Background and context of the ḥadīth manzilat Hārūn: the story of the battle of Tabūk

The ḥadīth al-manzila is associated with several incidents, among which those most commonly listed are: when Fāṭima gave birth to Ḥasan at a gathering that included Muḥammad, Abū Bakr, ʿUmar and Abū ʿUbayda; on the two “occasions of fraternity” (muʾākhāt)Footnote ³ – in Mecca prior to the migration and in Medina shortly after the migration; when Muḥammad found ʿAlī sleeping in the mosque and also at the battle of Khaybar. Most frequently, however, the ḥadīth al-manzila is associated with the story of the battle of Tabūk and is commonly placed at the beginning of that story prior to the attack on Tabūk.

Al-Ḥalabī (d. 1044/1635) mentions that most authorities agree that the battle of Tabūk took place in 10/631. Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), following al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870) mentions the date of Rajab 9/630, during a campaign against the Byzantines (al-Rūm). The Byzantine army is said to have gathered considerable forces in Syria (al-Shām) and Muḥammad decided to attack them.Footnote ⁴

Ibn Hishām (d. 218/833), one of our earliest sources, who also places the battle in 9/630, describes the occasion where the ḥadīth was uttered in the following way:

The Arabic text of that important sentence reads anta minnī bi-manzilat Hārūn min Mūsā illā annahu lā nabiyya baʿdī. A slightly different wording can be found in, for example, Muslim's (d. 261/875) Ṣaḥīḥ and al-Nasāʾī's (d. 303/915) Khaṣāʾiṣ ʿillā annahu lā nubuwwa baʿdī (except there is no prophecy after me),Footnote ⁷ and in al-Mūsawī’s al-Murājaʿāt ‘illā annahu laysa baʿdī nabiyyun (except there is no prophet after me).Footnote ⁸ Al-Mūsawī also adds the following: innahu lā yanbaghī an adhhaba illā wa-anta khalīfatī’ (it is not permissible for me to go without you being my khalīfa).Footnote ⁹

Although the dominant version in most sources states that it was ʿAlī who was left behind in Medina and the saying of the Prophet was the outcome of that, there are alternative names given for those left behind in charge of Medina on this occasion. Al-Ḥalabī, for example, has an interesting report transmitted on the authority of ʿAlī saying that Muḥammad set out for the battle of Tabūk and left Jaʿfar in charge of his family (khalafa Jaʿfaran fī ahlihi).Footnote ¹⁰ Earlier, Jaʿfar had asked the Prophet not to leave him behind and in response to this Muḥammad decided to leave ʿAlī behind instead. However, as in the other versions, when the hypocrites provoke ʿAlī into asking the Prophet for permission to join him in the battle, the Prophet replies with the same sentence.Footnote ¹¹

Alternative names of those who were left by the Prophet in charge of Medina are also mentioned by Mughulṭāʾī (d. 762/1361): wa-istakhlafa ʿalā l-Madīna: Muḥammad ibn Maslama, wa-qīla Sibāʿ ibn ʿUrfuṭa, wa-qīla ʿAliyyan . Footnote ¹² Al-Ḥalabī also mentions three alternative names of those left behind in charge of Medina: Muḥammad ibn Maslama, Sibāʿ ibn ʿUrfuṭa and Ibn Umm Maktūm as well as ʿAlī.Footnote ¹³ Ibn Kathīr also gives the two alternative names of Muḥammad ibn Maslama and Sibāʿ ibn ʿUrfuṭa.Footnote ¹⁴ In addition, he adds, on the authority of Ibn Isḥāq, that ʿAlī was not left in charge of the whole of Medina but was tasked only with protecting the Prophet's family there. However, Ibn Kathīr also cites the most common version of the report which states that ʿAlī was left in charge of Medina as a whole; he also confirms that al-Bukhārī, Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj (d. 261/875) and al-Tirmidhī (d. 279/892) all include this version in their collections.Footnote ¹⁵

The interesting point about the story of Tabūk is that it is dominated by two themes: (1) the hypocrisy of those who claim to have believed in Muḥammad's mission but still doubted the position of Muḥammad as a prophet, and (2) the questioning of Jews and Christians regarding the status of Muḥammad as a prophet sent by God. Therefore, two groups of people are often mentioned: the hypocrites (al-munāfiqūn) and the doubters (ahl al-rayb). ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUbayy is named as one of the main hypocrites.Footnote ¹⁶ In fact, al-Ḥalabī says that this battle was also known as ghazwat al-ʿasīra (the difficult battle) or al-fāḍiḥa (the infamous),Footnote ¹⁷li-annahā aẓharat ḥāl kathīr min al-munāfiqīn (because it revealed the identity of many of the hypocrites).Footnote ¹⁸ In his Kitāb al-Ishāra, Mughulṭāʾī gives the two alternative names of this battle as ghazwat al-ʿasīra and al-fāḍiḥa. Footnote ¹⁹

Furthermore, the story of the battle of Tabūk is followed by the story about the “opposition” mosque (masjid al-ḍirār),Footnote ²⁰ as, for example, in the recensions of Ibn Hishām and Ibn Sayyid al-Nās.Footnote ²¹ What seems interesting in this respect is that the ḥadīth al-manzila is placed in the context of several incidents when the position of Muḥammad as a prophet is questioned and challenged not only by the pagans but also by the “hypocrites” among the Muslims, as well as by the Jews and Christians. An analysis of these instances shows that this context plays a decisive role in the way the Muslim tradition approaches the report and the nature of ensuing discussions. It is, therefore, within this context that the two themes associated with this ḥadīth acquire equal significance: the position of ʿAlī in relation to the Prophet and the issue of succession (the identity of the successor as well as the nature of succession itself), and the status of Muḥammad as a prophet and the finality of his prophethood.

This is not the place to go into a complex discussion about the use and meaning of the word munāfiqūn (usually translated as “hypocrites”) in the Muslim tradition, but it needs to be emphasized that it is the munāfiqūn who are blamed for inciting ʿAlī to voice his disappointment at being left behind in Medina at the time of the battle of Tabūk. As a result, in order to show his absolute loyalty, ʿAlī leaves his post in Medina and follows the Prophet's army. When he reaches them at al-Jurf, he asks the Prophet to reverse his decision so that he can participate in the battle. Later, the hypocrites are also blamed for advising against going into the battle in hot weather, causing unrest within the army.

It is clear, therefore, that the issue of the status of ʿAlī in relation to Muḥammad, and Muḥammad's position as the final prophet, are the two important aspects of doctrinal significance contained in this report. In what follows, I will look at them one by one.

Ḥadīth manzilat Hārūn and ʿAlī's position in regard to Prophet Muḥammad

Al-Kulaynī (d. 329/940) argues in the Kitāb al-Ḥujja of his Uṣūl, that this ḥadīth was the evidence of the similarity of the Prophet's bequest to ʿAlī and his progeny of the waṣiyya (bequest, testament) of Moses to Aaron. Al-Kulaynī further argues that Yūshaʿ ibn Nūn (Joshua) designated the progeny of Aaron, rather than his own or Moses' progeny, to succeed him, because it was the divine choice (awṣā Mūsā [ʿalayhi al-salām] ilā Yūshaʿ ibn Nūn wa-awṣā Yūshaʿ ibn Nūn ilā wuld Hārūn wa-lam yūʾṣi ilā wuldihi wa-lā ilā wuld Mūsā, inna Allāh taʿālā lahu al-khayra, yakhtār mimman yashāʾ).Footnote ²² This bears particular importance for al-Kulaynī's argument about the religious authority of ʿAlī because it is placed within the context of reports about the naṣṣ (divine designation or covenant) and ʿilm (knowledge) of ʿAlī in his Kitāb al-Ḥujja. In the latter, al-Kulaynī places special emphasis on the knowledge of the Book (al-Kitāb) that reveals everything and which was passed from one prophet to another until it reached the Prophet Muḥammad, who then gave it (or revealed its content) to ʿAlī. Naṣṣ and ʿilm are the two most important attributes of the Imām according to the Shīʿī doctrine of Imāma and, therefore, have a crucial role in the affirmation of the authority of ʿAlī as the rightful successor of the Prophet Muḥammad, and for al-Kulaynī the ḥadīth al-manzila serves as a proof of that.

In his Maʿānī al-akhbār, Ibn Bābawayh (d. 381/991) also argues that this ḥadīth confirms that ʿAlī's position vis-a-vis the Prophet Muḥammad is like Aaron's to Moses, with the explicit exceptions that he was not his brother and that he was not a prophet, because prophecy came to an end with Muḥammad.Footnote ²³ Similarly, al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 436/1044) takes this ḥadīth as a clear (ẓāhir) affirmation that ʿAlī had all the relationships (kull manāzil) in regard to Muḥammad that Aaron had with regard to Moses, with the exception already mentioned (al-istithnāʾ al-madhkūr), namely prophethood. He further argues that the ḥadīth also means that ʿAlī should have been the Prophet's successor after his death (an yakūn khalīfatahu baʿda wafātihi),Footnote ²⁴ because the deputyship of Aaron for Moses was a noble and lofty status in religion (ʿli-anna khilāfata Hārūn li-Mūsā (ʿalayhimā al-salām) kānat manzilatan fī al-dīn jalīla, wa-darajatan fīhi rafīʿa)Footnote ²⁵ such that, had he survived Moses, he would have surely been his successor.Footnote ²⁶

Now, if we look at the position of Aaron in the Jewish tradition, it will clarify many of the points raised by al-Kulaynī and, as we shall see later, by other Shīʿī authors and even by some from the Sunnī camp. In the Muslim tradition it is Moses who asks God to give him an assistant from among his family and names Aaron, his brother, as his preferred choice (Q. 20:29–32). God answers his prayers and appoints Aaron as his helper (Q. 20:36–42 and 25:35).Footnote ²⁷ Aaron thus becomes the chosen associate of Moses in the revelation and in his prophetic mission. Wilferd Madelung expands on this in the following way:

The Quran often refers to Aaron, naming him as the brother of Moses (for example, Q. 7:142, Q. 19:53, Q. 20:29–30, Q. 25:36, Q. 28:25) which is also the case in the Torah. In the Jewish tradition,Footnote ²⁹ we are told in Exodus 6:20 that Amrām (ʿImrān) married his father's sister Jochebed and she bore him Aaron and Moses. While fulfilling his prophetic mission, and in the face of growing opposition from the Israelites, Moses asks his Lord to grant him a helper: “Please, O Lord, I have never been a man of words, either in times of past or now that You have spoken to Your servant; I am slow of speech and slow of tongue” (Exodus 4:10–11).Footnote ³⁰ In the Jewish tradition, therefore, it is the Lord of Moses who chooses Aaron as his helper after repeated pleas from Moses who, in this narrative, does not name Aaron as a possible candidate:

Moreover, in the Jewish tradition God speaks to Aaron directly: “The Lord said to Aaron, ‘Go to meet Moses in the wilderness’” (Exodus 4:27); and, “So the Lord spoke to both Moses and Aaron in regard to the Israelites and Pharaoh king of Egypt, instructing them to deliver the Israelites from the land of Egypt” (Exodus 4:13). The same point is elaborated in the exegetical Pirḳê de Rabbi Eliezer: “On the New Moon of Nisan the Holy One, blessed be He, was revealed to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt…”.Footnote ³¹ In addition, like Moses, Aaron also performs miracles (for example, Exodus 7:7, 9–10, 11:10).

Another important reference is Numbers 6:22–7, where not only Aaron but also his progeny are mentioned and their important role in the future of the Israelites is confirmed:

The Qumran literature goes further:

The same point is also elaborated in the Sifra where R. Simeon ben Eleazar, commenting on the reasons behind plagues, says:

Therefore, in addition to granting them the right to command in matters of justice and property, the sanctity of performing the sacrifice in the temple is also given exclusively to the progeny of Aaron because of the special status they hold. An interesting elaboration on these three points (the holy status of the progeny or house of Aaron, their right to command in matters of justice and property and their right to perform the rituals at the temple) can be found in The Midrash on Psalms. In it a commentary on Psalms 118:3 (“Let the house of Aaron now say, ‘His steadfast love is eternal’”) results in an elaborate discourse on the importance of the house of Aaron and is also connected to a more general statement in Malachi 2:6–8:

Thus, the house of Aaron is protected and God punishes those who rise against them and challenge their rightful status. Moreover, as a result of the Korah revolt, the twenty-four privileges were given to the priests. These privileges or gifts had been given to the Jewish priests also as a compensation for their services in the temple in Jerusalem. Among them are the contributions of the Levitical tithes, sin offering, guilt offering, sacrifice of the communal peace offering, the first-born of men and of clean animals, first fruits and the skin of certain animal offerings.Footnote ³⁶ The twenty-four privileges are also meant to indicate the primacy of the tribe of Levi and, in particular, of the exclusive priesthood of the house of Aaron.Footnote ³⁷

This leads us to Numbers 25:12–13, which is used in the Midrash literature as one of the most important proofs of the unconditional nature of God's covenant with Aaron:

Upon Aaron's death, God orders Moses to take Aaron and his son Eleazar and divest Aaron's body of his priestly garments. Moses then puts these priestly garments, one by one, upon Eleazar, thus symbolically transferring the office of the High Priest of Israel to Aaron's son (Numbers 20:25–6).Footnote ³⁹ Here, a notable point is the reference to the priestly raiment, the transfer of which from Aaron to Eleazar endows him with priestly status. The belief that only the descendants of Aaron can hold the office of the High Priest remained unchanged even until the post-Babylonian period and pre-Maccabean revolt. One of the explanations proposed for the Maccabean revolt has been the rejection of the priesthood of Jason (175–171 bce) because he was not of the priestly descendants of Aaron and thus was not considered qualified to hold the office.

Moreover, in the Qumran literature, Aaron is also endowed with a messianic role and is, therefore, also given a central role in the future expectations of the community of the covenant:

Thus, the Tanakh and the wider rabbinic literature are replete with references to the special status of Aaron and his progeny. They show that not only was Aaron spoken to by God, shared in the prophetic mission of Moses and entrusted with performing miracles but he was also entrusted with special knowledge of the scripture, and given a pact of friendship and certain prerogatives that extended to his progeny for all time. It is therefore these aspects of the status of Aaron in relation to Moses that the ḥadīth al-manzila and those who refer to it allude to. And it is not surprising that, beginning with al-Kulaynī and perhaps even earlier, Shīʿī scholars made good use of it to argue for the special status of ʿAlī and his designation as the successor of the Prophet and the status of ʿAlī as the first Imām.

The role of al-Shaykh al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022) in the elaboration and articulation of the classical Shīʿī concept of Imāma is crucial. It is, therefore, not surprising that he skilfully uses this ḥadīth and the position of Aaron with regard to Moses to further emphasize the doctrine of the special status of ʿAlī and his religious authority. First, he explains why Muḥammad left ʿAlī in charge of Medina, citing the Prophet as saying: “ʿAlī, Medina will only be properly looked after by myself or by you”.Footnote ⁴¹ Al-Shaykh al-Mufīd elaborates further on the reason why ʿAlī was left behind but quite interestingly also includes the actual claim that the munāfiqūn made against ʿAlī: “The Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, did not appoint him as deputy as an act of honour, privilege and love. He only left him behind because of his finding him burdensome.”Footnote ⁴² Al-Shaykh al-Mufīd then includes the following passage in which, in response to ʿAlī's plea to let him join them in the battle, the Prophet says:

This passage is an excellent example of the Shīʿī understanding of the importance of the parallel between Moses and Aaron on the one hand, and Muḥammad and ʿAlī on the other. It touches upon all the important aspects which make such a comparison possible and useful, such as: Muḥammad designated ʿAlī as khalīfa; ʿAlī received from Muḥammad all the ranks which Aaron received from Moses; ʿAlī was excluded from prophethood, because the line of prophets was to come to an end with Muḥammad; ʿAlī's authority over people rests on the Imāma bestowed upon him by Muḥammad; it is required to obey ʿAlī as a holder of authority bequeathed to him by Muḥammad; ʿAlī was the most beloved by Muḥammad in the same way that Aaron was the most beloved by Moses.

The Tafsīr of al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-ʿAskarī (d. 260/874) has an entire section devoted to the ḥadīth al-manzila that follows the commentary on Q. 2:103–4 in his tafsīr. An interesting point in his argument is that God gave Muḥammad (“fa-awḥā Allāh taʿālā ilayhi”) the choice of either going to battle and leaving ʿAlī behind or sending ʿAlī to battle while remaining in Medina himself. Muḥammad orders ʿAlī to stay and at first he obeys the Prophet's command, but then tells the Prophet that he prefers to join him in the campaign. In response to ʿAlī's request the Prophet replies: “Are you not content to be with respect to me…”.Footnote ⁴⁴ Al-ʿAskarī then reports that the hypocrites (munāfiqūn) used the situation against ʿAlī, but the Prophet then said to him: “Is it not sufficient for you that you are like the skin between my eyes (jildatu mā bayna ʿaynayya), like the light in my eyes (nūr baṣarī) and like the soul in my body (al-rūḥ fī badanī)”.Footnote ⁴⁵

It is not surprising that Sunnī-orientated scholars have a different attitude to the ḥadīth al-manzila, even if they include it despite it strongly favouring the Shīʿī position about ʿAlī's special status with regard to the Prophet. Uncharacteristically for Ibn Kathīr, he does not use the ḥadīth al-manzila as an anti-Shīʿī polemic, as he does, for example, when commenting on the report about the Prophet's deathbed wish to write – known as “the ḥadīth of pen and paper”.Footnote ⁴⁶ Although Ibn Kathīr includes the ḥadīth of pen and paper and does not reject the story associated with it, he is very much aware of the sensitivities, and forcefully denounces the Shīʿī use of this report.Footnote ⁴⁷ It is interesting, therefore, to note that he does not make any attempt to argue against the ḥadīth al-manzila or how it has been used or interpreted by the Shīʿa. One possible explanation is that this report emphasizes that the chain of prophets ends with Muḥammad. Therefore, Ibn Kathīr's main concern here is with the finality of prophethood and the position of Muḥammad as the last messenger of God.

Muslim includes four versions of this report in his Ṣaḥīḥ in the Chapter on the Merits of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, all four of which are reported on the authority of Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ (d. 55 or 58/674 or 677). One of the versions reads:

Muslim's versions three and four of the report conflate the ḥadīth al-manzila with a report about Muḥammad's entrusting ʿAlī with the banner at the battle of Khaybar. In addition, version three also includes the episode of the mubāhala,Footnote ⁴⁹ during which Muḥammad was challenged by a group of Christians from Najrān.Footnote ⁵⁰ And although Muslim himself does not comment further on the report, the famous commentator on his Ṣaḥīḥ, al-Nawawī (d. 676/1277), has an interesting passage cited from Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (d. 544/1149) related to the ḥadīth:

According to this report, the rawāfiḍ claim that the Companions made the mistake of giving what rightly belonged to ʿAlī to somebody else and in so doing committed a sin. However, some of the rawāfiḍ also criticize ʿAlī for not standing up for what rightly belonged to him.Footnote ⁵² Al-Ḥalabī includes a similar report in his al-Sīra al-ḥalabiyya:

An example of more recent polemics around the ḥadīth is the reaction of Ṣiddīqī, the translator and editor of Muslim's work, to this report:

This is a useful example of the type of polemic that this report continues to trigger among the various anti- and pro-Shīʿī-orientated authors. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is a clear difference between the Shīʿī and Sunnī positions vis-à-vis this ḥadīth. While the Shīʿī authors use it to argue for the rightful position of ʿAlī as the holder of the authority entrusted to him by the Prophet, the Sunnī authors are more concerned with the issue of the finality of prophethood while also arguing against its Shīʿī interpretation.

Ḥadīth manzila and the doctrine of the finality of prophethood

Another commonly discussed theme related to the ḥadīth al-manzila, as mentioned earlier, is that Muḥammad's mission marks the end or finality of nubuwwa (prophethood).Footnote ⁵⁶ The emphasis on this theme and on the nature of the authority of the person that succeeds him dominates the discussion of this ḥadīth in the sources. The context of the battle of Tabūk and events around it also suggest that disputes concerning the status of Muḥammad as a prophet and opposition to him are central in this respect. Several incidents, such as those of the lost camel, the heat and lack of water, and the demand for miracles,Footnote ⁵⁷ show that the hypocrites doubted the prophetic status of Muḥammad. The reluctance of authors such as Ibn Kathīr to engage in polemical discussion also seems to be related to this, because the main function of the ḥadīth al-manzila is to confirm Muḥammad as the last prophet and that there is no prophet after him. The nature of the authority of the person who succeeds him is then discussed in relation to the terms khilāfa (caliphate) and khalīfa (caliph). This is, of course, also reminiscent of the wording used in the Quran (7:142) wherein Moses asks Aaron to deputize for him when he was sentenced to solitude for forty nights: “wa-qāla Mūsā li-akhīhi Hārūn ukhlufnī fī qawmī” (and Moses said unto his brother: take my place among my people).

Intriguingly, in some variants of the ḥadīth the second part of the above-mentioned sentence, namely “illā annahu laysa baʿdī nabiyyun”, is absent.Footnote ⁵⁸ This sentence is commonly taken to refer to the finality of prophethood after Muḥammad. Friedmann argues that the absence of the second part of the ḥadīth in sources as important as Muslim's Ṣaḥīḥ means that the belief in the finality of prophethood (khatm al-nubuwwa) with Muḥammad was a later development and that it was only after this belief became a more central aspect of the Islamic world view that the implications of the short version of the ḥadīth began to be understood. As a result, the longer version, which rejected the possibility of prophethood after Muḥammad, began to be preferred.Footnote ⁵⁹ This again suggests that the reason why the ḥadīth in its longer version is so prominent, even in the Sunnī sources, is because it is one of the most important pieces of evidence in support of the doctrine of the finality of prophethood and the status of Muḥammad as the khātam al-nabiyyīn (the seal of the prophets).

Finally, it is evident that there are many instances in the Muslim tradition in both Sunnī and Shīʿī sources where the ḥadīth al-manzila is used to respond to important questions on authority, prophethood and the succession to the Prophet. There is also a close association of the ḥadīth not only with the Quranic portrayal of the mission of Moses and Aaron but also with the Jewish tradition, where the importance of Aaron and his progeny is quite evident. For example, the Quranic verses confirm the special position of Moses and Aaron (Q. 21:48: wa-laqad ātaynā Mūsā wa-Hārūn al-furqān wa-ḍiyāʾan wa-dhikran li-l-muttaqīn) and the same is then confirmed for Abraham (Q. 21:51); that Moses was given the scripture and his brother was placed as his helper (wazīr) to assist him in his mission (Q. 25:35: wa-laqad ātaynā Mūsā al-kitāb wa-jaʿalnā maʿahu akhāhu Hārūn wazīran; and also Q. 20:29–30: wa-jʿal lī wazīran min ahlī, Hārūn akhī). This, of course, coincides with the Shīʿī argument that ʿAlī also holds the rightful position as the master of taʾwīl (allegorical interpretation) of the Quran and as the possessor of its inner meaning. Al-Shahrastānī (d. 548/1153), whose Shīʿī sentiments have long been highlighted, refers to the important position of Aaron and his progeny while discussing the identity of those who have the authority and knowledge to reveal the inner meaning of the Quran. He argues that the descendants of Muḥammad have a special knowledge of the Quran, just as the descendants of Aaron possess a special version of the Torah on tablets. Although he does not refer to the ḥadīth al-manzila directly, it seems obvious that he is building on the same parallel to argue his case.Footnote ⁶⁰

Nāṣir-i Khusraw (d. 478/1078) refers to the same point in his poem, arguing that the Prophet gave the esoteric knowledge of the Quran to ʿAlī:

Many of the classical Muslim scholars were familiar not only with the Torah but also with the wider Jewish and Christian exegetical traditions, employing them in support of their own positions. Outside the context of the ḥadīth al-manzila, there are many similar instances which are used, particularly by Shīʿī scholars, to argue for the hereditary nature of the Imāma of ʿAlī. Rubin and Amir-Moezzi, who studied many such examples, manage to show that the Shīʿa did not shy away from comparing ʿAlī's position to that of a number of prophets, including Aaron.Footnote ⁶⁴ However, although many authors want to use the story to make a substantial case for the important and special position of ʿAlī, they are quite careful in the way they use the ḥadīth al-manzila and the status of Aaron in the Jewish tradition as a whole. Shīʿī authors use the ḥadīth al-manzila to underline the religious authority of ʿAlī and his rightful position as the successor to Muḥammad.

There could be at least three possible explanations for such a guarded attitude to the ḥadīth al-manzila. First, Aaron was the brother of Moses not his cousin, whereas ʿAlī was the cousin and son-in-law of Muḥammad. The two occasions of fraternity (muʾākhā), that is when a Muslim was paired with another Muslim as a brother, play an important role in emphasizing their closeness but still do not resolve the issue. Second, when asked to look after the people during Moses's absence, Aaron not only fails to look after the people properly but also joins them in making the idol of the calf and worshiping it (Q. 7:148–52; 20:94).Footnote ⁶⁵ Third, Aaron dies before Moses after having been punished for the mistakes of Moses. That notwithstanding, there is enough overwhelmingly positive Quranic and other material on Aaron in the Muslim tradition which, together with, or in addition to, the ḥadīth al-manzila, is used in the Shīʿī sources to argue that ʿAlī is the legitimate successor to Muḥammad and the person best qualified to lead the umma after his death. Because this particular ḥadīth clearly shows that the religious authority of the person succeeding Muḥammad cannot rest on the prophetic status of an individual, it also justifies a new institutional answer to the issue of succession in the form of khilāfa and/or Imāma, thus serving the needs of both the Sunnī as well as the Shīʿī position and, most importantly for both, it confirms the Islamic doctrine that Muḥammad was the “seal of the prophets”.