusing to critically scrutinise the historical material upon the basis of which a claim of this serious nature is made, can only point to the fact that the accusers have an agenda— an agenda which they are committed to promote and uphold, no matter to what extent truth and honesty might be compromised in the process.
It is indeed a sad indictment of the objectivity of the Shî‘î propagandists that they refuse point blank to take into consideration, when discussing the Sahâbah y , the wealth of âyât in the Qur’ân which announce the merits of the Sahâbah y . Similarly, they refuse to pay any attention to the numerous ahâdîth, both general and specific, in which Rasûlullâh r himself extolls the virtues of his companions. Thirdly, they cannot bear to even cast a glance at the services rendered to the cause of Islâm by any particular Sahâbî. To them the vaguest notion of a black spot on the character of a companion of Rasûlullâh and a champion of Islâm— even if amounts to nothing more an unsubstantiated, or even forged, report in a book on history— is enough to render null and void decades of dedicated service to the cause of Islâm, despite the fact that his service had been rewarded with approval by Allâh and His Rasûl r .
Let us turn now to the actual issue. We will discuss it under two headings:
(1) The execution of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah
(2) Khâlid’s alleged marriage to Mâlik’s wife
The execution of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah
Shortly after the demise of Rasûlullâh r a number of tribes in the Arabian peninsula turned away from Islâm. With many of them apostasy was expressed in the form of a refusal to pay the zakâh. From Madînah Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t dispatched a number of punitive expeditions. Khâlid ibn al-Walîd was placed in command of one such expedition.
After his victory against some of the apostate tribes, Khâlid set out for Banû Sulaym, another of the apostate tribes. On his way towards Banû Sulaym he passed through the lands of Banû Tamîm. Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah was a member of this tribe, and he had been appointed zakâh-collector of Banû Tamîm by Rasûlullâh (saw) . Reports had been circulating that Mâlik too, was withholding the zakâh.1 There were even more disturbing reports about him having started to speak ill about Rasûlullâh, and referring to him in derogatory terms.2
Sayyidunâ Khâlid t had orders from Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t to inspect the practices of the people of the various locations he passed by in order to find out whether they were Muslims or whether they too, had forsaken Islâm. If they heard the adhân and saw the people performing salâh they could conclude that they were Muslims, and if they did not see them upholding the salâh that would be an indication that they were not Muslim.3 In the case of Banû Tamîm, Sayyidunâ Khâlid’s spies differed: some claimed that they did not make salâh, while others claimed that they did.4 According to one report, their mu’adhdhin, a person by the name of Abul Jalâl, was absent, which was the reason why no adhân was heard.5 It has even been reported that they encountered armed resistance from Mâlik and his men at an oasis called al-Ba‘ûdah.6 Those who put up the resistance, including Mâlik, were captured and brought before Sayyidunâ Khâlid. He decided that they must be put to death. This is how Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah was killed.
In Sayyidunâ Khâlid’s party was the Sahâbî Sayyidunâ Abû Qatâdah t . He was amongst those who claimed that they had seen Mâlik’s people making salâh. He was thus understandable upset at the decision of Sayyidunâ Khâlid, and returned immediately to Madînah to complain to Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr . Sayyidunâ ‘Umar insisted that Khâlid be removed from his position as commander on account of his impetuousness. Khâlid was summoned back to Madînah and interrogated by the khalîfah, who concluded that Khâlid’s deed was an error of judgement, for which it was not necessary to dismiss him.7
Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t was guided in this decision by two things. Firstly, the hadîth of Rasûlullâh r wherein he described Khâlid as “the sword which Allâh unsheathed against the Unbelievers”. The second was the fact that a similar occurrence took place in the time of Rasûlullâh r , also with Khâlid ibn al-Walîd. He was put in command by Rasûlullâh r of an expedition to Banû Jadhîmah. When Khâlid asked them to accept Islâm they responded by saying “saba’nâ, saba’nâ”, a word which literally means “We have become Sabeans”, but which had come to be used in the general sense of changing one’s religion. To Khâlid this was not sufficient evidence of their acceptance of Islâm, and he gave the order for their execution. When the news of their execution reached Rasûlullâh r he lifted his hands and said, “O Allâh, I dissociate myself from what Khâlid has done.”8 Although Rasûlullâh r dissociated himself from the haste Khâlid made himself guilty of, he did not punish him, since it was an error in judgement on his part. A very regrettable error it was, but it was still an error. It was for this reason that Rasûlullâh r did not hesitate to give Khâlid command over other expeditions as well. Shortly after the Banû Jadhîmah incident Rasûlullâh entrusted him with the mission to destroy the temple of the pagan goddess ‘Uzzâ at a place called Nakhlah.9 In Jumâdâ al-Ulâ in the year 10 AH he was sent on a da‘wah mission to Banû Hârith ibn Ka‘b, and they accepted Islâm at his hands without a drop of blood being shed.10 It was also to Khâlid that Rasûlullâh r entrusted the expedition to Ukaydir ibn ‘Abd al-Malik.11
Above all there was the day, at the battle of Mu’tah in the year 8 AH, when Khâlid ibn al-Walîd would prove his valour and military genius by saving the day for Islâm and the Muslim ummah in its first ever encounter with the Roman Empire. The three generals appointed by Rasûlullâh r all attained martyrdom in succession, and the standard was taken over by the valiant Khâlid, who through his sheer genius managed to save the honour of Islâm by effecting a tactical withdrawal after what seemed like certain defeat. Rasûlullâh was informed by Allâh of what had happened at Mu’tah, and although his eyes were filled with tears at the martyrdom of his beloved cousin Ja‘far ibn Abî Tâlib, his adopted son Zayd ibn Hârithah and the poet ‘Abdullâh ibn Rawâhah y , he saw reason to give the Muslims in Madînah the glad tidings of Khâlid’s victory, saying, “then the standard was taken up by a Sword from amongst the Swords of Allâh, and upon his hands did Allâh grant victory.”12
All of this show that Rasûlullâh r saw the Banû Jadhîmah incident, as regrettable as it was, as a mistake on the part of Khâlid. In not punishing Khâlid for the execution of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, and not dismissing him from his post as commander, Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t was thus completely justified. His interrogation of Khâlid revealed that Khâlid had committed an error of judgement, and the insistence of Sayyidunâ ‘Umar t that Khâlid be dismissed was met by a resolute answer form Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t : “I will not sheath the sword that was drawn by Allâh.”13 Like Rasûlullâh r did in the case of Banû Jadhîmah, Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr paid out blood money to Mâlik’s brother Mutammim, and ordered the released of all captives taken by Khâlid.13
Khâlid’s alleged marriage to Mâlik’s wife
With the passage of time the incident of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah became the object of the attention of certain unscrupulous transmitters of history. An obnoxious tail was soon introduced into the story in the form of Mâlik’s wife, who is named as Umm Tamîm bint Minhâl. Khâlid, it was said, was so enamoured of the beautiful Umm Tamîm that he saw fit to slaughter Mâlik and his entire tribe in order to possess her, and barely was the slaughter over when he took her as his own wife.
In an allegation as serious as this one would have expected the party levelling the accusation to produce reliable evidence to support their claim. However, all that is ever produced is fragments of statements by historians. The accusers consistently fail to realise that a quotation is of no value for as long as it cannot be authenticated. While they display great vigour in levelling the accusation and stating their references, complete with volume and page numbers, they conveniently and consistently forget to authenticate those “facts”. The great imâm ‘Abdullâh ibn al-Mubârak stated a most profound truth when he said:
Isnâd (stating the chain of narration) is part of Dîn. Were it not for isnâd, anyone could have said just what he wished.14
A study of the texts wherein reference is made to the story of the Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah reveals that not a single one of them is reported with an uninterrupted chain of narration that consists of reliable authorities. We may confidently say that we have looked at almost all the available material on the issue of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, and we have found that they may be classified into two types: (1) reports in which no mention at all is made of Mâlik’s wife, and (2) reports in which she is mentioned. The former type includes material narated via authentic as well as unauthentic chains of narration. As for the latter type (the reports which make mention of Mâlik’s wife), they have been handed down exclusively through highly unreliable chains of narration. They all suffer from two deficiencies: untrustworthy or unknown narrators, and suspicious interruptions in the chain of narration. We might, for example, look at the reports about Mâlik’s wife mentioned in sources like at-Tabarî’s Târîkh and Ibn Hajar’s al-Isâbah:
(1) Khâlid married Umm Tamîm the daughter of Minhâl, and left her till her clean period ended.15
This report appears in a long narrative documented by at-Tabarî on the authority of the following chain of narration:
at-Tabarî— (narrrates from)— as-Sarî ibn Yahyâ— (who narrrates from) — Shu‘ayb ibn Ibrâhîm— (who narrrates from)— Sayf ibn ‘Umar— (who narrrates from)— Sahl (ibn Yûsuf)— (who narrrates from)— Qâsim (ibn Muhammad) and ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, who say…
This isnâd is extremely defective, on several counts. Firstly, it runs through the historian Sayf ibn ‘Umar at-Tamîmî, whose extreme unreliabilty is a matter of consensus among the rijâl critics. Ibn Hibbân has summed up their opinions of him in the words: “He narrates forged material from reliable narrators. They (the critics) say he used to forge hadîth.” He adds that Sayf was suspected of zandaqah (secret heresy).16 Of recent there has been much protest by Shî‘î authors about reliance upon Sayf’s narrations about ‘Abdullâh ibn Saba, (despite the fact that Sayf is not the only historian who mentions Ibn Saba and his role). However, it seems when the very same Sayf narrates historical material in which the Sahâbah y are maligned, a blind eye must be turned to his proven mendacity.
The second problem is with the person who narrates from Sayf, namely Shu‘ayb ibn Ibrâhîm. This person, we are told by Ibn Hajar in Lisân al-Mîzân, was virtually unknown. He quotes Ibn ‘Adî who says: “He is not known. He narrates ahâdîth and historical reports which uncorroborated to a certain extent, and in which there is an element of prejudice against the Salaf (early Muslims). ”17 Is it in any way acceptable to use information that was handed down by a non-entity such as this to malign a man who was named “the Sword of Allâh” by Rasûlullâh r , and who is one of those of whom it was stated in the Qur’ân:
Those of you who spent (their wealth) before the conquest (of Makkah) are not equal (to the rest). They are greater in status than those who spent thereafter and fought. And all of them have been promised good by Allâh. (al-Hadîd:10)
Khâlid ibn al-Walîd t became Muslim before the conquest of Makkah.
The third point of criticism against this isnâd is the person who appears as Sayf’s direct source: Sahl ibn Yûsuf al-Ansârî. This person, like Shu‘ayb ibn Ibrâhîm, is unknown.18 The same may therefore be said of him as a narrator, and of the nature of his narration in maligning the character of a Sahâbî who sacrificed so much for Islâm, as was said of Shu‘ayb’s narration.
Finally, even if we were to assume, for argument’s sake, that this isnâd is free from all defects right up to Sahl ibn Yûsuf, there remains one crucial problem. The persons who allegedly narrate the story appear here as Qâsim ibn Muhammad and ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb. Neither of these two figures were even born at the time when the incident of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah occured. Whichever way one looks at it, this report simply does not conform to the two most basic conditions for authenticity: reliability of the narrator, and an uninterrupted chain of narration.
Let us now look at another narration in Târîkh at-Tabarî:
(2) ‘Umar told Khâlid: “You enemy of Allâh! You killed a Muslim man and thereafter took his wife. By Allâh, I will stone you.”19
The chain of narration on the authority of which this report reached at-Tabarî is as follows:
at-Tabarî— (narrrates from)— (Muhammad) ibn Humayd (ar-Râzî)— (who narrrates from) — Salamah (ibn al-Fadl ar-Râzî)— (who narrrates from)— Muhammad ibn Ishâq— (who narrrates from)— Talhah ibn ‘Abdillâh ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmân ibn Abî Bakr— who says that it used to be Abû Bakr as-Siddîq’s instruction to his armies…
This isnâd too, is defective and unreliable. It is unreliable on account of Muhammad ibn Ishâq, who was a much more truthful historian than Sayf ibn ‘Umar, but who used to commit tadlîs. Tadlîs is when a narrator intentionally omits the name of his direct source and ascribes his information to a source higher up in the chain of narration. Ibn Hibban states about him: “The problem with Ibn Ishâq is that he used to omit the names of unreliable narrators, as a result of which unreliable material crept into his narrations. However, if he makes it clear that he has actually heard from the person whom he states as his source, then his narration is authentic.”20 When we look at the way in which Ibn Ishâq has narrated this incident from Talhah ibn ‘Abdillâh ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmân ibn Abî Bakr, we find that he has not explicitly stated that he heard this information from him. He uses the ambiguous term ‘an, which was a common device used by narrators committing tadlîs. Ibn Ishâq, we are told by Ibn Hajar, was well-known for committing tadlîs by omitting the names of unreliable and unknown persons, and even from narrators who are regarded as unreliable for more serious reasons.21
Besides Ibn Ishâq himself, it must also be taken into consideration that Muhammad ibn Humayd ar-Râzî, who appears in the isnâd as at-Tabarî’s direct source, has come under severe criticism from the muhaddithîn. Many of them have outrightly labelled him as an outright liar. He has also been proven to be dishonest in his claim to narrating the Maghâzî of Ibn Ishâq from Salamah ibn Fadl. Some of the muhaddithîn who at one stage entertained a good opinion of him had to change their opinions when it became clear that the man was a shameless forger. One critic expresses his opinion as follows: “I have never seen a natural liar, except for two persons: Sulaymân ash-Shâdhakûnî and Muhammad ibn Humayd. He used to memorise all of his ahâdîth, and his hadîth used to grow longer every day.”22
Besides the above, it must not be forgotten that the final source for this narration wasn’t even born when Sayyidunâ ‘Umar t allegedly spoke these words to Sayyidunâ Khâlid t . These were events that supposedly took place in the time of Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t , but the one who tells us about it is his great grandson— three generations later. Like the previous report, this one too, suffers from a huge gap in the chain of narration.
Shî‘î authors have the habit of supplying incidents like this with multiple references. In order to fully convince the uninformed Sunnî reader, they will quote not only at-Tabarî as the source for the incident, but also Ibn Kathîr’s al-Bidâyah wan-Nihâyah, Ibn al-Athîr’s al-Kâmil, etc. They conveniently forget that Ibn Kathîr and Ibn al-Athîr, and like them, most later historians, draw directly from at-Tabarî, and have stated as much in their respective introductions. It is thus of no benefit to quote them as separate references, since all they do is quote at-Tabarî. And as for at-Tabarî himself, he has never claimed all the material in his huge work to be the truth. On the contrary, he states very clearly in his introduction:
Whatever is to be found in this book of mine as quoted from some past source, which the reader finds unacceptable or the hearer deems repugnant for the reason that he does not see any authenticity in it or does not find real meaning in it, let it be known that we are not responsible for it. The one responsible for it would be one of those who transmitted it down to us. We for our part have only reproduced what has been transmitted to us.
A third report mentioning the wife of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, which is widely quoted by those wishing to add a tragically romantic flavour to their basic aim of harming the reputation of Sayyidunâ Khâlid t , is the following:
(3) Khâlid saw the wife of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah. She was very beautiful. Thereupon Mâlik told his wife, “You have killed me,” meaning that she will be the cause of his death. And so it happened.23
This twist to the story is usually quoted with Ibn Hajar’s work al-Isâbah as reference. Closer inspection of that work reveals that Ibn Hajar quoted it from a source called ad-Dalâ’il by one Thâbit ibn Qâsim. Despite a lenghty search for information about this author or his book, we were unable to unearth a single fact about him in any of the biographical dictionaries available to us. Neither the classical works (such as the biographical works of al-Bukhârî, Ibn Abî Hâtim, Ibn Hibbân and al-Khatîb al-Baghdâdî) nor the works of later scholars (such as adh-Dhahabî and Ibn Hajar) provide any clue as to who Thâbit ibn Qâsim was, when his book ad-Dalâ’il was composed, and what it contains. Even a contemporary work like al-A‘lâm of az-Ziriklî contains no information whatsoever about a person called Thâbit ibn Qâsim. Therefore we may say with a great degree of confidence that this report, as tragic and romantic as it may be, amounts to nothing more than a fable spurned by the fertile imagination of some unscrupulous person. A fable such as this would only be used against a Sahâbî like Sayyidunâ Khâlid ibn al-Walîd t by a person whose hatred of the Sahâbah y has blinded him against all truth and reason.
It is extremely unfortunate that the vicious and unscrupulous propaganda of the Shî‘î missionaries has succeeded in turning the sentiments of many a Muslim against this great son of Islâm and the pride of its military commanders. Having swallowed the story about the wife of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah hook, line and sinker, they now cannot bear to think of Khâlid ibn al-Walîd except in the vilest of terms. They find themselves unable to associate his name except with the concocted legend of the wife of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah. All his services rendered to Islâm, and even the title of “Sayfullâh” given to him by Rasûlullâh r are simply ignored, and on the basis of nothing but a fable. It is heart rending to see the brazenness with which Shî‘î authors like Muhammad Tijani Samawi in his book Then I was Guided challenge the title of “Sayfullâh” (Sword of Allâh) bestowed upon Sayyidunâ Khâlid t by none other than Rasûlullâh r , and to see them labelling him “the crippled sword of the devil.”24 Such, unfortunately, is the destiny of those whose faith is founded upon fables and legends.
There is another point which definitely merits mention in this regard. The Imâmî (Ithnâ ‘Asharî) Shî‘ah, for all their political rhetoric, have never in the history of Islâm been known for positive political or military action.25 It is for this reason that the Shî‘ah, unlike the Ahl as-Sunnah, do not have military leaders like Sayyidunâ Khâlid t of whom to be proud, and whose names to invoke as paragons of courage and valour. Thus, when the need arose for a person like Khumaynî to speak about Islâm’s military successes of yesterday, he could not find anything of that nature within the legacy of his own tradition. It was the history of the Sahâbah y — those very same Sahâbah whom he and his ilk had been slandering and denouncing as apostates, hypocrites and unbelievers for centuries— that he was forced to turn. Look at the tongue-in-cheek manner in which he writes in his book Kashf al-Asrâr:
The rulers of Islâm in those days did not sit in their courts upon silk carpets, because the Prophet of Islâm forbade its use. The religious spirit was firmly implanted within them, to the extent that it led a great Muslim commander to swallow a quantity of lethal poison in the firm belief that the Rabb of Islâm and the Qur’ân will protect him before the enemies of Islâm. That is exactly what happened when sixty persons from the Muslim army attacked a Roman army of sixty thousand and gained the upper hand over them. Similarly, a few thousand of them defeated seven hundred thousand Romans, and a small number of Muslims overran the whole land of Iran. All of that was achieved through the power of religion and faith, and not because they thought of religion and its tenets as a shame and a disgrace. What is there in you which resembles that which they had? They believed that death and martyrdom is happiness, and that martyrs enjoy the life of the hereafter by the favour and grace of Allâh. It was on account of this that they achieved those such astonishing success. The point is that they had a great amount of love for Dîn, belief in the Unseen and partiality towards religiousness. As for ourselves, we are different in all of those things, and thus will we remain…26
These words speak for themselves. They are in no need of commentary of any sort. However, there is maybe just one thing upon which light needs to shed, and that is the identity of the “great Muslim commander who swallowed a quantity of lethal poison in the firm belief that the Rabb of Islâm and the Qur’ân will protect him before the enemies of Islâm”. That leader was none other than the Sword of Allâh, Sayyidunâ Khâlid ibn al-Walîd t . The incident is documented by adh-Dhahabî in his work Siyar A‘lâm an-Nubalâ from two separate sources, both of which we reproduce here:
Qays ibn Abî Hâzim says: I saw poison being brought to Khâlid, and it was asked, “What is this?” The answer was given, “It is poison.” He said, “Bismillâh” and drank it. I said, “By Allâh, this is a miracle, this is true courage.”
Abu’s-Safar says: Khâlid stayed in al-Hîrah at the house of the mother of the Banû Marâzibah. They said, “Be on your guard against the Persians, lest they poison you.” He said, “Bring it to me.” He took it and said, “Bismillâh”, and did him no harm.27
Maybe we can now understand why Khumaynî thought it prudent not to mention the name of that “great Islamic leader.” But if one such as he could see and admit (albeit grudgingly) that men like Khâlid ibn al-Walîd “had a great amount of love for Dîn, belief in the Unseen and partiality towards religiousness” and that “we ourselves are different in all of those things, and thus will we remain” (in other words that we can never compare ourselves to men like Khâlid ibn al-Walîd) then why is it that some Shî‘î neophytes, who regard themselves as followers of Khumaynî, cannot bear to spare even a single good thought for the “great Islamic leader” Khâlid ibn al-Walîd, and continue to spread calumnious falsehoods about him? Why does revolutionary Iran, which regards itself as the manifestation of Khumaynî’s political philosophy, flood the Muslim world with literature in which Sayyidunâ Khâlid ibn al-Walîd t is acrimoniously denounced as “the crippled sword of the devil”? Is it in order to achieve the sanctimonious goal of Muslim unity, or simply to score a point for Shî‘ism against the Ahl as-Sunnah?
We will leave the reader to ponder over these questions.
1. Ibn Hajar, al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 36 (Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut n.d.);
Ibn Hibbân, Kitâb ath-Thiqât vol. 2 p. 164 (Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, reproduced from Hyderabad edition)
2. al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 37; compare Târîkh at-Tabarî vol. 2 p. 273 (Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1408/1988)
Note that it is by no means our contention that all of these reports were in fact true or that they have been authentically narrated. We quote it merely to show that there is another face to the narrated material on the issue of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah as well— a face that the Shî‘î propagandists would rather keep hidden and unknown.
3. Khalîfah ibn Khayyât, Târîkh p. 104 (ed. Dr. Akram Diyâ’ al-‘Umarî, Dâr Taybah, Riyadh, 2nd edition 1405/1985)
4. adh-Dhahabî, Siyar A‘lâm an-Nubalâ’ vol. 1 p. 377 (ed. Shu‘ayb al-Arnâ’ût et al, Mu’assasat ar-Risâlah, Beirut, 7th edition 1410/1990)
5. Khalîfah ibn Khayyât, Târîkh p. 105
6. ibid. p.104
7. ibid. p. 105. Also cited in Siyar vol. 1 p. 376
8. Sahîh al-Bukhârî no. 4339
9. Sîrat Ibn Hishâm vol. 4 p. 1282 (Dâr al-Fikr, Cairo n.d.)
10. ibid. vol. 4 p. 1448
11. ibid. vol. 4 p. 1378
12. Sahîh al-Bukhârî no. 4262
13. al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 37
14. Sahîh Muslim vol. 1 p. 87 (with an-Nawawî’s commentary)
15. Târîkh at-Tabarî vol. 2 p. 273 (Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1408/1988)
16. Cited in al-Mizzî, Tahdhîb al-Kamâl vol. 12 p. 326 (ed. Dr. B.A.Ma‘rûf, Mu’assasat ar-Risâlah, Beirut, 1413/1992)
17. Lisân al-Mîzân vol. 3 p. 176 (Dâr al-Fikr, Beirut)
18. ibid. vol. 3 p. 146
19. Târîkh at-Tabarî vol. 2 p. 274
20. Tahdhîb al-Kamâl vol. 24 p. 428
21. Ibn Hajar, Ta‘rîf Ahl at-Taqdîs p. 38 (ed. Tâhâ ‘Abd ar-Ra’ûf Sa‘d, Maktabat al-Kulliyyât al-Azhariyyah, Cairo n.d.)
22. Tahdhîb al-Kamâl vol. 25 p. 105
23. al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 37
24. Samawi, Then I Was Guided p. 188, (Ansariyan Publications, Qum, n.d.)
25. Khumaynî’s reinterpretation of the doctrine of Wilâyat al-Faqîh, and his widening of its scope to include the political arena as well, is unprecedented in the history of Shî‘ism. (See Nazriyyat Wilâyat al-Faqîh by Dr. ‘Irfân ‘Abd al-Hamîd Fattâh, Dâr ‘Ammâr, Amman, 1988.) It was, and still is regarded by many of the leading mujtahids of Iran and Iraq as an innovation in Ja‘farî jurisprudence.
26. Khumaynî, Kashf al-Asrâr p. 23
27. Siyar A‘lâm an-Nubalâ vol. 1 p. 376
Pingback: Accusations against Khalid bin Walid?