Contrary to what the feminists today have been propagating quite fervently, the second Khalifah, Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), never appointed the noble Sahabiyyah, al-Shifaa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha), in-charge of the marketplace in Madina.
Regarding this baseless allegation which is designed to tarnish, intentionally or otherwise, the impeccable reputation of both these great Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), the 5th century Maliki authority, Qadi Ibn Arabi, said:
وقد روي أن عمر قدَّم امرأة على حسبة السوق، ولم يصح؛ فلا تلتفتوا إليه؛ فإنما هو من دسائس المبتدعة في الأحاديث
“It is not authentic so pay no mind to it, as it is one of the conspiratorial machinations of the heretics in hadith.” (Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan)
The fact that it is a complete fabrication will become quite clear by the end of this article.
The false allegation did find its way into several classical Islamic texts. However, despite the fact that in almost every source no sanad is cited, or in one source an extremely defective sanad (a weak narrator, an unknown narrator, and a break in the chain) is given, modern day versions of those heretics continue to cite this story with great relish almost as if its authenticity has been confirmed by divine revelation (Wahi).
We cite below a few examples.
Akram Nadwi, in the footnotes to his translation of Ibn Hazm’s dissertation on women attending mosques, after having just dismissed a number of Hadiths with genuine and authentic sanads, and having also committed chicanery in the actual translation, states unashamedly:
“And it was Umar who appointed a well-known and learned companion from a noble family, al-Shifa bint Abdillah al-Adawiyyah, as the supervisor of the market of Madinah.”
Akram Nadwi’s fraud in the translation and footnotes of this particular book will be the subject of a future article insha-Allah.
Yusuf Qaradawi, who, like Akram, also has a special penchant for dismissing genuinely authentic Hadiths with real chains of narrations whilst confidently affirming fabricated and chainless narrations in the very same breath, states as a matter of fact in his book, “Malaamih ul-Mujtama’ ul-Muslim”:
ملامح المجتمع المسلم الذي ننشده
وقد عين عمر بن الخطاب في خلافته الشفاء بنت عبدالله العدوية محتسبة على السوق
“Umar ibn al-Khattaab, during his Khilafah, appointed al-Shifaa bint Abdullah al-Adawiyyah as the inspector of the market.”
The celebrity story-teller, Omar Suleiman, in the article, “Gender Equity & the Advent of Islam”, co-authored with two others, somehow manages to provide further detail to the actual duties involved in the imaginary and supervisory role fabricated for al-Shifaa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha):
“Coming back to Umar ibn al-Khattab’s shifting perspective: during his caliphate, he appointed two different women, Samra b. Nuhayk and Shifa b. Abdullah, to fulfill the role of market supervisors. They would patrol the markets to ensure that fair business practices were being carried out, and proper Islamic behavior was maintained.”
In the same grain, the popular online magazine, Muslimmatters, have had this fabrication, along with the compulsory extra duties conjured up and attributed to al-Shifaa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha), up on their website for nearly 10 years now:
“Al-Shifa bint AbdAllāh, appointed by Umar raḍyAllāhu ‘anhu (may Allāh be pleased with him) as market controller in Medina….Shifa bint AbdAllāh, as the market controller, had to ensure that business practices should always be consistent with Islam. She would go around the market, making sure that trading was being done on fair policies, and that that buyer and seller conformed to Islamic values.”
Popular orator, Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, in his article, “Gender Equality and Islam”, gives a succinctly vivid description of al-Shifaa’s imaginary role:
“The Caliph Umar appointed Shifa bint Abdullah as in-charge of a bazaar, the in-charge accountability court and market administration.”
Even the Dar al-Iftas (scholarly institutions dedicated to issuing religious edicts) are at it. Dar al-Ifta al-Missriyyah, as justification for women working outside the home, states as supposedly unassailable proof in one of its Fatwas:
“Shifa Bint ‘Abdullah held the post of market supervisor during the caliphate of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may God be pleased with him).”
It appears that the internet and modern Islamic literature is replete with this story, especially modern adaptations of it.
It is clear that the role envisaged for this noble and most eminent Sahabiyyah (radhiyallahu anha) in the examples cited above and in almost every other place where this story is related today, is of a thoroughly western mould – one similar to a modern female corporate office manager who roams about freely, interacting with all and sundry, albeit coated with a thin veneer of supposedly modest behaviour and dress which are hallucinated to be Islamic, but are, in reality, in violent conflict with the true teachings of Islam – such teachings, which, as prophecized in authentic Hadiths, are becoming increasingly Ghareeb (strange, alien, forlorn) with each passing day.
From this perspective, the story, in the form that it is being propagated today, is a great slander on Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), on al-Shifa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha), and on the generality of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) who, by implication, are alleged to have tolerated and condoned numerous contraventions of the Shari’ah including the prohibition of women emerging outside the home without genuine need, the prohibition of women interacting with men, without a barrier and without genuine need sanctioned by the Shari’ah, and, quite squarely, the prohibition of falling under the purview of the Prophetic warning that never will a people succeed who make a woman in charge of their affairs.
To provide sincere readers with a brief glimpse into the vastness of the chasm of difference between the “Islam” as propounded by the modernist charlatans who masquerade as scholars today, and true, Ghareeb Islam as expounded by the great Fuqaha (jurists) of the past, we cite here the 5th century authority, Imam Baghawee, transmitting the Ijma’ (agreement of the scholars) on the prohibition of a woman assuming a leadership position in a public role:
قال الإمام البغوي:اتفقوا على أن المرأة لا تصلح أن تكون إماماً ولا قاضياً، لأن الإمام يحتاج إلى البروز لإقامة أمر الجهاد، والقيام بأمور المسلمين، والقاضي يحتاج إلى البروز لفصل الخصومات، والمرأة عورة لا تصلح للبروز، وتعجز لضعفها عند القيام بأكثر الأمور، ولأن المرأة ناقصة، والإمامة والقضاء من كمال الولايات، فلا يصلح لها إلا الكامل من الرجال
“They (the scholars) are in agreement that a woman is not suitable to be a leader or a judge because the leader is in need of coming out into the open to establish the matter of Jihaad and to carry out the affairs of the Muslims, and the judge is in need of coming out into the open to settle disputes. And the woman is something that has to be concealed and is (thus) not suitable for coming out into the open. She is incapacitated, due to her weakness, in undertaking many matters (of the public). The woman is deficient, while leadership and judgeship is from the elite roles, thus none is suitable for them except the accomplished from men.” (Sharh us-Sunnah)
That every word of the statement above, agreed upon by the Fuqaha, is in perfect conformity with the teachings of Allah Ta’ala and His Rasulullah ﷺ, will be proven thoroughly in a future installment to this article insha-Allah.
Rare and isolated opinions of scholars which maybe excavated from our tradition and which contradict the above or which, for example, permit the listening of music, the killing of civilians, viewing one’s prospective bride in the nude, etc. do not affect the Ijma’ (agreement that has a binding effect) that occurs in any matter.
Returning back to the sources which clarify the reality behind the myth of al-Shifa’s leadership role in the market, the author of one of the early and most authoritative biographical dictionaries, Ibn Sa’d, mentions how al-Shifa bint Abdullah’s (radhiyallahu anha) progeny would take offence, and understandably so, to the false allegation that she had assumed a leadership position:
ويقال إنّ عمر بن الخطاب استعملها على السوق وولدها ينكرون ذلك ويغضبون منه
“And it is said that Umar ibn al-Khattaab appointed her in-charge of the marketplace. However, her progeny would deny this and would get angry over this.” (Tabaqaat ul-Kubraa)
So who did Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) appoint as the supervisor of the marketplace in Madinah?
When we turn to authentic sources, the names of three men come up: as-Saa-ib ibn Yazeed, Abdullah ibn Utbah ibn Mas’ood, and Sulayman Ibn Abee Hathmah (radhiyallahu anhum).
Imam Malik narrates in his Muwatta, with an authentic chain:
مَالِكٌ ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ ، عَنِ السَّائِبِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ ؛ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: كُنْتُ عَامِلاً (١) مَعَ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ، عَلَى سُوقِ الْمَدِينَةِ، فِي زَمَانِ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ . فَكُنَّا نَأْخُذُ مِنَ النَّبَطِ الْعُشْرَ
“as-Saa-ib ibn Yazeed said: “I was the administrator of the marketplace of Madinah, with Abdullah ibn Utbah ibn Mas’ood, in the time of Umar ibn al-Khattaab…”
Similarly, Imam Bukhari narrates in at-Taarikh al-Awsat:
حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيٌّ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ الزُّهْرِيّ يخبر عَن السَّائِب بن يزِيد بن أُخْتِ نَمِرٍ أَنَّ عُمَرَ اسْتَعْمَلَ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُتْبَةَ عَلَى السُّوقِ وَهُوَ مَعَهُ
“az-Zuhree relates from as-Saa-ib ibn Yazeed, the nephew of Namir, that Umar placed Abdullah ibn Utbah in charge of the marketplace, and he was with him.”
Ibn Sa’d narrates with an authentic chain to az-Zuhree:
أَخْبَرَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ دُكَيْنٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ أَنَّ عمر بن الخطاب اسْتَعْمَلَ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُتْبَةَ عَلَى السُّوقِ وَأَمَرَهُ أَنْ يَأْخُذَ مِنَ الْقِطْنِيَّةِ. قَالَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُمَرَ: وَقَدْ رَوَى عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُتْبَةَ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ. ثُمَّ تَحَوَّلَ إِلَى الْكُوفَةِ فَنَزَلَهَا وَتُوُفِّيَ بِهَا فِي خِلافَةِ عبد الملك بن مروان
“Umar ibn al-Khattaab placed Abdullah ibn Utbah in charge of the marketplace and he ordered him to collect legumes (as tax from foreigners)… then he was transferred to Koofa. So he settled there and passed away there during the reign of Abdul Malik ibn Marwaan.” (Tabaqaat al-Kubraa)
It is possible that after Abdullah ibn Utbah was transferred to Koofa, Sulayman ibn Abee Hathmah, the third Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu), was appointed to replace him and accompany as-Saa-ib ibn Yazeed (radhiyallahu anhum) who remained in his role as administrator of the marketplace in Madinah.
Ibn Abee Khaythamah relates from the early biographer, Mus’ab ibn Abdullah az-Zubayree, the fact that Sulayman ibn Abee Hathmah did accompany as-Saa-ib ibn Yazeed as administrator of the marketplace:
السَّائِب بْنُ يَزِيد الخطاب:
– سَمِعْتُ مُصْعَب بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ يقول: السَّائِب بن يَزِيد بن أُخْتِ النَّمِر، وهُوَ يُنْسَبُ فِي كِنْدة، وَقَدْ رَوَىَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَكَانَ هُوَ وسُلَيْمَان بْنُ أَبِي حَثْمَة عَلَى سوقِ الْمَدِينَةِ لعُمَر بْنِ الْخَطَّاب.
“as-Saa-ib ibn Yazeed…he and Sulayman ibn Abee Hathmah were in charge of the marketplace of Madinah, for Umar ibn al-Khattaab.” (at-Taarikh al-Kabeer)
The fact that the mother of Sulayman ibn Abee Hathmah (radhiyallahu anhu) was none other than al-Shifaa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha) enables us to begin unravelling the conundrum of how the heretic fabricators, referred to by Qadi Ibn Arabi, had been able to contort the actual reality and interpolate some of the early books with the false version that is being currently propagated with great relish by their inheritors today.
While it is forbidden, by Ijma’, to place a woman in a position of leadership in a major public role, it is perfectly valid to entrust certain limited matters to a woman provided all the commandments of the Shari’ah can be abided by. And, in respect to al-Shifa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha), this seems to be the case.
The major reference books relating the biographies of the early personalities indicate just that.
For example, Ibn Abdil Barr, in his “Istee’aab”, relates under the biographies of Sulayman ibn Abee Hathmah and his mother:
(١٠٥٥) سليمان بن أبي حثمة… هاجر صغيرا مع أمه الشفاء، وكان من فضلاء المسلمين وصالحيهم، واستعمله عمر على السوق…
(٣٣٩٨) الشفاء أم سُلَيْمَان بْن أبي حثمة…أسلمت الشفاء قبل الهجرة فهي من المهاجرات الأول، وبايعت النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ]  ، كانت من عقلاء النساء وفضلائهن… وَكَانَ عمر يقدمها فِي الرأي ويرضاها ويفضلها، وربما ولاها شَيْئًا من أمر السوق
“Sulayman ibn Abee Kathmah…emigrated as a child with his mother, ash-Shifaa… Umar placed him in charge of the marketplace … ash-Shifaa, the mother of Sulayman… sometimes he (Umar) would entrust her a certain matter of the marketplace.”
Note the bolded words, “sometimes” and “certain matter” (or “a thing”), which makes a world of difference to the unrestricted leadership role assigned to al-Shifa by the celebrity orators and intellectuals of today – a role that was, in fact, given instead to her son and two other Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), as proven by the authentic narrations cited earlier.
The same is stated in both Tahdheeb ul-Kamaal of al-Mizzee and Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, two of the most important and most commonly used reference books in that particular field:
وربما ولاها شيئا من أمر السوق
“And sometimes he would entrust her with a certain matter (or a thing) of the marketplace.”
In Jamharah Ansaab ul-Arab of Ibn Kalbee, Taarikh ul-Kabeer of Ibn Abee Khaythamah, and Nasab Quraysh of Mus’ab ibn Abdullah az-Zubayree, three very early texts from authorities in their respective fields, it states (with very slight and inconsequential differences between the three texts):
وكان ابنها من صالحي المسلمين، واستعمله عمر بن الخطاب على سوق المدينة
“And her (al-Shifaa bint Abdullah’s) son was from the righteous Muslims, and Umar ibn al-Khattaab placed him in-charge of the market of Madinah.”
Again, the distinction between al-Shifa bint Abdullah and her son, and the identity of who was actually placed in charge of the market, is crystal clear.
Ibn Asaakir, in his Taarikh, relates the same concern of al-Shifa bint Abdullah’s progeny regarding her alleged appointment, as did Ibn Sa’d earlier:
ويقال إن عمر بن الخطاب استعملها على السوق وولدها ينكرون ذلك ويغضبون منه
“It is said that Umar ibn al-Khattaab appointed her as in-charge of the marketplace, and her progeny would reject that and get angry over it.”
There is no need to conjecture on how all the modernists who quote the fabricated story of al-Shifa’s (radhiyallahu anha) appointment, somehow manage to overlook, with a great deal of skillful adroitness, the clear distinctions and clarifications made in so many of the authoritative texts cited above and others.
The glasses tinted with the stain of their soiled nufoos (base desires), with which these modernists read the classical texts can be appreciated by the following example.
Under the biographies of as-Saa-ib ibn Yazeed and al-Shifaa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anhum), Ibn Hajar states in “al-Isaabah”:
قال مصعب الزبيري: استعمله عمر على سوق المدينة هو وسليمان بن أبي خثمة وعبد الله بن عتبة بن مسعود…
وكان عمر يقدمها في الرأي ويرعاها ويفضلها، وربما ولّاها شيئا من أمر السوق.
“Umar appointed him (i.e. as-Saa-ib ibn Yazeed) in charge of the marketplace of Madinah – him, Sulayman ibn Abee Hathmah, and Abdullah ibn Utbah ibn Mas’ood… Umar used to give precedence to her (al-Shifaa) in opinion, would take care of her, and give her preference. And, sometimes, he would entrust her with a certain matter (or a thing) of the marketplace.”
Again, note the world of difference the bolded words make when compared to a modern version below of the same citation from Ibn Hajar’s book, filtered, refracted and thoroughly mutilated though the lens of stained glasses, which is currently doing the rounds on the internet:
“Ibn Hajar (rh), the great 15th century Muslim scholar said, ‘Umar as caliph used to consult with Shifa bint Abdullah and honor her. He made her the WALI (incharge) of the affairs (amr) of the market. (Al Isabah vol 8 pg 202).”
While the actual text is very clear that al-Shifa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha) would only occasionally be entrusted with “a thing” from the marketplace, the modern version assigns to her complete leadership of the marketplace! Furthermore, the very same book states very clearly the three male Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) who had been given that particular leadership role.
Such distortions to the actual translation which renders a completely different meaning to the actual reality is also known as chicanery and fraud. The one who knowingly propagates such chicanery, and the one who fails to publically retract after having been apprized of the truth, fully deserves to be branded a fraudster. Ironically, the author of this particular act of blatant fraud accuses another person, Daniel Haqiqatjou, of lying, when he said, allegedly:
“Shifa bint Abdullah wasn’t in charge of the market of Medina. She had a whip and she would beat women up.”
Undeniably, the first sentence is the absolute truth, as proven from the authentic narrations cited in this article, which have real and authentic sanads, as opposed to non-existent ones. The second sentence is conjecture, unless the claimant has authentic proof for his claim. It may or may not be the truth.
So far we have not come across any authentic narration, or even an inauthentic one, which provides more detail on the specific “thing” al-Shifa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha) was entrusted with by Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), and on certain occasions only.
However, there are reasonable grounds to make the conjecture that al-Shifa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha) was responsible for disciplining women who misbehaved in the marketplace. Since a great proportion of women during those early eras were extremely pious, fearing of Allah Ta’ala, and who would very rarely, if at all, emerge from their homes (as will be proven in a future installment to this article insha-Allah), the task of disciplining women would only arise sometimes. And, rather than her son, Sulayman, or the two other Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), who were given charge of the marketplace, carrying out the act of disciplining women, it may have been more appropriate and more conducive to the requirements of Hijaab, for a woman to carry out this need which would inevitably arise from time to time.
In fact, some of the early scholars proffered a similar explanation in attempting to reconcile the alleged appointment of al-Shifaa to a leadership position, which we have proven to be false, and Rasulullah’s ﷺ categorical and unambiguous declaration:
فقد قال – صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم -: «لَنْ يُفْلِحَ قَوْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمْ امْرَأَةً» (رواه البخاري).
“Never will a people succeed who give charge over their matters to a woman.” (Saheeh Bukhari)
The 5th century Maliki authority, Imam al-Maaziree, states:
عدة البروق في جمع ما في المذهب من الجموع والفروق في مذهب الإمام مالك
قال الإمام أبو عبد الله المازري، رحمه الله تعالى: وقد اعتذر بعض الناس عن هذا بأنها إنما جعل لها تغيير ما يقع من منكرات في السوق، وهذا خارج عن تولية القضا
“And some people gave an explanation to this (by saying) that he (Umar) only entrusted her (the task of) changing what would occur from the wrongdoings in the marketplace, and this is outside (the remit) of entrusting judgeship.” (Uddat ul-Burooq of al-Wanshireeshee)
Another basis for the conjecture that al-Shifa bint Abdullah’s (radhiyallahu anha) limited role entrusted to her on certain occasions by Umar is related merely to disciplining other women is the fact that a similar role did actually exist according to another narration, authenticated by certain Hadith specialists, which describes another elderly Sahabiyyah, Samraa’ bint Naheek (radhiyallahu anha), and which is also exploited by the modernists today as an example of a woman supposedly given charge of the marketplace. However, due to certain details described in the actual narration, such as summary “judging”, instant punitive measures and heavy clothing in a scorching climate, which conflict with the idealistic worldview of the “don’t judge me” and thinly-clad (including male) feminine modernists of today, the actual narration is very rarely cited by them, even though it is far more authentic than the fabricated story regarding Al-Shifa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha), hence why we deem it necessary to cite the narration in full below.
Al-Haythami narrates in his “Majma'”:
عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ أَبِي سُلَيْمٍ قَالَ: رَأَيْتُ سَمْرَاءَ بِنْتَ نَهِيكٍ – وَكَانَتْ قَدْ أَدْرَكَتِ النَّبِيَّ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – عَلَيْهَا دُرُوعٌ غَلِيظَةٌ، وَخمَارٌ غَلِيظَةٌ، بِيَدِهَا سَوْطٌ تُؤَدِّبُ النَّاسَ، وَتَأْمُرُ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ، وَتَنْهَى عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ. رَوَاهُ الطَّبَرَانِيُّ، وَرِجَالُهُ ثِقَاتٌ.
“I saw Samraa’ bint Naheek – she had attained (the companionship of) the Prophet ﷺ. Upon her were thick chemises, and a thick Khimaar. In her hand was a whip (with which) she was disciplining the people, commanding righteousness and prohibiting wrong-doing.” (Tabaraani – the narrators are trusted)
Since in this worst of eras, close to the final hour, the obvious has become very unobvious and strange (Ghareeb), it needs to be clarified that the word “an-Naas” (people), in the context above, refers self-evidently and exclusively to misbehaving women. It would not be surprising, however, if the feminists, with their extremely deficient intellects and twisted worldview, actually deem it possible, both physically and in terms of the Shari’ah, for an extremely elderly and pious lady to mix and interact with the huge, burly and rugged men who used to frequent the marketplace of that era, whipping them left, right, and centre, and in doing so, heralding the dawn of a golden new age of feminist “liberation” (i.e. self-immolation).
Note also that there is absolutely no indication in the narration, nor in any of the biographical dictionaries and other classical texts, that Samraa’ bint Naheek (radhiyallahu anha) was given a leadership role, or even any role in the marketplace. At most, it merely describes a very elderly Sahabiyyah (radhiyallahu anha) whipping miscreant women in an unspecified location, a task of very limited remit which might have arisen only on certain occasions, as with whatever task Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) had entrusted al-Shifa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha) with.
In conclusion, it has been proven very clearly on this page that:
1) al-Shifaa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha) was never given charge of the marketplace by Umar (radhiyallahu anhu).
2) Authentic narrations confirm that three male Sahabah, most likely two at any one time, were given charge of the marketplace. One of them was the son of al-Shifaa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha). None of these authentic narrations which specify very clearly and precisely who was appointed even indicate towards al-Shifa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha).
3) According to the biographical dictionaries, al-Shifa bint Abdullah (radhiyallahu anha) was possibly entrusted with only a “certain matter” of the marketplace and only on certain occasions.
4) It is possible that her role was similar to that of another elderly Sahabiyyah (radhiyallahu anha), Samraa’ bint Naheek (radhiyallahu anha), which entailed whipping women who might not have been abiding by the requirements of the Shari’ah when genuine need might’ve compelled them to emerge from their homes. These requirements include abiding by Rasulullah’s ﷺ explicit command to emerge only as “Tafilaat” – wearing shabby clothes, smelling unpleasantly, etc. -, to be covered up completely, to adhere to the edges of the paths, to avoid any possibility of ikhtilaat (mixing with men), and other requirements the basis of which we will demonstrate in future insha-Allah, from the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the example of the best of generations.