ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar

Abū ʿAbd ar-Rahmān ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar ( Arabic أبو عبد الرحمن عبد الله بن عمر, DMG Abū ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar often simply called Ibn ʿUmar , born. between 610 and 612, d. 693 in Mecca ) was the eldest son of the second caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Chattāb and through his sister Hafsa a brother-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed . During the first and second civil wars (656–661 and 680–692) he was offered the office of caliph on several occasions, but he refused each time because he insisted that the election of a caliph should be made unanimously and that bloodshed between Muslims must be avoided. With this political stance, he gained great respect within the Muslim community. In the later years of his life he served as an important role model due to his high moral standards and his adherence to "the original mission" ( al-ʿahd al-auwal ). According to popular belief, Ibn ʿUmar was murdered by al-Hajjaj ibn Yūsuf . When he died, he was held in high regard among Muslims as his father did.

Ibn ʿUmar was considered a specialist in the rites of pilgrimage and was also one of the most important narrators of sayings of the Prophet Mohammed . Most of the traditions about and about him are traced back to his client Nāfiʿ. In modern western hadith research, however, the authenticity of the hadiths handed down in his name is controversial.

Political life

Convert to Islam and engage in combat

ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar was the son of ʿUmar ibn al-Chattāb and Zainab bint Maʿzūn al-Jumahī, the sister of the Prophet's companion ʿUthmān ibn Mazʿūn. He and his father accepted Islam in Mecca. At that time Ibn 'Umar was probably only around seven years old. Before he became manable, his parents emigrated with him to Medina . Ibn ʿUmar's original name was ʿĀs, the name ʿAbdallāh is said to have been given to him by the Prophet. In Medina, Ibn ʿUmar lived in the Prophet's Mosque at first . During this time he is said to have had several dreams, which his sister Hafsa passed on to the prophet, who commented on them. In one of these dreams Ibn ʿUmar saw himself at the abyss of hellfire. The prophet is said to have made the recommendation that he pray part of the night in the future. Ibn ʿUmar is said to have followed this recommendation and slept very little that night.

Ibn ʿUmar already wanted to fight at the battles of Badr (624) and Uhud (625), which the Prophet did not allow because of his young age. Only at the battle of the trenches (627) did the prophet allow him to take part in the fight. In various reports it is also mentioned that he took part in the conquest of Mecca in 630 as a mounted man and equipped with a lance. However, the information on his age at the various events is contradictory. While most reports of his participation in the trench battle state that he was 15 years old at the time and it was later deduced that this was the lower age limit for participating in combat, the reports of his participation in the Conquest of Mecca indicated its age at 20 years. It follows that he must have been born between 610 and 612.

After Muhammad's death, Ibn ʿUmar took part in the Arab wars of conquest , but there is little information about him from this period. According to Ibn ʿAsākir , he took part in the battle of Jarmuk (636). When conquering Iraq, he is said to have defeated a Persian knight ( Dehqan - landed gentry) in a duel . In a short note with adh-Dhahabī it is stated that he was also present during the Arab conquest of Egypt (639–642) and was allocated land there. He later moved to Basra and from there took part in the conquest of Persia. He also stayed in al-Madā'in several times during this period . He was also present at the battle of Nihāwand (642), but had an asthma attack during this armed conflict. He later stayed in Azerbaijan for six months , where he was trapped in the ice.

According to a report traced back to Saʿīd ibn al-Musaiyab and Anas ibn Mālik , when the divan was set up , disputes arose over the question of which group of grant recipients Ibn ʿUmar belonged to. While ʿUmar wanted to set an annual endowment of 5000 dinars for his son , ʿAbd ar-Rahmān ibn ʿAuf and Ibn ʿUmar themselves refused. Mālik ibn Anas is quoted as saying that Ibn ʿUmar received a regular payment of 3,000 dinars from the divan. He also had estates in the Chaibar oasis where he had slaves work for him. The Jews of Khaibar were suspected of having carried out an attack on him. This was one of the justifications for her eviction from the oasis.

On the political level, Ibn ʿUmar appeared for the first time at the end of his father's caliphate. There are reports that it was suggested to ʿUmar that his son be named as his successor. However, ʿUmar meant that in contrast to ʿAlī ibn Abī Tālib , ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān , az-Zubair ibn al-ʿAuwām , Talha, Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqās and ʿAbd ar-Rahmān ibn ʿ Auf, he did not meet the qualifications for rulership. After ʿUthmān had become caliph, he asked Ibn ʿUmar to take over the Qādī office , which he refused, citing a prophetic word that it was better to evade this office. When ʿUthmān was besieged by insurgents in Medina, Abdallāh ibn ʿUmar was among those who persevered with him, but a group of his clan ʿAdī came and dragged him out of the palace.

Political entanglements during the first Fitna

As a candidate for the caliphate after the death of ʿUthmān

Al-Hasan al-Basrī is quoted with the report that immediately after ʿUthmān's death in 656 Ibn ʿUmar offered the caliphate with reference to his leading position in the Ummah, but that he refused to take over this office because of the expected bloodshed. Although he was harassed and threatened with death, he stuck to this attitude. Ibn ʿUmar may have hoped for the office, because it is reported that on the day that ʿUthmān was killed, he put on a breastplate, girded his father ʿUmar's sword and adorned himself lavishly. When ʿAlī was made caliph a little later, Ibn ʿUmar refused to take the oath of allegiance , arguing that not the entire Muslim community was behind him. ʿAlī wanted to send Ibn ʿUmar to Syria because of his popularity as the new governor and replacement for the Umaiyad Muʿāwiya ibn Sufyān , but Ibn ʿUmar refused. Since īAlī insisted on the plan and the intercession of his sister Hafsa was of no use, Ibn ʿUmar fled to Mecca.

Muʿāwīya, who had remained as governor in Syria and had renounced ʿAlī, together with his commander ʿAmr ibn al-s wrote a letter from Syria to the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina, in which he accused ʿAlī of the murder of ʿUthmān, them called for support in the fight against him and made it clear that he did not seek the caliphate. Ibn ʿUmar, who wrote the reply to Muʿāwiya, reminded him that he was a Talīq, a Muslim who had only accepted Islam when he conquered Mecca and was therefore out of the question for the caliphate anyway. Muʿāwiya now addressed another letter to Ibn ʿUmar, in which he asked him to assist him in punishing the murderers of ʿUthmān and promised him the rule and holding of a shūrā meeting . Ibn ʿUmar wrote back to him that he wanted to stay out of the conflict that had arisen because the commission he had received from the prophet did not make it clear how he should behave in it.

Rivalry with Muʿāwiya after the Battle of Siffin

When after the Battle of Siffin (657) the arbitration tribunal met in Dūmat al-Jandal to settle the dispute between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya, ʿAlī's negotiator, Abū Mūsā al-Ash Aarī , pleaded for Ibn ʿUmar to transfer the caliphate. On the advice of his sister Hafsa, Ibn ʿUmar himself traveled to the negotiations. It is reported in several sources that at the conference there was a discussion between him and Muʿāwiya's negotiator ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀs, at which the latter recognized Ibn ʿUmar's claim to rule and asked if he would be willing to pay a large sum of money to forego it in favor of another person who has a greater interest in rule. Ibn ʿUmar is said to have disgusted this request and remarked that he could not be bought for money and that religion alone counted for him. When Ibn ʿUmar was about to leave, ʿAbdallāh ibn az-Zubair held him by the robe and explained that ʿAmr had meant to ask him if he would be willing to pay something to be oathed. Ibn ʿUmar is said to have replied that he would neither allow himself to be paid for the Baiʿa, nor pay for it himself, but would only receive it with the consent of the Muslims.

When Muʿāwiya found out that Ibn ʿUmar was striving for the caliphate, he told ʿAbdallāh, the son of Jafar ibn Abī Tālib , that Ibn ʿUmar was unfit for this office because of three qualities: he was jealous, powerless and stingy. Ibn ʿUmar, to whom this was reported by Jafar, defended himself against these allegations. His defense speech, which has been preserved, shows that Muʿāwiya's allegations related to Ibn ʿUmar locking up his wives, dealing exclusively with the Koran and keeping his father's inheritance to himself.

Various reports state that, after the two negotiators had agreed on him, Muʿāwiya himself came to Dūmat al-Jandal and gave a speech from his camel, in which he affirmed his claim to rule over the Muslims and with reference Ibn ʿUmar said that whoever else lay claim to the rule should now stand against him. According to his own account, Ibn ʿUmar started a counter-speech on this occasion to say that those who had fought Muʿāwiya and his father in the time of the Prophet were more worthy than he, but then decided to remain silent Avoid bloodshed. When Muʿāwiya's advisor Habīb later visited him and asked him why he had not responded to Muʿāwiya's challenging words, he gave the same reason, whereupon Habīb remarked that he probably wanted to protect himself.

When Muʿāwiya later came to the Hajj in the Hejaz, he swore on the minbar of Medina to kill Ibn ʿUmar, who was in Mecca at the time. However, ʿAbdallāh ibn Safwān, the governor of Mecca, placed Ibn ʿUmar under his personal protection. As Muʿāwiya approached the city, he and the residents of the city met him and confronted him about the matter. Thereupon Muʿāwiya withdrew from his plan. Later, the relationship between the two men seems to have relaxed. Several sources report that Muʿāwiya Ibn 'Umar sent large sums of money to Medina. According to a report cited by Muhammad ibn Saʿd , Ibn ʿUmar himself turned to Muʿāwiya with a letter. When Muʿāwiya appointed his son Yazīd as heir to the throne and had him worshiped, he sent Ibn ʿUmar a large amount of money. Ibn ʿUmar viewed this as an attempt at bribery.

Striving for neutrality during the second Fitna

His criticism of ʿAbdallāh ibn az-Zubair

When Yazīd came to power after Muʿāwiya's death in 680 and was given the oath of allegiance, Ibn ʿUmar reacted with indifference. In this context, he is said to have said: “If it's good, we're satisfied. And if it is a visitation, we endure it steadfastly. ”He expressed great indignation, however, when in 683 the inhabitants of Medina, under the leadership of ʿAbdallāh ibn az-Zubair, rose up and renounced Yazīd. Ibn ʿUmar saw this as treason and, under threat of the sword, obliged his sons to remain loyal to Yazīd.

After Yazīd died in the same year, ʿAbdallāh ibn az-Zubair proclaimed himself caliph in Mecca. Ibn ʿUmar was very reserved towards the new ruler of the Hejaz . Although he was related by marriage to ʿAbdallāh ibn az-Zubair through his daughter Sauda, ​​whom he had married to ʿUrwa ibn az-Zubair , he refused to pay him the Baiʿa . He explained to a contemporary, who later asked him why, that he considered such a Baiʿa to be as unclean as “children's excrement ” ( qiqqa ). When 683 leaders of the Kharijites to Mecca came to check cooperation with Ibn az-Zubair, they asked Ibn 'Umar why he holding back his allegiance. He then stated that he only wanted to do this to a ruler who had the entire community ( ǧamāʿa ) behind him. According to a report that is traced back to his son Sālim, Ibn ʿUmar considered the rule of Ibn az-Zubair to be injustice because it had been imposed on the people without holding a shūrā . According to another report, Ibn ʿUmar regarded Ibn az-Zubair as a tyrant who should be fought because he had driven the Umayyads from the Hejaz and broken the oath of allegiance to Yazīd.

Contacts with the other warring parties

At this time, the Umaiyad Marwān ibn al-Hakam suggested to Ibn ʿUmar to move to Syria to be worshiped there as caliph. He pointed out that Ibn ʿUmar was already regarded as "Lord of the Arabs and son of the Lord of the Arabs" ( saiyid al-ʿArab wa-ibn saiyid al-ʿArab ). Ibn ʿUmar rejected his plan, however, with reference to the resistance to be expected in Iraq and in the east of the empire. Marwān's proposal to force the Iraqis to recognize his rule by force of arms was rejected on the grounds that he would hate any bloodshed. Marwān was proclaimed caliph himself only a short time later at the conference of al-Jābiya and established his rule over Syria and Egypt.

Marwān's son ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Marwān , who took over the governorship of Egypt, sent Ibn ʿUmar money at this time and tried to get him to recognize the Umaiyad rule. In the same way, al-Muchtar ibn Abī ʿUbaid , who gained control of Kufa in 685, proceeded . Ibn ʿUmar also accepted the funds sent to him, but maintained strict neutrality between the various warring parties. He continued to greet the followers of al-Muchtār, called Chaschabīya, and also the Kharijites while they fought one another. In the later course of the Second Civil War, Ibn ʿUmar himself became a victim of the prevailing uncertainty. So followers of the Kharijite Najda al-Harūrī stole a herd of camels from him.

Refusal to fight against Muslims

To people who suggested Ibn ʿUmar go out to fight himself, because as the son of ʿUmar he would have the greatest chance of uniting the community of Muslims behind him, he countered the Quranic words from Sura 2: 193: “Fight them until there is no more Fitna exists and the worship is to God. ”He commented on this with the words:“ We fought so that the worship belonged to God and the Fitna was over. But you want to fight today so that Fitna is established and the worship is other than God. ”His client Nāfiʿ quotes him in this context with the words:“ Whoever calls me to prayer , I will listen. But anyone who calls on me to fight his Muslim brother and rob his property, I will not listen. "

After a report is returned via the Egyptian traditionist Bukair ibn al-Aschaddsch (d. 720) on Nāfi', Ibn Umar was visited during the Second Civil War from a Kharijites, who asked him why he was on a regular basis hajj and umra go to But neglect jihad for God's cause , even though he knows what God has put in him. Then he said that Islam only five pillars was built, faith in God and His Messenger, the five prayers, the Ramadan -Fasten, paying the zakat and the hajj. If this tradition is authentic, it is the earliest evidence of the concept of the five pillars of Islam.

With his refusal to take part in intra-Muslim struggles, Ibn ʿUmar won the respect of many Muslims. Mūsā ibn Talha (d. 721), the son of the companion of the Prophet Talha ibn ʿUbaidallāh, who like some other personalities of Kufa had to flee from al-Muchtār from the city during the Second Civil War and came to Basra, is quoted as saying: “God have Have mercy on ʿAbdallah ibn ʿUmar. In my opinion, he held on to the mandate given to him by the Prophet. ”Because of his particular political stance, the Arab tribal chiefs regarded him as the only person behind whom one could pray and entrust the zakāt .

Others, however, said that Ibn ʿUmar with his military restraint was only pursuing selfish interests. A contemporary accused him of waiting until all the companions of the prophets had killed each other so that he would be the only one behind and take the people's oath of allegiance. Some contemporaries even criticized Ibn ʿUmar for rejecting military action in intra-Muslim disputes. They saw in this an exaggerated longing for peace and accused him of having gambled away the opportunities for an agreement of the Ummah through his behavior . That's why he was the worst thing that happened to the ummah.

Confrontation with al-Hajjaj and the end

After al-Hajjaj ibn Yūsuf had conquered Mecca for ʿAbd al-Malik in 692 and the rule of ʿAbdallāh ibn az-Zubair had collapsed, Ibn ʿUmar sent the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik a letter in which he and his sons took the oath of allegiance " on the Sunnah of God and the Sunnah of His Messenger ”. The letter caused a sensation because Ibn ʿUmar put his name in front of that of the caliph.

Ibn ʿUmar's relationship with al-Hajjaj, who remained in Mecca as governor, was very tense. It is reported that Ibn ʿUmar initially prayed together with al-Hajjaj, who, however, delayed the prayer with long speeches, which Ibn ʿUmar publicly criticized. A violent clash arose when al-Hajjaj claimed in a speech that Abdallāh ibn az-Zubair had falsified the Book of God. As a result, Ibn Umar accused him of lying several times. Al-Hajjaj ordered him to remain silent, declared him decrepit and threatened him with death. Another report states that Ibn ʿUmar criticized al-Hajjaj mainly for violating the haram and destroying the Kaaba . Ibn 'Umar finally stayed away from the prayer with al-Hajjaj.

ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar died in 693 of sepsis from an injury to his foot during pilgrimage rites while he was sitting on his camel. There are various reports of the exact circumstances of the injury. One of them says that during the jamra, the stoning ritual in Minā , the cross brace of a camel carrier bag pierced Ibn ʿUmar's foot. According to other reports he had one of al-Haddschādschs soldiers in the crowd when lowering ropes from the plane 'Arafāt injured his spearhead the foot.

According to other reports, Ibn ʿUmar's injury was not an accident, but the result of a targeted murder. Accordingly, there had been a violent clash between Ibn ʿUmar and al-Hajjaj at the pilgrimage meeting in the ʿArafāt plain , because Ibn ʿUmar insisted on standing with his camel at a certain point during the sermon of al-Hajjāj in a certain place where he was already had stood at the farewell pilgrimage. Since this place was right in front of the place from which al-Hajjaj was giving his address, he felt disturbed by Ibn ʿUmar and had his camel shooed away several times, but Ibn ʿUmar kept returning to this place. Eventually al-Hajjaj became a nuisance, and he commissioned one of his soldiers to murder. Makhūl ibn Abī Muslim claims to have seen for himself how a dark-skinned man rammed his spear into the space between the first and second toe on Ibn ʿUmar's foot. According to various reports, the tip of the spear was prepared with poison.

When the wound began to worsen and Ibn ʿUmar became bedridden, al-Hajjaj visited him at the bedside and asked about the man who had injured him with his spear so that he could kill him. Ibn ʿUmar then accused al-Hajjaj that he was responsible for his injury because he allowed his people to carry weapons in the haram and even allowed them to wear them during pilgrimage rites. Contemporaries reported that Ibn ʿUmar on his deathbed regretted not having fought against the "wicked crowd". This was understood as an allusion to al-Hajjaj. Ibn ʿUmar died in late 73 or early 74 (= April - June 693 AD). Although he had given instructions to his son on his deathbed that he should be buried outside the haram, al-Hajjaj disobeyed his will and had him buried inside the haram in the Fachch valley in the Muhādjirūn cemetery. He himself said the funeral prayer for him.

Ibn ʿUmar was already in the highest esteem among his Muslim contemporaries. The Medinan scholar Saʿīd ibn al-Musaiyab is quoted as saying, “If I were to testify for someone that he belonged to the Paradise inmates, I would for ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar. The day he died, he was the best of all who remained. "

Family relationships

ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar had a total of twelve sons and four daughters. His eldest son ʿAbd ar-Rahmān, from whom his kunya "Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān" comes, he had fathered with a woman named Umm ʿAlqama al-Muhāribīya, who like him belonged to the Quraish . However, he separated from this woman during the Prophet's lifetime. The process is covered in great detail in Islamic legal literature because Ibn ʿUmar had cast out his wife while she was menstruating and his father then asked the Prophet whether this was permissible.

Most of the children were born to him by his wife Safīya, a daughter of Abū ʿUbaid ibn Masʿūd from the Thaqīf tribe and sister of the Thaqafi insurgent al-Muchtār ibn Abī ʿUbaid . From her Ibn ʿUmar had a total of five sons (Abū Bakr, Abū ʿUbaida, Wāqid, ʿAbdallāh and ʿUmar) and two daughters (Hafsa and Sauda). Safīya also kept his signet ring, on which his name was engraved. A report narrated by Muhammad ibn Saʿd states that he traveled to Medina three times because he was called on Safīya's deathbed. This suggests that at the time he was living in Mecca while she was left in Medina.

Ibn ʿUmar fathered all of his other children (Sālim, ʿUbaidallāh, Hamza, Zaid, ʿĀ'ischa, Bilāl, Abū Salama and Qilāba) with female slaves. However, there is also a tradition that the mother of his son Zaid was a woman named Sahla from the Taghlib tribe. As Ibn ʿUmar once said to Saʿīd ibn al-Musaiyab , he had named several of his sons after fallen companions of the Prophet.

Reports and judgments about his moral qualities

Ubn ʿUmar got his reputation not only from the fact that he was the son of the second caliph, but also from his high moral qualities, which attracted admiration from his contemporaries. The biographies are full of anecdotes that illustrate his generosity, celibacy, kindness, piety and modesty.

generosity

While Muʿāwiya Ibn ʿUmar said he was greedy and therefore considered him unfit for the office of caliph, most sources emphasize Ibn ʿUmar's generosity. He is said to have distributed the money he received among his visitors in no time. A report traced back to Nāfid states that Ibn 'Umar was "a generous man who loved to be eaten with him." He is said to have almost never ate his dinner alone. He is said to have saved himself off food that had been specially bought or prepared for him because he had an appetite for it and left it to the needy when they asked him.

Sometimes he was so generous that he couldn't get enough to eat himself. When he was given a new digestive agent called Jawarish as a gift from Iraq , he considered this to be completely superfluous and pointed out that he had not eaten his fill for a long time. Occasionally, however, his generosity also included the serving of wine ( nabīḏ ), as is evident from a report by Ibn Saʿd. According to this, on a trip from Mecca to Medina, Ibn ʿUmar brought a camel with a wineskin on its back. During a break, each of the accompanying men received a mug and could drink their fill of the wine.

Kindness to slaves

Various sources reported that Ibn 'Umar slaves on a large scale released her . His slave Nāfiʿ and his slave girl Rumaitha, whom he loved very much, he is said to have given freedom, with reference to Quran verse 3:92 “You will never achieve piety as long as you don’t donate what you love”. Nāfiʿ is quoted as saying that Ibn ʿUmar released a total of a thousand people or more. Since Ibn ʿUmar was in the habit of releasing slaves whose behavior he particularly liked, there were some young men who went to the mosque particularly often because they wanted to obtain their release. When Ibn 'Umar saw this, he actually released her. He replied to people who accused him that these slaves were cheating on him that he didn't mind being cheated for God.

Ibn ʿUmar also bought slaves from other slave owners several times in order to set them free afterwards. His massive releases resulted in a slave who had signed a ransom agreement with him, revoking it in order to be released from him without payment. In other cases, he is said to have turned down generous offers to buy and released the people concerned because he thought this was more deserving. He also released slaves whom he had unjustifiably beaten on the grounds that the Messenger of God had stipulated this as reparation ( kaffāra ) for such wrongdoing. Ibn ʿUmar is also said to have stopped himself again and again when he was angry with slaves and wanted to curse them because he refused to curse. When slaves who had the opportunity to escape did not take this opportunity and decided to stay with him, he was happy. In a short poem that Ibn ʿAsākir narrates from him, he mourns a freed Byzantine slave who did not stay with him after her release but fled.

Political loyalty and peacefulness

Numerous sayings are passed down from Ibn ʿUmar in which he calls for loyalty to the authority of the state and for peacefulness. His political stance was summarized by contemporaries with the words: “I do not fight in Fitna and pray behind him who wins.” Mālik ibn Anas passed on the statement: “If the entire Ummah of Muhammad would agree on me, but only two men did not do this, I would not fight them. ”His principle was also praised, rulers who can only bring a splinter group ( firqa ) behind them, to refuse the Baiʿa, with rulers who have the entire community ( ǧamāʿa ) behind them have to do the Baiʿa. When the revolt of Yazīd ibn al-Muhallab broke out in 720 and the scholar Ibn Sīrīn was asked how one should behave, he recommended that he should follow Ibn ʿUmar and deny Yazīd the Baiʿa.

Preservation of the original Islam and following the prophets

Many accounts emphasize Ibn ʿUmar's importance as the keeper of the original Islam. For example, b'isha bint Abī Bakr is quoted as saying that she has not seen anyone who clung to the “first thing” ( al-amr al-auwal ) as strongly as Ibn ʿUmar. Another contemporary, Jabir ibn ʿAbdallāh (d. 697), emphasized that, unlike the other members of the Quraysh, who had been seduced by the newly acquired worldly goods, Ibn ʿUmar did not deviate from the original path. From Mūsā ibn Talha (d. 721) the words are narrated: “God have mercy on ʿAbdallah ibn ʿUmar. In my opinion, he stuck to the original mandate ( al-ʿahd al-auwal ) and has not changed. By God, the Quraysh couldn't provoke him. And I said to myself that this belittles his father in his slaughter. ”Mūsā interpreted Ibn ʿUmar's peaceful behavior during Fitna as a follower of the Prophet and even compared it positively to the militant behavior of his father ʿUmar.

As-Suddī said that Ibn ʿUmar was the only companion of the Prophet who had retained his original attitude as he had at the death of Muhammad. Ibn ʿUmar's will to hold on to the state that reigned under Muhammad is also expressed in a saying that is ascribed to him in various sources. Accordingly, he is said to have said that after the death of Mohammed he neither planted a palm tree nor put one brick on top of the other. Al-Hajjaj, who visited Ibn ʿUmar on his deathbed, quotes him as saying: “I am in the original way” ( innī ʿalā ḍ-ḍarb al-auwal ).

Numerous reports emphasize ʿAbdallāh's diligence in following the "traditions of the Prophet" ( āṯār an-nabī ). So ʿĀ'ishah is quoted as saying that there was no one who followed the traditions of the Prophet in different situations as closely as wieAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar. Whenever one saw him, one could discover something of "following the traditions of the Prophet" ( ittibāʿ āṯār an-nabī ) in him. Mālik ibn Anas narrates from Ibn ʿUmar that he followed the matter, the traditions and the attitude of the Prophet so closely and cared about it that one feared for his sanity. His client Nāfiʿ is quoted as saying, "If I looked at Ibn ʿUmar following the tradition of the Messenger of God, I would say: He is a man possessed." When Ibn IbUmar just mentioned the Prophet, he mostly cried.

Ibn ʿUmar is said to have avoided a gate at the mosque of Medina , which the Prophet had said it would be better to leave to women. When he got to Medina, the first thing he would do is go to the Prophet's tomb, say a prayer for him, and call on God for him . On the way to Mecca, he stopped where the Prophet had been and brought his camel exactly into the position in which he had seen the Prophet's camel. Ibn ʿUmar went so far in his veneration of the Prophet that he regularly watered trees under which he had prayed so that they would not dry up.

His role model function in everyday matters

In old age Ibn nUmar more and more fulfilled the role of a model for people. Mujāhid ibn Jabr is quoted as saying: “When Ibn ʿUmar was a young man, people failed to emulate him. But when he got older, they followed him by example. ”The role model that Ibn ʿUmar held in his environment is the reason why the Arabic sources provide extremely detailed descriptions of his everyday behavior, clothing, food and personal hygiene. In some cases Ibn ʿUmar himself was asked for information on such questions. So someone overheard someone asking them what clothes to wear. To this Ibn ʿUmar replied: “That which the simple-minded do not despise in you and the insightful do not criticize you.” When he was asked what that meant in concrete terms, he replied that this was clothing worth five to 20 dirhams .

Several contemporary witnesses reported that Ibn ʿUmar was very shameful and therefore did not go into the bathroom. In order to maintain adequate personal hygiene, he had himself shaved and oiled regularly all over his body. Even the end of the hajj and umra he left the barber ( Hallaq make such a full body shave, which caused astonishment among the other pilgrims). He cut his mustache so short that it looked like he had plucked his hair. He left the rest of the beard a hand's breadth long and colored it yellow with Memecylon tinctorium ( wars ) or saffron . In doing so, he referred to the fact that the prophet had also dyed his beard yellow. The yellow color often rubbed off on his clothes. Some reports also state that he perfumed his beard with musk.

Activity as a mufti

Ibn ʿUmar is also seen as an important fatwa authority. Ibn Hazm counted Ibn ʿUmar next to his father ʿUmar, ʿAlī, ʿĀ'ischa, ʿAbdallāh ibn Masʿūd , ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbbās and Zaid ibn Thābit among the seven companions of the Prophets who gave fatwas particularly often. ʿAmr ibn Dīnār (d. 743) counted him among the younger legal scholars ( fuqahāʾ al-aḥḍāṯ ). This referred to the fact that, according to the general opinion, Ibn ʿUmar had replaced older companions of the Prophet like Zaid ibn Thābit in this role. As a legal authority Ibn ʿUmar was later in high regard, especially with Mālik ibn Anas . He is quoted as saying that Ibn ʿUmar was with them in Medina according to Zaid ibn Thābit the " imam of men" ( imām an-nās ) and gave fatwas to people for sixty years. Mālik attributes numerous norms to him in his Muwaṭṭā . Ibn Hazm was of the opinion that Ibn RechtsUmar's legal advice was so numerous that it would fill a long book if one were to collect it. In 1986, Muḥammad Rauwās Qalʿaǧī actually compiled an encyclopedia of the norms traced back to Ibn ʿUmar.

Ibn ʿUmar was especially considered a specialist in questions related to the pilgrimage rites ( manāsik al-ḥaǧǧ ). So he was especially active as a mufti during the pilgrimage season ( mausim ). He used to alternate one year on the Hajj and the other year on the Umra . He usually performed the umra in the month of Rajab . Together with ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbbās , he is said to have held fatwa sessions on the arrival of the pilgrims. While Ibn ʿAbbās answered all the questions that were put to him, Ibn ʿUmar answered most of what he was asked about. Ibn ʿUmar was known for openly admitting questions he could not answer. For questions on topics other than pilgrimage, he was happy to refer to the scholars in Medina ( al-ʿulamāʾ bi-l-Madīna ).

Unlike Ibn ʿAbbās, Ibn ʿUmar drew his authority less from his understanding of law than from his piety of conscience ( war ). When Mālik was asked by the Abbasid caliph Abū Jaʿfar al-Mansūr why the Medinan traditionarians preferred those of Ibn ʿUmar among the various doctrines, he replied that Ibn ʿUmar had priority ( faḍl ) among the people and that earlier generations had already acted in this way would have. Al-Mansour approved of this, but pointed out that Ibn ʿUmar had often contradicted ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbbās and ʿAlī ibn Abī Tālib .

A peculiarity of Ibn ʿUmar's understanding of law was that he was critical of the legislation of his father ʿUmar. According to a tradition that is traced back to his son Salīm, Ibn ʿUmar was asked one day by a Syrian about time marriages ( mutʿat al-ḥaǧǧ ) performed during Hajj . When he replied that this practice was "well and good" ( ḥasan ǧamīl ), the Syrian reminded him that his father had abolished it. Thereupon ʿAbdallāh rebuked the man with the words: “Woe to you! Even if my father abolished it, what should I obey, my father's decision or God's rule? ”The Syrian then agreed that the latter was more correct. On another occasion, he criticized the punishment of Mutʿa marriages as injustice and threatened those who disagreed with the words: “The book of God will be the judge between us, which of the two is more deserving of being obeyed Book of God or ʿUmar. "

ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar emphasized that the sunnah of his father deserves no attention, only the sunnah of the Prophet. In similar words, he is said to have rejected a fatwa by ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbbās concerning the pilgrimage rites. What must be followed is the sunna of God and his Messenger, not the sunna of Ibn ʿAbbās.

His role as a traditionalist

For contemporaries like asch-Shaʿbī (d. 721), however, the actual profession of Ibn ʿUmar was not the Fiqh , but the Hadith . Those from whom Ibn ʿUmar narrated included the Prophet, his own father ʿUmar, the caliphs Abū Bakr , ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī, and several other early Muslims such as Bilāl ibn Rabāh , Suhaib ar-Rūmī , Zaid ibn Thābit , Saʿd ibn Abī, Waqqq . ʿAbdallāh ibn Masʿūd , his sister Hafsa and ʿĀ'ischa bint Abī Bakr . Conversely, there were more than 200 people who heard traditions from him. His two clients, Nāfiʿ and ʿAbdallāh ibn Dīnār, as well as al-Hasan al-Basrī , Saʿīd ibn al-Musaiyab , ʿUrwa ibn az-Zubair , Mujāhid ibn Jabr , the Shiite imam Muhammad al-Bāqir were among the most important and best known . and Jabir ibn Zaid , the founder of the Ibadite school of law.

In the Musnad of Baqī ibn Machlad , a total of 2,630 hadiths were traced back to Ibn ʿUmar. 186 of them are also mentioned by al-Buchari and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj . Only Abū Huraira is said to have passed on more than Ibn ʿUmar. Various biographical accounts emphasize his sincerity and care in conveying Muhammad's sayings. Muhammad al-Bāqir praised him for taking care, more than any other companion of the Prophets, not to add or omit anything in these sayings. An Isnād from Mālik about Nāfiʿ, the Maulā of Ibn ʿUmar, about Ibn ʿUmar himself was considered the most reliable chain of narrators in Islamic hadith science and is also referred to as the "golden chain" ( silsilat aḏ-ḏahab ).

At the present time, however, Ibn ʿUmar's role in the Hadith tradition is controversial. It is pointed out that al-Sha'bī, who spent a year with him in Medina, did not hear a single hadith from Mohammed and that Mujāhid ibn Jabr , who accompanied him on a trip to Medina, only heard him share a single hadith. Several Western scholars, in particular Joseph Schacht and GHA Juynboll, have therefore questioned the historicity of the material going back to Ibn ʿUmar and in particular of the golden chain . Other scholars such as Harald Motzki, however, consider them to be genuine traditions that go back to Ibn IbUmar.

literature

Arabic sources

• Abū Nuʿaim al-Iṣfahānī: Ḥilyat al-Auliyāʾ wa-ṭabaqāt al-aṣfiyāʾ . 10 vol. Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmīya, Beirut, undated vol. I, pp. 292–314. Digitized
• Shams ad-Dīn aḏ-Ḏahabī : Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. Ed. Shuʿaib al-Arnaʾūṭ and Ḥusain al-Asad. Mu'assasat ar-Risāla, Beirut 1981. Vol. III, pp. 203-39. Digitized
• Shams ad-Dīn aḏ-Ḏahabī : Tāʾrīḫ al-islām. 61-80h. Ed. ʿUmar ʿAbd as-Salām Tadmurī. Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, Beirut, 1990. Vol. V, pp. 453-67 Digitized
• Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb Ibn Sufyān al-Fasawī: Kitāb al-Maʿrifa wa-t-tārīḫ. Ed. Akram Ḍiyāʾ al-ʿUmarī. 3 Vols. Baghdad: Maṭbaʿat Aršād 1975. Vol. I, pp. 490–493. Digitized
• Ibn ʿAsākir : Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . Ed. ʿUmar ibn Ġarāma al-ʿUmarī. Dār al-Fikr, Beirut, 1996. Vol. XXXI, pp. 79-204. Digitized
• Muhammad ibn Saʿd : Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Ed. E. Sachau. 9 vols. Leiden 1904–1940. Vol. IV / 1, pp. 105-38. Digitized
• Naṣr ibn Muzāḥim al-Minqarī: Waqʿat Ṣiffīn. Ed. ʿAbd al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn. Dār al-Ǧīl, Beirut, 1990. Digitized
• Al-Mizzī : Tuḥfat al-ašrāf bi-maʿrifat al-aṭrāf . Ed. Baššār Maʿrūf. Dār al-Ġarb al-islāmī, Beirut, 1999. Vol. V, pp. 41–664, digitized
• Abū l-Qāsim at-Tabarānī : al-Muʿǧam al-kabīr. Ed. ʿAbd al-Maǧīd as-Salafī. Maktabat Ibn Taimīya, Kairo o. D. Vol. XII, pp. 257–457. Digitized

Secondary literature

• Andreas Görke: Art. “ʿAbdallāh b. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. ”in Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. Edited by: Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson. Released 2009. Online version
• Avraham Hakim: “Conflicting Images of Lawgivers: The Caliph and the Prophet. Sunnat "Umar and Sunnat Muḥammad" in Herbert Berg (ed.): Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins . Brill, Leiden / Boston 2003, pp. 159-177. Here pp. 168–170.
• Bāsim al-Ḥillī: ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar wa-madrasat ar-rasūl al-muṣṭafā: aḏ-ḏātīya wa-l-intimāʾ . Dār al-Aṯar, Beirut, 2002.
• M. Yaşar Kandemir: Art. “Abdullah b. Ömer b. Hattâb “in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm ansiklopedisi Vol. I, pp. 126c-128a. Digitized
• Wilferd Madelung: The succession to Muḥammad. A study of the early caliphate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997. pp. 284-287.
• Harald Motzki: The Beginnings of Islamic Jurisprudence. Their development in Mecca up to the middle of the 2nd / 8th centuries Century. Steiner, Stuttgart, 1991. pp. 120-124.
• Aḥmad Manāf Ḥasan al-Qaisī: Aṯar ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar fī t-tafsīr . Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīya, Beirut, 2006.
• Muḥammad Rauwās Qalʿaǧī: Mausūʿat fiqh ʿAbdallah ibn ʿUmar, ʿaṣruhu wa-ḥayātuhu . Dār an-Nafā'is, Beirut, 1986.
• ʿAlī aṭ-Ṭanṭāwī, Nāǧī aṭ- Ṭanṭāwī: Aḫbār ʿUmar wa-aḫbār ʿAbdallāh Ibn ʿUmar . Dār al-Fikr, Beirut, 1970.
• Gernot Rotter : The Umayyads and the Second Civil War (680–692). Steiner, Wiesbaden 1982. pp. 29-31.
• Laura Veccia Vaglieri : Art. “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar b. al- Kh aṭṭāb ”in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition . Vol. I, pp. 53b-54b.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, pp. 211f.
2. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 204.
3. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 105.
4. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 83.
5. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 209.
6. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, pp. 101-103.
7. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 210.
8. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 105.
9. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, pp. 97f.
10. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 105.
11. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 79.
12. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 125.
13. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 209.
14. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 83.
15. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 89.
16. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 115.
17. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 119.
18. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 104.
19. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 105.
20. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 105.
21. ↑ Cf. Ibn Hischām : Kitāb Sīrat Rasūl Allāh p. 779f., Digitized , Italian summary in Leone Caetani : Annali dell 'Islam . Milano 1911. p. 361. Digitized
22. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 179.
23. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 463.
24. ↑ See Madelung: The succession to Muḥammad. 1997, p. 133.
25. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 181.
26. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 111.
27. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 115.
28. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 237.
29. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 182.
30. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 463.
31. ↑ Cf. al-Minqarī: Waqʿat Ṣiffīn. 1990, p. 63.
32. ↑ Cf. al-Minqarī: Waqʿat Ṣiffīn. 1990. pp. 71-73.
33. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 226.
34. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, pp. 226f.
35. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 121.
36. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 227.
37. ↑ Cf. al-Fasawī: Kitāb al-Maʿrifa wa-t-tārīḫ. 1975, Vol. I, p. 492.
38. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 134.
39. ↑ See Madelung: The succession to Muḥammad. 1997, pp. 285f.
40. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, pp. 134f.
41. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 134.
42. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 125.
43. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 134.
44. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 225.
45. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 134.
46. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, pp. 123f.
47. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, pp. 123f.
48. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 190.
49. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 190.
50. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 465.
51. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, pp. 211f.
52. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 464.
53. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 227.
54. ↑ See Rotter: The Umayyads and the Second Civil War . 1982, p. 244.
55. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, pp. 110f, 115.
56. ↑ Quoting aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 465.
57. ↑ See Abū Nuʿaim al-Iṣfahānī: Ḥilyat al-Auliyāʾ Vol. I, p. 300.
58. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 188.
59. ↑ Quoting aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 465.
60. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, vol. XXI, p. 192f and aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 228.
61. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 111.
62. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 110.
63. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, pp. 190f.
64. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 465.
65. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 135.
66. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 112.
67. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 117.
68. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, pp. 135f.
69. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 230.
70. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 108.
71. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 137.
72. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 465.
73. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 466.
74. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, pp. 107-109.
75. ↑ Cf. at-Tabarānī: al-Muʿǧam al-kabīr. Vol. XII, p. 259.
76. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 230.
77. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, pp. 136-138.
78. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 465.
79. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 138.
80. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 457.
81. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 238.
82. ↑ Cf. Motzki: The Beginnings of Islamic Jurisprudence. 1991, pp. 120-124.
83. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 462.
84. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 105.
85. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 129.
86. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 116.
87. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 105.
88. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 117.
89. ↑ Cf. al-Fasawī: Kitāb al-Maʿrifa wa-t-tārīḫ. 1975, Vol. I, p. 492.
90. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, pp. 138-140.
91. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 109.
92. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 116.
93. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, pp. 142f.
94. ↑ See Abū Nuʿaim al-Iṣfahānī: Ḥilyat al-Auliyāʾ Vol. I, p. 299.
95. ↑ See Abū Nuʿaim al-Iṣfahānī: Ḥilyat al-Auliyāʾ Vol. I, p. 299.
96. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 109.
97. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, vol. III, p. 217f and Abū Nuʿaim al-Iṣfahānī: Ḥilyat al-Auliyāʾ vol. I, p. 295.
98. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 460.
99. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 123.
100. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, pp. 216f.
101. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 461.
102. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, pp. 136f.
103. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, pp. 138f.
104. ↑ See Abū Nuʿaim al-Iṣfahānī: Ḥilyat al-Auliyāʾ Vol. I, p. 300.
105. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 178.
106. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 110.
107. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 111.
108. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 190.
109. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 182.
110. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 211.
111. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, pp. 107-109.
112. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 224.
113. ↑ See also Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 107.
114. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 111.
115. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, pp. 117f.
116. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 195.
117. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 107.
118. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 106.
119. ↑ Quoting aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 458.
120. ↑ Quoting aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 458.
121. ↑ Quoting aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 459.
122. ↑ See Abū Nuʿaim al-Iṣfahānī: Ḥilyat al-Auliyāʾ Vol. I, p. 312.
123. ↑ See Abū Nuʿaim al-Iṣfahānī: Ḥilyat al-Auliyāʾ Vol. I, p. 308.
124. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 237.
125. ↑ Quoting aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 458.
126. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 108.
127. ↑ Cf. Abū Nuʿaim al-Iṣfahānī: Ḥilyat al-Auliyāʾ Vol. I, p. 302.
128. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, pp. 113f.
129. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 130.
130. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, pp. 131-133.
131. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, pp. 237f.
132. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 162.
133. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 458.
134. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, pp. 237f.
135. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 163.
136. ↑ Cf. al-Fasawī: Kitāb al-Maʿrifa wa-t-tārīḫ. 1975, Vol. I, p. 491.
137. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 192.
138. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, pp. 119f.
139. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 222.
140. ↑ Cf. al-Fasawī: Kitāb al-Maʿrifa wa-t-tārīḫ. 1975, Vol. I, p. 490.
141. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, pp. 168f.
142. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 115.
143. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 108.
144. ↑ See Hakim: Conflicting Images of Lawgivers . 2003, p. 168.
145. ↑ ^{a b} See Hakim: Conflicting Images of Lawgivers . 2003, p. 169.
146. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 156.
147. ↑ Cf. Ibn ʿAsākir: Taʾrīḫ madīnat Dimašq . 1996, Vol. XXI, p. 169.
148. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 204.
149. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, pp. 204-208.
150. ^ Cf. Yaḥyā M. Bakkūš: Fiqh al-imām Ǧābir Ibn-Zaid . Dār al-Ġarb al-Islāmī, Beirut, 1986. p. 17.
151. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 238.
152. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām . Vol. V, p. 458.
153. ↑ Cf. Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr . Vol. IV / 1, p. 106.
154. ↑ Cf. aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. 1981, Vol. III, p. 214.
155. ↑ See his The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence . Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1950. pp. 176-179.
156. ↑ Cf. Motzki: The Beginnings of Islamic Jurisprudence. 1991, pp. 120-124.