Aisha And Muhammed’s Marriage – Puberty

Kaleef K. Karim

Content:

1. Was Aisha’s Marriage Common In History?
2. Khawlah Suggested The Prophet To Marry Aisha
3. Aisha And Dolls
4. Jariyya – Young Lady
5. Aisha Reached Puberty Before Marriage Was Consummated

Introduction,

Among the claims made in regards to Prophet Muhammed’s marriage to Aisha is that such a marriage was uncommon. Some online detractors even go the extend to avoid and deliberately make out to their readers that such a marriage was unheard off in history.

Indeed there are a number of authentic reports in Sahih al Bukhari and other sources which say that her marriage was consummated at the age of 9 (or 10 in some other sources). This was the time she had reached the age of puberty. Although this age is something that has been accepted among the conservative Muslims in the past and today, there are some 20th century proponents who have pointed out based on external evidence from a number of authentic reports that her age was older than what is commonly accepted among Muslims. I won’t go into much more detail on this here, as there may be an article on this matter in the near future to see if what is presented has any validity.

1. Was Aisha’s Marriage Common In History?

Yes, her marriage was very common. Among the ancient cultures and societies it was custom when a girl hits puberty she was transitioned into adulthood. This was the stage where girls who hit puberty were deemed to be a woman, and a time for them to be married off.

The Bible for example gives us many instances where Prophets married very young girls, for today it may shock some readers, but these type of marriages were very common.

1.1. Prophet Jacob’s daughter, Dinah was given away in marriage when she was below the age of 9-years-old to Shechem. The marriage didn’t last long as Dinah’s brothers murdered members of Shechem’s family due to Shechem’s act before the marriage: “Bible: How Old Was Dinah When She Was Married To Shechem?” https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/02/bible-how-old-was-dinah-when-she-was-married-to-shechem/

1.2. There is also the case wherein King David in his old age wasn’t getting warm in his bed. His nurses (doctors) proposed to bring a young girl to warm him up. To bring him back to his youthful strength. This is while King David was 70-years-old, the girl Abishag was no older than 12-years-old when she was married off to him: “King David’s Marriage To 12 Year Old Abishag – Bible“ https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/09/17/king-davids-marriage-to-12-year-old-abishag-bible/

. Another two piece articles have been written about this incident, please see here: https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/09/21/exploring-1-kings-14-knew-her-not-king-davids-12-year-old-bride/

And here: https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/09/25/bible-evidence-that-david-married-12-year-old-abishag/

1.3. The most common marriage that is widely known among scholars is that of Isaac and Rebecca. Some very early scholars have pointed out that she was no older than 3-years-old when she was married off to Isaac. However, this number is not in accord with the Biblical text. I wrote a very detailed article on this showing that Rebecca was anything below the age of 9, but not three. The Biblical text support the evidence provided that Isaac was 40-years-old when he married 8-year-old Rebecca: “The Age Of Rebecca When She Married Isaac – Biblical Perspective“ https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/10/26/the-age-of-rebecca-when-she-married-isaac-biblical-perceptive/ .

Here is another piece on Rebecca and Isaac’s marriage: https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/11/14/was-rebekah-3-10-years-old-when-married-off-to-isaac/

1.4. The apocryphal writings report that Mary was 12-years-old when she was given away in marriage to 80-year-old (other reports say 90-year-old) Joseph the carpenter. Some modern Christians uncomfortable about this account have dismissed it. Mary being married off at 12-years-old is not just reported in apocryphal writings, this is well attested also by some of the earliest Church fathers: “Mary the wife of Joseph The carpenter”: https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/30/marriage-of-mary-to-joseph-the-carpenter/

1.5. There is also the case with Moses and his men marrying prepubescent girls, this is related in the Biblical verse, Numbers 31:18: https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/07/a-detailed-historical-examination-of-numbers-3118/

1.6. Away from the Bible, just over 100 years ago, the age of consent in America and Europe was 10, and in the State of Delaware it was as low as 7: “Age of Consent in European and American History“: https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/09/age-of-consent-in-european-american-history/

The New York Times, in 1895 mentions the age of consent laws in a publication: “The Age Of Consent Laws In America, 1800s“: https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/09/13/the-age-of-consent-laws-in-america-1800s/

Scholars have pointed out that what we call “child-marriage” today was never brought up. A female was deemed to be an adult the moment she hit puberty. Same was the case for boys, they were deemed be an adults the moment there were signs of pubic hair or had a wet dream.

If one thinks these above cases are only in the past, they are mistaken.

In 1972, a case was brought in Pinellas County, it was said that Sherry Johnson, of Tallahassee, was raped at the age of 10. As a result of this she got impregnated by the perpetrator. Sherry Johnson’s mom gave approval for her daughter to “marry the 20-year-old” man: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-03-18/news/fl-minors-marriage-legislature-20140318_1_stafford-parental-consent-vital-statistics

And here: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-03-18/news/fl-minors-marriage-legislature-20140318_1_stafford-parental-consent-vital-statistics

The law did not prohibit the couple from getting married, even though he was a lot older. [1]

Away from the 1970s, between 2000 and 2010 over 240 thousand children were married off in America: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/why-does-the-united-states-still-let-12-year-old-girls-get-married/?utm_term=.2215ab3c97de

The youngest girl married was 12-years-old. The vast majority of the time the men were a lot older than the girls. Despite this, such marriages continue to this very day in many Christian, Jewish and even secular communities https://www.good.is/articles/child-marriage-america . [2] [3]

With parental consent a 12 to 14-year-old can be married in some states in America:

“A handful of other states sanction extremely early marriages with parental consent: In Alabama, South Carolina and Utah, girls can marry at 14; in New Hampshire it’s 13; in Massachusetts and Kansas, 12.”(“Early marriage survives in the U.S.”, last acessed 27th february 2017, online source, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0412120359dec12-story.html#page=1)

Here is New Hampshire’s Law:

“The state of New Hampshire requires males as young as 14 and females as young as 13 to obtain parental consent before a marriage license will be granted. The statute does not provide specific exceptions, but allows the judge to grant marriage license requests if he or she believes it is in the couple’s best interests.” (“New Hampshire Marriage Age Requirements Laws” (Last accessed 19th February 2017), online source, http://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-hampshire-law/new-hampshire-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html )

As recently as 2014, in Spain a girl of 14 years-old could get married by Law. They lifted the age from 14 to 16 years of age as pressure was mounted on the government (online source, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/spain-raises-age-of-consent ). [4]

As we have read so far, Aisha’s marriage 1400 society was normal, very common among the ancient cultures and all the way to the present day.

2. Khawlah Suggested The Prophet To Marry Aisha

The Prophet Muhammed (p) became sad at the loss of his beloved wife, Khadija. He had four young children to bring up by himself. To heal his wounds at the demise of his wife, Khawlah bint Hakim offered to search around to find him a new wife. She went over to the Prophet Muhammed (p) and suggested two options, one was the virgin, Aisha the daughter of his closest friend from Jahiliyyah days, Abu Bakr, and the other was a former widow, Sawdah bint Zamah [5]. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya – Ibn Kathir quotes a Hadith from Musnad of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal on this:

“Imam Ahmad stated in the Musnad, of A’isha, ‘the mother of the faithful,’ that Muhammad b. Bishr related to him, from Bishr and Muhammad b. Amr, who was told the following by Abu Salama and Yahya: ‘When Khadija died, Khawla, daughter of Hakim, the wife of Uthman b. Maz’un, came and said, ‘O Messenger of God, wouldn’t you like to get married?’ He replied, to whom?’
‘To either a virgin or to someone previously married, as you wish.’
‘And who would the virgin be?’ He asked. She replied, ‘That creation of God you enjoy above all others, A’isha, daughter of Abu Bakr!’
‘And who would the previously married woman be?’ He asked. ‘Sawda, daughter of Zam’a,’ she answered. ‘She has expressed belief in you and has become your follower.’
‘You may go,’ he told her, ‘and make mention of me to them.’ ‘She entered Abu Bakr’s house and said to his wife, ‘Umm Ruman, what goodness and blessings God brings you!’ ‘How do you mean?’ She enquired. ‘The Messenger of God (SAAS) has sent me to ask to become engaged to A’isha!’
‘See Abu Bakr when he comes in,’ she replied.
‘Abu Bakr did come and Khawla said, ‘O Abu Bakr, what goodness and blessings God brings you!’
‘How so?’ he asked.
‘The Messenger of God (SAAS) has sent me to ask to become engaged to A’isha!’ … Umm Ruman told me, ‘Mut’im b. Adi has asked for her in marriage to his son; and, I swear, Abu Bakr went in to see Mut’im b. Adi who had his wife, Umm al-Sabi, with him. She commented, ‘Well, son of Abu Quhafa, are you perhaps having our friend change his religion and join yours if he gets married into your family?’ Abu Bakr asked Mut’im b. Adi, ‘Is this how you respond?’ He replied, ‘It’s she who said that.’ ‘And so Abu Bakr left, God having relieved him of the promise he had made to Mut’im. He returned home and told Khawla, ‘Call for the Messenger of God (SAAS) to come to me.’ She did so and he agreed to her (Aisha) marriage to him (Muhammed)…” (The Life of the Prophet Muhammed (‘Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya’) [Translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing – Copyright 2000, The Center for Muslim Contribution To civilization], by Ibn Kathir, volume 2, page 94 – 95)

Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-Muluk – Abu Ja’far Muhammad b Jarir al-Tabari [6]:

“The Reason Why The Messenger of God Asked for the Hands of Both A’ishah and Sawdah in Marriage and the Received Reports as to with Whom He First Contracted the Marriage
… When Khadijah died, Khawlah bt. Hakim b. Umayyah b. al-Awqas, wife of Uthman b. Maz’un, who was in Mecca, said [to the Messenger of God]. ‘O Messenger of God, will you not marry?’ He replied, ‘Whom’? ‘A Maiden,’ she said, ‘if you like, or a non-maiden.’ He replied, ‘Who is the maiden?’ ‘The daughter of the dearest creature of God to you,’ she answered, ‘A’ishah bt. Abi Bakr.’ He asked, ‘And who is the non-maiden?’ ‘Sawdah bt. Zam’ah b. Qays,’ she replied, ‘she has [long] believed in you and has followed you.’ [So the Prophet] asked her to go and propose to them on his behalf. She went to Abu Bakr’s house, where she found Umm Ruman, mother of A’ishah, and said, ‘O Umm Ruman, what a good thing and a blessing has God brought to you!’ She said, ‘What is that?’ Khawlah replied, ‘The Messenger of God has sent me to ask for A’ishah’s hand in marriage on his behalf.’ She answered. ‘I ask that you wait for Abu Bakr, for he should be on his way.’ When Abu Bakr came, Khawlah repeated what she had said. He replied, ‘She is [like] his brother’s daughter. Would she be appropriate for him?’ When Khawlah returned to the Messenger of God and told him about it he said, ‘God back to him and say that he is my brother in Islam and that I am his brother [in Islam], so his daughter is good for me.’ She cae to Abu Bakr and told him what the Messenger of God had said. Then he asked her to wait until he returned. Umm Ruman said that al-Mut’im b. Adi has asked A’ishah’s hand for his son, but Abu Bakr had not promised anything. Abu Bakr left and went to Mut’im while his wife, mother of the son for whom he had asked A’ishah’s hand, was with him.” (The History Of al-Tabari (Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk”) – The Last Years Of the Prophet [Translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala, University of California, Los Angeles – State University Of New York, 1990], volume IX (9), page 129 – 130)

al-Bayhaqi:

“This is an account of the same circumstances related by al-Bayhaqi through Ahmad b. Abd al-Jabbar, as follows, ‘Abd Allah b. Idris al-Azdi related to us, from Muhammad b. Amr, from Yahya b. Abd al-Rahman b. Hatib who reported, ‘A’isha said, ‘When Khadija died Khawla, daughter of Hakim, came and said, ‘O Messenger of God, would you like to be married?’ ‘To whom?’ he enquired. ‘It could, if you wish, be to a virgin or to a woman previously married,’ she replied. ‘Which virgin, and which previously married?’ he asked. ‘The virgin could be the daughter of that creation of God whom you love best; the previously married woman would be Sawda, daughter of Zam’a. She has expressed belief in you and become your follower.’ ‘Make mention of me to them, he told her.’” (The Life of the Prophet Muhammed (‘Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya’) [Translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing – Copyright 2000, The Center for Muslim Contribution To civilization], by Ibn Kathir, volume 2, page 96)

And:

“In other words the messenger of God desists from marrying? He said: And who [do you suggest]? She said: Do you want a young woman (bakra) or an old woman (thayiba)? He said: So who is the young woman? She said: The daughter of the most beloved of Allah’s creation to you, ‘Aisha bint Abi Bakr. And he said: Who is the older woman? She said: Sawdah bint Zama‘ah. He said: So go and mention me to both of them.“ (Abu al-Qasim al-Ṭabarani, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir (Cairo: Maktabah ibn Taymiyah, 1994), 5923:23. Nu‘im bin al-Ḥakim al-Naysaburi, al-Mustadarak ala al-Ṣahihayn (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘ilmiyah, 1999), tradition 2704, 2:181. Isnad graded Sahih) (“A Modern Matn Criticism on the Tradition on Aisha’s Age of Marriage: Translation and Analysis”, p. 18-19, source, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279513550_A_Modern_Matn_Criticism_on_the_Tradition_on_’A’isha’s_Age_of_Marriage_Translation_and_Analysis )

We gather from the above reports that the marriage of Aisha was suggested by Khawlah who was a close family friend. She encouraged Prophet Muhammad to marry Aisha ‘to form a close relationship with Abu Bakr’s family’.

Another important information that needs highlighting here is, the above reports tell us that Aisha was already engaged to Jubayr Ibn Mut’im Ibn Adi, a young man who had not embraced Islam at the time. This shows that marriage of the Prophet (p) and Aisha was not uncommon. As far as history is witness, there was nothing unusual about this marriage.

Barnaby Rogerson comments on this, regarding Khawlah suggesting the marriage and saying that the marriage was consummated years later when Aisha had physically matured, “after her menstruation”:

“After Khadijah died the Prophet’s household and his daughters were cared for by Khawlah, the wife of one of his loyal followers. After the first period of mourning had passed, Khawlah suggested that he should find another wife. She herself put forward two candidates, the very beautiful Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, and Sawdah, a motherly thirty-year-old. Muhammad chose both of them Sawdah, of the Muslims who had taken refuge in Abyssinia, had recently been widowed. She was therefore immediately available and moved in to take charge of the household. Aisha, then still a pre-pubescent virgin, was betrothed by her father BUT DID NOT PHYSICALLY BECOME MUHAMMAD’S WIFE UNTIL SHE WAS CONSIDERED SEXUALLY MATURE, AFTER HER MENSTRUATION.” (The Prophet Muhammad: And the Roots of the Sunni-Shia Schism [Hachette Digital, 2003], by Barnaby Rogerson page 55)

 

3. Aisha And Dolls

Narrated ‘Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari, volume 13, page 143) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, volume 8, Book 73, Number 151)

The above report(s) is often cited by some critics as evidence that Aisha played with dolls, therefore she was a prepubescent girl after her marriage was consummated. This claim has no foundation, given that we have many reports, which tell us that Aisha hit puberty long before the marriage was consummated with Prophet Muhammed (p).

It should be noted the part where it’s in brackets,

(“The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty”.)

This is not part of the report, it is in fact a commentary of Sahih Bukhari titled ‘Fath-al-Bari’, written in the year 1428, by Shafi qadi, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.

The claim that “Aisha playing with dolls proves she was too immature to marry Muhammad”, this is baseless. Not only do we have historical evidence proving that Aisha hit puberty, the BBC America produced a documentary which show women above the age of 18 play with dolls:

“Monica Walsh, a 41-year-old wife and mother of a 2-year-old daughter from Orange County, N.Y., has one doll – “Hayden.” And, yes, she told Lauer, she plays with her doll “the same way a man might make a big train station and play with his train station or play with his sports car, his boat or his motorcycle.”
Fran Sullivan, 62, lives in Florida and has never had children. She brought two reborns to New York, “Robin” and “Nicholas,” and said she has a collection of more than 600 dolls of all kinds, including a number of reborn dolls.” (“Bogus baby boom: Women who collect lifelike dolls”, by Mike Celizic, online source (last accessed 8th February 2017), http://www.today.com/id/26970782/ns/today-today_news/t/bogus-%20baby-boom-women-who-collect-lifelike-dolls/ )

 

The BBC UK (2013) also published an article on this, titled “Teddy bears: Adults on their stuffed toy companions”, showing how grown up women play with teddy bears often:

“I have a small brown bear, Frank by name. He is so called because he is an earnest, honest, upright bear. He was given to me by a friend, as a promise that he would come home to me – and Frank. Frank had looked after my friend when his life went wrong. My friend never came home, he went to France and found someone else. Now Frank and I look after each other and we go everywhere together. Frank is a very special wee bear and very knowing. He has a beautiful soul. I will love him always. He is a good listener and he is my best friend. Heather, Rutland
…
My partner and I have 17 teddy bears which we’ve collected over the last five years, one of whom is my partner’s best friend and has been since he was 18 months old. Our teddies are a huge part of our lives. They travel the world with us and I couldn’t “bear” to leave any of them at home. Laura, Exeter, Devon.” (“Teddy bears: Adults on their stuffed toy companions” (BBC Magazine., Published 8 February 2013), online source (Last accessed 8th February 2017), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21367728 )

Additionally, this is also supported by the New York Times: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/motherhood-reborn-and-everlasting/  [7]

Dr. Juliette Peers says that it was very fashionable for adult women to carry dolls in public in the early 20th century:

“As dolls were becoming closely identified with medicalized norms of girls’ behaviour, many adult doll-type products began production in the 1920s and 1930s. Some of these, such as the Lenci felt dolls from Italy, crossed over from adult mascot or living room decorations into the realm of children’s toys. Others-such as the pinchusion dolls and porcelain dolls in the shape of hair tidies, bookends, perfume bottles, vases powder bowls, powder puffs, lamp bases and face brooches- would have been familiar items to the younger teen at least in their personal home environment and their mother’s room, if not standing on the girl’s dressing table o decorating her bedroom. DURING THE 1920S, IT WAS TRENDY FOR ADULT WOMEN TO CARRY DOLLS IN PUBLIC, especially in urban areas, as a fashion accessory, and perfume flasks, purses and handbags were produced with doll or teddy bear faces. The Nancy Ann Story Book Company of California produced small dolls in series that encouraged young girls to collect the whole set. The Nancy Ann Dolls crossed over from the younger to a young ADULT AUDIENCE, who regarded them a mascots and ornaments. Because the Nancy Ann dolls were extremely popular, the company had to switch to locally produced dolls when the supply sources in Axis countries became unavailable during World War II.” (Girl Culture: An Encyclopedia [Claudia Mitchell, Jacqueline Reid-Walsh (editors), GP – Greenwood Press, 2008] by Dr. Juliette Peers, volume 1, page 28)

And here:

“Collectible dolls are often given as presents to girls by doting parents and grandparents, as well as being bought as personal items by adult women.” (Girl Culture: An Encyclopedia [Claudia Mitchell, Jacqueline Reid-Walsh (editors), GP – Greenwood Press, 2008] by Dr. Juliette Peers, volume 1, page 36)

The above instances on dolls, show that just because one has a doll or plays with one it does not equate to the person being a child. As the above evidence has demonstrated, adult women play with dolls also. Therefore, this claim that Aisha was prepubescent for merely playing dolls is baseless, since we know that grown women in this very era play with dolls.

4. Jariyya – Young Lady

In order to cast doubt on Aisha’s marriage being consummated at the time when she hit puberty, some critics have claimed that the Arabic word Jariyya used in a number of instances with Aisha shows that she did not hit puberty before her marriage was consummated. For this they don’t present any evidence, other than make claims and play with words. The following Hadith is used for their claims:

“On that Allah’s Messenger called Buraira and said, ‘O Burair. Did you ever see anything which roused your suspicions about her?’ Buraira said, ‘No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of immature age, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith volume 3, Book 48, Hadith 829. Eng. Tran., http://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/USC-MSA/Volume-3/Book-48/Hadith-829/ )

Br. Bassam Zawadi gives evidence that there is nothing in the Hadith that suggests that she was “immature”, in the sense of being prepubescent:

“Looking at the Arabic text, I don’t see word “immature” anywhere. It only states that she is a YOUNG GIRL, which we will already know. But if someone is young that doesn’t necessarily imply that he or she is immature.
Secondly, the companion was not criticizing Aisha for her age. Rather, he was saying that her fault was that she:
‘GOES TO SLEEP while kneading the flour and the lamb eats that’.
Imam Nawawi (1233 – 1277) states in his commentary:
And the meaning of this statement is that there are no faults about her (Aisha) to begin with. There is nothing wrong about her EXCEPT THAT SHE SLEEPS WHILE KNEADING THE FLOUR. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Tawbah, Bab: Fee Hadeeth Al Ifk Wa Qubool Tawbat Al Qaazhif, Commentary on Hadith no. 4974, Source http://hadith.al-islam.com/Loader.aspx?pageid=261 )

The companion might have attributed her carelessness due to the fact that she was young and did not take seriously her responsibility over her tasks. However, this does not imply she was immature or psychologically incapable of being married.” (“Refuting Sam Shamoun’s Arguments Regarding The Prophet’s Marriage To Aisha”, by Bassam Zawadi, online source (last accessed 16th February 2017), http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_sam_shamoun_s_arguments_regarding_the_prophet_s_marriage_to_aisha )

Nowhere in the above Hadith does it prove the claims that have been made. In fact we have a number of Hadith wherein it explicitly mentions that she started menstruating while she moved in to Prophet Muhammed’s house. This evidence will be shown later, in section 5.

Br. Bassam is correct here indeed! Jariyya Haditha is used elsewhere by Aisha, and it literally means “young girl” or “young lady”. Being young does not equate to being prepubescent or immature. The main issue as shown was that she sleeps and sometimes neglects certain tasks. The following report has the exact same words used as the above report, notice “young lady” from Aisha’s own statement,

“At that time women were light in weight and were not fleshy for they used to eat little (food), so those people did not feel the lightness of the howdah while raising it up, and I was still a YOUNG LADY [JARIYYA HADITHA]. They drove away the camel and proceeded. Then I found my necklace after the army had gone.” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 6, Book 60, Hadith 274, Eng. Tran., https://sunnah.com/urn/180850 )

Furthermore, the word Jariyya is understood by Arabic English dictionaries as being referring to someone who is an adult. They tell us that Jariyya is used for a girl, slave, concubine and it is always used for grown up adult females:

“جَارِيَةٌ Jariya pl. –at, … jawarin girl; slave GIRL; maid, servant; ship, vessel.”
(Hans Wehr A Dictionary of Modern written Arabic [Edited by John Milton – Spoken Language Services, Inc. 1976], page 146)

English-Arabic Dictionary – Professor Francis Joseph Steingass:

“… Jari, flowing, running, current; passing, happening; – 5 jariya-t pl. jawari, slave-girl; GIRL; mercy of God; ship; sun.” (English-Arabic Dictionary: For the Use of Both Travellers and Students [LONDON – Crosby Lockwood And Son 7, Stationers Hall Court, Ludgate Hill, E.C.] by Professor Francis Joseph Steingass, page 214)

Edward William Lane’s Lexicon:

“جَارِيَةٌ A ship; (S, Msb, K ; ) because of its running upon the sea: (Msb : )an epithet in which the quality of a subst. predominates: pl. … (TA.) – The sun; (K;) because of its running from region to region: (TA : ) or the sun’s disk in the sky. (T. TA.) And … The Stars. (TA. [But see art. …]) – The mind: pl. as above. (TA.) – A GIRL, or YOUNG WOMAN; S, Mgh, Msb, K ; ) a female of which the male is termed …; so called because her activity and running; opposed to …: (Mgh : ) and a female slave; (Mgh voce …;) [in the sense] applied even to one who is an OLD WOMAN, unable to work, or to employ herself actively; alluding to what she was: (Msb : ) pl. as above. (Msb, K.) – The eye of any animal. (TA.) – A benefit, favour, boon, or blessing, bestowed by God (K, TA) upon his servants. (TA.).” (Edward Lane’s Lexicon, page 419, online source)

 

Arabic-English Dictionary Of Qur’anic Usage – Elsaid M. Badawi & Muhammad Abdel Haleem:

“… j-r-y to run, to flow, to stream, to sail; stream, channel, the way of things; vessel, boat; to continue, to be constant; YOUNG FEMALE, overseer. Of this root, five forms occur 64 times in the Qur’an: … jara 57 times; … jariyatun twice; … jariyat once; jawari three times and … majri once.” (Arabic-English Dictionary Of Qur’anic Usage [Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2008] by Elsaid M. Badawi, Muhammad Abdel Haleem, page 161)

 

Dictionary Of The Holy Qur’an – Malik Ghulam Farid:

“… [aor. … inf. Noun … and …] …: The water flowed, ran quickly. …: The horse ran. … : A continuous or permanent charity; … also means, a ship (plural lll) because of its running upon the sea; the sun; … Stars (81:17). ); a girl or YOUNG WOMAN; the wind; a female slave; an OLD WOMAN; the eye of an animal; a benefit, favour, blessing or boon bestowed by God upon His servants.” (Dictionary Of The Holy Qur’an of With References and Explanation of the Text by Malik Ghulam Farid M. A., page 134)

 

Dr. Mary Ann Fay:

“The word jawar and its variants (e.g., sing. JARIYA) are only used in connection with WOMEN and should be understood as the female equivalent of mamluk or tabi, that is, as a slave who is manumitted and becomes a client of his/her patron. Like mamluk, the word tabi is used to describe the relationship between men, not between men and women or women and women. Women are ma’tuqa or Jariyya.” (Women, The Family, And Dvorce Laws In Islamic History [Edited by Amira El Azhary Sonbol – Syracuse University Press. – First Edition, 1996], by Mary Ann Fay, page 163)

Professor of History Madeline C. Zilfe:

“Jariya (T. cariya) slave WOMAN; concubine.”
(Women In The Ottoman Empire Middle Eastern Women In The Early Modern Era [Koninlijke Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1997], by Madeline C. Zilfe, page 300 (Glossary))

Professor Joel L. Kraemer:

“Arab WOMEN were also entertainers, singers, musicians and poetesses (JARIYA qayna: ‘female slaver singer’) in royal courts.” (The Cambridge Genizah Collections: Their Contents and Significance [Cambridge University Press, 2002], by Joel L. Kraemer, page 184)

With the above evidences in perspective, Jariya is a young girl and it is used in the sense of a mature woman. Jariya is a person that has passed the age of puberty.

5. Aisha Reached Puberty Before Marriage Was Consummated

It is claimed when the marriage of Aisha was consummated she was a prepubescent girl. This not true when one looks at some of the earliest historical sources of Islam:

Narrated AISHA: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of PUBERTY. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings.” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 1, Book 8, Hadith 465 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/8/124)

The above report is also reported elsewhere but with a slight variation of words. While the above has the word “puberty”, this exchanged with “remember”. While the former Hadith says she hit puberty, this Hadith (below) says that she remembers things. This suggests that at this stage of her life she had reached the mental faculty to discern things:

“Narrated Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) “I do not remember (A’QAL) my parents believing in any religion other than the Religion (of Islam), and our being visited by Allah’s Messenger in the morning and in the evening. One day, while we were sitting in the house of Abu Bakr (my father) at noon, someone said, ‘This is Allah’s Messenger coming at an hour at which he never used to visit us.’ Abu Bakr said, ‘There must be something very urgent that has brought him at this hour.’ The Prophet said, ‘I have been allowed to go out (of Mecca) to migrate.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 8, Book 73, Hadith 102, https://sunnah.com/bukhari/78/107 )

In the two narrations we have read we see that Aisha had seen her parents follow Islam since she ‘attained the age of puberty’ and in the second report she was mentally mature. She goes on to say that a day did not pass, but that the Prophet Muhammad visited her (Aisha) and her parents. The Hadith reports presented shows that Aisha had reached puberty and had mentally matured to discern things while she still living with her parents, before the marriage was consummated to Prophet Muhammed (p).

Some critics have cast doubt on the Hadith where it mentions that Aisha hit “puberty” and claim that the translation that was made by the renowned scholar Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan is unreliable. As such we looked at Arabic-English Dictionaries on the word a’qal. The late professor Hans Wehr (1909 – 1981) who studied at the University of Munster published a book, “A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic”. He comments on the word “A’qal”:

“… a’qal more reasonable; brighter, smarter, more intelligent | … a’qal al’umr the most reasonable time of life, the years of reason and MATURITY.” (Hans Wehr A Dictionary of Modern written Arabic [Edited by John Milton – Spoken Language Services, Inc. 1976],  page 737)

Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan’s rendering of “puberty” in the first report is line with Professor Hans Wehr’s understanding of the Arabic language.

The narrations presented prove that Aisha had already hit puberty before the consummation of the marriage taken place. This is also confirmed by the 9th century scholar Abu Dawud Sulayman Ibn al-Ash‘ath al-Azdi as-Sijistani (817 – 889 CE), where he comments on a Hadith and says that Aisha herself says that she menstruated the same day the marriage was consummated:

“I was then brought to the Messenger of Allah, and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.
Abu Dawud said: That is to say: I MENSTRUATED, and I was brought in a house, and there were some women of the Ansari in it. They said: With good luck and blessing. The tradition of one of them has been included in the other.” (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 42, Hadith 4915. Eng. Tran., Sahih al-Albani, https://sunnah.com/abudawud/43/161 )

Additionally, we have another narration where science attests that Aisha had hit puberty before the marriage was consummated. The following report states:

Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. THEN I GOT ILL AND MY HAIR FELL DOWN. LATER ON MY HAIR GREW (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 5, Book 58, Hadith 234)

The above narration is also reported in Sunan Ibn Majah:

“Aishah said: “The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six years old. Then we came to Al-Madinah and settled among Banu Harith bin Khazraj. I BECAME ILL AND MY HAIR FELL OUT, THEN IT GREW BACK AND BECAME ABUNDANT. My mother Umm Ruman came to me while I was on an Urjuhah with some of my friends, and called for me. I went to her, and I did not know what she wanted. She took me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house, and I was panting. When I got my breath back, she took some water and wiped my face and head, and led me into the house. There were some woman of the Ansar inside the house, and they said: ‘With blessings and good fortune (from Allah).’ (My mother) handed me over to them and they tidied me up. And suddenly I saw the Messenger of Allah in the morning. And she handed me over to him and I was at that time, nine years old.” (Sahih) Sunan Ibn Majah volume 3, Book 9, Hadith 1876., Sahih Darussalam, http://www.sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9 )

It’s important to pay close attention to the above two narrations. Some may wonder, what is important about the part in the narration that is capitalized in bold, where it says,

“Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew”

This part of the Hadith shows explicitly from the point of science that Aisha hit puberty before the marriage was consummated with the Prophet (p). Hair loss is common among women. Hair loss happens when a girl goes through changes with her body i.e, hitting puberty.

Shannon Harrison, Melissa Piliang and Wilma explain why, when hair disorders occur:

“DEFINITION
Alopecia is the general term for hair loss. Hair loss can occur from the scalp and any hair-bearing part of the body. Hair has great social and cultural importance, and patients with hair loss experience anxiety and concern…..
PREVALENCE
….The most common form of hair loss is androgenetic alopecia (pattern hair loss), which increases with age; at least 80% of white men show some degree of thinning by the age of 70 year. Androgenetic alopecia OCCURS WITH THE ONSET OF PUBERTY and in males is dependent on circulating androgens. FEMALE PATTERN HAIR LOSS (female androgenetic alopecia) ALSO STARTS AFTER PUBERTY…” (Current Clinical Medicine: Expert Consult [Second edition – Elsevier Inc, 2010], by Shannon Harrison, Melissa Piliang, & Wilma Bergfeld, page 289 – 290)

Dr. Lisa Akbari:

“Studies show that hair loss affects approximately one third of all women. Although hair loss is most commonly seen after menopause, it can begin AS EARLY AS PUBERTY.” (Every Woman’s Guide to Beautiful Hair at Any Age: Learn What Can Be Done to keep a beautiful head of hair for a lifetime [SourceBooks, Inc – Naperville, Illinois, 2007] by Lisa Akbari page 70 -71)

Scholars Gisela Torres and Stephen K. Tyring:

“Androgenic alopecia may develop in a WOMAN at any time AFTER THE ONSET OF PUBERTY, although it most often occurs during the perimenopausal period or at times of hormonal change.
Primary Care for Women [Second edition – Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004] by Gisela Torres and Stephen K. Tyring, page 838)

The following facts we can gather from this evidence: (1) Aisha got ill and a lot of her hair started falling (hitting puberty). (2) After a while (months or year(s)) her hair grew again. (3) Aisha states that she was 9 years old when the marriage was consummated and this is when she started living with Prophet Mohammed (p) as the report states:

“(My mother) handed me over to them and they tidied me up. And suddenly I saw the Messenger of Allah in the morning. And she handed me over to him and I was at that time, nine years old.”

The claim that “Aisha was a prepubescent girl when her marriage was consummated”, the evidences presented refutes this. From the perspective of modern science, the scholars attest that Aisha did indeed hit puberty before the marriage was consummated.

Conclusion

Many any of the claims made in regards to Aisha and Muhammed (p) does not hold up when we consulted historical facts. Furthermore the ahadith reports shown explicitly mentioned that Aisha had reached puberty long before the marriage was consummated with the Prophet (p).

Hence, from the original Arabic language, it is clear that Aisha was at the age of puberty when she was married off. The scientific evidence presented on Aisha losing a lot of hair shows that she had begun her first menstrual period before the marriage was consummated. We know from the evidence presented that Prophet Muhammed (p) married her at the time when she was at the age where she was physically and mentally ready for marriage, 1400 years ago.

 

References:

[1] “Law would ban marriage in Florida before age 16” Last accessed 27th February 2017,
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-03-18/news/fl-minors-marriage-legislature-20140318_1_stafford-parental-consent-vital-statistics
[2] “Why can 12-year-olds still get married in the United States?” Last accessed 27th February 2017,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/why-does-the-united-states-still-let-12-year-old-girls-get-married/?utm_term=.2215ab3c97de
[3] “The Rate Of Child Marriages In America Is Alarming”, last acessed 27th February 2017, https://www.good.is/articles/child-marriage-america
[4] “Spain raises age of consent from 13 to 16”, last accessed 27th February 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/spain-raises-age-of-consent
[5] Xavier Williams:
“Ayesha Siddiqua: A woman named Khawlah Bint Hakeem suggested that Prophet Muhammad marry Ayesha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, to form a close relationship with Abu Bakr’s family. She was already engaged to Jober Ibn Al Moteam Ibn Oday. At this time Jober was not yet a Muslim. The people of Mecca did not object to Ayeshah becoming married because although she was young, she was mature enough to understand the responsibility of marriage.” (World Religions, True Beliefs and New Age Spirituality: A New Age Study on How Economic Tides and Parental Conditioning Mold Our World of Ethics, Religions, Beliefs, Sex And Relationships, by Xavier Williams, page 285)
[6] Some have claimed that Abu Bakr’s reluctance actually shows that it probably wasn’t all that accepted to marry your daughter off. In actual fact, the hadith says that Abu Bakr’s reluctance was actually because him and Muhammad were seen as brothers because they knew each other for many years, not because of Aisha’s age some have claimed. Prophet Muhammad replied that they weren’t literal brothers so it was fine. Furthermore, given that Aisha was already in the process of being given away in marriage to Jubayr Ibn Mut’im Ibn Adi shows that the age was not the issue with Abu Bakr.
[7] “Motherhood, Reborn and Everlasting”, last accessed 27th February 2017, http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/motherhood-reborn-and-everlasting/

M

M

Related Articles:

(1) – “Minimum Age For Marriage In The Quran” https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/11/21/minimum-age-for-marriage-in-the-quran/

(2) – “India: Villagers attack police who prevented child marriages” (*) http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/04/india-villagers-attack-police-who-prevented-child-marriages/

(3) – “200 Thousand Christian Children Were Married Before 10 In India” https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/01/200-thousand-christian-children-were-married-before-10-in-india/

(4) – “Indian teenager annuls her child ‘marriage‘” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17838022

(5) – “Indian underage brides ‘at 44%’“ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/world/south_asia/7936777.stm

Woman Part Of The Truce (Treaty) Of Al-Hudaybiyyah?

Kaleef K. Karim

No. Recently we published two piece articles on the Hadith report, which says,

“I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah…”

We showed from some of the earliest sources available to us that these words were uttered in connection with Quraysh idolaters who broke the treaty with the Prophet Muhammed and his non-Muslim ally the Banu Khuza’a. We showed that it was the Quraysh idolaters with Banu Bakr who broke the treaty first. They attacked and murdered members of Muhammed’s non-Muslim ally the Banu Khuza’a tribe. As such, this led to Prophet Muhammed to engage the enemy, which led to the conquest of Makkah. We showed from the Sirah and Maghazi literature that no one was forcefully converted. The Hadith itself refuted this very claim when we investigated it. If any reader would like to know more information about this incident, please click on the following articles: “The Hadith ‘…Fight Until They Say There Is No god But Allah’ Explained”, and here: “Revisiting ‘I Have Been Commanded To Fight…’ Hadith”

As the articles on the above Hadith were published, we had some critics point out to us, that it was actually Prophet Muhammed (p) who broke the treaty, not the Quraysh idolaters, they claimed. The tone of some of the individuals to put the blame on the Prophet (p) and his non-Muslim ally is a feature among online critics to paint the Muslims as evil, bad and the persecutor as the victims. This is a common feature among online critics and orientalists to paint the persecutors, and warmongers as victims, while at the same time the Muslims defending themselves and the lives of others as the bad party.

For example, when the Quraysh persecuted Muslims for over ten years, critics try to bypass this by saying that Muhammed and the Muslims should have just kept their mouths shut and accept that they are not allowed to speak about Monotheism or criticise polytheistic beliefs. As such, they say that Muhammed and his followers being persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and even murdered was justified by their logic because Muhammed should not have exercised his free speech. Yes according to some critics, writers, merely criticising a belief system justifies the Muslims, 1300 years ago being persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and even murdered. Even when the Muslims left Madinah to find safe sanctuary, they were pursued once more, persecuted and attacked: “Did Quraysh Persecute Muslims When They Fled To Madinah?”

Coming back to the topic at hand, so did the Muslims break the treaty on this occasion? The answer to this is a categorical no. But let’s see the evidence some critics rely on:

“Umm Kulthum Uqba Muayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers Umara and Walid sons of Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not. God forbade it. ….. Sirat page 509.

The Sunan of Abu Dawud in volume 2, #2759 says:
“… Thereafter some believing women who were immigrants came. (Allah sent down: O ye who believe when believing women come to you as emigrants). Allah most high forbade them to send them back, but ordered them to restore the dower.”

The above two sources are used to claim that the treaty was broken by the Muslims. Here is some basic information about this incident for some of our readers who may not be well acquainted with this story. The Prophet (p) wanted to go on pilgrimage to Makkah, to the Ka’bah. The polytheists did not allow him or his followers’ entry. Even though the Muslims said to them that they came for peace, they were barred from entry. However, a treaty was at the end signed stipulating that both sides will cease fighting, and if any of the Quraysh’s men were coming over to the Muslims, they had to send them back. And if a Muslim man came to the Quraysh’s side, they would not be sent back to Muhammed. In this, all parties agreed.

The first source used is from Ibn Ishaq. Here readers should be aware that the critic deceptively hid some important part of the information on this incident. A page or two before Umm Kulthum incident, the treaty states that only men were part of the agreement. This is what Ibn Ishaq says (pay close attention to the words “HE” and “HIM”):

“Then the apostle summoned Ali and and told him to write ‘In the name of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful.’ Suhayl said ‘I do not recognize this; but write ‘In thy name, O Allah.’ ‘Write ‘This is what Muhammad the apostle of God has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr.’ Suhayl said, ‘If I witnessed that you were God’s apostle I would not have fought you. Write your own name and the name of your father.’ The apostle said: ‘Write your name and the name of your father.’ The apostle said: ‘This is what Muhammad b. Abdullah has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr: they have agreed to lay aside war for ten years during which men can be safe and refrain from hostilities on condition that if anyone comes to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian HE will return HIM to them; and if anyone of those with Muhammad comes to Quraysh they will not return HIM to him. We will not show enmity one to another and there shall be no secret reservation or bad faith. He who wishes to enter into a bond and agreement with Muhammad may do so and he who wishes to enter into a bond and agreement with Quraysh may do so.’ Here Khuza’a leapt up and said, ‘We are in a bond and agreement with Muhammad,’ and B. Bakr leapt up and said the same with regard to Quraysh, adding ‘You must retire from us this year and not enter Mecca against our will, and next year we will make way for you and you can enter it with your companions, and stay there three nights. You may carry a rider’s weapons, the swords in their sheaths. You can bring in nothing more.’” (The Life Of Muhammad – A Translation Of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah [With Introduction And Notes by A. Guillaume – Oxford University Press, Seventeenth Impression, 2004], page 504)

Here is a screenshot for the above quotation:

As the evidence from Ibn Ishaq shows, the Quraysh specified in the treaty that it was binding on men only. Women were not part of this. Bare in mind that the incident of Umm Kulthum and treaty happened hours or days from each other. This is one of the reasons the Quraysh did not make a big fuss because the treaty agreement specified men only. They continued the treaty agreement for nearly two years. If the Quraysh did believe that the Prophet (p) broke the treaty, they would not have continued the treaty agreement for two years.

The second source used by critics is the following:

The Sunan of Abu Dawud in volume 2, #2759 says:

“… Thereafter some believing women who were immigrants came. (Allah sent down: O ye who believe when believing women come to you as emigrants). Allah most high forbade them to send them back, but ordered them to restore the dower.”

When we consult the actual and complete Abu Dawud Hadith, we find that the agreement of the treaty was in regards to men. Women were not part of this. Notice also how the above Hadith is deceptively quoted, compare that with the authentic full version below which clearly refers to “man” being part of the treaty only:

“…In pre-Islamic days Al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah accompanied some people and murdered them, and took their property. He then came (to the Prophet) and embraced Islam. The Prophet said: As for Islam we accepted it, but as to the property, as it has been taken by treachery, we have no need of it. He went on with the tradition the Prophet said: Write down: This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has decided. He then narrated the tradition. Suhail then said: And that a MAN WILL NOT COME TO YOU FROM US, even if HE follows your religion, without you sending him back to us. When he finished drawing up the document, the Prophet said to his Companions: Get up and sacrifice and then shave. Thereafter some BELIEVING WOMEN WHO WERE IMMIGRANTS CAME. (Allah sent down: O yea who believe, when believing women come to you as emigrants). Allah most high forbade them to send them back, but ordered them to restore the dower. He then returned to Medina. ABU BASIR A MAN FROM THE QURAISH (WHO WAS A MUSLIM), CAME TO HIM. AND THEY (QURAYSH) SENT (TWO MEN) TO LOOK FOR HIM; SO HE HANDED HIM OVER TO THE TWO MEN. THEY TOOK HIM AWAY, and when they reached Dhu Al Hulaifah and alighted to eat some dates which they had, Abu Basir said to one of the men : I swear by Allah so-and-so, that I think this sword of yours is a fine one; the other drew the sword and said : Yes I have tried it. Abu Basir said: Let me look at it. He let him have it and he struck him till he died, whereupon the other fled and came to Medina, and running entered the mosque. The Prophet said: This man has seen something frightful. He said: I swear by Allah that my Companion has been killed, and im as good as dead. Abu Basir then arrived and said: Allah has fulfilled your covenant. You returned me to them, but Allah saved me from them. The Prophet said: Woe to his mother, stirrer up of war! Would that he had someone (i.e. some kinsfolk). WHEN HE HEARD THAT HE KNEW THAT HE WOULD SEND HIM BACK TO THEM, so he went out and came to the seashore. Abu Jandal escaped and joined Abu Basir till a band of them collected.” (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 14, Hadith 2759 (Sahih Al-Albani) https://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/289)

Here is a screenshot for the book of Abu Dawud (zoom in to see the following screenshot):

So as we see the part of the treaty was in in regards to men. This authentic Hadith proves without a shadow of a doubt that women were not part of this treaty. This is one of the reasons, as we explained earlier that Quraysh continued to abide by the treaty for nearly two more years until the incident of Khuza’a.

This Hadith is also mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari (Bewley Translation):

“3945. Part of what ‘Urwa reported from Marwan ibn al-Hakam and al-Miswar ibn Makhrama, reporting about what happened with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the ‘umra of al-Hudaybiyya, “When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, wrote out the truce treaty with Suhayl ibn ‘Amr on the Day of al-Hudaybiya, one of the preconditions of that Suhayl ibn ‘Amr made was: ‘IF ANY OF US (MEN) comes to you, even if HE has your religion, you will return HIM TO US and you will not come between US AND HIM.’ Suhayl refused to conclude the truce with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, except on that basis. The believers disliked that and were grieved by it and spoke against it. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, signed it and then the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, returned Abu Jandal ibn Suhayl on that very day to his father, Suhayl ibn ‘Amr, When any man came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, he returned him in that period, even if he was a Muslim. Believing emigrant women came. and Umm Kulthum bint ‘Uqba ibn Abi Mu’ayt was one of those who went to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. She was a young woman. Her family came to ask the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to return her when Allah Almighty revealed what He revealed about believing women.” [i.e. 60:12] (The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 67. Book of Expeditions – XXXIII: The expedition of al-Hudaybiyya, (Bewley Translation), online source http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari29.html#maghazi)

And here is Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan’s translation for Sahih al-Bukhari:

“(Az-Zuhri said, “The Prophet accepted all those things, as he had already said that he would accept everything they would demand if it respects the ordinance of Allah, (i.e. by letting him and his companions perform `Umra.)” The Prophet said to Suhail, “On the condition that you allow us to visit the House (i.e. Ka`ba) so that we may perform Tawaf around it.” Suhail said, “By Allah, we will not (allow you this year) so as not to give chance to the ‘Arabs to say that we have yielded to you, but we will allow you next year.” So, the Prophet got that written. Then Suhail said, “We also stipulate that you should return to us whoever COMES TO YOU FROM US (MEN), even if HE embraced your religion.” The Muslims said, “Glorified be Allah! How will such a person be returned to the pagans after he has become a Muslim? While they were in this state Abu- Jandal bin Suhail bin `Amr came from the valley of Mecca staggering with his fetters and fell down amongst the Muslims. Suhail said, “O Muhammad! This is the very first term with which we make peace with you, i.e. you shall return Abu Jandal to me.” The Prophet said, “The peace treaty has not been written yet.” Suhail said, “I will never allow you to keep him.” The Prophet said, “Yes, do.” He said, “I won’t do.: Mikraz said, “We allow you (to keep him).” Abu Jandal said, “O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a Muslim? Don’t you see how much I have suffered?” (continued…) (continuing… 1): -3.891:… … Abu Jandal had been tortured severely for the Cause of Allah. `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, “I went to the Prophet and said, ‘Aren’t you truly the Messenger of Allah?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes, indeed.’ I said, ‘Isn’t our Cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Then why should we be humble in our religion?’ He said, ‘I am Allah’s Messenger and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious.’ I said, ‘Didn’t you tell us that we would go to the Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it?’ He said, ‘Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka`ba this year?’ I said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it?’ ” `Umar further said, “I went to Abu Bakr and said, ‘O Abu Bakr! Isn’t he truly Allah’s Prophet?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Then why should we be humble in our religion?’ He said, ‘Indeed, he is Allah’s Messenger and he does not disobey his Lord, and He will make him victorious. Adhere to him as, by Allah, he is on the right.’ I said, ‘Was he not telling us that we would go to the Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it?’ He said, ‘Yes, but did he tell you that you would go to the Ka`ba this year?’ I said, ‘No.’ He said, “You will go to Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it.” (Az-Zuhri said, ” `Umar said, ‘I performed many good deeds as expiation for the improper questions I asked them.’ “) When the writing of the peace treaty was concluded, Allah’s Messenger said to his companions, “Get up and’ slaughter your sacrifices and get your head shaved.” By Allah none of them got up, and the Prophet repeated his order thrice. When none of them got up, he left them and went to Um Salama and told her of the people’s attitudes towards him. Um Salama said, “O the Prophet of Allah! Do you want your order to be carried out? Go out and don’t say a word to anybody till you have slaughtered your sacrifice and call your barber to shave your head.” So, the Prophet went out and did not talk to anyone of them till he did that, i.e. slaughtered the sacrifice and called his barber who shaved his head. Seeing that, the companions of the Prophet got up, slaughtered their sacrifices, and started shaving the heads of one another, and there was so much rush that there was a danger of killing each other. THEN SOME BELIEVING WOMEN CAME (TO THE PROPHET); AND ALLAH REVEALED THE FOLLOWING DIVINE VERSES:– “O YOU WHO BELIEVE, WHEN THE BELIEVING WOMEN COME TO YOU AS EMIGRANTS EXAMINE THEM . . .” (60.10) `Umar then divorced two wives of his who were infidels. Later on Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan married one of them, and Safwan bin Umaiya married the other. When the Prophet returned to Medina, ABU BASIR, a new Muslim convert from Quraish came to him. THE INFIDELS SENT IN HIS PURSUIT TWO MEN WHO SAID (TO THE PROPHET, “ABIDE BY THE PROMISE YOU GAVE US.” SO, THE PROPHET HANDED HIM OVER TO THEM. They took him out (of the City) till they reached Dhul-Hulaifa where they dismounted to eat some dates they had with them. ABU BASIR said to one of them, “By Allah, O so-and-so, I see you have a fine sword.” The other drew it out (of the scabbard) and said, “By Allah, it is very fine and I have tried it many times.”ABU BASIR said, “Let me have a look at it.” When the other gave it to him, he hit him with it till he died, and his companion ran away till he came to Medina and entered the Mosque running. When Allah’s Messenger saw him he said, “This man appears to have been frightened.” When he reached the Prophet he said, “My companion has been murdered and I would have been murdered too.”ABU BASIR came and said, “O Allah’s Messenger, by Allah, Allah has made you fulfill your obligations by your returning me to them (i.e. the Infidels), but Allah has saved me from them.” The Prophet said, “Woe to his mother! what excellent war kindler he would be, should he only have supporters.” When ABU BASIR heard that he understood that the Prophet would return him to them again, so he set off till he reached the seashore. Abu Jandal bin Suhail got himself released from them (i.e. infidels) and joined Abu Basir. So, whenever a man from Quraish embraced Islam he would follow Abu Basir till they formed a strong group. By Allah, whenever they heard about a caravan of Quraish heading towards Sham, they stopped it and attacked and killed them (i.e. infidels) and took their properties. The people of Quraish sent a message to the Prophet requesting him for the Sake of Allah and Kith and kin to send for (i.e. Abu Basir and his companions) promising that whoever (amongst them) came to the Prophet would be secure. So the Prophet sent for them (i.e. Abu Basir’s companions) and Allah I revealed the following Divine Verses: “And it is He Who Has withheld their hands from you and your hands From them in the midst of Mecca, After He made you the victorious over them. … the unbelievers had pride and haughtiness, in their hearts … the pride and haughtiness of the time of ignorance.” (48.24-26) And their pride and haughtiness was that they did not confess (write in the treaty) that he (i.e. Muhammad) was the Prophet of Allah and refused to write: “In the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the Most Merciful,” and they (the mushriks) prevented them (the Muslims) from visiting the House (the Ka`bah).” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 3, Book 50, Hadith 891 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/54/19)

I apologise for these long narrations, we had to present them in full form in order for readers to understand this story.

With these authentic narrations presented, it is clear that only men were part of the agreement. Thus showing that the Prophet (p) did not break the treaty in any way.

With the narration of Abu Dawud, and Sahih Bukhari, we can gather the following facts:

1. The agreement was in regards to men only.
2. The treaty agreement and Umm Kulthum incident happened at the same time, (few hours apart or the next day) in the 6th year of Hijri.
3. The Prophet (p) rejected returning believing woman on grounds that they were not part of the treaty.
4. Silence – Quraysh says nothing against the Prophet’s refusal on grounds that only men were included. The treaty agreement continues.
5. Straight after this, Abu Basir is wanted by the Quraysh. They ask the Prophet to send him back to them, the Prophet sends the man Abu Basir back to the Quraysh, as it was part of the treaty agreement.

Now, if the claim of critics is true, that women were part of the agreement, and the Prophet did break the treaty – question is, why did the Quraysh and Prophet Muhammed continue the agreement? If the treaty was broken, why did the Prophet (p) after Umm Kulthum and the Quran 60:10 revelation sent back Abu Basir, when he was wanted by the Quraysh? And lastly, if the treaty agreement in the 6th year of Hijri was nullified, why did the Quraysh and Muhammed continue with the peace treaty for nearly two more years, until the incident of Khuza’a and Banu Bakr in the 8th year of Hijri? In Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, Ibn Kathir reports to us that the peace treaty lasted for nearly 17 or 18 months:

“’It was stipulated in the truce of al-Hudaybiyya that whoever wished to enter into an alliance with Muhammad could do so, and that those wishing to ally with Quraysh could also do that. Thereafter Khuza’a stated that they wished to be allied with the Messenger of God (SAAS) while Banu Bakr joined with Quraysh. ‘THE TRUCE REMAINED IN EFFECT FOR SOME 17 OR 18 MONTHS. But then Banu Bakr attacked Khuza’a at night at a well called al-Watir, close to Mecca. Quraysh, thinking that because it was night and that they would not be observed, assisted Banu Bakr by providing horses and weapons, and fought along with them in order to express their hatred for the Messenger of God (SAAS). … Then Budayl b. Warq went with a group of Khuza’a to the Messenger of God (SAAS) and told how they had BEEN ATTACKED AND HOW QURAYSH HAD JOINED WITH BANU BAKR AGAINST THEM.” (The Life of the Prophet Muhammed (‘Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya’) [Translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing – Copyright 2000, The Center for Muslim Contribution To civilisation], by Ibn Kathir, volume 3, page 377 – 399)

Does this not show that the agreement was not broken? It surely shows that the Quraysh agreed with Muhammed (p), that women were not part of the treaty.

If critics try and claim that “he”, “him” or “his” used in the Hadith reports can also refer and include women, then they need to answer the question as to why the Quraysh and the Muslims continued the treaty for two years? Why is there no protest from Quraysh leaders about this supposed treaty breaking?

Conclusion:

The two quotes shown by critics that the Prophet (p) broke the treaty between him and the Quraysh, we found that the quotations were deceptively quoted. They had taken snippet quotes from a full report to show the Prophet (p) in negative light i.e., blaming him for breaking a treaty, which in fact showed the contrary. The evidence presented in this article shows that the Prophet (p) did not break the treaty. The treaty agreement was only in regards to men. The women were not part of this treaty. This is one of the reasons Surah 60:10 was revealed to assure the Prophet (p) that women were not part of the truce. Hence why you have a deafening silence from the Quraysh. They did not protest the Prophet’s (p) refusal of returning believing women. Their continued treaty agreement once more shows that even the Quraysh accepted that only men were part of the treaty. This is one of the reasons the Quraysh continued the agreement of the treaty for two more years, until the incident of Banu Bakr, and Banu Khuza’a tribe occurred.

 

Don’t forget to follow Discover The Truth on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favourite social networks.

Related articles:

(1) – “Early Expeditions And Battles Of Islam”

(2) – “Muhammed A Mercy: Analysing Dogs Killed In Madinah”

(3) – “What Happened To The Captive Women In Awtas Incident?”

(4) – “Most Misinterpreted Verses Of The Quran?”

(5) – “‘Those Who Wage War And Make Mischief’ – Quran 5:33”

(6) – “Did Jews Get Expelled From Arabia?”

(7) – “Social Conditions: Christians And Jews In Early Period Of Islam“

(8) – “The Truth About Jizyah”

What Is The Understanding Of ‘I Have Been Commanded To Fight…’ Hadith

Kaleef K. Karim

This is a part two on this Hadith report (below) which is often quoted out of its historical context. In the previous piece, which can be seen here: “The Hadith ‘…Fight Until They Say There Is No god But Allah’ Explained“, we showed evidence that the Hadith was never understood by the Prophet nor his companions of carrying out forced conversion of polytheist Makkans:

“I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.” (Fath al-Bari, volume 1, page 95) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) [Abridged by A Group of Scholars Under The Supervision Of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri. Maktaba Dar-us-Salam – Second Edition, 2003] volume 4, page 377)”

When we analysed the report in its historical context, we saw that the Prophet (p) gave amnesty and forgave the polytheists for the wrong they had done to the Muslims and their non-Muslim ally, Banu Khuza’a.

The polytheists Makkans with Banu Bakr attacked and murdered members of Banu Khuza’a, an ally of Prophet Muhammed. Previous to this incident, the Quraysh agreed to a treaty two years back promising not to break the treaty they agreed too with the Muslims. Soon after, the Quraysh with Banu Bakr attacked and murdered members of Muhammed’s ally, the Banu Khuza’a tribe. This led to the conquest of Makkah.

In this article, we will show further evidence from the Hadith itself and classical to contemporary commentaries that forced conversion did not take place because the very report that is used refutes this. Let’s now turn to the reports:

“The Messenger of Allah said: “I have been ordered to fight the people until they say: ‘La ilaha illallah’. So when they say that, their blood and their wealth are safe from me, except for a right, and their reckoning is for Allah.” Then he recited: So remind them – ‘YOU ARE ONLY ONE WHO REMINDS. YOU ARE NOT A DICTATOR OVER THEM’ (Quran 88:21-22). (Jami at-Tirmidhi volume 5, Book 44, Hadith 3341 (Eng. Tran., Sahih, Darussalam))

This is also reported in Sahih Muslim:

“It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded that I should fight against people till they declare that there is no god but Allah, and when they profess it that there is no god but Allah, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah, and then he (the Holy Prophet) recited (this verse of the Holy Qur’an):” THOU ART NOT OVER THEM A WARDEN” (lxxxviii (88), 22).” (Sahih Muslim Book 1, Hadith 32 http://sunnah.com/muslim/1/35 )

Pay close attention to both reports where the following is said:

“YOU ARE ONLY ONE WHO REMINDS. YOU ARE NOT A DICTATOR OVER THEM’ (Quran 88:21-22).”

And:

“then he (the Holy Prophet) RECITED (this verse of the Holy Qur’an):” THOU ART NOT OVER THEM A WARDEN” (lxxxviii (88), 22).”

The Prophet (p) is literally quoting word for word Quran 88:21-22. So what is the significance of these words some may ask? Well, since we know for a fact that he quoted those words in the same sentence of fighting the idolaters, the verse shows that the Prophet (p) forbade forced conversion. He commanded his companions not to forcefully convert anyone.

Classical to contemporary scholars all agree that this verse was revealed to the Prophet (p) that forcing someone to convert to Islam is categorically forbidden (Haram). Let’s read S. 88:21-22,

“21. So remind them (O Muhammad, YOU ARE ONLY A ONE WHO REMINDS.

22. You are NOT a dictator over them.” Q. 88:21-22 Hilali & Khan Translation

 

The Quranic verse 88:21-22 is clear that the Prophet (p) was not sent to force anyone to Islam. Some missionaries not handling the fact that the Prophet (p) was sent only to preach, and not force anyone’s will, they claim that Surah 88:22 was abrogated by Surah 9:5 (“Sword verse”).

If this verse was abrogated by Surah 9:5, then the question needs to be answered as to why the Prophet (p) uttered Surah 88:21-22 on the occasion of Surah 9:5? If it was abrogated, why would he insist his companions not to force anyone to accept Islam on the occasion of when Q. 9:5 was revealed? To the contrary, this shows that Prophet (p) did not see Q. 88:21-22 abrogated, but rather a command that is to be followed until the day of judgement.

Furthermore, another way for some missionaries to try to bypass this clear command of Surah 88:21-22, that forced conversion is Haram (forbidden), they try to present the following verses after S. 88:22,

“21. So remind them (O Muhammad), you are only a one who reminds.

22. You are not a dictator over them.

23. Save the one who turns away and disbelieves

24. Then Allah will punish him with the greatest punishment.

25. Verily, to Us will be their return;

26. Then verily, for Us will be their reckoning.” S. 88:21-26 Hilali-Khan Translation

 

Some of these missionary critics do acknowledge and admit here that forced conversion is not allowed, but they say since the individuals at Prophet Muhammed’s lifetime rejected Islam, he is somehow allowed to murder them since he is “Allah’s agent of judgement” sent to harm non-believers for refusing to accept Islam, they claim. This kind of deceptive interpretation goes against the very text of Quran and a classical exegesis. Sadly this type of deceptive interpretation by missionaries is rampant online.

Since we know that Surah 88:21-22 was uttered on the occasion of Surah 9:5, on the conquest of Makkah, where is the evidence of polytheists being put to death for rejecting Islam? It does not exist. We know from the earliest sources of Islam that the polytheists were fought against as a result of them breaking a treaty and murdering members of the non-Muslim tribe Banu Khuza’a, who at the time were an ally of the Muslims. As a result of Banu Bakr and Quraysh attacking and murdering Muhammed’s non-Muslim ally the Banu Khuza’a, the conquest of Makkah took place. We have written a detailed article on this matter, please click on the following article: “The Hadith ‘…Fight Until They Say There Is No god But Allah’ Explained“. They were fought against because they broke the treaty and killing innocent people, not their beliefs.

I would like to add another important information about Surah 88:21-22 – the chapter as a whole is regarded by the companions of Prophet Muhammed (p) and the majority of scholars to have been revealed in Makkah. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

The Muslims did not raise their hand against the Quraysh, let alone try to kill them. The Muslims were a minority in Makkah, they were persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and even killed. This is a historical fact. This lasted for over ten years, this is when the Muslims fled to Madinah to find safe sanctuary. Even there they were pursued and persecuted because they denied, and rejected polytheism. We have documented many incidents when the Muslims arrived in Madinah, they were persecuted by the Quraysh as soon as they arrived: “Did Quraysh Persecute Muslims When They Fled To Madinah?“. So the idea perpetuated by some that the Prophet (p) was ordered to kill those who rejected Islam is false since we know that the whole chapter 88 of the Quran was revealed in Makkah and no fighting ever took place in Makkah, while they were a minority. And since no fighting or forceful conversion did not take place, then by default the command would also be the same when the Prophet (p) uttered the same words of Q. 88:22 on the conquest of Makkah. Besides the Quranic verse (S. 88:21-22), the earliest sources of Islam on the conquest of Makkah also refute this oft-repeated myth about forced conversion.

In view of the immediate context of S. 88:21-26, one sees that the passage is ordering that Prophet Muhammed, and his companions (p) are not allowed to force anyone to Islam. And those who have been presented with the truth and reject it, they will be dealt with on the day of judgement by God. The punishment that is described against those who reject the truth is from God, the words,

“Allah will punish him…” – Quran 88:24

These words couldn’t get any clearer. That the one who punishes is God Himself. Let’s now show some evidence from classical to contemporary exegesis.

Muslim and Non-Muslim Exegesis on Quran 88:21-22

Reverend E. M. Wherry was a notorious Christian missionary who in his writings does not hide his hatred towards Islam and Muhammed, he says the following:

“(21, 22) See note on chap. Ii. 119.”
A Comprehensive Commentary On The Quran – Comprising Sale’s Translation And Preliminary Discourse,With Additional Notes And Emendations Together With A Complete Index To The Text, Preliminary Discourse And Notes, [London – Kegan Paul,, Trench, Trubner, & Co. Ltd. Paternoster House, Charing Cross Road., 1886] by The Rev. E. M. Wherry, M. A., Vol. IV (vol. 4), page 248- 249)

E. M. Wherry directs us to look for chapter 2, verse 119 for the explanation of Surah 88:22, and here he clearly admits that conversion to Islam was through “persuasion”:

“(119) We have sent there … a preacher. This is Muhammad’s claim concerning himself. He ever sets himself forth as a preacher, yet as a messenger of God, an apostle, by whom the Quran was to be conveyed to and enforced upon the world. The power by which it was to be enforced, AT THE TIME THIS PASSAGE WAS WRITTEN, WAS PERSUASION. The pains consequent on unbelief were the pains of hell-fire. …” (A Comprehensive Commentary On The Quran Comprising Sale’s Translation And Preliminary Discourse, With Additional Notes And Emendations – Together with A Complete Inter To The Cert, Preliminary Discourse And Notes, [LONDON. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Limited Paternoster House, Charing Cross Road, 1896] by the Rev. E. M. Wherry, M. A., vol. I (vol. 1), page 333)

Notice E. M. Wherry saying the “pains” of unbelief is dealt with in “hell-fire”.

The 20th-century scholar Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi says that the Prophet (p) was not appointed to force the will of the deniers (unbelievers):

“8 That is, “If a person does not listen to reason, he may not. YOU HAVE NOT BEEN APPOINTED TO FORCE THE WILL OF THE DENIERS. Your only task is to distinguish the right from the wrong for the people and warn them of the consequences of following the wrong way; so this is the task you should continue to perform.” (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi – Tafhim al-Qur’an – The Meaning of the Qur’an – online source http://englishtafsir.com/Quran/88/index.html )

Classical scholar Ibn Kathir (1301 – 1373 AD) commenting on Q. 88:21-22, he says that one cannot force a person to “faith” i.e., forcing someone to believe in Islam is prohibited:

“THE MESSENGER IS ONLY CHARGED WITH DELIVERING THE MESSAGE
Allah says,

‘So remind them — you are only one who reminds. You are not a Musaytir over them’ meaning, “O Muhammad! REMIND THE PEOPLE with what you have been sent with to them.”

‘YOUR DUTY IS ONLY TO CONVEY (THE MESSAGE) and on Us is the reckoning.’ (13:40) Then Allah says,

‘You are not a Musaytir over them.’ Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and others said, “You are not a dictator over them.” This means that you CANNOT create faith in their hearts. Ibn Zayd said, “YOU ARE NOT THE ONE WHO CAN FORCE THEM TO HAVE FAITH.’

The Threat for Whoever turns away from the Truth
Concerning Allah’s statement,

(Save the one who turns away and disbelieves.) meaning, he turns away from acting upon its pillars, and he disbelieves in the truth with his heart and his tongue. This is similar to Allah’s statement,

(So he neither believed nor prayed! But on the contrary, he belied and turn away!) (75:31-32) Thus, Allah says,
(Then ALLAH WILL PUNISH HIM with the greatest punishment.) Allah then says,
(VERILY, TO US WILL BE THEIR RETURN) meaning, their place of return and their resort.
(Then verily, for Us will be their reckoning.) meaning, `WE WILL RECKON THEIR DEEDS FOR THEM AND REQUITE THEM FOR THOSE DEEDS.’ If they did good, they will receive good, and if they did evil, they will receive evil. This is the end of the Tafsir of Surat Al-Ghashiyah.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathird (Abridged) – (Surat At-Taghabun to the end of the Qur’an) [Abridged by A group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri., Darussalam., Second Edition, 2003], volume 10, page 463 – 465)

Muhammad b. al-Sa’ib al-Kalbi (d. 146/763) [14]:

“‘(Remind them) admonish them, (for thou art but a remembrancer) YOU ARE BUT A WARNER BY MEANS OF THE QUR’AN; it is also said that this means: you are only an admonisher by the Qur’an and through Allah. Thou art not’ O Muhammad ‘at all a warder over them’ you are NOT imposed on them such that you force them to accept faith. … (ALLAH WILL PUNISH HIM) IN THE HEREAFTER (WITH DIREST PUNISHMENT) I.E. WITH THE PUNISHMENT OF THE FIRE. (Lo! unto Us is their return) in the HEREAFTER. (And Ours their reckoning) their steadfastness in the life of the world and reward and punishment in the Hereafter’. ” (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas on Surah 88:21-22 online source, http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=88&tAyahNo=22&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 )

 

A Thematic Commentary on the Qurʼan – Shaykh Muhammad Al-Ghazali (1917 – 1996):

“SURAH 88
Al-Ghashiyah
(The Overwhelming Event)

The Surah opens with a reverberating question: ‘Have you heard of the overwhelming event?’ (1). The title of this Surah, al-Ghashiyah (The Overwhelming Event), DENOTES THE DAY OF RESURRECTION because it is a day when people’s minds will be overwhelmed. The Surah then continues to provoke fear and hope through promises and threats, before it calls on the Arab mind to look around its environment and observe the camels and the mountains and the stretching horizons. The Arabs were directed to conclude that only One God was deserving of worship and that the idols they had inherited should be abandoned.

The Surah closes by defining the mission of the Muslim community, namely to ENLIGHTEN AND REMIND. As people forget or overlook the purpose of their existence, Muslims are expected to take up the task of confronting ungodliness and evil in the world. They draw their power and strength from the Qur’an, the book that had brought them honor and respect, but which they have now all but neglected.

The Surah threatens the wrong-doers with misery, describing their faces: ‘On that day there shall be downcast faces, worn out, haggard’ (2-3). They will drink seething water and eat food of no benefit to them. As for the believers, they will be in a different world altogether. ‘There shall be radiant faces, of men pleased with their labors, residing in a LOFTY PARADISE’ (8-10). Paradise is a place that is free of idle talk or vain chatter, because such behaviour does not befit wise and pious people.

Believers should use their minds to increase understanding of the world and that which lies beyond its physical presence. ‘Would they not reflect on how camels were created and how the heavens were raised on high?’ (17-18). It is an open invitation to mankind to reflect on all aspects of the universe and all its phenomena and creatures. Very few of the early Muslim scholars can escape the criticism that they were too infatuated with the study of Hellenistic Greek philosophy rather than devoting their attention to the study of the Qur’anic philosophy of matter.

The Surah then makes a most profound statement which encapsulates the essence of the mission of Islam. It says:

‘Therefore, admonish, for you are but a warner; you have no power them’ (21-22).

THIS IS A CLEAR AFFIRMATION THAT MUSLIMS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO ESTABLISH TYRANNICAL, colonialist community steeped in greed, but a community that liberates the human mind and DIRECTS MANKIND TOWARDS PERFECTION. A Muslim state is not established for the benefit of one particular race or ethnic group; rather, it is the outcome of sincere and honest endeavour to please God Almighty.

Virtue in today’s world has been stifled as evil, injustice, and vice find protection and promotion. There has never been a greater need for a believing authority to rise to protect the good, establish justice, and work for faith and reform. Whatever the outcome, THE FINAL RETURN SHALL BE TO GOD ALMIGHTY: ‘TO US IS THEIR RETURN, AND WE WILL BRING THEM TO ACCOUNT’ (25-26). “(A Thematic Commentary on the Qurʼan, [Translated from the Arabic by Ashur A. Shamis – Revised by Zaynab Alawiye – The International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1421 AH/2000AC] by Shaykh Muḥammad Ghazali page 717 – 718)

An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Quran:

“Verily, the creation of the sky, earth, mountains, and animals indicate that there is a plan and purpose for the creation of man and the world. The Prophet’s mission is to make people acquainted with the goal of that creation, with his admonishments and lead them to the path of development and nearness to Allah. Of course, the path of development is paved when they do it willingly and without any outer forces, otherwise it is meaningless. THE PROPHET (S) CANNOT FORCE THEM TO OBEY ALLAH AND EVEN IF HE COULD, IT WOULD BE USELESS.

Some have supposed that this instruction has been abrogated when the verses of the command for Holy War were revealed.

WHAT A GREAT MISTAKE! The Prophet’s mission for publicity of Islam and admonition began from the early days of his prophecy and continued until the last moments of his life. It has been continuing since then; at first by his sinless successors and then by the Islamic scholars. This responsibility will never stop. The lack of obligation on the people, in accepting Islam, is also a permanent principle.

However, Holy War is different. The goal is mainly to stand AGAINST TRANSGRESSORS and remove the hindrances from the path of true believers.

This matter is somewhat similar to that of Surah Nisa, No.4, verse 80 which says:

“…But IF ANY TURN AWAY, WE HAVE NOT SENT THEE TO WATCH OVER THEIR (EVIL DEEDS)”.

It is the same in Surah An’am, No. 6, verse 107 and Surah Shura, No. 42, verse 48.

The term /musaytir/ is based on /satr/ ‘a line of a book or writing’ and means ‘a person who arranges the lines of a book’ or ‘one who has absolute authority over a thing or a person and writes down its manner of action, or makes him do something by force’.

In the next verse, as an exception, it says:

“But whoever turns back and disbelieves.”

Opinions are divided about the commentary of this ‘exception’: The first idea says that the exception is from the object of the verb /fathakkir/ to ‘give admonition’. Accepting this, it means ‘you do not need to give admonition to the enemies who reject Allah and do not take your advice’.
This is similar to what is said in Surah Zukhruf, No. 43, verse 83:

“SO LEAVE THEM TO BABBLE AND PLAY (WITH VANITIES) until they meet that Day of theirs, which they have been promised”.

The second idea denotes that if the sentence is considered as a conditional sentence, there is something omitted in the sentence and hence the meaning is,

‘Do thou give admonition, because admonishment is useful for all, unless they are enemies of Allah’.
It is similar to what is said in Surah A’1a, No. 87, verse 9:

“Therefore give admonition in case the admonition profits (the hearer)”.

The third idea says that the exception is from the pronoun /’alayhim/ in verse 22, then it would mean: ‘Thou art NOT one to manage (men’s) affair, except in so far as you receive authority to do so against those who reject Allah and do wrong with you.’

This commentary seems more agreeable.

The ‘exception’ may be unrelated; if so, the meaning is: ‘But those who turn back and reject Allah, He has authority over them, or He will punish them with a mighty punishment’.

‘Mighty punishment’ is the punishment IN THE HEREAFTER and is compared with the punishment in the present life as it is said in Surah Zumar, No. 39, verse 26:

“So GOD GAVE THEM A TASTE OF HUMILIATION in the present life, but greater is the punishment of the HEREAFTER.”
It is probable that the purpose of the ‘mighty punishment’ is a definite intensive PUNISHMENT IN HELL for some SINNERS IN THE HEREAFTER, because the punishment of all evildoers will not be the same in HELL.

At the end of the Surah, it says with a threatening tone that:

“Surely to Us will be their Return;”

“Then surely upon Us will be the taking of their account.”

This is, in fact, a kind of consoling for the Prophet (S) in order for him not to be upset about their obstinacy and to keep his responsibility in view. It is also a threat for all those who are obstinate in understanding who it is that will reckon with them.

Thus, Surah Ghashiyah which began by SPEAKING ABOUT THE HEREAFTER, ENDS BY SPEAKING ABOUT THE HEREAFTER also, but in between, ‘monotheism’ and ‘prophecy’, are discussed which is the basis of Resurrection.
Meanwhile, in the beginning verses, a portion of the severe punishments for the evildoers, and then a great part of the rewards of the good-doers are mentioned. By the way, PEOPLE ARE FREE EITHER TO BELIEVE AND FOLLOW THE WAY OR NOT, but they are warned that their return will certainly be to Allah and it is He Who will take care of their account.

Therefore, IT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE HOLY PROPHET (S) IS SENT TO TEACH AND DIRECT PEOPLE ON THE WAY AND HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PEOPLE’S REJECTIONS AND CORRUPTIONS. All prophets of Allah have been commissioned in like manner.” (An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Quran [The Scientific and Religious Research Center Amir-ul-Mu’mineen Ali Public Library – Translator Sayyid Abbas Sadr-‘ameli], compiled by a group of Muslim scholars, under the direction of Allamah Al-Hajj Sayyid Kamal Faqih Imani, volume 19, page 301 – 303, online source http://islamicmobility.com/pdf/An_Enlightening_Com_intothe_Light_ofthe_Holy_Quran_vol19.pdf )

The Holy Quran – Commentary – Tafsir by Agha Mehdi Pooya states that there is no “compulsion in religion”. He comments further that the Prophet Muhammed is not a compeller and it is “Allah who will punish”:

“[Pooya/Ali Commentary 88:21-22]
The Prophet of Allah is sent to teach, preach and guide the people, but not to force people to adopt the right path. Musaytir has been used here in the sense of an enforced or compeller who forces or coerces in order to make any one carry out commands against one’s will under duress. As has been said in Baqarah: 256, there is NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION, so the Prophet of Allah is NOT A COMPELLER in this sense, otherwise as the vicegerent of Allah he has the authority to execute His divine legislative will. It is Allah who will punish the transgressors. …” The Holy Quran – Commentary – Tafsir by Ayatullah Agha Mehdi Pooya & S. V. Mir Ahmed Ali (Surah 71 to 114), page 81)

Scholar Yusuf Ali (1872 – 1952) states that the Prophet (p) was not sent to force people’s will and that “punishment belongs to Allah alone”:

“6107 The Prophet of Allah is sent to teach and direct people on the way. HE IS NOT SENT TO FORCE THEIR WILL, or to punish them, except insofar as he may receive authority to do so. Punishment belongs to Allah alone. And Punishment is certain in the Hereafter, when true values will be restored.” (The Meaning of The Noble Qur’an [Edition 2006] by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, page 449 http://www.ulc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/English-Quran-With-Commentaries.pdf)

Fi Dhilal Al Qur’an – Qutb says that the job of the Prophet (p) was to remind people of the Message of Islam and no other role. And his task was not to convert people by force, as such is forbidden (Haram) in Islam:

“The Prophet’s Mission
Having dealt first with the hereafter, and pointed out some apparent aspects of the universe, the surah now addresses the Prophet, (peace be upon him), laying down the nature of his mission and limits of his role. It then concludes with a final reminder to mankind: “Therefore exhort them; your task is only to exhort. You are not their overseer. But he who turns his back and disbelieves, God shall inflict on him the greatest suffering. To Us they shall surely return, when We shall bring them to account.” (Verses 21-26)

Remind them, then, of the hereafter and the universe, and all there is in each of them. YOUR SPECIFIC TASK IS TO REMIND PEOPLE, AND YOU HAVE NO OTHER ROLE. This is indeed your mission for which you have been suitably equipped. “You are not their overseer.” (Verse 22) You have no control over their hearts and you cannot compel them to adopt the faith. Men’s hearts are in the hands of God, the Merciful. Jihad, which means striving for God’s cause and which was later made a duty of the Prophet and all Muslims, DID NOT AIM AT CONVERTING PEOPLE TO ISLAM BY FORCE. Its only aim was to remove all hindrances in the way of the Islamic message, so that it could be delivered freely, and people would not be prevented from listening to it or be persecuted for doing so. This is the role the Prophet can fulfil: to remove the obstacles which prevent him from delivering his message.

The notion that the Prophet’s mission is confined to reminding people and delivering God’s message is often repeated and stressed in the Qur’an. There are several reasons for this emphasis, the first of which is to relieve the Prophet of the heavy burden of directing the course of the Islamic message once he has conveyed it.
He must leave it to God to decide its course. The urgency of the human yearning to win victory for the truth and to get people to benefit from its absolute goodness is so keen that such repetition is required to make the advocates of this message distinguish their own desires and ambitions from their mission. When this distinction is clear, they proceed in fulfilment of their duty, regardless of the response and consequence. THUS ADVOCATES OF ISLAM DO NOT WORRY THEMSELVES OVER WHO HAS ACCEPTED THE FAITH AND WHO HAS NOT. They are not charged with this burden, which becomes particularly heavy at times of adversity, when a favourable response becomes a rarity and enemies abound. “But he who turns his back and disbelieves, God shall inflict on him the greatest suffering.” (Verses 23-24) They will no doubt return to God, and He will inevitably administer their retribution. Such is the final and decisive note on which the surah ends: “To Us they shall surely return, when We shall bring them to account.” (Verses 25-26)

The definition of the Prophet’s role and the role of every subsequent advocate of Islam is thus completed. They have only to remind and the reckoning will be made by God. It must be stressed, however, that the process of reminding includes the removal of hindrances so that people are free to listen to the divine message. This is the aim of jihad as it is understood from the Qur’an and the Prophet’s history. It is a process which neither admits negligence NOR PERMITS AGGRESSION. (In The Shade Of The Qur’an (“Fi Dhilal Al Qur’an”) by Sayyid Qutb Vol XVIII (vol. 18), page 143 – 144)

The Tafsir Anwarul Bayan by scholar Muhammad Aashiq Elahi Muhajir Madani (1924/1925 – 2001) writes that the responsibility of the Prophet Muhammed (p) was only to preach the Message and “not force people to believe (in Islam)”:

“…because of his overwhelming concern for his Ummah, the Holy Prophet used to become extremely grieved when people REFUSED TO ACCEPT ISLAM. Therefore, Allah said to him, ‘So give advice, for you are an advisor. You have not been appointed as a warder over them’ i.e., YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS ONLY TO PREACH THE MESSAGE AND NOT FORCE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE. Whoever believed after the message reached him, shall be successful.“ (Illuminating Discourses On The Quran (“Tafsir Anwarul Bayan”) [Translation Edited by Mufti Afzal Hussain Elias. – Revised by Maulana Arshad Fakhri based on Ma’ariful Quran. – Darul Ishaat, Urdu Bazar, Karachi. First Edition, 2005] by Muhammad Aashiq Elahi Muhajir Madani, volume 5, page 390)

Maarif ul Quran – Mufti Mohammad Shafi (1897 – 1976) writes that it is God Almighty who guides the “unbelievers”, and Prophet Muhammed (p) is only a “preacher”:

“In conclusion of the Chapter, the Messenger of Allah is comforted thus:
… ‘You are not a taskmaster set up over them, … 88:22’
THE HOLY PROPHET IS TOLD THAT HE IS ONLY A PREACHER, and as such he must keep on preaching. He should not worry beyond that. IT IS FOR ALLAH TO CALL THE UNBELIEVERS TO HIM to render account of their deeds and actions…” (Maarif ul Quran: Quran Translation and Commentary [Translated by Maulana Ahmed Khalil Aziz. Revised by Justice Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani] by Maulana Mufti Mohammad Shafi, volume 8, page 777)

 

Asrar At-Tanzil – Scholar Amir Muhammad Akram A’wan:

“Propagator

A propagator must have these four qualities: (1) Must work tirelessly like… and be content with whatever food is available. (2) Posses lofty determination and courage like the sky (3) Be as firm as the mountains and finally (4) Should be as furnishing and humble as the earth, without a trace of arrogance. Each action must be aimed at benefitting mankind; by way of delivering the oppressed as well as checking the oppressor.

So O’ PROPHET YOU MAY SIMPLY ADVISE PEOPLE as advising them is your responsibility. YOU DO NOT FORCE THEM INTO BELIEVING. It is Allah’s domain to severely punish those who turn away from your advice and Din and opt for infidelity. Undoubtedly they have to return to Us one day and We will Personally take them to account.” (Holy Quran – Translation & Commentary – Asrar At-Tanzil [Idarah-e Naqshbandiah Owaisiah, Dar al-Irfan Munara, Distt, Chakwal. First edition, 2004] by Amir Muhammad Akram A’wan, volume 5, page 481)

The giant 14th Century Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292 – 1350 AD) in the book “Hidayatul Hayara Fi Ajwibatul Yahood wa al-Nasara” he writes on Surah al-Tawbah, specifically on the occasion of this Hadith report under discussion. He writes that the Prophet Muhammed (p) never forced anyone to accept Islam:

“When God sent His Apostle (p), most of the followers of these religions responded to him and to his successsors, voluntarily and willingly. NOBODY WAS COMPELLED TO DO SO. THE APOSTLE FOUGHT ONLY THOSE WHO FOUGHT AND WAGED WAR AGAINST HIM. He did not fight those who made peace with him, neither did he fight those who were under the pledge of truce. He was obeying the bidding of God Most Sublime were he said:

‘Let there be no compulsion in Religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks, and God heareth and knowth all things ‘ (al-Baqarah: 256).

THE APOSTLE DID NOT COMPEL ANYONE TO ADOPT ISLAM. The above quoted verse from the Qur’an negates compulsion in the sense of prohibition that is: do not compel a soul to embrace the Religion. The verse (Sura) was revealed to admonish some of the men among the companions whose children embraced Judaism and Christianity before the advent of Islam, and where with the advent of Islam, their fathers embraced the religion of Muhammad and attempted to compel their children to follow their lead. God Most Exalted prohibited the fathers from resorting to compulsion to inspire their children to embrace Islam out of their choice. … To him who ponders over the biography of the Prophet (p) it becomes clear that he did not compel anyone to embrace his religion, and that he only fought those who fought him. He did not fight those who made truce with him as long as they kept and honoured the truce. He never broke a promise, for God Most High bid him to fulfil his promises to them as long as they kept theirs. A propos, God Most Exalted said:

‘How can there be a league before God and His apostle, with the pagans, except thoe with whom ye made a treaty near the Sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them for God doth love the righteous’ (AL-TAWBAH: 7).

… Likewise, when the Prophet Muhammad made truce with (the tribe of) Quraysh holding for ten years, HE DID NOT START ANY FIGHT WITH THEM; BUT WHEN THEY VIOLATED THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND RAISED ARMS AGAINST HIM, HE FOUGHT BACK… he stopped the fight when they retreated and went off. The point is that he did not compel anyone at all to embrace his religion; but people embraced his RELIGION VOLUNTARILY and willingly. When most of the people earth realized the True Guidance, and that he is genuinely the Apostle of God, they embraced his call. (Guidance To The Uncertain In Reply To The Jews And The Nazarenes (‘Hidayatul Hayara Fi Ajwibatul Yahud wa al-Nasara’) – [Translated by Abdelhay El-Masry, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah] by Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziah, page 25 – 27)

Conclusion:

With the above evidence shown, we see that the Hadith that is used by proponents, claiming that report shows Muhammed ordered his followers to forcefully convert idolaters is not true. The very same report used by critics, the Prophet commands his followers not to force anyone to believe in Islam, he uses word for word Surah 88:21-22, which as we have seen all scholars agree that forced conversion is not allowed in Islam. The verse ordered Muslims not to convert anyone to Islam by force. As such act, forcing someone’s will is categorically forbidden (Haram) in Islam.

Don’t forget to follow Discover The Truth on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favourite social networks.

Related articles:

(1) – “Early Expeditions And Battles Of Islam”

(2) – “Muhammed A Mercy: Analysing Dogs Killed In Madinah”

(3) – “What Happened To The Captive Women In Awtas Incident?”

(4) – “Most Misinterpreted Verses Of The Quran?”

(5) – “‘Those Who Wage War And Make Mischief’ – Quran 5:33”

(6) – “Did Jews Get Expelled From Arabia?”

(7) – “Does Biblical Law Force Rape Victim To Marry Rapist?”

(8) – “2 Samuel 13:14 And Deuteronomy 21:14”

(9) – “Social Conditions: Christians And Jews In Early Period Of Islam“

(10) – “The Truth About Jizyah”

References:

[1] Shaykh Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi:
“Period of Revelation
The whole subject matter of the Surah indicates that this too is ONE OF THE EARLIEST SURAHS TO BE REVEALED; but this was the period when the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) had started preaching his message publicly, and the people of MAKKAH were hearing it and ignoring it carelessly and thoughtlessly.” (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi – Tafhim al-Qur’an – The Meaning of the Qur’an – online source http://englishtafsir.com/Quran/88/index.html)
[2] Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi:
“Surat-ul-Ghashia
The Enveloping. LXXXVIII
(MAKKAN, 1 Section and 26 verses) (Tafsir-Ul-Qur’an – Translation and Commentary Of The Holy Qur’an [Published By Darul Ishaat Urdu Bazaar Karachi: Pakistan. First edition, 1991] by Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi, volume 4, page 495)
[3] Maulana Muhammad Ali:
“The Overwhelming Event, whose mention in the first verse supplies a name to this chapter, is the doom of the opponents in this life and their punishment in the Hereafter. The DATE OF REVELATION IS PLACED ABOUT THE FOURTH YEAR OF THE PROPHET’S CALL.” (The Holy Quran Arabic Text with English Translation, Commentary and comprehensive Introduction [Year 2002 Edition] by Maulana Muhammad Ali, page 1206)
[4] Ibn Kathir:
“The Tafsir Of Surat AL-GHASHIYAH
(Chapter – 88)
Which was REVEALED IN MAKKAH”. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) – (Surat At-Taghabun to the end of the Qur’an) [Abridged by A group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri., Darussalam., Second Edition, 2003], volume 10, page 455)
[5] The Holy Qur’an – Arabic Text With English Translation & Short Commentary:
“CHAPTER 88
Al-Ghashiyah
(Revealed BEFORE HIJRAH)
Dated of Revelation and Context
The Surah, like the preceding one, was revealed early at MECCA. Eminent early Muslims scholars such as Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair hold this view. The famous German orientalist Noldeke places it in the fourth year of the Call. …” (The Holy Qur’an – Arabic Text With English Translation & Short Commentary [Published by Islam International Publications Limited, Present edition (UK), 2002] by Malik Ghulam Farid, page 1257)
[6] Maulana Mufti Mohammad Shafi:
“Surah Al-Ghashiyah
(The Overwhelming Event)
THIS SURAH IS MAKKI, and it has 26 verses. (Maarif ul Quran: Quran Translation and Commentary [Translated by Maulana Ahmed Khalil Aziz. Revised by Justice Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani] by Maulana Mufti Mohammad Shafi, volume 8, page 772)
[7] The Qur’an With Annotated Interpretation in Modern English – Ali Unal:
“REVEALED IN MAKKAH, this surah of 26 verses derives its name from the word AL-GHASHIYAH (the overwhelming, meaning the Resurrection Day) in the first verse. It draws attention to the hardships and punishment the unbelievers will suffer in the Hereafter, and the bliss with which the believers will be favored. It also calls on us to reflect on some manifestations and evidence of God’s Power and Wisdom.” ((The Qur’an With Annotated Interpretation in Modern English by Ali Unal, page 1161)
[8] An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Quran:
“Surah Ghashiyah, Chapter 88
(The Overwhelming Event) Number of Verses: 26
Contents of Surah Ghashiyah
This Surah is ONE OF THE MECCAN SURAHS which contains mainly the following three themes: The first subject is the ‘Resurrection’ and the contrast between the destinies of the Good and the Evil in the ‘Hereafter’. The second subject is ‘Monotheism’ with reference to the creation of the sky, the earth, and the mountains. Man should consider these wonderful matters as admonishments. The third subject is ‘Prophecy’ and some of the duties that the holy Prophet (S) was required to perform. On the whole, the Surah strengthens the idea for the basis of religion and faith, as well as all MECCAN SURAHS do.” (An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Quran [The Scientific and Religious Research Center Amir-ul-Mu’mineen Ali Public Library – Translator Sayyid Abbas Sadr-‘ameli], compiled by a group of Muslim scholars, under the direction of Allamah Al-Hajj Sayyid Kamal Faqih Imani, volume 19, page 288 – 289, online source http://islamicmobility.com/pdf/An_Enlightening_Com_intothe_Light_ofthe_Holy_Quran_vol19.pdf )
[9] So Qur’an al-Karim:
“Al-Ghashiyah – 88 – 1037 – MAKKI” (So Qur’an al-Karim – Ago so Kiya pema ana iron ko basa a iranon sa pilimpinas – iniranon i: Sheik AbdulAziz Guroalim Saromantang [King Fahd Complex For The printing Of the Holy Qur’an, Madinah, K. S. A.], page 1067)
[10] Professor Shah Farid-ul-Haque:
“Surah Number 88: Al-Ghashiyah (The Overwhelming)
REVEALED AT: MAKKAH
Total verses: 26” (Al-Quran-ul-Kareem (English Translation) Kanz-ul-Eeman – An English Translation from ‘Kanz-Ul-Eeman’ – English Text Translation by Professor Shah Farid-ul-Haque, page 207, online source http://www.nooremadinah.net/Al-Quran/EnglishTranslation/Download/QuranEnglishTranslation.pdf )
[11] Scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
“Introduction And Summary To Surrah 88 – Al-Ghashiyah
This is a late surah of the EARLY MAKKAN PERIOD, perhaps close in date to S. 53. Its subject matter is the contrast between the destinies of the Good and the Evil in the Hereafter – on the day when the true balance will be restored The signs of Allah even in this life should remind us of the day of account, for Allah is good, and his creation is for a just purpose. (The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an [Amana Publications, 2004] by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, page 1639)
[12] Asrar At-Tanzil – Shaykh Amir Muhammad Akram A’wan:
“Surah al Ghathiah
(The Enveloping)
REVEALED AT MAKKAH, it has twenty six Ayat and only one section.” (Holy Quran – Translation & Commentary – Asrar At-Tanzil [Idarah-e Naqshbandiah Owaisiah, Dar al-Irfan Munara, Distt, Chakwal. First edition, 2004] by Amir Muhammad Akram A’wan, volume 5, page 479)
[13] Dr. Muhammad Asad:
“REVEALED most probably about the MIDDLE OF THE MECCA PERIOD, this surah derives its title from the participial noun al-ghashiyah in the first verse.” (The Message of The Quran Translated and Explained by Dr. Muhammad Asad [Leopold Weiss], page 862, online source https://asadullahali.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/the-message-of-the-quran.pdf )
[14] Professor Asma Afsaruddin says that the companion Ibn Abass is not the author of this exegesis “Tanwir min Miqbas ibn Abbas”. The professor points out that the original author of this exegesis is Muhammad b. al-Sa’ib al-Kalbi (d.146/763):
“1 The work attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas is titled Tanwir al-miqbas min tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas; the EXTANT VERSION HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO MUHAMMAD B. AL-SA’IB AL-KALBI (d.146/763). For a discussion of this work’s probable authorship, see Andrew Rippin 1994, 38–83 and more recently, Harald Motzki 2006, 147–63.” (The Hermeneutics Of Inter-Faith Relations: Retrieving Moderation And Pluraism As Universal Principles In Qur’anic Exegesis [Journal of Religious Ethics Inc., 2009] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 333 (footnote 1))

M

Hadith: Vicious And Rabies Infected Dogs Were Killed In Madinah?

Kaleef K. Karim

1. Introduction
2. Hadith On Dogs Killed
3. The Understanding From Scholars On The Hadith
4. Prohibition Of killing Animals Who Are Harmless
5. Harming animals Forbidden (Haram)
6. The Command To Be Good To Animals
7. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Prophet Muhammed and dogs have been an ongoing topic among Muslim scholars for centuries. The dogs at the time of Prophet Muhammed (p) was very different to the ones we have in the Western World, fluffy and friendly like. The dogs in Arabia at the time of the Prophet (p) were very vicious and even at times would attack humans in packs. The disease among dogs was very wide spread, the people 1400 years ago did not have the medicine to cure the deadly diseases some of the dogs may have carried.

In this articles we seek to explain and give a better understanding of few reports which have been mispresented or at times those who read it may get an unintentional, and misinformed view of the narrations.

Whenever the Prophet Muhammed (p) made statements, ordered things and are reported in authentic Hadith books, they should not be seen separately but rather holistically to get a better historical understanding. On the issue of dogs being killed in Madinah, we need to analyse the reports in regards to this incident in their context to get a better understanding.

2. Hadith On Dogs Killed

In recent times I have come across claims made in relation to dogs being killed in Madinah, in the life time of Prophet Muhammed. One of the assertions made is that Muhammed was not a mercy to mankind for ordering the killing of dogs in Madinah. The reports that are used by critics are the following:

“Maimuna reported that one morning Allah’s Messenger was silent with grief. Maimuna said: Allah’s Messenger, I find a change in your mood today. Allah’s Messenger said: Gabriel had promised me that he would meet me tonight, but he did not meet me. By Allah, he never broke his promises, and Allah’s Messenger spent the day in this sad (mood). Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place. When it was evening Gabriel met him and he said to him: you promised me that you would meet me the previous night. He said: Yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields (or big gardens).” (Sahih Muslim, Book 024, Number 5248 (The Book Pertaining to Clothes and Decoration (Kitab Al-Libas wal-Zinah)) http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=024&translator=2&start=0&number=5248)

And:

“Abu Zubair heard Jabir b. Abdullah saying: Allah’s messenger ordered us to kill dogs, and we carried out this order so much that we also killed the dog coming with a woman from the desert. Then Allah’s Apostle forbade their killing. He (the Holy Prophet) further said: It is your duty to kill the jet black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 010, Number 3813)

From the above reports, it is deduced by some that Muhammed was “anything but compassionate” to the dogs he ordered to be killed. It is further asserted that the dogs were merely killed as a result of the angel not entering his house because there was a dog and a picture.

The second report on “black dog” is referred too metaphorically. They are not literally the devil. Rather they were the most vicious dogs in the lifetime of Muhammed (p). They used to harm and attack people all the time. The scholars further down will elaborate further on this matter.

Here lies the confusion at the critics’ doorstep, this Hadith was never understood the way it is portraited by some critics. This is why we have scholars to explain things to us. One cannot take a single Hadith report and make a whole judgment without reading other historical reports to get a better understanding, especially someone who is not learned nor qualified to write on these matters that one has no knowledge on.

We are told by some of our earliest scholars all the way to the present century that one of the reasons these dogs were killed was as a result of them having a disease. Rabies and some wild dogs (called “devil” metaphorically) caused a lot of problems in Madinah. As such they were dealt with. Those days there weren’t any vaccinations, where such diseases could be cured. Wild dogs in the desert could literally rip human beings apart, they used to roam around in packs. Anybody who is familiar with Arabian wild dogs would know you would not come near them. In some western countries, legislators have tried to pass laws to kill dogs which are deemed very dangerous. This law is targeted at dogs which most likely attack and bite people. The Staffordshire Bull terrier in Britain has been banned, this dog has killed many babies and grown adults. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Coming back to the subject at hand in relation to the report(s). If the claim of the critics are true, that Muhammed (p) killed dogs because he hated them, why did his grandsons, Hasan and Hussein have dogs in the Prophet’s house?

“Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Messenger of Allah said: Gabriel came to me and said: I came to you last night and was prevented from entering simply because there were images at the door, for there was a decorated curtain with images on it in the house, and there was a dog in the house. So order the head of the image which is in the house to be cut off so that it resembles the form of a tree; order the curtain to be cut up and made into two cushions spread out on which people may tread; and order the dog to be turned out.
The Messenger of Allah then did so. THE DOG BELONGED TO AL-HASAN OR AL-HUSAYN and was under their couch. So he ordered it to be turned out (taken outside). …” (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 33, Hadith 4146, Sahih Albani https://sunnah.com/abudawud/34/139

This is also reported in Jami at-Tirmidhi:

“Narrated Abu Hurairah: that the Messenger of Allah said: “Jibra’il came to me and said: “Indeed I had come to you last night, and nothing prevented me from entering upon you at the house you were in, except that there were images of men at the door of the house, and there was a curtain screen with imagines on it, and there was a dog in the house. So go and sever the head of the image that is at the door so that it will become like a tree stump, and go and cut the screen and make two throw-cushions to be sat upon, and go and expel the dog.” So the Messenger of Allah did so, and the dog was A PUPPY BELONGING TO AL-HUSAIN OR AL-HASAN which was under his belongings, so he ordered him to expel it.” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi volume 5, Book 41, Hadith 2806, Sahih Darussalam https://sunnah.com/urn/630300)

It is inconceivable for him to hate dogs. Why would he say to take the dogs outside and did not deal with them? If he hated dogs as it is claimed, wouldn’t he have commanded his grandsons’ dogs be killed first? The above report shows that the Prophet (p) did not have an issue with his grandsons having a dog, except that it had to be catered for outside of the house. This shows that the dogs that were killed the next day were as a result of them having diseases which could have killed human beings if it was not dealt with immediately. Cruelty to animals is Haram (forbidden), as we will show in a number of Hadith reports shortly.

3. The Understanding From Scholars On The Hadith

The classical and contemporary scholars say the reason the dogs were killed was as a result of wild rabies spreading. There was also among them were wild black dogs which attacked people.

Dr. Gehan S. A. Ibrahim states that only harmful dogs were killed that spread disease. He also gives many Hadith reports where the Prophet (p) commanded to be kind to all animals:

“’Narrated Hafsa: Allah’s Messenger said: It is not sinful (on a non-Muhrim or a Muhrim)) to kill five kinds of animals namely: a crow, a kite, a mouse, a scorpion and a rabid dog.’

Based on this concept, Muslim literature has further given a clear explanation to this particular case of getting rid of HARMFUL ANIMALS. Muslim scholar, like Ali Ibn Abbas al-Majusi (384 A.H. /994 AD), Ibn Sina (428 A.H. / 1036 A.D.), Ibn Al-Nafis (687 A.H. / 1288 A.D.), and Al-Damiri (808 A.H. / 1405 A.D.), who wrote about animals in the Muslim era, recognized a DISEASE CAUSED BY RABID STRAY DOGS. According to what these physicians wrote in regard to this disease, there was a great awareness of the contagious aspects of this DISEASE that transfers to human through their contacts with INFECTED DOGS. This led to raise a consciousness to avoid the danger of the stray RABID dogs and their harmful impact on the environment. …

ISLAM DOES NOT TOLERATE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. It has condemned all forms and methods of unkindness towards animals since they contradicts with the virtues of Islam. On the outset, as many Hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad urged Muslims to generally treat animals with kindness and care, a particular stress was given on preventing the striking of animals or cauterizing them on the face, as acts to be considered highly banned. As these practices cause pain to the animal, Islam prohibits all sorts of pain and specifically on the sensitive parts of the animal’s body, like the face. Furthermore, the Hadiths of the Prophet had clearly stated the punishment given to the one who commits such malpractices to animals by being cursed by Allah:

‘Jabir told that the Prophet Muhammad forbade the face or branding on the face of animals. The same companion of the Holy Prophet reported him as saying, when an ass which had been branded in its face passed him by: ‘God curse the one who branded it.’

‘Jabir reported that a donkey that had been branded on the face passed by the Prophet (may peace be upon him) and he said: ‘May Allah curse the one who branded him.’

If in previous remark the Quran declared the supremacy of humans over animals, why would then humans have to treat animals with kindness and respect? The answer to this question lies in the fact that even though the Quran has in many instances announces the supremacy of humans over animals it certainly contains many verses that call for equality between animals and human beings before Allah. As the Quran in a previous remark mentioned that animals are equal to humans in their worship to Allah and reward for their deeds, the Hadiths were not less emphatic on the same notion. In a similar way, the Hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad show that Muslims were even required to perform equality tasks as virtues in dealing with animals comparable to their dealings with each other. Thereupon, the ethics of doing good to animals, and avoiding cruelty to them were looked upon in Islam as equal in reward to treating humans likewise. These are, thus, among the virtues the Muslims should acknowledge in handling animals. Evidence to this is illustrated in some Haiths that reflect the close link between treating animals with equality to humans and devoting a charitable work of Allah:

“Doing good to beasts is like the doing of good to human beings, a deed of charity, whilst cruelty to animals is FORBIDDEN, just like cruelty to human beings.’

A story and event from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions establishes the virtue of equality between humans and animals. It shows how Islam forbids an animal to be separated from its offspring or to be frightened. While the Prophet Muhammad was on his way on a journey, he passed with a bird nest and an ant village. In this story, the Prophet Muhammad was an exemplar to teach the Muslims to respect the feelings of a mother bird and her anxiety over her little ones, which were taken by the Prophet’s companions. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have told his companions to return the little ones to the nest upon seeing the concern of the mother bird. Accordingly, the bird has the right to be looked at as a human whose motherhood instinct towards her children should be respected. Hence, the Hadith instructed the Muslims the moral value of being king to birds and respect their feelings. Furthermore, on seeing the ant village burnt, the Prophet Muhammad disapproved this act and considered it UNLAWFUL IN ISLAM sine it is deprived of any mercy towards little animals:

‘Narrated Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud: We were with the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) during a journey. He went to ease himself. We saw a bird with her two young ones and we captured her young ones. The bird came and began to spread its wings. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) came and said: ‘Who grieved this for its young ones? Return its young ones to it. He also saw an ant village that we had burnt. He asked: ‘Who has burnt this?’ We replied: ‘We’. He said: ‘It is not proper to punish with fire except the Lord of fire.’

In another story, the Prophet Muhammad related to the Muslims an example in treating helpless creatures, like ants with mercy and respect. This is particularly true in the case of considering stories of previous Prophets in the Quran and their attitude towards animals. Working from this perspective, the Prophets were not to ignore the moral imperatives towards animals. The story exhibited by the Prophet Muhammad was narrated to the Muslims with these meanings in which he described a Prophet underneath a tree who got bit by an ant. The Prophet’s reaction towards the ant herd was merciful since he had realized that he must have infringed over the ants properties by mistake and destroyed their settlement by his luggage. Therefore, the Prophet felt guilty for the loss he had caused the ants and ordered his luggage to be removed to save and spare the lives of the rest of the ant’s herd:

‘Narrated Abu Hurairah: Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: Once, while a Prophet amongst the Prophets was taking a rest underneath a tree, an ant bit him, he therefore ordered that his luggage be taken away from underneath that tree.’

The Prophet Muhammad further explained one of the noteworthy and fascinating examples to illustrate the punishment of ill-treating animals in Islam. According to this statement, the Prophet Muhammad made clear that TREATING ANIMALS WITH KINDNESS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MUSLIM FAITH AND CONSTITUTES AN ACT OF WORSHIP. The Muslim will be rewarded if he observes this and will be severely punished if he fails to acknowledge this fact. …” (Virtues in Muslim Culture: An Interpretation from Islamic Literature, Art and Architecture [First edition, Published by New Generation, 2014], by Dr. Gehan S. A. Ibrahim page 151 – 152)

The scholar and translator of Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqui, states that there were stray dogs which had rabies,

“The Hadith gives us an idea why the Holy Prophet commanded to kill dogs. There must have been an excess of STRAY DOGS AND THUS THE DANGER OF RABIES IN THE CITY OF MEDINA and its suburbs. The Holy Prophet, therefore, ordered to kill them. Later on when it was found that his companions were killing them indiscriminately, he forbade them to do so and told them that only FEROCIOUS BEASTS WHICH WERE A SOURCE OF DANGER TO LIFE SHOULD BE KILLED. The word ‘devil’ clarifies this point. Here DEVIL STANDS FOR FEROCIOUS…” (Sahih Muslim by Imam Muslim, rendered into English by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui [Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 11th Reprint 1995], volume III & IV, Book X (10). Kitab Al-Buyu (Pertaining To Business Transactions), page 825 (footnote 2012))

Another commentary states:

“Regarding the command to kill dogs, the As-hab opined that it is permissible to kill a RABID DOG; yet, a harmless dog, irrespective of its color, MAY NOT BE KILLED. Imam al-Haramayn stated that the command to kill dogs was abrogated. It was related that the Prophet Muhammad ordered the killing of dogs. Then, that was abrogated, except for pure black dogs. And thereafter, KILLING ANY HARMLESS DOG WAS PROHIBITED. Thus, it is only permissible to kill a dog that MAY CAUSE HARM, like one with RABIES.” (Sharh Sahih Muslim volume 3, page 536 and volume 10, page 1931)

 

The above commentary shows that the dogs that were killed used to cause harm to human beings, be that through disease or attacking humans. Such measures were in place to protect the community from harm. Another scholar comments on this incident, specifically in the “black dog”:

“Some of the narrations mention “the dog that bites indiscriminately” (al-kalb al-`aqur). Others: “The jet-black dog” (al-kalb al-aswad al-bahim). The gist of the reference seems to be that a WILD-LOOKING DOG, OR ONE KNOWN TO BE DANGEROUS, has the greatest potential for distracting attention. The black dog is a devil either literally, i.e. a favored form for a devil to take among animals, or figuratively with respect to its negative aspects whatever these may be; and Allah knows best.” (Problematic hadiths and various questions, by Mufti Ebrahim Desai FATWA DEPT., online source http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e54.html)

Imam and scholar John (Yahya) Ederer states that preserving human life and health on this occasion outweighed the sanctity of this infected, dangerous dogs:

“I agree with the scholars that have rightly logically understood this whole matter as being a past OUTBREAK OF RABIES, where the Islamic value of PRESERVING LIFE AND HEALTH HAD TO OUTWEIGH THE SANCTITY OF THE LIFE OF DOGS, and obliged us to wash all potentially ingestible dog saliva. Therefore I hold that dogs are not in any way impure, and that there is nothing impure with petting and even getting licked by a dog. It makes perfect sense to me that the reason for killing the black dog was that there was a particular type of black dog which was RABID OR VIOLENT in some way, and that is why the Prophet called it a devil. (Man’s Best Friend? The Islamic View on Dogs, by John (Yahya) Ederer, online source http://www.virtualmosque.com/islam-studies/faqs-and-fatwas/mans-best-friend-the-islamic-view-on-dogs/)

And finally, two non-Muslim scholars who also recognised that the dogs on that incident were killed as a result of a rabies outbreak.

Merritt Clifton:

“The Prophet Mohammed is widely believed to have fought a rabies outbreak in the walled city of Medina by closing the city gates to prevent the outbreak from spreading, and then exterminating dogs. This is according to the order recounted by his disciple Bukhari in Hadith 4:540-a Hadith that perplexes Islamic scholars because Bukhari in particular was known to be fond of animals, and narrated several other sayings of Mohammed that URGED KIND TREATMENT OF DOGS [21].” (How to eradicate canine rabies: a perspective of historical efforts, [Asian Biomedicine, August 2011] by Merritt Clifton volume 5, page 561 – 562 (No. 4))

Barnaby Rogerson:

“…that action of the Prophet, when he ordered the disposal of the RABID DOGS OF MEDINA. …
The Prophet’s actions in attempting to RID MEDINA OF RABIES in the seventh century also gave legal protection to dogs. He had spared the working dogs – those who guarded, those who herded and those who hunted – and this is not forgotten. In my experience a traditional Muslim family, especially one living in the countryside, will have no problem in keeping such dogs. But these dogs exist to work, and can never be treated as a household pet, or allowed into a house, tent or courtyard in a manner freely given to sheep, cats, horses, camels and cows. (Critical Muslim 06: Reclaiming Al-Andalus [C. Hurst & Co (Publishers) Ltd., 2013] by Barnaby Rogerson, page 196)

4. Prohibition Of killing Animals Who Are Harmless

Furthermore, the following Hadith demonstrate that the Prophet Muhammed (p) only commanded those animals (dogs) be killed who caused harm to human beings. And he prohibited the killing of animals (dogs) that were harmless (Muwatta Imam Malik):

“Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that Umar ibn al- Khattab told people to kill snakes in the Haram.
Malik said, about the “wild dogs” which people were told to kill in the Haram, that any animals that WOUNDED, ATTACKED, OR TERRORISED MEN, such as lions, leopards, Iynxes and wolves, were counted as “WILD DOGS.” However, someone who was in ihram SHOULD NOT KILL BEASTS OF PREY THAT DID NOT ATTACK (PEOPLE), such as hyenas, foxes, cats and anything else like them, and if he did then he had to pay a forfeit for it. Similarly, someone in ihram should not kill any predatory birds except the kinds that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, specified, namely crows and kites. If someone in ihram killed any other kind of bird he had to pay a forfeit for it.” (Muwatta Malik Book 20, Hadith 92, https://sunnah.com/urn/408080)

And:

“3314. Narrated Aishah: The Prophet said, ‘Five kinds of animals are FUWAISIQ (HARMFUL) and can be killed even Al-Haram (Sanctuary). They are: a mouse, a scorpion, a kite, a crow, and a RABID DOG.” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 4, page 319)

And:

“A’ishah (RAA) narrated ‘The Messenger of Allah said: “FIVE KINDS OF ANIMALS ARE VICIOUS AND HARMFUL, AND THEY MAY BE KILLED outside or inside the sacred area of Ihram (Sanctuary). These are: the scorpion, the kite, the crow, the mouse, and THE RABID DOG.” Agreed upon.” (Bulugh al-Maram Book 6, Hadith 755, Eng. Tran., https://sunnah.com/bulugh/6/29)

The five harmful animals mentioned here refers to those which spread disease or cause physical harm to humans.

5. Harming animals Forbidden (Haram)

The prophet had forbidden malpractices or harming animals. One day a donkey (ass) was passing by and his face had been branded, the Prophet cursed the one who had done this to the animal:

“Jabir reported the Prophet as saying when an ass which had been branded on its face passed him. Did it not reach you that I CURSED HIM WHO BRANDED THE ANIMALS ON THEIR FACES OR STRUCK THEM ON THEIR FACES. SO HE PROHIBITED IT.” (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 14, Hadith 2558, Sahih Al Albani, https://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/88)

This incident is also reported elsewhere:

“Ibn ‘Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) said: An ASS with a brand on the face happened to pass before the Prophet. Thereupon he said, “MAY ALLAH CURSE THE ONE WHO HAS BRANDED IT (on the face).”
[Muslim].

Another narration in Muslim is: “The Messenger of Allah prohibited us from hitting across the face and branding on the face (of an animal).” (Riyad as-Salihin Book 18, Hadith 1608 https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/18/98)

The physical harm which is forbidden in Islam equally is also abstaining from mental cruelty to animals. The following Hadith reported by one of Muhammed’s companions relates a story:

“Ibn Mas’ud (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: We were with the Messenger of Allah in a journey when he drew apart (to relieve nature). In his absence, we saw a red bird which had two young ones with it. We caught them and the red mother bird came, beating the earth with its wings. In the meantime the Prophet returned and said, “WHO HAS PUT THIS BIRD TO DISTRESS ON ACCOUNT OF ITS YOUNG? RETURN THEM TO HER.” He also noticed a mound of ants which we had burnt up. He asked, “Who has set fire to this?” We replied: “We have done so.” He said, “None can chastise with fire except the Rubb of the fire.” (Riyad as-Salihin Book 18, Hadith 1610 https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/18/100)

And:

“Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas’ud: We were with the Messenger of Allah during a journey. He went to ease himself. We saw a bird with her two young ones and we captured her young ones. The bird came and began to spread its wings. The Messenger of Allah came and said: WHO GRIEVED THIS FOR ITS YOUNG ONES? RETURN ITS YOUNG ONES TO IT. He also saw an ant village that we had burnt. He asked: Who has burnt this? We replied: We. He said: It is not proper to punish with fire except the Lord of fire.” (Sunan Abi Dawud 2675 Book 14, Hadith 2669, Eng. Tran. Sahih, Al-Albani, https://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/199)

6. The Command To Be Good To Animals

There are countless Hadith reports where the Prophet urged and commanded Muslims to be kind to all animals.

A sinner was forgiven by God on the act of giving a thirsty dog some water:

“3321. Narrated Abu Hurairah: Allah’s Messenger said, ‘A prostitute passed by a panting dog near a well and SAW THAT THE DOG WAS ABOUT TO DIE OF THIRST, she took off her khuff (leather sock or shoe) and tied it with her head-cover and DREW OUT SOME WATER FOR IT. So, ALLAH FORGAVE HER BECAUSE OF THAT.” (The Translation Of the Meanings Of Sahih Al-Bukhari, Arabic English, Translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Formerly Director, University Hospital, Islamic University, Al-Madina Al-Munawwara) [Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh – Saudi Arabia, Maktaba Dar-us-Salam, 1997], volume 4, page 322)

There is also a similar story but with a man who done similar act:

“Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: Messenger of Allah said, “While a MAN WAS WALKING ON HIS WAY HE BECAME EXTREMELY THIRSTY. He found a well, he went down into it to drink water. Upon leaving it, he SAW A DOG WHICH WAS PANTING out of thirst. His tongue was lolling out and he was eating moist earth from extreme thirst. The man thought to himself: ‘This dog is extremely thirsty as I was.’ So he descended into the well, filled up his leather sock with water, and holding it in his teeth, climbed up and QUENCHED THE THIRST OF THE DOG. ALLAH APPRECIATED HIS ACTION AND FORGAVE HIS SINS“. The Companions asked: “Shall we be rewarded for showing kindness to the animals also?” He said, “A REWARD IS GIVEN IN CONNECTION WITH EVERY LIVING CREATURE“.

[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

In the narration of Al-Bukhari, the Prophet is reported to have said: “Allah forgave him in appreciation of this act and admitted him to Jannah”. (Riyad as-Salihin Book 1, Hadith 126 https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/1/126)

The Prophet further emphasized in another report that humans should be good to each other, this act of goodness is also extended to all animals:

“Doing good to beasts is like the doing of good to human beings, a deed of charity, whilst cruelty to animals is FORBIDDEN, just like cruelty to human beings.’” ((Virtues in Muslim Culture: An Interpretation from Islamic Literature, Art and Architecture [First edition, Published by New Generation, 2014], by Dr. Gehan S. A. Ibrahim page 151)

When the context for the Hadith report is shown, it is inconceivable accuse Muhammed (p) of being the hater of dogs. The occasion of those dogs being killed was an exception because of the rabies disease and wild dogs attacking human beings. Hence, there was no alternative left but to deal with this danger.

7. conclusion

Reading other historical Hadith reports and the scholarly statements we see clear evidence as to why Muhammed (p) at that time ordered some dogs be killed in Madinah. The Rabies disease if not dealt with would have spread and may have killed 100s if not 1000s of people. This disease at the time of the Prophet (p) was very serious, so serious that he had to outweigh the sanctity of human life over the dogs.

The Prophet (p) did not order to kill any dog as a result of their appearance (Black dog), or else God Almighty would not have created such a creature in the first place. As the scholars explained the “black dog” were dealt with as a result of them being the most vicious and attacking people. The Prophet (p) commanded kindness to all animals, this incident was an exception.

The fact of the matter is when we have looked at the report in his historical context and the reason why he did what he did, Muhammed was a mercy to creation. He only dealt with those dogs as a wild disease was spreading. His teachings have indeed brought great good to the World.

Don’t forget to follow Discover The Truth on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favourite social networks.

References:

[1] “EATEN ALIVE Woman, 65, ripped apart by a pack of up to ‘100 stray dogs’ terrorising a town in India” Last accessed 6th December 2016 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1647893/pack-of-100-strays-mauls-mother-and-partly-eats-her-on-beach-in-the-southern-indian-state-of-kerala/
[2] “Pack of 50 stray dogs attack, partly eat elderly woman at Indian beach” Last accessed 6th December 2016 https://www.rt.com/news/356604-dogs-woman-attack-india/
[3] “Do India’s stray dogs kill more people than terror attacks?” Last accessed 6th December 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-36035456
[4] “Beware of dogs! Rabies on the prowl in Lagos” Last accessed 6th December 2016 http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/10/beware-of-dogs-rabies-on-the-prowl-in-lagos/

 

Was Tabuk Expedition Against The Byzantine’s Based On Hearsay? No!

Kaleef K. Karim

We have written over the years a number of articles in relation to the Tabuk expedition. A brief mention of this incident for some of our readers who may not be well acquainted with that part of history:

The Byzantine’s as we showed previously prepared their troops southwards heading towards Madinah, intending to attack/kill and overthrow the Muslim Government, 1400 years ago. As such, clear reports had reached the blessed Prophet Muhammed (p) that an army was coming intending to harm him and his community. With the news being confirmed as true, the Prophet Muhammed (p) and his companions (Sahaba) prepared to engage the enemy. The Tabuk expedition was one of the reasons why Surah 9:29 was revealed on this occasion: “Answering Jihad: ‘Fight Against Those Who Do Not Believe’ – Quran 9:29”

Some missionaries have gone out of their way to discredit the evidences presented, and even make the Prophet Muhammed (p) and his companions seem evil for attempting to fight the hostile Byzantine army. As such, a number of fallacious claims have been made in regards to this. One such claim is that the reports reaching the Prophet (p) in relation to Byzantine’s was not actual true reports, but mere hearsay, as they claim. The following reports have been presented to back up their assertions:

Report 1:

“… In those days we were afraid of one of the kings of Ghassan tribe. WE HEARD that he intended to move and attack us, so fear filled our hearts because of that. (One day) my Ansari friend unexpectedly knocked at my door, and said, ‘Open Open!’ I said, ‘Has the king of Ghassan come?’ He said, ‘NO, BUT SOMETHING WORSE; ALLAH’S APOSTLE HAS ISOLATED HIMSELF FROM HIS WIVES.’ I said, ‘Let the nose of ‘Aisha and Hafsa be stuck to dust (i.e. humiliated)!’ Then I put on my clothes and went to Allah’s Apostle’s residence, and behold, he was staying in an upper room of his to which he ascended by a ladder, and a black slave of Allah’s Apostle was (sitting) on the first step. I said to him, ‘Say (to the Prophet ) ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab is here.’ Then the Prophet admitted me and I narrated the story to Allah’s Apostle. When I reached the story of Um Salama, Allah’s Apostle smiled while he was lying on a mat made of palm tree leaves with nothing between him and the mat. Underneath his head there was a leather pillow stuffed with palm fibres, and leaves of a saut tree were piled at his feet, and above his head hung a few water skins. On seeing the marks of the mat imprinted on his side, I wept. He said.’ ‘Why are you weeping?’ I replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! Caesar and Khosrau are leading the life (i.e. Luxurious life) while you, Allah’s Apostle though you are, is living in destitute”. The Prophet then replied. ‘Won’t you be satisfied that they enjoy this world and we the Hereafter?’ ” ” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Hadith 435 http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=60&translator=1&start=0&number=435)

Report 2:

“… During that time all the rulers of the nearby lands had surrendered to Allah’s Apostle except the king of Ghassan in Sham, and we were afraid that he MIGHT attack us. ALL OF A SUDDEN THE ANSARI CAME AND SAID, ‘A GREAT EVENT HAS HAPPENED!’ I asked him, ‘What is it? Has the Ghassani (king) come?’ He said, ‘Greater than that! ALLAH’S APOSTLE HAS DIVORCED HIS WIVES! I went to them and found all of them weeping in their dwellings, and the Prophet had ascended to an upper room of his. At the door of the room there was a slave to whom I went and said, “Ask the permission for me to enter.” He admitted me and I entered to see the Prophet lying on a mat that had left its imprint on his side. Under his head there was a leather pillow stuffed with palm fires. Behold! There were some hides hanging there and some grass for tanning. Then I mentioned what I had said to Hafsa and Um Salama and what reply Um Salama had given me. Allah’s Apostle smiled and stayed there for twenty nine days and then came down.”” (Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 7, Book 72, Number 734http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=72&translator=1&start=0&number=734)

In the above two reports so far we see that the Muslims at the time were not bothered about this story on the Ghassans. They were more worried about what was happening in the Prophet Muhammed’s household. This should give readers enough proof that the Muslims did not take the story as being authentic at the time. Let’s continue with the reports used by critics:

Report 3:

“… Umar added, AT THAT TIME A TALK WAS CIRCULATING AMONG US THAT (THE TRIBE OF) GHASSAN WERE PREPARING THEIR HORSES TO INVADE US. My Ansari companion, on the day of his turn, went (to the town) and returned to us at night and knocked at my door violently and asked if I was there. I became horrified and came out to him. He said, ‘TODAY A GREAT THING HAS HAPPENED.’ I asked, ‘WHAT IS IT? Have (the people of) Ghassan come?’ He said, ‘No, BUT (WHAT HAS HAPENED) IS GREATER AND MORE HORRIFYING THAN THAT: ALLAH’S APOSTLE; HAS DIVORCED HIS WIVES. ‘Umar added, “The Prophet kept away from his wives and I said “Hafsa is a ruined loser.’ I had already thought that most probably this (divorce) would happen in the near future. So I dressed myself and offered the morning prayer with the Prophet and then the PROPHET; ENTERED AN UPPER ROOM AND STAYED THERE IN SECLUSION. I entered upon Hafsa and saw her weeping. I asked, ‘What makes you weep? Did I not warn you about that? Did the Prophet divorce you all?’ She said, ‘I do not know. There he is retired alone in the upper room.’ I came out and sat near the pulpit and saw a group of people sitting around it and some of them were weeping. … When I was leaving, behold! … The stalks left marks on his side and he was leaning on a leather pillow stuffed with date-palm fires. I greeted him and while still standing I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Have you divorced your wives?’ He looked at me and said, ‘NO.’ I said, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ … The Prophet smiled for a second time. When I saw him smiling, I sat down. Then I looked around his house, and by Allah, I could not see anything of importance in his house except three hides, so I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Invoke Allah to make your followers rich, for the Persians and the Romans (Byzantine’s) have been made prosperous and they have been given (the pleasures of the world), although they do not worship Allah.’ Thereupon the Prophet sat up as he was reclining. and said, ‘Are you of such an opinion, O the son of Al-Khattab? These are the people who have received the rewards for their good deeds in this world.’ I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Ask Allah to forgive me.’ THEN THE PROPHET KEPT AWAY FROM HIS WIVES FOR TWENTY-NINE DAYS BECAUSE OF THE STORY WHICH HAFSA HAD DISCLOSED TO ‘AISHA. The Prophet had said, ‘I WILL NOT ENTER UPON THEM (MY WIVES) FOR ONE MONTH,’ because of his anger towards them, when Allah had admonished him. SO, WHEN TWENTY NINE DAYS HAD PASSED, THE PROPHET FIRST ENTERED UPON ‘AISHA. ‘Aisha said to him, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! You had sworn that you would not enter upon us for one month, but now only twenty-nine days have passed, for I have been counting them one by one.’ The Prophet said, ‘The (present) month is of twenty nine days.’ ‘Aisha added, ‘Then Allah revealed the Verses of the option. (2) And out of all his-wives he asked me first, and I chose him.’ Then he gave option to his other wives and they said what ‘Aisha had said . ” (1) The Prophet, ‘ had decided to abstain from eating a certain kind of food because of a certain event, so Allah blamed him for doing so. Some of his wives were the cause of him taking that decision, THEREFORE HE DESERTED THEM FOR ONE MONTH. See Quran: (66.4) ” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 119http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=62&translator=1&start=0&number=119)

Report 4:

“… In those days IT WAS RUMORED that Ghassan, (a tribe living in Sham) was getting prepared their horses to invade us. My companion went (to the Prophet on the day of his turn, went and returned to us at night and knocked at my door violently, asking whether I was sleeping. I was scared (by the hard knocking) and came out to him. HE SAID THAT A GREAT THING HAD HAPPENED. I ASKED HIM: WHAT IS IT? Have Ghassan come? He replied that IT WAS WORSE AND MORE SERIOUS THAN THAT, AND ADDED THAT ALLAH’S APOSTLE HAD DIVORCED ALL HIS WIVES. … Have Allah’s Apostle divorced you all?’ She (Hafsah) replied, ‘I don’t know. He is there in the upper room.’ I then went out and came to the pulpit and found a group of people around it and some of them were weeping. Then I sat with them for some time, but could not endure the situation. … I entered upon the Prophet and saw him lying on a mat without wedding on it, and the mat had left its mark on the body of the Prophet, and he was leaning on a leather pillow stuffed with palm fires. I greeted him and while still standing, I said: “Have you divorced your wives?’ He raised his eyes to me and replied in the negative. And then while still standing, I said chatting: “Will you heed what I say, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! … I said (Umar Ibn al-Khattab) (to Allah’s Apostle) “Invoke Allah to make your followers prosperous for THE PERSIANS AND THE BYZANTINES HAVE BEEN MADE PROSPEROUS AND GIVEN WORLDLY LUXURIES, though they do not worship Allah?’ The Prophet was leaning then (and on hearing my speech he sat straight) and said, ‘O IBN AL-KHATTTAB! DO YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT (THAT THE HEREAFTER IS BETTER THAN THIS WORLD)? THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN GIVEN REWARDS OF THEIR GOOD DEEDS IN THIS WORLD ONLY.’ I asked the Prophet . ‘Please ask Allah’s forgiveness for me. The Prophet did not go to his wives because of the secret which Hafsa had disclosed to ‘Aisha, and HE (MUHAMMED) SAID THAT HE WOULD NOT GO TO HIS WIVES FOR ONE MONTH as he was angry with them when Allah admonished him (for his oath that he would not approach Maria). WHEN TWENTY-NINE DAYS HAD PASSED, THE PROPHET WENT TO AISHA first of all. She said to him, ‘You took an oath that you would not come to us for one month, and today only twenty-nine days have passed, as I have been counting them day by day.’ The Prophet said, ‘The month is also of twenty-nine days.’ That month consisted of twenty-nine days. …” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 648 http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=43&translator=1&start=0&number=648)

The critics have thus deduced from the above reports that these narrations are telling us that the Muslims fought against the Byzantine’s based on unconfirmed stories.

What the critic(s) leave out deliberately, is that even though these reports may be a “rumor”, the Muslims did not retaliate, nor got their troops ready to attack them. These very reports show that even though they may have been worried and anxious of hearing of the impending army of the Byzantine’s, they did not prepare themselves to deal with them since it was only a story circulating at the time. Furthermore, if they found these “rumors” to be true (even though they are) in this instance, why didn’t the companions prepared themselves to engage the enemy? Why didn’t they ask the Prophet to get ready and set out against them? Why did they find the Prophet Muhammed (p) having some home issues more important than the enemies attacking and aiming to kill them? As I mentioned, at this stage the story that was circulating was not confirmed by the Muslims, hence, they Byzantines were left alone.

I may add further, report 3 and 4 tell us that the Prophet (p) abstained from his wives for 29 days, showing that the Muslims did not engage the enemy straight away, but rather after it was confirmed. If the reports were said to be true, the Prophet (p) would have not abstained one month, and caring for home issues over harm to the whole community. Thus the reports were not taken seriously at the time.

As we have briefly seen here readers the reports that were mentioned in regards to this incident of Tabuk, does not in  any away nullify the overwhelming evidence presented in the previous article, that the Byzantine’s did indeed march southwards intending to attack and kill Muslims, 1400 years.

If the Muslims at the time accepted this story, you would think that they would take immediate military action against the threat, in this incident it was not the case. So in short, the story was not verified yet, it was only after that they took drastic action to confront the enemy head one.

Although the above Hadith reports are authentic collections of Islam, the following report which is narrated by Al-Waqidi is heavily criticised, to the point that many classical scholars have called him a “liar”, as we will show shortly. For now let’s read the al-Waqidi story presented by critics:

“They said: The Saqita–they were Nabateans– arrived in Medina with flour [Page 990] and oil in Jahiliyya and after Islam arrived. Indeed there was news of al-Sham with the Muslims every day. Many of those who came to them were from Nabatea. A group arrived which mentioned that the Byzantines had gathered many groups in al-Sham, and that Heraclius had provisioned his companions for a year. The Lakhmids, Judham, Ghassan and Amila had gathered to him. They marched and their leaders led them to al-Balqa’ where they camped. Heraclius stayed behind in Hims. THAT WAS NOT A FACT, but rather something that was said to them that they repeated. There was not an enemy more fearful to the Muslims than them. That was because of what they saw of them, when they used to arrive as merchants, of preparedness, and numbers, and sheep. …
“He said: Heraclius had sent a man from the Ghassan to observe the Prophet, his ways, his characteristics, the redness of his eyes, and the seal of prophecy between his shoulders. He asked if he (the Prophet) accepts sadaqa, and he learned something of the situation of the Prophet. [Page 1019] Then he returned to Heraclius and he mentioned that to him. He invited the people to believe in the Messenger of God, but they refused, until he feared they would go against his authority. He stayed where he was, AND DID NOT MOVE OR GO FORWARD. News that had reached the Prophet, about Heraclius sending his companions and getting close to the South of al-Sham, WAS FALSE. HE DID NOT DESIRE THAT, NOR DID HE INTEND IT. The Messenger of God consulted about proceeding. Umar b. al-Khattab said, ‘If you are commanded to march, march!’ The Messenger of God said, ‘If I was commanded about it I would not consult you!’ He said, ‘O Messenger of God, the Byzantines have many groups, but there is not one of Muslims. You are close to them as you see, and your closeness FRIGHTENS THEM. So return this year until you come to a decision, or God establishes for you in that affair.’” (The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, edited by Rizwi Faizer, translated by Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail and Abdul Kader Tayob [Routledge Studies in Classical Islam, First edition 2011], page 485 and 499)

From the above report of al-Waqidi and the previous ones we analysed, critics have thus concluded that that the Byzantine’s (Romans) had no intention of attacking and killing Muslims.

This story by al-Waqidi is very problematic and it is in conflict with the many authentic reports that has reached us. We will show evidence of the many authentic reports after we have analysed Al-Waqidi as a reporter first:

Shaykh Saalih Al-Munajjid:

“Albani (may God have mercy on him) said: “This chain of narration is FABRICATED. This is either from one of two people. Muhammad bin Umar – and he is AL-WAQIDI – IS ACCUSED OF FABRICATION, as Ibn Hajar said in his book at-Taqrib: ‘He is abandoned, despite the depth of his knowledge.’ The verdicts of the scholars regarding him have preceded more than once.

The other person is Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Abi Musa – and he is Ibn Abi Yahya – and his real name is: Sam’an Al-Aslami the freed man of Abu Ishaq al-Madani. He is ABANDONED (REJECTED) AS WELL JUST LIKE AL-WAQIDI or even worse. Ibn Hajar also said about him: ‘abandoned,’ and narrated in at-Taqrib the critical statements of the scholars regarding him, and they almost constitute absolute consensus on his dishonesty. From those statements is that of al-Harbi: ‘THE SCHOLARS OF PROPHETIC TRADITION LOATHE HIS NARRATIONS; AL-WAQIDI NARRATED ON HIS AUTHORITY THAT WHICH RESEMBLES FABRICATION, THOUGH AL-WAQIDI MADE THINGS WORSE.’

And al-Harbi’s statement regarding the chain itself: ‘Ibn Abi Musa – and I believe he is in actuality Ibn Abi Yahya, but his NAME WAS CHANGED INTENTIONALLY BY AL-WAQIDI AS HE HAS DONE WITH OTHERS …’” (Silsila al-Ahadith ad-Dai’fa wal-Maudu’a, volume 10, page 451)” (The Narration of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) Contemplation of Suicide is Inauthentic in Terms of Its Transmission and Textual Content, by Sheikh Saalih Al-Munajjid, online source)

 

The following quotes on al-Waqidi were taken from the following site.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780 – 855 AD):

“HE (AL-WAQIDI) IS A LIAR, makes alternations in the traditions”. (al-Dhahabi, Mizan, volume 3, page 110)

al-Nasa’i (829 – 915 AD):

“THE LIARS KNOWN FOR FABRICATING THE HADITH OF THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH are four. They are: Arba’ah b. Abi Yahya in Madinah, AL-WAQIDI in Baghdad, Muqatil b. Sulayman in Khurasan and Muhammad bin Sa’id in Syria.” (Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, volume 9 page 366 No.604, [Hyderabad, 1326 A.H.cf. Yusuf ‘Abbas Hashmi, Zaynab bint Jahash, ‘Islamic Culture’ vol.XLI, No.1, Hyderabad (India), 1967])

al-Bukhari (810 – 870 AD):

“AL-WAQIDI has been abandoned in Hadith. HE FABRICATES HADITH.” (al-Dhahabi, Mizan, volume 3 page 110)

Ishaq ibn Rahwiyah (777 – 852 AD):

“According to my view, he (al-Waqidi) is one of those who FABRICATE HADITH.” (Ibn Abi Hatim, volume 4 pt.1. page 21)

Abu Dawud (817 – 889 AD):

“I do not write his Hadith and I do not report (Hadith) on his authority. I have no doubt that HE (AL-WAQIDI) USED TO MAKE UP HADITH. (Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib, volume 9, page 366, No.604 cf. Hashmi)

Ali ibn Madyani (d. 241 A.H.):

“He (al-Waqidi) fabricates Hadith.” (al-Dhahabi, Mizan, page 110)

As we have read, al-Waqidi is not someone who is reliable enough to accept information from. Even if we were to accept al-Waqidi as a reliable reporter, we have another problem, which is, this story goes against many authentic reports which has reached us, thus, this story claiming that the Prophet (p) marched out against Byzantine’s on hearsay is untrue.

Now we move on to the more important stuff i.e., showing the true authentic narrations on this particular incident. Before the Muslims moved out to engage the enemy we are told in these reports that the Muslims will be facing a big army ahead of them:

“I never remained behind Allah’s Messenger from any expedition which he undertook except the Battle of Tabuk and that of the Battle of Badr. … And this is my story of remaining back from Allah’s Messenger on the occasion of the Battle of TABUK. Never did I possess means enough and (my circumstances) more favourable than at the occasion of this expedition. And, by Allah, I had never before this expedition simultaneously in my possession two rides. Allah’s Messenger set out for this expedition in extremely hot season; the journey was long and the land (which he and his army had to cover) was waterless and HE HAD TO CONFRONT A LARGE ARMY, so he informed the Muslims about the actual situation (they had to face), so that they should adequately equip themselves for this expedition, and he also told them the destination where he intended to go. …” (Sahih Muslim Book 37, Hadith 6670)

And Riyad as-Salihin:

“…narrating the story of his remaining behind instead of joining Messenger of Allah when he left for the BATTLE OF TABUK. Ka’b said: “I accompanied Messenger of Allah in every expedition which he undertook excepting the battle of Tabuk and the battle of Badr. … And this is the account of my staying behind from the battle of TABUK. I never had better means and more favourable circumstances than at the time of this expedition. And by Allah, I had never before possessed two riding-camels as I did during the time of this expedition. Whenever Messenger of Allah decided to go on a campaign, he would not disclose his real destination till the last moment (of departure). But on this expedition, he set out in extremely hot weather; the journey was long and the terrain was waterless desert; and HE HAD TO FACE A STRONG ARMY, so he informed the Muslims about the actual position so that they should make full preparation for the campaign.” (Riyad as-Salihin Book 1, Hadith 21 (Eng. Tran.))

In relation to Tabuk, Ibn Sa’d (784 – 845 AD), in his book Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir states that (a report) it had reached Prophet Muhammed that the Byzantine (Romans) had “concentrated large forces”, and Heraclius had sent some his military to ‘Balqa’. This is was when the Muhammed (p) “summoned” his people to engage the enemy:

“They (narrators) saud: It (report) reached the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, that the ROMANS HAD CONCENTRATED LARGE FORCES IN SYRIA had, that Heraclius had disbursed one year’s salary to his soldiers, and that tribes of Lakhm, Judham, ‘Amilah and Ghassan had joined hands with him. THEY SENT HAD SENT THEIR VANGUARDS TO AL-BALQA. THE MESSENGER Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, SUMMONED THE PEOPLE TO MARCH. He set out and informed them about the place which he intended, so that they could make necessary preparations. He sent (messengers) to Makkah and to the tribes of Arabia (asking them) to send help. This took place in the days of intense heat.” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, (Eng. Trans.) volume 2, page 203 – 204)

Here is also the 9th Century historian Ahmad Ibn Yaḥya al-Baladhuri (D. 892 AD), he also reports to us in his book, ‘Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan’, in clear-cut words that the Prophet (p) learned that the Byzantine army “had assembled against him”:

“Tabuk make terms. When in the year 9 AH the Prophet marched to TABUK in Syria for the invasion of those of the Greeks, Amilah, Lakhm, Judham and others WHOM HE LEARNT HAD ASSEMBLED AGAINST HIM, he met no resistance. So he spent a few days in Tabuk, whose inhabitants made terms with him agreeing to pay poll-tax.” (Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan, by Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri (Eng. Tran.) volume 1, page 92)

Furthermore, we have also the famous Masjid al-Dirar incident in which it is reported to us the Byzantine with Abu Amir (a Christian monk) just before the expedition of Tabuk were themselves preparing to attack and kill Muslims. Abu Amir and the Byzantine leader’s main goal was to assassinate Prophet Muhammed (p) while he was praying in a mosque. All this happened just before Tabuk expiedtion. Here are some of these reports which are reported by the Mufassirun.

Ali ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi (d. 1075 AD), states the following:

“… The Banu ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf built a mosque at Quba’ and sent for the Messenger of Allah, to come to them. He went there and prayed in that mosque. Their brothers from the Banu Ghunm ibn ‘Awf envied them resentfully and said: ‘Let us built a mosque and send for the Messenger of Allah, to pray in it as he prayed in the mosque of our brothers, and let Abu ‘Amir al-Rahib (the monk) also pray in it when he comes back from Syria‘. This Abu ‘Amir had embraced Christianity and became a monk in the pre-Islamic period. But when the Messenger of Allah, moved to Medina, Abu ‘Amir rejected the religion of Islam and showed enmity toward it. The Prophet, called him then Abu ‘Amir al-Fasiq (the corrupt)… ABU AMIR LEFT FOR SYRIA AND THEN SENT A LETTER TO THE HYPOCRITES in which he wrote: ‘PREPARE YOURSELVES AND MAKE READY WHATEVER YOU CAN OF FORCE AND WEAPONS. Built a Mosque for me, for I AM GOING TO THE CAESAR TO REQUEST HIM TO SEND WITH ME BYZANTINE SOLDIERS SO THAT I DRIVE OUT MUHAMMAD AND HIS COMPANIONS‘. And so, they built for him a mosque by the Quba’ mosque. Those who built this mosque were 12 men … When they finished building this mosque, they went to the Messenger of Allah, and said: ‘We have built a mosque for the sick and the needy and also for use in rainy and wintry nights, and we would like you to come and pray in it’.” (Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi, last accessed 22nd November 2016: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=107&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 )

Ibn Kathir (1301-1373 AD), also mentions that Abu Amir got the backing of Heraclius to launch an attack on the Muslim community:

“Masjid Ad-Dirar and Masjid At-Taqwa
The reason behind revealing these honorable Ayat is that before the Messenger of Allah migrated to Al-Madinah, there was a man from Al-Khazraj called “Abu `Amir Ar-Rahib (the Monk).” This man embraced Christianity before Islam and read the Scriptures. During the time of Jahiliyyah, Abu Amir was known for being a worshipper and being a notable person among Al-Khazraj. When the Messenger of Allah arrived at Al-Madinah after the Hijrah, the Muslims gathered around him and the word of Islam was triumphant on the day of Badr, causing Abu `Amir, the cursed one, to choke on his own saliva and announce his enmity to Islam. He fled from Al-Madinah to the idolators of Quraysh in Makkah to support them in the WAR AGAINST THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH. The Quraysh united their forces and the bedouins who joined them for the battle of Uhud, during which Allah tested the Muslims, but the good end is always for the pious and righteous people. The rebellious Abu Amir dug many holes in the ground between the two camps, into one of which the Messenger fell, injuring his face and breaking one of his right lower teeth. He also sustained a head injury. Before the fighting started, Abu Amir approached his people among the Ansar and tried to convince them to support and agree with him. When they recognized him, they said, “May Allah never burden an eye by seeing you, O Fasiq one, O enemy of Allah!” They cursed him and he went back declaring, “By Allah! Evil has touched my people after I left.” The Messenger of Allah called Abu Amir to Allah and recited the Qur’an to him before his flight to Makkah, but he refused to embrace Islam and REBELLED. The Messenger invoked Allah that Abu Amir die as an outcast in an alien land, and his invocation came true. After the battle of Uhud was finished, ABU AMIR realized that the Messenger’s call was still rising and gaining momentum, so HE WENT TO HERACLIUS, THE EMPEROR OF ROME, ASKING FOR HIS AID AGAINST THE PROPHET. HERACLIUS GAVE HIM PROMISES AND ABU AMIR REMAINED WITH HIM. He also wrote to several of his people in Al-Madinah, who embraced hypocrisy, promising and insinuating to them THAT HE WILL LEAD AN ARMY TO FIGHT THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH TO DEFEAT HIM AND HIS CALL. He ordered them to establish a stronghold where he could send his emissaries and to serve as an outpost when he joins them later on. These hypocrites built a Masjid next to the Masjid in Quba’, and they finished building it BEFORE the Messenger went to TABUK. They went to the Messenger inviting him to pray in their Masjid so that it would be a proof that the Messenger approved of their Masjid.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, last accessed 22nd November 2016: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1590&Itemid=64 )

Tafsir al-Jalalayn:

“And, among them, those who have chosen a mosque — these were twelve men from among the hypocrites — by way of HARM, to cause distress for those of the mosque of Quba’, and disbelief, since they built it on the orders of the monk ABU ‘AMIR, as a sanctuary for him, so that whoever comes from his side may stay there: HE HAD GONE TO THE BYZANTINE EMPEROR (QAYSAR) TO BRING TROOPS TO FIGHT AGAINST THE PROPHET (s), and to cause division among the believers, who pray in the mosque of Quba’, by having some of these pray in their [the hypocrites’] mosque, and as an outpost, an observation post, for those who waged war against God and His Messenger before, that is, before it was built — meaning the above-mentioned Abu ‘Amir … They had asked the Prophet (s) to perform prayers in it, and so the following was revealed…” (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, last accessed 22nd November 2016: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=107&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

Respectable readers should also be aware that these incidents (above) were not the first time the Byzantine leader had engaged in war against the Muslims. When the Prophet Muhammed (p) sent one of his messenger’s with a letter to the King of Busra, he was intercepted by Shurabbil Ibn Amr al-Ghassani and his men, they executed Muhammed’s messenger on the spot, and those who were with him. These ruthless men executed Muhammed’s men without even reading what was contained in the letter. This incident was one of the reasons which led to the battle of Mut’ah (Mutah): “The Battle Of Mu’tah (Mutah)”

Therefore, when some of these critic(s) claim that the Hiraclius and his men did not muster troops against the Muslims, this cannot be not true when we have concrete evidence on this incident that the Byzantine’s all along was planning to attack the Muslims, as the overwhelming evidence has shown.

In conclusion,

We have established to our respectable readers that the claim made in regards to the Tabuk expedition being undertaken as a result of hearsay and rumors is not true:

(1) – The few authentic reports wherein the Muslims heard stories that the Byzantines will attack them, an impending army was on its way, they did not in turn get ready to retaliate:

(2) – The reason for the Muslims not taking the opportunity to attack the Byzantine was as a result of them first wanting to confirm the stories before taking any steps forward.

(3) – The Muslims did not find these stories to be 100% confirmed at the time, hence they were left to deal with some of the issues in the Prophet’s house.

(4) – As shown in the authentic reports, the companions (Sahaba) were being more worried in relation to some of the issues of the Prophet’s personal life, here it shows that they did not take the stories on the Byzantine as truthful at the time, for if they did take the story as being genuine at the time they would have set out immediately to engage the Byzantine’s (romans). But they did not, this shows that the Muslims were waiting for official confirmation before taking any steps forward.

(5) – Al-waqidi is described as being a “liar” and a rejected individual, especially when his story is clearly in conflict with the many authentic reports.

(6) The authentic reports and tafsirs shown tell us the true and authentic version of this incident of Tabuk. The Byzantine’s (Romans) did indeed march southwards intending to attack, kill and overthrow the Muslim government. When the Byzantine’s received news that the Prophet (p) and his people came to engage them, this was when Byzantine soldiers fled away and abandoned their devilish plans.

The Muslims were not the ones who antagonised nor were they the aggressors, as the true historical sources have told us, the Byzantines were the warmongers who intended to harm the Prophet and his people. No alternative was left at the table for Prophet Muhammed (p) but to take action to save his community from harm.

If God wills, we should write few more articles on this incident soon.

Don’t forget to follow Discover The Truth on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favourite social networks.

 

 

Related articles:

Does the Quran order violence against the innocent?

Does Islam encourage Muslims to lie – Taqiyya?

Does the Holy Bible allow Christians to lie?

What does Islam say about Rape? [Part 1]

What does Islam say about Rape? [Part 2]

What does the Arabic word ‘Jihad’ mean?

Can Christians And Jews Be Friends With Muslims? [Part 1]

Can Christians And Jews Be Friends With Muslims? [Part 2]

Early Expeditions And Battles Of Islam

What Happened To The Captive Women In Awtas Incident?

The Story That Prophet Muhammed Attempted Suicide Is a Fabrication

This article was originally published on the following site: discover-the-truth.com

Dr. Muhammad Mohar Ali (Professor Of The History of Islam)

The report ends with the statement that there was a pause in the coming of wahy after the first instalment delivered at Hira. This was only natural; for the first incident must have stirred the Prophet to his very depth and clearly he needed a breathing time to recover from the first shock. At the same time he must have naturally become eager to have a second glimpse of the entity who had communicated the text at Hira and thus be reassured of the reality of what he had experienced. As is natural in such a situation, when a person comes across some unusual sight or has an unexpected experience at any particular spot, he feels tempted to visit it again in the expectation that he might have a similar experience there again.

It is therefore not at all surprising that the sources speak of his having sometimes frequented the mount Hira and the neighbouring hills, undoubtedly in the hope of getting a second glimpse of the angel. And indeed he did have a second glimpse of the angel not long after the first encounter at Hira. This second experience on his part is thus reported by Al-Zuhri as follows:

He says: “’Abu Salamah ibn Abd al-Rahman has informed me that Jabir ibn Abd Allah al-Ansari related, speaking about the pause in the coming of wahy, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him, said: ‘While I was walking I heard a voice in the sky. I raised my eyes and lo! There was the angel who had come to me at Hira sitting on a chair between the sky and the earth. I was frightened at that and returned (to my family) and said to them: ‘Cover me’. Then Allah sent down on me: ‘O wrapped up in the mantle, rise and warn’ up to ‘and the abomination, shun it.’1 (Surah 74. Ayahs 1-5). After that wahy continued combining regularly and uninterruptedly.” 2 (Bukhari, no. 4. The report is repeated in the chapter on Tafsir (no. 4954).

In one of the place where Bukhari repeats the report about the coming of the first wahy at mount Hira, i.e., in his chapter on ‘Interpretation of dreams’ (Ta’bir), he has an addition to the report of A’ishah (r.a.) noticed above. At this place he also gives two chains of narrators subsequent to Al-Zuhri, namely, (a) Yahya Ibn Bukayr <– Al-Layth <– Uqayl <– Al-Zuhri and (b) Abd Allah ibn Muhammad <– Abd al-Razzaq <– Ma’mar <– Al-Zuhri. The addition runs as follows:

“And then there was a pause in the coming of wahy for such a period that the Prophet, may Allah’s blessings and peace be on him, as we have come to know (…) became so sad that he went on a number of times (…) to throw himself down from the hill-tops.
Thus whenever he went up on to the top of a hill to throw himself down, Jibril appeared before him and said: ‘O Muhammad, you are truly Allah’s Messenger.’ At this the Prophet’s mind would be set at rest and he would be reassured; but when again the pause prolonged he similarly went and as he reached the top of a hill Jibril appeared before him and spoke to him similarly.” 1 (Bukhari, no. 6982.)

This story of extreme frustration on the Prophet’s part on account of the pause in the coming of wahy and, in consequence, of his alleged suicide attempts, is not at all worthy of credence. As Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani points out, the story is only an addition and surmise on Al-Zuhri’s part and no statement of the Prophet himself, nor of A’ishah (r.a.), nor even of Urwah ibn al-Zubayr. 2 (Fath al-Bari, XII, 376.). [1]

This addition has been so mixed up with the text that it APPEARS to be part of the original narration.

That it is Al-Zuhri’s ADDITION is very clear from his qualifying clause,

“as we have come to know”,

With which he introduces this section. Had it been the Prophet’s or A’ishah’s (r.a.) statement, there would have been no need to add this expression, for the chain of narrators had already been given at the beginning of the narration.

The second technical defect in the story has been pointed out by Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani. He states that it is a shadh (… strange or odd) report in that it has come down only once through a chain of narrators subsequent to Al-Zuhri among whom there is Ma’mar, and that in all other forms in which the matter is reported, even though Ma’mar is mentioned as one of the narrators, this addition DOES NOT OCCUR. Nor is this addition found anywhere else with an uninterrupted chain of narrators worthy to be cited as evidence. 3 ( Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Difa an al-Hadith al-Nabawiyyah wa al-Sirah, Damascus (1388 H.), p. 40-42).

Apart from these technical considerations, the Prophet’s character and personality do not admit of such a conduct on his part. The story is all the more unworthy of credence because it speaks not of one such alleged suicide attempt but of several such attempts; as if the assurance given by Jibril for the second time (i.e., after the first appearance at the cave of Hira) would not have satisfied the Prophet! The story might have originated, as one scholar points out, in someone’s seeing the Prophet frequenting the hills, as he naturally did during the pause in the coming of wahy, and then supposing on the basis of that sight that the Prophet was  about to throw himself down from the top of the hill. 1 (Muhammad Muhammad Abu Shahbah, Al-Sirat al-Nabawiyyah Fi Daw al-Qur’an wa al-Sunnah, I, Damascus, 1409 / 1988, p. 266.)

And once such a surmise was circulated it easily found its place in subsequent reports with further mixing up of the facts and circumstances.

The surmise of the Prophet’s suicide attempts is thus totally GROUNDLESS; but it is a fact that he had a second glimpse of the angel shortly after his receipt of wahy at mount Hira. This fact is stated clearly in the Qur’an as follows:

(a) “And he had indeed seen him (Jibril) in clear horizon.” (81:23) 3(See Ibn Kathir, Tasfir, VIII, 361 – 362.)

(b) “He was taught by the one might in power, endued with wisdom; he appeared in a stately form, while he was in the highest part of the horizon. Then he approached and came closer; and was at a distance of but two bowlengths or even nearer…” (53:5-9) 4 (See ibid, VII, 419-422)

Before proceeding further with the story it would be worthwhile to take into account some other reports concerning the receipt of the first divine communication by the Prophet, especially those given by Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d (i.e. of Al-Waqidi) and Al-Tabari.

Speaking on the subject Ibn Ishaq first reproduces part of A’ishah’s (r.a.) report as given in Bukhari and as quoted above, saying that at first the Prophet used to see good dreams in sleep which appeared like morning day-light; then seclusion became dear to him so that nothing was dearer to him that to be alone. 5 (Ibn Hisham, I, 234.) At this point Ibn Ishaq leaves the report and inserts another report which he says his informants received from “men of learning”. It mentions some unusual incidents like the trees and stones saluting the Prophet-to-be, etc. 1 (ibid, 234-235.)

Then Ibn Ishaq resumes the story of the coming of wahy on the basis of another report which he got from Wahb-ibn Kaysan (d. 127 H.) who, it is said, heard Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr asking Ubayd ibn Umayr ibn Qatadah al-Lythi 2 (He was a tabi’I. see Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, VII 71 (no. 148); Taqrib al-Tahdhib, I, 544, no. 1516) (d. 68. H.) on the subject whereupon he (Ubayd) stated as follows:

“The Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him, used to retire (…) at Hira every year for a month, as was the wont of the Quraysh to engage themselves in tahannuth for such a period during the Days of Jahiliyyah…
So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be on him, use to retire there for that month every year, feeding the poor who repaired to him. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be on him, finished that month-long retirement, the first thing he did before going home, was to go to the Ka’ba and circumambulate it seven times, or as many times as Allah wished him to do. Then he would return to him home. This practice he continued to follow till the month in which Allah willed t honour him, of the year in which He called him to prophethood, and that was the month of Ramadan.
So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be on him, went out to Hira, as he used to do, and his family was with him, till the night arrived in which Allah honoured him with His message and blessed His servants (mankind) thereby. There came to him Jibril, may Allah’s peace be on him, by Allah’s command.
The Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be on him, said: Jibril came to me, while I was asleep, with a silken casket in which there was a writing, and said to me: ‘Read.’
(The Prophet said) I replied: ‘I do not read’. (The Prophet said) Thereupon he pressed me so hard that I thought I would die. Then he released me and said: ‘Read’. (The Prophet said) I replied: ‘I do not read.’ (The Prophet said) Thereupon he pressed me so had that I thought I would die. Then he released me and said: ‘Read’. (The Prophet said) I said:
‘What shall I read?’ (The Prophet said) Thereupon he pressed me so hard that I thought I would die. Then he released me and said: Read’. (The Prophet said) I said: ‘What shall I read?’ I did not say so except to avoid his doing the same to me as he had done. Then he said: ‘Read in the name of thy Lord Who Created; created man from ‘alaq. Read, and your Lord is the Most Gracious; Who taught by means of the pen; taught man what he knew not.’ The Prophet said: ‘So I read it.’ Then it ended and he left me and I woke up from my sleep; and it was as if a writ was written on my heart. (The Prophet said) Thereafter I came out (of the cave) till I was in the middle of the hill when I heard a voice from the sky saying: ‘O Muhamad, you are the Messenger of Allah, and I am Jibril.
(The Prophet said) I raised my head looking towards the sky and lo! There was Jibril clearly in the shape of a man with his two feet spread in the horizon saying: ‘O Muhammad, you are Allah’s Messenger, and I am Jibril. (The Prophet said) Thereupon I stood looking at him, and I moved neither forward nor backward. I started turning my face from him in the horizon, but in whatever direction of the horizon I looked I saw him in the same position. I remained standing without moving forward or backward till Khadijah sent her men in search of me. They reached Upper Makka and returned to her while I was still standing in that place of mine. Then he (Jibril) left me.’
‘I left the place, returning to my family till I came to Khadijah and sat touching her thigh and leaning towards her. She said: ‘O Abu al-Qasim, where had you been? By Allah I sent my people in search of you till they reached Upper Makka and then returned to me. Then I narrated to her what I had seen. Thereupon she said: ‘Rest assured, O Son of my uncle. By Him in Whose hand is Khadijah’s life, I hope you will become the Prophet of these people.’
‘Then she stood up, put her dress on, and went out to Waraqah ibn Nawfal ibn Asad ibn Abd al-Uzza ibn Qussay. He was her uncle’s son, and had become a Christian, read the Book (Gospels) and had heard from the scholars of the Torah and the Injil. She informed him of what the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him, had related to her regarding what he had seen and heard. Thereupon Waraqah ibn Nawfal said: ‘Holy, Holy. By Him in Whose hands is the life of Waraqah, if you have spoken the truth, O Khadijah, then indeed the Great Namus (Jibril) who came to Musa, has come to him (the Prophet); verily he is the Prophet of these people. So tell him to rest assured.’ Then Khadijah returned to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be on him, and told him what Waraqah ibn Nawfal had said. Then when the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be on him, ended his retired states (…) and left the place, he did what he used to do, beginning with the Ka’ba and circumambulating it.
There Warqah ibn Nawfal, who was also circumambulating it, met him (the Prophet) and said: ‘O my brother’s son, tell me what you have seen and heard.’ So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be on him, informed him of everything.
Thereupon Waraqah said to him: ‘ By Him in Whose hands is my life, you are indeed the Prophet of these people, and the Great Namus, who came to Musa, has come to you. You will not be believed, you will be put to trouble and you will be driven out and fought with. If I live till that day I will surely help the cause of Allah as He knows.’ Then Waraqah leaned his head towards him (the Prophet) and kissed the middle of his head. Then the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be on him, went to his house.’” (Ibn Hisham, volume 1, page 234-237.)

It is obvious that this report differs in many respects from that of A’ishah (r.a.) given in Bukhari and noted earlier. The differences consist in omissions of, additions to and modification of the facts mentioned by the latter. As regards omissions, this report given by Ibn Ishaq does not mention any initial period of good or true dreams preceding the Prophet’s engaging himself in tahannuth at the cave of Hira. Secondly, there is also no indication of panic or bewilderment on the Prophet’s part in consequence of his encounters and experiences with Jibril. Lastly, there is no mention in this report of any pause in the coming of wahy after the receipt of the first instalment at the cave of Hira.

As regards additions, the first noticeable thing is that this report says that the Prophet’s sojourn in the cave of Hira was in accordance with the tradition of Quraysh’s doing similar tahannuth every year during the month of Ramadan. It further says that the Prophet also did so every year. Secondly, it says that while the Prophet was coming down from the cave and was still in the middle of the hill the angel Jibril appeared again in the sky, called the Prophet by his name and assured him that he was indeed Allah’s Messenger. Thirdly, it says that on his return from the hill the first thing the Prophet did was going to the Ka’ba and circumambulating it. Lastly, it says that in addition to hadijah’s meeting Waraqah, the latter met the Prophet at the Ka’ba compound and expressed similar views about him as were earlier expressed to Khadijah (r.a.).

More remarkable, however, are the modifications that appear in this report in the facts stated in A’ishah’s (r.a.) report. In the first place, it is stated that the Prophet took his family with him when he went to Hira for tahannuth. Secondly and more importantly, it is said that the angel Jibril came and delivered the text to the Prophet while he was asleep in the cave of Hira. It is further stated that the angel pressed him four times, instead of the three in the other report; and that twice the Prophet said that he did not know reading and twice he asked what she should read. Thirdly, this report makes Khadijah (r.a.) go alone to Waraqah to seek opinion about her husband, leaving him behind.

It should be noted that the ultimate authority of this report is Ubayd ibn Umayr ibn Qatadah who is a tabi’I and who does not mention the source of his information. The report is thus technically mursal, that is going back only to the second generation after the Prophet. It is a recognized principle of interpretation that if a mursal report differs from one that goes back with reliable and uninterrupted isnad to the Prophet (mawsul, marfu), the latter prevails over the former.

Hence that part of Ubayd ibn Umayr’s report produced by Ibn Ishaq which is at variance with the report given in Bukhari must yield place to the latter. In any case the statement that the Prophet received the revelation at the cave of Hira while he was asleep, that is in a state of dreaming, it is unacceptable in view of the clear statement in A’ishah’s (r.a.) report in the Prophet’s wakefulness and full consciousness.

Some commentators have of course attempted to reconcile the two statements by saying that the text of the revelation was first received in dream and then again in wakefulness. This explanation, though somewhat in line with the fact of a period of good dreams preceding the coming of revelation at Hira, ignores the fact that Ubayd ibn Umayr makes this dream happen at the cave of Hira itself.

In fact the report under consideration appears to have mixed up the fact of the initial period of good dreams with the second stage of solitary prayer and contemplation (tahannuth) and the receipt of the first text of revelation at Hira in the state of the Prophet’s wakefulness and full consciousness. This mixing up is all the more obvious from another aspect of the report which makes the Prophet see Jibril in the sky immediately after having come out of the cave after his alleged dream and while still in the middle of the mountain, and not after a pause in the coming of wahy as narrated in some other reports.

Also, it does not appear to be correct that the Quraysh used to engage themselves in tahannuth each year for the month of Ramadan and that the Prophet betook himself to the cave of Hira in imitation of that custom.

Again, the statement that he took his family there is inconsistent with the concept of seclusion and solitary prayer which was the sole objective of tahannuth. It is also inconsistent with the other statement that Khadijah (r.a.) sent her men in search of the Prophet as he stood in the middle of the mountain gazing at Jibril in the sky. The account gives the impression that while the Prophet was staying in the cave, his family was staying at another spot at the mountain, a situation which is warranted neither by the extent and shape of the mountain nor by the purpose, if at all, of dragging them out to the bleak mountains. Even then it is quite unlikely that Khadijah, if she had at all gone to the mountain, would have been unaware of the Prophet’s whereabouts. Clearly there is here a mixing up of an incident which took place on another occasion, most probably when the Prophet used to go to the mountain during the pause in the coming of wahy.

Despite these anomalies and confusions in the report, it corroborates in general the solid core of facts given in A’ishah’s (r.a.) report, namely, (a) that the Prophet received the first text of the revelation at Hira from the angel Jibril; (b) that at a subsequent stage the Prophet saw the angel appearing in the sky, introducing himself as Jibril and assuring Muhammad that he was indeed God’s Messenger; and (c) that Waraqah ibn Nawfal, when he heard the account of the incident at Hira, expressed his view that it was the very angel (Namus) who used to come to Musa with God’s revelation and that Muhammad had received such a commission from God.

III. THE REPORTS GIVEN BY AL-WAQIDI

The next account in point of time is that of Al-Waqidi (Muhammad ibn Umar, 120-207 H.) coming through his scribe Muhammad ibn Sa’d (168-239 H.).

(1) Al-Waqidi first quotes the initial part of A’ishah’s (r.a.) report as given in Bukhari but through a different isnad, namely, through Ma’mar ibn Rashid and Muhammad ibn Abd Allah. In effect, however, this part of the report is the same as that in Bukhari, saying that the Prophet first used to see good (or true) dreams for sometime, after which seclusion became dear to him so that nothing was dearer to him than that, that he next retired to the cave of Hira for engaging himself in tahannuth consecutively for several days and coming back to his family from time to time to take provisions for that sort of stay on the mountain, till “the truth” came to him. 1 (Ibn Sa’d, I, 194)

(2) At this point Al-Waqidi introduces another report which he recived through Ibrahim ibn Isma’il, from Da’ud ibn al-Husayn, from Ikrima, from Ibn Abbas. It is said that Ibn Abbas stated that when the Prophet was in that state (i.e., presumably, after the receipt of ‘the truth’ …) at Ajyad he saw an angel sitting cross-legged in the sky at the horizon, calling him (the Prophet) by name and introducing himself as Jibril. At this sight the Prophet was terrified and started looking in other directions of the sky, but to whatever direction he turned his eyes he saw the angel. Hence the Prophet hurried back home, went to Khadijah (r.a.) and expressed his fear that he might turn a soothsayer though he detested it the most. She comforted him by mentioning the qualities of his head and heart. Then she went to Waraqah and related to him the story.
The latter said that it was the Great Namus who had appeared to her husband and that it indicated the beginning of prophethood, adding that he should not therefore think anything but good for himself. 1 (ibid, 194-195.)

(3) Al-Waqidi next produces two other reports, one after another, received through different chains of narrators and both saying that the Prophet sometimes saw light and heard sounds and expressed his fears to his wife saying that he would probably turn a soothsayer. Khadijah (r.a.) would comfort him by mentioning his noble qualities. One of these reports says that the Prophhet also expressed his fears that he might even go mad and that at this Khadijah (r.a.) went to Waraqah who opined that it was the Namus who had appeared to her husband, that he would be a Prophet and that Waraqah would help him if he lived till that time. 2 (ibid, 195)

(4) Next Al-Waqidi reproduces three different reports form three different sources. Two of these reports say that the first thing which was revealed to the Prophet was the five initial ayahs of surat al-alaq. Al-Waqidi notes that this happened on “the day of Hira’”. 3 (ibid, 196) The third report was received from Da’ud ibn al-Husayn who had it from Ghatfan ibn Tarif who, in his turn, had it from Ibn Abbas. It says that after the revelation which came at Hira the Prophet did not see Jibril for “several days”. Hence he became sad and started frequenting the Thabir and Hira mountains in order to throw himself from them. Once while he was thus going to one of those mountains he heard a voice from the sky and as he turned his eyes upwards he saw Jibril sitting cross-legged on a chair and calling him and saying “Muhammad, you are truly Allah’s Messenger, and I am Jibril.” The Prophet then left the place, his mind set at rest. Thereafter wahy came regularly and without interruption. 4 (ibid.)

Now, the authorities rating of Al-Waqidi’s CREDIBILITY IS VERY LOW; but apart from that question, the points illustrated by the reports produced by him may be tabulated as follows. In the first place, it is stated that there was an initial period of “true” dreams which was followed by the Prophet’s love for solitary retirement. Second, it is stated that the Prophet used to retire at the cave of Hira where he remained consecutively for several days before returning to his family to take provisions for the purpose. There is no mention in these reports that such tahannuth on the Prophet’s part was in imitation of the custom of the Quraysh; nor is there any suggestion that the Prophet’s family went with him to the hills. Third, it is clearly stated that it was at the cave of Hira that the first revelation was received and that it consisted of the first five ayahs of surat al-Alaq. The details of how the angel appeared and delivered the text are not mentioned. At the same time there is no indication whatsoever that the incident took place while the Prophet was asleep (i.e., in dream). Forth, as regards the seeing of angel Jibril in the horizon one of Al-Waqidi’s reports says that this happened at Ajyad, while another of his reports says that this happened when the Prophet frequented the Thabir and Hira mountains in consequence of the angel’s not appearing to him for “several days” after the first revelation. This information corroborates the fact of a pause in the coming of wahy. Fifth, as regards the alleged intention on the Prophet’s part to throw himself from the mountain tops, it appears unmistakably that it is only a guess one the narrator’s part, in this instance on the part of either Ibn Abbas or some other narrator subsequent to him. Sixth, as regards the consultation with Waraqah one of Al-Waqidi’s reports makes the even happen after the seeing of the angel reportedly at Ajyad; while the other reports makes it happen after the Prophet had sometimes seen light and heard sounds, etc. Excepting these two last mentioned points (fifth and sixth), thus, the facts presented by Al-Waqidi are in accord with those given in A’ishah’s (r.a.) report and recorded in Bukhari.

IV. AL-TABARI’S ACCOUNT

Writing more than a hundred years after Al-Waqidi, Al-Tabari (224 – 310 H.) reproduces Ibn Ishaq’s report, as mentioned above, with minor alternations in wording and slight omisions and additions in the text, but otherwise mentioning him by name and keeping as close to his text as possible. 1

Before reproducing his version of Ibn Ishaq’s report, however, Al-Tabari puts in another report of the event which he says he received from Ahmad ibn Uthman (Abu Jawra) who had it from Wahb ibn Jarir, who, from his father (i.e. Jarir), the latter from Al-Nu’man ibn Rashid, he from Al-Zuhri, from Urwah, from A’ishah (r.a.). This report is distinguished from that given in Ibn Ishaq by the fact that whereas the latter’s report goes back, as noted above, only to Ubayd ibn Umayr and is as such mursal, Al-Tabari’s report goes back to A’ishah (r.a.) through Al-Zuhri and Urwah. The salient features of this report are as follows:

(a) In the first part of the report the facts are exactly the same as they are related in the report in Bukhari, namely, the initial period of “true” or “good” dreams, followed by the Prophet’s love for seclusion, his solitary prayer and stay at the cave of Hira consecutively for a number of days, his returning to his family from time to time to take provisions for a similar stay, till the “truth” came to him. From this point the report differs from that in Bukhari and runs as follows:

The Prophet is said to have related:

(b) “ So he [the angel] came to me and said: ‘O Muhammad, you are the Messenger of Allah.’ The Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be on him, said: ‘At this I fell on my knees, though I was standing. Then I returned (to my family), my heart throbbing. Then I went to Khadijah and said to her: ‘Cover me, cover me.’ (I remained so) till my panic went away. Then he [the angel] came to me and said: ‘O Muhammad, You are Allah’s Messenger.’ The Prophet said: ‘At this I thought of throwing myself from the top of a mountain, and when I intended doing so he appeared before me and said: ‘’O Muhammad, I am Jibril, and you are Allah’s Messenger.’ Then he said: ‘Read in the name of your Lord Who created.’ So I read. Then I came to Khadijah and said: ‘I am afraid about my life. She said…”

(c) From this point the account is again the same as in Bukhari, i.e., Khadijah’s words of consolation to the Prophet, their going to Waraqah, the latter’s opinion that the angel Jibril (Namus) had come with God’s revelation, that the Prophet’s people would turn against him, etc., ending with Waraqah’s remarks that if he lived till that day he would render all possible help to the Prophet.

This report, though it traces its origin to A’ishah (r.a.) through Al-Zuhri and Urwah, differs from that in Bukhari in the following essential respects:

(1) It says that the first thing the angel told the Prophet in the cave was that he was Allah’s Messenger.

(2) That after the Prophet had come home from the cave the angel appeared again and told him that he was Allah’s Messenger.

(3) That after this second appearance of the angel and also after the Prophet had been told for the second time that he was Allah’s Messenger, he contemplated throwing himself from a hill-top.

(4) That when he was about to so throw himself from a hill-top the angel appeared for the third time, introduced himself as Jibril, assured the Prophet that he was Allah’s Messenger and delivered to him the first ayah of surat al-Alaq.

(5) There is no mention of the Prophet’s first expressing his inability to read.

(6) There is also no mention about the pause in the coming of wahy.

Now, it is obvious that neither A’ishah (r.a.) nor, for that matter, Al-Zuhri, could have given two essentially different accounts of the same event. If the facts stated here were true but were somehow omitted or skipped over by them the narrators subsequent to them should have mentioned the sources of their information. But nothing of the sort is indicated here or elsewhere. Even with regard to the ALLEGED suicide attempt which finds mention in Bukhari as Al-Zuhri’s surmise, it is given here in a quite different form. Thus while Al-Zuhri would have it that the Prophet ALLEGEDLY intended to throw himself from a hill-top because of the pause in the coming of wahy and only desisted from doing so when the angel Jibril reappeared and assured him that he was Allah’s Messenger; the present report, on the other hand, not only does not make any mention of the pause in the coming of wahy but also would have us believe that the Prophet mediated suicide because the angel Jibril appeared for the second time and also assured the Prophet for the second time that he was Allah’s Messenger. Apart from the utter unreasonableness of the statement, it is obvious that Al-Zuhri himself could not have given such divergent and diametrically opposite accounts about the cause and sequence of the event.

It is thus clear that the narrators subsequent to Al-Zuhri or at least some of them through whom the account reached Al-Tabari mixed up not only Al-Zuhri’s own statement but also the original report with other matters. In fact authoritative opinions are not quite at one about some of these narrators. For instance Nu’man ibn Rashid, who is stated to have received the report from Al-Zuhri, is regarded by a number of competent authorities as “very weak”, “confused”, profuse in making mistakes and even BASELESS surmises. It is even stated that he made reprehensible and worthless reports and should therefore be AVOIDED. 1 (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, X, Hyderabad, 1277 H., p. 152, no. 819.). [2]

Similarly Jarir (Ibn Hazim Ibn Abd Allah Ibn Shuja al-Azdi), who is stated to have received the report from Al-Nu’man ibn Rashid, is considered to be profuse in errors, mixing up his surmises with the reports he transmitted, changing the sequence of events and even making reprehensible reports. 1 (ibid, II, 77-72. No. 111.)

Also his son Wahb, who received the report under reference from him, used to commit mistakes. He is even stated to have attributed his reports to persons from whom he had not received them. Thus he transmitted about four thousand reports (from Shu’ba”, but those were really reports of Abd al-Rahman al-Rassaki. 2 (ibid., II XI, 161-162, No. 273.)

Obviously, reports coming through such narrators need to be taken with CAUTION and cannot be, according to the accepted rules if interpretation, given precedence over those on the same subject emanating from narrators of unimpeachable veracity.

It is not necessary to follow the accounts found in works later than Al-Tabar’s; for they do not really add anything new or authentic to the story. On the whole the most authentic account of the coming of the first revelation to the Prophet is that given by A’ishah (r.a.) and contained in Bukhari. This report and the other reports noticed above, excluding the points on which they disagree, bring out the following facts:

(i) That on the eve of his call the Prophet experienced an initial period of “good” dreams which appeared to him like the morning day-light.

(ii) That after this he began to love seclusion and spent a period of time in solitary prayer and contemplation at the cave on top of Mount Hira.

(iii) That it was at the cave of Hira that the angel Jibril appeared to him and delivered to him the first text of the revelation.

(iv) That shortly after this first encounter at the cave of Hira the Prophet saw Jabril again in the sky, addressing him by name disclosing his own identity and confirming that he (the Prophet) was Allah’s Messenger.

(v) That what the Prophet received was something extraneous to him. It was a distinct text received from an external source, and not the result of his own contemplation and thinking. The experience at Hira was also no psychological phenomenon for him.

(vi) That the immediate reaction of the Prophet to the receipt of Divine communication was that of a person who never expected such a development, that initially he was not quite sure of his new status and that it was only after the reassurance given by the angel Jibril (under Divine direction) and after consultation with Waraqah ibn Nawfal that his (the Prophet’s) mind was set at rest;

(vii) That therefore previous to his receipt of the Divine communication the Prophet did not plan and design to play the role of a Prophet; and

(viii) That there was a short pause in the coming of revelation after the receipt of the first text at Hira. This was in the nature of a breathing time enabling the Prophet to recover from the first shock of the extraordinary experience.

This full article was taken from the book, “Sirat Al-Nabi And The Orientalists, With special reference to the writings of William Muir, D. S. Margoliouth And W. Montgomery Watt. From the background to the beginning of the Prophet’s Mission, [King Fahd Complex For the printing of the Holy Quran, Madinah, First Edition, 1417 AH / 1997 CE] by Muhammad Mohar Ali (Professor Of The History of Islam, centre for the service of Sunnah And Sirah, Islamic University, Madinah), Vol. I A (volume 1 A), page 373 – 386”

References:

[1] Ibn Hajar’s words on this:

[2] Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, X, Hyderabad, 1277 H., p. 152, no. 819. Part of the criticism are as follows:

 

Tawhid (Tawheed) Is Clearly Mentioned In Hadeeth

Kaleef K. Karim

It is often said by Muslims and non-Muslims that the doctrine of Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible. This fact is further supported also by some well respected Christian and non-Christian academics, that the word trinity nor the trinity formula (doctrine) is anywhere explicitly mentioned in the Bible. We have written some articles on this matter before, please click on the following pieces:

(1) – “Trinity: The Truth About Matthew 28:19 & 1 John 5:7”

(2) – “Trinity: Examining Authenticity Of Matthew 28:19”

(3) – “Dismantling The Trinitarian Perception Of John 1:1”

(4) – “Jesus (pbuh): Nothing Divine about Him”

(5) – “1 Timothy 3:16 Did God become manifest in flesh?”

(6) – “Isaiah 9:6 Messiah God?”

Christian trinitarians have for a long time been unable to explain consistently what the trinity is. If you were to bring three Christian trinitarians, each asked separately to explain what the trinity doctrine is, they would give contradictory and heretical positions on their triune-god belief. When some trinitarians are unable to explain the triune-god formula, they say, “it is a mystery, you don’t understand God.”

Another hard task for them is to find explicit passage(s) in the Bible where this trinity is mentioned. Unable to answer this, trinitarians have resorted to fallacy. Some have thrown a question back at lay Muslims who don’t know much about Islam. They say, well the word “Tawheed” (Tawhid) is nowhere in the Quran or Hadith. They claim, that Tawhid or the concept of Tawhid was continuing to develop hundreds of years after Prophet Muhammed’s demise.

The comparable cases brought forward by trinitarian missionaries are not the same. When Muslims speak about Tawhid, we are saying that God is One. God being One is littered throughout the Quran and Hadith. However, the trinity, or God of the Bible being described as three in one is nowhere to be seen. Shaykh Dr. Shabir Ally noted beautifully, even if we don’t use the word Tawheed, Muslims can repeat what the Quran and Hadith corpus say, “God is One” or “There is no god but Allah” (La ilaha illallah: Q. 47:19, 37:35-36) and:

“Allah! La ilaha illa HUWA (none has the right to be worshipped but HE), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists.” – Quran 3:2 (Mushin Khan Translation)

And:

“Allah, there is no god except HE, The Ever-Living, The Superb Upright Sustainer.” – Quran 3:2 (Dr. Ghali Translation)

We have no issue if one does not use the word Tawhid. On the other side though, trinitarians have a major problem on their hand, the concept nor is the word trinity anywhere to be found in the New Testament.

Given that the claim was made that Tawhid is not found in our scriptures (Quran And Hadith), we will present authentic Hadith where the word Tawheed is clearly mentioned.

In the following Hadith the word Tawheed is mentioned by Prophet Muhammed (p) in  reference to some Muslims who would be thrown in the hell-fire for their major sins they had committed, and later put in paradise:

“2597. Jabir narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Some of the people of TAWHID will be punished in the Fire until they are coals. Then the Mercy (of Allah) will reach them, they will be taken out and tossed at the doors of Paradise will pour water over them, and they will sprout as the debris carried by the flood sprouts, then they will enter Paradise.’” (Sahih) (English Translation of Jami At-Tirmidhi, compiled by: Imam Hafiz Abu Eisa Mohammad Ibn Eisa At-Tirmidhi [Translated by: Abu Khaliyl (USA), Ahadith edited and referenced by: Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair Ali Za’I, Final review by: Islamic Research Section Darussalam, Maktaba Dar-us-salam, 2007], volume 4, page 574 (Book 37. Chapters On The Description Of Hell From The Messenger Of Allah. Chapter 10. Something Else Regarding The Story Of The Last Of The People Of The Fire To Leave It. The Description Of Hell. Hadith No. 2597))

Here is a screenshot for the above quote [1]:

Br. Bassam Zawadi provided plenty of other Hadith reports where the word Tawheed is mentioned. Here are two of them:

“The Messenger of Allah came with two sheep both with big horns, then he reclined to one side and said: Bismillah wa Allahu Akbar, O Allah! Be with Muhammad and his family, then reclined to the other and said: Bismillah wa Allahu Akbar, O Allah! Be with Muhammad and his Ummah who testify/bear witness to you of/with TAWHEED and testify/bear witness to this statement/declaration. (Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah, collected by Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani, Matalib al-Aliya volume 3, page 32 (Hassan))
إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أتي بكبشين أملحين أقرنين عظيمين موجوأين ، فأضجع أحدهما وقال : بسم الله والله أكبر ، اللهم عن محمد وآل محمد ، ثم أضجع الآخر وقال : بسم الله والله أكبر ، اللهم عن محمد وأمته من شهد لك بالتوحيد ، وشهد لي بالبلاغ
الراوي: جابر بن عبدالله المحدث:ابن حجر العسقلاني – المصدر: المطالب العالية – الصفحة أو الرقم: 3/32
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده حسن”

And:

“Aas ibn Wael made a vow in pre-Islamic era of ignorance to sacrifice 100 camels and Hisham ibn al-Aas to sacrifice 50 camels; Umar asked the Prophet about it and he said: But if your father had affirmed TAWHEED, then fasted and admitted it, that would have been of benefit to him. (Narrated by Jad Amro ibn Shu’aib Musnad al-Ahmad volume 10, page 176 (Saheeh))
أنَّ العاصَ بنَ وائِلٍ نذَر في الجاهِلِيَّةِ أنْ يَنحَرَ مِائَةَ بَدَنَةٍ وأنَّ هِشامَ بنَ العاصِ نحَر حِصَّتَه خمسينَ بَدَنَةً وأنَّ عُمَرَ سأَل النبيَّ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم عن ذلك فقال: أمَّا أبوكَ فلو كان أقرَّ بالتوحيدِ فصُمتَ وتصَدَّقتَ عنه نفَعَه ذلك
الراوي: جد عمرو بن شعيب المحدث:أحمد شاكر – المصدر: مسند أحمد – الصفحة أو الرقم: 10/176
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صحيح”

Thanks to brother Adeel, from Qurananswers.me site, he took his time out to translate the above Hadith reports, Jazak’Allahu khayran.

In conclusion, in this brief article we showed clear evidence from our scriptures that the word Tawhid is mentioned by Prophet Muhammed (p). So the claim being made by missionaries that Tawheed is not mentioned in our Islamic scriptures is untrue. As shown, Tawheed is clearly present in our sources.

Addendum:

A new piece of information I received from a dear brother:

When the Prophet sent Mu’adh to Yemen, he said to him, “You are going to a nation from the people of the Scripture, so let the first thing to which you will invite them, be the Tauhid of Allah. If they learn that, tell them that Allah has enjoined on them, five prayers to be offered in one day and one night. And if they pray, tell them that Allah has enjoined on them Zakat of their properties and it is to be taken from the rich among them and given to the poor. And if they agree to that, then take from them Zakat but avoid the best property of the people.”
Arabic:
وَحَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي الأَسْوَدِ، حَدَّثَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ الْعَلاَءِ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ أُمَيَّةَ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ صَيْفِيٍّ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَا مَعْبَدٍ، مَوْلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ يَقُولُ سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، يَقُولُ لَمَّا بَعَثَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم مُعَاذًا نَحْوَ الْيَمَنِ قَالَ لَهُ ‏ “‏ إِنَّكَ تَقْدَمُ عَلَى قَوْمٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ فَلْيَكُنْ أَوَّلَ مَا تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى أَنْ يُوَحِّدُوا اللَّهَ تَعَالَى فَإِذَا عَرَفُوا ذَلِكَ فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ فَرَضَ عَلَيْهِمْ خَمْسَ صَلَوَاتٍ فِي يَوْمِهِمْ وَلَيْلَتِهِمْ، فَإِذَا صَلُّوا فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ افْتَرَضَ عَلَيْهِمْ زَكَاةً فِي أَمْوَالِهِمْ تُؤْخَذُ مِنْ غَنِيِّهِمْ فَتُرَدُّ عَلَى فَقِيرِهِمْ، فَإِذَا أَقَرُّوا بِذَلِكَ فَخُذْ مِنْهُمْ وَتَوَقَّ كَرَائِمَ أَمْوَالِ النَّاسِ ‏”‏‏.‏” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 9, Book 93, Hadith 469 (Eng. Tran.))

In another version on this very same incident reported by Darqutni it is said:

“…so let your first thing that you call them to is the Monotheism of Allah (Tauheed-ullah).”
Arabic:
فَلْيَكُنْ أَوَّلَ مَا تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَيْهِ تَوْحِيدُ اللَّهِ” (Sunan al–Darqutni in his Sunan 5/316)

So in Arabic the action of making the thing One (Waahid) is affirming Tawheed. This is a common characteristic when referring to the action in a nounal form where it transforms from Waahid to Tawheed. Therefore whenever Allah is affirmed of being One with the Arabic term Waahid this is the affirmation of Tawheed.

Here is one more report where the word Tawhid (Tauheed) is mentioned. A narration reported by at-Tabarani, Ibn Abi Asim, and Abu Nuaim al-Asfahani, on al-Harith ibn al-Harith al-Ghamadi:

“I said to my father, who are these people? He said, they are gathered against a Saba’i (one who has left the religion of his fathers) from among them. Then we looked and verily it was the MESSENGER OF ALLAH CALLING PEOPLE TO THE MONOTHEISM of Allah the Almighty and Majestic (Tauheed Allah Azz wa Jall), and to faith, until the noontime of the day came, and then the people left him, and a women came crying with her neck open carrying a cup and a cloth, and she gave him it and he drank and performed ablution and raised his head and he said to her, O my daughter cover your neck and do not worry about your father…”
Arabic:
الحارث بن الحارث الغامدي ، قال : قلت لأبي : ما هذه الجماعة ؟ قال : هؤلاء قوم اجتمعوا على صابئ لهم قال : فتشرفنا فإذا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يدعو الناس إلى توحيد الله عز وجل والإيمان به حتى ارتفع النهار فتصدع عنه الناس ، وأقبلت امرأة قد بدا نحرها تبكي تحمل قدحا ومنديلا فناولته منها فشرب وتوضأ ثم رفع رأسه إليها فقال : « يا بنية خمري عليك نحرك ولا تخافي على أبيك غلبة ولا ذلا » فقلت : من هذه ؟ قالوا : هذه زينب ابنت (at-Tabarani in, Al-Kabir, 3373, Ibn Abi Asim in, al-Ahadeeth wa al-Mathani, 2403, and refer to, Jilbab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah, page 79. Imam al-Haythami mentioned in Majma az-zawaid and classed the narrators to be trustworthy)

And:

“Amr bin Shu`aib narrated from his father, who narrated from his grandfather that al-Aas bin Wa’il took an oath during the pre-Islamic times (Jahiliyyah) that he would slaughter one hundred goats and that Hisham bin al-`Aas slaughtered his share of 50 goats. Then `Amr bin al-`Aas asked the Prophet (P) about that, and he said, “As for your father, if he affirmed TAWHID and you fast and give charity on his behalf, it would benefit him.”
Arabic:
أما أبوك فلو كان أقر بالتوحيد، فصمت وتصدقت عنه نفعه ذلك “. (Imam Ahmad narrated this, See silsilah saheeha (484))

And:

“The Prophet (p) said, “There was a man who came before you who did no good whatsoever, except TAWHID. When his time to die came, he said to his family, ‘Look, if I die have my body burnt to coal, then make them into ashes and wait for a windy day and throw half of the ashes in the desert, and half in the ocean. By Allah, if Allah decides to punish my body, He will punish it like none other in the universe.’ When he died they did as he requested to his body, and Allah ordered the desert to gather whatever it had of him in it and the ocean likewise, until he stood in Allah’s Grasp. Allah U said, ‘O son of Adam, what caused you to do what you did?’ He said, ‘O Lord, I did so out of fear of you’ – and in another narration, ‘out of awe in you, and you know best–.’ The Prophet said, ‘Allah forgave him because of it, and he did no good actions, besides TAWHID.’”
Arabic:
كانَ رجلٌ ممَّن كان قبلكم لم يعمل خيراً قطُّ؛ إلا التوحيد، فلما احتُضر قال لأهله: انظروا: إذا أنا متُّ أن يحرِّقوه حتى يدعوه حمماً، ثم اطحنوه، ثم اذروه في يوم ريح، [ثم اذروا نصفه في البر، ونصفه في البحر، فوالله؛ لئن قدر الله عليه ليعذبنه عذاباً لا يعذبه أحداً من العالمين] ، فلما مات فعلوا ذلك به، [فأمر الله البر فجمع ما فيه، وأمر البحر فجمع ما فيه] ، فإذا هو [قائم] في قبضة الله، (Collected in, As-Sahihah, 3048)

The last two Hadith reports was taken from the following site.

It is absolutely clear here that the word Tawhid (Tauheed) is mentioned in our Islamic sources.

Don’t forget to follow Discover The Truth on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favourite social networks.

References:

[1] “COMMENTS:
Those from among the BELIEVERS IN ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM that will be thrown into Hell shall be punished in the Fire until they turn into coals. Eventually, through Allah’s mercy, they shall be tossed on to the doors of Paradise so that the people of Paradise sprinkle water over them and they sprout speedily and enter their coveted place, Paradise.” ((English Translation of Jami At-Tirmidhi, compiled by: Imam Hafiz Abu Eisa Mohammad Ibn Eisa At-Tirmidhi [Translated by: Abu Khaliyl (USA), Ahadith edited and referenced by: Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair Ali Za’I, Final review by: Islamic Research Section Darussalam, Maktaba Dar-us-salam, 2007], volume 4, page 574)
[2] The following Hadith is not direct word for word from Prophet Muhammed, but later narrators who said it:

“3122. It was narrated from Aishah and Abu Hurairah that when the Messenger of Allah wanted to offer a sacrifice, he bought two large, fat, horned, black-and-white, castrated rams. He slaughtered one on behalf of his nation, for whoever testified to Allah with MONOTHEISM and that he had conveyed (the Message), and he slaughtered the other on behalf of Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.” (Hasan) (English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah, compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini [Ahadith edited, researched and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair Ali Za’I, Translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), Edited by Huda Khattab (Canada), Final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA), Maktaba Dar-us-Salam, 2007], volume 4, page 255 (Book 26. Chapters On Sacrifices. Chapter 1. The Sacrifices Of The Messenger of Allah. Hadith No. 3122))

Screenshot for the above quote:

“COMMENTS:
a. Sacrificing a castrated animal is allowed; it is not considered a defect.
b. Sacrificing one animal for an entire family is allowed.
c. Offering a sacrifice on behalf of others is allowed.” (English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah, compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini [Ahadith edited, researched and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair Ali Za’I, Translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), Edited by Huda Khattab (Canada), Final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA), Maktaba Dar-us-Salam, 2007], volume 4, page 256)
[3] A Tabi’i, a person who met the Prophet’s companions mentioned the word Tawhid (بِالتَّوْحِيدِ). It is a very long report, so I will leave readers with a link where you can see the full report here, and here.

Debunking The Lie That Muhammed Contemplated Suicide

This article was originally published on the following site: discover-the-truth.com

DTT: The following article was taken with permission from Br. Bassam’s website, Call-to-monotheism.com. I would like thank him for giving us the opportunity to share this important information on our site. Readers please be aware that a second article on this matter will be published in the coming days, God willing.

The Narration of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) Contemplation of Suicide is Inauthentic in Terms of Its Transmission and Textual Content

 

By

Sheikh Saalih Al-Munajjid

Translated by:

Abu Nadm al-Zahiri

Translation Revised by:

Bassam Zawadi

Question:

During my research online, I found a comment stating that in the historical collection of Bukhari, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is reported to have attempted suicide, but I didn’t find the specific report in the collection, which was necessary in order to dismantle this doubt. If you would be so kind, I would like to know the specific report in Bukhari’s collection along with a detailed explanation. Thanks so much.

Answer:

Praise the Lord.

First of all:

The narration about which our brother is asking about is present in Bukhari’s collection as narration number 6581 in the chapter of “Interpretation of Dreams” under the section heading “Commencement of the Divine Revelation to Allah’s Messenger (saws) was in the form of good dreams” The exact wording is:

“Az-Zuhri said: ‘Urwah informed me on the authority of A’isha (may God be pleased with her) that she said:. the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet (peace be upon him) became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, “O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah’s Messenger () in truth” whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before.”

Second of all:

This addition is not from the speech of A’isha, rather it is the statement of Az-Zuhri. He was from the second generation of Muslims and did not witness any of these incidents, nor did he remark that any of the companions of the Prophet informed him of this. He clarifies this in the very narration itself with his statement:

“in what has reached us.”

Ibn Hajar (may God have mercy on him) said:

“Thus, the one who made the statement ‘in what has reached us’ was Az-Zuhri, and the meaning of his statement is: in this sentence is that which has reached us regarding the Prophet (peace be upon him) in regards to this story. It is merely an addition from what has reached Az-Zuhri and is not actually connected back to the original narration, as Al-Kirmani said: this is what is apparent.”(Fath al-Bari, volume 12, page 359)

Abu Shama al-Maqdisi (may God have mercy on him) said:

“This is the statement of Az-Zuhri or someone else other than A’isha – God knows best – due to the phrase: ‘in what has reached us,’ and Aisha did not say anything from what was mentioned in the hadith.” (Sharh al-Hadith al-Muqtafa fi Mab’ath an-Nabi al-Mustafa, page 177)

Third of all:

Additions of Az-Zuhri from that which reached him are not accepted because their chain of narration is disconnected to begin with, thus they are considered to be “hanging” narrations in both the terminological and practical sense. The mere presence of hanging narrations like this in the collection of Bukhari doesn’t mean that Bukhari considered them to be authentic, or that it would be accurate to say that Bukhari narrated them, because that which Bukhari is said to have narrated authentically is only in regards to that which he narrated with a complete chain from beginning to end.

Sheikh Albani (may God have mercy on him) said:

“To ascribe this narration as being one of Bukhari’s is a manifest error, because one who ascribes such a thing imagines that this story of jumping off the mountain is authentic according to the conditions of Bukhari himself. This is not the case, and the proof is that Bukhari narrated this event himself at the end of A’isha’s statement in the chapter of “How the Revelation Began”.[Albani goes on to quote the full narration].

“This narration along with Az-Zuhri’s addition has been recorded by Ahmad (volume 6, pages 232-233), Abu Nu’aym (ad-Dala`il, pages 68-69), and Al-Baihaqi in his ad-Dala`il, volume 1, pages 393-395), via Abdur Razzaq on the authority of Ma’mar. It has also been narrated via this route by Muslim (volume 1, page 98), but he did not narrate the expression; rather, he only referred to the expression narrated by Yunus on the authority of Ibn Shihab without Az-Zuhri’s addition. Muslim and Ahmad (volume 6, page 223) both narrated it this way via Aqil bin Khalid on the authority of Ibn Shihab without Az-Zuhri’s addition. Bukhari also narrated it this way in the beginning of his collection via Aqil.

“Thus I [Albani] say: we may conclude, from the above, that the addition to the narration contains two defects:

The first: only Ma’mar narrated it this way, while Yunus and Aqil did not; thus it is rendered an oddity (shaadha).

The second: its chain of narration is disconnected at two consecutive levels (mursala mu’adalla). The phrase “in what has reached us” is the addition of Az-Zuhri, as is clear from the expression, as Ibn Hajar declared in his al-Fath.

So I [Albani] say: this is something which the Dr. [meaning: Dr. Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, author of the book which Albani is criticizing] has either forgotten or failed to realize, as he seems to think that every letter of Bukhari’s collection must be authentic according to his own conditions. Perhaps he has failed to differentiate between that which has a complete chain of narration and that which has an incomplete chain, just as he failed to differentiate between the authentic narration which contains additions and the inauthentic narration which contains some authentic information. An example of this is the narration of A’isha, which contains at the end of it this inauthentic addition. So know that this addition is not present in any of the narrations with complete authentic chains, which are accepted as proof as I clarified in my book Silsila al-Ahadith ad-Da’ifa, number 4858, and as I pointed out in my commentary on my summarized version of Bukhari’s collection.” (Difa’ ‘an al-Hadith an-Nabawi, pages 40-41)

Fourth of all:

Other chains of narration are available wherein we find the story about the Prophet (peace be upon him) attempting suicide after the revelation ceased for the first time. All of these chains are rejected and are either falling into the categories of inauthentic or fabricated.

From them:

1) The chain of Ibn Mardawayh:

Ibn Hajar (may God have mercy on him) said:

“there is to be found in the book at-Tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh, via Muhammad bin Kathir on the authority of Ma’mar, the narration without the phrase “in what has reached us”, but with the rest of the statement “led him to the cliffs of a mountain.” and so forth. Thus, it was rendered as an insertion into the narration of Az-Zuhri on the authority of ‘Urwa on the authority of A’isha, and the first version is the reliable one.” (Fath al-Bari, volume 12, pages 359-360)

The meaning of Ibn Hajar’s statement “and the first version is the reliable one” refers to the narration of Az-Zuhri which includes the phrase “in what has reached us” and this phrase is not authentically linked to the chain of narration.

Albani (may God have mercy on him) commented in regard to Ibn Hajar’s judgment:

“he is supported by two points. The first is that Muhammad bin Kathir is a weak narrator – due to his defective memory – and he is also known as as-San’ani al-Masisi. Ibn Hajar said he is honest, but very error-prone, and he is not the same person as Muhammad bin Kathir al-Abdi al-Basri, who is a strong narrator. The second is that this narration contradicts the narration of Abdur Razzaq who narrated from Ma’mar,which distinguished the beginning of the whole quote from the end, and clearly signified the end of it as an addition by Az-Zuhri. All this points to the error of Muhammad bin Kathir as-San’ani for including this addition and it’s weakness has been established.” (Silsila al-Ahadith ad-Da’ifa wal-Maudu’a, volume 10, page 453)

2) The chain of Ibn Sa’d:

Muhammad bin Sa’d said: Muhammad bin Umar informed us that Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Abi Musa narrated from Dawud bin al-Hussain from Abu Ghatafan bin Tarif from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) would spend days without seeing Gabriel and was befallen by a great sadness when the revelation would descend upon him at the cave of Hira. So great was his sadness that he would go to Thubair, or sometimes Hira, wanting to throw himself from them. So he (peace be upon him) would take himself to the top and would hear a voice from the sky at which point the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) would freeze where he was upon hearing the voice, and would then raise his head. Lo and behold, Gabriel was on a chair between the sky and the earth closing in around him and said “O Muhammad, you truly are the Messenger of God and I am Gabriel.” Ibn Abbas said: So the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) would leave. God would open his eyes and cause his soul to become firm and the revelations would again continue and satiate his desire. (at-Tabaqat al-Kubra, volume 1, page. 196)

Albani (may God have mercy on him) said:

“This chain of narration is FABRICATED. This is either from one of two people. Muhammad bin Umar – and he is al-Waqidi – is accused of fabrication, as Ibn Hajar said in his book at-Taqrib: ‘He is abandoned, despite the depth of his knowledge.’ The verdicts of the scholars regarding him have preceded more than once.

The other person is Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Abi Musa – and he is Ibn Abi Yahya – and his real name is: Sam’an Al-Aslami the freed man of Abu Ishaq al-Madani. He is abandoned as well just like al-Waqidi or even worse. Ibn Hajar also said about him: ‘abandoned,’ and narrated in at-Taqrib the critical statements of the scholars regarding him, and they almost constitute absolute consensus on his dishonesty. From those statements is that of al-Harbi: ‘The scholars of prophetic tradition loathe his narrations; al-Waqidi narrated on his authority that which resembles fabrication, though al-Waqidi made things worse.’

And al-Harbi’s statement regarding the chain itself: ‘Ibn Abi Musa – and I believe he is in actuality Ibn Abi Yahya, but his name was changed intentionally by al-Waqidi as he has done with others – was stated by Abd al-Ghani bin Sa’id al-Masri to be Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Abi ‘Ata who was criticized by Ibn Juraij. He is also Abd al-Wahhab who was criticized by Marwan bin Mu’awiya and he is Abu adh-Dhi`b who was criticized by Ibn Juraij.’” (Silsila al-Ahadith ad-Dai’fa wal-Maudu’a, volume 10, page 451)

3) The chain of at-Tabari:

Ibn Jarir at-Tabari said: Ibn Humaid said that Salama narrated on the authority of Muhammad bin Ishaq from Wahb bin Kaisan freedman of the people of az-Zubair who heard from Abd Allah bin az-Zubair who said to ‘Ubaid bin ‘Umair bin Qatada al-Laithi who said: O ‘Ubaid, what was the beginning of the prophetic revelation to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) like back when Gabriel (peace be upon him) came to him? So ‘Ubaid said – and Abd Allah bin az-Zubair said that he and those with him were present – that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) would take off to the cave of Hira for a month every year. Gabriel came to him by the order of God and the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said: “he came to me, while I was sleeping, with a sort of silk wrapping with a book inside it and said: Read. I asked what I should read, so he seized me until I thought I would face death, and then released me and said: Read. I asked what I should read, and I only said that so he wouldn’t grab a hold of me again. He said: {Read in the name of your Lord Who created} up to {He taught man that which he did not know}.” The Prophet said: “So I recited it,” and then said: “Then it ended and he left me in my sleep and it was as though he had written that book in my heart.” He then said: “There was nothing from all of God’s creation more hated to me than a poet or a madman; I couldn’t even look at such people. He said: I said: indeed this is the furthest person – meaning himself! – from a poet or a madman, as the Quraish never said that about me, to intentionally go to the high barren mountain to throw myself from it in order to kill myself and gain some sort of peace.” He said: “So I went out wanting to do exactly that until I was halfway to the mountain when I heard a voice from the sky saying: O Muhammad, truly you are the Messenger of God and I am Gabriel.” He said: “I lifted my head to the sky and lo and behold, Gabriel was there in the image of a man with his feet resting at the horizon saying: O Muhammad, you are the Messenger of God and I am Gabriel.” (Tarikh at-Tabari, volume 1, pages 532-533)

The text of this narration is rejected in light of its contradiction of the authentic versions, for in this version there is a meeting of the Prophet (peace be upon him) with Gabriel in a dream rather than being awake! Also, therein is the statement “what should I read!” Both of these are false. The meeting between the two messengers wasn’t during sleep, and that which he (peace be upon him) said was “I can’t read,” cancelling the ability to read at all, yet this rejected narration holds that he was literate.

As for the chain of narration, then Albani (may God have mercy on him) said:

“However in this chain there is nothing to be happy about, especially with its contradiction to that which has preceded from the strong narrators. There are several defects. The first is Irsaal, as ‘Ubaid bin ‘Umair was not from the first generation of Muslims, rather he was from the older members of the second generation having been born during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The second: Salama – and he is Ibn al-Fadl al-Abrash – was said by Ibn Hajar to be an honest man, but very error prone. I [Albani] say: In addition to that, he is contradicted by Ziyad bin Abd Allah al-Bakkaa`i who narrated the book “as-Sira” on the authority of Ibn Ishaq,. Also, via this same route narrated Ibn Hisham, and Ibn Hajar said regarding him: he is an honest man as affirmed in al-Maghazi. Ibn Hisham recorded this narration in as-Sira (volume 1, pages 252-253) from him from Ibn Ishaq without the addition, which I placed between the two brackets [], and between them is the rejected story about considering suicide.

It is possible that al-Abrash alone included it in opposition to al-Bakkaa`i and it is thus rejected from another angle due to this opposition, as the narration is recorded without this addition by Ibn Ishaq, as the previous statement of Ibn Hajar indicates.

And it is also possible that Ibn Hisham himself left it out of the book due to the narration’s false meaning and due to its contradicting the notion of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) infallibility. Ibn Hisham did imply this in the introduction of his book, as he said in volume one, page four: ‘.leaving out some of what Ibn Ishaq recorded in this book from that which is not authentically reported about the Messenger of God (peace be upon him).and things which indicate the narration’s weakness.’

And this is all said in regards to the possibility of the narration’s being free from the following third defect: Ibn Humaid – and is name is Muhammad ar-Razi – is a very weak narrator. A group of scholars have declared him to be a liar, from them Abu Zur’ah ar-Razi.

In short: the narration is inauthentic both in terms of the soundness of its chain and the accuracy of the text. The heart of the believer is not comfortable with the claims of these weak narrators in regards to that which is attributed to the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) as far as considering killing himself by jumping off a mountain. And the Prophet is the one who said – in that which actually is authentically linked to him – that “whoever throws himself from a mountain and kills himself will be in the fires of Hell throwing himself within it forever and ever.” This is agreed upon by the two collections of Bukhari and Muslim and in at-Targhib (volume 3, pages 205). This lack of comfort in accepting these claims is especially strong in light of the fact that these weak narrators contradicted the trustworthy scholars whose narrations are accepted and who also transmitted this report.” (Silsila al-Ahadith ad-Da’ifa wal-Maudu’a volume 10, pages 455-457)

Fifthly:

The weakness of the chains of narration in which it is claimed that the Prophet (peace be upon him) attempted suicide has been confirmed; even the falsehood and fabrication of these chains, in fact. It is not hidden that the text is also false and rejected and that is from several angles:

1) The period in which the revelation ceased was in order to allow for the subsiding of the fear, which our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) endured from the first time the revelation came to him. It was also for the sake of preparing for what would come after it. How could he possibly have faced such a cessation while contemplating suicide? Ibn Tulun as-Salihi (may God have mercy on him) said:

“The wisdom in the cessation of revelation – and God knows best – was so that what he (peace be upon him) experienced in terms of fear could subside, and so a desire for that revelation to return could develop.” (Subul al-Huda war-Rashad fi Sira Khair al-‘Ibad volume 2, page 272)

2) The Prophet (peace be upon him) never doubted his own status as a prophet for one minute, as Almighty God made his heart firm via the revelation and the fear he felt the first time he experienced revelation merely indicates his humanity and the intensity of the revelation. After that (i.e. the first revelation) he (peace be upon him) would sometimes suffer during particular forms of revelation.

Conclusion:

The narration regarding the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) contemplation of suicide due to the delay of further revelations after the first one is inauthentic and the addition in the collection of Bukhari does not meet his own conditions and thus cannot be attributed to his own personal reports. Indeed, Bukhari himself affirmed this addition as being the statement of none other than Az-Zuhri, as it is an inauthentic addition with a disconnected chain of transmission. We explained here that the report has numerous other narrations and all of them confirm the weakness of the story, both in terms of its chain and its textual accuracy. (Original Arabic Source – http://islamqa.info/ar/ref/152611)

Note: Any quotation that is capitalised in bold is from us (discover-the-truth.com).

Muhammed And Aisha’s Thawb, Lihaaf, Mirt In The Bible: Addendum

This article was originally published on the following site: discover-the-truth.com

Content:

1. Introduction
2. Thawb in Hadith
3. Thawb (blanket) In The Bible
4. Lihaaf (Blanket) In The Bible
5. Conclusion

1. Introduction

In this final segment on whether Thaub means a blanket or actual clothes in relation to the Hadith we discussed in previous articles (links can be seen below), we are going to cite further additional authentic reports from our sources and the Bible, which would give readers clear idea that Thawb a lihaaf, here means a piece of blanket, sheet or a piece of large cloth one covers himself/herself with.

Check the following articles we have already written about in relation to Thawb, Lihaaf, and Mirt:

(1) – “Aisha’s Thawb: Was It A Blanket Or Dress? [Part 1]”

(2) – “Aisha’s Thawb: Missionary Deception Unveiled [Part 2]”

(3) – “Aisha’s Lihaaf (Blanket), Cross Dressing Lie”

(4) – “Aisha’s Mirt (مرط), Cross Dressing Fabrication”

2. Thawb in Hadith

Before quoting the Bible, we will show two important Hadith reports where we are told that thawb means a large piece of cloth that one is covered with. The Janazah, when a person has died and who was Muslim, they are traditionally to be washed and wrapped around in a large square piece of cloth before burial:

“2284. It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah was shrouded in TWO PIECES OF WHITE CLOTH (ثَوْبِ) and a read cloak. [Hasan] (English Translation Of Musnad Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Abu Abdullah Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal Ash-Shaibani) [Ahadeeth Edited, Researched and Refernced by Darussalam, Translated by Nasiruddin Al-Khattab, Edited by Huda Al-Khattab, Dar-us-salam, 2012], volume 2, page 393)

Here is a screenshot for the above quote:

Another report on Thawb:

“2600. Shu’bah said: I heard Abu Bishr narrate that he heard Sa’eed bin Jubair say that he heard Ibn Abbas narrate that a man came to the Prophet when he was in ihram, and he fell from his mount, and immediately died. The Messenger of Allah instructed that he be washed with water and lotus leaves, and shrouded in TWO PIECES OF CLOTH (ثَوْبِ). And he said: ‘Do not apply perfume to him, and leave his head uncovered – Shu’bah said: Then after that he told me that he said: Leave his head or his face uncovered – for he will be raised on the Day of Resurrection with his hair stuck together [with a sticky substance, as was the custom of pilgrims at that time].” [Isnad is Saheeh] (English Translation Of Musnad Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Abu Abdullah Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal Ash-Shaibani) [Ahadeeth Edited, Researched and Refernced by Darussalam, Translated by Nasiruddin Al-Khattab, Edited by Huda Al-Khattab, Dar-us-salam, 2012], volume 2, page 524)

Here is a screenshot for the above quote:

These two reports where it shows that thawb in the context of the Prophet and Aisha meant a large piece of cloth.

3. Thawb (blanket) In The Bible

Furthermore, the Arabic Bible testifies that thaub (ثَوْبِ) in the verses of Exodus 22:26-27 means a large piece of sheet or blanket. In Exodus 22:26-27 the Israelites are commanded if they borrow a blanket (thawb) from their neighbour they have to give it back the next morning (Van Dyke Arabic Bible Translation):

“26ان ارتهنت ثوب صاحبك فالى غروب الشمس ترده له.
27لانه وحده غطاؤه. هو ثوبه لجلده. في ماذا ينام. فيكون اذا صرخ اليّ اني اسمع. لاني رؤوف” (Van Dyke Arabic Bible) Exodus 22- 26-27 http://etabetapi.com/cmp/arvd/asv/Exod/22)

The Biblical exegesis state that the thawb that is borrowed here is a large piece of blanket:

Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible:

“If thou at all take thy neighbor’s garment to pledge …” The garment in view here is THAT LARGE, SUBSTANTIAL BLANKET, or pancho, used not only as the principal covering in daytime, but also as the only bedclothes the man had. The taking of a garment like that in pledge was forbidden. The fact of the lender’s having to return it every night would have meant, in effect, that the borrower could keep it! Many of the Jews of a later day sorely abused the rights of the poor. “Ye oppress the poor … ye crush the needy … they have sold the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes!” (Amos 2:6,4:1). The principle here applied to any absolutely necessary possession, such as the mill, or either of its stones (Deuteronomy 24:6). (Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible, online source http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/exodus-22.html)

Adam Clarke Commentary:

“Verse 26
If thou – take thy neighbor’s raiment to pledge – It seems strange that any pledge should be taken which must be so speedily restored; but it is very likely that the pledge was restored by night only, and that he who pledged it brought it back to his creditor next morning. The opinion of the rabbins is, that whatever a man needed for the support of life, he had the use of it when absolutely necessary, though it was pledged. Thus he had the use of his working tools by day, but he brought them to his creditor in the evening. His hyke, which serves an Arab as a plaid does a Highlander, (See Clarke’s note on Exodus 12:34;), was probably the raiment here referred to: IT IS A SORT OF COARSE BLANKET, ABOUT SIX YARDS LONG, AND FIVE OR SIX FEET BROAD, WHICH AN ARAB ALWAYS CARRIES WITH HIM, AND ON WHICH HE SLEEPS AT NIGHT, IT BEING HIS ONLY SUBSTITUTE FOR A BED. As the fashions in the east scarcely ever change, it is very likely that the raiment of the Israelites was precisely the same with that of the modern Arabs, who live in the very same desert in which the Hebrews were when this law was given. How necessary it was to restore the hyke to a poor man before the going down of the sun, that he might have something to repose on, will appear evident from the above considerations. At the same time, the returning it daily to the creditor was a continual acknowledgment of the debt, and served instead of a written acknowledgment or bond; as we may rest assured that writing, if practiced at all before the giving of the law, was not common: but it is most likely that it did not exist.” (The Holy Bible, Containing The Old And New Testaments. Marginal Readings and Parallel Texts: With A Commentary And Critical Notes,[The Old Testament, New-York: Published by T, Mason & G. Lane, James Collord, Printer, 1837] by Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., &c., volume 1, page 415 )

The Pulpit Commentaries:

“Exodus 22:27
Wherein shall he sleep? The outer garment worn by the ancient Hebrews was like that of the modern Bedouins—a sort of LARGE WOOLLEN… BLANKET, in which they enveloped the greater part of their persons. It serves the Bedouins, to the present time, as robe by day, and as COVERLET by night. When he crieth unto me. Compare verse 23. If the law is broken, and the man cry unto the Lord, he will hear, and avenge him.” (The Pulpit Commentaries, online source http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tpc/exodus-22.html)

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament:

“Verses 25-27
If a man should lend to one of the poor of his own people, he was not to oppress him by demanding interest; and if he gave his upper garment as a pledge, he was to give it him back towards sunset, because it was his only covering; as the poorer classes in the East use the upper garment, consisting of a LARGE SQUARE PIECE OF CLOTH, to sleep in. “It is his clothing for his skin:” i.e., it serves for a covering to his body. “Wherein shall he lie?” i.e., in what SHALL BE WRAP HIMSELF TO SLEEP? (cf. Deuteronomy 24:6, Deuteronomy 24:10-13). …”(Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, online source http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/exodus-22.html)

John Dummelow’s Commentary on the Bible:

“26. While the taking of interest is forbidden, the taking of a pledge for repayment of a loan is sanctioned, and frequent reference is made in Scripture to the practice: see e.g. Amos 2:8; Job 22:6; Job 24:9; Deuteronomy 24:6. The outer garment of the Israelite (the simlah) is a kind of cloak or PLAID ABOUT 4 FT. SQUARE, which may be used as a COVERLET BY NIGHT. In the case of a poor man this might be the only thing he could give as a pledge, in which case he is to be allowed the use of it each night: cp. Deuteronomy 24:12-13, and for a similar humane precept, Deuteronomy 24:6 of that chapter.” (John Dummelow’s Commentary on the Bible, online source http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dcb/exodus-22.html)

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

“Verse 26-27
(26, 27) Thy neighbour’s raiment.—The simlah, or salmah, here translated “raiment,” was the large flowing outer raiment, elsewhere called beged, which was commonly of woollen, and corresponded to the abba of the modern Arabs. It was a WARM WRAPPER, and has sometimes been compared to a Scotch plaid. The poor Israelite did not much want it by day; but needed it as a BLANKET BY NIGHT—a practice known to many modern tribes of Arabs. The present passage forbids the retention of this garment as a pledge during the night, and seems to imply a continuous practice of pledging the simlah by day, and being allowed to Enjoy the use of it, nevertheless, as a nocturnal covering.” (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, online source http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/exodus-22.html)

Rabbinical commentary Sefer HaChinukh 587:1

“To return the surety to the owners at the time that he needs it: That we were commanded to return the surety to its Israelite owners at the time that it will be needed by him; meaning to say that if the surety is something that a person needs during the day – for example, the tool for his work – he should return it to him during the day, and the borrower brings it back to him during the night, and if it is a vessel that he needs during the night – for example, BEDDING OR A BLANKET – he should return it to him during the night, and the borrower brings it back to the creditor during the day. And the language of Mekhilta, Mishpatim 186 is “‘You must return it to him before the sun sets’ (Exodus 22:25) (Sefer HaChinukh 587:1, online source http://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.22.25?lang=en&with=Sefer%20HaChinukh&lang2=en)

NUMBERS 4:6-13

Numbers 4:6-13 a large piece of cloth is used to cover up bread, and other material objects:

“6and shall put thereon a covering of sealskin, and shall spread over it a CLOTH all of blue, and shall put in the staves thereof.
6ويجعلون عليه غطاء من جلد تخس ويبسطون من فوق ثوبا كله اسمانجوني ويضعون عصيّه.
7And upon the table of showbread they shall spread a CLOTH of blue, and put thereon the dishes, and the spoons, and the bowls and the cups wherewith to pour out; and the continual bread shall be thereon:
7وعلى مائدة الوجوه يبسطون ثوب اسمانجون ويضعون عليه الصحاف والصحون والاقداح وكاسات السكيب. ويكون الخبز الدائم عليه.
8and they shall spread upon them a CLOTH of scarlet, and cover the same with a covering of sealskin, and shall put in the staves thereof.
8ويبسطون عليها ثوب قرمز ويغطونه بغطاء من جلد تخس ويضعون عصّيه.
9And they shall take a CLOTH of blue, and cover the candlestick of the light, and its lamps, and its snuffers, and its snuffdishes, and all the oil vessels thereof, wherewith they minister unto it:
9وياخذون ثوب اسمانجون ويغطون منارة الضوء وسرجها وملاقطها ومنافضها وجميع آنية زيتها التي يخدمونها بها.
10and they shall put it and all the vessels thereof within a covering of sealskin, and shall put it upon the frame.
10ويجعلونها وجميع آنيتها في غطاء من جلد تخس ويجعلونه على العتلة.
11And upon the golden altar they shall spread a CLOTH of blue, and cover it with a covering of sealskin, and shall put in the staves thereof:
11وعلى مذبح الذهب يبسطون ثوب اسمانجون ويغطونه بغطاء من جلد تخس ويضعون عصيه.
12and they shall take all the vessels of ministry, wherewith they minister in the sanctuary, and put them in a CLOTH of blue, and cover them with a covering of sealskin, and shall put them on the frame.
12ويأخذون جميع امتعة الخدمة التي يخدمون بها في القدس ويجعلونها في ثوب اسمانجون ويغطونها بغطاء من جلد تخس ويجعلونها على العتلة.
13And they shall take away the ashes from the altar, and spread a purple CLOTH thereon:
13ويرفعون رماد المذبح ويبسطون عليه ثوب ارجوان
14and they shall put upon it all the vessels thereof, wherewith they minister about it, the firepans, the flesh-hooks, and the shovels, and the basins, all the vessels of the altar; and they shall spread upon it a covering of sealskin, and put in the staves thereof.
14ويجعلون عليه جميع امتعته التي يخدمون عليه بها المجامر والمناشل والرفوش والمناضح كل امتعة المذبح ويبسطون عليه غطاء من جلد تخس ويضعون عصيه.“ (الكتاب المقدس (Van Dyke Arabic Bible Translation) ASV, Numbers 4:6:14, online source http://etabetapi.com/cmp/arvd/uknt/Num/4)

The commentaries for the above verse all agree that the thing that covers all these items is unsewn cloth, for example, a piece of sheet:

Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible:

“The Ark. This was to be covered by the veil that screened off the Holy of Holies. This was to be covered with the skin covering, and over that there was to be placed a CLOTH OF BLUE, a color that would be exposed during the march, making the ark easily identified.
The Table. This was to include all the articles usually used in connection with it, and the whole was to be COVERED WITH A CLOTH of scarlet, with a skin covering over all.
The Candlestick. This was to include snuff dishes, etc., with all vessels pertaining to it, the whole to be COVERED WITH A CLOTH OF BLUE, with a skin covering over all.
The Golden Altar. A CLOTH OF BLUE WAS TO BE SPREAD OVER this with a sealskin over all.
The Great Bronze (Copper) Altar. The ashes were to be removed and all of the shovels, vessels, flesh-hooks, etc., connected with service at the altar were to be placed around it, the whole to be covered with a purple cloth, with a skin covering over all.
“And put in the staves thereof …” (Numbers 4:6,8,11,14). This recurring instruction shows that preparatory to WRAPPING and covering the sacred articles with the colored cloths and skin coverings, the staves were to be first removed. This is a variation of the instruction pertaining to the times when the various articles were properly installed to fulfill their normal function. During those times, the staves were “not to be taken out” (Exodus 25:15ff). Critical scholars are really hard pressed for something to criticize when they make a “contradiction” out of this variation, as did both Gray and Noth.[7] THE VERY COMMANDMENT TO WRAP (OR COVER) EACH ARTICLE WITH CLOTH, the staves being conspicuously omitted in each commandment, inherently carries with it the instruction that the staves were to be first removed. The commandment to put them in, repeated four times, proves this. There is no contradiction here, the various instructions applying to different situations. In their normal placement, the staves were to be left in, when made ready for travel, they were removed (necessarily) for the wrapping, and replaced for the purpose of their transportation.” (Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible, online source https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/numbers-4.html)

How do you cover a bread? Do you put clothes on it or wrap it in a cloth, the latter is true. Geneva Study Bible:

“V. 7.
(d) Meaning, to COVER THE BREAD. (Geneva Study Bible, online source https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/gsb/numbers-4.html)

John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible:

“…the use of which; see Gill on Exodus 25:29; these seem to be put not immediately upon the table, but upon the BLUE CLOTH SPREAD OVER THE TABLE: and the continual bread shall be thereon: the shewbread is called “continual”, because it was always on the table; for while the one was removing by a set of priests, which had stood a week, new loaves were placed by another set of priests: this bread seems at this time to be placed also upon the table, SPREAD WITH THE BLUE CLOTH; and from hence it appears, that the Israelites had the shewbread in the wilderness; for the making of which they might be supplied with corn from the neighbouring countries, though they themselves needed not any, being daily fed with manna. … and COVER IT with a covering of badgers’ skins; after the CLOTH OF BLUE WAS SPREAD UPON IT … and put them in a cloth of blue, and cover them with a covering of badgers’ skins; ALL WRAPPED UP in one bundle. (John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible, online source https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/numbers-4.html)

L. M. Grant’s Commentary on the Bible:

“The priests then spread a BLUE CLOTH OVER THE TABLE OF SHOW-BREAD and put on it the dishes, pans, bowls and pitchers. The showbread itself should also remain on it (v.7). A scarlet CLOTH WAS PUT OVER THIS, then also a covering of badger skins, and the poles inserted (v.8). The table speaks of Christ as the Sustainer of communion, and the blue cloth reminds us that communion with Him now is on a heavenly level, while the badger skins tell us that communion is not attractive to the outside world, though still strong and endurable. …” (L. M. Grant’s Commentary on the Bible, online source https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/lmg/numbers-4.html)

Some have claimed that the bread and other items being covered with a square cloth actually means that they were wearing clothes. This is the desperation of some missionaries to peddle the lie that Muhammed wore a dress, when history is a witness that thawb in the Hadith used is speaking of a bed sheet or a large cloth, as the above commentaries for Numbers 4 have also shown. Think of it like this, imagine you were lying on the floor going to sleep few thousand years ago where there are no beds, but one slept on the floor, you have a cloth (sheet) spread covering you, would that mean that one is wearing clothes or is he/she covering themselves? Of course the latter is true.

In the parable of Mark 2:21, Jesus states how could a man put a piece of cloth on an old garment. We cannot determine how big this piece of cloth is, but the cloth he mentions here is a piece of sheet. Here is Mark 2:21 (Van Dyke Arabic Bible):

“21ليس احد يخيط رقعة من قطعة جديدة على ثوب عتيق وإلا فالملء الجديد ياخذ من العتيق فيصير الخرق اردأ.” (Van Dyke Arabic Bible) Mark 2:21, http://etabetapi.com/cmp/arvd/arvd/Mark/2))

Different Bible translations for Mark 2:21,

King James 2000 Bible
“No man also sews a PIECE OF NEW CLOTH on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up tears away from the old, and the tear is made worse.” – Mark 2: 21

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“No man places a NEW STRIP OF CLOTH and sews it on an old garment lest the fullness of that new cloth takes from the old, and it rips more.” – Mark 2: 21

American King James Version
“No man also sews a PIECE OF NEW CLOTH on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up takes away from the old, and the rent is made worse.” – Mark 2: 21

Douay-Rheims Bible
“No man seweth a PIECE OF RAW CLOTH to an old garment: otherwise the new piecing taketh away from the old, and there is made a greater rent.” – Mark 2: 21

Darby Bible Translation
“No one sews a patch of NEW CLOTH on an old garment: otherwise its new filling-up takes from the old [stuff], and there is a worse rent.” – Mark 2: 21

Webster’s Bible Translation
“No man also seweth a PIECE OF NEW CLOTH on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up, taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.” – Mark 2: 21

It is quite clear from the Bible that Thawb means a piece of cloth or a large sheet. Now we have on to the Arabic word Lihaf (Lihaaf).

4. Lihaaf (Blanket) In The Bible

Judges 4:18 where the word lihaaf (لِحَافِ) is and here the commentaries all agree that it is in reference to a blanket,

Arabic Bible Smith And Van Dyke,
“١٨ فخرجت ياعيل لاستقبال سيسرا وقالت لهُ مِلْ يا سيدي مِل اليَّ. لا تخف. فمال اليها الى الخيمة وغطتهُ باللحاف.
١٩ فقال لها اسقيني قليل ماءٍ لاني قد عطشت. ففتحت وطب اللبن واسقتهُ ثم غطتهُ.” (Arabic Bible Smith And Van Dyke on Judges 4:18, online source, https://bible.faithlife.com/books/ar-vandyke/Jdg4.18)

Screenshot for the above quote:

Different Bible Translations on Judges 4:18 that lihaaf (لِحَافِ) means a “blanket”,

Common English Bible (CEB)
“18 Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Come in, sir, come in here. Don’t be afraid.” So he went with her into the tent, and she hid him under a BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
“18 Ya‘el went out to meet Sisra and said to him, “Come in, my lord; stay here with me; and don’t be afraid.” So he went into her tent, and she covered him with a BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

Contemporary English Version (CEV)
“18 She came out to greet him and said, “Come in, sir! Please come on in. Don’t be afraid.”
After they had gone inside, Sisera lay down, and Jael covered him with a BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
“18 Jael saw him coming, so she went out to meet him and said, “Sir, come into my tent. Come in. Don’t be afraid.” So Sisera went into Jael’s tent, and she covered him with a BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

Lexham English Bible (LEB)
“18 And Jael came out to meet Sisera, and she said to him, “Turn aside, my lord; turn aside to me and do not be afraid.” So he turned aside into her tent, and she covered him with a BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

Living Bible (TLB)
“18 Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Come into my tent, sir. You will be safe here in our protection. Don’t be afraid.” So he went into her tent, and she covered him with a BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

The Message (MSG)
“17-18 Meanwhile Sisera, running for his life, headed for the tent of Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite. Jabin king of Hazor and Heber the Kenite were on good terms with one another. Jael stepped out to meet Sisera and said, “Come in, sir. Stay here with me. Don’t be afraid.” So he went with her into her tent. She covered him with a BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

New English Translation (NET Bible)
“18 Jael came out to welcome Sisera. She said to him, “Stop and rest, my lord. Stop and rest with me. Don’t be afraid.” So Sisera stopped to rest in her tent, and she put a BLANKET over him.” – Judges 4:18

New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
“18 Jael went out to meet Sisera. “Come in, sir,” she said. “Come right in. Don’t be afraid.” So he entered her tent. Then she covered him with a BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

New International Version (NIV)
“18 Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Come, my lord, come right in. Don’t be afraid.” So he entered her tent, and she covered him with a BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

New International Version – UK (NIVUK)
“18 Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, ‘Come, my lord, come right in. Don’t be afraid.’ So he entered her tent, and she covered him with a BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

New King James Version (NKJV)
“18 And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, “Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me; do not fear.” And when he had turned aside with her into the tent, she covered him with a BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

New Living Translation (NLT)
“18 Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Come into my tent, sir. Come in. Don’t be afraid.” So he went into her tent, and she COVERED HIM WITH A BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

Tree of Life Version (TLV)
“18 So Yael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me! Don’t be afraid!” So he turned aside to her into the tent, and she COVERED HIM WITH A BLANKET.” – Judges 4:18

Darby Translation (DARBY)
“18 And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And he turned in to her, into the tent, and she COVERED HIM WITH THE QUILT.” – Judges 4:18

Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB)
“18 And Jael went out to meet Sisera and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she COVERED HIM WITH A THICK COVERLET.” – Judges 4:18

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
“18 and Jael goeth out to meet Sisera, and saith unto him, `Turn aside, my lord, turn aside unto me, fear not;’ and he turneth aside unto her, into the tent, and she COVERETH HIM WITH A COVERLET.” – Judges 4:18

Notice all the above translations have translated the Arabic word lihaaf to mean a blanket in this context. Here we get a clear-cut verse from the Bible where the text tells us that “lihaaf” (لِحَافِ) here means a blanket. And thus, the Hadith which are mistranslated to mean clothes by some missionaries have no historical basis when the Bible itself debunks this.

Just so our readers are acquainted what lihaaf looks like, copy this Arabic word lihaaf in brackets (لِحَافِ) into google search engine. I will make it easier, just click on the following link it will direct you straight to Google images where it will show you that lihaaf (لِحَافِ) is a piece of blanket.

5. Conclusion

As the context of the passages from the Bible shows, thawb means a large piece of cloth or sheet and “lihaaf” means a blanket one covers himself at night. With the above said, this article strengthen and bolsters our case that Prophet Muhammed (p) was using Aisha’s blanket in regards to the Hadith mistranslated by some missionaries.

Hadith On Aisha’s Mirt – Cross Dressing Claim Debunked

This article was originally published on the following site: discover-the-truth.com

In this last piece on Aisha and Muhammed (p) we are continuing to write on certain words which have been mistranslated by missionaries. We aim to give their true meanings in their historical context.

In this article, we are going to go over the Arabic word “mirt” (مرط). According to some deceitful missionaries, they claim that Prophet Muhammed (p) used to wear his wife’s dress. The following mistranslated reports are used:

From the English translation of the Sahih collection of Imam Muslim, Book 031, Number 5984:
The Book Pertaining to the Merits of the Companions of the Holy Prophet (Kitab Al-Fada’il Al-Sahabah)
‘A’isha, the wife of Allah’s Apostle, said: The wives of Allah’s Apostle sent Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Messenger, to Allah’s Apostle. She sought permission to get in as he had been lying with me IN MY MANTLE… The wives of Allah’s Apostle then sent Zainab b. Jahsh, the wife of Allah’s Apostle… She, however, lost temper very soon but was soon calm. Allah’s Messenger permitted her to enter as she (‘A’isha) was along with Allah’s Messenger IN HER MANTLE, in the same very state when Fatima had entered (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/031.smt.html#031.5984)

And:

From the Sahih collection of Imam Muslim, Hadith Number 4472
Volume Title, “From the Virtues of the Companions.”
Chapter Title, “From the Virtues of Aisha.”
Narrated by al-Hassan ibn Ali al-Hilwani, narrated by Abu Bakr ibn Nadir, narrated by Abd ibn Hamid, narrated by Yakun ibn Ibrahim ibn Sa’d Ibn, narrated by his father, narrated by Salih ibn Shihab, narrated by Muhammadibn Abdel Rahman ibn Harith ibn Hisham related that Aisha, the wife of the prophet, said,
“The wives of the prophet sent Fatimah, the daughter of the prophet, to him and she requested permission to enter while he was lying down on my bed (wearing) IN (fee) MY ROBE (Mirt). He gave her permission to enter and she told him that his wives had sent her to him seeking justice concerning the daughter of Abu Kahafa (Aisha). The prophet said to her, ‘O daughter, do you not love what I love?’ She replied, ‘Yes! I do.’ He then said to her, ‘Then love her also.’ So Fatimah got up when she heard that from the prophet and returned to the wives of the prophet.
Then the wives sent to the prophet Zaynab Bint Jahsh… who requested permission from the prophet to enter while he was with Aisha IN (fee) HER ROBE (Mirt) and in the same state that Fatimah found him in.” Source- http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4472&doc=1

The first report is taken from a website. The second report is directly translated by Christian missionaries. From the above deceptive translations, missionaries have concocted the lie that Muhammed (p) used to wear his wife’s clothes.

The fact is, what the Prophet (p) had was a cover i.e., a sheet or blanket, as the following official translation from reputable scholars show:

“[6290] 83 – (2442) Aishah, the wife of the Prophet said : ‘The wives of the Prophet sent Fatimah the daughter of the Messenger of Allah to the Messenger of Allah. She asked permission to enter when he was lying down with me under my COVER, and he gave her permission. She said : ‘O Messenger of Allah your wives have sent me to you to ask you to be just with regard to the daughter of Abu Quhafah.’ I (Aishah) kept quiet. The Messenger of Allah said to her : ‘O my daughter, do you not love that which I love?’ She said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then love this one.’ Fatimah got up when she heard that from the Messenger of Allah, and she went back to the wives of the Messenger of Allah and told them what she had said, and what the Messenger of Allah had said to her. They said to her: ‘You have been of no avail for us. Go back to the Messenger of Allah and say to him: ‘Your wives urge you to be just with regard to the daughter of Abu Quhafah.’ Fatimah said: ‘By Allah, I will never speak to him about her.’ Aishah said: ‘The wives of the Prophet sent Zainab bint Jahsh, the wife of the Prophet, who was the one who was the closest of them to me in status before the Messenger of Allah. I have never seen any woman who was better in religious commitment than Zainab, more fearing of Allah, more truthful in speech, more keen to uphold family ties, more generous in giving charity, or more to draw close to Allah.But she was quick to lose her temper, although she would calm down as quickly. She asked permission to enter upon the Messenger of Allah was with Aishah BENEATH HER COVER, as he was when Fatimah had come in. The Messenger of Allah gave her permission and she said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, your wives have sent me to you to ask you to be just with regard to the daughter of Abu Quhafah.’ Then she showed harhness towards me and insulted me, and I was watching the Messenger of Allah to see if he would allow me to respond. This went on, until I realized that the Messenger of Allah would not object if I responded. When I started responding, I answered back to everything that she had said. And the Messenger of Allah said, smiling: ‘She is the daughter of Abu Bakr.’ (English Translation of Sahih Muslim, compiled by Imam Abul Hussain Muslim bin al-Hajjaj [Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair Ali Za’i, Translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), Edited by Huda Khttab (Canada), Final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA), Maktaba Dar-us-Salam, 2007] volume 6, page 295 – 297. (Virtues Of The Companions. Chapter 13. The Virtues Of Aishah, The Mother Of The Believers. [6289] 82 – (2441))

 

In another report where the exact same word (mirt) is used, Aisha states that the mirt was covering her and Muhammed (p). Showing that mirt (مرط) means a piece of cloth, sheet or a blanket:

“370. Aishah narrated: ‘The Messenger of Allah would pray at night and I would be next to him and I would be in my menses. I would have a Mirt OVER ME, AND A PART OF IT WOULD BE ON HIM.’” (Sahih) (English Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu Dawud Sulaiman bin Ash’ath, [Ahadith edited & referenced by: Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair Ali Za’I, Translated by Yaser Qadhi (USA), Final review by: Abu Khaliyl (USA), Mataba Dar-us-Salam, 2008], volume 1, page 234 (Chapter 133 – Concession In this Regard. The Book of Purification No. 370))

 

Here is a screenshot for the above quote from the book, Sunan Abu Dawud:

Here is another Hadith translated by a reputable scholar where he states that “mirt” is a “bed-Sheet”:

“A’isha, the wife of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), and Uthman both reported that Abu Bakr sought permission from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) for entrance (in his apartment) as he had been lying on his bed covered with the BED-SHEET (MIRT)of A’isha, and he gave permission to Abu Bakr in that very state and he, having his need fulfilled, went back. Then Umar sought permission and it was given to him in that very state and, after having his need fulfilled, he went back. And ‘Uthman reported: Then I sought permission from him and he got up and raid to A’isha: Wrap yourself well with your cloth, then I got my need fulfilled and came back. And A’isha said: Allah’s Messenger, why is it that I did not see you feeling any anxiety in case of dressing properly in the presence of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) as you showed in case of ‘Uthman. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Verily Uthman is a person who is very modest and I was afraid that if I permitted him to enter in this very state he would not inform me of his need. (Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5907. The Book Pertaining to the Merits of the Companions (Allah Be Pleased With Them) of the Holy Prophet (May Peace Be Upon Him) (Kitab Al-Fada’il Al-Sahabah), Chapter 3: MERITS OF UTHAMN B. ‘AFFAN (ALLAH BE PLEASED WITH HIM), [Translator: Abdul Hamid Siddiqui])
Arabic:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ شُعَيْبِ بْنِ اللَّيْثِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، عَنْ جَدِّي، حَدَّثَنِي عُقَيْلُ، بْنُ خَالِدٍ عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْعَاصِ، أَنَّ سَعِيدَ بْنَ الْعَاصِ، أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ زَوْجَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَعُثْمَانَ حَدَّثَاهُ أَنَّ أَبَا بَكْرٍ اسْتَأْذَنَ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهُوَ مُضْطَجِعٌ عَلَى فِرَاشِهِ لاَبِسٌ مِرْطَ عَائِشَةَ فَأَذِنَ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ وَهُوَ كَذَلِكَ فَقَضَى إِلَيْهِ حَاجَتَهُ ثُمَّ انْصَرَفَ ثُمَّ اسْتَأْذَنَ عُمَرُ فَأَذِنَ لَهُ وَهُوَ عَلَى تِلْكَ الْحَالِ فَقَضَى إِلَيْهِ حَاجَتَهُ ثُمَّ انْصَرَفَ ‏.‏ قَالَ عُثْمَانُ ثُمَّ اسْتَأْذَنْتُ عَلَيْهِ فَجَلَسَ وَقَالَ لِعَائِشَةَ ‏”‏ اجْمَعِي عَلَيْكِ ثِيَابَكِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَقَضَيْتُ إِلَيْهِ حَاجَتِي ثُمَّ انْصَرَفْتُ فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَا لِي لَمْ أَرَكَ فَزِعْتَ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا كَمَا فَزِعْتَ لِعُثْمَانَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏”‏ إِنَّ عُثْمَانَ رَجُلٌ حَيِيٌّ وَإِنِّي خَشِيتُ إِنْ أَذِنْتُ لَهُ عَلَى تِلْكَ الْحَالِ أَنْ لاَ يَبْلُغَ إِلَىَّ فِي حَاجَتِهِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏”

 

When we also consult Arabic Lexicons (Dictionaries), we find that “mirt” was a piece of cloth, in former times was wrapped around. Mirt is something that is not sewed:

“مرط A [garment of the kind called] …, of WOOL, or of … [q.v.], (S, Mgh, Msb, K, TA,) or of linen, (TA,) and of hair-CLOTH, being tropically applied to one of this last description in a trad. Of Aisheh, (MF,) used as an … [i.e. a WAIST-WRAPPER,] (S, Mgh, Msb,) in former times, (S,) and sometimes a woman throws it OVER HER HEAD, (Mgh,) and WRAPS HERSELF IN IT; (mgh, Msb : ) or a green [perhaps meaning gray as is often the case] garment : or any garment that is NOT SEWED ; (TA : ) see 2 : ) pl. …” (Edward Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon (Dictionary) volume 6, page 2709 – 2710)

One of the oldest Arabic dictionaries, Lisan al-Arab – Ibn Manzur (1232 – 1311) states.

“Mirt is any un-sewn cloth” (Lisan al-Arab, by Ibn Manzur, online source)

With the foregoing in perspective, we get a clear picture that the “mirt” the Prophet Muhammed (p) had was a sheet which covered him. The Arabic dictionaries further clarified that mirt is anything that is not sewed.

Visit the following related articles on the same matter:

(1) – “Aisha’s Thawb: Was It A Blanket Or Dress? [Part 1]”

(2) – “Aisha’s Thawb: Missionary Deception Unveiled [Part 2]”

(3) – “Aisha’s Lihaaf (Blanket), Cross Dressing Lie“