Prophet’s (S.A.W.) saying to Ali(r.A.a): “Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Harun to Musa?

Sahih al Bukhari

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 700:

Narrated Sad:

Allah’s Apostle set out for Tabuk. appointing ‘Ali as his deputy (in Medina). ‘Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet said, “Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron (Harun) to Moses (Musa)? But there will be no prophet after me.”
Translated by some like this: (‘Your relation to me shall be like the relation of Harun to Musa…) & (You hold in relation to me the same position as Harun held in relation to Musa)

Hadith in Arabic:

عَنْ مُصْعَبِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خَرَجَ إِلَى تَبُوكَ وَاسْتَخْلَفَ عَلِيًّا فَقَالَ أَتُخَلِّفُنِي فِي الصِّبْيَانِ وَالنِّسَاءِ قَالَ أَلَا تَرْضَى أَنْ تَكُونَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى إِلَّا أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ نَبِيٌّ بَعْدِي

This hadith is not evidence of khilafah of Ali radiyallahu anhu after the death of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, because the comparison is with Haroon alayhi assalam, and Harun alayhi assalam died before Musa alayhi assalam and thus was never his successor after him.

The following is an explanation by al Qurtubi -rahimahu Allah- in his tafsir (tafseer of ayah 2:30) regarding this narration:

[There is no disagreement that the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa sallam- didn't mean, by (saying) "you will be to me like Harun (Aaron) to Moses" the khilafah after him, and there is no disagreement that Haroon died before Musa -alayhima assalam- ... and was not a khalifah after him, for the khalifah (successor of Musa) was Yusha' bin Noon, so if he wanted by his saying "you will be to me like Harun to Moses" the khilafah, he would have said "you will be to me like Yusha' was to Musa", so when he didn't say this it proved that he didn't want that meaning, but he wanted that "you are my deputy over my family in my life and my abscence from my family, like Harun was deputy of Musa over his people when he left to speak to his Lord.]

Other scholars of ahl assunah explained it the same, him being deputy of the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa sallam – over the women and children when he went to the battle of Tabuk just like Musa -alayhi assalam- left Harun -alayhi assalam- as his deputy when he went to his appointment with Allah ta’ala.

In a Shia site it says:
((To this we answer that whenever the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, left the Islamic capital, he would always appoint someone to act as his deputy. If by comparing Ali, peace be upon him, to Harun, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, had intended nothing more than the usual appointment of a deputy, restricted in his authority to Madinah for the period of the Prophet’s absence, why did he not use a similar expression for those other favored Companions he would appoint as deputy? Why did he not use the same or similar words to describe the services they rendered?))

Answer: Those sahabah might have not asked the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to go with him and not stay behind to watch who is left behind from women, children and others, so there was no need for him to tell them that, but Ali radiyallahu anhu objected to staying behind with children and women and not go to fight with the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and he wanted to go to the battle instead, so the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said that to him, showing him that he would be to him, by staying behind watching over women and children, like Haroon was to Musa when he left him behind as a deputy over his people, and it is an honor and that he wouldn’t be less than the ones who went to fight in battle.

and here is more on the hadith:

http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/hadith/manzilah

Did Imam al Bukhari have the opinion that “wajh” in ayah (28:88) means Mulk – Dominion, thus making ta’wil of it?

Evidence that al Bukhari rahimahu Allah did not have the opinion that “Wajh” in ayah [28:88=Everything will perish save His Wajh (face)] means  “His Mulk \ dominion”

1_ al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah says in explanation of this section in sahih al Bukhari:

قَوْله : ( إِلَّا وَجْهه : إِلَّا مُلْكه )
فِي رِوَايَة النَّسَفِيِّ ” وَقَالَ مَعْمَر ” : فَذَكَرَهُ . وَمَعْمَر هَذَا هُوَ أَبُو عُبَيْدَة بْن الْمُثَنَّى ، وَهَذَا كَلَامه فِي كِتَابه ” مَجَاز الْقُرْآن ” لَكِنْ بِلَفْظِ ” إِلَّا هُوَ “

Translation:

His saying: ( illa wajhah: except His mulk)
In the narration of an-Nasfi (check note below in red): “and Mu’mar said“: then he mentioned it (the opinion above).
and Mu’amar is Abu Ubaidah bin al-Muthanna, and this is his saying in his book “majaz al-Quran” but with the lafth (illa huwa).

so it means that in the narration of an-Nasfi the words “and Mu’amar said:” were before the word “illa Mulkah”.
and in this narration, in this book of sahih al-Bukhari, these words were left out.

so this means that the saying “illa mulkahu\except His mulk\dominion” is the saying of Mu’amar not al-Bukhari rahimahu Allah.

2_ Hafidh Ibn Kathir rahimahu Allah said in his tafsir regarding opinion of Bukhari in his sahih in this same ayah:
وقال مجاهد والثوري في قوله: { كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلا وَجْهَهُ } أي: إلا ما أريد به وجهه،
وحكاه البخاري في صحيحه كالمقرر له.

Rough translation:
Mujahid and ath-Thawri said regarding His (Allah’s) saying: (Everything will perish save His Face [Wajh]=28:88), meaning: except what is done for sake of Allah.
and al Bukhari mentioned it in his sahih like being his opinion regarding its tafsir“
As for evidance that he confirmed the attribute of Wajh (face) and didn’t do ta’wil to it:

1_ He mentioned this same ayah (28:88) in the Chapter of (Tawheed – which includes tawhid of sifat\attributes) :

(1) بَاب قَوْلِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى
{ كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ }
حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ عَنْ عَمْرٍو عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ
لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الْآيَةُ
{ قُلْ هُوَ الْقَادِرُ عَلَى أَنْ يَبْعَثَ عَلَيْكُمْ عَذَابًا مِنْ فَوْقِكُمْ }
قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَعُوذُ بِوَجْهِكَ فَقَالَ
{ أَوْ مِنْ تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِكُمْ }
فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَعُوذُ بِوَجْهِكَ قَالَ
{ أَوْ يَلْبِسَكُمْ شِيَعًا }
فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ هَذَا أَيْسَرُ
chapter: Allah’s saying: (he mentions same ayah above).
narrate Qutaiba … etc. (chain of narration)
when this ayah came down (Say: He is able to send punishment upon you from above you [6:65])
The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: I seek refuge with Your face (bi wajhika)
(or from beneath your feet )
so the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: i seek refuge with Your face
(or to bewilder you with dissension and make you taste the tyranny one of another.)
so the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa salam said: this is easier

If he believed that wajh does not mean the attribute of Allah (an attribute of the essence) “al wajh” (face), he would not have narrated this hadith specifically in this section, because he mentions hadiths in which the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam seeks refuge with Allah’s wajh, stressing it means “wajh” and not anything else, and if he believed it meant “mulk” or anything else (doing ta’wil to it) and didn’t believe that face is one of Allah’s attributes, he would have brought a hadith pointing to that (about mulk or whatever one believes  he considers “wajh” to mean),  not hadiths mentioning the word “wajh”.

Also, Imam al-Bukhari rahimahu Allah would narrate hadiths that are relevant to chapter heading, in which this chapter’s heading was the ayah (28:88) showing what it means.
He would bring hadiths that have tafsir of the ayah in chapter of tafsir, but in chapter of tawhid he puts ayat and hadith related to it, and this is included in tawhid of sifat, because it is evidence for the attribute of face.
so, in addition to his opinion about tafsir of the ayah (everything perishes except what is done for His sake), he also believed it is evidence that wajh (face) is one of Allah’s attributes of the essence.

2_ also, Ibn Battal (A.H. 400s ) said, in his sharh of sahih al-Bukhari of the chapter in kitab at-tawhid in sahih al-Bukhari:

[فيه: جَابِر، لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ على النَّبِىّ - صلى الله عليه وسلم - : {قُلْ هُوَ الْقَادِرُ عَلَى أَنْ يَبْعَثَ عَلَيْكُمْ عَذَابًا مِنْ فَوْقِكُمْ} [الأنعام: 65]، قَالَ – صلى الله عليه وسلم – : « أَعُوذُ بِوَجْهِكَ » ، فَقَالَ: {أَوْ مِنْ تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِكُمْ}، قَالَ عليه السّلام: « أَعُوذُ بِوَجْهِكَ » ، قَالَ: {أَوْ يَلْبِسَكُمْ شِيَعًا}، قَالَ النَّبِىُّ – صلى الله عليه وسلم – : « هَذَا أَيْسَرُ » .
استدلاله من هذه الآية والحديث على أن لله تعالى وجهًا هو صفة ذاته

Translation of the part in blue:
“His using of this ayah and hadith as evidence that Allah has a wajh (face), that is an attribute of the essence”.
Then he explains about the attribute of face and that it is confirmed without likening it to creation saying “so it is confirmed that he has a face that is not like faces“

also, the ayah used in title of the chapter after this one, mentions “bi-a’yonina” and ” ala ‘ayni” he mentions under it hadiths about dajjal, and Allah’s not being “a’war”
which shows that he confirms ‘ayn (eye) as being an attribute, and Ibn Battal rahimahu Allah explains that.
and in chapter after that in kitab at-Tawhid, Imam al-BUkhari has the ayah which mentions “bi-yaday” (with my 2 hands) and he puts under it hadiths that talk about Allah’s hands.

so all those chapters have ayat the mentions attributes of dhat, and it is in the book of tawhid of sahih al-Bukhari rahimahu Allah.
now if he didn’t believe these were attributes of dhat he wouldn’t have put these specific ayat with those hadiths in book of tawhid and put them right after each other, choosing those ayat specifically.
and if he made ta’wil to them he would have mentioned so in those places, or he would have put hadiths indicating that he believed that it meant other than the dhahir meaning or if he believed they weren’t attributes of Allah, and something else, he wouldn’t have mentioned them in book of Tawhid.

Note:

The book “sahih al Bukhari” was narrated by a number of narrators,  including al Nasfi (Ibrahim bin Ma’qal an Nasfi), so their is more than one narration of the book of sahih al Bukhari.

Ibn Hajar mentions in different places in his sharh (explanation) if their is an addition in a narration (of sahih al Bukhari) that is not in the narration he used for his sharh and so on.
In the narration used in the book that is found with us, of sahih al Bukhari, the part “and ma’mar said” before “illa Mulkahu” is not mentioned, but it is mentioned in the narration of an Nasfi, so the narration of sahih al Bukhari by an Nasfi clearifies for us who said “illa Mulkahu“, which is Ma’mar and not al Bukhari
and al Bukhari was mentioning Ma’mar’s tafsir of this ayah.

Hadith of Abu Hurairah (I Have Memorized Two Kinds of Knowledge from Allah’s Apostle …)

Explanation of this hadith:

Narrated Abu Huraira: I have memorized two kinds of knowledge from Allah’s Apostle . I have propagated one of them to you and if I propagated the second, then my pharynx (throat) would be cut (i.e. killed). [Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 3 :: Hadith121 ]

Hafidh Ibn Hajar al Asqalani (rahimahu Allah) said in his book “Fath al Bari”, in the explanation of this hadith:(The scholars took this type of knowledge, that he (Abu Hurairah) didn’t transmit\spread, to mean the hadiths that show the names of the Amirs (leaders) of evil, their conditions and era/period.And Abu Hurairah used to point to some of it without declaration, fearing for himself from them, like his saying: I seek refuge to Allah from the head of the sixty, and the leadership of the youth , pointing to the khilafah of Yazid bin Mu’awiyyah, because it was in the year sixty after Hijrah.And Allah answered the duaa of Abu Hurairah, so he died a year before it…Ibn al Munir (683 A.H.) said: the Batiniyyah made this hadith as a means to making their falsehood correct, in which they believed that the shari’ah has a dhahir (apparent\outer knowledge) and batin (hidden\inner\secret knowledge), and the result of that batin is dissolution of the deen. He said: Abu Hurairah meant by his saying: “would be cut ” meaning: the people of injustice would cut his head off if they heard his criticizing\finding fault with their actions ….. , and what supports this is that the written hadiths, if they were from ahkam (rulings), he wouldn’t be able to conceal it, because of what he mentioned in the first hadith of the ayah that condemns who conceals knowledge.and other said: it could mean things related to signs of the hour, the changing of conditions, and the fierce battles at the end of time, so then the ones who are not familiar with it would reject it…)

And Imam Ibn Battal (449 A.H.) -rahimahu Allah- mentioned in his sharh (explanation) of this hadith in sahih al Bukhari, that the knowledge that Abu Hurairah didn’t spread was related to fitan (trials).

Also, a similar explanation is given by Imam adh Dhahabi rahimhu Allah in his books “as Siyar”.

So basically, that knowledge that was not revealed is related to things in future, and trials (fitan), it has nothing to do with rulings in shari’ah, that are guidance to mankind which every Muslim should and needs to know, and is not allowed for one to conceal.