As Ibne Abil Hadeed has mentioned in Sharh Nahjul Balagha,1 “This
tradition was fabricated in opposition of the above-mentioned tradition.” And he
says:
“The tradition of closing of doors is restricted to Ali (a.s.), but supporters of
Abu Bakr (Bakriya) resorted to this and attributed it to Abu Bakr.”
Signs of fabrication are clear for scholars, but we shall mention some of
them below:
1. The aim of closing of the doors was to guard the sanctity of Masjid that
no one should pass from it in state of sexual impurity. But the door of Prophet
and Ali (a.s.) was left open, because according to verse of purification, they were
purified of all apparent and ideal impurities. So much so that even sexual activity,
which made people impure did not cause the two of them to become impure
For more information on this point, I present the following reports:
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) entered the Masjid, while he was in Janabat.2
And he passed through the Masjid while being in the state of Janabat.3
And he went to and fro in the state of Janabat.4 And the report of Abu Saeed Khudri from the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he said to Ali (a.s.): “It is not allowed from anyone
other than you or me to become Junub in the Masjid.”5
Another statement of the Prophet: “Know that it is unlawful to enter this
Masjid for those in state of sexual impurity and in menses, except for the Prophet
of God, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. Know that I have specified these names,
so that you may not be misguided.”6
More clear than all this is the fact that leaving that door open was because
God permitted it to remain open as is known from the verse of purification
according to which they were pure from every kind of impurity.
2. This report implies that after the incident of closing of the doors, except for the doors of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and his cousin, other doors did not
remain open. As for the tradition that a window of Abu Bakr was left open, it
shows that other than a window there were other doors for passing through and
there is a great difference between these.
Some people, in order to reconcile traditions, which prove that Ali’s door
remained open, with traditions in which the window of Abu Bakr, have used a
justification saying: The term of ‘baab’ in the meaning of ‘door’ in traditions
related to Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) in the real meaning of the word, but in
traditions about Abu Bakr it is used in the metaphorical meaning; and from
‘baab’ window is implied.
They also said:7 “When people were commanded to close their doors, they
followed the orders, but each of them left a small window open for themselves
and from that they continued to enter the Masjid. Later they were ordered to close
that as well.”
But these justifications and reconciliations are not acceptable, since this is
guess work8 and no reasoning exists for it. On the contrary, it refutes the attention
to the aim of closing their doors; because aim of closing the doors was that the
Masjid should not be the place of passing through, and they should not enter the
Masjid through these doors, on the contrary, how is it possible that before the
viewpoint of the Prophet and against his orders, they should invent accesses for
themselves?
This is clearly opposed to the aim of the lawmaker and angering him, from
this aspect, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), even his two uncles, Hamza and Abbas,
who wanted him to leave a common access to them or claimed to have asked for
a window to remain open in the Masjid, yet the Prophet did not permit, because
the single command had a single aim, and using different terms does not alter the
rules. The abstract implication of window from the term of ‘baab’ neither
removes the obstruction, nor does it change the topic.
Another part of tradition
Another part of the tradition, which Ibne Taymiyyah has falsified, is: “You
are the Master (Wali) of all believers after me,”9
he says: “This tradition,
according to the consensus of experts, is fabricated.”
Refutation of Ibne Taymiyyah
He should have said: This tradition is authentic according to consensus of all
tradition experts, but due to his deviated habit, he inverts the facts and shows
authentic traditions as inauthentic, which he has done in this case as well.
Was in his view, the experts of traditions, including Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, who have quoted this tradition, are not experts of traditions? Ahmad bin
Hanbal has narrated through a chain of authorities all of whose reporters are
reliable.10
Similarly, Ibne Kathir in his Tarikh,11 and Muttaqi in Kanzul Ummal, has
mentioned it and supported its authenticity.
This was a small part of foolishness of Ibne Taymiyyah and if we want to
present all his falsehoods, deviations and allegations he has mentioned in
‘Minhajul Bidah’, we would have to investigate all four volumes and a multi
volume book would have to be written.
I did not find any explanation, which would explain the reality of this man
and expose his true face to the academic society. Here we shall only quote from
Ibne Hajar in the book of Al-Fatawa al-Hadeesiya:
“Ibne Taymiyyah is a man whom Allah has created as degraded and blind;
and imams have clarified this point about him. Whoever wants to have more
information about him, should refer to the statements of scholars about him. That
is Abul Hasan Subki and his son, Taj and Imam Izz bin Jama-a and his
contemporary scholars and all Shafei, Maliki and Hanafi scholars may be
referred. He has not only objected against the later Sufis, but raised objections
against personalities like Umar bin Khattab and Ali Ibne Abi Talib (r.a.).
The conclusion is that no attention should be paid to his nonsense and his
statements should be kept away from people as he was a heretic, deviated and a
misguiding man. May God deal with him with justice and keep us safe from such
conduct and beliefs, Amen.
وَيْلٌۭ لِّكُلِّ أَفَّاكٍ أَثِيمٍۢ (٧) يَسْمَعُ ءَايَـٰتِ ٱللَّهِ تُتْلَىٰ عَلَيْهِ ثُمَّ يُصِرُّ مُسْتَكْبِرًۭا كَأَن لَّمْ يَسْمَعْهَا ۖ فَبَشِّرْهُ بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍۢ (٨)
“Woe to every sinful liar, who hears the communications of
Allah recited to him, then persists proudly as though he had not
heard them; so announce to him a painful punishment.”12