Special thanks to Tural Islam, Aneela Sultan, Ali Baker, Syeda Umme Rabab Bukhari, Ahmad Olawuyi, and the following brothers and sisters, for their encouragement: Shaykh Muhammad Nura Dass, Steve Davies, Jaffer Abbas, Jibreel Ibn Mikael, Jafar Mer, Muhammad Ali Khalil, Hassan Bokhari, Syed Jarry Haider, Omidiji Nurudeen, Kassim Agbonika Salihu, Aquib Mehdi Rizvi, Syed Ali Raza, Sajjad Abu Ja’far Baktash, Akram Abbas, Ali Hussnain, Nader Carun, Henna Rai, Rizziandrie Zairul, Kashif Bukhari, Syed Mansab Ali Jafri, Nasir Hasan, and Hussain Ali Nasser. May Allah bless them all and all our loving brothers and sisters from the Shi’ah Imamiyyah and the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Two questions stand at the centre of the Sunni-Shi’i disagreement:

(i) Did the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, ever appoint any khalifah to stand in his command position and substitute for him in his command roles after his death?

(ii) If he did, who exactly did he designate?

Our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah resolutely submit that the Prophet never appointed a khalifah. Rather, he – according to them – died without any designated heir to his command, and gave no indication whatsoever as to the method of appointing future commanders of the Ummah. Therefore, any Sunni Muslim can become the Sunni caliph by inheritance, or through a popular vote, an electoral college, a coup, or an armed rebellion. By contrast, the Shi’ah Imamiyyah argue that the Messenger of Allah actually appointed twelve khalifahs from his bloodline – by Divine Order - to assume his command roles after him. In line with the Shi’i doctrine, the first of these khalifahs was Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, ‘alaihi al-salam, followed by Imam al-Hasan, ‘alaihi al-salam, then Imam al-Husayn, ‘alaihi al-salam, and then nine others from the progeny of al-Husayn, ‘alaihim al-salam. The twelfth of them, according to Shi’is, is Imam al-Mahdi, ‘alaihi al-salam.

Another crucial difference between the Sunni and Shi’i positions is outlined below:

1. Acording to Sunni Islam, it is primarily political and military power which determines legitimacy. Therefore, whoever is to seize full political and military control of most of the Sunni communities is their legitimate khalifah. Whoever is not able to achieve that is not the khalifah.

2. On the other hand, Shi’is maintain that it is only divine appointment that determines legitimacy. Even if the divine appointee is denied political or military power, he still remains the legitimate khalifah. Whoever exercises political or military control over him is nothing but a rebel, and so is whosoever fails to recognize his authority. All the messengers of Allah, ‘alaihim al-salam, were commanders of their respective Ummahs till their deaths.1 Yet, most of them were denied both political and military authority. That, of course, never stripped them of their legitimate command over even the rebel leaders.

However, there are authentic ahadith in the Sunni sources which firmly establish that the Prophet – by the Command of Allah - did appoint twelve khalifahs from his bloodline, with the first of them really being ‘Ali! This then is exactly where the supreme problem lies for the Sunni claims, and - of course – the entirety of Sunni Islam as a whole.

The khalifah is the one who takes the place of another one, who is physically absent for one reason or another. Imam Ibn al-‘Athir (d. 606 H), an ace Sunni lexicographer, explains:

الخلیفة من یقوم مقام الذاهب ویسد مسده

The khalifah is whoever stands in the position of the one who is physically absent and substitutes for him.2

So, the khalifah is basically the “substitute” of the one who is physically absent. The cause of the absence does not matter – whether distance, death or others. What is important is that someone who occupies/occupied a certain position is physically absent, and another – the khalifah – “substitutes” for him in it. This often happens in football matches. A player is substituted by another who then plays his exact role on the pitch. The substitute is the khalifah of the substituted footballer. With regards to our Ummah, the Messenger of Allah is our amir (commander)3. His command endures over, and binds, all Muslims – civilian and military - till the End Time. In particular, he had, and still has, full command of all Muslim armed forces. No Muslim can ever validly claim that the Prophet’s command has ceased over any of the believers. None has ever, and none will ever, do such. The Messenger of Allah is, and will forever remain, the amir of the believers (amir al-muminin).

However, it was impossible for the Prophet to personally exercise all his command roles over the Ummah, even during his lifetime. Therefore, whenever he was unable to do so by himself, he used to deputize people to fill the roles for him. Whoever he appointed was therefore known as his amir (i.e. the amir appointed by him)4. Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) records one of his explicit instructions concerning such deputies:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا روح ثنا بن جریج أنا زیاد عن بن شهاب ان أبا سلمة بن عبد الرحمن أخبره انه سمع أبا هریرة یقول قال رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم من أطاعنی فقد أطاع الله ومن عصانی فقد عصى الله ومن أطاع أمیری فقد أطاعنی ومن عصى أمیری فقد عصانی

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Ruh – Ibn Jurayj – Ziyad – Ibn Shihab – Abu Salamah b. ‘Abd al-Rahman – Abu Hurayrah:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “Whosoever obeys me has obeyed Allah and whosoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allah. Also, whosoever obeys my amir has obeyed me, and whosoever disobeys my amir has disobeyed me.”5

Shaykh al-Arnaut says:

إسناده صحیح على شرط الشیخین

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs.6

These amirs were generally appointed either as army commanders or civilian governors. In the latter case, they were also referred to as khalifahs7. They stood in the position of the Messenger of Allah – often in a limited capacity – and substituted for him within his Ummah. The question then is about the command roles of the Prophet after his death. Did he appoint amirs to fill them for him or not? He knew for certain that he was going to die one day, and would no longer be able to personally perform his command roles at all anymore within his Ummah. So, what did he do about these roles? Did he follow his Sunnah of appointing amirs to perform them for him whenever he was unable to do by himself? Or, did he abandon his own Sunnah?! Our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah say: Yes, he abandoned his own Sunnah!

He knew that he still had those roles in his Ummah which would endure after his demise, and that he would soon be unable to carry them out personally. Yet, he deputized no one to perform them for him in his absence (due to death). Meanwhile, the Shi’ah contradict the Ahl al-Sunnah on this matter. They argue that it was absolutely impossible for the Messenger to have departed without taking steps to ensure the continued fulfillment of his command roles over his Ummah after him. They submit instead that he actually appointed twelve amirs to fill his full command roles for him among his followers till the Hour.

The Shi’i claim apparently has support in authentic Sunni reports. For instance, this is an authentic hadith documented in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی سریج بن یونس عن عمر بن عبید عن سماك بن حرب عن جابر بن سمرة قال سمعت رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم یقول یكون من بعدی اثنا عشر أمیرا فتكلم فخفی علی فسألت الذی یلینى أو إلى جنبی فقال كلهم من قریش

‘Abd Allah – Shurayh b. Yunus – ‘Umar b. ‘Ubayd – Simak b. Harb – Jabir b. Samurah:

I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, saying, “THERE WILL BE AFTER ME TWELVE AMIRS”. Then he said something which I did not hear clearly. So I asked the one next to me, and he said, “All of them will be from Quraysh.”8

Shaykh al-Arnaut comments:

حدیث صحیح وهذا إسناد حسن من أجل سماك

It is a sahih hadith, and this chain is hasan due to Simak.9

Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H) says about the same hadith:

هذا حدیث حسن صحیح

This hadith is hasan sahih 10

And ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) agrees:

صحیح

Sahih11

Imam Ahmad further records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا مؤمل بن إسماعیل ثنا حماد بن سلمة حدثنا داود بن هند عن الشعبی عن جابر بن سمرة قال سمعت النبی صلى الله علیه و سلم یقول یكون لهذه الأمة اثنا عشر خلیفة

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Mumal b. Isma’il – Hamad b. Salamah – Dawud b. Hind – al-Shu’bi – Jabir b. Samurah:

I heard the Prophet, peace be upon him, saying: “There will be FOR this Ummah TWELVE KHALIFAHS.”12

Shaykh al-Arnaut says:

حدیث صحیح

It is a sahih hadith.13

Note that the hadith says “for this Ummah” and not “in this Ummah”. So, it explicitly and very emphatically limits the number to twelve till the extinction of the Ummah at the Last Hour. The phrase “in this Ummah” - although having the same effect too - would have been weaker.

Ahmad again documents:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا‌هاشم ثنا زهیر ثنا زیاد بن خیثمة عن الأسود بن سعید الهمدانی عن جابر بن سمرة قال سمعت رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم أو قال قال رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم یكون بعدی اثنا عشر خلیفة كلهم من قریش

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Hashim – Zuhayr – Ziyad b. Khaythamah – al-Aswad b. Sa’id al-Hamdani – Jabir b. Samurah:

I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, saying, or the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “THERE WILL BE AFTER ME TWELVE KHALIFAHS, all of them from Quraysh.”14

Al-Arnaut comments:

حدیث صحیح

It is a sahih hadith 16

In some other ahadith, their direct appointment by the Prophet is stated, as well as their primary identities. Imam Ibn Abi ‘Asim (d. 287 H) records:

ثنا أبو بكر، ثنا عمرو بن سعد أبو داود الحفری، عن شریك، عن الركین عن القاسم بن حسان، عن زید بن ثابت قال قال رسول الله صلى الله علیه وسلم: إنی تارك فیكم الخلیفتین من بعدی، كتاب الله وعترتی أهل بیتی وإنهما لن یتفرقا حتى یردا علی الحوض.

Abu Bakr – ‘Amr b. Sa’d Abu Dawud al-Hafri – Sharik – al-Rakin – al-Qasim b. Hisan – Zayd b. Thabit:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “I AM LEAVING BEHIND AMONG YOU the two khalifahs after me: the Book of Allah and my bloodline, my Ahl al-Bayt. Both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Font.” 16

‘Allamah al-Albani declares:

حدیث صحیح

It is a sahih hadith. 17

Imam Ahmad too documents:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا الأسود بن عامر ثنا شریك عن الركین عن القاسم بن حسان عن زید بن ثابت قال قال رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم انى تارك فیكم خلیفتین كتاب الله حبل ممدود ما بین السماء والأرض أو ما بین السماء إلى الأرض وعترتی أهل بیتی وإنهما لن یتفرقا حتى یردا على الحوض

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – al-Aswad b. ‘Amir – Sharik – al-Rakin – al-Qasim b. Hisan – Zayd b. Thabit:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “I AM LEAVING BEHIND AMONG YOU two khalifahs: the Book of Allah – a rope stretching between the heaven and the earth or from the heaven to the earth – and my bloodline, my Ahl al-Bayt. Both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Font.” 18

Shaykh al-Arnaut comments:

حدیث صحیح بشواهده دون قوله: " وإنهما لن یتفرقا حتى یردا علی الحوض " وهذا إسناد ضعیف لسوء حفظ شریك

The hadith is sahih through its shawahid (witnesses), except his statement “Both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Font.” 19

Ahmad further records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا أبو أحمد الزبیری ثنا شریك عن الركین عن القاسم بن حسان عن زید بن ثابت قال قال رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم إنی تارك فیكم خلیفتین كتاب الله وأهل بیتی وإنهما لن یتفرقا حتى یردا على الحوض جمیعا

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Abu Ahmad al-Zubayri – Sharik – al-Rakin – al-Qasim b. Hisan – Zayd b. Thabit:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “I AM LEAVING BEHIND AMONG YOU two khalifahs: the Book of Allah and my Ahl al-Bayt. Both shall never separate from each other until they meet me together at the Lake-Font.” 20

Al-Arnaut again says:

حدیث صحیح بشواهده دون قوله: " وإنهما لن یتفرقا حتى یردا علی الحوض جمیعا "

The hadith is sahih through its shawahid, except his statement, “Both shall never separate from each other until they meet me together at the Lake-Font.” 21

Imam al-Haythami (d. 807 H) too copies this report from Musnad Ahmad:

عن زید بن ثابت قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم: إنی تارك فیكم خلیفتین: كتاب الله عز و جل حبل ممدود ما بین السماء والأرض - أو ما بین السماء إلى الأرض - وعترتی أهل بیتی وإنهما لن یتفرقا حتى یردا علی الحوض

Narrated Zayd b. Thabit:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “I AM LEAVING BEHIND AMONG YOU two khalifahs: the Book of Allah – a rope stretching between the heaven and the earth or from the heaven to the earth – and my bloodline, my Ahl al-Bayt. Both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Font.” 23

And he passes this verdict:

رواه أحمد وإسناده جید

Ahmad has narrated it and its chain is good (jayyid).

It was the Prophet himself who was personally leaving behind the Qur’an and his bloodline as khalifahs among his Ummah. In fact, in one of the reports, he called them “the two khalifahs after me”, thereby fixing and restricting the khilafah to them. In any case, both the Qur’an and his bloodline are his khalifahs, appointed by him, according to the authentic ahadith above. Something to note at this point is that the word khalifah is both singular and plural, as submitted by Imam al-Raghib al-Isfahani (d. 501 H):

والخلیفة یقال للواحد والجمع، وهاهنا [هو] جمع، فإن الخلیفة لم یرد به آدم علیه السلام فقط، بل أرید هو وصالحو أولاده، فهم خلفاؤه

The word khalifah is used to refer to a single person or to a group. Here (under Qur’an 2:30), it is plural. This is because the word Khalifah (there) does not refer to Adam, peace be upon him, alone. Rather, it refers to him and the righteous ones among his offspring. So, they are His (i.e. Allah’s) Khalifahs. 23

Therefore, it was linguistically permissible for the Prophet to refer to his bloodline as his khalifah, to indicate that each of them was his khalifah individually. Secondly, like in the case of Adam, the word khalifah in the ahadith is not a reference to all the members of the bloodline indiscriminately. Rather, as stated in the other ahadith, the khalifahs among them are only twelve of their righteous ones. Each of these khalifahs stands in the Messenger’s position as the amir of the Ummah and substitutes for the latter in his command roles. So, each of them is also our amir, the amir of our Prophet over us.

The big questions then rise here:

1. How many are the khalifahs of Sunni Muslims?

2. What percentage of them were from the Prophet’s bloodline, his Ahl al-Bayt?

3. What percentage of them remained eternally inseparable from the Qur’an, as stipulated by the ahadith?

4. And what percentage of them acted for the Messenger of Allah?

Without a doubt, the Sunni khalifahs were in their dozens. Meanwhile, the khalifahs for this Ummah, according to its Prophet, are only twelve. So, it is either none of them was a khalifah for the Ummah, or only twelve of them were. Perhaps, the worst part of it all is that none of the dozens of Sunni khalifahs - apart from Amir al-Muminin and Imam al-Hasan - was from the Prophet’s bloodline. In particular, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, Mu’awiyah and Yazid – the primary Sunni khalifahs – were all from outside the bloodline of the Messenger. This fact singlehandedly kicks them out of the scope of the legitimate khilafah!

Apparently, Sunni Islam itself survives upon the legitimacy of the khilafah of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, Mu’awiyah and Yazid at the least. Should their khilafah – or that of any of them - collapse, the Sunni religion as a whole dies with it. So, the Sunni ‘ulama make all the desperate efforts they can and go to all desperate lengths to deny the legitimate khilafah of the Ahl al-Bayt and uphold the patently illegitimate khilafah of the others. It is a survival tactic for them. They have no other choice if they still want to maintain their flocks and the attendant benefits. However, it in indeed a very dangerous game actually, in the light of this noble verse:

ولا تلبسوا الحق بالباطل وتكتموا الحق وأنتم تعلمون

And mix not the Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth while you know. 24

Then, Allah adds:

إن الذین یكتمون ما أنزلنا من البینات والهدى من بعد ما بیناه للناس فی الكتاب أولئك یلعنهم الله ویلعنهم اللاعنون

Those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones being cursed by Allah and being cursed by the cursers. 25

In particular, these desperate Sunni ‘ulama focus upon the khilafah of Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. He was the immediate, undisputed leader of the Prophet’s bloodline after the latter. Meanwhile, the true khilafah had been fixed permanently within this same bloodline. Therefore, naturally, ‘Ali was the first legitimate khalifah of Islam. So, even if there were no other authentic ahadith about his khilafah, it is nonetheless perfectly proven through this route.

Yet, in addition to this general evidence, there are also loads of specific undeniable Sunni proofs for the khilafah of Amir al-Muminin over Abu Bakr and the entire Ummah after the Messenger of Allah. But, as a way of protecting the patently illegitimate khilafah of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, some scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah further wage an extreme war against the authentic evidences in favour of ‘Ali in their own books. They instinctively deny, without tabling any academic excuse, any sahih Sunni hadith about Amir al-Muminin which threatens Abu Bakr and ‘Umar in any way – whether in merits, virtues or khilafah.

None among them has ever been as violent in this regard as Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah. He has done this recklessly and relentlessly throughout his books, especially Minhaj al-Sunnah. Therefore, in this book, this author has concentrated mainly upon Ibn Taymiyyah’s claims and arguments against the doubtless Sunni proofs which firmly, explicitly and specifically establish the khilafah of Amir al-Muminin immediately after the Messenger of the Lord of the worlds.

In this book, we have adopted the same investigative research methodology as we did in our first book: ‘Ali: the Best of the Sahabah. Through these efforts and the complete transparency of our techniques, we hope to give every truth-seeker the full opportunity to reach the truth in a safe, honest, and intellectually charged environment, devoid of sectarian propaganda or bias. We implore Allah to forgive us all our mistakes, and to accept this as a worthy act of ‘ibadah. And may Allah send His salawat and barakat upon our master, Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah, and upon his purified bloodline.

• 1. See Qur’an 4:64
• 2. Ibn al-Athir, Abu Sa’adat al-Mubarak b. Muhammad al-Jazari, al-Nihayah fi Gharib al-Hadith wa al-Athar (Qum: Muasassat Isma’iliyyan) [annotator: Mahmud Muhammad al-Tanahi and Tahir Ahmad al-Zawi], vol. 2, p. 69
• 3. There are several verses of the Qur’an which order all believers till the Day of al-Qiyamah to “obey” the Messenger – 4:64, 3:32, , 3:132, 4:13, 4:59, 4:69, 4:80, 5:92, 8:1, 8:20, 8:46, 9:71, 24:47, 24:51, 24:52, 24:54, 24:56, 33:33, 33:66, 33:71, 47:33, 48:17, 49:14, 58:13, and 64:12.
• 4. This shows that it is permissible, and in fact the Sunnah, to refer to deputies and substitutes in command roles as amirs.
• 5. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 2, p. 511, # 10645
• 6. Ibid
• 7. We have discussed instances of this usage in the main body of this book, especially in the chapters on Hadith al-Khilafah and Hadith al-Manzilah.
• 8. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 5, p. 99, # 20978
• 9. Ibid
• 10. Abu ‘Isa Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Sulami al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 4, p. 501, # 2223
• 11. Ibid
• 12. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 5, p. 106, # 21051
• 13. Ibid
• 14. Ibid, vol. 5, p. 92, # 20890
• 15. Ibid
• 16. Abu Bakr b. Abi ‘Asim, Ahmad b. ‘Amr b. al-Dhahhak b. Mukhlid al-Shaybani, Kitab al-Sunnah (al-Maktab al-Islami; 1st edition, 1400 H) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 2, pp. 350-351, # 754
• 17. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 351, # 754
• 18. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 5, p. 181, # 21618
• 19. Ibid
• 20. Ibid, vol. 5, p. 189, # 21697
• 21. Ibid
• 22. Nur al-Din ‘Ali b. Abi Bakr al-Haythami, Majma’ al-Zawaid (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr; 1412 H), vol. 9, p. 256, # 14957
• 23. Abu al-Qasim al-Husayn b. Muhammad b. al-Mufadhdhal al-Raghib al-Isfahani, Tafsir al-Raghib al-Isfahani wa Muqadimmatuh (Kulliyat al-Adab, Jami’ah Tanta; 1st edition, 1412 H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Basyuni], vol. 1, p. 139
• 24. Qur’an 2:42
• 25. Qur’an 2:159

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H) says:

والجواب أن هذا لیس مسندا بل هو مرسل لو ثبت عن عمرو بن میمون وفیه ألفاظ هی كذب على رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم كقوله أما ترضى أن تكون منی بمنزلة‌هارون من موسى غیر أنك لست بنبی لا ینبغی أن أذهب إلا وأنت خلیفتی فإن النبی صلى الله علیه و سلم ذهب غیر مرة وخلیفته على المدینة غیر علی

The reply is that this (hadith) is not fully-connected in its chain (musnad). Rather, it is mursal (narrated by a Tabi’i directly from the Prophet), (even) if it is authentically transmitted from ‘Amr b. Maymun. It (also) contains statements that are lies upon the Messenger of Allah such as his statement: “Are you not pleased that you are to me of the status of Harun to Musa, with the exception that you are not a prophet? It is not right that I depart except with you as my khalifah.” Verily, the Prophet, peace be upon him, departed many times and his khalifah over Madinah was other than ‘Ali (on each occasion). 1

First, our dear Shaykh grades the hadith of ‘Amr b. Maymun to be mursal. This means that there is no Sahabi in the chain. The last narrator transmitting directly from the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, is only a Tabi’i. Second, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah claims that it contains clear lies upon the Messenger of Allah, especially the statement that ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam, was his khalifah. He also interprets “depart” in the hadith to mean “depart from Madinah”, rather than “depart from this world”. It would be appropriate to examine its full chain, context and texts in order to determine the validity of the Shaykh’s claims.

Hadith al-Khilafah has come in three sighahs (versions). The first sighah is documented by Imam Ibn Abi ‘Asim (d. 287 H). He records:

ثنا محمد بن المثنى، حدثنا یحی بن حماد، عن أبی عوانة، عن یحیى بن سلیم أبی بلج عن عمرو بن میمون، عن ابن عباس قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله علیه وسلم لعلی: أنت منی بمنزلة‌هارون من موسى إلا أنك لست نبیا وأنت خلیفتی فی كل مؤمن من بعدی.

Muhammad b. al-Muthanna – Yahya b. Hammad – Abu ‘Awanah – Yahya b. Sulaym Abu Balj – ‘Amr b. Maymun – Ibn ‘Abbas: The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said to ‘Ali: “You are to me of the status of Harun to Musa, with the exception that you are not a prophet. And you are my khalifah over every believer after me.” 2

Dr. al-Jawabirah says:

اسناده حسن. رجاله رجال الشیخین غیر ابی‌ بلج واسمه یحیی بن سلیم بن بلج، قال الحافظ: صدوق ربما اخطأ. وله شواهد

Its chain is hasan. Its narrators are narrators of the two Shaykhs, except Abu Balj, and his name is Yahya b. Sulaym b. Balj. Al-Hafiz said: “Saduq (very truthful), maybe he made mistakes.” There are witnesses for it (i.e. the hadith).” 3

‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H), in his annotated version of Ibn Abi Asim’s Kitab al-Sunnah surprisingly added some new words in brackets:

ثنا محمد بن المثنى، حدثنا یحی بن حماد، عن أبی عوانة، عن یحیى بن سلیم أبی بلج عن عمرو بن میمون، عن ابن عباس قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله علیه وسلم لعلی: أنت منی بمنزلة‌هارون من موسى إلا أنك لست نبیا] إنه لا ینبغی أن أذهب إلا [وأنت خلیفتی فی كل مؤمن من بعدی.

Muhammad b. al-Muthanna – Yahya b. Hammad – Abu ‘Awanah – Yahya b. Sulaym Abu Balj – ‘Amr b. Maymun – Ibn ‘Abbas: The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said to ‘Ali: “You are to me of the status of Harun to Musa, with the exception that you are not a prophet. [Verily, it is not right that I depart except] with you as my khalifah over every believer after me.” 4

Nonetheless, ‘Allamah al-Albani also comments:

إسناده حسن. ورجاله ثقات رجال الشیخین غیر أبی بلج واسمه یحیى بن سلیم بن بلج قال الحافظ: " صدوق ربما أخطأ ".

Its chain is hasan. Its narrators are trustworthy, and are narrators of the two Shaykhs (i.e. al-Bukhari and Muslim) except Abu Balj. His name is Yahya b. Sulaym b. Balj. Al-Hafiz said: “Saduq (very truthful), maybe he made mistakes.” 5

This hadith, in the Sunni book, is narrated by Ibn ‘Abbas, radhiyallahu ‘anhu, a Sahabi. Therefore, it is not mursal, as claimed by Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah. Rather, its chain is musnad (well-connected) and hasan (good). Moreover, since the hadith has been authentically transmitted, the Shaykh’s grading of it as “a lie” also has absolutely no basis at all.

The second sighah is recorded by Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241 H), in his Musnad:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا یحیى بن حماد ثنا أبو عوانة ثنا أبو بلج ثنا عمرو بن میمون....قال بن عباس.... وخرج بالناس فی غزوة تبوك قال فقال له علی أخرج معك قال فقال له نبی الله لا فبكى علی فقال له أما ترضى أن تكون منى بمنزلة‌هارون من موسى الا أنك لست بنبی انه لا ینبغی أن أذهب الا وأنت خلیفتی

‘Abd Allah – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Yahya b. Hammad – Abu ‘Awanah – Abu Balj – ‘Amr b. Maymun.... Ibn ‘Abbas said:

.... He (the Messenger of Allah) went out for the battle of Tabuk. So, ‘Ali said to him, “Let me go out with you.” Therefore, the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “Do not weep, ‘Ali. Are you not pleased that you are to me of the status of Harun to Musa, with the exception that you are not a prophet? Verily, it is not right that I depart except with you as my khalifah.” 6

Al-Arnaut strangely says:

إسناده ضعیف بهذه السیاقة. أبو بلج أعدل ما قیل فیه أنه یقبل حدیثه فیما لاینفرد به.

Its chain is dha’if with this context. Abu Balj, the fairest that has been said about him is that his hadith is accepted only when he is corroborated. 7

However, he contradicts himself elsewhere:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا عفان ثنا أبو عوانة ثنا أبو بلج عن محمد بن حاطب.... إسناده حسن من أجل أبی بلج

‘Abd Allah – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – ‘Affan – Abu ‘Awanah – Abu Balj – Muhammad b. Hatib.... Its chain is hasan due to Abu Balj. 8

Al-Arnaut also states:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنی أبی ثنا حسن حدثنا زهیر حدثنا أبو بلج ان عمرو بن میمون حدثه قال قال أبو هریرة....هذا إسناد حسن

‘Abd Allah – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Hasan – Zuhayr – Abu Balj – ‘Amr b. Maymun – Abu Hurayrah.... This chain is hasan. 9

Apparently, Hadith al-Khilafah is hasan by the standards of Shaykh al-Arnaut too! Commenting about the same hadith in Musnad Ahmad, ‘Allamah Ahmad Shakir (d. 1377 H) declares:

إسناده صحیح، أبو بلج، بفتح الباء وسكون اللام و آخره جیم: اسمه یحیى بن سلیم ویقال یحیى بن أبی الأسود الفزاری، وهو ثقة، وثقه ابن معین وابن سعد والنسائی والدارقطنی وغیرهم. وفی التهذیب أن البخاری قال: فیه نظر! وما أدری أین قال هذا؟، فإنه ترجمه فی الكبیر 4/2/279 280 ولم یذكر فیه جرحاً، ولم یترجمه فی الصغیر، ولا ذكره هو والنسائی فی الضعفاء، وقد روى عنه شعبة، وهو لا یروی إلا عن ثقه.

Its chain is sahih. Abu Balj: his name is Yahya b. Sulaym. He is also called Yahya b. Abi al-Aswad al-Fazari, and he is thiqah (trustworthy). Ibn Ma’in, Ibn Sa’d, al-Nasai, al-Daraqutni and others declared him thiqah. It is said in al-Tahdhib that al-Bukhari said: “There is a problem in him”! I do not know: where has he said that? This is because in his (al-Bukhari’s) biography of him in al-Kabir 4/2/279-280, he does not mention any criticism against him, and he (al-Bukhari) does not write his biography in al-Saghir, and neither he nor al-Nasai has mentioned him in (his respective) al-Dhu’afa. Moreover, Shu’bah has narrated from him, and he does not narrate except from thiqah narrators. 10

Imam al-Hakim (d. 403 H) records the hadith too:

أخبرنا أبو بكر أحمد بن جعفر بن حمدان القطیعی ببغداد من أصل كتابه ثنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل حدثنی أبی ثنا یحیى بن حماد ثنا أبو عوانة ثنا أبو بلج ثنا عمرو بن میمون....قال ابن عباس:.... وقعوا فی رجل له بضع عشرة فضائل لیست لأحد غیره.... وخرج رسول الله صلى الله علیه وسلم فی غزوة تبوك وخرج بالناس معه قال فقال له علی: أخرج معك قال: فقال النبی صلى الله علیه وسلم لا فبكى علی فقال له: أما ترضى أن تكون منی بمنزلة‌هارون من موسى إلا أنه لیس بعدی نبی إنه لا ینبغی أن أذهب إلا وأنت خلیفتی

Abu Bakr Ahmad b. Ja’far b. Hamadan al-Qati’i – ‘Abd Allah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Yahya b. Hammad – Abu ‘Awanah – Abu Balj – ‘Amr b. Maymun.... Ibn ‘Abbas said:

.... They are attacking a man who has ten EXCLUSIVE merits.... The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, went out for the battle of Tabuk, and the people went out with him. So, ‘Ali said to him, “Let me go out with you.” Therefore, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “Do not weep, ‘Ali. Are you not pleased that you are to me of the status of Harun to Musa, with the exception that there is no prophet after me? Verily, it is not right that I depart except with you as my khalifah.” 11

Al-Hakim says:

هذا حدیث صحیح الإسناد

This hadith has a sahih chain. 12

Al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) backs him:

صحیح

Sahih. 13

Meanwhile, Imam al-Nasai (d. 303 H) has documented the third sighah, through the same hasan chain of transmission as the first:

وخرج بالناس فی غزوة تبوك فقال علی أخرج معك فقال لا فبكى فقال أما ترضى أن تكون منی بمنزلة‌هارون من موسى إلا أنك لست بنبی ثم قال أنت خلیفتی یعنی فی كل مؤمن من بعدی

.... He (the Messenger of Allah) went out with the people for the battle of Tabuk. So, ‘Ali said to him, “Let me go out with you.” Therefore, he (the Prophet) said, “Do not weep, ‘Ali. Are you not pleased that you are to me of the status of Harun to Musa, with the exception that you are not a prophet? You are my khalifah, that is, over every believer after me.” 14

This third sighah reveals that the second sighah actually misses some words. When the Messenger of Allah declared Amir al-Muminin as his khalifah, he explicitly explained what he meant, so that the khilafah is not confused with ‘Ali’s governorate over Madinah. In the end, all three sighahs actually say the same thing: ‘Ali was the khalifah of the Messenger of Allah over every believer after him.

These various reports record varying degrees of details of the text of Hadith al-Khilafah. However, by combining the sighahs, a clear picture emerges:

1. The Messenger of Allah made Amir al-Muminin his khalifah over Madinah during the battle of Tabuk.

2. The Prophet himself led the army to Tabuk.

3. ‘Ali was very distressed with the appointment and preferred to participate in the battle as a soldier. This displeasure made him weep.

4. His request to the Prophet to let him participate as a soldier in the battle was turned down.

5. To make him happy and pleased, the Prophet stated that he was exactly the Harun of this Ummah, except that while Harun was a prophet, he was not.

6. The Messenger of Allah also informed him that he would become his khalifah over his entire Ummah after him. 15

7. The Prophet further added that it was not right for himself to depart except with ‘Ali being his khalifah over the entire Ummah after him.

8. Lastly, ‘Ali’s khilafah in the hadith is part of his ten exclusive merits, according to Ibn ‘Abbas.

Interestingly, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah seeks to capitalize on the fact that the hadith was delivered during ‘Ali’s khilafah over Madinah. He therefore restricts the khilafah in the hadith to mere governorate over a town or city within the Ummah. On that basis, he kicks it out:

فإن النبی صلى الله علیه و سلم ذهب غیر مرة وخلیفته على المدینة غیر علی

Verily, the Prophet, peace be upon him, departed many times and his khalifah over Madinah was other than ‘Ali (on each occasion).  16

His submission however fails for two reasons. First, the Messenger wanted to tell ‘Ali something to make him happy, considering the latter’s deep distress over his appointment as governor of Madinah. How then would he have still mentioned that same governorate to cheer him up? Does that make any sense? Besides, the Prophet specifically indicated that the khilafah he was speaking about would be over the entire Ummah after him. This certainly is different from the governorate of Madinah, which was over a tiny portion of the Ummah while the Messenger of Allah was still alive! How on earth did our dear Shaykh miss this simple, clear difference?

As if the weird actions of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah on Hadith al-Khilafah are not enough, ‘Allamah al-Albani sinks even deeper:

أما ما یذكره الشیعة فی هذا الحدیث وغیره أن النبی صلى الله علیه وسلم قال فی علی رضی الله عنه: " إنه خلیفتی من بعدی ". فلا یصح بوجه من الوجوه، بل هو من أباطیلهم الكثیرة التی دل الواقع التاریخی على كذبها لأنه لو فرض أن النبی صلى الله علیه وسلم قاله، لوقع كما قال لأنه (وحی یوحى) والله سبحانه لا یخلف وعده

As for what the Shi’ah mention about this hadith and others that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said about ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, that “he is my khalifah after me”, it is NOT authentic for many reasons. Rather, it is one of their (i.e. Shi’is’) several fabrications, which are exposed as lies by history. If truly the Prophet, peace be upon him, had said it, it would have occurred as predicted, because it is wahy revealed, and Allah never betrays His Promise. 17

Has the ‘Allamah really forgotten that he has personally authenticated the chain of that hadith? Or, did he choose to become economical with truthfulness and sincerity after realizing that Hadith al-Khilafah simply cannot be twisted to kill its true meaning? It is rather unfortunate that ‘Allamah al-Albani plays this lowly “Ibn Taymiyyah” card despite his high calibre.

The only excuse he has actually tabled for attacking the hadith (despite his claim of the existence of many) is that it contradicts historical reality. Rather than ‘Ali, Abu Bakr became the khalifah. Therefore, ‘Ali could not have been the designated successor?! This reasoning further exposes another aspect of ‘Allamah al-Albani: his shocking ignorance of the meaning of the word khalifah! Does he even read the Qur’an at all?

Musa and Harun, ‘alaihima al-salam, were both messengers chosen by Allah:

فأتیاه فقولا إنا رسولا ربك

So go you both to him and say: “Verily, we both are messengers of your Lord” 18

By the Order of Allah, every messenger was a ruler of his people:

وما أرسلنا من رسول إلا لیطاع بإذن الله

We sent no messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah’s Leave. 19

So, what happens when the people refuse to obey a messenger? Does he lose his status? By the reasoning system of ‘Allamah al-Albani, if Allah had truly appointed someone a messenger, then the people would certainly have obeyed him. If they did not obey him, then it must have been that he was not a genuine messenger!

Harun, apart from being a messenger, was also Musa’s khalifah over the latter’s entire Ummah:

وقال موسى لأخیه‌هارون اخلفنی فی قومی

Musa said to his brother, Harun: “Be my khalifah over my people.” 20

But, what happened once Musa went away temporarily from his Ummah, with his brother as his khalifah over them? A rebel leader rose against Harun, and stole power. The people of Musa thereby disobeyed Harun and followed the rebel leader, named al-Samiri. Allah informed Musa of the situation while he was still absent from them:

قال فإنا قد فتنا قومك من بعدك وأضلهم السامری

He (Allah) said: “Verily! We have tried your people in your absence, and al-Samiri has led them astray.” 21

The Qur’an continues:

ولما رجع موسى إلى قومه غضبان أسفا قال بئسما خلفتمونی من بعدی أعجلتم أمر ربكم وألقى الألواح وأخذ برأس أخیه یجره إلیه قال ابن أم إن القوم استضعفونی وكادوا یقتلوننی

When Musa returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “What an evil thing is that which you have done during my absence! Did you hasten and go ahead as regards the matter of your Lord?” He threw down the Tablets and seized his brother by his head and dragged him towards him. Harun said, “O son of my mother! Indeed the people judged me weak, and were about to murder me.” 22

In line with the logic of ‘Allamah al-Albani, since Allah announced Harun as a messenger, and Musa too called him his khalifah, then the Israelites must have obeyed him. Otherwise, the Promise of Allah would have failed! Moreover, because they disobeyed Harun and obeyed al-Samiri – in the thinking line of ‘Allamah al-Albani – the former was therefore no longer a messenger or a khalifah! Rather, al-Samiri became the true messenger and khalifah by staging a successful rebellion! How can a Muslim scholar reason like that?

• 1. Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halim b. Taymiyyah al-Harrani, Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (Muasassat Qurtubah; 1st edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad Rashad Salim], vol. 5, p. 34
• 2. Abu Bakr b. Abi ‘Asim, Ahmad b. ‘Amr b. al-Dhahhak b. Mukhlid al-Shaybani, Kitab al-Sunnah (Dar al-Sami’i li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’) [annotator: Dr. Basim b. Faysal al-Jawabirah], vol. 1, pp. 799-800, # 1222
• 3. Ibid
• 4. Abu Bakr b. Abi ‘Asim, Ahmad b. ‘Amr b. al-Dhahhak b. Mukhlid al-Shaybani, Kitab al-Sunnah (al-Maktab al-Islami; 1st edition, 1400 H) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 2, p. 565, # 1188
• 5. Ibid
• 6. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 1, p. 330, # 3062
• 7. Ibid
• 8. Ibid, vol. 4, p. 259, # 18305
• 9. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 355, # 8645
• 10. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Dar al-Hadith; 1st edition, 1416 H) [annotator: Ahmad Muhammad Shakir], vol. 1, p. 331, # 3062
• 11. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Mustafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Ata], vol. 3, p. 143, # 4652
• 12. Ibid
• 13. Ibid
• 14. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Ahmad b. Shu’ayb al-Nasai, Sunan al-Kubra (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Dr. ‘Abd al-Ghaffar Sulayman al-Bandari and Sayyid Kasrawi Hasan], vol. 5, p. 112, # 8409
• 15. ‘Ali obviously was very passionate about serving Islam. This was why he preferred to be a soldier, rather than a governor. As a soldier, he believed that his contributions would be far greater. The Prophet then informed him that he was holding, and would also be holding, ranks and positions that would afford him unprecedented opportunities to serve Islam. This was to make him happy, and it did.
• 16. Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halim b. Taymiyyah al-Harrani, Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (Muasassat Qurtubah; 1st edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad Rashad Salim], vol. 5, p. 34
• 17. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah wa Shayhun min Fiqhihah wa Fawaidihah (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma’arif li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1415 H), vol. 4, p. 344, # 1750
• 18. Qur’an 20:47
• 19. Qur’an 4:64
• 20. Qur’an 7:142
• 21. Qur’an 20:85
• 22. Qur’an 7:150

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H) states about Hadith al-Wilayah:

و كذلك قوله هو ولی كل مؤمن بعدی كذب على رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم

And similarly his statement “he is the wali of every believer after me”, it is a lie upon the Messenger of Allah.1

The implication of Shaykh’s words is that the hadith is mawdu’. It does not have a single sahih, hasan or even dha’if chain. Rather, each of its chains contains at least one known or suspected liar or hadith fabricator. But, is this submission of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah true? Is the hadith really mawdu’?

Hadith al-Wilayah is a report from the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, concerning Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam, in which he declares the latter to be the wali of every believer after him. What does wali mean in the hadith? What did the Prophet intend by saying “after me”? These are questions that need answers – but only if the hadith is first confirmed to be authentic. Since Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah has graded it to be mawdu’, it is therefore necessary to confirm or refute this first before embarking upon any exegetical exercise about its matn (content).

Imam Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi (d. 204 H) records:

حدثنا أبو داود قال حدثنا جعفر بن سلیمان الضبعی حدثنا یزید الرشك عن مطرف بن عبد الله بن الشخیر عن عمران بن حصین: أن رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم بعث علیا فی جیش فرأوا منه شیئا فأنكروه فاتفق نفر أربعة وتعاقدوا أن یخبروا النبی صلى الله علیه و سلم بما صنع علی قال عمران وكنا إذا قدمنا من سفر لم نأت أهلنا حتى نأتی رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم وننظر إلیه فجاء النفر الأربعة فقام أحدهم فقال یا رسول الله ألم‌تر أن علیا صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام الثانی فقال مثل ذلك فأعرض عنه ثم قام الثالث فقال مثل ذلك فأعرض عنه ثم قام الرابع فقال مثل ذلك فقال رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم ما لهم ولعلی إن علیا منی وأنا منه وهو ولی كل مؤمن بعدی

Abu Dawud – Ja’far b. Sulayman al-Dhab’i – Yazid al-Rishk – Mutarrif b. ‘Abd Allah b. al-Shikhir – ‘Imran b. Hasin who said:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, appointed ‘Ali as part of an army expedition. They (his co-soldiers) saw something in him that they hated, and a small band of four people (among them) therefore agreed and vowed to inform the Prophet, peace be upon him, about what ‘Ali did. It was our custom back then that whenever we returned from any journey, we would not go to our families until after visiting the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and looking at him.

So, the small band of four people came (to the Prophet immediately they returned), and one of them stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allah! Have you not seen that ‘Ali did so and so?” So, he (the Prophet) turned away from him. Then, the second stood up and said the same thing. So, he (the Prophet) turned away from him (too). Then the third stood up and said the same thing. So, he (the Prophet) turned away from him (as well). Then the fourth stood up and said the same thing. Therefore, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “What is it with them and ‘Ali? Verily, ‘Ali is from me and I am from him, and he is the wali of every believer after me.”2

‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) says about this riwayah:

أخرجه....الطیالسی فی " مسنده " (829).... من طریق جعفر بن سلیمان الضبعی عن یزید الرشك عن مطرف عن عمران بن حصین رضی الله عنه....وقال الترمذی: "حدیث حسن غریب، لا نعرفه إلا من حدیث جعفر بن سلیمان ". قلت: وهو ثقة من رجال مسلم وكذلك سائر رجاله ولذلك قال الحاكم: " صحیح على شرط مسلم "، وأقره الذهبی.

Al-Tayalisi recorded it in his Musnad (829).... from the route of Ja’far b. Sulayman al-Dhab’i, from Yazid al-Rishk, from Mutarrif, from ‘Imran b. Hasin, may Allah be pleased with him.... And al-Tirmidhi said: “A hadith that is hasan gharib (i.e. with a hasan [good] chain), we do not know it except through the hadith of Ja’far b. Sulayman”. I (al-Albani) say: and he (Ja’far b. Sulayman) is thiqah (trustworthy), from the narrators of (Sahih) Muslim, and so are the rest of its (i.e. the hadith’s) narrators. This is why al-Hakim said, “Sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim. And al-Dhahabi concurred with him.3

All the narrators are thiqah (trustworthy), and are relied upon in Sahih Muslim. Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H) declares the chain to be hasan, while both al-Hakim (d. 403 H) and al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) grade it as sahih. ‘Allamah al-Albani approvingly cites their consensus opinion, which shows that he too holds the same view about the chain.

Al-Tayalisi further records another chain for the hadith:

حدثنا یونس قال حدثنا أبو داود قال حدثنا أبو عوانة عن أبی بلج عن عمرو بن میمون عن بن عباس ان رسول الله صلى الله علیه و سلم قال لعلی: أنت ولی كل مؤمن بعدی

Yunus – Abu Dawud – Abu ‘Awanah – Abu Balj – ‘Amr b. Maymun – Ibn ‘Abbas:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said to ‘Ali: “You are the wali of every believer after me.”4

‘Allamah al-Albani says about it:

. وأما قوله: "وهو ولی كل مؤمن بعدی " فقد جاء من حدیث ابن عباس، فقال الطیالسی (2752): حدثنا أبو عوانة عن أبی بلج عن عمرو بن میمون عنه " أن رسول الله صلى الله علیه وسلم قال لعلی: " أنت ولی كل مؤمن بعدی ". وأخرجه أحمد (1 / 330 - 331) ومن طریقه الحاكم (3 / 132 - 133) وقال: " صحیح الإسناد "، ووافقه الذهبی، وهو كما قالا.

As for his statement “and he is the wali of every believer after me”, it has been narrated in the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas, for al-Tayalisi (2752) said: Abu ‘Awanah – Abu Balj – ‘Amr b. Maymun, from him (i.e. Ibn ‘Abbas), “that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said to ‘Ali: ‘You are the wali of every believer after me.’” Ahmad (1/330-331) recorded it, and from his route al-Hakim (3/132-133), and he (al-Hakim) said, “a sahih chain” and al-Dhahabi concurred with him, and it is indeed as both have