The following is taken from Some final thoughts for Ibn al Hashimi to contemplate.

Chapter Four – Some final thoughts for Ibn al Hashimi to contemplate

Before we leave this topic area there is one thing that we have not discussed until now, but something that merits analysis, determining why such shameless narrations have come about in the first instance. It would be inappropriate to apportion exclusive blame to the descendants of Muawiyah, real blame should be apportioned to that individual that propagated such a shameless lie relating to the first revelation. When we examine the tradition we are analysing and indeed similar ones on this topic in Sahih Bukhari, we note that the narrator is one Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr, wife of the Prophet. Let us therefore pose one question for Ibn al Hashimi to explain to his readers:

How did Aisha narrate such precise details of the event when she had not yet been conceived?

The tragedy is the Nawasib happily reel of such traditions as Sahih on account of their being narrated by Aisha; they will after all insist ‘who knows a man better than his wife?’ The problem with this line of argument is simple, Aisha’s spousal relationship had not yet been secured, rather she had not even been conceived when this entire episode transpired! Remember the tradition is not one wherein Aisha is narrating that which the Prophet cascaded to her; rather it begins on her authority that which she knows as an eye witness. She never came into contact with the Mother of Faithful Khadija, she never even saw her. We read in Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 36:

Narrated Hisham’s father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

This would have made Aisha one years of age at the time that Sayyida Khadija departed from this world. A one year child has limited language and thinking skills, so how can it be entertained that she was able to attend the home of Khadija and recollect this entire event in such detail, that included verbatim conversations between the Prophet and Khadija?

What is indeed amazing is that she makes no mention of Abu Talib who was at the forefront protecting the Prophet at that time, she in fact never narrated anything from him even though he died during the same year as Khadija. The fact is Aisha’s age when Khadija died was so tender that she would have been playing with her legendary dolls whilst juxtaposition in her mother’s lap! How this baby was competent enough to recollect the entire history of the minutiae of the first revelation is something that Aisha’s supporters need to explain to us!

We are talking about the age of Aisha at the time of the death of Khadija the event in question when Waraqa died dates back to ten years before her birth, when she remained in the loins of her father, so where did she get this direct evidence from? If it was hearsay evidence:

– who was the source?

– why was she passing it off as her direct knowledge?

Conclusion

If you were to ask the average Sunni on the street he would reject any suggestion that the Prophet was unsure of his designation, and became suicidal following his epiphany. They would deem that illogical, unacceptable and indeed blasphemous. The Sunni clergy in their sermons likewise paint a beautiful picture of the commencement of the Prophetic Mission, and gloss over the shameless narrations of Hazrat Aisha. In fact a tradition that Sunni scholars know and indeed quote in their traditions is this one:

“I was a prophet while Adam was between the spirit and body”

This tradition dates the Prophethood of Muhammad to before the creation of Adam, rather it places it when the Prophet was in a different metaphysical state, that of Nur. How can Sunnis reconcile the said tradition with the commencement of Prophethood as narrated by Aisha? The fact of the matter is Sunni Islam’s most prolific female Hadith narrator has sought to suggest that:

• glad tidings of the commencement of Prophethood were given by his wife Khadija
• the Prophethood of Muhammad was affirmed by an ordinary Christian
• the Christian possessed a knowledge of the unseen, that excelled that of the Prophet who was ignorant of the implications of his Prophethood
• the Prophet expressed doubts over his Prophethood
• the Prophet was traumatised by his first meeting with Gabriel, to the extent he questioned his own sanity
• the Prophet tried to commit suicide on several occasions after his appointment

If you were to inform a Sunni that this is what his principle book records about the appointment of Muhammad he will insist that the Shia are lying or that such claims are a Sabaite conspiracy. This typical Sunni Muslim response is due to the fact that their belief about Prophethood is associated with the heart their love for him is not prepared to accept the Mercy of Mankind would be ignorant of his designation and seek to commit suicide after it is bestowed upon him! The tragedy is this Sunni belief based on love for the Prophet has no nexus with that which has been reported in their most authentic Hadith book, from the tongue of their most authentic female Hadith narrator.

We appeal to justice, does Aisha’s depiction of Prophethood exalt his status? Would a non-Muslim looking into Islam be convinced that the Prophet was indeed divinely appointed from the narrations of Aisha? If not then clearly the epithet of Siddiqah should be withdrawn forthwith. Along the same lines Urwa her nephew should be rejected as a narrator that places Nawasib in a quandary as the vast bulk of traditions from Aisha have reached them through her nephew Urwa. We leave it to the Nawasib to offer an answer to the matters we have raised.

FURTHER READING

MUHAMMAD THE SUICIDAL DOUBTER PT. 2

The following is taken from Analysing the defences offered by the charlatan advocates of Muhammad.

Chapter Three – Analysing the defences offered by the charlatan advocates of Muhammad

Ibn al Hashimi the lead Nasibi advocate of the cyber era authored a curious rebuttal entitled ‘Hadith About the Prophet Contemplating Suicide’ wherein he sought to negate the Shia criticisms of the said traditions. This chapter is our counter to his claims.

Defence One – Sahih Bukhari is not 100% authentic

In his attempt to ‘refute’ the Shia criticism of the said tradition, Ibn al-Hashimi begins with playing down prominent Sunni position that Sahih Bukhari is deemed the most authentic book after the Holy Quran:

Ibn al Hashimi stated:

To the Sunnis, there are six books of Hadith which are referred to as the “as-Sihah as-Sittah” which translates to the “six authentic books.” However, this does not mean that each and every single one of these books is 100% accurate to the Sunnis. For example, Sunan al-Tirmidhi is part of as-Sihah as-Sittah, but it is not considered 100% Sahih. In other words, yes Sunan al-Tirmidhi is referred to as part of as-Sihah as-Sittah but this is merely Islamic parlance. Likewise, with the Sahihayn (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim), then it should be known that not every single letter in them is Sahih. Yes, they are referred to as “100% Sahih” in Islamic parlance, but by this the scholars do not mean that every single letter is authentic.

Reply One – Imam al-Bukhari considers EVERYTHING in his book to be Sahih

This is what Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, the Salafi translator, has written in his Introduction to his translation of Sahih Al-Bukhari:

It was a great task for him to sift the forged Hadiths from the authentic ones. He laboured day and night and although he had memorised such a large number he only chose approximately 7275 of which there is no doubt about their authenticity.

Before he recorded each Hadith, he would make ablution and offer a two Rak’at prayer and supplicate his Lord (Allah). Many religious scholars of Islam tried to find fault in the great remarkable collection of Sahih Al-Bukhari but without success.

From the above, we understand that Imam al-Bukhari has recorded in his Sahih only hadiths that he deemed undoubtedly authentic. Ibn Hashmi’s trickery cannot therefore work here. The bulwarks of Sunni scholarship have likewise been unsuccessful in their attempts to find fault in the book. If the hadith under discussion is weak as he claims, then the earlier scholars would certainly have been successful in their efforts to find fault with Sahih Al-Bukhari.

A Salafi website, Islamic Awareness, in its article entitled “On The Nature Of Hadith Collections Of Imam Al-Bukhari & Muslim”, penned a defence of both Sahihs, and as part of it cited Imam al-Bukhari’s statement:

“I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic for fear of [excessive] length”.

Do we need to comment any further?

Reply Two – Sunni scholars testified to the immense authenticity of Sahih Bukhari

Ibn al-Hashimi’s Nasibi Imam Ibn Tamiyah confidently made the following admission in his book Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 18, page 74:

فَلَيْسَ تَحْتَ أَدِيمِ السَّمَاءِ كِتَابٌ أَصَحُّ مِنْ الْبُخَارِيِّ وَمُسْلِمٍ

“There isn’t any other book under the surface of the sky more authentic than Bukhari and Muslim.”

We read in Hujatullah al-Balegha, Volume 1 page 249 by Shah Waliullah Dehalwi:

أما الصحيحان فقد اتفق المحدثون على أن جميع ما فيهما من المتصل المرفوع صحيح بالقطع وأنهما متواتران إلى مصنفيهما وأن كل من يهون أمرهما فهو مبتدع متبع غير سبيل المؤمنين

“The scholar agreed that all the connected traditions contained within both Sahihs are absolutely authentic and the two books are successively attributed to their (respective) authors and verily whoever belittled their status (the two books) is an innovator and is not adhering to the path of the believers.”

Shaykh Ahmed Shakir stated in his prominent work Al-Baaeth al-Hathith, page 35:

أن أحاديث الصحيحين صحيحة كلها ليس في واحد منها مطعن أو ضعف

“All of the traditions of the two Sahihs are authentic, there is not a single tradition that can be criticized or weakened.”

Shawkani records in Nail al-Awtar, Volume 1 page 22:

واعلم أن ما كان من الأحاديث في الصحيحين أو في أحدهما جاز الاحتجاج به من دون بحث لأنهما التزما الصحة وتلقت ما فيهما الأمة بالقبول

“You should know that whatever is recorded in the two Sahihs or one of can be relied upon without the need for further investigation to ascertain its authenticity, because they (the author of the books) personally sought to record the authentic traditions, in addition the nation has accepted the contents of the books.”

Reply Three – Ibn Hashmi himself accepts EVERYTHING in Sahih Al-Bukhari to be Sahih

These are his own words in his Umm Kulthume article, chapter on the authenticity of Furu al-Kafi:

When you debate with the Shia, keep asking him why the Shia can say that Al-Kafi is not authentic, when the compiler of Al-Kafi himself says they are authentic. The Shia propagandist will always dodge this point so it is important to hammer it in. It would be like the Sunni denying the authenticity of Sahih Bukhari despite the fact that Imam Bukhari has declared that they are authentic. Surely, the best one to ask if a Hadith is authentic is the one who compiles it!

With this in mind, why is Ibn al Hashimi turning his back on himself now? Apparently, he now attacks Sahih al-Bukhari simply because this hadith really embarrasses him.

Answering the notion that Mursal recorded in Sahih Bukhari should not be considered ‘Sahih’

We have noticed that some friends of Ibn al-Hashmi have tried to come to his aid on different discussion forums available over the internet and have suggested that if it is said that Imam al-Bukhari considered everything in his book to be Sahih or that the Sunni scholars testified to the immense authenticity of Sahih Bukhari or if Ibn al-Hashmi himself accepted everything in Sahih Bukhari to be Sahih that would not include the Mursal and this would only be in regards to the fully connected chains. These don’t include the disconnected narrations, which don’t satisfy Imam al-Bukhari’s criteria for authenticity.

Our response is, that this is certainly not true as Bukhari included in his book only what satisfied his criteria. If it is being tried to convey that what Bukhari recorded as “Shawahed” and “Mutabe’at” are disconnected and weak then we would rather like to have Ibn Hajar to respond to this specific assertion who stated in Fatah al-Bari, Volume 1 page 384:

 فإمَّا إِن خرج لَهُ فِي المتابعات والشواهد والتعاليق فَهَذَا يتَفَاوَت دَرَجَات من أخرج لَهُ مِنْهُم فِي الضَّبْط وَغَيره مَعَ حُصُول اسْم الصدْق لَهُم وَحِينَئِذٍ إِذا وجدنَا لغيره فِي أحد مِنْهُم طَعنا فَذَلِك الطعْن مُقَابل لتعديل هَذَا الإِمَام  

And What he recorded as “Mutab’at” and “Shawahed” and “Ta’aleeq” so it varies in the level of narrator in respect of accuracy of narration but if (the narrator is) approved as truthful, then if we found someone weaken them that will contradict the Imam’s (Bukhari’s) authentication.

Thus as per Imam Ibn Hajar. the additional traditions recorded in Sahih Bukhari such as the disconnected traditions (Mursal) which have been added as explanation (etc.), even this type of traditions are authentic.

Defence Two – The narration is weak

Ibn al Hashimi stated:

If we look at the Hadith in question, it says:

… the Prophet became so sad as we have heard (fi ma balaghana) that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains…

The narrator says “fi ma balaghana” which translates to “as we have heard”; …

The phrase “fi ma balaghani” was used by the Seerah authors to denote a degree of doubt. To denote an even higher degree of doubt, they would use the term “za’ama” (he alleged).

Az-Zuhri said: “Urwah told me on the authority of Aisha…”

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar explained in Fath al-Bari that this means that the addition of “fi ma balaghana” was an addition to the narration and it would be referred to as “Balaghaat az-Zuhri” only; Zuhri added it to Aisha’s narration based on what he had heard from other sources. Such an addition is considered Dhaeef (weak) because of the large gap between Zuhri and Aisha. Furthermore, this story is found in other sources but without Zuhri’s addition. Zuhri’s narration is graded as Mursal; Mursal means that the chain is “hurried” and incomplete, so we are in doubt of its authenticity. Everything Mursal by az-Zuhri is considered Dhaeef (weak) by the scholars of Hadith. Imam Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattaan said: “Mursal az-Zuhri is worse than the Mursal of any other!”

Reply One – The report has been declared authentic by Sunni Imams

Whilst our previous replies with respect to the general authenticity of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim shall suffice to water down Ibn al-Hashimi’s attempt to weaken the cited tradition, the fact that Sunni scholars have not declared it ‘Mursal’ but ‘Sahih’ should further diminish his exuberance.

In addition to Imam Bukhari who personally deemed it a Sahih tradition, we see that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal recorded the tradition in his book ‘Musnad ibn Hanbal’ Volume 6, page 232, Hadith 26001 and the margin writer Shaykh Shu’aib al-Arnaout in his commentary of the said hadith stated:

إسناده صحيح على شرط الشيخين

“The chain is Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheikhs”

Ibn Habban who sought to record only Sahih traditions in his book, also recorded the said tradition in his book ‘Sahih Ibn Haban’ Volume 1 page 216. Last but certainly not least, Imam of the Salafi cult, Al-Albaani pointed out the very ‘Balagh’ thing which Ibn al-Hashimi has and in fact stated:

“But he narrated this as Balagh, thus it’s disconnected, therefore we ranked it as a different hadith and gave it a different number”.

Despite this, Al-Albaani declared the tradition ‘Sahih’ in his book Mishkat al-Masabih, Volume 3, page 270, Hadith 5842:

وزاد البخاري : حتى حزن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم – فيما بلغنا – حزنا غدا منه مرارا كي يتردى من رؤوس شواهق الجبل فكلما أوفى بذروة جبل لكي يلقي نفسه منه تبدى له جبريل فقال : يا محمد إنك رسول الله حقا . فيسكن لذلك جأشه وتقر نفسه

Bukhari added: Until the prophet felt sad – as it has been narrated to us – and tried to throw himself from the top of the mountain, whenever he reached the edge of the top of the mountain to throw himself, Jibril appeared to him and say: ‘O Muhammad, you are the messenger of God’. Then he (prophet) felt comfort.

Reply Two – Sunni scholars have graded the Mursal of al-Zuhri as authentic

As for Ibn al-Hashimi’s comment that Zuhri’s words ‘as we have heard’ (fi ma balaghana) renders the tradition as ‘Mursal’ we would like to mention that Zuhri enjoyed such an esteemed rank amongst the esteemed Sunni Imams that even a Mursal of Zuhri is deemed authentic. We read in Al-Kifaya by Khatib al-Baghdadi, page 386:

أخبرنا محمد بن الحسين القطان قال أنا عبد الله بن جعفر بن درستويه قال ثنا يعقوب بن سفيان قال سمعت جعفر بن عبد الواحد الهاشمي يقول لأحمد بن صالح قال يحيى بن سعيد مرسل الزهري شبه لا شيء فغضب أحمد وقال ما ليحيى ومعرفة علم الزهري ليس كما قال يحيى

Ya’qub ibn Sufyan said: ‘I heard Ja’far ibn Abd al-Waheed al-Hashimi saying to Ahmad ibn Salih that Yahya ibn Sa’eed said: ‘The Mursal of al-Zuhri is unreliable’. Ahmad got angry and said: ‘What does Yahya know about the knowledge of Zuhri, that which Yahya said is untrue’’.

This is a direct rebuttal to Ibn Hashimi’s citing of Yahya ibn Sa’eed al-Qattan, who rejected the Mursal of al-Zuhri. Yahya has been declared ignorant about the Mursal of al-Zuhri. Therefore, even if it is said that the embarrassing part was his interpolation, it would still be treated as authentic since he would never narrate from unreliable sources. This is why Imam Bukhari likewise recorded it in his Sahih.

Reply Three – There is another version of the incident without the words ‘as we have heard’ (fi ma balaghana)

Ibn al-Hashimi towing the line of his predecessors has tried to play with the words ‘as we have heard’ (fi ma balaghana) in an attempt to make the above cited version recorded by Bukhari as void, but the fact that there exists a similar report with a slight variation in the chain of narration, without the words ‘as we have heard’ (fi ma balaghana) throws Ibn al-Hashimi’s excuse in to the realms of embarrassment.

We read in The History of al-Tabari – Muhammad at Mecca, translated and annotated by W. Montgomery Watt & M.V. McDonald, Volume 6, pages 67-68:

Ahmad b. ‘Uthman, known as Abu al-Jawza – Wahb b. Jarir – his father – al-Nu‘man b. Rashid – al-Zuhri – ‘Urwah – ‘A’ishah: The first form in which the revelation came to the Messenger of God was true vision; this used to come to him like the break of dawn. After that, he grew to love solitude and used to remain in a cave on Hira’ engaged in acts of devotion for a number of days before returning to his family. Then he would return to his family and supply himself with provisions for a similar number of days. This continued until the Truth came to him unexpectedly, and said: “Muhammad, you are the Messenger of God.” [Describing what happened next], the Messenger of God said, “I had been standing, but fell to my knees; and crawled away, my shoulders trembling. I went to Khadijah and said, ‘Wrap me up! Wrap me up!’ When the terror had left me, he came to me and said, ‘Muhammad, you are the Messenger of God.’”

He (Muhammad) said: I had been thinking of hurling myself down from a mountain crag, but he appeared to me, as I was thinking about this, and said, “Muhammad, I am Gabriel and you are the Messenger of God.”

In one of the discussion forums on the internet, someone made an attempt to prove that al-Nu’man bin Rashid is weak. Hence we would like to respond that Ibn Abi Hatim has authenticated him (Mizan al-Etidal, v4, p265) Yahya bin Mueen said: ‘He is Thiqah’ (Tarikh ibn Mueen, p318). Ibn Haban included him in his book of Thiqah narrators namely al-Thuqat. Imam Tirmidhi authenticated his narration (Sunnan al-Tirmidhi, v3, p319).

This shows that the al-Bukhari narration’s is not a rumour picked by al-Zuhri, Aisha actually narrated it, claiming to have heard it from the Messenger of Allah!

Similarly there is another report by Zuhri in The History of al-Tabari, Volume 6, page 76 wherein he did not use “fi ma balaghana” :

Muhammad b. Abd al-Ala – Ibn Thawr – Mamar – al Zuhri:

“The inspiration ceased to come to the Messenger of God for a while, and he was deeply grieved. He began to go to the top of the mountain crags, in order to fling himself from them; but every time he reached from the summit of a mountain, Gabriel appeared to him and said to him, ‘You are the Prophet of God’. Thereupon his anxiety would subside and he would come back to himself.

This once again demonstrates that al-Zuhri attested to the veracity of the incident, and was not merely repeating an unsubstantiated rumour.

Reply Four – Ibn Kathir regarded the narration as authentic and relied upon it

We read in Ibn Kathir’s The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (English translation of his Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya) translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed, Volume I, pp. 298-299 as follows:

“Al-Bukhari stated in his account given above, “then the revelation waned, so that the Messenger of God was so depressed, as we have been told, that he would often feel like throwing himself down from the summits of high mountains. Whenever he reached the top of a mountain to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear to him and say, ‘O Muhammad, you are in truth the Messenger of God.’ This would relieve his distress and he would return down. And if the revelation was again long in coming, he would feel and do the same. When he would reach the mountain summit, Gabriel would appear and speak to him as before.”

Ibn Kathir has relied upon the story, rather than object to it, and he is undoubtedly more knowledgeable than Ibn Hashimi. When he has no objection to incorporating this tradition as part of his account of the life of the Prophet who is Ibn al Hashimi to insist that it is weak?

Reply Five: Other Sunni scholars have accepted the report and included it in their accounts of the life of the Prophet

We read in Fiqh al-Sira, by Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, page 36:

لقد قضت الحكمة الإلهية أن يحتجب عنه الملك الذي رآه أول مرة في غار حراء مدة طويلة وأن يستبد به القلق من أجل ذلك ثم يتحول القلق لديه إلى خوف في نفسه أن يكون الله قد قلاه بعد أن أراد أن يشرفه بالوحي والرسالة لسوء قد صدر منه ، حتى لقد ضاقت الدنيا عليه وراحت تحدثه نفسه كلما وصل إلى ذروة الجبل أن يلقي بنفسه منها

This is how it is translated into English by Nancy Roberts in her translation of that book, under the title ‘The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography & a Brief History of the Orthodox Caliphate,’ page 145:

“It was decreed by the divine wisdom that the angel who had once appeared to him in the Cave of Hira’ should be withheld from him for a long time, and that he should suffer intense anxiety on this account. His anxiety was so great, in fact, that he began to fear that God Almighty had abandoned him due to some evil he had committed. He suffered such torment over this that whenever he found himself on a mountain top, he was tempted to throw himself down from it.”

Muhammad Rida in his book Muhammad, page 66 also states:

ولما فتر الوحي حزن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حزناً شديداً غدا منه مراراً كي يتردى من رؤوس الجبال

“When the revelation was disconnected, the Prophet was extremely grieved, thus he tried on several occasions to throw himself from the top of mountains.”

Imam Nasiruddin Al-Albaani likewise in his ‘Sahih Sira al-Nabwiyah’ has included the episode and needless to say that he considered the episode as ‘Sahih’ which is evident from the title of the book:

Sahih Sira al-Nabwiyah, Volume 1 page 86

In addition to the above notable figures, various other early scholars of Ahle Sunnah likewise recorded the episode in their respective books such as:

1.  Muhammad bin Fatuh Al-Hamidi in his authority work Jama Bayn al-Sahih-Hayn Al-Bukhari wa Muslim, Volume 4, pages 47-48, Hadith 3175
2.  Ibn Jauzi in Safa tul Safwa, Volume 1, page 88
3.  Musnad Ishaq bin Rahwiya, Volume 2, page 252, Hadith 731
4.  Lalkai in Aitiqad Ahle Sunnah, Volume 4, page 758
5.  Jalaluddin Suyuti in Khasais al-Kubra, Volume 1, page 155

It is appropriate to mention that Imam Hibatullah Lalkai (d. 418 H) has collected those traditions in his book ‘Aitiqad Ahle Sunnah’ that form the foundations of the Sunni belief system, and in it, the episode under discussion has also been recorded by him as referred to here in above.

Defence Three – The suicidal state of the Prophet was because he feared that he had incurred the displeasure of Allah

Ibn al Hashimi stated:

The Prophet had become depressed because he thought that he had earned the displeasure of Allah. The Prophet thought that Allah had forsaken him due to some failure on his own part and as such he wished to end his life. So we see that even if we accept the addition that the Prophet wished to commit suicide, then we find that this does not disparage the character of the Prophet, but rather it shows the Prophet could not live with the fact that he had displeased and failed his Lord.

Reply – Sunni narrations inform us that the suicidal state of the Prophet was because he suspected he had gone mad (God forbid)

Fearing displeasure does not even come in to the equation. Ibn al Hashimi’s premise is based on an assumption that at this stage in time, the Prophet was unaware of the office bestowed on him. The al-Zuhri narrations that we have cited thus far would suggest that at this stage the Prophet had doubts about himself and rather than affirm that he was divinely appointed, he actually felt that he was mentally deficient! Let us start by citing this remarkable Prophetic admission “I fear that something may happen to me”. The Sahihayn do not shed light on what that fear was. However, we read in The Life of Muhammad – A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulallah, page 106:

I thought, Woe is me poet or possessed – Never shall Quraysh say this of me! I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest. So I went forth to do so and then) when I was midway on the mountain, I heard a voice from heaven saying ‘O Muhammad! thou are the apostle of God and I am Gabriel.’ “O Khadijah I hear sounds and see light and I fear I am mad”

Al-Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, Volume 1, page 225 also records the words of Rasulullah to his wife:

“O Khadijah I hear sounds and see light and I fear I am mad”

Qadi Iyad in his famed work Al-Shifa, page 284, whilst discussing the commencement of the mission of Muhammad, cites from al Bayhaqi:

“Hammad ibn Salama said that the Prophet said “I hear a voice and see a light and fear that there is some madness in me”.

The History of Al-Tabari Volume 6, page 71 manages to shed yet further light on the alleged state of the Prophet:

“There was no one of God’s creation more hateful to me than a poet or a madman; I could not bear to look at either of them. I said to myself ‘Your humble servant (meaning himself) is either a poet or a madman, but Quraysh shall never say this of me. I shall take myself to a mountain crag, hurl myself down from it, kill myself, and find relief in that way.”

Defence Four – Allah protected the Prophet from committing suicide, in the same way that He protected him from music and forgetting divine Quranic verses

Ibn al Hashimi stated:

Every single time Prophet Muhammad had any such thoughts, then Allah sent His burhan (i.e. Arch-Angel Jibraeel) and thereby prevented the Prophet and maintained his infallibility. The Shia are actually arguing over a non-issue; the Hadith conforms to the idea that Allah protected His Prophets from such thoughts, because it shows that Allah removed them from their minds…Sahih Bukhari Hadith shows that the Holy Prophet was protected from any suicidal thoughts by Allah and His burhan, Al-Hamdu Lillah! We recall the story of the Prophet during his youth: the Prophet had gone to a wedding party in which there was music playing. But Allah protected him from that by putting him into a deep slumber. The Prophet said:

“I wanted to go down to Mecca and entertain myself as the young men did. I went down to the first house in Mecca where I heard music. I entered and asked: ‘What is this?’ Someone answered: ‘It is a wedding party.’ I sat down and listened but soon went into a deep sleep. I was awakened by the heat of the sun. I went to my fellow shepherd and told him what happened to me. I never tried it again.”

(narrated by Ibn al-Atheer, classed as Sahih by Hakeem)

In other words, the Prophet could have the normal instincts and thoughts, but Allah then prevented him from indulging in that, and in fact, Allah removed all avenues and ways to that…

Prophet Muhammad himself could not read, but Allah gave him the power to read when Arch-Angel Jibraeel embraced him. The Prophet had told Jibraeel multiple times that he could not recite, but then Allah gave him the power to do that. The Prophet was also a human being so he could forget things, but Allah then protected the Prophet from forgetting any of the verses of the Quran.

Reply One – Such an argument raises serious questions about Prophethood

The difficulty for this line of argument is that it is linked to the fact that the Prophet contemplated suicide BECAUSE he doubted his divine appointment, and opined that he had lost his senses, fearing rebuke from his community he contemplated suicide, it was then that Angel Gabriel intervened and assured him he was a Prophet. The question is how could the Prophet still have doubts after receiving the first revelation? Why was he still unsure of his appointment? Why was he doubting his divine appointment and thinking he had gone insane? Can Nawasib not see how this belief system becomes ammunition for those that reject the Prophethood of Muhammad?

Reply Two – According to Sunni reports the Prophet did listen to music after his appointment

Especially for Ibn al Hashimi, we will submit evidence from his esteemed works to demonstrate (contrary to his claim) that the Prophet did listen to music, and hence was not protected as he suggests.

We read in Sahih Bukhari Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar) Volume 5, Book 58, Number 268:

Narrated Aisha:
That once Abu Bakr came to her on the day of ‘Id-ul-Fitr or ‘Id ul Adha while the Prophet was with her and there were two girl singers with her, singing songs of the Ansar about the day of Buath. Abu Bakr said twice. “Musical instrument of Satan!” But the Prophet said, “Leave them Abu Bakr, for every nation has an ‘Id (i.e. festival) and this day is our ‘Id.”

A similar narration in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 15, Number 70 reads as follows:

Narrated Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle came to my house while two girls were singing beside me the songs of Buath (a story about the war between the two tribes of the Ansar, the Khazraj and the Aus, before Islam). The Prophet lay down and turned his face to the other side. Then Abu Bakr came and spoke to me harshly saying, “Musical instruments of Satan near the Prophet?” Allah’s Apostle turned his face towards him and said, “Leave them.” When Abu Bakr became inattentive, I signalled to those girls to go out and they left.

We read in Sahih Bukhari the Book of Nikah Volume 7, Book 62, Number 77:

Narrated Ar-Rabi’:
(the daughter of Muawwidh bin Afra) After the consummation of my marriage, the Prophet came and sat on my bed as far from me as you are sitting now, and our little girls started beating the tambourines and reciting elegiac verses mourning my father who had been killed in the battle of Badr. One of them said, “Among us is a Prophet who knows what will happen tomorrow.” On that the Prophet said, “Leave this (saying) and keep on saying the verses which you had been saying before.”

The above references totally debunk Ibn al Hashimi’s argument for the said traditions make it clear that not only did the Prophet listen to music, he would do so in female gatherings, and offer his feedback on lyrics!

Reply Three – According to Sunni reports the Prophet was not protected from forgetting Quranic verses either!

We shall quote three traditions from Aisha through her nephew Urwa, all that are from Sahih al Bukhari, Chapter on virtues of the Quran. Volume 6, Book 61, Number 556:

Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet heard a man reciting the Qur’an in the mosque and said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such a Surah.”

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 558:

Narrated Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle heard a man reciting the Qur’an at night, and said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget.”

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 562:

Narrated ‘Aisha:
The Prophet heard a reciter reciting, the Qur’an in the mosque at night. The Prophet said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such and-such Suras, which I missed!”

This narration completely destroys Ibn al Hashimi’s argument.

The traditions throw up questions that need answering:

• Who was that person that caused him to forget the verses?
• It cannot be Allah personally, if He caused him to forget who did he send?
• If the forgotten verses were abrogated what was the intention behind the Prophet being made to forget them?
• If Allah caused him to forget the verses, was He seeking to inform the people that absolute reliance should not be placed on him, as he is prone to forgetting things?

Are such traditions acceptable? Clearly not, if the Prophet was (as he suggests) protected from forgetting Qur’anic verses, why did he need a Sahabi’s recitation to remind him of a verse that he had forgotten? What depiction of the Prophet is this that suggests that he would forget the very verses that Allah ordered that he convey to the people? Is it plausible that the one upon whom the Quran descends forgets verses from it? How can a living miracle, the walking Quran forget the Quran that was delivered on him? If this is accepted as true then it in effect throws doubts then all of his words and actions can be called into question. If he was to deliver an order, people might assume at a later date that he had forgotten it. It would raise doubts over the completeness of verses, after all people might be unsure whether a verse was complete, wondering whether the Prophet might have forgotten some of it. To suggest that the Prophet could forget the Quran is completely false, and has been refuted by the guarantee of Allah who says in Surah A’la verse 6:

By degrees shall We teach thee to declare (the Message), so thou shalt not forget,

Moreover in Sahih Muslim we learn that the Prophet himself stated in Book 004, Number 1724:

“… What a wretched person is he amongst them who says: I have forgotten such and such a verse. (He should instead of using this expression say): I have been made to forget it. Try to remember the Qur’an for it is more apt to escape from men’s minds than a hobbled camel”.

The Prophet deems one that forgets a Surah to be a wretched person and yet according to the testimony of Aisha the Prophet was one such person who forgot a Surah, and depended on one of his subjects to remind him of its existence!

Reply Four – According to Sunni reports, the Prophet also forgot the divine ordinance relating to the Night of Power

We read the following traditions in Sahih Bukhari, the chapter entitled Praying at Night in Ramadaan (Taraweeh). Volume 3, Book 32, Number 234:

Narrated ‘Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Search for the Night of Qadr in the odd nights of the last ten days of Ramadan.”

Volume 3, Book 32, Number 237:

Narrated ‘Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle used to practice Itikaf in the last ten nights of Ramadan and used to say, “Look for the Night of Qadr in the last ten nights of the month of Ramadan,”

Volume 3, Book 32, Number 240:

Narrated ‘Ubada bin As-Samit:
The Prophet came out to inform us about the Night of Qadr but two Muslims were quarreling (sic) with each other. So, the Prophet said, “I came out to inform you about the Night of Qadr but such-and-such persons were quarreling , so the news about it had been taken away; yet that might be for your own good, so search for it on the 29th, 27th and 25th (of Ramadan).

Think carefully the entire role of the Prophet is to propagate the teachings of Allah to the masses, to deliver all that has been told. Now consider this, the Prophet leaves his home so as to cascade the date upon which the Night of Qadr occurs, he witnesses men quarrelling, forgets the date and urges his followers to search for the correct night themselves! Is it really our duty, when Allah gave the date to Gabriel to deliver to the Prophet? Allah delegated that Gabriel convey the date, he does so accordingly and the recipient forgets it! It is apt at this point to pose some questions:

• What is importance of the Night of Power?
• If it has no importance why did the Prophet insist that we find it?
• If it was insignificant why did Allah intend that the date be given to Muhammad who must likewise disclose it to the Ummah?
• If it remained important, rather than urge the companions to locate the right date, why did he not refer the matter back to Allah for the purposes of clarification?
• Why did the Sahaba and Aisha not urge the Prophet seek the counsel of Allah, after all the Prophet and Sahaba were spending days in the Mosque praying uncertain if they were praying on the right day, would clarification not eliminated this uncertainty?
• If the Prophet could forget the Night of Power is it not logical that he could likewise forget other orders sent by Allah?
• Does the forgetting of the Night Power not also carry the risk of him forgetting obligatory duties?
• If he can likewise forget obligatory duties where does that leave his station of Prophethood?
• If it does not affect his station of Prophethood, why not?

 Reply Five – Aisha and the Sahaba believed that the Prophet was a sinner

In this regards we shall cite two traditions of Aisha as evidence:

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 19:

Narrated ‘Aisha:
Whenever Allah’s Apostle ordered the Muslims to do something, he used to order them deeds which were easy for them to do, (according to their strength endurance). They said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We are not like you. Allah has forgiven your past and future sins.” So Allah’s Apostle became angry and it was apparent on his face. He said, “I am the most Allah fearing, and know Allah better than all of you do.”

In Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 361:

Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?” He said, “Shouldn’t I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?’ When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

(NB. Dr Muhsin Khan, the English translator of Sahih Bukhari used to refer to faults when it in fact means sins as is evident from the previous tradition wherein he has defined the same word as such).

So we learn as follows from both traditions:

• the argument of the Sahaba when given a difficult task that they could not do, unlike the Prophet was that he had the benefit of having his past and present sins forgiven
• this angered the Prophet not only did visible signs of anger appear on his face, he gave a riposte ‘I am the most Allah fearing, and know Allah better than all of you do.’
• the Prophet would pray for such great lengths his ankles would swell
• Aisha queried why he prayed so much when his past sins have been forgiven
• he responded the he desired to be a Servant of Allah

Both traditions set out a belief of the Sahaba and Aisha that:

• the Prophet was a sinner, and would commit sins now and in the future, all of which would be forgiven.
• he was not infallible, rather like the Sahaba he also committed sins, if he was infallible he would possess the physical capability to keep aloof from sins, as was not the case in their estimation.
• in the first tradition the Prophet made it clear ‘I am the most Allah fearing, and know Allah better than all of you do’ but neither of them felt this evidenced his infallibility

Our questions are as follows:

1. The Sahaba and Aisha fail to clarify the precise nature of these sins, what were they?
2. Were they sins associated with etiquettes, the Shariah or the society wherein he lived?
3. We know nothing about his past sins, what were these transgressions that Allah had forgiven him for?
4. Were these sins before or after his divine order to commence the Prophetic mission?
5. If they preceded his appointment what were they?
6. If they were afterwards what were they?
7. Is belief that the Prophet was protected from sins a false one?
8. Were the open chest surgeries on the Prophet to extract a Satanic clot not linked to a desire that he be cleansed from sins? If so why did the Sahaba and Aisha attest that he remained a sinner?

The above two traditions leave those Sunnis that belief that the Sahaba was protected from sins in a real quandary. It is even more serious when one considers that the first tradition has been recorded in Sahih Bukhari, in the Chapter of Iman, that implies that belief that the Prophet is a sinner should be accepted as part of one’s faith, in accordance with the views of Aisha and Sahaba. If they wish to maintain a belief that Prophet was protected from sins, then they will need to condemn Aisha and the Sahaba for perpetuating the precise opposite belief. Ibn al Hashimi, you cannot have your cake and eat it. Clearly one of these beliefs is incorrect. You cannot believe that the Prophet from the cradle to the grave was sin free and also accept the above two traditions wherein the Sahaba and Aisha said the opposite. The problem is once you reject the above two traditions, the entire Sunni belief based on the truthfulness of the Sahaba and the wives of the Prophet falls apart! Alhamdolillah there is no such confusion for the Shia Ithna Ashari, we believe that the Prophet from his birth until his death was protected from all forms of sins, on account of his infallibility.

FURTHER READING

MUHAMMAD THE SUICIDAL DOUBTER PT. 1

MUHAMMAD THE SUICIDAL DOUBTER PT. 3

The following is taken from The shameful depictions of the mental state of the doubting Muhammad (s) following his receiving the divine revelation.

Sahih Bukhari depicts the confused mental state of the suicidal Muhammad– (astaghfirullah)

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111:

Narrated Aisha:
The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah’s Apostle was in the form of good righteous (true) dreams in his sleep. He never had a dream but that it came true like bright day light. He used to go in seclusion (the cave of) Hira where he used to worship (Allah Alone) continuously for many (days) nights. He used to take with him the journey food for that (stay) and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again for another period to stay, till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him in it and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, “I do not know how to read.” (The Prophet added), “The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, “I do not know how to read,” whereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and asked me again to read, but again I replied, “I do not know how to read (or, what shall I read?).” Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me and then released me and said, “Read: In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists). Has created man from a clot. Read and Your Lord is Most Generous…up to….. …that which he knew not.” (96.15)

Then Allah’s Apostle returned with the Inspiration, his neck muscles twitching with terror till he entered upon Khadija and said, “Cover me! Cover me!” They covered him till his fear was over and then he said, “O Khadija, what is wrong with me? ” Then he told her everything that had happened and said, “I fear that something may happen to me.” Khadija said, “Never! But have the glad tidings, for by Allah, Allah will never disgrace you as you keep good reactions with your Kith and kin, speak the truth, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guest generously and assist the deserving, calamity-afflicted ones.” Khadija then accompanied him to (her cousin) Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin ‘Abdul ‘Uzza bin Qusai. Waraqa was the son of her paternal uncle, i.e., her father’s brother, who during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the Arabic writing and used to write of the Gospels in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to him, “O my cousin! Listen to the story of your nephew.” Waraqa asked, “O my nephew! What have you seen?” The Prophet described whatever he had seen.

Waraqa said, “This is the same Namus (i.e., Gabriel, the Angel who keeps the secrets) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out.” Allah’s Apostle asked, “Will they turn me out?” Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said: “Never did a man come with something similar to what you have brought but was treated with hostility. If I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly.” But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet 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 Apostle 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.

 

Comment

Our observations of this Hadith are set out asunder:

1. The Prophet after the first Quranic revelation and his encounter with Gibrael (as) had doubts over his Prophethood and in fact opined that he was a madman or a poet! He hated poets in Jahiliyyah and his fear that he had become ‘one of them’ led to him contemplating suicide. Fortunately it was his beloved wife and Waraqa that gave him an assurance that he was not mad, rather he was in receipt of divine revelation as he was a Prophet. Is it plausible to believe that the Prophet who is in receipt of the revelation is completely ignorant that he is a Prophet, and it was in fact a Christian Priest that possessed a prior knowledge of this reality! Let us contemplate the assertion of Waraqa that evidences the level of faith he has, namely that Muhammad is a Prophet, to the extent that he makes it clear ‘…if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly’. Now contrast this firm belief of a mere follower, to that of the recipient of the appointment who doubts his position, to the extent that he contemplates suicide! Khadija consoles him assuring him that he is a Prophet, he attempts suicide on several occasions, and on each occasion Gabriel reassures him that he is a Prophet of Allah. The very fact that the Prophet tried killing himself despite this assurance proves that he remained unconvinced, if our contention is incorrect why did he return to the mountain to take his life, and why did Gabriel have to likewise return and convince him that he was a divinely appointed? All this points to the Prophet having major doubts over his appointment, doubts that were causing him to fall in to depression and with it suicidal thoughts!
2. Just consider the continual lingering doubts the recipient had over his (s) Prophethood. Aisha informs us that ‘the commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah’s Apostle was in the form of good righteous (true) dreams in his sleep. He never had a dream but that it came true like bright day light’. Despite his receipt of truthful dreams he was unable to grasp this truth and recognise the appointment bestowed on him. Even when he has a face to face encounter with Angel Gabriel who appears to him as his teacher, he remains unable to recognise the Angel, and accept his Prophetic appointment; rather he flees the scene, hides in a blanket and questions what has happened to him. He expresses a fear over his mental state, saying ‘What is wrong with me? I was afraid that something bad might happen to me’ such a fear would not come into the equation if he believed that he was a Prophet of Allah.
3. Is it logical to believe that Allah would keep the rank of Prophethood hidden from that very individual that He appoints as his Prophet?
4. Is the individual that has attained the rank of Prophethood incapable of differentiating between Divine and Satanic Revelation? Let us not forget that Prophet Isa was fully aware that he was a Prophet from birth as can be evidenced from his statement to quash the seditious tongues of the Jewish He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet” (019.030). Or compare the example of Prophet Musa whom following direct communication with his Creator, rather than exhibit fear, made a direct submission before his Lord for tools to enable him to implement the task:

(Moses) said: “O my Lord! expand me my breast; “Ease my task for me; And remove the impediment from my speech” (20.025-27).

• Having been cajoled in to reciting the divine revelation a terrified Prophet returns and informs his wife stating “I fear that something may happen to me”, what was this fear? Was he still unconvinced of his encounter with Gabriel? Clearly not, and this fear clearly alludes to a fear for him losing his sanity as can be evidenced by the words of assurance that his wife gives to him, “Never! But have the glad tidings, for by Allah, Allah will never disgrace you as you keep good reactions with your Kith and kin” – her words of assurance wherein she made an oath that he would be safe, alludes to the fact that he was fearful that he would lose his thinking faculty, after all humiliation / disgrace is attributed to one that loses the ability to think rationally, and that is precisely what the Prophet feared. What is this new form of Prophethood that is being administered to Muhammad wherein he is expressing fears, and doubts about himself?
• What sort of Messengership is this, one wherein the recipient is only convinced of his position when he is provided with reassurance by his wife and a Christian Priest?
• Aren’t his wife and Waraqa at a more superior level as both understood that (unlike Muhammad) he was the recipient of divine wahy? Amazingly, they are foretelling details of Islam before the Prophet. When Khadija (as) approaches Waraqa she states as follows to him “O my cousin! Listen to the story of your nephew” – she says nothing further, yet Waraqa automatically states ‘O my nephew! What have you seen?’ – How did Waraqa deem it pertinent to pose this impromptu question? Did he possess knowledge of this incident before it had occurred? Did he possess some knowledge of the unseen, or was this incident disclosed to him? We see nothing from this narration to suggest that he was privy to even a restricted form of prior disclosure; rather we are informed that the sole witness Khadija approaches Waraqa directly without discussing the matter with anyone else. In the absence of evidence to suggest prior knowledge the only conclusion one can deduce is that Waraqa possessed knowledge of the unseen, hence his question ‘O my nephew! What have you seen?’ Clearly this knowledge of the unseen must have been linked with the divine blessings showered on Waraqa through his knowledge of the Gospels. Now compare the knowledge of Waraqa to that of the recipient of the divine revelation, who is at a loss to explain what has happened to him, knowledge of his Prophetic appointment does not even come to his mind, rather his contact with Gabriel causes him to experience a heightened state of fear!
• The Prophet relays his entire experience to Waraqa, that leads him to conclude “…this is the same Namus (i.e., Gabriel, the Angel who keeps the secrets) whom Allah had sent to Moses”. It is worthy to note that this narration informs us that Waraqa was a Jew that had then embraced Christianity, and was active in that he translated the Gospels into the Arabic language. Despite this, the response he gives suggests that Waraqa remained under the influence of Judaic thinking despite his conversion, evident by the fact that rather than cite the example of a nexus between the Messiah Isa and Namus, he referred to Moses, that points to him rejecting any such connection with Isa. Had he affirmed belief in Namus approaching Isa, he would have not needed to cite the example of Moses, as he had abandoned Judaism in favour of a religion wherein Christ was deemed the divine head, that would have (without a doubt) had a link with Namus.
• Having affirmed the divine rank of Muhammad, Waraqa expresses regret ‘I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out’ that evidences his own knowledge of death, and what would happen to the Prophet in the future, does this not prove that Waraqa possessed a knowledge of the unseen? This knowledge does not just end there, the Prophet asks for clarification over his exile, to which ‘Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said: “Never did a man come with something similar to what you have brought but was treated with hostility’. His knowledge of the unseen is such he clarifies his migration and the circumstances on the ground that perpetuate it. If a Christian layman possessed such hidden knowledge, why do the Nawasib reject the suggestion that the Prophet (s) and his Ahlul bayt can possess such knowledge?
• Gabriel had ordered the Prophet to read on the first occasion to which he replied that he was not able to do so. The same response was provided by him when Gabriel said the same on the second occasion. On the third occasion he was reciting verbatim that which Gabriel was reciting. The fact that the Prophet was unable to recite these words on the first and second occasion suggests that at the outset, the Prophet was unable to grasp the instructions given to him by Gabriel, an instruction that required that he recite the words that Gabriel was saying. He assumed that he was being told to scribe that which appeared in some written form, it took three bear hugs for the Prophet to understand the true nature of the instruction. Our question is who was at fault here, had Gabriel failed in clarifying the precise details of the instruction? Or was the understanding of the Prophet so limited that he simply could not gauge the true nature of the instruction?
• When the Prophet stated that he was incapable of complying with the instruction, Gabriel resorted to giving him a bear hug that subjected the Prophet to excruciating pain, was this Gabriel hugging methodology applied to past Prophets as a mechanism for cascading divine instructions? Imam Qastalani in Irshad al-Sari, Kitab al-Wahi had acknowledged that no previous Prophet received Wahi through this method, so why was this new precedent applied for the Final Messenger? Lest not forget the Allah says in Surah Ahzab verse 62: (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.
• What was the logic behind Gabriel subjecting the Prophet (s) to such a painful embrace? When the Prophet was making it explicitly clear that he was devoid of the capability to read, what was the sense in responding with physical pain? Or was Gabriel seeking to assess his personal physical strength, and wanted the Prophet to likewise demonstrate his abilities? If the objective of the Gabriel was to instill fear into the Prophet, could another pain free method not have been pursued, rather than one that subjected him to a physical assault?
• If the intention was to make an assessment of the Prophet’ physical strength, did he not even possess the same level of strength as prophet Musa to slap Gabriel? The same Bukhari after all informs us that Musa through one slap inflicted blindness to the Angel of death!

FURTHER READING

MUHAMMAD THE SUICIDAL DOUBTER PT. 2

MORE OF MUHAMMAD’S INCOHERENT BABBLE

Sunni Islam not only teaches that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah (kalam Allah), but also claims that there is a pre-creation tablet in which the Quran and everything destined to take place has been written. Sunni tradition further teaches that Allah created a pen which was commanded to write down within this tablet everything that would take place, and the pen did so 50,000 years before the heavens and the earth were brought into existence:      

Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As reported: I heard Allah’s Messenger as saying: Allah ordained the measures (of quality) of the creation fifty thousand years before He created the heavens and the earth, as His Throne was upon water. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6416 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=033&translator=2&start=0&number=6416)

And:

1 Faith

(4b) Chapter: Belief in the Divine Decree – Section 2

‘Ubada b. as-Samit reported God’s messenger as saying, “The first thing God created was the pen. He told it to write and when IT ASKED Him what it should write He told it to write what was decreed, so it wrote what had taken place and what would take place to all eternity.”

Tirmidhi transmitted it, saying that this is a tradition whose isnad is gharib.

Grade: Sahīh (Zubair `Aliza’i)

Reference: Mishkat al-Masabih 94

In-book reference: Book 1, Hadith 88 (sunnah.com https://sunnah.com/mishkat:94; capital emphasis mine)

Again:

47 Chapters on Tafsir

(66) Chapter: Regarding Surat Noon

Abdul-Wahid bin Sulaim said: “I arrived in Makkah and met Ata bin Abi Rabah. I said: ‘O Abu Muhammad! Some people with us speak about Al-Qadar.’ Ata said: ‘I met Al-Walid bin Ubadah bin As-Samit and he said: “My father narrated to me, he said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah saying: “Verily the first of what Allah created was the Pen. He said to it: “Write.” So it wrote what will be forever.’”

Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

Reference: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3319

In-book reference: Book 47, Hadith 371

English translation: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3319 (sunnah.com https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3319)

Once again:

Know that Israfil is the master of the horn [al-qarn]. God created the preserved tablet [al-lawḥ al-maḥfuz] of white pearl. Its length is seven times the distance between the heaven and the earth and it is connected to the Throne. All that exists until the day of resurrection is written on it. Israfil has four wings–one in the East, one in the West, one covering his legs and one shielding his head and face in fear of God. His head is inclined toward the Throne …. No angel is nearer to the throne than Israfil. Seven veils are between him and the Throne, each veil five hundred years distance from the next; seventy veils are between Jibril and Israfil. While he is standing the trumpet [ṣur] is placed on his right · thigh and the head of the trumpet on his mouth. He awaits the. command of God, and when He commands he will blow. And when the period of the world is completed, the trumpet will be brought near the face of Israfil and he will fold his four wings and blow the trumpet.²⁷

²⁷ Kitab aḥwāl al-qiyāma, pp. 49-50 (Jane I. Smith & Yvonne Y. Haddad, The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, NY 1981], pp. 70-71; bold emphasis mine)

Finally:

Some say that the Book concealed (56:78) and the Preserved Tablet are the same (R). Others say that the Preserved Tablet refers to a book recited by the angels nigh unto God (Aj, Q, R), while others relate it to the Mother of the Book (3:7; 13:39; 43:4), said to be the source of all revelation, from which the Quran and all other revealed Books are derived (Q, Ṭ s). Some commentators describe the Tablet (lawḥ) as one made of white pearls that is as high as the distance between Heaven and earth and as wide as the distance between the east and the west (JJ, Q, Ṭ s). Others say that it is located to the right of God’s Throne (Q, R, Ṭ s). In keeping with the predominant theme of the sūrah, believers prevailing over persecution from disbelievers, al-Qushayrī relates the Preserved Tablet to 29:49, Nay, it is but clear signs in the breasts of those who have been given knowledge, indicating that the Quran is preserved in the hearts of true believers. For further discussion of the Preserved Tablet, see the essay “The Quran and Schools of Islamic Theology and Philosophy.” (The Study Quran, by Seyyed Hossein Nasr [HarperOne, 2015 First Edition], Q. 85:21-22; p. 1394; bold emphasis mine)

On a related point, scholars have long noted that the Sunni view of the Quran being the uncreated speech or word of Allah which became a material tangible object, i.e., a book, echoes the historic Christian view of Christ as the eternal Logos (“Word”) of God that became flesh. Moreover, reflection upon the nature of the Quran even led to civil strife where specific Islamic factions attacked and even murdered each other over the issue of whether the Islamic “revelation” was created or not:

THE HEAVENLY QURAN

Muslims believe that in addition to the earthly Quran, there is a “Mother-Book” (umm al-kitab) in Heaven. It resides with Allah on a “preserved tablet” in Paradise, which descended to the lowest heavens (bayt al-izza) preparatory to its being revealed. This tablet is open only to Allah, inaccessible to mortals except as revealed in the Quran. Certainly the Quran is in the Mother of the Book, which is in our Presence, raised high and full of wisdom (43:4). It is also called the kalam Allah or actual speech of Allah.

For most Muslims, the kalam Allah is eternal and UNCREATED, so the Quran also has those qualities. In this regard, it is similar to the Christian idea of the Logos, as recorded in the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the Word was God.” Its precise nature is a matter of some dispute, however. Whether the Quran is a precise copy of the umm al-kitab or an abridged version, for example, is debated. In any case, the Quran says of this book, Behold it is a truly noble discourse, conveyed unto mankind in a well-guarded divine writ which none but the pure of heart can touch: a revelation from the Sustainer of all the worlds (56:77-79). (Diane Morgan, Essential Islam: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice (Praeger: An imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC 2010), p. 30; capital emphasis mine) 

And:

The Quran as the Word of God

From the beginning of Islamic theology, kalām, and parallel with constraining discussions about the eternity of Divine Qualities, the problem of the eternity versus the created nature of the Quran came to be debated by a group considered the founders of kalām. In the Quran are verses that mention its prior existence in the Preserved Tablet (al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ; 85:22), as the Mother of the Book (ʿumm al-kitāb; 43:4), and as a Book that was concealed (maknūn; 56:77– 78). Still, there is uncertainty about how and whether the discussion of the eternity of the Quran took place in the first Islamic century or later. The most important indication is a story about Ibn ʿAbbās, a Companion of the Prophet who died in 68/687, in which there is a kind of reference to the uncreated nature of the Quran.¹

During the first decades of the second Islamic century, some began to place emphasis on the createdness of the Quran during the process of the first formulation of kalām by such figures as Jaʿd ibn Dirham (d. 126/743– 44) and Jahm ibn Ṣafwān (d. 129/746– 47). Yet ONE CANNOT POINT TO ANYONE who defended the eternity of the Quran at the end of the first and the first half of the second century amid the debate about its createdness. In any case there are indications that the views of the createdness of the Quran, on the one hand, and its eternity, on the other, did not only take shape during this period, but also prepared the way for intermediate positions. A saying transmitted from Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765) points to an intermediate position holding that the Quran is created (muḥdath) and at the same time uncreated.² This view relies on the description of the Quran as muḥdath and seeks to show that it is at the same time eternal, for it does not consider every being that is muḥdath to also be created (makhlūq).

During the second half of the second century AH debates about the createdness of the Quran intensified, and the Muʿtazilite movement came to be identified as the defenders of the view of the createdness of the Sacred Text. During the caliphate of the Abbasid al-Maʾmūn (198– 218/813– 33) and as a result of the efforts of his vizier Aḥmad ibn Abī Dāʾūd, who had Muʿtazilite tendencies, the view that the Quran was created gained political support and even significance. In a letter to the governor of Baghdad, Caliph al-Maʾmūn openly declared that those who believed in the uncreatedness of the Quran WERE LIKE CHRISTIANS who considered Jesus the son of Mary to be uncreated, since he was seen as the Word of God.³ Following the assertion of this position and through the efforts of Aḥmad ibn Abī Dāʾūd, the event known as al-miḥnah (“the calamity”) took place, in which courts of inquiry were convened to investigate the views of the scholars of Baghdad about this matter, and those who did not adhere to the doctrine were persecuted.

It was during al-miḥnah that the Ḥadīth scholar Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855), who despite great pressure refused to accept the idea of the createdness of the Quran, came to be known as a hero and a model for later defenders of the uncreatedness of the Sacred Book. In the writings of Ibn Ḥanbal, for example, in his letter to Musaddid ibn Masrahad, followers of Ḥadīth were presented as leaders in the defense of the uncreatedness of the Quran, and the Jahmites and Muʿtazilites were introduced as leaders of the opposite camp, those who believed in its createdness.⁴

Historical evidence reveals that, in spite of what has been reflected in later sources of the followers of Ḥadīth, or “People of Ḥadīth” (aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth), THERE WAS NO UNIFIED VIEW concerning the uncreatedness of the Quran even among the “People of Ḥadīth.” In the face of the strong theological discussions in favor of the createdness of the Quran, some of the “People of Ḥadīth” could not find firmly established documents against this view and on this issue sided with the Muʿtazilites and Jahmites. Among such figures one must mention the celebrated ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī (d. 234/84849). In contrast to Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Madīnī not only confirmed the createdness of the Quran,⁵ but also held other beliefs, such as determinism (qadar), that were close to the Muʿtazilite position.⁶

The juxtaposition of the ideas of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī began a process that, during the century after the affair of the miḥnah, determined the lines of development of the beliefs held by different theological factions in Sunni circles. Ibn Ḥanbal’s view did of course have followers for many centuries after him. As late as the eighth/fourteenth century, Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1348) rose to defend the position of Ibn Ḥanbal and the “People of Ḥadīth” against those who believed in the createdness of the Quran; without taking more moderate positions into consideration, he completely rejected the belief that the Quran was created.⁷

Some circles in the Sunni world, however, followed another path. Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh ibn Kallāb (d. after 240/854– 55), one of the first Sunni theologians (mutakallimūn), put forth his own intellectual position on the problem of the eternity of the Quran, a position that did not take as its starting point the Quran as it was revealed in the Arabic language. He adopted an intermediate position holding that the Word of God is eternal in its essence; it is not composed of letters and sounds, does not have divisions, parts, and particulars, and does not change. Letters are the written forms of the Word of God and are for that reason subject to change. The Word of God is called the Quran when its form— that is, its written language, interpretation, and recitation— is Arabic, in the same way that it is called the Torah when its form is Hebrew.⁸ In this context one must also mention another Sunni theologian, Ḥusayn al-Karābīsī (d. after 248/862– 63), who, in turning the views of the scholars of Ḥadīth (muḥaddithūn) into a theological discussion, introduced the distinction between inner kalām (Word) and literal kalām.⁹

In the middle of the third/ninth century a tendency toward moderation appeared on both sides of this debate. On the side of the “People of Ḥadīth,” Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870), the author of al-Ṣaḥīḥ and one of the greatest scholars of Ḥadīth, adopted an intermediate position. He believed that the uncreatedness of the Quran CANNOT BE EXTENDED to the human reading of it. He developed the idea of literal kalām further and believed that the human language of the Quran is created. Because of his beliefs, discussed in detail and with great care in his Kitāb khalq afʿāl al-ʿibād wa’l-radd ʿala’l-jahmiyyah (The Book of the Createdness of the Actions of God’s Bondsmen and Refutation of the Jahmites), al-Bukhārī WAS SEVERELY CRITICIZED in his own lifetime by extremists among the “People of Ḥadīth,” such as Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā al-Dhahalī (d. 258/872).¹⁰

Similar moderation can also be seen among theologians who held views similar to those of the Muʿtazilites. Muḥammad ibn Shujāʿ ibn al-Thaljī (d. 266/879), who was a Ḥanbalite theologian of the “People of Justice” (ahl al-ʿadl), asserted, in contrast to other members of his school, that to talk about the createdness or uncreatedness of the Quran is itself an innovation (bidʿah), and one must remain silent about it.¹¹ In the years leading up to the turn of the fourth/tenth century, Abu’l-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (d. 334/946), the founder of the Ashʿarite school, reexamined the theory of literal (lafẓī) kalām and inner (nafsī) kalām and integrated this discussion into his theological system.

From the beginning of the fourth/tenth century on, as various theological positions became more distinct, the views concerning the createdness of the Quran coalesced into a few distinct positions. These positions consisted of complete denial of the createdness of the Quran by those who claimed to follow the traditions of the “ancestors” (salaf) and extremists among the “People of Ḥadīth,” insistence upon the createdness of the Quran on the part of the Muʿtazilite thinkers, and the proposal of literal kalām by the Ashʿarites. The view of Twelve-Imam Shiites from the fourth/tenth century on favors the createdness of the Quran despite differences of opinion on this matter during the period of the lives of the first eleven Imams.¹² (Muṣṭafā Muḥaqqiq Dāmād, The Study Quran [HarperOne, 2015 First Edition], THE QURAN AND SCHOOLS OF ISLAMIC THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY, translated by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, pp. 1510-1511; capital emphasis mine)

However, I won’t be focusing on the problems that belief in the uncreatedness of the Quran pose for Allah’s unicity. Rather, I want to direct our focus to the Sunni belief that the preserved tablet which exists with Allah was created before the creation of the heavens and earth.

Note what the following Salafi website states in this respect:

Praise be to Allah.

Al-Lawh al-Mahfooz is created, like all other created things. Everything other than Allah is created, such as the Throne, the Kursiy and the Lawh.

This is something obvious, and there is no confusion about it, and no scholarly difference concerning it at all. Everything other than Allah is created by Him and exists after having been non-existent: al-Lawh al-Mahfooz, the Pen, the Throne, and everything in the heavens and on the earth, and everything in the earth and below the ground, and everything in the entire universe is created by Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

There is nothing confusing about the Qur’an being written in al-Lawh al-Mahfooz which is created, for we all write the Qur’an on pages which are also created.

We utter words and write them on paper, but the attribute of speech and words that we possess does not reside in the paper; rather our attributes exist in us…

This is the truth that Ahl as-Sunnah believe in. End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (6/54). (Is al-Lawh al-Mahfooz created; is the Qur’an immanent in it; and will the light of Allah be immanent on the earth on the Day of Resurrection? https://islamqa.info/en/answers/316842/is-al-lawh-al-mahfooz-created-is-the-quran-immanent-in-it-and-will-the-light-of-allah-be-immanent-on-the-earth-on-the-day-of-resurrection; bold emphasis mine)

And here is what renowned medieval Sunni Muslim scholar and commentator Ibn Kathir wrote in respect to the first thing that Allah created:

Imran ibn Husayn narrated that there was Allah and there was nothing that preceded Him. His throne was upon the water. He inscribed everything on the Preserved Tablet, and THEN created the heavens and the earth.

WHERE WAS ALLAH: Abu Razin Laqit ibn Aamir narrated that he asked, “O Messenger of Allah, where was our Lord before He created the heavens and the earth? He said, “He was in ama… there being no air above Him. Then He created His throne over the water. (The word ama’ is said to be: a vacuum, fine cloud, something incomprehensible to men).

THE FIRST THING CREATED: The ulama (Scholars) differ on what was created first. Some say that the pen was created before all these things. Ibn Jarir and Ibn Jawzi and others have this opinion. Ibn Jarir said that, after the pen, fine cloud was created. Ubadah ibn Samit narrated that Allah’s Messenger said, “The first thing Allah created was the pen. THEN He said to it, “Write!” So, at that very moment it began to write what was to transpire till the Day of Resurrection.

However, the majority concur with Hafiz Abul Ula Hamdani and others (that the arsh, throne, was a creation before it). This is what Ibn Jarir reported from Ibn Abbas. Abdullah ibn Amr ibn Aas narrated that he heard Allah’s Messenger say, “Allah recorded the destiny of the creatures BEFORE He created the heavens and the earth BY FIFTY THOUSAND YEARS. And His throne was on the water”. This is the destiny that the pen wrote down. Thus, it is established that the throne preceded the pen. It is possible that the pen was the first creation in the universe, and we have support for it in the hadith narrated by Imran ibn Husayn that the people of Yaman said to Allah’s Messenger, “We have come to you to attain comprehension of the religion and to ask about THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION”. He said, “There was Allah and there was nothing before Him or with Him or other than Him”. Next, “He recorded ON THE PRESERVED TABLET everything. THEN He created the heavens and the earth”. Since they had asked about the beginnings of the creation of the heavens and the earth, he told them only what concerned them and did not speak of the creation of the throne, as he informed in the preceding hadith of Abu Razin.

Ibn Jarir also reported that it is said, “Surely, our Lord created–after the pen–kursi (chair). Then–after the kursi–He created the arsh (throne). Then, after that, He created the air and the darkness. Then He created water and placed His throne on water.” Allah, Glorious and Exalted, knows best. (Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (700-774 AH), Al Bidaayah Wannihaayah (From the Beginning to the End), translated by Rafiq Abdur Rahman [Darul-Ishaat, Karachi, Pakistani, First edition 2014], Volume 1. The Story of Creation, Ummah of the Past, The Life of Muhammad up to 9. AH, pp. 48-49; capitalized emphasis mine)

The foregoing raises some major problems for Sunni Muslims.

In the first place, the assertion that Allah supposedly created the preserved tablet, the pen and the throne, with his throne being suspended on water, before the heavens and earth were created makes absolutely no sense.

After all, how can there be any created thing before the creation of the heavens and earth, which even the Ibn Kathir’s reference equates with the beginning of creation? I.e., the beginning of creation is the moment when the heavens and earth were created.

Therefore, how can the preserved tablet, the throne, water and pen exist or have been created prior to creation, when these objects would also have to be a part of creation itself?  

Moreover, for such objects to exist and to be distinct from one another they must by necessity occupy space and place. However, space, place, matter, time etc. all came into being when the heavens and earth were created. Therefore, how can material, spatial objects exist before the creation of the heavens and earth?  

This brings me to the final problem. How much sense does it make to refer to Allah writing down all that would take place 50,000 years before the creation of the heavens and earth? If, as scientists believe, time itself only came to be a reality when the heavens and earth were formed then what measurement did Allah go by when he allegedly “revealed” to his “prophet” that all things were written down 50,000 years prior to the creation?

Does any of this make sense at all?

FURTHER READING

EXPOSING MORE OF MUHAMMAD’S FAIRYTALES