No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 January 2020
After the Prophet Muhammad, the most contested figure in Islamic history would be his son-in-law, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. ʿAlī’s political rivals staunchly denounced him, his family and his partisans as impious criminals in his own lifetime and after his death. Shortly after his assassination, the Umayyads succeeded in obtaining the reins of the caliphate and establishing a dynasty that lasted close to a century. Medieval sources indicate that rhetoric and propaganda hostile to ‘Alī permeated public discourse under the Umayyads. Nonetheless, through the efforts of his admirers, ʿAlī became a respected authority in both Sunnī and Shīʿī Islam within a few centuries of his death. His nearly universal portrayal in Muslim literature as a pious authority rather obscures a centuries-long process of contestation and rehabilitation. This study considers the methods that ḥadīth transmitters and scholars employed to reconcile expectations regarding ʿAlī’s character and image in Sunnism with the vast and heterogeneous body of accounts about him. Sunnī scholars made use of their editorial privilege by transmitting selected versions of reports and omitting controversial material.
1 For key studies on historiography regarding ʿAlī, see Encyclopaedia Islamica, s.v. “ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib” (F. Manouchehri, M. Melvin-Koushki, R. Shah-Kazemi, et al.); Madelung, Wilferd, The Succession to Muḥammad: a study of the early caliphate (New York, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Petersen, E.I., ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya in Early Arabic Tradition: studies on the genesis and growth of Islamic historical writing until the end of the ninth century (Copenhagen, 1964)Google Scholar.
2 For ʿUthmānī and Umayyad narratives about ʿAlī, see ʿAwwād, Badr, al-Naṣb waʼl-nawāṣib: dirāsa taʼrīkhiyya ʿaqadiyya (Riyadh, 2012)Google Scholar. See also Nebil Husayn, “The Memory of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib in Early Sunnī Thought” (unpublished PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 2016), pp. 188–212.
3 E.I.2, s.v. “Imāma” (W. Madelung); “ʿUthmāniyya” (P. Crone); Afsaruddin, Asma, Excellence and Precedence: medieval Islamic discourse on legitimate leadership (Leiden, 2002), pp. 14–23Google Scholar; Crone, Patricia, God's Rule: Government and Islam (New York, 2004), pp. 20–32Google Scholar; Goldziher, Ignaz, Muslim Studies, trans. Stern (Chicago, 1973), ii, pp. 95–120Google Scholar; Hodgson, Marshall, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization (Chicago, 1977), i, pp. 247–67Google Scholar; Zaman, Muhammad Qasim, Religion and Politics Under the Early ʿAbbāsids: The Emergence of the Proto-Sunnī Elite (Leiden, 1997), pp. 49–63Google Scholar, 167ff.
4 Daftary, Farhad, Ismailis in Medieval Muslim Societies (London, 2005), pp. 183–203Google Scholar; Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, “Shiʿism and Sufism: Their Relationship in Essence and in History”, Religious Studies VI, 3 (1970), pp. 229–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Habibeh Rahim, “Perfection Manifested: ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib's image in classical Persian and modern Indian Muslim poetry” (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1989); Yildirim, Riza, “Shīʿitisation of the Futuwwa Tradition in the Fifteenth Century”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies XL, 1 (2013), pp. 53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Husayn, “The Memory of ʿAlī”, pp. 180–187, 218–224.
6 For example, Ibn Taymiyya argues that “no one has ever narrated from the Prophet” or claimed in “any known work of ḥadīth” that God's anger accompanies the anger of Fāṭima. However, ḥadīth to this effect appear in a couple sources, see Ibn Taymiyya, Minhāj al-sunna al-nabawiyya, (ed.) Muḥammad Sālim ([Riyadh], 1986), iv, pp. 248–249; cf. al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-ṣaḥīḥayn wa bi-dhaylihī al-Talkhīṣ (Beirut, 1986), iii, p. 154; al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-kabīr, (ed.) Ḥamdī ʿAbd al-Majīd Salafī (Beirut, 2002), i, p. 108, xxii, p. 401. Ibn Taymiyya rejects the authenticity of reports about Fāṭima's anger with Abū Bakr and her final request for an evening burial, although these reports can be found in the ḥadīth collections of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, see Ibn Taymiyya, Minhāj al-sunna, iv, pp. 243, 247, 248, 256, 257, 264; cf. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Beirut, 1981), iv, p. 42, v, pp. 82–83; Muslim, al-Jāmiʿ al-ṣaḥīḥ (Beirut, 1974), v, pp. 153–154. Elsewhere, on the basis of an alleged consensus of scholars, he rejects the authenticity of reports that claim Q5:55 was revealed about ʿAlī. The transmission of these reports in well-known sources appears to contradict his claim, see Ibn Taymiyya, Minhāj al-sunna, ii, p. 30; cf. ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, Tafsīr al-Qurʼān (Riyadh, 1989), iv, p. 1162; al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, (ed.) Muḥammad Bāqir al-Maḥmūdī (Beirut, 1974), ii, p. 150; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʼrīkh madīnat Dimashq (Beirut, 1995), xlii, p. 357; Ibn Mardawayh, Manāqib ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib wa-mā nazala min al-Qurʼān fī ʿAlī (Qum, 2001), pp. 233–238; Manṣūr ibn Muḥammad al-Samʿānī, Tafsīr al-Qurʼān (Riyadh, 1997), ii, pp. 47–48; al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-awsaṭ (Cairo, 1995), vi, p. 218; Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī = Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʼwīl al-Quʼrān (Beirut, 1995), vi, pp. 389–390; al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf waʼl-bayān = Tafsīr al-Thaʿlabī (Beirut, 2002), iv, pp. 80–81; al-Wāḥidī, Asbāb al-nuzūl (Cairo, 1968), 133–134. See also Saleh, Walid, The Formation of the Classical Tafsīr Tradition: The Qurʾān Commentary of al-Thaʿlabī (Leiden, 2004), pp. 218–221Google Scholar.
7 Aḥmad b. al-Ṣiddīq al-Ghumārī, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib imām al-ʿārifīn = al-Burhān al-jalī fī taḥqīq intisāb al-ṣūfiyya ilā ʿAlī wa-yalīh Kitāb Fatḥ al-Malik al-ʿAlī (Cairo, 1969), p. 56; al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī, Shawāhid al-tanzīl li-qawāʿid al-tafḍīl fī al-āyāt al-nāzila fī Ahl al-Bayt, (ed.) M. Bāqir Maḥmūdī (Tehran, 1990), ii, pp. 470–473; Ibn Abī ʼl-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ Nahj al-balāgha (Qum, 1983), i, p. 7; Abū Ja‘far al-Iskāfī, al-Miʿyār wa-ʼl-muwāzana fī faḍāʼil al-Imām Amīr al-Muʼminīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, wa-bayān afḍaliyyatihi ʿala jamīʿ al-ʿālamīn baʿda al-anbiyāʼ (Beirut, 1981), pp. 20–21, 63–78, 187, 206–254; Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Kanjī, Kifāyat al-ṭālib fī manāqib ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib wa-yalīhi al-Bayān fī akhbār Ṣāḥib al-Zamān (Tehran, 1984), pp. 245, 246; al-Muwaffaq ibn Aḥmad al-Khuwārizmī, al-Manāqib (Qum, 1993), p. 106; ʿAlāʼ al-Dawla al-Simnānī, Manāẓir al-maḥāḍir li ʼl-munāẓir al-ḥāḍir (al-Ẓāhir [Cairo], 1989), pp. 14–19.
8 Anthony, Sean W., The Caliph and The Heretic: Ibn Saba and The Origins of Shiʿism (Leiden, 2012), pp. 82–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crone, Patricia, “Review. Kitāb al-ridda wa'l-futūḥ and Kitāb al-jamal wa masīr ʿĀʾisha wa ʿAlī. A Facsimile Edition of the Fragments Preserved in the University Library of Imam Muhammad Ibn Sa'ud Islamic University in Riyadh”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society VI, 2 (1996), pp. 237–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 On the matter of the caliphate, for example, ʿAlī voiced his dissatisfaction regarding the election of his predecessors according to a number of sources, see Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥammūʼī, Farāʼid al-Simṭayn: fī faḍāʼil al-Murtaḍá wa-ʼl-Batūl wa-ʼl-Sibṭayn wa-ʼl-aʼimma min dhurriyyatihim, (ed.) M. Maḥmūdī (Beirut, 1978), ii, pp. 319–320; al-Kanjī, Kifāyat al-ṭālib, p. 386; al-Khuwārizmī, al-Manāqib, p. 313; al-Simnānī, Manāẓir al-maḥāḍir, pp. 14–19. For reports in canonical collections that state that ʿAlī withheld his oath of fealty to Abū Bakr for six months, see al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, v, p. 82; Muslim, Ṣaḥīh, v, p. 153.
10 For reports in which ʿAlī eagerly supports the candidacy of his predecessors and states his belief in their superiority to him, see al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, 10 vols. (Beirut, 1999), viii, p. 143; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iv, p. 195; al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, al-Mustadrak, iii, p. 76; Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim, Kitāb al-sunna, (ed.) M. Nāṣir al-Albānī (Beirut, 1993), pp. 555–561; Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, al-Ṣawāʿiq al-muḥriqa fī al-radd ʿalá ahl al-bidʿa waʼl-zandaqa, (ed.) ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ʿAbd al-Laṭīf (Cairo, 1965), pp. 60–65; Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʿ fatāwā shaykh al-Islām Aḥmad ibn Taymiyya, (ed.) ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. Qāsim (Medina, 1995), vii, pp. 511–512; Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Samhūdī, Jawāhir al-ʿaqdayn fī faḍl al-sharafayn: sharaf al-ʿilm al-jalī wa-ʼl-nasab al-Nabawī (Beirut, 2003), pp. 248–250, 451–460; Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī = Taʼrīkh al-umam waʼl-mulūk (Beirut, 1983), ii, p. 447.
11 Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʼrīkh madīnat Dimashq, xiv, pp. 113–114.
12 Petersen, ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya in Early Arabic Tradition.
13 On the canonisation of the work, see Brown, Jonathan, The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunnī Ḥadīth Canon (Leiden, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 For a comparative study of Muslim doctrines on the righteousness of Companions, see Lucas, Scott, Constructive Critics, Ḥadīth Literature, and the Articulation of Sunnī Islam: the legacy of the generation of Ibn Saʿd, Ibn Maʿīn, and Ibn Ḥanbal (Leiden and Boston, 2004), pp. 221–285Google Scholar.
15 Lucas, Constructive Critics, p. 285.
16 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iv, p. 209.
17 Al-Bukhārī’s section on ʿAlī’s merits consists of six reports, but these reports collectively confirm the authenticity of only three merits unique to ʿAlī, see al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iv, pp. 207–209.
18 Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Faḍāʼil Amīr al-Muʼminīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (Qum, 2012); Kitāb Faḍāʼil al-ṣaḥāba, (ed.) Waṣī Allāh M. ʿAbbās (Beirut, 1983), i, pp. 528–551, ii, pp. 555–725.
19 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, i, pp. 77, 91, 112; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, ii, p. 43, viii, p. 155, 190; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, ii, p. 187.
20 Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, (ed.) Saʿīd M. al-Laḥḥām (Beirut, 1990), ii, p. 182; al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, i, p. 389.
21 Brown, Jonathan, “How We Know Early Hadīth Critics Did Matn Criticism and Why It's So Hard to Find”, Islamic Law and Society XV, 2 (2008), pp. 143–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Rules of Matn Criticism: There Are No Rules”, Islamic Law and Society XIX, 4 (2012), pp. 356–396.
22 Al-Dhahabī, Taʼrīkh al-Islām wa-wafayāt al-mashāhīr wa-ʼl-aʿlām (Beirut, 1998), x, p. 122; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʼrīkh madīnat Dimashq, xii, p. 349.
23 For example, see Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad wa-bi-hāmishihi muntakhab Kanz al-ʿummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl waʼl-a‘māl (Beirut, 1969), iv, p. 99, 105, 106; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iv, p. 164; Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, Sunan, ii, p. 392; Ibn Māja, Sunan, (ed.) Muḥammad Fuʼād ʿAbd al-Bāqī (Beirut, 1954), i, p. 151; al-Tirmidhī, Sunan al-Tirmidhī = al-Jāmiʿ al-ṣaḥīḥ (Beirut, 1983), iv, p. 10.
24 Al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʼ (Beirut, 1993), iii, p. 128; Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʿ fatāwā, iii, p. 408; al-Iskāfī, al-Miʿyār, p. 32; al-Nashwān b. Saʿīd al-Ḥimyarī, al-Ḥūr al-ʿayn (Cairo, 1948), pp. 229–230.
25 Ibn Taymiyya, Minhāj al-sunna, iv, pp. 400–401.
26 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iii, p. 155, v, p. 58, vi, p. 7, viii, p. 163; Muslim, Ṣaḥīh, viii, p. 115.
27 ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, Tafsīr al-Qurʼān, iii, p. 52; al-Dhahabī, Siyar, ii, p. 160; al-Bayhaqī, Dalāʼil al-nubuwwa wa-maʿrifat aḥwāl ṣāḥib al-sharīʿa (Beirut, 1985), iv, p. 73; Ibn Shabba, Taʼrīkh al-Madīna al-munawwara, (ed.) Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt (Qum, 1989), i, p. 337; Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr fī al-tafsīr bi-al-maʼthūr (Cairo, 1897), v, p. 32.
28 Al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, viii, p. 189; Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih, al-ʿIqd al-farīd (Beirut, 1983), v, p. 81; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (Beirut, 1984), viii, p. 411; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya waʼl-nihāya (Beirut, 1988), vii, p. 288; Sibṭ Ibn Jawzī, Tadhkirat al-khawāṣṣ (Qum, 1998), p. 82; al-Ṭabarī, Taʼrīkh, iv, p. 4, 30. See also Madelung, Succession, pp. 156 (for Marwān b. al-Ḥakm's accusations), 189–190, 198–199 (for al-Walīd b. ʿUqba's poetry), 200–201, 205, 211 (for Mu‘āwiya making such a claim).
29 Al-Bukhārī, al-Tārīkh al-ṣaghīr (Beirut, 1986), i, p. 104, 121; al-Dīnawarī, al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl (Cairo, 1960), p. 149; Ibn Shabba, Taʼrīkh al-Madīna, iv, p. 1250. See also Madelung, Succession, p. 156; Maya Yazigi, “Defense and Validation in Shiʿi and Sunni Tradition: The Case of Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr”, Studia Islamica XCVIII/XCIX (2004), pp. 62–64.
30 Al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-qārī, xv, p. 51; al-Dīnawarī, al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl, pp. 162, 170–171; Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih, al-ʿIqd al-farīd, v, p. 83; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, vi, p. 454, xiii, p. 448; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya waʼl-nihāya, vii, p. 288.
31 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-Mīzān (Beirut, 1971), iii, p. 290.
32 For a comprehensive study, see Anthony, The Caliph and The Heretic.
33 Abbas Barzegar, “Remembering Community: Historical Narrative in the Formation of Sunni Islam” (unpublished PhD dissertation, Emory University, 2010), p. 148.
34 Kohlberg, Etan, “Abū Turāb”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies XLI (1978), pp. 347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 Hoyland, Robert, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: a survey and evaluation of Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian writings on early Islam (Princeton, 1997), pp. 500–501Google Scholar; Jeffery, Arthur, “Ghevond's Text of the Correspondence between ʿUmar II and Leo III”, The Harvard Theological Review XXXVII (1944), pp. 292, 298Google Scholar.
36 Al-Dhahabī, Taʼrīkh al-islām, iii, p. 627; Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, al-Mustadrak, iii, p. 108; Ibn Abī ʼl-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ, iv, pp. 56–57; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʼrīkh madīnat Dimashq, xlii, p. 111; Muslim, Ṣaḥīh, vii, p. 120; al-Nasāʼī, Khaṣāʼis Amīr al-Muʼminīn, p. 81.
37 Al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, ii, p. 446; al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, Ma‘rifat ʿulūm al-ḥadīth (Beirut, 1988), p. 211; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʼrīkh madīnat Dimashq, xlii, p. 17; Muslim, Ṣaḥīh, vii, pp. 123–124.
38 For al-Ḥajjāj, see al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī, Shawāhid al-tanzīl, i, pp. 121–122; Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, Tafsīr al-Qurʼān al-ʿaẓīm (Beirut, 2003), i, p. 251; al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, (ed.) Muḥammad Bāqir al-Maḥmūdī (Beirut, 1977), vii, p. 295, xiii, p. 365; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān waʼl-tabyīn (Beirut, 1926), p. 200.
39 For example, see Ibn al-Maghāzilī, Manāqib ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (Qum, 2005), p. 27; Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, iv, p. 263; al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, al-Mustadrak, iii, p. 141; al-Nasāʼī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, (ed.) ʿAbd al-Ghaffār S. Bindārī and S. Kasrawī Ḥasan (Beirut, 1991), v, p. 153.
40 Ibn al-Maghāzilī, Manāqib ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, pp. 28–29; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, i, p. 114, iv, p. 208, vii, pp. 119, 140; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, vii, p. 124.
41 Ibn Shahrāshūb, Manāqib Āl Abī Ṭālib (Qum, 1959), ii, pp. 305–306; al-Ṣadūq, ʿIlal al-sharāʼiʿ (Najaf, 1966), i, pp. 155–157.
42 Badr Dīn al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-qārī: sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Cairo, 1929), ii, pp. 211–212; Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, Tanwīr al-ḥawālik: sharḥ ʿalá Muwaṭṭaʼ Mālik (Cairo, 1934), p. 72; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab (Qum, 1984), i, p. 229; al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿarūs min jawāhir al-Qāmūs (Beirut, 1994), i, p. 322.
43 Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, i, p. 228; Muḥammad ibn Ya‘qūb al-Fīrūzābādī, Al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ (Cairo, 1980), i, p. 39; al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿarūs, i, pp. 231–232.
44 Al-Nawawī, Ṣaḥiḥ Muslim bi-sharḥ al-Nawawī (Beirut, 1987), iii, p. 221; al-Suyūṭī, Tanwīr al-ḥawālik, pp. 71–72.
45 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, i, p. 39; al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-qārī, iii, p. 237.
46 Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, Sunan, i, p. 60; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vi, p. 27, vii, p. 110; Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, vi, pp. 33, 92, 201, 306, 309, 377; Ibn Māja, Sunan, i, p. 197; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, i, pp. 171–173, iv, pp. 163–164, viii, p. 189.
47 Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, Sunan, i, p. 454; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vi, p. 123; al-Tirmidhī, Sunan, ii, p. 275; Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, ii, p. 428, iii, pp. 158, 302; Ibn Māja, Sunan, i, p. 597; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, iv, p. 175.
48 Al-Nawawī, al-Majmūʿ sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab (Cairo, 1925), xvi, p. 136.
49 Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, i, p. 229; al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿarūs, i, p. 322; Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, iii, p. 144.
50 For example, see Q18:37, 22:5, 30:20, 35:11, 40:67.
51 Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʼān, (ed.) Saʿīd al-Mandūb (Beirut, 1996), i, p. 373; al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, xxx, p. 258.
52 Al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, xxx, pp. 256–259.
53 Ibid., xxx, pp. 258–259.
54 Ibid., xxx, pp. 257–258.
55 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, v, pp. 251–252; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʼrīkh madīnat Dimashq, xxiv, pp. 259–260; al-Athīr, Ibn, al-Kāmil fī al-taʼrīkh (Beirut, 1965), iii, p. 477Google Scholar; al-Ṭabarī, Taʼrīkh, iv, p. 198.
56 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iv, pp. 207–208.
57 Rabbih, Ibn ʿAbd, al-ʿIqd al-farīd (Beirut, 1983), v, p. 348Google Scholar.
58 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, ii, p. 147; al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaskānī, Shawāhid al-tanzīl, i, p. 122.
59 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, i, p. 114, iv, p. 208, vii, p. 140; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, vii, p. 124.
60 ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣan‘ānī, al-Muṣannaf, vii, pp. 300–302; Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, Sunan, i, p. 460; Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, iv, pp. 5, 326, 328; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iv, p. 212, vi, p. 158; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shayba fī al-aḥādīth wa-ʼl-āthār, (ed.) Saʿīd al-Laḥḥām (Beirut, 1989), vii, p. 527; Ibn Māja, Sunan, i, pp. 643–644; Muslim, Ṣaḥīh, vii, pp. 141–142; al-Tirmidhī, Sunan, v, pp. 359–360.
61 Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, iv, p. 326; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iv, p. 212; Ibn Māja, Sunan, i, p. 644; Muslim, Ṣaḥīh, vii, p. 142.
62 Ibn Abī ʼl-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ, vii, pp. 37–40; Muḥammad ibn Ṭalḥa al-Naṣībī, Maṭālib al-saʼūl fī manāqib Āl al-Rasūl, (ed.) Mājid ibn Aḥmad ʿAṭiyya (Beirut, 2000), pp. 178–188.
63 Ibn Abī ʼl-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ, iv, p. 64; al-Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, (ed.) ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭṭā (Beirut, 1988), iii, p. 461.
64 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī bi-sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Beirut, [1980]), x, pp. 350–354; al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-qārī, xxii, p. 94.
65 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, x, p. 352. Al-Iṣbahānī’s work is no longer extant.
66 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vii, p. 73; Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, iv, p. 203; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, i, p. 136.
67 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vii, p. 73.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Taghlīq al-taʿlīq ʿalá Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, (ed.) Saʿīd ʿA. Mūsá al-Qazaqī (Beirut and Amman, 1985), v, p. 87.
70 Al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-qārī, xxii, p. 94; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, x, p. 351.
71 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, x, p. 352.
72 Ibn Abī ʼl-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ, iv, pp. 64, xii, p. 88.
73 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, ii, pp. 127, 352; al-Ṭabarī, Taʼrīkh, iv, pp. 34, 37, 52, 81; Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī, Kitāb al-Futūḥ (Beirut, 1991), iv, pp. 201–202.
74 Abū ʼl-Fidāʼ, al-Mukhtaṣar fī akhbār al-bashar = Tārīkh Abī al-Fidāʼ (Beirut, 1919), i, p. 186 (for a report from al-Shāfi‘ī that identifies ʿAmr and three others as Companions whose testimonies are rejected); al-Dhahabī, Siyar, xiv, p. 133.
75 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vii, p. 73.
76 Crone, God's Rule, pp. 87–93; Elad, Amikam, The Rebellion of Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya in 145/762: Ṭālibīs and Early ʿAbbāsids in Conflict (Leiden, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zaman, Religion and Politics, pp. 33–48.
77 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, x, pp. 352–354.
78 Ibn Ḥajar claims to have found a variant in Abū Nuʿaym's Mustakhraj that had banī Abī Ṭālib, see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, x, p. 352.
79 Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, i, p. 25.
80 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iii, p. 40.
81 For the uncensored reports, see al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, (ed.) Iḥsān ʿAbbās (Beirut, 1979), v, pp. 126–127; Ibn Abī ʼl-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ, xv, p. 176; Ibn Ḥibbān, Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn min al-muḥaddithīn waʼl-ḍu'afā’ wa-ʼl-matrūkīn (Mecca, 1970), i, pp. 157, 250. For reports in which Muʿāwiya's name is replaced with fulān, see ʿAdī, Ibn, al-Kāmil fī ḍuʿafāʼ al-rijāl (Beirut, 1988), iii, p. 419Google Scholar; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʼrīkh madīnat Dimashq, lix, p. 155; Abū Nuʿaym Iṣbahānī, Dhikr akhbār Iṣbahān (Leiden, 1934), ii, p. 114.
82 Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-ʿIlal, iii, p. 176; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʼrīkh madīnat Dimashq, lvii, p. 243; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya waʼl-nihāya, viii, p. 284.
83 Al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, ii, p. 446; al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, Ma‘rifat ʿulūm al-ḥadīth, p. 211; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʼrīkh madīnat Dimashq, xlii, p. 17; Muslim, Ṣaḥīh, vii, pp. 123–124.
84 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iv, pp. 207–208.
85 Abū ’l-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, (ed.) Kāẓim Muẓaffar (Najaf, 1965), p. 46; al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, v, p. 113; Ibn Shahrāshūb, Manāqib, iii, p. 184; al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-kabīr, iii, p. 85; Nūr al-Dīn al-Haythamī, Majmaʿ al-zawāʼid wa-manbaʿ al-fawāʼid (Beirut, 1988), v, p. 240.
86 Al-Būṣīrī, Mukhtaṣar ittiḥāf al-sāda (Beirut, 1996), v, p. 503; Ibn Ḥajar ʿAsqalānī, Maṭālib al-ʿĀliya (Riyadh, 1998), xviii, p. 267; Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, Taṭhīr al-janān wa-ʼl-lisān ʻan thalab Muʻāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān, (Ṭanṭā, 1992), p. 210.
87 Al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-qārī, XIX, p. 169; Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī, Kitāb al-Futūḥ (Beirut, 1991), IV, pp. 335–336; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, iii, pp. 506–507; al-Nasāʼī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, vi, p. 459.
88 Al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-qārī, XIX, p. 169; al-Haythamī, Majmaʿ al-zawāʼid, 5:241; Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, Tafsīr, p. 3295; al-Suyūṭī al-Durr al-manthūr, vi, p. 41.
89 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vi, p. 42. In some recensions, it is also ʿĀʾisha who testifies that the Prophet cursed Marwān's father, see al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, al-Mustadrak, iv, p. 481.
90 ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣan‘ānī, al-Muṣannaf, v, pp. 470–471; Muslim, Ṣaḥīh, v, pp. 152–153.
91 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vi, p. 191, viii, p. 147.
92 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iv, p. 44; al-Tirmidhī, Sunan, iii, p. 82.
93 ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, Tafsīr al-Qurʼān, iii, p. 52; al-Dhahabī, Siyar, ii, p. 160; al-Bayhaqī, Dalāʼil al-nubuwwa, iv, p. 73; Ibn Shabba, Taʼrīkh al-Madīna, i, p. 337; al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, v, p. 32.
94 Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, v, p. 60; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, vii, p. 336.
95 Hypothetically, texts could have circulated independently of one another or the less flattering reports about ʿAlī could be more ancient than the ones in his praise.
96 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, ii, p. 180; Ibn Shahrāshūb, Manāqib, i, pp. 338–390; Muḥammad ibn Ṭalḥa al-Naṣībī, Maṭālib al-suʼūl, p. 129 (where ʿAlī is compared to Christ in his worship).
97 Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit (d. 119/737) narrates reports in which ʿAlī accidentally prays in a state of major impurity and another in which he leads prayer intoxicated, see al-Tirmidhī, Sunan, iv, p. 305; ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, al-Muṣannaf, (ed.) Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī (Beirut, 1970), ii, p. 350.
98 Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, i, pp. 77, 91, 112; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, ii, pp. 43, viii, pp. 155, 190; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, ii, p. 187.
99 Al-Ṭabarī, Taʼrīkh, iv, p. 30 (where Syrians state that they had heard that ʿAlī did not pray).
100 Al-Haythamī, Majmaʿ al-zawāʼid, ix, p. 204; Muḥibb al-Dīn al-Ṭabarī, al-Riyāḍ al-naḍira fī manāqib al-ʿashara (Beirut, 1984), iii, pp. 145–146; al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-kabīr, x, p. 156.
101 Abū Shujā‘ Shīrūya al-Daylamī, al-Firdaws bi-maʼthūr al-khiṭāb, (ed.) M. Zaghlūl (Beirut, 1986), iii, p. 373 (read li-Fāṭima for li-nā ṭayh); Sulaymān Qundūzī, Yanābīʿ al-mawadda (Qum. 1995), ii, pp. 67, 80, 286.
102 Al-Tirmidhī, Sunan, v, p. 305; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, vii, p. 500; Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, iv, p. 369; al-Nasāʼī, al-Sunan al-kubrá, v, pp. 118–119; al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-kabīr, xii, p. 78.
103 Al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, vii, p. 65.
104 Modarressi, Hossein, “Early Debates on the Integrity of the Qur’ān: A Brief Survey,” Studia Islamica LXXVII (1993), pp. 16–22Google Scholar.
105 Al-Nasāʼī, al-Sunan al-kubrá, v, p. 35; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, iv, p. 254; Tirmidhī, Sunan, v, p. 270; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, vii, p. 108.
106 ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, al-Muṣannaf, i, pp. 155–157; Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, Sunan, i, p. 53; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, i, pp. 42, 52; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, i, p. 115; Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, i, pp. 80, 87, 108; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, i, p. 169.
107 Ḥazm, Ibn, Kitāb al-Fiṣal fī ’l-milal waʼl-ahwāʼ waʼl-niḥal (Cairo, 1904), iv, p. 125Google Scholar.
108 Husayn, “The Memory of ʿAlī”, pp. 103–109.
109 Ibid., pp. 122–133.
110 See al-Nawawī, Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, xv, pp. 175–176; cf. Suhayla Ḥammād, “Mu‘āwiya raḍiya Allāh ʿanhu al-muftarā ʿalayhi,” al-Madīna, 10 April 2012, https://www.al-madina.com/article/148014/ (accessed 13 May 2019).
111 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, x, pp. 352–354.
112 Yaʿlā, Ibn Abī, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābila (Beirut, 1970), i, p. 393Google Scholar. See also ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-ʿUqaylī, Muʿjam nawāṣib al-muḥaddithīn (Karbalāʾ, 2014), pp. 46–47.
113 Lucas, Constructive Critics, p. 284.
114 Al-Ṭabarī, Taʼrīkh, 7:188. See also E.I.2, s.v. “al-Maʼmūn” (M. Rekaya).
115 Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih, al-ʿIqd al-farīd, v, pp. 349–359.
116 Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istīʿāb fī maʿrifat al-aṣḥāb (Beirut, 1992), iii, p. 1115; Muḥibb al-Dīn al-Ṭabarī, al-Riyāḍ al-naḍira, iii, p. 188.
117 For example, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Faḍāʼil Amīr al-Muʼminīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.
118 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī, vii, p. 47; Ibn Abī Yaʿlā, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābila, i, p. 393. See also Wilferd Madelung, Der Imam al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm und die Glaubenslehre der Zaiditen (Berlin, 1965), pp. 223–228.
119 Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Faḍāʼil Amīr al-Muʼminīn, 147; Kitāb Faḍāʼil al-ṣaḥāba, (ed.) W. ʿAbbās (Beirut, 1983), ii, pp. 564, 671.
120 Lucas, Constructive Critics, p. 285.
121 Ibn Abī Yaʿlā, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābila, i, p. 393. See also Afsaruddin, Excellence, pp. 16–18; Zaman, Religion and Politics, pp. 49–59, 169ff.; E.I.2, s.v. “Imāma” (W. Madelung); “ʿUthmāniyya” (P. Crone).
122 Ibn Taymiyya, Minhāj al-sunna, v, p. 7.
123 Ibid., iv, pp. 255, 384, 389, 392.