The Report in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari
In Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Iman, hadith 225 in some numbering systems, it is narrated from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Prophet said during the Farewell Pilgrimage:
“Wayhakum, aw waylakum, la tarji‘u ba‘di kuffaran, yadribu ba‘dukum riqaba ba‘d.”
That is: “Woe to you; do not return after me as unbelievers, with some of you striking the necks of others.”
The same meaning also appears in Sahih al-Bukhari with the famous wording, “la tarji‘u ba‘di kuffaran yadribu ba‘dukum riqaba ba‘d”; including in Bukhari 1741, 7078, 7079, and 7080. So according to the criteria of the hadith scholars themselves, this report is not marginal or weak. It is recorded in their two principal books, Muslim and Bukhari.
Applying the Report’s Logic to Early Islamic History
Now let us apply the logic of the report itself to the history of the earliest Muslims. If the Prophet, according to this very report, warned them not to return to unbelief after him while striking each other’s necks, then what place do the first internal wars among Muslims occupy? In the Battle of Jamal, Ali ibn Abi Talib and his companions, such as Ammar ibn Yasir, Malik al-Ashtar, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, Qays ibn Sa‘d, and Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, stood against a front in which Aisha, Talha, Zubayr, Abdullah ibn Zubayr, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, and a group from Basra were present. At Siffin also, Ali and his army fought against Mu‘awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan and men with him such as Amr ibn al-As, Habib ibn Maslamah, Abu al-A‘war al-Sulami, Ubaydullah ibn Umar, and the army of Syria. These were not verbal disagreements or scholarly discussions. This was Muslim drawing sword against Muslim and the shedding of Muslim blood.
The Contradiction within the Hadith System
So the hadith system faces a serious contradiction. If it takes the report of Sahih Muslim 225 and the parallel reports in Bukhari literally and absolutely, it must accept that those who struck each other’s necks after the Prophet fall under the warning, “la tarji‘u ba‘di kuffaran.” But if it wants to rescue all the parties involved through virtue-making reports, sanctification of the Companions, or reports such as the “Ten Promised Paradise,” then it is forced to reinterpret this same report, restrict it, or escape its logical conclusion. This means the hadith inheritance itself produces one report that presents a group as people of Paradise, while another report breaks that same logic with the warning of “returning to unbelief” in the face of Muslim civil war.
The Report about Ammar ibn Yasir and the Rebellious Group
The contradiction becomes clearer when the report about Ammar ibn Yasir is placed beside it. In Sahih al-Bukhari, it is reported that the Prophet said about Ammar: “He will be killed by the rebellious/transgressing group; Ammar invites them toward God, and they invite him toward the Fire.” Ammar was killed at Siffin in the army of Ali. So the hadith sources themselves identify the front that killed Ammar as the “fi’ah baghiyah,” the rebellious group, while at the same time the same inheritance tries, through other reports, to remove all sides from serious critique.
The Aim of This Test
Our aim here is not to issue, in God’s place, a final judgment of unbelief against Ali, Aisha, Talha, Zubayr, Mu‘awiyah, or their followers. The aim is to confront the hadith system with its own logic. If hadith is taken as the absolute criterion, the report of Muslim 225 and the parallel reports in Bukhari carry an extremely heavy conclusion regarding the civil wars of the Companions. If they reinterpret it, then they must admit that hadith is not self-sufficient and must be weighed under the criteria of the Qur’an, reason, justice, context, and ethics. In either case, hadith cannot rule over the Qur’an.
The Core Problem of Report-Centered Religion
This is the core problem of report-centered religion: one report creates virtue, another report negates that same virtue, a third report identifies a group as rebellious, and a fourth report saves everyone. Then commentators come and, through conflicting interpretations, defend a system that is internally conflicted. The Qur’an takes us out of this confusion because its criterion is clear: the sanctity of blood, justice, avoidance of oppression, individual responsibility, and leaving the final judgment of hearts to God.