Hadith al-Indhar: The Prophet’s First Designation of Ali (AS)
- Anonymous
- Dec 3
- 26 min read
Updated: Dec 3
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
وَأَنذِرْ عَشِيرَتَكَ الْأَقْرَبِينَ
And warn, [O Muhammad], your closest kindred.
Hadith Indhar al-’Ashira (The incident of the warning of the next of kin) is a famous Hadith of the Prophet (SAW) during the early advent of Islam in the year 3 AH, where he invites his kinsmen to accept Islam (such as Abu Lahab, Hamza, Abu Talib etc.), and more notably, announces Ali b. Abi Talib (AS) as his immediate successor.
Therefore, it is one of the most important Hadiths for Shi’a theology, just like Hadith al-Ghadeer, as it proves the imamate of Imam Ali (AS).
Unsurprisingly, our Sunni opponents abhor this Hadith, and have made great efforts to censor, weaken, or tamper with this Hadith to discredit it. In this article, we will destigmatize this matter by proving its reliability and establishing that it is clear proof for the imamate of Amir al-Mu’minin (AS) with it, by the permission of God.
The Hadith has been narrated by at least 6 companions of the Prophet (SAW): Ali (AS) himself, al-Bara’ b. al-’Azib, Ibn Abbas, Abu Rafi’, Qays b. Sa’ad and others. Companions like Ibn Abbas are likely narrating from al-’Abbas b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib or Ali (AS) himself,since they did not witness this event. For the sake of brevity, we have decided not to investigate every single pathway, but rather focus on the most significant ones to establish reliability.
The Tradition of Rabi’a b. Najidh
The first tradition we read is reported by ‘Ali (AS) himself, and is transmitted through his companion, named Rabi’a b. Najidh.
This tradition is found in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal Vol 2 pg. 264, Hadith # 1371 and certified by Shaykh Ahmad Shakir:
Narrated to us by Affan, narrated to us by Abu Awanah, from Uthman b. al-Mughira, from Abu Sadiq, from Rabi'ah b. Najidh, from Ali who said:
The Messenger of Allah (SAW) gathered or called the Banu ‘Abd al-Muttalib, a group among them all capable of eating a whole young sheep and drinking (the contents of) a large bowl. He made for them a small measure of food, and they ate until they were full, and the food remained as if untouched. Then he called for a small amount of drink, and they drank until satisfied, and the drink remained as if untouched or undrunk.
He then said: ‘O Banu ‘Abd al-Muttalib, I have been sent to you specifically and to all people generally. You have seen what you have seen of this miracle (ayah). So who among you will give me allegiance to be my brother and my companion?’
(Ali said:) No one stood up to him, so I stood up, and I was the youngest of the group.
He (the Prophet) said: Sit down. He repeated this three times — each time I stood up, he told me to sit down — until the third time, he struck his hand into mine.
This tradition was also certified by:
Wasi Allah Muhammad ‘Abbas, the editor of Fada'il al-Sahaba Vol. 2, pg. 712 - 713, Hadith # 1220.
Al-Haythami certified the narrators in his Majma' al-Zawa'id, Vol. 8, pg. 381 - 382, Hadith # 14109.
The report begins with stating that the Prophet (SAW) called Banu ‘Abd al-Muttalib, who were heavy eaters and could consume a lot of food, and offered them a small amount of food that wouldn’t suffice just one of them. Somehow it fulfilled them all, and the food remained as if it were untouched; he repeated this act with drinks. This is a miracle of the blessed Prophet (SAW).
After performing this miracle, he asks them who will pledge to him as his brother and companion, to which none stands but ‘Ali (AS).
Censorship of this report
A more complete version of the tradition was transmitted by al-Nasa’i, who gave the context and more information as to what the Prophet (SAW) said to ‘Ali after he volunteered thrice.
This can be read in Nasa’i’s Sunan al-Kubra Vol 7, pg. 431 - 432, Hadith # 8397:
Al-Fadl b. Sahl reported: Affan b. Muslim narrated to us, from Abu ‘Awanah, from ‘Uthman b. al-Mughirah, from Abu Sadiq, from Rabi‘ah b. Najid:
A man said to Ali (AS): “O Commander of the Faithful, why did you inherit your cousin (the Prophet) rather than your uncle?”
‘Ali (AS) replied: “The Messenger of Allah (SAW) gathered or called the Banu ‘Abd al-Muttalib. He prepared for them a small measure of food, and they ate until they were full, yet the food remained as if untouched. Then he brought a small amount of drink, and they drank until they were satisfied, and the drink remained as if untouched.
Then the Prophet said: ‘O sons of ‘Abd al-Muttalib, I have been sent to you specifically and to all people generally. You have seen the miracle you just witnessed. So which of you will pledge allegiance to me to be my brother, my companion, and my inheritor?’
No one stood up to him, so I stood up even though I was the youngest among them. He said to me, ‘Sit down.’ He repeated this three times, and each time I rose, he told me to sit down. On the third time, he took my hand and placed his hand upon it. Therefore, it is by this that I inherited my cousin and not my uncle.”
As we read above, the tradition of al-Nasa’i includes an additional 3 key phrases that Ahmad b. Hanbal conveniently did not transmit. All 3 pertain to the Ali’s (AS) claim to inherit from the Holy Prophet (SAW) and being his assigned inheritor (warith).
It is not surprising that a mudalis like Ahmad b. Hanbal censored these renditions because of their obvious contradiction to the Sunni belief that the Prophet (SAW) does not leave inheritance per the Hadith of Abu Bakr: “We prophets are not inherited, whatever we leave behind is given to charity.”
The variant of al-Nasa’i is the more accurate rendition as proven by the statements of ‘Ali (AS) where he confirms this, per al-Haythami’s report in Mu'jam al-Kabir Vol 1, pg. 90, Hadith # 176:
Ali b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz narrated to us, Amr b. Hammad b. Talha al-Qannad narrated to us, Asbat b. Nasr narrated from Simak b. Harb, from Ikrimah, from Ibn ‘Abbas:
"Ali would say during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s): 'Allah (swt) says {If he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you turn on your heels?} By Allah, we will never turn on our heels after Allah (swt) has guided us! If he dies or is killed, I will fight for what he fought for until I die. By Allah, I am his brother, successor (wali), cousin and heir (warith)! And who is more entitled to him than me?"
Al-Haythami certified the narrators in Majma al-Zawa'id, Vol 9 pg. 128 - 129, Hadith # 14765.
Interestingly, we read al-Nasa'i's other book, Khasa’is Amir al-Mu’minin, pg. 62, Hadith # 66, that he mentions the same report with one additional word:
يا نبي عبد المطلب! إني بُعثتُ إليكم بخاصة وإلى الناس بعامة، وقد رأيتم من هذه الآية ما قد رأيتم، فأيكم يبايعني على أن يكون أخي وصاحبي ووارثي [ووزيري]»؟
“O sons of ‘Abd al-Muttalib! I have been sent to you in particular and to all people in general. You have witnessed this miracle as you have seen it. So who among you will pledge allegiance to me to be my brother, my companion, my heir [and my minister]?”
As we see, another word is missing from certain manuscripts, and that is waziri (meaning, my minister.) The editor of this book attempts to discredit the tradition; However, we have presented several scholars above authenticating this chain.
The tradition of Rabi’ b. Najidh was also transmitted by Shaykh al-Saduq (RH), but with another important detail in 'Ilal al-Shara'i Vol. 1, pg. 327 - 328, Hadith # 311:
Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. Ishaq al-Talaqani narrated to us, he said: Abd al-Aziz b. Yahya al-Jaludi narrated to me in Basra, he said: Muhammad b. Zakariyya narrated to us, he said: Abd al-Wahid b. Ghayyath narrated to us, he said: Abu Abayah narrated from Umar b. al-Mughira, from Abu Sadiq, from Rabi‘ah b. Najid, that:
A man said to ‘Ali: “O Commander of the Faithful, how did you inherit your cousin and not your uncle?”
So he said: “O people, open your ears and listen!”
Then he said: “The Messenger of God (SAW) gathered the sons of Abd al-Muttalib in the house of one of us and he brought a mudd and a half of food and a cup called al-Ghamr. We ate and drank, and the food and drink remained as they were.
Among us were those who could eat a whole lamb and drink a whole farq (a large measure of liquid). Then the Messenger of God (SAW) said: ‘You see this, so who among you will pledge allegiance to me on the condition that he be my brother, my inheritor, and my executor (wasi)?’
So I stood up, and I was the youngest of the group, and I said: ‘I will.’
He said: ‘Sit down.’
Then he repeated it three times, and each time I stood up and he said: ‘Sit down,’ until the third time, he struck his hand into mine, and that is how I inherited my cousin and not my uncle.”
Note: There is a scribal error in the chain, where it should be Abu Awamah and Uthman b. al-Mughira as evidenced by the previous tradition. The Shi’i historian, Muhammad b. Zakariyyah b. Dinar (RA) narrated this tradition in Basra, from a Sunni Tabi’i named ‘Abd al-Wahid b. Ghayyath, who narrates with the same chain as the others back to Rabi’a this tradition.
The variant reported by Shaykh al-Saduq shows no alteration of the narration, and it completes the missing portion with the word “waṣī” (executor). It also confirms that “warithi” (inheritor) was part of the tradition. The Sunni variants omit this word entirely.
Status of Rabi’a
Some Sunnis have attempted to undermine this Hadith by objecting to the status of Rabi’a b. Najidh in Hadith. However, we have found the following:
Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him in Jarh wal-Ta’dil Vol. 3, pg. 430, Bio. # 2120, without any jarh (criticism) on him.
Al-Bukhari mentions him in al-Tarikh al-Kabir Vol. 4, pg. 176, Bio # 3831 without any jarh.
Ibn Hibban includes him in his Kitab al-Thiqat, Vol. 2, pg. 135, Bio # 1049.
Al-’Ijli includes him in Ma’rifat al-Thiqat Vol. 1, pg. 359, Bio. # 471 and says he is Thiqah, the editor- Shaykh ‘Abd al-’Alim al-Bastawi- also certifies him.
Some people accuse al-’Ijli of authenticating maj’hul narrators; However, Dr. Abdullah al-Judee’ objects to this in Tahrir ‘Ulum al-Hadith Vol. 1, pg. 324:
Some later scholars claimed that al-Ajli would declare unknown narrators trustworthy. I examined al-Ijli’s book “Marifat al-Thiqat”, and found that his wording is generally strong and consistent with other hadith critics in both his endorsements and criticisms. He occasionally stands alone among the great imams in declaring trustworthy certain narrators for whom no other endorsement is found, though such cases are few.
I say: if one is fair, one will find that most leading hadith critics sometimes make judgments that differ from the rest, approving narrators others do not or opposing the majority in certain cases. If we count this as a flaw in al-Ajli, then we must apply the same to Yahya ibn Main, Abu Zurah, Abu Hatim al-Razi, and others.
Therefore, his critical assessments should be given due consideration: when his wording aligns with that of other critics, it is clearly acceptable; when it differs, it should be weighed according to the established rules for resolving differences in criticism and validation; and when he stands alone, his judgment should still be accepted and used as evidence, unless clear proof shows him to be mistaken.
Thus, the authentication of al-’Ijli, alongside Ibn Hibban’s, serves as sufficient evidence for the reliability of Rabi’a, as there is no contradictory evidence to support their claims. Moreover, according to many scholars, the silence of al-Bukhari and Ibn Abi Hatim proves the reliability of the narrator.
The Tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas
The second transmission of Imam ‘Ali (AS) that we will mention is the one from Ibn ‘Abbas. This was recorded in Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol 6 pg. 89 - 91:
Ibn Humayd—Salamah—Muhammad b. Ishaq—Abd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim—al-Minhal b. Amr—Abdallah b. al-Harith b. Nawfal b. al-Harith b. Abd al-Muttalib—Abdallah b. Abbas—Ali b. Abi Talib:
When the verse "And warn your tribe of near kindred" was revealed to the Messenger of God, he called me and said to me, "Ali, God has commanded me to warn my tribe of near kindred. I was troubled by this, for I knew that when I broached the matter to them they would respond in a way which I would not like.
[...]
Then he spoke to them, saying, "Banu Abd al-Muttalib, I know of no young man among the Arabs who has brought his people something better than what I have brought to you. I bring you the best of this world and the next, for God has commanded me to summon you to Him. Which of you will aid me in this matter, so that he will be my brother, my agent (wasi), and my successor (khalifah) among you?"
They all held back, and although I was the youngest and the most bleary-eyed, pot-bellied, and spindly-legged of them, I said, "I will be your helper, Prophet of God." He put his hand on the back of my neck and said, "This is my brother, my agent, and my successor among you, so listen to him and obey him."
They rose up laughing and saying to Abu Talib, "He has commanded you to listen to your son and to obey him!"
Note: This chain is Sahih, and the presence of Ibn Humayd does not harm the chain as he is transmitting from the book of Ibn Ishaq, and others transmitted this besides Ibn Humayd such as Salma b. Fadhl in Abu Nu’aym al-Isfahani’s Dala’il al-Nubuwwa pg. 425, Hadith # 331.
This tradition was also recorded by al-Hasakani in Shawahid al-Tanzil Vol 1, pg. 566 - 569, Hadith # 514 without Ibn Humayd.
Censorship of this report
The tradition has been also reported in other books, but has been censored to hide its obvious conflicts with Sunni theology. For example, al-Tabari recorded the same tradition in his Tafsir al-Tabari Vol 17, pg. 661 - 663, but recorded it differently:
فأيكم يؤازرني على هذا الأمر على أن يكون أخي وكذا وكذا؟ قال: فأحجم القوم عنها جميعًا، وقلت، وإني لأحدثهم سنًا، وأرمصهم عينًا، وأعظمهم بطنًا، وأحمشهم ساقًا: أنا يا نبي الله أكون وزيرك. فأخذ برقبتي، ثم قال: إن هذا أخي وكذا وكذا، فاسمعوا له وأطيعوا.
So who among you will support me in this matter, that he may be my brother and such and such? He said: but all the people held back from it, and I said, though I was the youngest of them in age, the weakest in eyesight, the fullest in belly, and the thinnest in legs: “I, O Prophet of God, will be your helper (wazir).” Then he took hold of my neck and said: “This is my brother and such and such, so listen to him and obey him.”
It was also reported in Sirat Ibn Ishaq Vol 1, pg. 188 - 189, but reported as follows:
The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “O sons of Abdul Muttalib, by Allah, I do not know of any young man from the Arabs who has brought his people anything better than what you have brought. I have brought you matters of this world and the Hereafter.”
The matters in this tradition are not explicitly mentioned, but we can infer them from the reports cited earlier.
It was also reported and censored by Ibn al-Jawzi in al-Muntazam Fi Tarikh al-Muluk wal-Umam, Vol. 2, pg. 366 - 367:
“I have come to you with the best of this world and the Hereafter, and Allah Almighty has commanded me to invite you to Him. Who among you will support me in this matter, on the condition that he be my brother?” The people hesitated, so I, being young among them, said: “I will, O Prophet of Allah.” The people then stood up, laughing.
Ibn al-Jawzi only mentions the word ‘brother’, despite having the same chain as al-Tabari’s. It is clear then that he removed these words.
Status of ‘Abd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim
Thus, the chain of transmission is good with the exception of ‘Abd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim, who is also known as Abu Maryam al-Ansari. He was weakened by the Sunni scholars of hadith solely for his beliefs and not for unreliability.
Al-’Uqayli mentions in his Kitab al-Du'afa', Vol. 1, pg. 851, Bio # 1077 the following:
Muhammad b. Yahyā ibn Mundah narrated to us, he said: ‘Alī b. Yūnus al-Isbahānī narrated to us, he said: Abū Dāwūd narrated to us, he said: Shu‘bah narrated to us, he said:
I heard Simāk al-Hanafī say to Abū Maryam about something he mentioned: ‘By Allah, you have lied.’”
However, this report from al-’Uqayli is missing the full context as to why Simak called Abu Maryam a liar. It was reported with the context in al-Fasawi’s al-Ma'rifah wal Tarikh, Vol. 3, pg. 68:
Ibn Fudayl narrated to me, he said: ‘Abd al-‘Azīz narrated to us, he said: Shu‘bah narrated to us, he said: I heard Simāk al-Hanafī say:
I heard Ibn ‘Abbās say: “The khums (one-fifth) belongs to us, but we have been wronged.”
He said: Then Abū Maryam -who was with me- said: “He has spoken the truth.”
So Simāk al-Hanafī said: “You have lied, and so has the person with you.”
The report reveals that Simak called ‘Abd al-Ghaffar a liar on account of the beliefs he held, which is that Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman oppressed Banu Hashim by withdrawing the Khums from them. It is unclear who was with Abu Maryam (RA) that Simak also called a liar, but this shows his accusation of calling him a liar bears no weight to the actual reliability of Abu Maryam himself.
Uqayli continues to mention another report in pg. 851 - 852:
Zakariya b. Yahya and Ahmad b. al-Husayn al-Sufi narrated to us, they said: al-Jarrah b. Mukhlad narrated to us, he said: Abu Dawud narrated to us, he said: ‘Abd al-Wahid b. Ziyad narrated to us, he said:
I heard Abu Maryam narrating from al-Hakam, from Mujahid, regarding the words of Allah, the Exalted: "He will return you to a [final] abode."
He said: it means that Muhammad, peace be upon him, will be returned to the world until he sees the deeds of his nation.
Then ‘Abd al-Wahid (the narrator) said to him: "You lied; al-Hakam did not tell you this."
He said: "Fear Allah, do you accuse me of lying?!"
Abu Dawud said: "And I testify that Abu Maryam is a liar, for I met him and heard from him; his name is ‘Abd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim."
It is clear that ‘Abd al-Wahid’s accusation of lying against Abu Maryam was related to his beliefs, since the hadith he narrated implies the doctrine of raj‘ah, which is considered a deviant belief by Sunnis. Therefore, the accusation does not affect Abu Maryam’s trustworthiness, since he accused him of lying without any evidence aside from the fact that it does not suit his beliefs.
This is clarified in Ibn Uday’s al-Kamil fi Du’afa’ al-Rijal, Vol. 7, pg. 18:
[Ali b. al-Madini says:] Shu‘bah had a [good] opinion about him (Abu Maryam), and it is said that he learned from him the scrutiny of narrators (tawqīf al-rijāl). Later, however, a corrupt view of rafḍ (extreme Shi‘ism) appeared from him, so his hadith was abandoned.”
Tawqīf means that a student asks his teacher to state clearly whether or not he heard the narration directly. If the teacher confirms it, the narration is considered stronger; if he does not, the narration is weaker. This is why scholars say, “He stopped him” (waqafahu), which means he inquired about the state of transmission (taḥdīth) and whether or not he directly heard from his transmission.
This was also mentioned in Tarikh Ibn Ma'in Vol 2, pg. 158, Report # 700 - 702:
I heard Ali b. al-Madini say: ʿAbd al-Rahman narrated to us from Shuʿbah who said: I used to observe the mouth of Qatadah, and if he said "ḥaddathanā" (he narrated to us) and "samiʿtu" (I heard), I would memorize it; and if he said "ḥaddath" (he narrated), I would leave it.
I heard Ali b. al-Madini say: ʿAbd al-Rahman says: I heard Shuʿbah say: Everything I have narrated to you from another person, then he has narrated it to me directly (i.e., I heard it), except what I have clarified otherwise.
I heard Ali b. al-Madini say: And Shuʿbah only learned this precision from Abu Maryam ʿAbd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim.
Thus, it is clear that, in the eyes of Shu’ba, ‘Abd al-Ghaffar was reliable in Hadith. He was certainly not a liar, but his hadiths were discredited because of the beliefs he held. Shu’banarrated many traditions from ‘Abd al-Ghaffar; e would not do so unless he believed him to be reliable.
This was mentioned by Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib Vol. 1, pg. 74:
For example, if a man is known from his conduct to only transmit from trustworthy sources, then I record all of his teachers, or at least most of them, such as Shu’ba, Malik, and others.
We also read in al-Ma’rifah wal-Tarikh Vol. 3, pg. 68:
I heard Muhammad b. Numayr say: When the hadith of Abu Maryam was abandoned, it was lost to us, and he had almost been a Rafidi.
The Hadiths of Abu Maryam were preserved, which indicates that people trusted in him. They were abandoned, however, after people realised he was a Shi’a.
This was even confirmed by Ahmad b. Hanbal as reported Kitab al-Du'afaa' al-Kabir by al-’Uqayli, Vol. 3, pg. 102:
Abu ‘Abdullah said: Abu ‘Ubaydah, in his compilation, narrated from Abu Maryam, and they would raise a clamor whenever Abu Maryam was mentioned. Abu ‘Abdullah smiled.
I said to Abu ‘Abdullah: "From where does Abu Maryam’s weakness come? From his opinion or from his hadith?"
He said: "From his opinion."
Then he said: "And he has narrated calamities about ‘Uthman—evil hadiths'
Just because someone holds a different belief or opinion does not make them a liar, in that case, they should not endorse the Hadiths of Khawarij, yet Sunnis still do. Such a double standard is unreasonable, and any sound mind can recognize that. The fact is that ‘Abd al-Ghaffar was reliable, but was later weakened because of his beliefs. This is no proof of him being a liar.
Lastly, Bukhari’s statement of “Fihi Nadhar” is not a criticism (jarh), rather, it simply indicates that Bukhari had a neutral perspective on the narrator. This is confirmed by his student, al-Tirmidhi, in Ilal al-Tirmidhi al-Kabir pg. 390:
وَحَكِيمُ بْنُ جُبَيْرٍ لَنَا فِيهِ نَظَرٌ وَلَمْ يُعْزَمْ فِيهِ عَلَى شَيْءٍ.
And Hakim b. Jubayr, Fihi Nadhar, and no firm judgment has been made concerning him.
Thus, he explains that ‘Fihi Nadhr’ means neutrality, neither a dismissal of the narrator nor an endorsement. As such, how can it be used as a disapproval or weakening?
Significance of this Tradition
There is no incident in the prophetic biography that gives context to this verse except this story. It is not possible that it would refer to the general tribes of Quraysh, for al-’Ashira refers to one’s close kin and not wider tribesmen. This was mentioned by Ibn Manzur and others such as al-Murtada al-Zabidi in Tajj al-’Arus Vol. 16, pg. 53:
(وعَشِيرَةُ الرَّجُل : بَنُو أبيه الأَدْنَوْن أَو قَبِيلَتُه)
A man’s ashīrah refers to his nearest paternal relatives or to his tribe.
Some exegetes also mention that the Prophet (SAW) called his wives, such as Umm Salamah, A’isha, Safiyyah, and other women to Islam, yet this is not possible because it was in Mecca, where he had yet to met these women or married them.
With the description of ‘the nearest’ (al-aqrab) and with the lexical root of ‘ashīrah implying close association, there is no meaningful way to interpret the verse as referring to all of Quraysh. Thus, the verse fits only this specific event.
From examining the reports we have presented, the conclusion drawn is that Amir al-Mu’minin (AS) is the sole minister and successor to whom hearing and obedience are due and his guardian in this world and the next with a guardianship none other than he shares.
This necessitates that he is the best of the Companions without peer; it necessitates that he is the successor of Rasulullah (SAW) after him; it necessitates the existence of a special testament from Rasulullah (SAW) to Amir al-Mu’minin (AS), even if some deny it; it necessitates that Amir al-Mu’minin (AS) has a special succession and authority over the family of Rasulullah (SAW).
Thus, the explicitness of the report in affirming the Imamate of Amir al-Mu’minin (AS) and his superiority becomes indisputable.
Objection 1: Succession here means in family affairs
What is established from ʿAbd al-Ghaffār b. al-Qāsim is the statement of Rasulullah (SAW): “This is my brother, my legatee, and my successor among you; so listen to him and obey him.”
Here, the command to listen and obey follows the mention of succession, which implies general succession. Succession within the household would already include the obligation to listen and obey, so the address among you is not restricted to Banu Hashim, as there is no exclusivity for them in obligating obedience.
The address in the report is analogous to the address in the Qur’anic verses, which is not limited to believers at the time of revelation. Consider when the Qur’an says “O Mankind”, is it speaking only to those who are present, or to all those who hear the verses? It is clearly the latter.
Therefore, there is no basis for interpreting the report as succession only within the household in the sense of managing family affairs, as is clear.
Objection 2: The Obligation to Obey Imam Ali began at Ghadeer
It is said that Hadith al-Indhar contradicts the Shi’i belief that the obligation of the Imamate of ‘Ali (AS) began at Hadith al-Ghadir, hence following the revelation of Surah Ma’idah 5:3. However, this objection is a misconstruction of the Shi’i belief.
The appointment in Hadith al-Indhar rested upon a covenant addressed specifically to Banu Hashim. This was an intimate charge directed to his clan at the earliest stage of the mission, when the wider community had not yet been bound by the obligation to obey divinely appointed authority.
Later, in the universal proclamation at Ghadir, the command of Wilayah extended to the entire Ummah, and the designation of Amir al-Mu'mineen (AS) was affirmed as a binding duty upon all believers.
Thus, there is no contradiction: the first was a foundational appointment within the Prophet’s household, while the second was a public covenant upon the whole community. Each occurred in its proper time, and each unfolded according to the divine wisdom that guides the progression of authority, from private designation to universal obligation.
This explanation was even concluded with by the famous Salafi Exegete, al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Shanqiti in his Tafsir ‘Adwa al-Bayan Vol. 6, pg. 425:
This command in the noble verse to warn his close relatives does not contradict the command for universal warning, as indicated by other Qur’anic verses, such as:
“Blessed is He who sent down the Criterion upon His servant that he may be a warner to all the worlds,”
And His words: “This Qur’an has been revealed to me so that I may warn you with it, and whomever it reaches,”
And His words: “That you may warn thereby a contentious people.”
There are many verses of this meaning.
Objection 3: The report contains no warning
This objection claims that the appearance of the verse does not align with the story, since no mention of a warning has been put forward. It is merely communication and informing the Hashemites that ‘Ali (AS) is the Prophet’s successor.
However, the reports of Ibn Abbas mentioned before state: “By God, I do not know of any youth among the Arabs who came to his people with something better than what I have brought you. I have brought you the good of this world and the next, and God has commanded me to call you to it, so which of you will support me…”
This clearly includes a call to the matter at hand, which is equivalent to a “warning” as per the Qur’anic terminology, because it includes themes of commanding piety. This is evidenced by verses such as in Surat an-Nahl 16:2:
يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةَ بِالرُّوحِ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ عَلَىٰ مَن يَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ أَنْ أَنذِرُوا أَنَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا أَنَا فَاتَّقُونِ
He sends down the angels, with the inspiration of His command, upon whom He wills of His servants, [telling them], "Warn that there is no deity except Me; so fear Me."
Here, the Qur’an labels a calling to Tawhid as a warning. Similarly, in Surat At-Taubah 9:122 we read:
وَمَا كَانَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ لِيَنفِرُوا كَآفَّةًۚ فَلَوْلَا نَفَرَ مِن كُلِّ فِرْقَةٍ مِّنْهُمْ طَآئِفَةٌ لِّيَتَفَقَّهُوا فِى ٱلدِّينِ وَلِيُنذِرُوا قَوْمَهُمْ إِذَا رَجَعُوٓا إِلَيْهِمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَحْذَرُونَ
Yet it is not right for all the believers to go out [to battle] together: out of each community, a group should go out to gain understanding of the religion, so that they can warn their people when they return and so that they can guard themselves against evil.
Here, the Qur’an refers to a group teaching others rulings of Islam as a “warning”. Thus, this establishes that a “warning” in the Qur’anic terminology does not require a threat of punishment, it can be a calling towards piety, which is what Hadith al-Indhar contains.
Objection 4: Ibn Taymiyyah’s pathetic argument
To illustrate to our readers the weakness of our opponent’s scholars’, we want to present the arguments they have put forth to reject this Hadith.
The following are Ibn Taymiyyah’s words in Minhaj al-Sunnah Vol. 7, pg. 306 about Hadith al-Indhar:
Some narrations of the warning incident describe Banu Hashim as all eating al-jad‘ah [i.e., eating a mature camel] and drinking al-farq [i.e., equivalent to a large bucket of milk]; some say ten of them did so, and others say only some of them, which is contrary to reality.
The weakness of this objection is apparent; the description is not meant to be taken literally. Rather, it is a metaphor indicating their capacity to eat greatly, as a prelude to illustrating the miracle of the Messenger of God (SAW).
Corroboration of ‘Abbad al-Asadi
The third transmission of this report by Imam ‘Ali is transmitted by ‘Abbad b. Abd Allah al-Asadi. His tradition is also found in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, Vol. 1, pg. 111, Hadith # 883:
Al-Aswad b. ‘Āmir narrated to us, from Sharīk, from al-A‘mash, from al-Minhāl, from ‘Abbād b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Asadī, from ‘Alī (AS), who said:
When the verse “And warn your nearest relatives” [26:214] was revealed, the Prophet (SAW) gathered his household. About thirty people came together, and they ate and drank.
Then he said to them: “Who will guarantee my debts and promises, be with me in Paradise, and be my successor among my family?”
A man (Sharīk did not name him) said, “O Messenger of Allah, you are like a vast sea; who could take on this?”
Then another said the same. The Prophet repeated his call to his family, and ‘Alī said, “I will.”
Ahmad Shakir declared the report as Hasan (reliable), and al-Haythami similarly commented it is Jayyid (good) in Majma' al-Zawa'id Vol. 9, pg. 101, Hadith # 14665.
The status of Sharik does not harm the reliability of this chain as it was reported from al-’Amash through other routes, such as by Abu Bakr b. ‘Ayyash in al-Tabari’s Tahdhib al-Athar, Vol 1 pg. 60 - 62.
Al-Tabarani also mentioned that Abu ‘Awanah narrates this from al-’Amash in Mu’jam al-Awsat Vol. 2, pg. 276.
Moreover, Ibn Hajar confirms that Sharik’s reports from al-Aswad are accepted in Fath al-Bari Vol. 7, pg. 267.
As for al-’Amash, it is proven he heard directly from Minhal in Sunan Abi Dawud 4754, which means no tadlis took place here.
Comment on this variant
This report contains discrepancies when compared with the other accounts, and that is because it is conflating Hadith al-Indhar with an event close to the death of the Prophet (SAW), where the Prophet asked who could repay his debts, and this is clear from the second half of the report where al-’Abbas says “You are an ocean” (a metaphor for saying that he was so generous that he accumulated a lot of debt). This could not have been said at the early advent of Islam since he did not yet accumulate any of that debt.
In the other variants of the report, it says “He is my successor (khalifati) so listen to him and obey him”, in contrast to this variant which says, “He is my successor (khalifati) of my family”, which means he will be the one to repay the debts of the Prophet (SAW) and take the leadership of the tribe of Banu Hashim after him.
Nonetheless, the report proves the fact that the verse was revealed in the event relating to Imam Ali (AS) despite conflating some of the contents wrongly.
Status of ‘Abad
Our opponents will no doubt be quick to attempt to weaken the chain of transmission for this tradition due to ‘Abbad b. ‘Abdullah al-Asadi.
When we look at Ibn Hajar’s bio of ‘Abbad in Tehdhib al-Tehdhib Vol 3 pg. 64, Bio # 3643, we find the following:
Al-Bukhari said: “Fihi Nadhar” (He requires further examination).
Ibn Hibban mentioned him in “al-Thiqat” (The Trustworthy).
I say: Ibn Saad said: He has hadiths.
Ali b. al-Madini said: He is weak in hadith.
Ibn al-Jawzi said: Ibn Hanbal struck out his hadith from Ali: “I am the greatest truthful one (al-Siddiq al-Akbar).” And he said: It is rejected (munkar).
Ibn Hazm said: He is unknown
This will be presented as evidence to discredit ‘Abad. However, we have objections to make:
Firstly, Ibn Hajar mentions that Ibn Hibban certified him. However, he does not mention the fact that al-’Ijli also did in Tarikh al-Thiqat pg. 247, Bio # 765, and as we mentioned earlier, the certification of al-’Ijli carries weight, and so this is important to keep into consideration.
Secondly, Bukhari’s statement of “Fihi Nadhar” is not a criticism (jarh) as we mentioned earlier, rather it simply means that Bukhari was neutral on the narrator.
As for ‘Ali b. al-Madini’s weakening, this statement attributed to him has no evidence, the only person to mention this statement is Ibn al-Jawzi who died in 510 AH, while Ali b. al-Madini died 234 AH. Where is his source? He does not mention it, which leaves room for doubt.
If we were to ignore this, it still does not suffice because there is no reason mentioned as to why he is weak, which does not take precedence over established praise (such as that by Ibn Hibban and al-’Ijli).
This was mentioned by al-Suyuti in Tadrib al-Rawi Vol 1, pg. 166 - 167:
يُقْبَلُ التَّعْدِيلُ مِنْ غَيْرِ ذِكْرِ سَبَبِهِ عَلَى الصَّحِيحِ الْمَشْهُورِ، وَلَا يُقْبَلُ الْجَرْحُ إِلَّا مُبَيَّنَ السَّبَبِ.
Praise (tadil) is accepted without mentioning its reason, according to the correct and well-known opinion. However, disparagement (jarh) is not accepted unless its reason is clarified.
The commentator of this book, al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uwāydha, goes to say:
As for jarh (disparagement), it is not accepted unless its reason is clarified, because it usually occurs due to a single matter, and mentioning that is not difficult.
Also, people differ in their understanding of what constitutes valid jarh. One person may criticize someone based on what he believes is a flaw, while in fact, it is not truly a flaw. Therefore, the reason must be explained so it can be examined: is it actually a valid criticism or not?
Ibn al-Salah said: This is a clear and established principle in jurisprudence and its foundations.
Al-Khatib mentioned that this is the opinion of the leading hadith scholars, such as the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) and others.
Thus, it is clear that this weakening, if we were to submit to it, does not bear value with the consideration of existing praise for this narrator.
As for Ibn Hazm’s ijhal (declaring him unknown), then it is famous amongst scholars that it has no bearing because he would often claim this state for those who were known as reliable.
For instance, Ibn Hajar says under the biography of a reliable narrator named Isma’il al-Saffar in Lisan al-Mizan Vol. 3, pg. 165:
Ibn Hazm did not know him, so he said in Al-Muhalla: ‘He is unknown.’ This is rashness on Ibn Hazm’s part, and it follows that his statement regarding the unknown status of someone he did not investigate should not be accepted.
Al-Shaykh al-Tujibi al-Andalusi calls Ibn Hazm ignorant in Muqadimat Jami’ at-Tirmidhi, pg. 54 after he calls Abu ‘Isa at-Tirmidhi majhul:
Al-Qasim b. Yusuf al-Tujibi al-Sabti, after explaining al-Tirmidhi’s virtue and knowledge, said: “The ignorance of those who are ignorant of him does not harm him, namely, Abu Muhammad Ali b. Ahmad ibn Sa‘id ibn Hazm al-Farisi al-Zahiri, for he erred in this matter with a clear error and slipped with an obvious mistake.
He said in the Kitab al-Fara’id of his Al-Iysal, after citing a hadith therein: ‘Abu Isa al-Tirmidhi is unknown and not recognized.’ This is a blunder beyond description.”
Thus, Ibn Hazm’s words bear no value either. As for Ibn al-Jawzi’s weakening due to a rejection of a Hadith that Ahmad b. Hanbal disliked, then it is clear to anyone with a sound mind that just because someone narrates something that does not align with your views, it does not mean they are a liar or dishonest.
Moreover, Ibn Hanbal’s declaration of a report being munkar does not mean it is fabricated or invalid. It only means that there is no corroboration for the report.
The same was confirmed by Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani in Hadi al-Sari, pg. 437:
I said: “Al-munkar was used by Ahmad b. Hanbal and a group (of scholars) to refer to a solitary hadith that has no supporting narration.”
Ibn Hajar also affirmed this principle in Al-Nuket ‘ala Kitab Ibn al-Salah, pg. 479
Imam Ahmad, al-Nasa’i, and several other critics used the term munkar simply for tafarud (a solitary narration) when the one who narrates alone is not of the stature whose solitary report would be judged sound without any additional supporting evidence.
Thus, for this reason we conclude that ‘Abad is reliable and there is no valid criticism made against him. The certification of al-’Ijli and Ibn Hibban serves as valid proof for their reliability as we mentioned earlier.
This was also explained to us by Dr. Abi Abdur-Rahman Turki b. Abdullah al-Wadi‘i in the footnote of Manaqib al-Maghazli, pg. 327, Hadith # 307.
Conclusion
The gathered textual evidence, corroborating variants, and the assessments of early hadith critics demonstrate that Hadith al-Indhar cannot be dismissed as a mere fabrication. The previously mentioned variants of the Hadith share a consistent framework, despite the attempts of later transmitters to fault and censor it.
The chain analyses in this article demonstrate that the objections raised against early transmitters of the Hadith stem from a sectarian bias rather than genuine refutations of reliability.
Therefore, it is a clear fact that the Prophet (SAW), from the beginning of his mission, explicitly identified Ali (AS) as his brother, supporter, inheritor, and appointed immediate successor. Thus, Hadith al-Indhar stands as a foundational report whose implications cannot be dismissed.
We also want to mention an authentic variant of Hadith al-Indhar reported by Imam Musa al-Kadhim (AS) in Qurb al-Isnad, pg. 325 by al-Himyari:
From Al-Hasan b. Zarif, from Mu’ammar, from al-Rida, from his father Musa ibn Ja’far (AS) who said:
[Among the miracles of the Prophet were:] When he was in Mecca, his people and tribes were at al-Bal. He commanded Ali to instruct Khadijah to prepare food for him, which she did. Then he ordered him to summon his relatives from Banu Abd al-Muttalib, and he invited forty men.
He said: “Bring them food, O Ali.” Ali brought him thuraydah and food sufficient for three or four, presented it to them, saying: “Eat and bless,” but they did not bless. They ate and were satisfied.
Abu Jahl said: “By God, Muhammad is a magician; he feeds forty men with food of three!”
Ali (AS) said: “Then after a few days he commanded me again, and I prepared the same for them, inviting them personally. They ate and were satisfied.”
