This verse is called the “Verse of Wilayah” due to the appearance of the word wali in it. Linguistically the word wilayah may have one of two meanings.

The one meaning is authority. The wali would then be the possessor of authority. The Shi‘ah have arbitrarily latched on to this meaning, seeking thereby to prove the Imamah of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu. By coupling this meaning of the term to the narrations which will come under discussion in due course—the gist of which is that Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu once gave his ring to a beggar whilst in the state of ruku‘, and that the verse was revealed on that occasion—they draw the conclusion that the only legitimate authority in the Muslim community is that of Allah, His Messenger and the Imam. Any other kind of authority, like that of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman radiyallahu ‘anhum, for example, is then illegitimate and contradicts the Qur’an.

The other meaning of wilayah, which in this sense might also appear as walayah, is a relationship of affection, attachment and solidarity in which each individual becomes the friend and protector of the other. In this sense the wali is then that person or entity whom you regard as your friend, your ally, the one with whom you associate, who can be counted upon to protect you and defend your rights. In this sense it stands opposed to terms such as “enemy”, “foe” and “adversary”.

In order to see which of these two meanings apply to the verse, one needs to look at the context in which it stands. The Verse of Wilayah is the 55th verse of Surah al-Ma’idah. In order for us to get the complete picture of the context in which it stands, we need to go back a few verses. In verse 51 Allah Ta‘ala says:

It can be seen from this verse that Allah Ta‘ala is definitely not speaking of wilayah in the sense of authority. What is being spoken of here is taking non-Muslims as allies, friends and protectors.

When Allah then says in verse 55 that “your true wali is only Allah, His Messenger and the Believers” it is clear that it is wilayah in the sense of mutual solidarity and friendship, and not wilayah in the sense of authority, that is meant.

This meaning of wilayah is repeated again in verse 57:

In light of the fact that in the preceding as well as successive verses wilayah is used in the sense of the relationship we have described earlier, it is unacceptable, and indeed most incoherent, to claim that in this verse in the middle it has been used in the sense of authority. The meaning of the verse of Wilayah is therefore that a Muslim’s allegiance should be only to Allah, His Messenger sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, and the Believers. Of the exclusive and pre-emptive right to authority which the Shi‘ah seek to read into it, the verse does not speak at all.

This is further corroborated by an authentic narration documented by Ibn Jarir at-Tabari and others, which states that verse 51 was revealed in connection with ‘Ubadah ibn Samit radiyallahu ‘anhu and ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy, both of whom had wilayah relationships with the Jews of Madinah. ‘Ubadah radiyallahu ‘anhu came to Rasulullah and announced that he was severing all ties of wilayah with them, while ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy insisted on keeping ties with them, saying that he feared a turnabout of circumstances. It was then that the 55th verse of al-Ma’idah was revealed. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 68)

The main grounds for forcing the verse out of its context are the narrations which exist, according to which the verse was revealed when Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu gave his ring to a beggar whilst in the position of ruku‘. In what follows we will investigate the authenticity of those narrations.

It must be remembered, as a matter of principle, that untruthfulness in narrating hadith was a very real phenomenon in the early centuries of Islam, the result of which has been that a lot of spurious, unauthentic material was brought into circulation. Much of this material was later included into hadith collections by compilers who were motivated more by a desire to document a largely oral tradition, than to separate authentic from unauthentic material.

Whoever thereafter wishes to utilize the material thus compiled will first have to ascertain the authenticity of the material he wishes to quote. By failing to first prove the authenticity of one’s quoted material, the entire argument which is based upon that material is rendered useless.

After this very important introductory remark, we now launch into a study of the available narrated material. We will first look at what has been narrated from some of the Sahabah, and thereafter at what has been narrated with chains of narration that go back only as far as the Tabi‘in.

The sources at our disposal contain narrations of the supposed incident whose sanads (chains of narration) go back to four different Sahabah. They are:

There are at least three separate isnads from Ibn ‘Abbas in which this story is recounted.

The first is recorded by Abu Bakr ibn Mardawayh in his Tafsir and al-Wahidi in his book Asbab an-Nuzul. Ibn Mardawayh’s Tafsir has not survived, but al-Wahidi’s book has been published a number of times, and it is known from as-Suyuti’s ad-Durr al-Manthur (vol. 2 p. 293) that these two sources have at least the last portion of their isnads in common. This last portion is as follows:

The next narrator, Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib al-Kalbi, was one of the most notorious liars of Kufah. His biography in al-Mizzi’s Tahdhib al-Kamal is filled with statements of the ‘ulama of his time who denounced him as an extremely unreliable reporter, and even a blatant liar. (See al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 25 pp. 246-253)

Two of the statements in his biography are of particular interest here. The one is a statement by his kinsman Abu Janab al-Kalbi who records Abu Salih as saying that he never narrated any tafsir to Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib. The second is an admission of guilt by Abu Salih. Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri narrates that al-Kalbi said, “Whatever tafsir I narrated from Abu Salih is untrue. Do not narrate it from me.”

The third person in this isnad is Muhammad ibn Marwan, who is also known as as-Suddi as-Saghir (the younger Suddi). In him we have another notorious forger whose mendacity was exposed by both his contemporaries and the ‘ulama who came after him. (See Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 pp. 392-394)

This particular chain of narration (as-Suddi as-Saghir, from al-Kalbi, from Abu Salih) became so infamous amongst the ‘ulama that it was given the epithet Silsilat al-Kadhib, meaning the Chain of Mendacity. (See as-Suyuti, Tadrib ar-Rawi vol. 1 p. 181)

The second isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas t is also documented in the Tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh. It runs through ad-Dahhak ibMuzahim from Ibn ‘Abbas. The weak point in this isnad lies in the fact that ad-Dahhak never met Ibn ‘Abbas, leave alone narrate from him. (See Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 71)

In the book al-Jarh wat-Ta‘dil by Ibn Abi Hatim ar-Razi there is a narration which throws some light upon the link “ad-Dahhak—Ibn ‘Abbas”. Ibn Abi Hatim narrates with an authentic isnad from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Maysarah that he asked ad-Dahhak: “Did you personally hear anything from Ibn ‘Abbas?” Ad-Dahhak replied in the negative. ‘Abd al-Malik then asked him: “So this which you narrate (from him), from whom did you take it?” Ad-Dahhak replied: “From this one and that one.” (Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wat-Ta‘dil vol. 4 tarjamah no. 2024)

This shows that ad-Dahhak did not exercise great care about the persons from whom he received the material he later transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbas. Having been a contemporary of Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib al-Kalbi, it is not at all improbable that he might have heard the story of the beggar from him.

The third isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas t runs through the famous mufassir Mujahid ibn Jabr, from Ibn ‘Abbas. It is narrated by ‘Abd ar-Razzaq as-San‘ani in his Tafsir. He narrates it from ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn Mujahid, who narrates it from his father Mujahid. ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn Mujahid is described by the rijal critics as matruk, which implies that his unreliability is a matter of consensus amongst them. (Ibn Hajar, Taqrib at-Tahdhib no. 4263) Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri described him as a liar. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 18 p. 517) There is reasonable doubt about whether he ever heard hadith from his father. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 18 p. 517)

From the above it can be seen that not one of the various narrations from Ibn ‘Abbas is authentic. What adds to the baselessness of that report is the fact that they contradict another more reliable report from Ibn ‘Abbas on the tafsir of this verse. This report is documented in the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir, who narrates it with his isnad from the Tafsir of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah. According to this report Ibn ‘Abbas was of the opinion that the words “and those who believe, who establish prayer and give charity, and they bow down” in the verse refer to all Muslims in general. (Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan vol. 6 p. 186)

This interpretation by Ibn ‘Abbas is not only in harmony with the meaning of wilayah as outlined above, it also agrees with the use of the plural form (“those who believe”) in the verse.

This isnad suffers from a serious defect. Khalid ibn Yazid al-‘Umari is an extremely untrustworthy narrator who has been denounced as a liar by Yahya in Ma‘in and Abu Hatim ar-Razi. Ibn Hibban says that he transmits forgeries on the authority of trustworthy narrators. Al-‘Uqayli says that he transmits baseless narrations. (See Lisan al-Mizan vol. 2 pp. 740-743)

In this particular case he presents his forgery in the name of a completely unknown narrator, Ishaq ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Husayn. This name is nowhere traceable in the biographical dictionaries of hadith transmitters. Hasan ibn Zayd, his father Zayd ibn Hasan, and his grandfather Sayyiduna Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhum were historical figures, but it is evident that their association with this hadith is completely fictional, being fabricated as it is by a known forger, Khalid ibn Yazid al-‘Umari.

However, Hafiz Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir has stated that this narration, like that of ‘Ammar and Abu Rafi‘, is unreliable “due to the weakness of their isnads and the fact that their narrators are unknown”. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 71)

The fact that amongst all hadith sources it is only in the relatively late Tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh (who died in the year 410 AH) that this narration appears, is a further indication of its spuriousness.

Before going into that it must first be noted that this narration differs from all of the above versions in that it does not recount the story of the beggar. It only speaks of Rasulullah r waking up from his sleep and reciting this verse. Thereafter he tells Abu Rafi‘ that there will come a people who will fight ‘Ali t , and that it will be incumbent upon people to fight them.

In ad-Durr al-Manthur (vol. 2 p. 294), where it is stated as being recorded by Ibn Mardawayh, at-Tabrani as well as Abu Nu‘aym, there is an addition which goes that after reciting the verse Rasulullah r said: “Praise be to Allah who completed His favour for ‘Ali.” This addition must be from the book of either Ibn Mardawayh or Abu Nu‘aym, since it does not appear in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir. It is neither in Hilyat al-Awliya of Abu Nu‘aym, so it must be from another of his works which is not available to us.

The isnad in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir is not free from serious defects. The second narrator in the chain, namely Yahya ibn al-Hasan ibn Furat, is totally unknown (Majma‘ az-Zawa’id vol. 9 p. 134), while its fourth narrator, Muhammad ibn ‘Ubaydillah, is regarded as unreliable by the vast majority of critics. For example, Abu Hatim describes him as “da‘if al-hadith, munkar al-hadith jiddan” (weak in hadith, narrates extremely unique and uncorroborated material), and Ibn Ma‘in says about him “laysa bi-shay’ (as a hadith transmitter he amounts to nothing)”. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 p. 37) Ibn ‘Adi concurs with Abu Hatim that he narrates completely uncorroborated material. (al-Kamil vol. 6 p. 114)

From the above it can be seen that not a single one of the various narrations from Sahabah that may be adduced as evidence that the Verse of Wilayah refers to Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu, is authentic.

Shi‘i writers often quote material of this kind from Sunni sources, seeking to mislead their uninformed Sunni readership by the amount of sources they are able to produce. A general principle that must be kept in mind with regard to such attempts at deception is that any narration is only as good as its chain of narration. Any material quoted must therefore first be authenticated before it can be used to substantiate any argument.

Hereafter we proceed to look at narrations of the beggar-incident whose chains of narration go back only as far as the Tabi‘in.

Besides the previously discussed narrations from Sahabah, the sources provide us with reports from four of the Tabi‘in in which mention is made of the incident of the beggar. Below we discuss these four reports.

Before actually looking at them we need to take cognisance of the following principle: Narrations such as these, which terminate at the Tabi‘in, but speak of incidents which allegedly happened during the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam must be treated with care. The reason for that is that the Tabi‘i who narrates something which he claims happened during the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam did not actually witness the incident. The only way he could have knowledge of it is by someone informing him.

The crucial question is: Who is his informant? To some people the logical answer to this question is that the Tabi‘in were informed by the Sahabah, for the simple reason that the Tabi‘in were the students of the Sahabah.

However, this an oversimplification. It is a fact that the Tabi‘in were informed of incidents from the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam by their teachers the Sahabah. But it is equally true that the phenomenon of hadith forgery made its appearance during that same early stage, when the adherents of the various unorthodox sectarian groupings, like the Khawarij and the extremist Shi‘ah were seeking to legitimate their doctrines by bringing into circulation hadith material which they projected back to the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. Traditions of this kind are then later taken up by unsuspecting orthodox narrators who transmit it, often without naming of their sources. In this way spurious material finds its way into orthodox literature. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, in his introduction to Lisan al-Mizan, makes mention of the statement of a member of one of the early heterodox sects that they used to invent hadith in support of their doctrines. He then remarks upon it that

We will now proceed with an investigation into the authenticity of the four reports narrated from Tabi‘in. The four Tabi‘in from whom the incident of the beggar is narrated are:

‘Utbah gives a double meaning to the phrase in italics. He understands it to refer to the Believers in general, in harmony with the context. At the same time he also understands it to refer specifically to Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu.

The only reason for him reading that specific meaning into the verse must be the fact that he had heard of the incident of the beggar. Otherwise the text by itself does not support that deduction. So now the question is: From whom did he hear it? From a Sahabi, or from someone else? He himself doesn’t state the identity of his source.

‘Utbah’s source could not have been a Sahabi, since he himself is not a Tabi‘i in the strict sense of the word. He lived during the time of the younger generation of Tabi‘in, like Sulayman al-A‘mash, but did not get to meet any of the Sahabah. (See Taqrib at-Tahdhib no. 4427) All the sources from whom he transmitted hadith were of the Tabi‘in, and some of them were his own contemporaries. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 19 p. 300) One of his contemporaries was the notorious forger Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib al-Kalbi whose role in the forgery of the hadith narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas has already been discussed. It is therefore not wholly inconceivable that ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim received his information about the incident of the beggar also from al-Kalbi, and if not from him then from some other equally untrustworthy source.

Salamah ibn Kuhayl was a Tabi‘i from Kufah who had met none of the Sahabah except Jundub ibn ‘Abdillah and Abu Juhayfah. (‘Ali ibn al-Madini, Kitab al-‘Ilal, cited by Dr. Bashshar ‘Awwad Ma‘ruf in a footnote to Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 11 p. 317) The vast majority of his teachers were of the elder and middle generation of the Tabi‘in. His saying was also recorded in the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Hatim from where it was reproduced and preserved by Ibn Kathir. (vol. 2 p. 71) He mentions the incident of the beggar as the cause of revelation for this verse.

Since this is once again a report by a person who did not actually witness the incident, a similar line of reasoning is applicable to it as to the previous case.

However, aside from asking questions about who Salamah’s source for this information could have been, it is of particular interest to us to note that according to the Shi‘i rijal critics, Salamah ibn Kuhayl was persona non grata. Abu ‘Amr al-Kashshi, the prime rijal critic of the Shi‘ah, narrates from the 5th Imam Muhammad al-Baqir that Salamah ibn Kuhayl, amongst others, was responsible for misleading alot of people, and that he is of those about whom Allah has said in the Qur’an: There are some people who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day,” but (in reality) they do not believe. (Rijal al-Kashshi, cited in al-Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat vol. 1 p. 373)

With their Imam himself having condemned Salamah ibn Kuhayl as a hypocrite who is guilty of leading people away from the truth, we fail to understand how the Shi‘ah can venture to make an argument out of his statement.

This shows that as-Suddi is of the opinion that the verse is not specific, and that it applies to all Believers in general. However, he does mention the incident of the beggar, and states it here almost as an afterthought. It is obvious that he is influenced by two things.

Firstly he is influenced by the context in which the ayah appears. The context definitely provides no grounds for restricting the meaning of the verse to any particular incident or person, and that is what causes him to say that the scope of the verse is general so as to include all Believers.

On the other hand he is also influenced by a report which reached him about the incident of the beggar. Our quest is to investigate with what degree of authenticity that report was handed down to him.

We know that at the time when as-Suddi lived many reliable hadith narrators from amongst the elder and middle generations of the Tabi‘in were alive. But we also know that there were also numerous notorious forgers and liars, who for the sake of propagating their heresies, resorted to forgery and invented history. For the critic it is thus not simply as easy as to accept whatever is narrated, but to investigate.

As-Suddi did not personally witness the incident, nor was he ever in contact with anyone who could have witnessed it. His informant therefore had to be another person. He himself does not state the name of his informant, nor of the eye witness from who the informant received the report.

The general failure of all of these persons— ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim, Salamah ibn Kuhayl and as-Suddi— to mention the names of their sources points strongly to the fact that the whole incident was nothing more than hearsay, more of a rumour than an authenticated report. It was brought into circulation by an unscrupulous person whose identity has remained a mystery. Thereafter it was circulated by word of mouth, with some commentatormentioning the incident but refraining from naming their sources, and other less scrupulous persons projecting it right back to the Sahabah. Not a single one of the various chains of narrations fulifil the requirements of authenticity.

We earlier discussed the narration transmitted from Mujahid by his son ‘Abd al-Wahhab. That narration was on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas.

In the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir at-Tabari there is another narration from Mujahid in which mention of the story of the beggar is made (vol. 6 p. 186). The statement appears there as Mujahid’s own, and not as his narration from Ibn ‘Abbas.

However, the person who narrates from him, namely Ghalib ibn ‘Ubaydillah, is regarded as extremely unreliable by the rijal critics. His unreliability, like that of ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn Mujahid, is a matter of consensus amongst the ‘ulama. Abu Hatim describes him as “matruk al-hadith, munkar al-hadith”(one upon whose extreme unreliability there is consensus, an unreliable narrator of uncorroborated reports); ad-Daraqutni says simply “matruk”(technically meaning that he is extremely unreliable by consensus); and Ibn Ma‘in says “laysa bi-thiqah” (he is not reliable). (Lisan al-Mizan vol. 5 p. 404)

At this some point some readers might get the impression that the rijal critics condemned these narrators as unreliable only because they narrate material which is unpalatable to them. To this we might reply by saying that this kind of response might be expected from someone who has no knowledge of the methodology of the Muhaddithin in criticising narrators. Having here seen quotations from the rijal critics on a few narrators who all happen to narrate the same hadith, the mind of the non-adept could be expected to jump to the generalisation that “it is only because these narrators narrate material favourable to Shi‘ism that they have been censured.” The tendency to generalise in this way would be even stronger if considered that in this critical examination the person might be seeing the destruction of something which he had once thought to be an incontrovertible argument. Such persons would be well-advised to read up on the methodology of hadith criticism.

That is only the first part of our reply. The second part is that this particular person, Ghalib ibn ‘Ubaydillah, does not only narrate this one saying from Mujahid. He is known to have transmitted other material as well. In Ibn Hajar’s work Lisan al-Mizan there is a hadith which he narrates, the text of which is that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam gave Mu‘awiyah an arrow and told him: “Keep this until you meet me in Jannah.” The hadith is squarely denounced as a forgery by this very same Ghalib ibn ‘Ubaydillah.

This condemnation of his hadith is definitely not result of prejudice based on the type of hadith which he transmits. That much even the Shi‘ah will agree to. It was simply on account of the person’s unreliability and untrustworthiness, which is, as we have already said, a matter of consensus amongst the Muhaddithin.

If anyone feels that Ghalib ibn ‘Ubaydillah has been unfairly dealt with by the rijal critics merely because he narrated something in support of Sayyiduna ‘Ali’s pre-emptive right to the Khilafah, let him ask himself if he would would feel the same about the fact that that same Ghalib narrates this hadith about Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam telling Mu‘awiyah to keep the arrow until he meets him again in Jannah. An honest response to this question is sure to reveal exactly where the real prejudice lies.

To the Shi‘i mind, so used to thinking of the illustrious members of the Ahl al-Bayt in the despicable terms of taqiyyah, the Imam might well have been “covering up the truth”. But to any person who truly loves and respects the Family of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam this is an honest and straightforward answer. Only an anxious and prejudiced mind would care to read meaning into it that is not there.

The editions of the sources quoted in this article are stated below.