The Shi'i view of Ibn Umar

One of the most famous and respected hadith narrators within the Sunni school of thought and hadith corpus is ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmar b. al-Khattāb. To demonstrate just how important of a hadith narrator Ibn ʿUmar is, one needs to look no further than Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī himself, who is attributed to say in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalā (vol 5, pg. 97:):

قَالَ البُخَارِيُّ: ‌أَصَحُّ ‌الأَسَانِيْدِ: ‌مَالِكٌ، ‌عَنْ ‌نَافِعٍ، ‌عَنِ ‌ابْنِ ‌عُمَرَ

Al-Bukhārī said: "The most authentic of chains is: Mālik, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar."

Mālik b. Anas also appears to have aligned himself with that position regarding the trustworthiness of Ibn `Umar, as he is reported to have said in Tahdīb al-Tahdīb (vol 4, pg. 210 - 211) the following:

وقال بشر بن عمرو عن مالك ‌كنت ‌إذا ‌سمعت ‌من ‌نافع ‌يحدث ‌عن ‌بن ‌عمر ‌لا ‌أبالي ‌أن ‌لا ‌أسمعه ‌من ‌غيره وقال عبد الله بن عمر لقد من الله تعالى علينا بنافع

Bishr b. Amr reported from Mālik: "Whenever I heard from Nāfi narrating from Ibn Umar, I did not mind not hearing it from anyone else." And Abdullāh b. Umar said: "Indeed, Allah, the Almighty, has favored us with Nāfi."

This begs the question: Why do the Shia not narrate from Ibn Umar? In this article, we shall explore the reasons why the Shia school of thought has rejected Ibn Umar’s hadiths, namely his opposition to Imam `Ali, his mocking of Fatimah and Imam Husayn, and his drunkenness. Let us examine this topic in complete depth.

It is a well-attested historical fact that Ibn `Umar did not pledge allegiance to Imam `Ali, but later pledged his allegiance to Mu`awiya, Yazid, and even `Abd al-Malik b. Marwān. This is clearly referenced in the famous historical work of al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf (vol 3, pg. 8 - 9):

قال (الشعبيّ)... وأتي علي بعبد اللَّه بْن عمر بْن الخطاب ملببًا والسيف مشهور عَلَيْهِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ: بايع. فَقَالَ: لا أبايع حَتَّى يجتمع النَّاس عليك. قَالَ: فأعطني حميلا ألا تبرح. فَقَالَ: لا أعطيك حميلا. فَقَالَ الأشتر: إن هَذَا رجل قد أمن سوطك وسيفك فأمكني منه. فقال عليّ: [دعه أنا حميله فو الله ما علمته إلا سيئ الخلق صغيرًا وكبيرًا]... قال: فبايع أهل المدينة عَلِيًّا فأتاه ابْن عُمَرَ فَقَالَ لَهُ: يَا علي اتق اللَّه وَلا تنتزين عَلَى أمر الأمة بغير مشورة. ومضى إِلَى مَكَّة

Al-Shu'bi said: "ʿAlī was brought ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, who was wrapped up and had his sword drawn. ʿAlī said to him, 'Pledge allegiance.' He replied, 'I will not pledge allegiance until the people gather around you.' ʿAlī said, 'Then give me a guarantee that you will not leave.' He replied, 'I will not give you a guarantee.' Al-Ashtar said, 'This man has secured your whip and sword, so allow me to deal with him.' ʿAlī said, 'Let him be, I am his guarantor. By Allah, I know him only to be ill-tempered, both in his youth and old age.'... The people of Madīnah then pledged allegiance to ʿAlī, and ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar came to him and said: 'O ʿAlī, fear Allah and do not act unilaterally over the matter of the Ummah without consultation.' Then he went to Makkah." After the election he came to him and told him: 'AIi, fear God and do not jump upon the rule of the Community without a consultation (mushawara).' Then he left for Mecca.” 

As we read, Imām ʿAlī (as) did not have a favourable stance towards Ibn ʿUmar, calling him ill-tempered and wanting him to leave. He was famous for his rejection of the leadership of Imām ʿAlī (as), to which the Sunnīs make a variety of absurd excuses to justify it. The unity of the Ummah, or lack thereof, does not affect the obligation of obedience to the known khalīfah of the time, for ʿAlī (as) was certainly the Imām of his time, chosen by the vast majority of people and companions. Therefore, the minority who branched off from this are at fault for doing so, without any valid excuse.

We read from Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī's Fatḥ al-Bārī (vol. 6, pg. 145) the following:

وَإِنَّمَا لَمْ يَذْكُرِ بن عُمَرَ خِلَافَةَ عَلِيٍّ لِأَنَّهُ لَمْ يُبَايِعْهُ لِوُقُوعِ الِاخْتِلَافِ عَلَيْهِ كَمَا هُوَ مَشْهُورٌ فِي صَحِيحِ الْأَخْبَارِ وَكَانَ رَأَى أَنَّهُ لَا يُبَايِعُ لِمَنْ لَمْ يَجْتَمِعْ عَلَيْهِ النَّاسُ وَلِهَذَا ‌لَمْ ‌يُبَايِعْ أَيْضًا لِابْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ وَلَا لِعَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ فِي حَالِ اخْتِلَافِهِمَا وَبَايَعَ لِيَزِيدَ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ ثُمَّ لعبد الْملك بن مَرْوَان بعد قتل بن الزُّبَيْرِ

"The reason Ibn Umar did not mention the caliphate of Alī is because he did not pledge allegiance to him due to the disagreement surrounding him, as is well known in authentic reports. He believed that he should not pledge allegiance to anyone until the people had gathered around him. For this reason, he also did not pledge allegiance to Ibn al-Zubayr or to Abd al-Malik during their times of disagreement. He pledged allegiance to Yazīd ibn Muāwiya and then to `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān after the killing of Ibn al-Zubayr."

Ibn `Umar’s excuse that he would not give allegiance unless there was unity around the ruler is simply untrue, as he gave Yazīd his allegiance while Ḥusayn, Ibn al-Zubayr, and ʿAbdallāh ibn Ḥanzala all opposed him. Furthermore, Imām ʿAlī himself had already disproven Ibn `Umar’s excuse when he challenged Ibn `Umar to provide a guarantor that he would pledge allegiance if the people united, and Ibn `Umar refused to accept this.

Moreover, this false argument of Ibn Umar is made more evident with his opposition of Imam 'Ali (as) even post his death. We read in Sahih al-Bukhari 3697:

Narrated Ibn `Umar: During the lifetime of the Prophet (ﷺ) we considered Abu Bakr as peerless and then `Umar and then `Uthman (coming next to him in superiority) and then we used not to differentiate between the companions of the Prophet.

Ibn `Umar mentions who the people believed was the best after the Ummah, and despite the known opinion of Ahl al-Sunnah placing `Alī (as) either after `Uthmān or before `Uthmān, Ibn `Umar refused to even mention his name. In reality, however, people did recognize `Alī (as) as one of the greatest. Why then he not mention his name?

Ibn Abd al-Barr records in his al-Isti’ab (pg. 535) the following:

قال أَبُو عُمَر: من قَالَ بحديث ابْن عُمَر: كنا نقول على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: أبو بَكْر، ثُمَّ عُمَر، ثُمَّ عُثْمَان ثُمَّ نسكت- يَعْنِي فلا نفاضل- وَهُوَ الَّذِي أنكر ابْن معين، وتكلم فِيهِ بكلام غليظ، لأن القائل بذلك قد قَالَ بخلاف مَا اجتمع عَلَيْهِ أهل السنة من السلف والخلف من أهل الفقه والأثر… حديث ابْن عُمَر وهم وغلط، وأنه لا يصح معناه، وإن كَانَ إسناده صحيحا

Abū ʿUmar said: "Whoever narrates from Ibn ʿUmar that we used to say during the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw): 'Abū Bakr, then ʿUmar, then ʿUthmān, then we remain silent' – meaning we do not make comparisons – this is what Ibn Ma'īn denied and spoke harshly about, because the one who said this has contradicted what the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, both past and present, from the scholars of jurisprudence and narration have agreed upon. The ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar is a mistake and an error, and its meaning is not correct, even though its chain of narration may be authentic."

If Ibn Umar’s position was contrary to the position of Ahlul Sunnah and their salaf, then one must wonder why the modern Ahlul Sunnah hold him in such high regard.

So even the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah themselves, have taken issue with this hadith of Ibn Umar as they know its implication is something they try not to argue towards.

We conclude with the famous hadith recorded in Sahih Muslim 78:

Zirr reported: Ali observed: By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse a grudge against me.