Tag: Q n A

Praise be to Allah.
Firstly:

With regard to the postponement of the months mentioned in
the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “The
postponing (of a Sacred Month) is indeed an addition to disbelief: thereby
the disbelievers are led astray, for they make it lawful one year and forbid
it another year in order to adjust the number of months forbidden by Allah,
and make such forbidden ones lawful. The evil of their deeds seems pleasing
to them. And Allah guides not the people, who disbelieve”
[at-Tawbah 9:37], this
refers to their practice whereby they would decide that the sacred month of
Muharram was not to be held sacred, and they would declare Safar as sacred
instead, if they needed to do that.

This has been discussed previously in the answer to question
no. 165970.

Secondly:

To sum up what has been mentioned in some books of history:

Before Islam, the Arabs used to use the lunar calendar, in
which there were twelve months that were determined by the sighting of the
new moon from one month to the next.

Among them there were four sacred months, during which they
would refrain from fighting; they would hold their markets, such as ‘Ukaaz
and others; they would go on pilgrimage to the Ka‘bah; and they would be
safe on the road and at home from raids, plunder and banditry.

But despite the fact that they used the lunar calendar, they
did not have any particular system for dating important events, in most
cases. Rather, when it came to dating important life events, they would
connect them to certain historical events, as follows:

·The construction of the
Ka‘bah by Ibraaheem al-Khaleel and his son Ismaa‘eel (peace be upon them
both) – approximately 1855 BCE

·The Year of Treason, which
was the year in which Banu Yarboo‘ stole the goods that some of the kings of
Banu Himyar had sent to the Ka‘bah – 461 BCE

·The collapse of the Ma’rib
Dam in Yemen – 120 BCE approx.

·The death of Ka‘b ibn Lu‘ayy,
the seventh great-grandfather of the Messenger Muhammad (blessings and peace
of Allah be upon him) – 59 BCE

·The Year of the Elephant,
which is the year in which the great Messenger Muhammad (blessings and peace
of Allah be upon him) was born – 571 CE

·The Sacrilegious War, which
was so called because the Arabs committed a grave act of sacrilege in it,
when their tribes fought amongst themselves during the sacred months. This
war lasted for four years, beginning in 586 CE.

·The reconstruction of the
Ka‘bah, which occurred at the time of ‘Abd al-Muttalib, the grandfather of
the Messenger Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). At that
time, the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was 35 years
old. This means that it occurred in 605 CE, i.e., five years before the
mission of Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) began.

Throughout their long history before Islam, the Arabs used
the names of the lunar months that were known at that time, until these
names changed and throughout the Arab land began to take on the forms by
which they are known now, from the end of the fifth century CE – during the
era of Kilaab, the fifth great-grandfather of the Messenger Muhammad
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), as was stated by al-Biruni in
412 CE. During the Jaahiliyyah, the Arabs also used the solar months during
some periods and in some places.

For more information, please see: al-Mufassal fi Tareekh
al-‘Arab qabl al-Islam (1/5014); Murooj adh-Dhahab by al-Mas‘oodi
(1/249)

And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
Ibn
Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

It was
narrated to us via Ibn Luhay‘ah from Qays ibn al-Hajjaj from someone who
told him: When Egypt was conquered, its people came to ‘Amr ibn al-‘As (may
Allah be pleased with him) and said to him: O Ameer, this Nile of ours is
used to something and cannot flow unless it is done. He said: What is that?
They said: On the twelfth night of this month, we take a young girl from her
parents, and we placate her parents, then we dress her in jewellery and the
finest garments there can be, then we throw her into this Nile. 

‘Amr (may
Allah be pleased with him) said to them: This is something that cannot
happen in Islam; Islam erases that which came before it (of bad customs). 

So they
stayed for a while, during which the Nile did not flow at all, neither a
little nor a lot, until they thought of leaving. Then ‘Amr (may Allah be
pleased with him) wrote to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with
him), telling him about this. He wrote to him, saying: You did the right
thing. I am sending you a piece of paper with my letter; throw it into the
Nile. 

When his
letter came, ‘Amr (may Allah be pleased with him) took the piece of paper on
which was written: 

“From the
slave of Allah ‘Umar, Ameer al-Mumineen, to the Nile of the people of Egypt.

To
proceed: If you only flow on your own initiative, then do not flow, for we
have no need of you. But if you only flow on the command of Allah, the One,
the Subduer, and He is the One Who causes you to flow, then we ask Allah,
may He be exalted, to make you flow.” 

He threw
the paper in the Nile and by Saturday morning, Allah had caused the Nile to
flow (to a depth or width of) sixteen cubits in one night, and Allah put an
end to this particular custom of the people of Egypt until today.

End quote
from al-Bidayah wa’n-Nihayah, 7/114-115 

Similar
reports were also narrated by Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam in Futooh Misr, p. 165;
al-Lalkai in Sharh I‘tiqad Ahl as-Sunnah, 6/463; Ibn ‘Asakir in Tareekh
Dimashq, 44/336; Abu’sh-Shaykh in al-‘Azamah, 4/1424, via Ibn Luhay‘ah. 

This is a
da‘eef isnad (weak chain of narration) that is not saheeh, and this report
cannot be proven with such an isnad. Ibn Luhay‘ah – whose full name was
‘Abdullah ibn Luhay‘ah ibn ‘Uqbah – is da ‘eef as he used to get mixed up,
and in addition to that he is mudallis (one
who
narrates from someone he met something he did not hear).
See at-Tahdheeb, 5/327-33; Mizan al-I‘tidaal, 2/475-484 

Qays ibn
al-Hajjaj is sadooq (trustworthy), from the sixth level of hadeeth narrators
(tabaqah) according to al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar; they are the ones who it is not
proven that they met any of the Sahabah/Companions (may Allah be pleased
with them). See: Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb, 1/25 

Sometimes
he narrated it as a mursal (the
link between the Successor and the Prophet is missing)
report and
sometimes he narrated it from the one who told him, but the one who told him
is majhool and not known. 

So the
report is da‘eef (weak) and is not saheeh (sound) 

If this
story were true, everyone would know about it and it would be well known,
and it would have been widely narrated through confirmed isnads, because it
is an important and significant event, the like of which should not be
ignored; rather an incident less significant than this would not be
overlooked by historians and narrators. 

And Allah
knows best.

Praise be to Allah.Who is Prophet Daniel? 
More than one of the scholars of history and biography have stated that Daniel was one of the Israelite Prophets. He lived at the time of Nebuchadnezzar who destroyed Bayt al-Maqdis (the Temple in Jerusalem), killed many of the Children of Israel, and burned the Torah.
Did Prophet Daniel foretell the coming of Prophet Muhammad?
Scholars said that Prophet Daniel foretold the coming of our Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Daniel (peace be upon him) mentioned Muhammad the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) by name, and said: “Arrows will be departing from bows and arrows will be stained with blood at your command, O Muhammad.”
This is a clear, unambiguous statement.
Then Shaykh al-Islam mentioned two cases in which Daniel foretold the coming of the Messiah and of our Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon them both), then he said:
“This is a prophecy in which Daniyal foretold the coming of the Messiah and the coming of Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), in which there is a detailed description of Muhammad and his ummah, which would take too long to quote here. The Muslims read it when they conquered Iraq, as was mentioned by the scholars, including Abu’l-‘Aliyah.” (Al-Jawab as-Sahih (5/275-281)
Did ‘Umar instruct the Companions to rebury Prophet Daniel?
It is well known that when the Muslims conquered Tastar, they came across the grave of Prophet Daniel (peace be upon him), and Amir al-Muminin ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) instructed the Companions to rebury him and conceal from the people the location of his grave, lest that be a cause of fitnah and confusion.
Ibn Abi’d-Dunya narrated with a hasan isnad – as it says in al-Bidayah wa’an-Nihayah – from Abu’z-Zinad that he said:
“I saw a ring on the hand of Abu Burdah ibn Abi Musa al-Ash‘ari, on the bezel of which there was an engraving of two lions, between whom was a man, and they were licking that man. Abu Burdah said: This is the ring of that dead man whom the people of this city claim is Daniel. Abu Musa took it on the day they reburied him. Abu Burdah said: Abu Musa asked the scholars of that city about the engraving on that ring, and they said: The astrologers and scholars came to the king under whose rule Daniel lived and told him: On such and such a night, a boy will be born who will undermine your sovereignty. The king said: By Allah, no boy will survive that night but I will kill him. But they took Daniel and threw him into the lions’ den, where the lion and lioness licked him but did not harm him, then his mother came and found the lions licking him. Thus Allah saved him until he grew up and achieved what he achieved. Abu Burdah said: Abu Musa said: The scholars of that city said: Therefore Daniel engraved his image and the image of the two lions licking him on the bezel of his ring, lest he forget that blessing that Allah had bestowed upon him.”
Ibn Abi Shaybah (7/4) narrated with a sahih isnad from Anas that when they conquered Tastar, they found a man whose nose was one cubit long in a coffin, and they used to pray for victory and for rain by virtue of him. Abu Musa wrote to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab about that, and ‘Umar wrote back, saying: This man is one of the prophets; fire does not consume (the bodies of) the prophets and the earth does not consume (the bodies of) the prophets. And he wrote instructions saying: You and your companions (meaning the companions of Abu Musa) should discuss the matter and rebury him in a place that no one knows except you two. He said: So Abu Musa and I went and reburied him.
Ibn Abi Shaybah (7/4) narrated with a sahih isnad from Mutarrif ibn Malik that he said: I was present at the conquest of Tastar with al-Ash‘ari. We came across (the body of) Daniel in as-Sus. When the people of as-Sus were faced with drought, they would bring him out and pray for rain by virtue of him. We found with him sixty sealed jars…
Al-Bayhaqi said in Dalail al-Nubuwwah (1/381):
“It was narrated from Khalid ibn Dinar that Abu’l-‘Aliyah said: When we conquered Tastar, we found in the treasury of al-Hormuzan a bier on which was the body of a dead man, and by his head was a scripture of his. We seized the scripture and took it to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), and he summoned Ka‘b, who translated it into Arabic. I was the first man among the Arabs to read it, and I read it as I read this Quran.
I said to Abu’l-‘Aliyah: What was in it? He said: It was about you, your affairs, your religion, your talk, and what will happen after that. I said: What did you do with the man? He said: We dug thirteen different graves during the day, then at night we buried him and we levelled all the graves, so as to conceal its location from the people, so that they would not exhume him. I said: Why would people do that? He said: If rain was withheld from them, they would take his bier out and they would receive rain. I said: Who do you think the man was? He said: A man called Daniel. I said: How long ago do you think he died? He said: Three hundred years ago. I said: Had anything of him changed? He said: No, except a few hairs at the back of his head, for the earth does not consume (the bodies of) the prophets, and wild animals cannot devour them.”
Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
“This is a sahih isnad going back to Abu’l-‘Aliyah, but if the date of this man’s death was recorded as having been three hundred years earlier, then he cannot have been a prophet; rather he was a righteous man. That is because there was no prophet between ‘Isa ibn Maryam and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), according to the text of the hadith narrated by al-Bukhari, and the period between them was four hundred years, or six hundred, or six hundred and twenty years. Or the date of his death may have been eight hundred years earlier, which is close to the time of Daniel, if this was the Daniel who once lived. Or he may have been some other man, either one of the prophets or one of the righteous. But it is most likely that he was Daniel, because Daniel was taken captive by the king of Persia, and remained with him as a prisoner, as we have seen above. It was narrated with a sahih isnad going back to Abu’l-‘Aliyah that the length of his nose was a handspan, and it was narrated with a sahih isnad going back to Anas ibn Malik that the length of his nose was a cubit. Therefore it is possible that this was one of the earlier prophets, before the period mentioned above. And Allah knows best.” (Al-Bidayah wa’an-Nihayah, 2/40)
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
“When the grave of Daniel was discovered in Tastar, Abu Musa wrote to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) about it, and ‘Umar wrote back to him, saying: During the day, dig thirteen graves, and bury him by night in one of them, and conceal the location of his grave, lest his grave be a cause of fitnah and confusion for people.” (Majmu‘ al-Fatawa, 15/154)
References:

Sirat Ibn Ishaq (p. 66); 
Tarikh Baghdad (1/361); 
Tarikh Dimashq (8/32); 
al-Masalik wa’l-Mamalik (p. 92); 
A‘lam an-Nubuwwah (p. 66); 
Ahsan at-Taqasim (p. 417); 
al-Jawab as-Sahih (5/276); 
Hidayat al-Hayara (2/375); 
al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (2/374); 
Siyar A‘lam an-Nubala (2/312)

For more about prophets, please see this category: Belief in Messengers. 
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
Firstly: 

Many people are infatuated by the different types of miracles
in the Qur’aan, including the “numerical miracles”. In newspapers and
magazines and on the internet they publish lists of words that are repeated
a number of times that corresponds to their structure, and words that are
repeated the same number of times as their opposites. They also claim that
the word yawm (day) is repeated 365 times and the word shahr (month) is
repeated 12 times, and they do this with other words too, such as
al-malaa’ikah (angels) and al-shayaateen (devils), and al-dunya (this world)
and al-aakhirah (the Hereafter), etc.  

Many people think that these numbers are true and that this
is one of the miracles of the Qur’aan, but they do not distinguish between
subtleties and miracles. Writing a book which contains a specific number of
certain words is something that anyone can do; what is so miraculous about
that? The miracle that appears in the Book of Allaah is not like these
subtleties, rather it is far deeper and greater than that. It is the fact
that the most eloquent and well-spoken of the Arabs could not produce
anything like the Qur’aan, or ten soorahs of it, or even one soorah. It is
not like these subtleties that any writer could produce in any book that he
writes, or more.  

It should be noted that some people have taken this beyond
mere statistics. Some of them have used these numbers to foretell when the
state of Israel will fall, and others have used them to say when the Day of
Judgement will be. One of the latest fabrications against the Book of Allaah
is that which they have published saying that the Qur’aan foretold the
explosions in the towers in New York! Based on the number of the verse in
al-Tawbah, and the number of the soorah and juz’. All of that is toying with
the Book of Allaah which is caused by ignorance of the true nature of the
miracle of the Book of Allaah. 

Secondly: 

By examining the statistics presented by those who have
published these numbers, we find that they did not get the numbers of some
phrases right, and some of them have been selective in the way they counted
the words, and that is so that they might reach the conclusion they want and
that they think is in the Book of Allaah. 

Shaykh Dr. Khaalid al-Sabt said:  

Dr. Ashraf ‘Abd al-Razzaaq Qatanah presented a “study of the
numerical miracles in the Holy Qur’aan” which he published in a book
entitled: “The Qur’aan and the Numerical Miracles, a critical study of the
numerical miracles of the Holy Qur’aan.” In the conclusion to this book he
reviews three other books: (1) I’jaaz al-Raqm 19 (The miracle of the
number 19) by Baasim Jaraar; (2) al-I’jaaz al-‘Adadi fi’l-Qur’aan
(the numerical miracle in the Qur’aan) by ‘Abd al-Razzaaq Nawfal; and (3)
al-Mu’jizah (the miracle) by ‘Adnaan al-Rifaa’i. The author reached a
conclusion which he describes as follows: 

As the result of my study I reached the idea that the
“numerical miracle” as presented in these books is not real at all, and
these books are based on conditions that are sometimes selective , in order
to prove the validity of this view in a way that will make the reader accept
these preconceived results referred to above.  These selective conditions
sometimes lead the author to go against that which is proven according to
the consensus of the ummah, such as going against the spelling of the
‘Uthmaani Mus-haf, which is not permissible at all; or adopting the spelling
of some words which appears in some Mus-hafs and without paying attention to
the spellings in other Mus-hafs. It also goes against basic principles of
the Arabic language with regard to synonyms and antonyms.   

p. 197, Damascus, Manaar li’l-Nashr wa’l-Tawzee’, first
edition, 1420 AH/1999 CE. 

Dr. Fahd al-Roomi said something similar about the selective
way in which Dr ‘Abd al-Razzaaq Nawfal chose words in order to reach this
numerical balance, such as when he said: The word yawm (day) is mentioned
365 times in the Qur’aan, the number of days in a year. In order to prove
this he counted the words “al-yawm” and “yawman” but he
ignored words such as “yawmukum” (your day) and “yawmuhum”
(their day) and yawma’idhin (on that day), because if he had done
that, he would have got a different number. The same applies to the word
al-isti’aadhah which refers to seeking refuge from the shaytaan. He says
that it is repeated 11 times, but he includes in that the words “a’oodhu”
(I seek refuge) and “fasta’idh” (seek refuge) but not “ ‘udhtu”
(I sought refuge) or “ya’oodhoona” (they seek refuge) or “u’eedhuha”
(I seek refuge for her) or “ma’aadh Allaah” (Allaah forbid). 

See: Ittijaahaat al-Tafseer fi’l-Qarn al-Raabi’ ‘Ashara
(2/699, 700), Beirut, Mu’sasat al-Risaalah, second edition, 1414 AH. 

From this well-founded discussion, the answer to the issue of
the word “yawm” and the number of times it appears in the Qur’aan, which is
mentioned in the question, is clear. 

Thirdly: 

With regard to the count (of time) (al-hisaab, mentioned in
Yoonus 10:5) that Allaah has mentioned in His holy Book, it is the precise
count (of time) that does not differ as the years pass, which is the lunar
count (of time). 

With regard to the verse (interpretation of the meaning): 

“And they stayed in their Cave three hundred years, adding
nine”

[al-Kahf 18:25],  

some of the scholars have stated that the number 300 refers
to solar years, and that the number 309 refers to lunar years. This view was
refuted by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen, who explained in his
refutation that the count (of time) with Allaah is lunar, not solar. 

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have
mercy on him) said: 

“adding nine” means that they added nine years to
three hundred, so they stayed there for three hundred and nine years. It may
be said: Why doesn’t it just say three hundred and nine? 

The answer is that this is what is meant, but the Qur’aan is
the most eloquent of books, and in order for the ends of the verses to match
(in Arabic) it says: “And they stayed in their Cave three hundred (solar)
years, adding nine (for lunar years)”. It is not as some people think,
that the three hundred refers to solar years and the nine was added for
lunar years, because we cannot testify that Allaah meant that. Who can
testify that this is what Allaah meant? Even if it so happens that three
hundred solar years are equal to three hundred and nine lunar years, we
cannot testify about Allaah in this way, because the count (of time)  with
Allaah is one. 

What are the signs by which the count (of time) is reckoned
with Allaah? 

The answer is that they are the new moons; hence we say that
the view that “three hundred years” refers to solar years and “adding nine”
refers to lunar years, is a weak view. 

Firstly: because we cannot testify that Allaah meant this. 

Secondly: because the number of months and years with Allaah
is based on the new moons. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the
moon to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for it; that ye
might know the number of years and the count (of time)”

[Yoonus 10:5] 

“They ask you (O Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about the new
moons. Say: These are signs to mark fixed periods of time for mankind and
for the pilgrimage”

[al-Baqarah 2:189]

Tafseer Soorat al-Kahf. 

Reckoning time by the moon and the new moons was well known
to the Prophets and their peoples, and reckoning time by the sun was only
known to the ignorant followers of false religions, but unfortunately many
Muslims follow them nowadays. 

Dr Khaalid al-Sabt says, in his refutation of those who say
that the verse “The building which they built”
[al-Tawbah 9:11] in al-Tawbah refers to the
explosions in America: 

5 (the fifth point) – These connections are based on the
solar calendar, which is a calendar that was inherited from idolatrous
nations, and which was of no significance to the Prophets (blessing and
peace be upon them). Rather the calendar that counts in sharee’ah is the
calendar that is based on the moon and new moons, which is more precise. 
This indicates that what was known to the Prophets was the lunar calendar.
In the hadeeth of Waathilah ibn al-Asqa’ (may Allaah be pleased with him) it
says that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“The Suhuf of Ibraaheem were revealed to him on the first night of Ramadaan,
and the Tawrat (Torah) was revealed on the sixth of Ramadaan, and the Injeel
(Gospel) on the thirteenth of Ramadaan, and the Furqaan (Qur’aan) was
revealed on the twenty-fourth of Ramadaan.” Narrated by Ahmad (4/107) and by
al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan (9/188). Its isnaad is hasan. It was also
mentioned by al-Albaani in al-Saheehah (1575). This could not be
known unless the calendar was based on the moon and new moons. This is also
indicated by the hadeeth which was narrated in al-Saheehayn from Ibn
‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: When the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to Madeenah, he found the
Jews fasting on the day of ‘Ashoora’. He said: “What is this?” They said:
This is a good day, this is the day on which Allaah saved the Children of
Israel from their enemies. So Moosa fasted on that day … Narrated by
al-Bukhaari (2004) and Muslim (1130). And al-Haafiz (may Allaah have mercy
on him) stated clearly that they did not base their count (of time) on the
sun. See: al-Fath (4/291 and 7/323). 

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, commenting
on the verses “It is He Who made the sun a shining
thing and the moon as a light and measured out for it stages” [Yoonus 10:5]
and “And the moon, We
have measured for it mansions (to traverse) till it returns like the old
dried curved date stalk” [Yaa Seen 36:38, 39]:
Hence the lunar calendar was better known among the nations and was less
likely to involve errors, and it is more precise than the solar calendar,
and all people can follow it easily. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of
the meaning): “and measured out for it stages that
you might know the number of years and the reckoning” [Yoonus 10:5].
But He did not say that about the sun, hence the months of Hajj, fasting,
Eid and other Islamic occasions are based on the lunar calendar. This is by
the wisdom of Allaah and His mercy, and so as to protect His religion, as
the people may all be able to figure out this count of time easily and avoid
mistakes, and so that no differences or confusion would happen to the
religion as happened to the people of the Book.  

End quote from Miftaah Daar al-Sa’aadah, p. 538, 539. 

It may be understood from the last comment of Ibn al-Qayyim
(may Allaah have mercy on him) that the people of the Book used to follow a
solar calendar, and this was stated clearly by al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may
Allaah have mercy on him) in his response after he attributed this view to
Ibn al-Qayyim. See al-Fath (7/323). 

But in fact it played no role in their religion, rather it
was introduced after that by the ignorant among them. End quote. 

Concerning the things we learn from the verse “They ask
you (O Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about the
new moons…”, Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
 

… and we learn that the fixed periods of time for all nations
are the fixed periods of time that were established by Allaah for them –
which are the new moons – so these are global fixed periods of time, because
Allaah says “fixed periods of time for mankind”. As for what has
happened recently, namely the adoption of the European calendar, there it
has no tangible basis and it makes no sense and is not prescribed in
sharee’ah. Hence you find that one month has twenty-eight days and some have
thirty days and some have thirty one, without any known reason for this
discrepancy. Moreover these months have no physical sign that the people can
refer to in order to work out time, unlike the lunar months which have a
physical sign that is known to everyone. End quote. 

Tafseer al-Baqarah (2/371).  

Al-Qurtubi said, commenting on the verse “Verily, the
number of months with Allaah is twelve months (in a year), so was it
ordained by Allaah on the Day when He created the heavens and the earth”
[al-Tawbah 9:36]: This verse indicates that rulings on acts of worship
and other matters must be connected to the months and years that were known
to the Arabs, and not those that were used by the Persians, Byzantines or
Copts, and they should not be more than twelve months, because they vary in
the number of days; some of them being thirty days and some of them being
more or less. But the months of the Arabs never exceed thirty days, although
some of them may be less; the ones that are less are not any specific
months, rather that varies according to variations in the moon’s movement
through the sky. End quote.  Tafseer al-Qurtubi (8/133). 

And Allaah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
Firstly: 

With regard to the first hadith, which is the hadith of
Thawbaan, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon him), it is a saheeh hadith. 

It was narrated by an-Nasaa’i in his Sunan (3175) and
classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh an-Nasaa’i. It was also
narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad (37/81), and classed as hasan by the
commentators. 

With regard to the second hadith, which is the hadith of Abu
Hurayrah, it is a da‘eef (weak) hadith. 

It was narrated by an-Nasaa’i (3173) and classed as da‘eef by
al-Albaani in Da‘eef an-Nasaa’i. it was also narrated by Ahmad in his
Musnad (12/28 – ar-Risaalah edition), and classed as da‘eef by the
commentators. There are other isnaads for the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, all of
which are da‘eef, and there are other hadiths on this topic that are not
free of problems. What has been proven and established to be saheeh is the
hadith of Thawbaan. 

Secondly: 

India was indeed invaded and taken over by the Muslims, and
they destroyed its idols, on several occasions. That began at the time of
al-Waleed ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, under the leadership of al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad
ath-Thaqafi. It was also invaded and taken over at the time of the
‘Abbasids, under the leadership of the commander Mahmoud ibn
Sabuktigin
(may Allah have mercy on him). He took it upon himself to invade India once
every year. Shaykh Siddeeq Hasan Khan (d. 1307 AH – may Allah have mercy on
him) said:

With regard to India, it was conquered during the reign of
al-Waleed ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, at the hands of Muhammad ibn Qaasim ath-Thaqafi
in 92 AH, and his banners reached from the borders of Sindh to Kannauj in 95
AH. After he returned, the rulers of India returned to their places and the
rulers among the Marwanid and ‘Abbasid caliphs remained in Sindh. … The
author of al-Mughni said: … At the end of the fourth century  AH,
Sultan Mahmoud al-Ghaznawi set out to invade India, and he came several
times; he was victorious and he captured war booty, and he wrested Sindh
from the governors of the ‘Abbasid caliph al-Qaadir Billah ibn al-Muqtadir.
But Sultan Mahmoud did not stay in India. His sons controlled a region
stretching from Ghazneen to Lahore until the Sultan Mu‘izz ad-Deen Saam al-Ghuri
took over Ghazneen, and came to Lahore and captured Khusrau Malik, who was
the last ruler the Ghaznawi dynasty. He seized control of India and made
Delhi the seat of government in 589 AH. From that date until the end of the
twelfth century, the kingdoms of India were in the hands of Muslim Sultans.

Abjad al-‘Uloom
(1/344-345). 

Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said concerning the
events of the year 94 AH: In that year, al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad ath-Thaqafi
conquered India and captured booty that cannot be enumerated or described.
Al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (9/113) 

Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said concerning the
events of 96 AH: In that year, Yameen ad-Dawlah – Mahmoud ibn
Sabuktigin – invaded India, conquering
major cities and seizing a large amount of booty. He took captive one of
their kings – namely the king of Karachi – who fled when he conquered it,
and he broke their idols.

Al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah
(11/358). 

He also (may Allah have mercy on him) said concerning the
events of 149 AH: in that year, Mahmoud ibn Sabuktigin invaded India, and
met the king of India in battle. There was a great deal of fighting among
the people, then the fighting ended with a great defeat for India, and the
Muslims killed many of them and captured a great deal of booty from them,
including gemstones, gold and silver. They also took from them two hundred
elephants and they tried to pursue those who fled the battlefield, and
destroyed many temples. Al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (12/8) 

What happened of the invasion of India is one of the signs of
Prophethood, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
foretold its happening. This was knowledge of the unseen that Allah revealed
to him. Ustadh Muhammad ‘Abd al-Wahhaab Buhayri (may Allah have mercy on
him) said: It should be noted: the hadith mentioned – i.e., the hadith of
Thawbaan – is one of the signs of Prophethood. The Muslims invaded India and
Sindh at the time of the Umayyads – then he mentioned some incidents that
occurred during the invasion and conquest of India. Buloogh al-Amaani min
Asraar al-Fath ar-Rabbaani (22/411) 

There is nothing to indicate that there will be another
invasion of India that will occur at the end of time, close to the onset of
the Hour or during the time of ‘Eesaa (peace be upon him), as was suggested
by some scholars. Rather what appears to be the case is that what is
referred to in the hadith is what actually happened. The hadith of Thawbaan
does not mention the connection between the two groups; rather each group
has its own time, although both of them may share the same virtue. 

And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
There is no report in the Holy Qur’aan or the Sunnah of the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) to prove or disprove
that Yoosuf (peace be upon him) married the wife of al-‘Azeez, whose name
was said by some to be Ra‘eel and by others to be Zulaykha; al-Haafiz Ibn
Katheer suggested that Zulaykha was her title. 

There is a report about Yoosuf (peace be upon him) marrying
Ra‘eel that was narrated from a well-known imam of seerah and history,
Muhammad ibn Ishaaq (may Allah have mercy on him) who said: 

With regard to Yoosuf saying to the King,
“Set me over the store‑houses of the land; I will indeed
guard them with full knowledge” [Yoosuf 12:55],
the king said: I will do that. So he appointed him instead of Itfeer and
dismissed Itfeer from his post. Allah says: “Thus did We give full
authority to Yoosuf (Joseph) in the land, to take possession therein, when
or where he likes…” [Yoosuf 12:56]. 

He said: It was mentioned to me – and Allah knows best – that
Itfeer died during those nights and that the King al-Rayyaan ibn al-Waleed
gave Itfeer’s wife, Ra‘eel, to Yoosuf in marriage, and when she entered upon
him he said: Is this not better than what you wanted? And they claimed that
she said: O Siddeeq, do not blame me, for I was a woman who was, as you see,
beautiful and enjoying a life of luxury, and my husband could not have
intimate relations with women, and you are as Allah made you, very handsome,
and I could not help myself. 

They claimed that he found her a virgin and he had
intercourse with her and she bore him two sons: Afra’eem ibn Yoosuf and
Maysha ibn Yoosuf. The son of Afra’eem was Noon, the father of Yoosha‘ ibn
Noon, and Rahmah the wife of Ayyoob (peace be upon him). End quote. 

Narrated by Ibn Abi Haatim in al-Tafseer, 7/2161;
al-Tabari in Jaami‘ al-Bayaan, 16/151. 

A similar report was narrated from Zayd ibn Aslam, the great
Taabi‘i, and from Wahb ibn Munabbih, from the Israa’eeliyyaat
(reports from Jewish sources). 

That was also narrated by al-Suyooti in al-Durr
al-Manthoor, 4/553 

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

Chapter 27: One who gives up his beloved to avoid a haraam
relationship and then was enabled to be with his beloved in a halaal way, or
Allah compensated him with some one better, as Yoosuf al-Siddeeq avoided the
wife of al-‘Azeez for the sake of Allah, and chose prison over immoral
action, and Allah compensated him by giving him full authority in the land
to take possession therein when or where he wanted, and the woman came to
him humbly asking for a halaal relationship, so he married her and when he
entered upon her he said: This is better than what you wanted. 

Think about how Allah, may He be glorified and exalted,
rewarded him for the hardship of prison and gave him full authority in the
land to take possession therein when or where he wanted, and subdued for him
the wife of al-‘Azeez, and she and the other women attested to his
innocence. This is what Allah ordained for His slaves in the past and at
present until the Day of Resurrection. 

End quote from Rawdat al-Muhibbeen, p. 445 

This does not mean that this story is definitively true;
rather it seems that it was taken from the People of the Book, and we have
been commanded not to believe them and not to disbelieve them either. The
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Do not believe the
People of the Book and do not disbelieve them. Say: We believe in that which
has been revealed to us and revealed to you, our God and your God is One,
and we submit to Him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4485; classed as saheeh by
al-Albaani in Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth al-Saheehah, 422 

And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
Firstly: 

The noble Sahaabi Mu‘aawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him)
was one of the scribes who wrote down the Revelation; he was well known for
forbearance, knowledge and virtue, and his achievements and good
characteristics were many. And it is not permissible to cast aspersions upon
him at all. He was one of the leaders of the Muslims who ruled on the basis
of justice as much as he could. With regard to what happened during his time
of turmoil and internal conflict, we should refrain from discussing it and
should not talk about it on the basis of falsehood. We testify that all the
Companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) were good and virtuous; whoever among them tried to work things out and
got it right will have a twofold reward, and whoever among them tried to
work things out and got it wrong will have one reward. 

Please see the answer to question no.
140984 

Secondly: 

When ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) died, and his son
al-Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) offered the funeral prayer for him,
the people swore allegiance to him as caliph, and they urged him to mobilise
to fight the people of Syria. He had no intention of fighting anyone, but
they prevailed upon him and gathered a huge number of men, the like of which
had never been seen before. He marched with the army, heading towards Syria,
then turmoil, differences of opinion and division arose in the army. When
al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali realised that the army was not all united behind him, he
resented them and at that point he wrote to Mu‘aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan (may
Allah be pleased with him), offering to come to terms for a peace deal
between them. Mu‘aawiyah sent ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Aamir and ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn
Samurah to him and a peace deal was concluded. Al-Hasan swore allegiance to
Mu‘aawiyah as caliph, and yielded the caliphate to him. That occurred in 40
AH, which was called the year of unity (‘aam al-jamaa‘ah) because the
people united under Mu‘aawiyah in that year.

The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) foretold this action and praised al-Hasan for it, namely giving up
leadership and no longer seeking it, thus sparing the Muslims from bloodshed
and seeking that which is with Allah. So al-Hasan gave up the caliphate and
passed the reins to Mu‘aawiyah in order to unite the Muslims behind one
ruler. 

Al-Bukhaari (2704) narrated that Abu Bakrah said: I saw the
Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) on the minbar,
with al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali beside him, and he turned to the people sometimes and
turned to al-Hasan sometimes, and said: “This son of mine will be a leader,
and perhaps Allah will bring about reconciliation through him between two
great groups of Muslims.” 

When Mu‘aawiyah seized power and entered Kufah, he gave a
speech there and all the people throughout the regions were united behind
him. al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali, along with his brother al-Husayn, the rest of their
siblings and their cousin ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far, travelled from Iraq to al-Madinah
al-Munawwarah – blessings and peace be upon the best of its inhabitants. 

When Mu‘aawiyah was dying, he summoned Yazeed and gave his
final instructions to him, and the people swore allegiance to Yazeed. Among
them were many of the Sahaabah, including Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbaas (may
Allah be pleased with them). al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali and ‘Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr
(may Allah be pleased with them) refused to swear allegiance to him. 

See: al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (8/16-21 and 8/175). 

Ibn Battaal (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

Al-Hasan handed over the reins of power to Mu‘aawiyah,
reconciled with him and swore allegiance to him, pledging to listen and obey
so long as he ruled according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His
Prophet. Then they entered Kufah and Mu‘aawiyah received the oath of
allegiance from the people of Iraq. That was the year of unity, when the
people united and came to an agreement, and war ceased. All the Sahaabah who
had stayed away from civil war swore allegiance to Mu‘aawiyah. Sa‘d ibn Abi
Waqqaas, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar and Muhammad ibn Muslimah swore allegiance to
him, and the people were very happy about that. Mu‘aawiyah bestowed upon al-Hasan
ibn ‘Ali three hundred thousand dinars, a thousand garments, thirty slaves
and one hundred camels, and al-Hasan ibn Ali left for Madinah. Mu‘aawiyah
appointed al-Mugheerah ibn Shu‘bah as governor of Kufah, and he appointed
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Aamir as governor of Basrah, and he left for Damascus, which
he took as the capital of his kingdom. 

End quote from Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhaari (8/97) 

Thirdly: 

The scholars stated that al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali stipulated that
Mu‘aawiyah should not appoint anyone as his successor; rather the matter was
to be decided by consultation among the Muslims. 

Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

When they reconciled, al-Hasan wrote it in a document to
Mu‘aawiyah, as follows: 

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
This is what has been agreed upon by al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased
with him) and Mu‘aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan. He has made a peace deal with him
on the basis that al-Hasan will hand to him the reins of power to rule the
Muslims, provided that he rule according to the Book of Allah, may He be
exalted, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah
be upon him) and the way of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. Mu‘aawiyah ibn Abi
Sufyaan has no right to appoint anyone to succeed him; rather the matter is
to be decided by the Muslims on the basis of consultation and shoora. [This
agreement is also] provided that the people should be safe wherever they may
be on Allah’s earth, whether they be in Syria, Iraq, the Hijaz or Yemen; and
provided that the companions and party of ‘Ali should be safe, and their
lives, property, womenfolk and children should be safe wherever they may be.
Mu‘aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan gives his solemn promise and oath before Allah to
that effect, and that he intends no ill towards al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali or towards
his brother al-Husayn, or any of the members of the family of the Messenger
of Allah, either secretly or openly, and he will never disturb any of them,
no matter where they may be. 

This was witnessed by So-and-so, and by So-and-so the son of
So-and-so, and sufficient is Allah as witness. 

When the peace deal was done, Mu‘aawiyah requested al-Hasan
to speak before a gathering of people and tell them that he had sworn
allegiance to Mu‘aawiyah and handed over the reins of power to him, and he
agreed to do that. 

End quote from as-Sawaa’iq al-Muhriqah ‘ala Ahl ar-Rafd
wa’d-Dalaal wa’z-Zandaqah (2/399) 

See also the book al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali (may Allah be
pleased with him) by Dr as-Sallaabi (p. 253) [This book is available in
English under the title Al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Tâlib: His Life and
Times]. 

Fourthly: 

When Mu‘aawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) saw the
extent of the dissent, division and turmoil among the people, and the extent
to which they were prone to internal conflict, he feared that their division
might become worse after he died, and that dissent and turmoil would
increase. So he decided that the best solution was to take allegiance for
his son after him. He consulted the senior Sahaabah, the leaders of the
people and the governors of the regions, and they all give their consent to
that. Delegations came agreeing to swear allegiance to Yazeed, and many of
the Sahaabah also swore allegiance to him, to the extent that al-Haafiz ‘Abd
al-Ghani al-Maqdisi said: His caliphate was valid; sixty of the companions
of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
including Ibn ‘Umar, swore allegiance to him. It is proven in Saheeh al-Bukhaari
(7111) that Ibn ‘Umar swore allegiance to Yazeed. It was narrated that Naafi‘
said: When the people of Madinah announced that they no longer accepted
Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah as caliph, Ibn ‘Umar gathered his close friends and
children and said: I heard the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) say: “A banner will be set up for every betrayer on the Day of
Resurrection.” We swore allegiance to this man in accordance with the
conditions enjoined by Allah and His Messenger, and I do not know of any
betrayal greater than that of one who swears allegiance to a man according
to the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Messenger, then begins to fight
him. If I ever learn that any of you withdrew his allegiance or gave
allegiance to someone else, then that will mark the end of the relationship
between me and him. 

Perhaps the reason why Mu‘aawiyah told the people to swear
allegiance to Yazeed was that he thought that this would prevent division
and would unite the people at that critical stage through which the ummah
was going, as he was aware that many people were claiming the right to be
the caliph. So he (may Allah be pleased with him) thought that appointing
Yazeed as caliph was in the best interests of the ummah and was a precaution
that would prevent turmoil, if the decision-makers agreed on him. 

See: al-Mufassal fi’r-Radd ‘ala Shubahaat A‘da’ al-Islam
(13/228) 

Ibn Khaldoon (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

What prompted Mu‘aawiyah to give precedence to his son Yazeed
and appoint him as caliph, rather than anyone else, was the belief that this
would serve the interests of the Muslims by uniting them and bringing them
together behind one man, with the approval of the decision-makers at that
time, who were from Banu Umayyah, because at that time Banu Umayyah would
not accept anyone (as caliph) except one of their own number. They were the
strongest clan of Quraysh and the ones who had the greatest influence. So
Mu‘aawiyah preferred Yazeed, over others who may have been thought more
qualified than him, for that reason, and he overlooked others who were more
virtuous in favour of one who was less virtuous, because he was keen to keep
the Muslims united behind one leader, which is a matter of great importance
in Islamic teachings. It is not possible to think of any other motive for
Mu‘aawiyah than that, because his good character and the fact that he was a
Sahaabi would rule out any other motive. 

The fact that some of the senior Sahaabah were present and
kept quiet indicates that there was nothing suspicious in what Mu‘aawiyah
did, because such people would not be deterred from speaking out against
something wrong, and Mu‘aawiyah was not one of those who would be too
arrogant to accept the word of truth. All of them were too noble to do that,
and their good character would rule it out. 

End quote from Muqaddimat Ibn Khaldoon (p. 109) 

He also said: 

Mu‘aawiyah issued instructions for Yazeed to become caliph
for fear of the Muslims becoming divided. 

End quote from Muqaddimat Ibn Khaldoon (p. 106) 

Muhibb ad-Deen al-Khateeb (may Allah have mercy on him) said
in his commentary on al-‘Awaasim min al-Qawaasim (p. 229): 

Mu‘aawiyah did not choose the best option because he was
afraid of turmoil and bloodshed if he left the matter to shoora (mutual
consultation). He thought that strength, obedience, order and stability
would be on the side of those who supported his son (i.e., they had more
power and would be more able to maintain order). End quote. 

In conclusion, Mu‘aawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) did
what he thought best served the interests of the ummah at a time of
division, when there was turmoil in its ranks, and he thought that keeping
the Muslims united and warding off turmoil was more important than
fulfilling the condition stipulated by al-Hasan (may Allah be pleased with
him), when he gave up his claim to the caliphate and swore allegiance to
him. Sharee‘ah seeks to attain and perfect that which serves the people’s
best interests and to ward off and reduce that which causes harm. 

Moreover, the most that can be said concerning this matter is
that Mu‘aawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), who was the caliph of the
Muslims, tried to work out what was the best option concerning this issue.
He would have two rewards if he got it right, and he would have one reward
if he got it wrong, in sha Allah. What happened in this case or others of
imperfection or shortcomings on his part may well be overlooked and forgiven
by the Most Gracious, Most Merciful, and the Companions of the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) are more deserving of being
excused and pardoned by Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. 

And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
Dhuth-Thudayyah’s full name was Hurqoos ibn Zuhayr al-Bajali. He was one
of the Khawaarij (Khaarijites) who rebelled against Ameer al-Mu’mineen
‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), spread mischief in the land and shed
blood that it was forbidden to shed. ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)
fought them at the battle of an-Nahrawand and killed them; none of them
escaped except a few. 
The
Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) urged the
believers to fight them. The first of them was Dhu’l-Khuwaysirah at-Tameemi,
who told the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him):
Be fair! And Dhu’th-Thudayyah was the last of them.
 He was a
very dark black man, who had a foul odour and a deformed arm; there was only
an upper arm, with no forearm, and at the end of his upper arm there was
something like a nipple on which there were some white hairs. 
They (the
Khawaarij) are the ones concerning whom the Messenger of Allah (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) said:
“Among the progeny of this man will be people who will recite
the Qur’an, but it will not go any further than their throats. They will
pass through Islam as an arrow passes through the prey. They will kill the
people of Islam and leave the idol-worshippers alone. If I live to see them,
then I will certainly kill them like ‘Aad (i.e., as ‘Aad were destroyed).”. 

Dhu’th-Thudayyah was the sign of these people; he was the sign of fitnah
(turmoil) and a symbol of mischief and evil. 
When ‘Ali
(may Allah be pleased with him) and the believers who were with him fought
them, he asked them to look for this man among the slain, and they found
him. ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and those who were with him
rejoiced greatly at that, and ‘Ali prostrated to Allah in gratitude. 
al-Bukhaari
(3610) and Muslim (1064) narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allah be
pleased with him) said: Whilst we were with the Messenger of Allah
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and he was sharing out some
wealth, Dhu’l-Khuwaysirah, a man from Banu Tameem, came to him and said: O
Messenger of Allah, be fair! The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon him) said: “Woe to you! Who will be fair if I am not fair? You
will be doomed and lost if I am not fair.” ‘Umar said: O Messenger of Allah,
give me permission to strike his neck. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Let him be, for he has companions, in
comparison to whose prayer one of you would regard his prayer as
insignificant, and he would regard his fasting as insignificant in
comparison to their fasting. They recite the Qur’an but it does not go any
further than their collarbones. They will pass out of the faith as an arrow
passes out of the prey. Their sign will be a black man, one of whose upper
arms will be like a woman’s breast, or like a piece of quivering flesh. They
will emerge when there is division among the people.” 
Abu Sa’eed
said: I bear witness that I heard this hadeeth from the Messenger of Allah
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and I bear witness that ‘Ali ibn
Abi Taalib fought them when I was with him. He ordered that that man be
sought, and he was found and brought; I looked at him and saw that he was
just as the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
had described him. 
According to
another report narrated by them (al-Bukhaari and Muslim):
“Among the progeny of this man will be
people who will recite the Qur’an, but it will not go any further than their
throats. They will pass through Islam as an arrow passes
through the prey. They will kill the people of Islam and
leave the idol-worshippers alone. If I live to see them, then I will
certainly kill them like ‘Aad (i.e., as ‘Aad were destroyed).” 
It was
narrated that Naafi‘ ibn Maslamah al-Akhnasi said: Dhu’th-Thudayyah was a
man
from (the clan of) ‘Arnah from (the tribe of) Bajeelah. He was a very dark
black man who had a foul odour. He was well-known among the troops, and
before that he used to accompany us. 
Al-Bidaayah
wa’n-Nihaayah, 7/289 
Ibn al-Atheer
(may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

Dhu’th-Thudayyah – thudayyah
is the diminutive of thadiy (breast nipple) And may be taken as meaning a
piece of a breast. 
An-Nihaayah,
1/592 
Muslim
(1066) narrated from ‘Ubaydah as-Salmaani, from ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased
with him) that he mentioned the Khawaarij and said: and said: Among them is
a man with a defective arm, or a small arm. I would tell you what Allah
promised on the lips of Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
to those who kill them. I said: Did you hear that from Muhammad (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him)? He said: Yes, by the Lord of the Ka‘bah;
yes, by the Lord of the Ka‘bah; yes, by the Lord of the Ka‘bah.
Muslim
(1066) and Abu Dawood (4768) narrated that Salamah ibn Kuhayl said: Zayd ibn
Wahb al-Juhani told me that he was 
He was in
the army that was with ‘Ali and went out to fight the Khawaarij. ‘Ali said:
O people, I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be
upon him) say: “There will appear some people among my ummah who will recite
the Qur’an and your recitation will not compare to theirs, and your prayer
will not compare to theirs, and your fasting will not compare to theirs.
They will recite the Qur’an and you will think that it is to their credit
but in fact it will count against them. Their prayer will not go any deeper
than their collar bones and they will pass out of Islam as an arrow passes
out of the prey. If the army that attacks them knew what has been decreed
for them on the lips of their Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him), they would have relied on their deeds. The sign of that is that among
them there is a man who has an upper arm but no forearm, and on his upper
arm there is something like a nipple with white hairs on it. Would you go to
Mu’aawiyah and the people of Syria, and leave these people in charge of your
families and wealth in your absence?  By Allah, I hope that they are the
same people, for they have shed blood unlawfully and attacked the people’s
cattle. March in the name of Allah. 
Salamah ibn
Kuhayl said: Zayd ibn Wahb described to me the stops (made by the army)
until he said: then we crossed a bridge, and when we met (the Khawaarij),
who were being led that day by ‘Abd-Allah ibn Wahb al-Raasibi, he (‘Abd-Allah)
said to (his men): Throw your spears and draw your swords from their
sheaths, for I am afraid that they may urge you to negotiate as they did on
the day of Haroora’. So they threw their spears and unsheathed their swords,
and (the companions of ‘Ali) fought back with their spears, and they (the
Khawaarij) were killed and piled up one on top of another, but only two of
the people (i.e., the companions of ‘Ali) were killed that day. ‘Ali said:
Search among them for the one with the deformed hand. But they did not find
him. Then ‘Ali himself went to some people who had been killed and were
lying on top of one another. They took them out and found him among those
who were closest to the ground (at the bottom of the pile). He said takbeer
and said: Allah spoke the truth and His Messenger conveyed it. ‘Ubaydah al-Salmaani
stood up and said: O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, by Allah besides Whom there is no
other god, did you hear this from the Messenger of Allah (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him)? He said: Yes, by Allah besides Whom there is no
other god – until he asked him to swear three times and he did so. 
Then Abu
Dawood narrated that Abu’l-Wadee’ said: It is as if I can see him, an
Abyssinian wearing a shirt, one of his hands like a woman’s nipple with
hairs on it like the hairs on the tail of a jerboa. 
Classed as
saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood. 
Ahmad (850)
narrated that Taariq ibn Ziyaad said: We went out with ‘Ali to fight the
Khawaarij, and he killed them then he said: Look, for the Prophet of Allah
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said that there would emerge
people who would speak of the truth but it would not go past their throats;
they will pass out of the truth as the arrow passes out of the prey. The
sign is that one of them will be a black man with a deformed arm, with some
black hairs on his arm. If it is him, then you have killed the worst of
people, and if it is not him, then you have killed the best of people. And
we wept, then he said: Look. So we looked and we found the deformed man, and
we fell down in prostration and ‘Ali fell down in prostration with us. 
This hadeeth
has several isnaads; see al-Irwa’, 2/231 
Al-Haafiz
(may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
It was
narrated that Abu Maryam said: Indeed that deformed man was with us in the
mosque, and he was a poor man. I gave him a burnous of mine to wear and I
saw him attending meals with ‘Ali. He had on his arm something like the
breast of a woman, with a nipple on its end like the nipple of a breast,
with something on it like the whiskers of a cat. Both reports were narrated
by Abu Dawood. 
At-Tabari
narrated it at length via Abu Maryam. In it, it says: Before that, ‘Ali used
to tell us that some people would appear and the sign would be a man with a
deformed arm. I heard that from him many times until I saw him – meaning the
deformed man – not wanting to eat with ‘Ali because he often heard that from
him. And in it, it says: Then he instructed his companions to look for the
deformed man, so they looked for him but they could not find him until a man
came and told him: We have found him beneath two slain men in a ditch. 
According to
the report of Aflah: ‘Ali said: Which of you recognises this man? One of the
people said: We recognise him; this is Hurqoos. 
According to
the report of ‘Aasim ibn Shamkh, Abu Sa‘eed said: Ten of the Companions of
the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) told me that ‘Ali
said: Look for the sign that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon him) spoke of, for I have never told lies and I will never
tell lies. He (that man) was brought, and ‘Ali praised and thanked Allah
when he recognised the sign. In the report of Abu Bakr, the freed slave of
the Ansaar, from ‘Ali, there were seven nipples around it. In that report it
states that the people were upset after the killing of the people of the
river, but ‘Ali said: I do not think but he was one of them. They found him
on the bank of the river, beneath the slain. ‘Ali said: Allah and His
Messenger spoke the truth. The people rejoiced when they saw his body, and
what they had been feeling disappeared. 
End quote
from Fath al-Baari, 12/298 
For more
information on the sect of the Khawaarij (Kharijites), please see the answer
to question no. 182237. 
And Allah
knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
Firstly: 

What is required is to think positively of those whom Allah chose to
accompany His Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): for they
are the best companions of the best Prophet, and it is not permissible to
say anything of them but the highest words of praise; if anyone criticises
them, then this gives rise to suspicion about the sincerity of his religious
commitment. 

Abu Zar‘ah ar-Raazi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If you see a man
criticising any of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him), then know that he is a heretic. That is because
in our view, the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) is true, and the Qur’an is true. No one transmitted this Qur’an and the
Sunnah to us except the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him). They only seek to undermine our witnesses (to
the authenticity of the texts) in order to declare the Qur’an and Sunnah
false, but these people are more deserving of criticism, for they are
heretics.

End quote from al-Kifaayah fi ‘Ilm ar-Riwaayah by al-Khateeb
al-Baghdadi (p. 49). 

See also the answer to question no.
187689 

Secondly: 

The Companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
fought one another ,and each party had a reason to fight, which was based on
their own understanding of the texts and on their own ijtihaad, whereby each
party believed it was in the right. Hence when it became clear to some of
them that they were mistaken, they regretted going out and fighting, and
regret is repentance, and repentance erases what comes before it, especially
in the case of the noblest of mankind, and the highest in status and most
respected of them after the Prophets and Messengers of Allah. 

Whoever examines this matter properly will realise that this fighting was
caused by those who sought to spread discord by spreading rumours and false
ideas.  

Many of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) went out during this
fighting seeking to reconcile between the people. Fighting was the most
hateful thing to them, but the decree of Allah inevitably came to pass. 

Thirdly: 

Al-Bukhaari (447) narrated from Abu Sa ‘eed al-Khudri, in the report about
the building of the mosque (in Madinah), that he said: We would carry one
brick at a time, but  ‘Ammaar would carry two bricks at a time. The Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) saw him and brushed the dust from
him, saying: “Woe to ‘Ammaar; he will be killed by the transgressing group;
he will be calling them to Paradise and they will be calling him to Hell”.
‘Ammaar said: I seek refuge with Allah from tribulation. 

What is meant by calling to Paradise in this hadith is calling to the means
of attaining it, which is obedience to the caliph (Ameer al-Mu’mineen), and
what is meant by calling to Hell is calling to that which leads to it, which
is opposing the caliph and rebelling against him. 

But whoever did that on the basis of ijtihaad and valid interpretation is
excused. 

Al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

This hadith is one of the signs of Prophethood, as the Prophet (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) foretold to ‘Ammaar that he would be killed
by the transgressing group, and he was killed by the people of ash-Shaam
(greater Syria) in the battle of Siffeen, when ‘Ammaar was with ‘Ali  and
the people of Iraq, as will be explained in detail below. ‘Ali had more
right to rulership than Mu‘aawiyah did. 

The fact that the companions of Mu‘aawiyah are described as transgressors
does not imply that they were disbelievers, as the ignorant followers of the
misguided sects, such as the Shi‘ah  and others, try to claim. That is
because their decision to fight was based on their own ijtihaad and
interpretation of the texts, and not everyone who engages in ijtihaad gets
its right; rather the one who gets it right will have a twofold reward and
the one who gets it wrong will have a single reward. 

Those who added to this hadith after the phrase “you will be killed by the
transgressing group” the words “Allah will not grant them my intercession on
the Day of Resurrection” fabricated this additional material, falsely
attributing it to the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be
upon him), for he did not say it, as it was not narrated via any acceptable
chain of narration. And Allah knows best. 

With regard to the words “he will be calling them to Paradise and they will
be calling him to Hell”, ‘Ammaar and his companions were calling the people
of greater Syria to reconciliation and unity, whereas the people of greater
Syria wanted to seize power from one who was more entitled to it, and they
wanted the people to be divided, with each part of the Muslim lands having
its own ruler, which would lead to disunity and division of the ummah, for
this was the implication of their view and the consequences to which it
would lead, even if they did not intend that. And Allah knows best.

End quote from al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (4/538) 

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
If
it is said: “He was killed at Siffeen, when he was with ‘Ali, and those who
killed him were with Mu‘aawiyah, with whom were some of the Sahaabah, so how
can it be said that they were calling to Hell?”

The answer to that is that they thought that they were calling to Paradise,
and their action was based on ijtihaad, so there is no blame on them for
following what they thought was best. What is meant by calling people to
Paradise is calling them to that which leads to it, which is obeying the
ruler. This was the stance of ‘Ammaar, who was calling them to obey ‘Ali,
who was the ruler whom it was obligatory to obey at that time, whereas they
(Mu‘aawiyah and his followers) were calling people to something other than
that, but they are excused for the wrong conclusion they reached, which was
based on misinterpretation of the texts. 

End quote from Fath al-Baari (1/542). See also: Majmoo‘ Fataawa
Shaykh al-Islam (4/437) 
So
it is essential to differentiate between the one who tries to work it out
but reaches a wrong conclusion, and the one who deliberately causes mischief
and turmoil. 

Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And if two
parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace
between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight
you (all) against the one that which rebels till it complies with the
Command of Allah; then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them
justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allah loves those who are equitable.

The believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islamic
religion). So make reconciliation between your brothers, and fear Allah,
that you may receive mercy”

[al-Hujuraat 49:9-10]. 

This indicates that it is possible for fighting to occur among the
believers, without that meaning that one of the groups is regarded as no
longer being believers because of their fighting the other group. Then
Allah, may He be exalted, says: “The
believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islamic religion). So make
reconciliation between your brothers”
[al-Hujuraat 49:9-10]. 
So
Allah described them as being brothers, despite their fighting, and He
commanded the Muslims to reconcile between them. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, explains that despite their fighting
and transgression against one another, they are still believers and
brothers, and He enjoined reconciling between them. But if one of them
transgresses after that, then the transgressing group is to be fought, but
He did not enjoin fighting from the outset. 

The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stated that the
groups that would pass out of the faith [the Khawaarij or Khaarijis] would
be killed by the closer of the two groups to the truth, and ‘Ali ibn Abi
Taalib and those who were with him were the ones who fought
them.                                     

The words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) indicate
that they were closer to the truth than Mu‘aawiyah and those who were with
him, although both groups were believers.

End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (25/305-306) 
It
was narrated that Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri said: The Messenger of Allah
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “A group will secede from
my ummah at a time of division among the Muslims, and they will be killed by
the group that is closer to the truth.”

Narrated by Muslim (1064). 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

This saheeh hadeeth indicates that both of the groups who engaged in
fighting – ‘Ali and his companions, and Mu‘aawiyah and his companions – were
following the truth, and that ‘Ali and his companions were closer to the
truth than Mu‘aawiyah and his companions.

End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (4/467). See also: Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa
(4/437-438). 

For more information, see the answers to questions no.
147974 and 140984
To
sum up: 

The words “they will be calling him to Hell” do not imply disbelief – Allah
forbid. The one who says that is only highlighting his extreme ignorance.
Rather these hadiths come under the heading of the hadiths of warning, like
those hadiths which say that the one who consumes riba will be in the fire,
and the one who consumes the orphan’s wealth will be in the fire, and other
hadiths that contain warnings; they do not necessarily imply that the person
who does that is a disbeliever, although they do indicate that his deed is
haraam and is in fact a major sin. 
In
fact some of the scholars interpreted the words “they will be calling him to
Hell” as referring to the Khawaarij (Kharijites). 

Ibn Battaal (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

The words “he will be calling them to Paradise and they will be calling him
to Hell” can only be correctly applied to the Khawaarij to whom ‘Ali sent
‘Ammaar to call them to join the jamaa‘ah (main body of the Muslims); they
cannot be correctly applied to any of the Sahaabah, because it is not
possible for any of the Muslims to interpret any of their actions except in
the best manner, because they were the companions of the Messenger of Allah
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), whom Allah praised and testified
to their virtue, and said (interpretation of the meaning):
“You 
are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:110]. 

The commentators said: This refers to the Companions of the Messenger of
Allah. It is narrated in a saheeh report that ‘Ali sent ‘Ammaar to the
Khawaarij to call them to join the jamaa‘ah (main body of the Muslims), with
whom there is protection from error. 

End quote from Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhaari (2/98-99) 

For more information, please see the answer to question no.
171167

And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.Firstly: 
The swearing of allegiance (bay‘ah) by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) [to Abu Bakr] is proven in as-Saheehayn (al-Bukhaari and Muslim), even though it happened a few months late. 
It was narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that her father Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) entered upon ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) after he requested a meeting with him:
‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib recited the Tashahhud, then he said: O Abu Bakr, we acknowledge your virtue and what Allah has given you. We do not envy you for any favour that Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did it without consulting us and we thought that we had the right (to be consulted) because of our kinship with the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). He kept speaking to Abu Bakr until Abu Bakr’s eyes filled with tears. When Abu Bakr spoke, he said: By the One in Whose hand is my soul, kinship with the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is dearer to me than kinship with my own people. As for this dispute that occurred between me and you concerning these properties, I have not deviated from the right path with regard to them, and I have not given up something that I saw the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) do with them, rather I have done it too.
‘Ali said to Abu Bakr: Your appointment for my oath of allegiance is this afternoon. When Abu Bakr had prayed Zuhr, he ascended the minbar and recited the tashahhud, and he spoke of ‘Ali and his delay in swearing allegiance, and the excuse that he had given, then he prayed for his forgiveness. And ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib recited the tashahhud and spoke highly of Abu Bakr, and said that what he had done was not due to jealousy of Abu Bakr, or a refusal to accept the favour that Allah had bestowed upon him, but we thought that we should have had a share in the matter, but it had been decided without consulting us, and we were upset with that. The Muslims were pleased with this and said: You have done the right thing. Then the Muslims became closer to ‘Ali, when he did the right thing.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3998) and Muslim (1759). 
According to another version narrated by Muslim in his Saheeh:
Then ‘Ali stood up and spoke highly of Abu Bakr, and he mentioned his virtue and the fact that he had been one of the first to enter Islam. Then he went to Abu Bakr and swore allegiance to him, and the people came to ‘Ali and said: You have done the right thing, you have done well. And the people became close to ‘Ali when he did the right thing. 
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
With regard to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) delaying swearing of allegiance (to Abu Bakr), ‘Ali mentioned it in this hadith and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) apologised to him.  
Moreover, this delay on ‘Ali’s part did not undermine the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and it did not undermine ‘Ali himself. 
With regard to swearing allegiance, the scholars are unanimously agreed that for an oath of allegiance to be valid, it is not essential that all the people, or even all the decision-makers and prominent people, should swear allegiance. Rather there should be a group of scholars, leaders and prominent figures who do so. 
With regard to it not undermining ‘Ali or his character, that is because it was not essential for everyone to come to the leader, put his hand in his and swear allegiance to him; rather once the decision-makers and prominent figures have sworn allegiance to the leader, the individual is required to accept his leadership, not show dissent and not rebel against him. 
That was the case with ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) during that period, before he swore allegiance, because he did not show dissent towards Abu Bakr or rebel against him. But he was held back from coming to him for the reason mentioned in the hadith. In order for swearing allegiance to be valid and proper, that did not depend on him being present, and neither he nor anyone else was required to attend for that purpose. As it was not required, he did not come. 
Nothing has been narrated from him to suggest that he thought that the oath of allegiance was not valid, and he never expressed any objection (to Abu Bakr being appointed caliph). However he did have some misgivings in his mind, hence his coming was delayed until that matter had been dealt with. 
The reason for his misgivings was that, because of his high status and the fact that he himself was a person of virtue in all aspects, and was closely related to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and so on, he thought that no decision should be made without him being consulted and being present. But the excuse given by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and the rest of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them all) was quite clear: it was because they thought that hastening to swear allegiance was in the greater interest of the Muslims, and they were afraid that if they delayed it, that could lead to problems and disputes that would in turn lead to serious negative consequences. Therefore they delayed burying the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) until they had sworn allegiance, because that was the most important matter, so as to ensure that no dispute would arise concerning his burial, shrouding, ghusl, funeral prayer and so on, without having anyone who could have the final say on such matters. Hence they thought that giving precedence to swearing allegiance was the most important issue at that time. End quote. 
Sharh Muslim (12/77-78) 
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
It was as if they excused him for not coming to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr whilst Faatimah was still alive, because he was preoccupied with caring for her during her illness, and consoling her for the grief she felt at the loss of her father (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Moreover, when she got upset with Abu Bakr’s response when she asked him about inheritance, ‘Ali decided to go along with her in keeping away from him.
End quite. Fath al-Baari (7/494) 
Secondly: 
There is also a report which says that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) swore allegiance to Abu Bakr at the very beginning, and he did not delay doing so, but there is some doubt as to whether the report which mentions that can be confirmed.
The hadith was narrated via Wuhayb ibn Khaalid, from Dawood ibn Abi Hind, from Abu Nadrah, from Abu Sa‘eed. 
The hadith was taken from Wuhayb ibn Khaalid by four of his companions, three of whom narrated a brief version which does not mention ‘Ali and az-Zubayr swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) at the beginning of his caliphate. These three are: 
1.‘Affaan ibn Muslim
as we shall see the report narrated from him, and we will explain that anyone who narrated from ‘Affaan ibn Muslim concerning the issue of the oath of allegiance ( bay‘ah) was mistaken 
2.Abu Dawood at-Tayaalisi in al-Musnad (1/495, no. 603)
And it was narrated via him by Ibn ‘Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq (19/314) 
3.Zuhayr ibn Ishaaq
who is a da‘eef narrator, as it says in Mizaan al-I‘tidaal (2/82). He narrated it via Ibn ‘Adiyy in al-Kaamil (3/223) and said: I do not know that anyone narrated it from Dawood apart from Zuhayr ibn Ishaaq and Wuhayb. Zuhayr has some strong hadiths, and the one who narrated the most from him among the Basris was Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Maqdimi. I hope that there is nothing wrong with him. Ibn Ma‘een only objected to him for an interrupted hadith, as I have mentioned. As for his hadiths that have isnaads, most of them are sound. End quote. 
As for the fourth narrator from Wuhayb ibn Khaalid, he narrated a lengthy version which mentions ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and az-Zubayr swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them all).
This narrator was al-Mugheerah ibn Salamah Abu Hishaam al-Makhzoomi, who was trustworthy, as it says in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (10/261). Imam al-Bayhaqi narrated it from him in as-Sunan al-Kubra (8/143) and said: 
Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Haafiz al-Isfaraa’eeni said:  Abu ‘Ali al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali al-Haafiz told us: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaaq ibn Khuzaymah and Ibraaheem ibn Abi Taalib informed us: Bandaar ibn Bashaar told us: Abu Hishaam al-Makhzoomi told us: Wuhayb told us: and he mentioned a similar report. 
Abu ‘Ali al-Haafiz said: I heard Muhammad ibn Ishaaq ibn Khuzaymah say: 
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaaj came to me and asked me about this hadith, and I wrote it for him in a document, and read it to him, and he said: This hadith is worth a camel. I said: Worth a camel? It is worth a pearl the size of the full moon! End quote. 
The words “and he mentioned a similar report” refer to the report which mentions the oath of allegiance, as was clearly stated in the report of Ibn ‘Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq (30/277), via Imam al-Bayhaqi himself. 
Imam adh-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, after quoting the report which mentions the oath of allegiance:
Although its isnaad is good, it contains some objectionable matters, so think about it. End quote. 
Al-Muhadhdhab (6/3239) 
With regard to the difference of opinion concerning ‘Affaan ibn Muslim, there follow some details concerning this matter: 
The difference of opinion concerning ‘Affaan ibn Muslim was due to two reasons: 
-1-
the first reason was that it was narrated by senior imams who had learned the brief version of the report from ‘Affaan, in which there is no mention of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and az-Zubayr swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them all). The wording of this report is as follows: 
When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, the spokesmen of the Ansaar stood up and some of them said: O Muhaajireen, when the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) sent a man from among you, he would pair him with a man from among us, so we think that two men should take charge of this matter, one man from among you and one man from among us. 
Zayd ibn Thaabit stood up and said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was one of the Muhaajireen, and we were the helpers of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). So the leader should only be from among the Muhaajireen, and we will be his helpers as we were the helpers of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)). 
Abu Bakr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: May Allah reward you with good, O Ansaar, and may He keep your spokesman steadfast. By Allah, if you had said something other than this, we would not have accepted it from you. 
Narrated from him by Ibn Abi Shaybah in al-Musannaf (7/430) 
And by Imam Ahmad in al-Musnad (35/489) – Mu’sasat ar-Risaalah edn. 
And by Ibn Sa ‘d in at-Tabaqaat (3/212) 
And by al-Balaadhuri in Ansaab al-Ashraaf (3/318) 
Ahmad ibn al-Qaasim ibn al-Musaawir al-Jawaahiri, as narrated by at-Tabaraani in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabeer (5/114) 
Ja‘far as-Saayigh, as narrated by Ibn ‘Adiyy in al-Kaamil (3/223). He said: ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Marwaan narrated it to us: Abu’s-Saqr al-Warraaq, who is Yahya ibn Dawood al-Baghdaadi, narrated it to us, and Muhammad ibn Muneer ibn Sagheer told us: Ja‘far as-Saayigh told us: ‘Affaan told us. 
Adh-Dhahabi said concerning this report: 
This is a saheeh isnaad. End quote. 
Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’ (2/433) 
Al-Haythami said concerning this report: 
It was narrated by at-Tabaraani and Ahmad, and its men are the men of as-Saheeh. End quote. 
Majma‘ az-Zawaa’id (5/183) 
-2-
the second reason is that it was narrated by one of the companions of ‘Affaan ibn Muslim, who narrated the longer report which mentions ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and az-Zubayr swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (may Allah be pleased with them all). The wording is as follows: 
When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, the spokesmen of the Ansaar stood up and one of them said: O Muhaajireen, when the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) appointed a man from among you, he would pair him with a man from among us, so we think that two men should take charge of this matter, one of them from among you and the other from among us. 
And the spokesman of the Ansaar began to speak, one after another, along the same lines. 
Then Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allah be pleased with him) stood up and said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was one of the Muhaajireen; the leader should only be from among the Muhaajireen, and we will be his helpers as we were the helpers of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). 
Abu Bakr (may Allah have mercy on him) stood up and said: May Allah reward you with good, O Ansaar, and may He keep your spokesman steadfast. Then he said: If you had done something other than this, we would not have accepted it from you. 
Then Zayd ibn Thaabit took Abu Bakr’s hand and said: This is your leader, so swear allegiance to him; so they began to swear allegiance to him. 
When Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) sat on the minbar, he looked at the faces of the people, and he did not see ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), so he asked about him, and some of the Ansaar got up and brought him. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said: O son of the paternal uncle of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his son-in-law, do you want to cause division among the Muslims? 
‘Ali said: Not at all, O successor of the Messenger of Allah. And he swore allegiance to him. 
Then he did not see az-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwaam (may Allah be pleased with him), so he asked about him and they brought him, and he said: O son of the paternal aunt of the Messenger of Allah and his disciple, do you want to cause division among the Muslims? He said the same as ‘Ali had said: Not at all, O successor of the Messenger of Allah. And they both swore allegiance to him. 
Narrated by Ja‘far ibn Muhammad ibn Shaakir from ‘Affaan in this lengthy version. It was also narrated thus by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak (3/80), and from him and from his shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Muqri’, by al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (8/143). Al-Haakim said: This hadith is saheeh according to the conditions of al-Bukhaari and Muslim, although they did not narrate it. End quote. Adh-Dhahabi did not say anything about it in at-Talkhees. 
Although Ja‘far ibn Muhammad ibn Shaakir was classed as thiqah (trustworthy) by al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi, Ibn Manaadi and Maslamah ibn Qaasim – as it says in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (2/102) – he differed from the senior imams who had memorised the hadith of ‘Affaan ibn Muslim better than he did. The correct version of the hadith from ‘Affaan ibn Muslim is the shorter version, in which there is no mention of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) at that time. 
Sa‘d ibn Iyaas al-Jareeri followed Dawood ibn Abi Hind in narrating from Abu Nadrah, and his version mentions ‘Ali and az-Zubayr swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them all), as it says in Tareekh Dimashq (30/278). But its isnaad includes ‘Ali ibn ‘Aasim ibn Suhayb al-Waasiti, who made a lot of mistakes in narration. ‘Ali ibn al-Madeeni said concerning him: ‘Ali ibn ‘Aasim made a lot of mistakes, but if he made a mistake and someone pointed it out, he would not repeat it. This was the verdict of all the critics concerning him.
End quote from Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (7/348) 
Thirdly: 
Conclusion: the oath of allegiance of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) which is proven is that which is mentioned in the Saheehs of al-Bukhaari and Muslim. As for the earlier oath of allegiance which is mentioned in the hadith of Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri, there is some doubt as to whether it is proven. 
With regard to the claim of the Raafidi liars, that the oath of allegiance given by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) was sworn under compulsion, this is a false and fabricated claim that stems from obvious stubbornness and wilful blindness to the facts narrated with sound isnaads. If someone is like this, you cannot debate with him, because he is ignoring all rational, logical principles that you should both agree on as a reference point. And Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “and turn away from the ignorant” [al-A ‘raaf 7:199]. And Allah knows best. 
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
It is known from mutawaatir reports that no one refrained from swearing allegiance to him – namely Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (may Allah be pleased with him) – except Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubaadah. As for ‘Ali and Banu Haashim, all of them swore allegiance to him, according to scholarly consensus, and none of them died without having sworn allegiance to him. However it was said that ‘Ali delayed his oath of allegiance for six months; it was also said that in fact he swore allegiance to him on the second day. Whatever the case, they swore allegiance to him without being forced to do so. End quote. 
Minhaaj as-Sunnah (8/232) 
And Allah knows best.